Iowa Primary

[Mr. Tea]

Of course the two parties are two sides of the status quo but if I were a gay American and I rose above the "delusion" of voting for Obama I think I would kinda kick myself if Santorum or Perry became president.

Yeah, it's sad that the choice has to come down to picking the least worst but at the same time it's not helpful to reduce this to the bald statement that "they're all as bad as each other", when this isn't actually the case.

Choosing the lesser of two evils isn't a bad thing. The cliché makes it sound bad, but it's a good thing. You get less evil.

And as you point out, it's not necessarily even a case of maintaining the status quo, as some of the candidates think America is far too liberal and socialistic as it is and what to roll back many of the rights and freedoms that various mostly Democratic administrations have brought in over the years.

 

[crackerjack]

Anyone voting for either a Republican candidate (with the honourable exception of Ron Paul) or Obama must be completely delusional.

Nothing honourable about the racist, anti-semitic, homophobe Ron Paul, though given his penchant for the conspiracy theories beloved by the far right it's no surprise you think otherwise.

 

[craner]

Well said, CJ.

 

[luka]

john birch for president.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

other people have pretty much already said this, but the problem the Republicans have is the same problem they always have. to win the primary a candidate has to play as conservative as possible, but to win the general election they have to do exactly the opposite. the GOP needs someone it can at least halfway sell as a centrist but at the same time a large part of its base utterly loathes Mitt Romney types (for different reasons than most of us loathe him, that is) which is why you get almost literally insane people like Palin, Bachmann, Santorum, etc sticking around for a long time but never actually getting the nomination, b/c even most staunch conservatives know in their heart of hearts that it'd be almost impossible for any of them to win a general election. this isn't a new problem either, the GOP has been struggling with for at least 50 years, ever since the liberal/moderate wing of the party begin its endlessly protracted, agonizing demise. Barry Goldwater in '64 is one of the best examples of that tension - he was a lot closer to Paul than Santorum or Bachmann, essentially a libertarian + not overtly religious (tho the whole evangelicals hijacking conservatism thing was still 15-20 years off at that point anyway) but a nuclear hawk of epic proportions. he beat a liberal Republican (a Rockefeller, no less) for the nomination but he was totally unelectable. LBJ's campaign pretty much annihilated him w/this incredibly stark + brutally effective ad, and he was crushed worse than anyone not named Walter Mondale. anyway the GOP - especially it's intellectuals - has mostly learned this lesson pretty well (anyone else remember how horrified the Republican literati were by the Palin selection?)

of course the Dems face the same problem but to a much lesser extent b/c the the left here is so toothless, or in the case of more radical elements almost totally divorced from electoral politics, so candidates can get away w/it more easily. i.e. Obama's lip service to the left before the election. JFK did the exact same thing in 1960, but far more cynically even (the Kennedys were real operators), to pick up the liberal Adlai Stevenson wing of the party then totally ignored it once in office.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

or in other words the Iowa Caucus results don't mean much, other than that Rick anal froth won the "I get to be the anti-Romney" sweepstakes. he's actually probably even worse than Palin or Bachmann in the "I'm a virulent homophobe in addition to being fucking crazy" category tho, so Obama's people should be rejoicing. their dream should be - almost certainly is - a Santorum nomination. Mitt Romney is just the kind of wax statue non-entity that could limp his way to a best of bad options victory by simply mouthing his (relatively) inoffensive mealymouth committee-concocted platitudes + riding discontent w/shitty economy, fragmented political system, etc etc. tho it must be said it's difficult to remember a candidate about whom his own party was less excited. even Kerry had at least a few proactive enthusiasts. I'm too young to remember Dukakis tho.

as to the point that there is little actual difference between the two - in any ultimate or larger or really meaningful sense, well of course, absolutely. there are plenty of smaller pragmatic differences tho - abortion or health care, for instance (neither of which splits exactly along party lines, but you know what I mean) - and just in terms of who's appointing judges or cabinet members, budget things, + so on, as long as you don't delude yourself about that larger sense. the small differences also become more important in local elections.

(also, 2nd that there is very little honorable about Ron Paul's long, shameful history of racebaiting + homophobia. tho I can certainly see how he would appear so next to the clowns he's been up against, the same way McCain did in '08 next to the odious likes of Giuliani or Mike Huckabee)

 

[Leo]

In the face of the blatant continuation, or rather expansion, of US military interventionism it is hard to point out any meaningful differences between the Neo-Con doctrine of the Bush era and the foreign and security policy under Obama.

really? the neo-con doctrine calls for pre-emptive/proactive intervention into foreign countries where they think US interests could be at risk, or where they see an opportunity to "spread democracy." on the other hand, obama just had his military director leon panetta submit a plan to cut $450 billion from the pentagon budget, pulled troops out of iraq much earlier than conservative wanted and "led from behind" by not putting US boots on the ground in arab spring countries.

you don't see that as a huge difference?

 

[lanugo]

Nothing honourable about the racist, anti-semitic, homophobe Ron Paul, though given his penchant for the conspiracy theories beloved by the far right it's no surprise you think otherwise.

Oh, is that the same New York Times that in 2003 took the lead among Western media outlets in spinning the official government conspiracy theory of non-existent WMD's in Iraq?

really? the neo-con doctrine calls for pre-emptive/proactive intervention into foreign countries where they think US interests could be at risk, or where they see an opportunity to "spread democracy." on the other hand, obama just had his military director leon panetta submit a plan to cut $450 billion from the pentagon budget, pulled troops out of iraq much earlier than conservative wanted and "led from behind" by not putting US boots on the ground in arab spring countries.

you don't see that as a huge difference?

Well, don't you see that your characterisation of the Neo-Con doctrine is also largely applicable to the foreign policy of the Obama administration?

As the moribund state of the US economy makes restrictions on the defense budget inevitable, regime change operations may not any longer take the form of outright invasions as with Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush. However, US geo-strategy is still characterised by hegemonial ambitions and a total disregard for the sovereignty of foreign nations.

The case of Libya proves this. To be clear, it is a gross misconception to believe that the civil war leading to the toppling of the Ghaddafi regime was the result of a popular uprising similar to those in other Arab countries that have come to be known as the "Arab Spring" - and whether these events are authentic in terms of being genuine homegrown insurrections fueled by popular discontent is debatable in and of itself.

In Libya, the forceful crackdown of the Ghaddafi regime against armed insurgents (provably trained and equipped by foreign special forces) was falsely portrayed as constituting a "humanitarian crisis", which was then used as a pretext for the military intervention of NATO forces. Of course, the real humanitarian crisis only happened when NATO bombs rained down on Libyan cities, killing more than 50,000 civilians. The UN sanctioning and the shameful eagerness of its allies notwithstanding, this campaign was clearly an American military and intelligence operation. Conveniently, the US didn't need to have "boots on the ground" as their army of cleverly manipulated Islamist stooges was happy to act as NATO's infantry. Foreign policy under Obama has become a lot more devious.

Regarding the early pull-out from Iraq, I'd say that this measure was but a tactical manoeuver to relieve the stressed Pentagon budget and not some grand gesture denoting future restraint in military action. Or why would they establish a new military base in Australia and have Ms. Clinton pen an article in FR titled ""America's Pacific Century"?

 

[IdleRich]

"Oh, is that the same New York Times that in 2003 took the lead among Western media outlets in spinning the official government conspiracy theory of non-existent WMD's in Iraq?"

Yes it is but that's totally irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of what is said in that link which is easily verifiable elsewhere. You could argue about the merits of the NY Times or you could say whether you think Ron Paul's is still the most "honourable" candidate despite his unusual ideas. Most of what he says shouldn't be too hard for you to swallow after all although I suspect you might want to take issue with the racial conspiracy stuff.

 

[Bangpuss]

Obama won such a momentous victory in 2008 that it was clear it would carry him through to a second term, providing there were no real howlers, which there haven't been. The "seven things" he wanted to achieve mostly have been, if only in the faintest sense, like healthcare reform and banking regulations.

The one Republican the GOP would do well to choose has largely been forgotten amid the talk of "surges" amongst the lunatics. Jon Huntsman is the most sane and intelligent one other than Romney. While Huntsman may not have the money to beat Obama (or even Romney in the primaries), he is at least fairly moderate in his views and has a stunning record as governor of Utah-- with his approval ratings spiking at 90% due to his job-creation and tax-slashing. All this would give Huntsman a good chance against Obama.

The reason Huntsman hasn't been mentioned much is that he was scoring low in the polls when the likes of Perry, Bachmann, Cain (and Trump!) were still looking good. Now they're out of the picture, it's a smaller field. He also ignored Iowa, which doesn't really count for much compared with New Hampshire, where he has been campaigning relentlessly. As they say, Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents. A top-two finish in New Hampshire, which is possible considering he's already third in the polls, is very possible. If that happens, he'll get his "surge". And when people come to examine him against Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, they would be wise to choose the man most likely to beat Obama.

 

[IdleRich]

How acceptable is he to the right of the party though?

 

[trza]

How acceptable is he to the right of the party though?

He was physically outside of the country when the whole "tea part thing" happened, its like he came out of a time capsule from 2008 before his party veered off to the right. The guy is uncomfortable on the campaign trail and flails aimlessly in debates. The Daily Caller published a bunch of letters where he tells Obama how much he admires him. His fundraising is anemic and skipping Iowa only makes him look weaker.

He is wildly popular in China.

 

[crackerjack]

He is wildly popular in China.

And among students and on blogs – just about the only two places in the world where people think libertarianism is a really good idea.

Oh, is that the same New York Times that in 2003 took the lead among Western media outlets in spinning the official government conspiracy theory of non-existent WMD's in Iraq?

*Huge yawn* Now, if you'd care to offer a definition of 'honourable' that isn't brought crashing down by the fact Paul's office previously spent a good deal of time and effort recycling the most hateful social bigotry of the far right, then I'll stop yawning and lend you my ears.

 

[Bangpuss]

I'm not saying Huntsman is Julius Caesar, but he's certainly a more credible option than any of the others. The closeness to Obama is obviously a problem, but also indicates a certain level of rationality, compared with people who think he's a foreign Muslim socialist.

 

[Leo]

...people who think [obama]'s a foreign Muslim socialist.

unfortunately for huntsman, that's the hardcore republican base who vote in primaries!

 

[lanugo]

*Huge yawn* Now, if you'd care to offer a definition of 'honourable' that isn't brought crashing down by the fact Paul's office previously spent a good deal of time and effort recycling the most hateful social bigotry of the far right, then I'll stop yawning and lend you my ears.

I'm sorry to be so pedantic as to point out the NYT's own history of "dangerous conspiracy-mongering"; whatever the veracity of Paul's claims, surely they haven't cost as many innocent people's lives as the government lies that this particular newspaper was only too eager to propagate.

In all honesty, I have to admit that I didn't know about those ominous newsletters. However, having checked up on the story I'm not surprised to find that there is no conclusive evidence that Paul himself authored the racist and homophobic statements in question. Apparently, there were a bunch of ghostwriters contributing to the newsletter, one or several of whom seem to be responsible for these egregious ramblings. The whole issue was then blown up by the establishment media as part of a smear campaign. Granted, there are Paul supporters with an ideologically perverse background - then again, what is the ideological background of the bankers supporting Obama? Denouncing Paul as racist or homophobic because of some obscure decades-old newsletter clearly is an overly dismissive stance toward a politician whose merits have been largely ignored or disparaged by the mainstream media.

Paul is 'honourable' in the sense that, unlike all the other presidential candidates and Obama, he is the only one who publicly decries the ongoing demise of the Constitution - I've already referred to the indefinite detention and torture bill - and radically rejects an imperialist US military agenda that mostly serves the enrichment of powerful interest groups from the security industry and the military-industrial complex.

Concerning his alleged penchant for "conspiracy theories" - how can you apodictically state that his views on global institutions and current world-political events are wrong? Are you in possession of the absolute truth? Or do you just outright dismiss any interpretation that doesn't conform to the media consensus? Paul calling the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador a "publicity stunt" is a perfect example of his political integrity and personal frankness. Did you bother to look at the details of this story? Read this careful analysis of the events and you will come to the conclusion that what Paul says isn't so implausible after all.

 

[IdleRich]

"Paul is 'honourable' in the sense that, unlike all the other presidential candidates and Obama, he is the only one who publicly decries the ongoing demise of the Constitution"

The libertarian and hard-right use "unconstitutional" when they mean something they don't like (as parodied in that Onion headline about a man being prepared to fight to the death for the constitution despite not knowing what it says) - hence all the stuff about America being contitutionally a Christian country despite the exact opposite being true.
But more importantly, why should the Constitution be sacrosanct? Isn't it a bit stupid trying to run a modern country according to the exact letter of a document that is over two hundred years old? Maybe they should stop amending it and go back to the drawing board, getting rid of all that stuff about militias while they're at it.

 

[Bangpuss]

The right does describe anything they don't like as "unconstitutional" or "unAmerican". And it is daft to hold the Constitution's more quaint provisions in such high regard. But the first amendment -- freedom of speech -- and the prevention of cruel and unusual punishment are obviously still relevant and important, and should be fought for vociferously. It's a shame they don't regard the death penalty, waterboarding, etc. as either cruel or unusual.

Ron Paul is a principled politician, if not necessarily honourable. When you have guys like Romney and Obama -- these shiny blank slates who let Wall Street write their own policies on them -- a guy like Paul seems refreshing. He says to lobbyists, "I'll take your money, but I'll be damned if I'm changing my position." So he has principles, and doesn't appear to be up for sale.

But the thing is, his principles are totally wild-west crazy! He has vowed never to raise federal taxes, and that federal income tax is unconstitutional. He wants to do away with all campaign finance regulation, which would allow corporations to buy candidates even more than they already do. He'd do away with federal healthcare provisions, and pretty much every other federal program, including education. He believes that state government is somehow inherently better than the federal government at delivering services, which I've never seen any evidence for.

But Ron Paul would also allow states to legalise pot, so he'd get my vote.

 

[Bangpuss]

And I do believe the conspiracies about major news outlets deliberately ignoring Ron Paul. Look at this article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-usa-campaign-newhampshire-poll-idUSTRE8030WR20120105

Rick Santorum comes in third with 8% is the story. Ron Paul isn't mentioned, even though he's second with 24%.

He scares a lot of people in high places.

 

[IdleRich]

I don't understand this constant harping on about state being better than national controls. If you break everything down to that then ultimately won't you destroy the greatest nation in the history of the world (tm)?