Intrade Update: 88.5% Romney, 60.2% for Obama
Odds for Romney to be the Republican nominee remain steady and are close to an all-time high of 88.5%, while Obama's odds to get re-elected remain steady at 60.2%.
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Saturday, March 17, 2012
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Saturday Morning Links
- Today's Reports on Inflation, Inflation Expectations
- Markets in Everything: College Degree for < $10k
- With Rising Wages in China, Production is Moving
- Markets in Everything: Trade Your Car for a Bike
- Fossil Fuel Production (Coal, Oil, Gas) on Federal...
- Markets in Everything: Homeless Hotspots
- Cartoon of the Day
- Thursday Morning Links
- Today's Economic Reports
43 Comments:
I may short that Obama contract soon. If the Republicans aren't dumb enough to put Santorum or Gingrich up, I think Romney could romp this November.
Obama LITE instead of the Original?
:-)
If the Republicans get their nominee soon, such that he has sufficient time to educate the American public about Obama's dismal "accomplishments," the Republican can win.
Larry, considering Obama is just Bush only slightly "heavier" in many ways- doubling down in Afghanistan, tripling Bush's deficits, keeping Gitmo running and the Patriot act going strong, anteing up Medicare part D with Obamacare- a return to "lite" would be a nice change of pace. ;)
"If the Republicans get their nominee soon, such that he has sufficient time to educate the American public about Obama's dismal "accomplishments," the Republican can win."
Actually I need a little bit more education from Rick Santorum about his family values. His family values are very important to me, in fact, they may be the most important thing to me.
Wonderful news for the America haters or for anyone who believes that the purchasing power of fiat currencies will converge with the value of those currencies as paper.
From where I stand it looks like the next president will serve out Bush's forth term.
"Obama LITE instead of the Original?"...
Interesting, I see the samething...
Okay Sprewell.. I'm going to TEE it up for you today...
tell me the most significant ways you think Romney will be different from Obama...
no what you hope for... but what you expect...
bonus question:
what would Santorum have to do to convince you to pick him over Romney?
Larry, I'm not a big fan of Romney, which a simple google search would show and why I'll be voting Libertarian like I do every time, but of the two candidates that actually have a shot, I hope Mitt wins. The most significant way that he'll be different is that he won't veto Cut, Cap, and Balance and other necessary legislation coming out of a Republican-controlled House and Senate: I don't much care what policy ideas Mitt himself has. I do think he could be the most competent President in a century, because of his business background, but the federal government is a monster that he has no hope of taming alone. Congress is much more important, the President is just a figurehead with veto power, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that he's not as right-wing on social issues as the conservatives want is a plus for me.
I don't think he'll be good enough on cutting budgets- Ron Paul would be way better- but I'm hoping a Tea Party Congress will pull Mitt along. I tried to justify Bush in 2000 against Gore, even though I preferred McCain in the primary, by saying Bush Sr would surround Jr with a good team: that didn't work out too great. ;D One thing you can't say about Mitt is that he's dumb, ;) I think he might be the first presidential candidate I've ever heard talk about GDP per capita stats in a debate. As for Santorum, I can't stand the guy. He seems to have made himself over and doesn't seem as strident, but he is forever tarred in my memory because I remember him from his Senate days and his odious Christian moralizing from back then. He has no chance in hell of winning a general election- I always wondered why he was even in the primary- which is why there's no point in even considering him.
I see that the feeling is that ..if Romney wins ... and the Dems keep the Senate that we'll have another 4 years of gridlock...
.. or if Obama wins .. it won't matter if the GOP wins the Congress cuz nothing will get past the veto.
So it will take BOTH a Romney win AND a DEM Senate loss for any kind of significant change to occur.
But having said that.. I'm not convinced that Romney won't veto Tea Party type legislation anyhow.
and we have no hope of balancing the budget is the GOP wins and continues to fully fund DOD and I doubt seriously that Romney would agree to cut SS or Medicare.
"what would Santorum have to do to convince you to pick him over Romney?"
There is nothing THIS guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30&feature=fvwrel
...can do to convince me. He can start, by dropping out, however.
Here are the major differences between Romney and Obama:
1. The petulant demonization and the divisiveness stops immediately. Psychologically, the country needs this.
2. You won't see the destruction of the rule of law (ie, GM) and businesses will finally be able to trust contract law again.
3. You will see pro-growth policies with the inherent bias against submitting the American people towards a future of secular high unemployment and a low productivity welfare state.
4. You will see some positive changes on the margin to the HC law, unfortunately not enough to repeal it as it should be.
5. My guess is you will see a decline in the growth of the public sector and depending on congress the abolishment of collective bargaining rights for public sector workers.
6. My guess is you will actually see an actionable and passed budget.
7. You will begin to hear the initial discussion of entitlement reform - debatable if it moves in the direction needed - but this discussion will not be had with Obama.
8. I would assume you will rid yourself off all the end-arounds of the constitution by the executive office. No more Czar's. No more regulation by fiat through govt orgs.
9. The ability to place non-radical liberal judges on the SCOTUS who may actually have real merit and accomplishment.
Doesn't all of this, at the least, sound so much more appealing than an Obama v2.0 with zero check of reelection no matter what type of conservative you may be? For the life of me I can't understand how anyone who is even slightly conservative or moderate could even entertain of voting for Obama.
Personally, I see this as a huge "non-Obama" voting cycle that could be a greater landslide than November 2010 for the R's (it should almost be assured they win control of the Senate as well). Get rid of these clowns and work as incrementalists to have a real and rational conversation about budget reform with the American people. Let it lead itself into a real fiscal conservative in 2016 or 2020.
Here are the major differences between Romney and Obama:
1. The petulant demonization and the divisiveness stops immediately. Psychologically, the country needs this.
2. You won't see the destruction of the rule of law (ie, GM) and businesses will finally be able to trust contract law again.
3. You will see pro-growth policies with the inherent bias against submitting the American people towards a future of secular high unemployment and a low productivity welfare state.
4. You will see some positive changes on the margin to the HC law, unfortunately not enough to repeal it as it should be.
5. My guess is you will see a decline in the growth of the public sector and depending on congress the abolishment of collective bargaining rights for public sector workers.
6. My guess is you will actually see an actionable and passed budget.
7. You will begin to hear the initial discussion of entitlement reform - debatable if it moves in the direction needed - but this discussion will not be had with Obama.
8. I would assume you will rid yourself off all the end-arounds of the constitution by the executive office. No more Czar's. No more regulation by fiat through govt orgs.
9. The ability to place non-radical liberal judges on the SCOTUS who may actually have real merit and accomplishment.
Doesn't all of this, at the least, sound so much more appealing than an Obama v2.0 with zero check of reelection no matter what type of conservative you may be? For the life of me I can't understand how anyone who is even slightly conservative or moderate could even entertain of voting for Obama.
Personally, I see this as a huge "non-Obama" voting cycle that could be a greater landslide than November 2010 for the R's (it should almost be assured they win control of the Senate as well). Get rid of these clowns and work as incrementalists to have a real and rational conversation about budget reform with the American people. Let it lead itself into a real fiscal conservative in 2016 or 2020.
Also, Intrade 6 months out of 11/10 had the D's holding the house at a bid of 56%.
Conservatives and moderates will rally around Romney once selected and the electorate will begin to focus on Obama which they deplore in spades when confronted with....him.
"Doesn't all of this, at the least, sound so much more appealing than an Obama v2.0 with zero check of reelection no matter what type of conservative you may be? For the life of me I can't understand how anyone who is even slightly conservative or moderate could even entertain of voting for Obama"
I agree with you, but I'm not so optimistic that a win for the GOP, in the long run, will be best for them or for the US.
The GOP winning now will only allow them to continue the same policies, the same mentalities and the same big government conservatism that they always have had.
I want them to loose (that doesn't mean I want Obama to win. Not at all). I want them to learn a lesson; that we do NOT want them to keep doing what they were doing in the past.
The GOP needs to fail, because only through failure will it force itself to change.
The social conservatives and bible bangers NEED to split off from this party. They need to go off and form their own Party of God (Hezbollah), and leave the rest of us alone.
A GOP without the social conservatives and culture warriors, will not only be a much more pro-capitalism and pro-freedom party, it will also attract huge swaths of independents and Democrats who today do not dare entertain the thought of voting Republican because of FASCIST Hezbollah-like fanatical barbarians like Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin and the likes.
A social-conservative free GOP will be the end of leftist liberalism in American politics. Without their cultural issues, the Left will only be able to attract a tiny percentage of people.
So, in the short term, a GOP win may be all well. But in the long term, if continuing again under this trajectory, the GOP will degenerate once more into GWB and his sort of politics.
This is why, no matter what, my vote will go for a third party candidate this time (simply as a protest vote)
"...do not dare entertain the thought of voting Republican because of FASCIST Hezbollah-like fanatical barbarians like Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin and the likes."
Pathetic. You're just throwing inflammatory terms around with apparently no clue what Hezbollah and fascism is all about.
Santorum is extremely pro-Israel. Just killed your two birds with one stone.
"A social-conservative free GOP will be the end of leftist liberalism in American politics. Without their cultural issues, the Left will only be able to attract a tiny percentage of people."
What nonsense. The surest way to poverty(and a lifetime constituency for failed liberal programs) is to have a child out of wedlock. Social conservatism and economic conservatism go hand-in-hand.
"The GOP winning now will only allow them to continue the same policies, the same mentalities and the same big government conservatism that they always have had."
The GOP losing now will mean Obamacare is forever, 2-4 Critical Race Theory Supreme Court Justices, continuation of the war on fossil fuels, and trillion dollar deficits until the economy is destroyed.
We have no choice. Either Obama is stopped or this country is finished.
I agree with Paul above. We don't have the liberty (pun intended) to live through another 4 years of liberal rule and believe this country will make it through to daylight.
I am not into sending "statements" to the GOP, I am in to maintaining liberty and individual freedom. An unchecked Obama is a huge threat to this country.
"Pathetic. You're just throwing inflammatory terms around with apparently no clue what Hezbollah and fascism is all about. "
Yes, THIS guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30&feature=fvwrel
...is "not" a fascist?
"Santorum is extremely pro-Israel. Just killed your two birds with one stone."
Your inability to understand what I said, is quite astounding. Hezbollah means "Party of God". Santorum is just the Christian version of them. It has nothing to do with Israel. Fascism, likewise, has nothing to do with Israel. And you accuse me of not understand what those terms mean?
"What nonsense. The surest way to poverty(and a lifetime constituency for failed liberal programs) is to have a child out of wedlock"
Yes apparently the concept of "causality" isn't a strong point for social conservatives. Maybe "math" and "logic" were not part of a home schooling education.
"Social conservatism and economic conservatism go hand-in-hand."
Yes. Social-conservative bastions like Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota...and some other sh*t hole I have forgotten to mention...are also economic powerhouses :) They are the most heavily subsidized states in the country, the most poor states in the country, the most IGNORANT states in the country, the most third-worldish states in the country. So using your highly developed understanding of causality...you figured that the two go "hand in hand"? You want to find poverty, ignorance and quasi third-world primitiveness? Go to any place county Rick Santorum won.
"The GOP losing now will mean Obamacare is forever, 2-4 Critical Race Theory Supreme Court Justices, continuation of the war on fossil fuels, and trillion dollar deficits until the economy is destroyed.
We have no choice. Either Obama is stopped or this country is finished."
This country isn't going to end in the next 4 years. And if you REALLY thought so, you'd put forward a candidate that could win, not try to shove down our throat a candidate that only represents your social views.
You want US to make compromises on our liberties and OUR social values, and accept the imposition of yours, but you're not willing to compromise?
Well, I guess the fate of this country might not be THAT important to you, after all.
PS: If not having kids out of wedlock is such an important issue for you, why isn't Rick all in favor of the pill, condoms, and abortions? Solves those unwanted children problems pretty quickly :)
"I am in to maintaining liberty and individual freedom."
So am I. This guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30&feature=fvwrel
...ain't, for some reason. And for some reason, these social conservatives within the GOP think HE should be our next president.
I don't think we can take 4 years of him, either.
"If the Republicans get their nominee soon, such that he has sufficient time to educate the American public about Obama's dismal 'accomplishments,' the Republican can win."
You actually think those who voted for Obama the first time are educable? I don't.
These people are utterly immune to facts, data, evidence and reason.
They are all hopelessly indoctrinated by rhetoric and will, forever, remain so.
They all blindly accept whatever bald faced lies their "leaders" tell them. The bigger the whopper, the more vigorously they will defend it.
"Social conservatism and economic conservatism go hand-in-hand."
NO. They are exactly the opposite of each other.
Social conservatism is economic leftism, that just happens to reside in the GOP.
Social conservatism is also feminism, because it pretty much has the same opinion on ALL issues as radical feminists, except of abortion.
But SoCons are very much in the 'it is always the man's fault' camp, and will never hold women accountable for even the worst behavior.
Social Conservatism is just big government socialism with a thin veneer of Christianity.
The surest way to poverty(and a lifetime constituency for failed liberal programs) is to have a child out of wedlock. Social conservatism and economic conservatism go hand-in-hand.
Yet SoCons never utter a peep about why 41% of children are born out of wedlock..... that the government INCENTIVES women to do this.
They cannot get beyond their 'it is always the man's fault' indoctrination.
SoCons think that abortion happens because 'it is the man's fault', but have no interest in fighting for father's rights.
SoCons are leftist feminists with a thin veneer of Christianity, nothing more.
I used to be a Republican, but now I have no party to vote for, because it is clear to me that SoCons are a leftist faction that resides in the GOP.
Both sides of the abortion debate are leftist and anti-male, btw. Thus, both sides of the debate are reprehensible.
"Hezbollah means "Party of God".
It means more than that, and you surely know it. A "Party of God" without the suicide attacks and the Jew killings is just another religious organization. You throw in the "Hezbollah" crap because you know what that insinuates. It's entirely inappropriate. You sound like a buffoon when you make the comparison.
" Santorum is just the Christian version of them. It has nothing to do with Israel."
Hezbollah probably would not exist if it weren't for Israel. It has EVERYTHING to do with Israel. Oh, but suddenly, your dumb comparison isn't so apt, is it?
"Fascism, likewise, has nothing to do with Israel. "
People like you who throw around the term "fascist" do so because the Hitler angle gives it the heaviness. Hitler obviously killed alot of Jews. Take away the Jew killing and "fascism" loses most of its oomph. All you have then is the economic planning that Obama is far more guilty of than Santorum ever would be.
"Yes apparently the concept of "causality" isn't a strong point for social conservatives. Maybe "math" and "logic" were not part of a home schooling education."
Not sure what that gibberish is supposed to mean, other than it gave you a chance to take some gratuitous swipe at home schoolers.
"They are the most heavily subsidized states in the country, the most poor states in the country, the most IGNORANT states in the country, the most third-worldish states in the country."
Wrong. The most third worldish areas of the country are where Obama wins 90% plus of the popular vote. I'm not sure how you imagine the GOP can win the WHite House without the Southern states, though. Please enlighten me with your genius strategy.
"And if you REALLY thought so, you'd put forward a candidate that could win, not try to shove down our throat a candidate that only represents your social views."
It's really strange how you point the finger at other people to provide you with the perfect candidate. Hey asshole, I"m not in charge of the GOP. WHy isn't it up to YOU to get off your ass and work for a candidate you can support?
"You want US to make compromises on our liberties and OUR social values, and accept the imposition of yours, but you're not willing to compromise?"
Where did you get that idea? Santorum is not going to win, but he'd be phenomenally better than Obama. I'm happy to "compromise" with an imperfect GOP candidate. You, on the other hand, actually demand everyone else to do the heavy lifting so you can sashay into the voting booth on election day and pull the lever for The Perfect Candidate. You're the one not willing to compromise, or lift a finger to help.
"..why isn't Rick all in favor of the pill, condoms, and abortions? Solves those unwanted children problems pretty quickly :)"
He's for having children once your married. You want to kill those children. If anyone sounds like the "fascist" here, it's you.
I was not advocating Santorum. This race for all purposes is over and Romney is the man.
the greatest fascist in US history was FDR.
he was an admitted fascist. he believed in it deeply. he was an open admirer of mussolini.
fascism was all the rage in political circles in the 30's. it was seen as "the way forward" all over the world, even here.
we all know how that worked out.
obama is an open admirer of FDR, particularly his new deal programs and great expansion of federal power over and intrusion into economic life.
fascism has been given a new coat of paint and some new alynskiite doublespeak, but it's the same failed ideology.
i echo paul's sentiments. obama is a serious fascist by any conventional definition. santorum is a deep social conservative, most of whose beliefs in that regard i find abhorrent, but his economic policies are nothing like fascist.
"It means more than that, and you surely know it. A "Party of God" without the suicide attacks and the Jew killings is just another religious organization."
And you are clearly incapable of comprehending that I didn't say he supports Hezbollah. I understand that me using such a word is FAR too difficult for people like you to understand. But then again, there's a reason why you would vote for Santorum. It has to do with the above mentioned difficulty.
"Hezbollah probably would not exist if it weren't for Israel."
You're quite dense.
"People like you who throw around the term "fascist" do so because the Hitler angle gives it the heaviness"
Apparently you never learned in Home School about a guy names Mussolini, or another guy named Franco, or even what "fasicsm" means or in what forms it exhibits itself. But as I said, there is a reason why you're a perfect voter for Santorum.
"Not sure what that gibberish is supposed to mean"
Causality, my dear friend. causality. Single mothers happen to be more highly correlated with poverty. Yes. However, one can't reach the conclusion that having a baby out of wedlock, CAUSES poverty, especially considering that those people were already poor and ignorant to begin with. But as I said, there's a REASON why you're the perfect voter for Rick Santorum.
"Wrong. The most third worldish areas of the country are where Obama wins 90% plus of the popular vote."
Oh no doubt Obama wins with 90% in Harlem and such places. And Rick Santorum wins with 90% in B**t-F**k Middle of Nowhere Albama. I just don't see why they are any better than each other, or why I should substitute one horrible president, for another equally horrible.
Do you comprehend the concept of...alternatives?
"It's really strange how you point the finger at other people to provide you with the perfect candidate."
Well, you vote for such a candidate, you and people like you. The GOP didn't force Rick Santorum to run. YOU DID. They aren't maintaining him. YOU ARE.
I don't think you understand how this "democracy" voting thing works, do you? I don't like your candidate, therefore I won't vote for him. And therefore you will lose. And I have no problem with "you" (ie the social conservative Hezbollah-types), losing. You need to lose, because you need to go away. No matter how bad Obama is, you're just as bad, if not more dangerous to the future of this country.
"You're the one not willing to compromise, or lift a finger to help. "
I'm not willing to lift a finger to "help" you elect Santorum because you "think" he is better then Obama. Well, I guess you're right. I'm not. I want you to lose...so 4 years from now, you'd have split off from the GOP into your own "Party of God" and you can go nominate Rick and Sara and Mike and George to be your candidates. I'm sure you'll do wonderful in Alabama and Mississippi.
"He's for having children once your married. You want to kill those children."
Ohhh. There's that Home Schooled logic at work again. Good Ol' Rick wants to subsides the plopping out of babies too by doubling the child tax credit. Ohh!! He's such an angel. Maybe he should do it like they did in the Soviet Union, where they gave medals to women who plopped out record numbers of babies. Ohhh!! All he wants is MY money to give to bible-banging illiterate toothless morons in Alabama to have 14 kids a year. Nothing wrong with that!
"i echo paul's sentiments. obama is a serious fascist by any conventional definition. santorum is a deep social conservative, most of whose beliefs in that regard i find abhorrent, but his economic policies are nothing like fascist."
What Obama is or does isn't an issue. Here we are talking about alternatives to Obama.
Santorum's economic policies are about the most ridiculous primitive policies the GOP has ever presented in a candidate. This guy is pro-union, pro-subsidies, pro-protectionism. In what universe he qualifies as a "conservative" is beyond me.
But leaving everything aside, the reason I think that the demise of social conservatism in the GOP is a far more important task for the future of this country, is the people who vote for Rick Santorum.
Obama may be as bad as they get, but spending, laws, taxes etc...can all the changed and repealed. They have been here before, and they have been repealed before. You mentioned FDR. He was worst. We've been there before, and we've beaten it back before. The American people, overall, are much more resistant to big government than we give them credit for.
BUT...ignorance is something that cannot be repealed or changed as easily. Ignorance breeds and grows (it breeds at the speed of Rick Santorum's child tax credits)
The ignorance that voters of Rick Santorum demonstrate, is the real danger for this country. These are people who are willing to close their eyes to his big-government economic policies, as long as this is covered in the clothes of religious conservatism.
These are the people who will vote for any religious candidate, regardless of what their economic views are.
This is the ignorance that needs to be stopped, because these are the ignorants that gave us GWB and Sarah Plains and the likes. 4 years from now, 8 years, 12 years, 16 years, 20 years from now...where will we be if there is a large and growing (cause they BREED!) group of religious fanatics one-issue voters who are pandered to by people like Santorum into voting any and all sorts of anti-individualism and anti-free market laws?
The breeding of ignorance is a far more dangerous trend to the future of this country, then the balance sheet. There's no turning back from ignorance.
Fascism came about in most places because of their social conservatism.
PS: Paul, single motherhood strangely very rarely seems to be a problem for educated women, no matter the amount of devilsh out-of-wedlock-go-straight-to-hell sex they have. It seems to be a problem however, the less educated you are. Can we come up with some guesses, as to why that may be? Maybe if Rick wants to reduce single-motherhood, he should be pushing for sex-education at an early age. Just sayin!
AIG, I agree that social issues should be off the table- other than perhaps stuff like home schooling that is more economic than social- but I don't think splitting off the religious right is going to work since they're a significant voting bloc, as this GOP primary shows. Rather, they need to be convinced to take social issues off the table themselves, because giving the federal govt the power they want, to pass laws against birth control or "obscenity," will then be used by the "progressives," when they're in charge, to force insurance companies to pay for birth control or control speech. Neither group should be able to use the federal govt to push their issues, better that they do so culturally, by communicating. The caricature that Santorum puts forth in your linked video is the same argument put forth by lefties, that anyone who doesn't agree with their big govt plans is a "radical individualist" who doesn't want to go along with the majority.
But the truth is that nobody is that individualist, it's just that the Christian community shouldn't be able to force their preferences on the various other communities in this country through federal law, just like the "progressives" shouldn't be able to force Obamacare on other communities that don't want it, through federal law. If either group can get their preferred laws passed in their town or county somewhere, great, but there's no reason to force it on the whole country. The work of the coming decades is going to be to convince the religious right of this argument: that the govt is not their vehicle to push social issues, that they will have to push their issues in the culture, not through the govt. This work is already half done, when even a hard-core Christian like Pat Robertson is fine with legalizing Marijuana, and talks about cost-benefit calculations when doing so. :) Convincing the religious right of this will be easier than convincing the left to abandon their religion of big govt, because the left is so irrationally convinced of the righteousness of their cause, that they actually think it must be forced on everyone through the federal govt.
"but I don't think splitting off the religious right is going to work since they're a significant voting bloc, as this GOP primary shows"
And that is unfortunate. But there's an even more significant voting block: there are perfectly reasonable people out there, lots of them, who would vote for fiscal restraint and limited government and individual freedoms...but dare not approach the GOP because of Rick and Sarah.
I'd rather attract people who want small government and individualism, than THIS guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30&feature=fvwrel
"Rather, they need to be convinced to take social issues off the table themselves"
They are 1 issue voters. And you're asking them to give up that one issue.
"The caricature that Santorum puts forth in your linked video is the same argument put forth by lefties, that anyone who doesn't agree with their big govt plans is a "radical individualist" who doesn't want to go along with the majority."
Which is why appeasing the social conservatives is just as dangerous as appeasing the left. There are no differences between the two.
But the truth is that nobody is that individualist, it's just that the Christian community shouldn't be able to force their preferences on the various other communities in this country through federal law, just like the "progressives" shouldn't be able to force Obamacare on other communities that don't want it, through federal law
Which brings me back to the point that they are no different. Except that one may actually have more long term impact on the psyche of the American people. Laws and deficits can be repealed or tackled. Inbred ignorance, isn't so easy to deal with.
The work of the coming decades is going to be to convince the religious right of this argument
They wouldn't be the religious right then, would they.
Convincing the religious right of this will be easier than convincing the left to abandon their religion of big govt, because the left is so irrationally convinced of the righteousness of their cause, that they actually think it must be forced on everyone through the federal govt.
I don't think that is so. Pat Roberston is 1 example. But equally there are plenty of people on the "left" who have been convinced to take more pragmatic positions; Bill Clinton for example. The experience of the past 60 years has shown that it is a lot easier to ween "leftists" off their religion, than it is to ween religious fanatics off of theirs.
Furthermore, the people of the "left" you describe, are a minority even in the left. Most "democrats" and most "liberals" don't describe themselves as such because of their economic ideas, but rather because of their social. Likewise, most people who describe themselves as "conservatives", do so because of their social viewpoints.
But the underlying economic and individual freedom concepts that are truly important for us today, span both parties and both sides.
The barrier, remains social. The GOP has been taken over by a monolithic block of religious bible-belt social conservatives that if analyzed simply on their economic ideas, would fall squarely on the side of interventionist big government.
Similarly, the Dems have been taken over by economic leftists because they provide a sanctuary for people who do not want to be associated with bible-belt social conservatives.
Its up to the GOP to get rid of these people are that dividing this country, not on the issues that matter, but on their social agenda.
Barry Goldwater was right. Unfortunately, its not Barry Goldwater that we're looking up to today.
Sprewell: "Neither group should be able to use the federal govt to push their issues..."
Everyone has an "issue", and without using federal government to push it, there would be no need for federal government.
"there would be no need for federal government."
Well no. There wouldn't be a need for a federal government remotely this size.
Hmmm, I hope the list bobby c posted about the differences between Romney and Obama are actually something we can depend on but considering Romney's previous track record I'm more than a bit cynical...
Maybe its my disappoint in Reagan apparently not doing anything to roll back the wealth redistribution scam called the Great Society...
Hang on tight AIG, this could be a shocker, and we wouldn't want you to hurt yourself falling off of your cousin. (We wouldn't want him to get hurt either)
"President Obama now trails former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum by four points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup in combined polling of key swing states Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. ... Santorum leads the president 48% to 44% in the so-called Core Four states. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate in this matchup, and two percent (2%) are undecided. This marks a shift from last week, when the president was slightly ahead of Santorum." -- Rasmussen
"But there's an even more significant voting block: there are perfectly reasonable people out there, lots of them, who would vote for fiscal restraint and limited government and individual freedoms...but dare not approach the GOP because of Rick and Sarah." -- AIG
This must account for the rise of so many libertarian candidates within the Democrat Party. Ooops.
"Hezbollah means "Party of God". Santorum is just the Christian version of them." -- AIG
" ... there are perfectly reasonable people out there ..." -- AIG
Yes, but you are not one of them.
but considering Romney's previous track record I'm more than a bit cynical...
But Santorum's track record is of no concern to you?
we wouldn't want you to hurt yourself falling off of your cousin.
I'm not from Alabama
This must account for the rise of so many libertarian candidates within the Democrat Party. Ooops.
If you'll note I said they don't vote for the GOP. I didn't say they vote for the Dems. Most of those people, don't vote (like myself, for example). That's why there is such a low voter participation rate.
Yes, but you are not one of them.
I'm in good company then. Barry Goldwater:
"By maintaining the separation of church and state the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars . . . Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"
"I'm not from Alabama" -- AIG
I am certain that that is a source of pride for all of the good people of Alabama.
"But Santorum's track record is of no concern to you?"...
Ahhh, the kool aid drinking aig apparently didn't bother to find out what Santorum has actually been saying but has diligently been depending on MSM for his sources....
Good going dude!
Post a Comment
<< Home