dayman

These analogies are stupid b/c negotiating a car price is not the same as compromising something as complicated as our national budget priorities in today's climate. There are all kinds of approaches that can produce compromise the more complicated the subject matter, and that's important. As for the basic idea of buying a car, it's always worth it to start low even if your heart isn't in it just cave more quickly. They start high.

I don't care to explain it b/c I don't care to think about it and it doesn't matter. I do somehow, for no real reason, find Mormonism to be extra ridiculous. Maybe the more recent the religion the more ridiculous it is simply b/c it had more developed people when it was first pitched (theoretically of course) and it had less of a time to be ingrained into that "just always was true" status that grants cover for deserved skepticism. Doesn't really mean I don't respect people's ability to believe whatever of course. Just my take on various levels of "what slack something deserves" ...

Have 6 real quick then read while doing a handstand.

Not the cleanest post ever put still clear enough for anybody to make sense of. Summary for clarification: If people are going to give the President all kinds of credit for the economy (which is retarded), then Bush destroyed the economy by that standard (a stupid standard) . And no amount of time changes that.

For the millionth time I'm not a Bush basher...but you do realize that no amount of time somehow makes Bush's bad presidency not his fault right? And no amount of time changes basic factual history that if Presidents get credit the economy right or wrong (wrong usually), Bush destroyed it. Truth is, the President gets way too much credit for the economy either way...but the bottom line is if the idea is that Obama ruined the economy b/c Presidents create the economy...then by that logic it's Bush's fault for destroying the economy. And if it's Obama's fault for not creating a booming economy in 2/4 years...that's a lot less of a failure than destroying the AMerican economy. Complete nonsense but that's the deal. People would be well served to speak realistically about things such as "the economy"

Will you run as more machine than man?

Rove needs to explain to his wealthy donors why the hell they give him millions in some cases 10s of millions to have their money wasted over stupid social issues they didn't pay to pursue that Rove once said was a wedge to help win and now are a liability.

Not only are Loudon and Fairfax wealthy but they're home to a bunch of military contractors and Romney was trying to throw another 2T at them over the next 10 years.

TARP? I haven't really thought about it a lot but it's Congress appropriating funds. Tax and Spend. Pretty simple stuff. The only challenge I can think of is non-delegation doctrine. Weak challenge never work anymore. Every bit as much intelligible principle there as EPA for instance. I mean...what is so quasi-constitutional about it? The imaginary constitution that exists if Ron Paul was the one man supreme court for 200+ years maybe but the actual constitution as interpreted in what we call history...it's fairly straightforward. Plus...there's the whole emergency angle and close calls always slide in circumstances where "emergency" kicks in

Americans hating Americans inc.

That's the debate they will have now "how can we not be !@#$s on a couple really stupid issues we've been !@#$s on"

Note: "need to" not "are"

The answer is basically "just because." Most states want to throw them all behind one guy I guess.

I imagine strategist meetings in Dem circles going "who can we get, how can we build a coalition" In GOP circles it must be "you need to say/believe x, y, z to keep our base, then try your best after that"

#5 is significant. No amount of speculating about '08 fluke or denial of a changing country can prevent them from examining what it is about their party that can no longer win a majority.

If a state wants to split their electoral votes they are free to do so.

TARP was not unconstitutional. Maybe the auto bailout.

Dick predicted a 325-213 Romney "landslide" A possible 332-206 outcome for Obama is now a "squeaker"

Dick Morris admits to having egg on his face and being completely wrong (also continues on later to blame the weather): http://www.dickmorris.com/why-i-was-wrong/ I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker. The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics. In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In ’04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In ’04 it was 17%. Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama’s three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory. I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008. I was wrong. They did.

How about a potato cannon?

I wouldn't be surprised if only Ginsburg goes. Breyer is still sharp as a tack and full of energy. Scalia will die on the court. Kennedy probably won't retire under Obama.

You have to understand that whether you believe Romney is a true thumper on that issue, he made commitments to people along his journey to the nomination. He couldn't beat the "strawman" b/c of those commitments. And if he had been elected, when the party pushed up what they could manage through congress (who knows what a 2014 senate would look like if Romney won), and when SC justices retire...he would keep those commitments. So you can call it a strawman all you like, personally I always used to feel it was nonsense to appeal to the base and nothing would come of it...but in the past couple years as the party dynamic shifted it became clear that various changes in policy were a real part of a powerful GOP niche...you take people at their word in politics when they commit strongly to certain views...you have nobody to be angry with except Romney and the social conservatives who must vet everybody that comes through the party.

http://www.theonion....magines-c,2849/ Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head. [ "Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are." According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation. "Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top. "Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves." According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ." Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments." "And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said. Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical. "Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care." Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle. "The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life." "Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime.

The bottom line is women were concerned b/c the platform and rhetoric and supreme court choices of the GOP are concerning. SDS blames Obama for pointing this out. Look at the GOP first my brother. The party has gone off the deep end on the one, going backwards In the end it's quite simple IMO and comes down to what I thought during the GOP primaries: "are people seriously going to throw Obama out for Mit Romney in mass across this nation?" The answer was no.