instead of starting a new thread for each and every GOP contender for the nomination, I'll just keep stuff here.

This looks like the end of the sputtering Gingrich campaign:
Gingrich aides resign, leave campaign in question


There is some speculation that most of the staff is moving on to Gov. Rick Perry and his campaign, but the Texas Governor has not announced any campaign. I like some of the things that Newt did in and leading up to the 1994 Republican Revolution, but there is no way I could see him as US President.

I watched the GOP New Hampshire debate and came away with the following impressions/feelings:

Mitt Romney - IMO won the debate when T-Paw refused to confront him on ObamneyCare. I did like how he turned the focus with his "I wish the president would have called me" line. Was treated as the front runner and didn't have to defend against any attacks from the other challengers

Michelle Bachmann - Still batshit crazy, but did show more knowledge and a better candidate than Palin (I know really not that hard) she seemed like an informed player when they were talking about the Libya issue.

Ron Paul - Came across as an angry OLD man with the shaking head and everything. He has some good topics, but still just came across as bitter.

Tim Pawlenty - Lost all his early momentum and came across as weak while losing the ObamneyCare topic. Never came back around and I felt that he wanted to hide in the corner.

Rick Santorum - Still shrill, not ready for the big stage, has no real shot. He didn't show any positive reason why he should be the nominee.

Herman Cain - Showed some businessman poise and confidence. Didn't do anything really help his campaign. Would have liked to have seen more. He needs to get infront of the "no Muslims in my staff" issue or that could end his campaign.

Newt Gingrich - Same old Newt the political pundit on the stage. I still don't see how he can get past his image and personal failings to get the nomination. Still, with his campaign staff leaving en masse Newt didn't seem flustered. Tired maybe, but maybe that is his captian of a sinking ship manner.

John King (CNN moderator) - can't they kill his mike when the candidates are speaking? All his grunting and noisemaking was highly distracting. I didn't think that the debate had much of a flow. King or a guest would ask the candidate a question, then King would ask someone else a not-so-related follow up and never get into the crux of the original question. I wish he would have scrapped the last two question (better VP choice in 2008, and who on this stage would be the best choice). Never going to get an answer to those questions, would show nothing, should have just given each candidate two min to give a real closing statement.

I was cringing when every one of the candidates failed (IMO) the DOMA and DADT question. Santorum is too churchy and Pawlenty was with him. Ron Paul was the closest to a positive answer when he said to get the government out of marriage altogether.

I wanted to watch it, but I had marching band practice through most of it. I didn't get home till after 10 pm.

you didn't miss much. It was mostly the other candidates going "I'd like to say exactly what Romney said to get an applause 5 min ago"

Mitt Romney - Sadly, I agree, he won the debate. He worries me though for a number of reasons. I also don't think he can beat Obama, too Gore-like.

Michelle Bachmann - She was extremely well prepared for this debate other than the mutiple times she mentioned that she'd been a foster mom. She absolutely benefitted from low expectations, though.

Ron Paul - He said some good stuff but he doesn't seem to think he can win so who could support him?

Tim Pawlenty - He seemed weak and spineless.

Rick Santorum - I loved (sarcasm) how he tried to claim credit for the drilling in PA. I wish he'd been challenged on that.

Herman Cain - He's already lost alot of people, including me, with his stance on American Muslims.

Newt Gingrich - I came away with the impression that he's there to have a national stage from which to berate the current congress. If so, good for him.

Overall:
-It kind of amused me to see these candidates frame themselves as doves to Obama's hawk on Libya & Yemen.
-These early debates just have too many participants to give anyone a chance to get into the nitty gritty on any topic which is what I am looking for.
-I wish the debate had been focused on a single issue.
-I hated the whole 'get citizens on camera and let them ask their own questions after some random media person introduces both themselves and the voter' thing. It just wastes precious time.

My ranking of the GOP contenders right now. This includes organization, funding, positive name recognition, and my thoughts on if they have ha chance to win (nom and general)

Announced in:
Mitt Romney - Best organization and fundraising of all.
Tim Pawlenty - Positive name recognition but had a serious fumble in the last debate
Michelle Bachmann - Started to shed the nut lable in the last debate, still has a lot of ground to make up

Ron Paul - Same OLD Ron Paul. Some good ideas, a lot of bitter old man.
Rick Santorum - Needs to define himself other than "I am an alternative to Mitt!"
Herman Cain - Campaign losing traction, Muslim question hanging like an albatross. Lack of international experience hurts as well.
Newt Gingrich - Not electible, too much baggage

Have not announced:
Rick Perry - has the potential to rival Mitt in funding, organization, name recognition and is liked in general by the GOP primary voters.
Jon Huntsman - Could make a splash or could sink like a rock
Sarah Palin - Too polarizing. Loses a lot since Bachmann is already in the race. Has a better chance to win the nomination but nearly zero chance to win the general election

Ron Paul's complete inability to run an organization like a campaign pretty much guarantees he's about the worst candidate to do anything.

Rick Perry is also an awful choice.

_________________

remember when I said that Bachmann started to shed the nut label? Well she is putting it back on. From The Washington Times

oops

lol it's kinda funny, but not really a big deal I suppose.

Updating my earlier rankings since some things have changed over the weekend

Announced in (top contenders):
Mitt Romney - running like a frontrunner. Up until now, has not been challenged by any other challengers.

Rick Perry - Announced in this weekend. Offers a real challenge to Romney and Obama.

Top tier, but doesn't have a real chance of beating Obama:
Michelle Bachmann - Still trying to keep the "nut-job" label. Only good thing about her high poll numbers is that she is keeping Palin out of the race.

Ron Paul - Same OLD Ron Paul. Some good ideas, a lot of bitter old man. I am scared that Paul will drag this thing out to the end causing a bitter divide between the Paulbots and the party nominee, fracturing the nominee's support after the convention. Worst case would be for him to run as an independent should Perry or Romney get the nomination.

No chance of winning the GOP Nomination
Herman Cain - Still hanging around, but needs something positive to happen for his campaign to jump in the top group

Rick Santorum - Has the amazing ability to disappear even on stage with the other candidates during a TV Debate.

Jon Huntsman - His announcement of candidacy was a splash. Too bad it turned out to be the splash of a rock hitting the water as his campaign has done NOTHING since then.

Newt Gingrich - Not electable, too much baggage

Have not announced:
Sarah Palin - The only good thing that would come out if she announced she is running would be the splitting Bachmann's supporters. Could also take the media criticism away from Perry/Romney. She is still not electable and just looking out for her own attention grabbing interest.

Out
Tim Pawlenty - took a positive name and message and turned it into a big zero. Has withdrawn from the race.

The best case scenario right now is that Palin enters the race, and all the crazy votes are split between her, Bachmann and Perry, giving Romney a chance to win the non-crazy votes (there may not be enough of those to give Romney the nom, though).

Personally, I like Perry better than Romney. I like the State First basis for Perry. I don't like the new religious front that Perry has been showing.

Perry is NOT another GWB. There is a rift between GEB and the Perry camp and they really don't like each other.

Since 1979, the past 5 Ames polls, only one person (W) who won the Ames poll has won the presidency.

Only two have even won the GOP nomination (W, Dole).

3 out of 5 went on to win Iowa, so it's slightly more referential there, but I wouldn't put much stock in its ability predict winners or nominees.

You'll see a lot less crazy (I hope) once we get closer to Super Tuesday and larger states having a say.

I kind of want Rick Perry to be elected, so I can leave this country forever.

_________________

Meh, the "States Rights" thing is just another retarded political line for people to throw around.

"Oh hey, someone in the other party is doing something on a federal level. No!! Support states rights!"

"Oh hey, someone is doing something I don't like on a state level (Gay marriage?) No! We must defend ourselves on the federal level!"

Blah blah blah.

States Rights is just a curtain racist homophobic Southerners hide behind under the guise of political beliefs.

_________________

Perry is a very very strong candidate, might want to start packing your bags

I've said it before, I'll say it again, 80% of the USA is still dominated by RED, and it most likely always will be.
I'll mention it again I'm a very middle of the road main stream republican almost independent, I voted for Obama last time.

but I've never ever made statements about leaving or whatever, even when complete tools like Carter got elected.
so as the old saying goes. Love it or Leave it.

I can't see any of these yokels beating Obama. None of them are strong enough. Romney will have the same problem as always, he's LDS. Bachmann is a raging lunatic. Perry is the only one who has a legitimate shot, but Obama will craft his campaign and message masterfully again, and hopefully get the country back on track if the House can get it's crap in order. The Republicans don't care about what they do to the economy or America as long as they can get that black man out of the office and one of their own back in. It's a super sad state of affairs, and for anyone who is outside of the top 1% of earners who vote Republican, I feel sorry for your ignorance, because they don't give a crap about YOU, or your small business. They care about less government and regulations for the top 1% of earners in America who hold 70%+ of the wealth. That's not you. That's not me. We need to fix the middle class, end super tax breaks and loopholes for the corporations and ultra-rich. That's how you stimulate an economy and pay for the wars and crap programs the GOP started during Bush's 8 years, anyhow.

Rick Perry has done everything possible to take Texas back to the third world. There is literally no reason to belive he won't do the same for the rest of the country.

_________________

Obama is doing his damnedness currently with the US economy.

Sky, considering that Obummer is at 40% approval now and dropping, the unemployment is stuck at 9.1% (it only goes down when people drop off the roles due to they quit looking for work), inflation is going up, gas prices are increasing, the dollar is weak and threatened to be replaced as the world's reserve currency, we are in debt over $14 trillion (and skyrocketing), he hasn't lived up to his promises of bringing the troops home from Iraq and he has botched "the right war" plus started another war in Lybia, it won't take a super candidate to beat Obama this time. (plus the one the GOP ran last time was a complete joke).

I doubt Bachmann gets the nomination. Perry or Romney will have the support of the middle while Obama is a one term president. If Paul runs as a third party all bets are off.

If Paul runs as a third party he will implode within a month, because the dude couldn't manage a taco stand much less a national political campaign.

_________________

Also I don't get this. Does that mean it's OK for Perry to do the same, except instead of trying to do whatever Obama is, Perry, as president, can just wholesale cut the nation's economic budget?

_________________

the country is broke, the dollar is weak, we have to wholesale cut the nation's budget. We can't keep spending like we are today, or for the last six years, and expect to survive.

So when I typed "economic," I meant "education." Because if there's one thing that makes sense for the economic future of the country, it's lower education standards.

_________________

Personally, I think that we could dramatically cut the number of people in the Federal Education Administration and send that $ to the states. As a percentage of federal spending we are spending less on education (3%) than we are on interest on the debt (6% and increasing).

We could use the federal administration to set guidelines and to be the final arbiter over what to do with failing schools and consolidation of troubled districts. (I will never understand why Arkansas has 75 counties and over 300 school districts in a state with about 5 million people)

We NEED to get rid of the teacher's unions (but that is a state's issue)

Well, we NEED to get rid of at least half of the defense budget and funnel whatever's left after applying it to the deficit to education and healthcare.

_________________

Education and healthcare will stave off a double dip recession and/or reduce our debt?

The country makes a tidy profit from defense related R&D and procurement spending. As does our nation's education system.

We could stand to close a lot more overseas bases. That could be reduced by at least half. They make up a hefty chunk of operations costs, because of the stipends everyone earns for working there. That's about the only part of the defense budget that isn't a sacred cow.

At this point our primary concern should be to reduce the debt. This means putting the brakes on new programs. And auditing the ones we have in place. Legislative reform would help as well, for instance making it harder to put riders on bills.

No, making sure people are alive and smart will make sure we have a country in... 20 years.

_________________

There we have it. A solution to all of our problems baked into one sentence. Thanks for sharing!

It's crazy to me that you guys can find a way to blame Obama for our economic problems. Things would have been worse without his interventions, sirs. What short political memories we all have!

I will say the same thing I said when Bush was president: the reality is that presidents have limited power at best to affect the economy. It just helps opposing parties "win" to say it is the president's fault when things go bad.

But Fribur, you have to understand, that's politics. Politicians may have long memories, but voters usually don't. And that argument gets played out by both sides. Ultimately, Obama will take heat for not getting the economy back on track, regardless of whether its condition is fully his fault (as if it's ever fully one person's fault).

And Obama's campaign messaging is going to have to be different this time around. Running as an incumbent is very different than running as an outsider. For every "yes we can," there's going to be a "so, why haven't we?" I expect he'll try to pass the buck and blame Congress, but that's going to be a hard sell. It'll be interesting if he actually takes ownership of the problem -- but any political consultant would lose their mind if their candidate did that.

On the other hand, you can't blame the GOP's loss on poor candidate choice (at the top of the ticket, at least). McCain was a solid candidate: a senator, a former presidential candidate who had already been partially vetted, a war hero, and someone who was generally well-liked by the press and a wide group of of Americans. His campaign made some bad decisions along the way.

And I wouldn't put any money on Perry at this point. It's way too early in the cycle to declare a winner (or look like one). The sooner a candidate is on top, the sooner they'll be dragged down. Look at McCain back in 2000 or 2008, or Edwards, or Hillary Clinton.

Right now, I find it easier to come up with answers toward rejuvenating our economy than I do campaign tactics for the president. And I kinda hope he sees it the same way because that really is the tactic that'll work.

"Blame for the problem" is separate from "blame for lack of a solution".

P-a-l-i-n

P-a-l-i-n

P-a-l-i-n

And Palin was her name-o.

Jox: True, but a minor distinction when someone is in the voting booth. Particularly with someone who doesn't vote along ideological lines, it's far less about the initial cause than the lack of solution.

Well, it's more than one sentence, but yes. Reduce wasteful defense spending, apply what is needed to the deficit, put the rest toward education and healthcare. Instant Better Country.

_________________

except we have scores of idiot bureaucrats that would pass something stupid, like Obamacare, and call it good for America.

Yeah, the government doing something to help those who can't help themselves is ridiculous. It's my money and I don't want to give it to those dirty poor people.

_________________

And the nutjob continues!

Bachman wishes Elvis happy birthday on the day he died.

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/08/m ... h-day.html

I really want her to win the nomination.

Social programs are not limited to those who can't help themselves. That is part of the problem.

In a nation as wealthy as ours, I will never agree to a social program that allows a person to die simply because they are lazy.

This may be a fundamental difference between us.

adding to the problem is that the current healthcare law is covering illegals. They said it wouldn't, but according to the HHS, they are giving coverage regardless of citizenship status.

That is growing the costs of healthcare exponentially. We can not be the the leading innovator of medical sciences and then provide, for free, healthcare to the rest of the world. I am sure that you Frib, as much as you are aware of the debt, would understand how that would completely bankrupt the country.

As long as people continue using the words "In a nation as wealthy as ours, we should have X" we're going to continue seeing this downfall of the American economy. It's that people think they're entitled to so many things for being born here that's part of the problem. We HAD that because we kicked ass at one point, but we haven't for a some time now compared to the rest of the world. Now we're living on that legacy which we really have no entitlement to via debt.

There's a fine line between "letting someone die" and "doing everything within reason to save them". If someone requires us to find some obscure nutrient that is only found on Mars to live, should we immediately send a space probe worth billions of dollars to seek it out for that one life? In the same manner, there are many expensive treatments that cost REAL money, and while it's noble to save life and should be a priority, it's not necessarily something we should be able to guarantee.

Healthcare doesn't cost as much as it costs, though. Privatization of whether you live or die inherently leads to higher prices, because if the choice is live or die, no price is too high. If healthcare was priced more within the confines of the real world, Medicare/aid wouldn't cost the government near as much as it does now. The problem isn't entitlement from citizens, it's entitlement from the healthcare companies.

_________________

I would have said what randy said.

Free markets for health care don't work because there is no price too high to pay for life saving care for most people. "Whatever the market will bear" for an operation that saves your life equals everything you own, for most people.

Also, I know a lot of conservatives are in denial about this, but we haven't had the "best health care in the world" for quite some time.

No price is too high, but there is still a limit to how much people CAN pay, and how much rich people could contribute into hiking up the cost. Free market also means competition, and while people's willingness to pay will hike up the cost, with that willingness also comes a focus on the industry as more people realize where the money is. When that happens, competition increases and costs can potentially lower.

Will they always be quite a bit higher than what it costs for providers to provide the service? Sure, but is the fact that people are willing to pay high amounts to live necessarily a horrible thing? If anything, it emphasizes the importance of the care itself, and hopefully would lead to better quality and the improvement of treatments as the industry gets more crowded with driven/ambitious individuals.

I don't think anyone mentioned anything about us having the best healthcare in the world, but there have certainly been situations where specific treatments were needed where we have doctors that have specialized in them, and those were sought out at large.

Anyway, if the problem isn't entitlement from citizens, why do they feel that they shouldn't have to pay what the service is worth to them(or, at the very least, a very high price)? They're asking for government to cover that cost that they would otherwise pay. If that isn't entitlement, what is? And like Fribur said(paraphrasing, of course!), it seems that because people happened to be born into a country with the title of "United States of America", they feel they deserve more. Apparently the baby lotto wasn't enough for some people, and now they must demand more free stuff.

Do you feel it is ok for an entire family to lose their savings and their home so that one member of the family can get say... a heart transplant? It is what the market will bear, but in my opinion it is immoral to ask a family to lose everything so they can keep the life of one person.

This is, of course, assuming there is no insurance involved.

My entire objection to the earlier comment in the first place was the idea that we should not offer services to someone if they can help themselves. I am not willing to let someone die just because I think they are a poor quality person. Oh you are lazy? No food for you! No healthcare for you!

To answer the first question: Is it sad? Yea. Do I feel sorry for them? Yea, I do. I wish it didn't have to happen, and I wish the world was more fair. Whether it's immoral for it to happen, though, is questionable to me. The family has decided it is all worth it to them to keep that person alive, and understandably so. It's one of those areas where emotion and love gets involved in place of cold-hearted and calculated logic, and there's good reason for it.

I do believe that there are greater benefits from retaining competition within almost any system, however. For every family in the same situation you speak of, there may well be another family that might have found a way for someone else to survive had a competitive environment remained and a more effective method of treatment was available. Necessity is the mother of invention, and competition breeds it like nothing else.

Having a system in place which strongly encourages work on the part of individuals is a good thing, in my opinion. I'm not against having backup systems for people who fall through the cracks, but I believe having things at certain higher costs can be good motivators for people to look at themselves inwardly and think "Hey, I'd have no problem affording X if I worked hard enough." I raise my eyebrow any time I see giveaways at the cost of the taxpayer these days, and I guess that's part of where my mindset has changed over the years.

Anyway, back to the original point - I wouldn't want to be the guy standing at the deathbed of someone telling them they couldn't have treatment, no. But beyond my other point about other people dying as a result of universal healthcare - I would just say that while I would be emotionally inclined to help that person, if I were to be at every dying person's bedside every time, at some point I would have to face the reality of the world and the real world cost of healthcare.

I would rather a person have the means and freedom to attain treatment if they put their minds to it than for everyone to have substandard care.

I can't understand how someone believes this. Or maybe I just don't understand what you're saying. This isn't a rental at Redbox, it's the ability of citizens of a modern civilization to remain alive.

The government isn't the problem, the "entitled" patient who needs health care to remain alive isn't the problem. The insurance company and the HMO and the pharmaceutical companies that are the problem, as they drive the cost of the care up for the patient so everyone can report great earnings year over year. The patient just needs an operation that bears an actual soup-to-nuts cost of a few thousand dollars but carries a high-fives bill because of the free market.

The free market destroys this made up person's life, unless they had the unbelievable fortune of being rich before the fact.

_________________

Who would, given the choice, pick dying over being lazy?

Perhaps I am cold, but if such a person existed the last thing I would want to do is prolong their life. Not at the expense of people with a value to the whole. And yes, it is a zero sum game. Actually, to be correct, it is currently a negative sum game.

The whole point of the system in our society is that individuals have the opportunity to do for themselves. In what world could any system that rewards laziness with acceptance survive? The idea that we should support those who choose not to support themselves, because we are the 'richest society in the world', is obscene.

I work for a living. I pay taxes. I earn my keep. This affords me a better living standard than a willful indigent. Just as it affords me better health care. Do I think people should go entirely without? No, of course not. People are entitled to emergency care, and to be free of disease and deformity. However I do feel that we are not all deserving of the profits of others success. If I could not afford a heart transplant, that's life. And life is not obligated to be fair.

You are not alone on this, as I agree completely...

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

[quote="Sarissa"]I work for a living. I pay taxes. I earn my keep. This affords me a better living standard than a willful indigent. Just as it affords me better health care.quote]

Yeah, me too. I make a really good living and I have worked for it. But that doesn't change the fact that if I get a serious illness, my insurance company can cover what they feel is reasonable and drop me because it's not worth the risk to them. This means that any subsequent care I need will come out of my pocket at unreasonable prices and everything I've worked for will be gone. None of this will happen because I'm lazy or a willful indigent. I will have to pay high prices for medication because Astra-Zeneca needs to make earnings. I will have to pay high prices for the hospital I won't be able to leave because Texas Health Resources needs to make earnings. And I won't have any insurance coverage because United Healthcare needs to make earnings. Not because I'm lazy, and not because my taxes are any worse than yours, and certainly not because I'm poor or a minority, or any of the other drains on society you think suffer this same fate.

The unreasonable cost of healthcare is not caused by a lack of gainful employment, it's caused by the free market. Can you afford a $200,000 operation when your insurance lets you go?

_________________

The cost of healthcare is high in part because of the insurance companies AND the lawyers. Insurance companies don't want to be sued so they REQUIRE doctors and hospitals to do really unnecessary tests so that doctors can be sure that they are treating the right thing. If they make a mistake and didn't do the next test that could have told them that one time in a million that x symptoms is really Y, then they get sued. And sued for millions of dollars.

Then you add the number of people that are here illegally that go to the emergency room to get treatment for a minor issue that became a large issue. The hospital cannot turn them away, so they have to get paid by passing the costs along to those of us that have insurance.

I agree there should be something that helps people that cannot afford insurance to get medical treatment. There should also be some major tort reforms and then turn medical insurance away from having the insurance company/HMO to "pay" for everything attitude that most everyone has in this country. We need to go to the medical savings account method to meet the large majority of people's medical needs and then have insurance to pay for catastrophic issues. Then insurance would not cost so much, more people would have it, you'd have fewer people in Frib's example and access would be better because the power of purchase would be back in the consumer's hands - not an insurance company.

If you want to get ticky about it, if a person wants to have government healthcare gratis, then require them to serve in the Armed Forces. My dad is a two time cancer survivor (colon and prostate) and his care was from the VA. I'd be willing to adjust the budgets to pay for whatever veterans and service members need as to healthcare.

To have the government control it all is a bad, bad thing. Hell, Canada is trying to get their federal government OUT of the health care business. They are trying to get it to be handled by their provinces. The US Federal Government is spending on healthcare almost as much as they are on defense. Next year, the fed will be spending more on healthcare than defense (and healthcare will continue to grow using current projections) and it isn't currently budgeted to cover everyone that will be accessing it. There are projections that the budgeted cost of Obamacare is actually a trillion dollars too low. I have said it before and I am saying it again. That is money we don't have available to spend. They have not budgeted the increase in interest payments on the debt now that the credit rating has been lowered (and inflation increases).

We can't afford a single payer, government provided healthcare system.

Just gonna go ahead and quote some wikipedia here.

Germany – 53,951[2]
Italy – 9,855[2]
United Kingdom – 9,825[2]
Belgium – 1,328[2]
Turkey – 1,594[2]

The numbers are US military deployed in the respective countries. Most of the bases in Germany are to be closed in the next five years, but I'll have a hard time believing this is not wasteful spending that could be better spent keeping our people alive here.

_________________

Do you think it's the government's responsibility to prevent bad things from happening to people - and this is the important part - in every case, always?

Because you will see diminishing returns on policy designed to provide reasonable options for a majority of people. If your goal is to prevent edge scenarios from *ever* happening, not only are you after an unsustainable program - but it will just never happen.

Just like you can't build a military to prevent every possible scenario, you can't build healthcare to always prevent bad things from happening to good people. It can't be done.

I'd be happy with it just happening on a regular and predictable basis.

_________________

My point being that people having $200k in health care bills is not a common thing. If you want to build a system where that never happens, you will not accomplish it in the forseeable future.

Shooting from the hip here, but I'm pretty sure the provinces already handle their own healthcare and have for a long time.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

yep, what Argrax said.




The only reason we won't accomplish it in the forseeable future is because of politicians and regular people refusing to see that it has already been done, and it already works, in many other countries with higher life expectancies and better general overall health. Hell, some of you are going to argue with what I just said, even though it is plain as day.

It has nothing to do with it being "impossible."