Democrats & Liberals Archives

Romney Not Getting South Carolina Bounce...Yet

Three polls have come out since Romney won New Hamshire. So far there’s no bounce to be seen. Gingrich, Huntsman and Paul have all grown their support this week. Romney has actually lost almost 5 percentage points so far.

These polls tell the whole story. Rick Perry is going nowhere. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are in decline. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Jon Huntsman are on the rise.

So is South Carolina going to change the profile of the race in a way that Romney doesn't want? Maybe. Maybe not. One thing is clear though. The more the media pretends Romney is inevitable the more people on the right have started to come unglued.

South Carolina and Florida have become the final showdown for the TEA Party and the religious right. They don't want Romney but so far Romney hasn't cared at all. The problem is there is no united front against Romney. These folks can't decide who to support if not Romney. And it's clear why not. There's just no easy way to decide between Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Jon Huntsman.

Ron Paul has a core of kooky support but it's not mainstream conservatives. Newt Gingrich is stomping, pouty mad these days like a child who isn't getting the toy he wants at Wal-mart. Jon Huntsman is...well, Plain Jane Jon Huntsman.

If Mitt Romney is getting a bounce from winning Iowa and New Hampshire it hasn't showed yet. But the next vote is so far away that he has plenty of time to spend money and bolster a victory. I've convinced myself the voters will ultimately side with Romney but I'm not convinced yet they're done test driving these other guys.

We'll just have to wait and see what the polls are showing in the next 2 weeks.

Posted by Adam Ducker at January 13, 2012 8:59 PM
Comments
Comment #334470

Well, as a South Carolina resident and voter I can tell you this. We don’t like any of our choices. I suspect that Romney will win - just not very enthusiastically. That’s not to say he won’t be, ah, pleased with the vote, but the turn-out will probably continue to be on the low side.

You see, no one here really cares for the rich, obviously born-with-a-silver-spoon candidates. If you’ll pardon me, South Carolinians prefer a less clean-cut look. We’d rather have someone who at least LOOKS like he’s actually been in the trenches. And frankly none of them are very believable.

This is a blue collar state, with fairly high unemployment. We are NOT all red-necks. In fact most of us aren’t even close. We are, however, fundamentally straight-forward, down-to-earth people, who love this country, our state, and our families. We want to work, attend church (or not), spend time with our families, and keep a roof over our heads and our families heads.

We desperately need decent health care, education, jobs, and most importantly HOPE.

Frankly none of the GOP candidates seems to be offering a way for any of the needs we have. Neither are the Democrats.

We haven’t actually heard HOW any of the candidates plan to accomplish what they promise.

All they all say is that if we elect them, they’ll all help create new jobs. How do they plan to do that? Give us at least ONE firm idea. Just one.

Most of us have decided that the only way for us to take of ourselves is to forget about government, and just dig in, pray, and try to find a way to do things for ourselves.

Unfortunately, that is very much the same attitude that caused this state to succeed just like at 150 years ago. The thing is, if that were to happen, somehow, I imagine we wouldn’t be alone.

(And no I’m not making any threats! LOL)

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at January 14, 2012 3:01 AM
Comment #334474

Highlandangel1, so how do you feel about 4 more years of the Obama hope and change?

Posted by: Frank at January 14, 2012 10:47 AM
Comment #334484


The candidate that is surging in S.C. is Stephen Colbert.

Posted by: jlw at January 14, 2012 12:41 PM
Comment #334489

jlw

In Brazil they elected a clown as a deputy. His slogan was, “I can’t be any worse.” This kind of thing can seem funny but it is not really. It shows a disrespect for democracy. Unfortunately, maybe some of this disrespect is warranted.

Posted by: C&J at January 14, 2012 2:28 PM
Comment #334518

Adam, are you a member of the Tea Party or have you been to any rallies? The reason I ask is because you said the Tea Party and the religious right don’t want Romney. I belong to the Tea Party and I am part of the religious right and I have never heard this at any of the rallies. I do know that my governor in SC is a TP supporter and also supports Romney, can you explain this? How can you make claims of something you do not know?

SC is considered to be part of the Bible belt and make up the born again religious right. As far as I know, Perry would be the only candidate who would closely identify with this group; Romney and I believe Huntsman are Mormons, Santorum and Newt are Catholic, and I have no idea what Ron Paul is; but there seems to be a divided spread over all of them, so I would expect it doesn’t have anything to do with religion and most to do with conservative stand. So, you would have to ask yourself, what do conservatives believe. You say Ron Paul has kook support, but I see Ron Paul as very conservative in many areas. I’m no sure who I will vote for next week, but whoever wins, I will certainly vote for him over Obama and my church friends feel the same way. Of course, all I can speak for is myself and the conservative friends with whom I associate myself.

Posted by: Kathy at January 14, 2012 11:38 PM
Comment #334524


C&J, I guess you are referring to Romney, Bain Capital and Clear Channel.


Kathy, in 2010, when the tea party was at it’s height, they were challenging RINO’s in the primaries and winning. Romney fits that description to a tea.

This year, I have heard some, but certainly not many, evangelicals saying how important it was that the next president be an evangelical Christian.

I think when the time comes both will support the RINO Party. And once again, they will find that the RINO’s will respond as usual with rhetoric only.

We progressives are in the same boat, no representation other than rhetorical.

Let’s hope things are different this time if the Republicans win. Let’s hope the evangelicals get all the Constitutional Amendments they want and the tea party gets to shut down the social welfare state.

Posted by: jlw at January 15, 2012 12:27 AM
Comment #334525

Kathy:

I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of the TEA Party.

Your support for Romney and your support for the TEA Party is simply anecdotal. I have no doubt many will line up for Romney in the end but until then they’re going to try out other folks.

Latest poll from PPP shows what I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting the TEA Party is marching in the street protesting Romney but are more likely to support Gingrich than Romney in South Carolina. The same is true of evangelicals.

But on the other hand if you like anecdotes then here you go. South Carolina Tea Party Leader Says She Doesn’t Know Anyone ‘That Does Not Despise Mitt Romney’:

“There’s no Tea Partier that I talk to in the state or nationally that would want to promote Romney,” Martin said. “Other than the people that have come out publicly and endorsed Mitt Romney and the people left over from his 2008 campaign, I do not personally know anyone that does not despise Mitt Romney and doesn’t hate the idea of him being our nominee.”

Tea Party Nation Founder: ‘The Tea Party Will Never Rally Behind Mitt Romney’:

Tea Party Nation’s Judson Phillips appeared on Monday’s Martin Bashir and boldly declared, “The Tea Party will never rally behind Mitt Romney.”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 15, 2012 1:06 AM
Comment #334527

jlw

No - I am referring to an actual clown. He was a television personality. He won the election based on celebrity and on the idea that anybody could be a political leader.

Adam

You guys constantly say that Romney cannot get nominated because he is too moderate and cannot appeal to the TP folks. We will soon see if this is true or not.

I think you will need to change your mind. You will have to admit that TP can be moderate. Of course I am sure the TP (in this case talking points) will be different.

Posted by: C&J at January 15, 2012 6:54 AM
Comment #334528

Adam, I guess I am just having a hard time listening to you make a blanket statement that the TP or the religious right is against Romney. I have not heard any of these statements and as I said, I’m involved in both. You know as well as I do; we cannot put much faith in polls. The polls of 2010 certainly did not show a republican take over of the House, seats gained in the Senate, or the great number of state governments. Polls can be manipulated.

As far as jlw’s statement, “This year, I have heard some, but certainly not many, evangelicals saying how important it was that the next president be an evangelical Christian”; I have never heard this statement and I am highly involved in church. You should say, this is your opinion, because I surely doubt that any on the left are close enough to Christians to know their personal beliefs. Especially when it comes to making such statements as you say.

Posted by: Kathy at January 15, 2012 9:06 AM
Comment #334534

Kathy:

“I have not heard any of these statements and as I said, I’m involved in both.”

The difference is I’m not saying every single member of the evangelical right or the TEA Party is opposed to Romney. In fact large chunks of them voted for him. More so in New Hampshire than in Iowa. But I’ve showed you polling data that points out there is a dropoff of support for Romney when it comes to TEA Party versus non-TEA Party and it’s the same for evangelicals.

“You know as well as I do; we cannot put much faith in polls.”

Do do not agree with that at all. Averages of polls have been very successful at predicting primary winners. But they can’t predict accurately how undecided voters will vote so there’s always room for error even above the margin of error.

“The polls of 2010 certainly did not show a republican take over of the House, seats gained in the Senate, or the great number of state governments.”

They most certainly did show that. Generic congressional ballot alone predicted a landslide victory for the GOP

CBS News on the eve of the 2010 election:

A new USA Today/Gallup poll all but guarantees that Republicans will win the House. The latest generic ballot survey shows likely voters prefer a Republican candidate over a Democratic candidate, 55 percent to 40 percent. The 15-point gap is “unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations,” according to Gallup. The pollster’s model predicts Republicans will take anywhere from 60 House seats or more.

“Polls can be manipulated.”

Certainly, but why would they? Polls are not used to manipulate people but to inform. Why would there be a reason to misinform in this case? But look at Real Clear Politics (a conservative site) average results versus final results in Iowa and in New Hampshire.

Iowa:

* Predicted Romney would win 22.8%, final result was 24.6%
* Predicted Paul would win 21.5%, final result was 21.4%
* Predicted Santorum would win 16.3%, final result was 24.5%

New Hampshire:

* Predicted Romney would win 37.5%, final result was 39.3%
* Predicted Paul would win 17.5%, final result was 22.9%
* predicted Huntsman would win 14.5%, final result was 16.9%

Individual polls tend to be all over the board but when a site like RCP averages it out they can be very accurate.


Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 15, 2012 9:52 AM
Comment #334540

Adam,
Careful about using RCP. RCP is vulnerable to a tactic used by Rasmussen, because Rasmussen will take multiple polls with a strong GOP bias where other polling other polling companies will only take one poll. The GOP bias of Rasmussen has been statistically demonstrated, and it’s polls suffer from that bais by being the least accurate of the major pollsters. But accuracy is not the point. Rasmussen wants to push a picture of the GOP as being a winner.

C&J,
So, WaPO found ‘critics’ who ‘fact-checked’ the Gingrich attack ad and found it highly inaccurate. That’s quite an achievement, seeing as how Bain will not release any of its records, and neither will Romney. Most of the ‘fact-checking’ relies on timelines provided by… well, who knows? Except that these timelines rely on the assumption that Romney stopped participating in Bain. In truth, Romney continues receiving a lot of money from Bain to this day, and without positive proof from Bain and Romney, it’s all questionable.

Of course, Gingrich was never known for avoiding opportunities to slam people and lie. What else would you expect from a conservative’s conservative, regular pundit on FOX, and former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives?

An negative campaign by Romney won him IA and tanked Gingrich. Why didn’t WaPo ‘fact-check’ Romney for his very personal attacks on Gingrich? Could it be those ‘critics’ cited by WaPo were merely Romney operatives?

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2012 11:34 AM
Comment #334542

phx8

They would not need any internal Bain records for the fact checking. Romney left Bain to work at the Olympics on a date you can check. We assume that running the Olympics was a full time job. If he could keep running Bain, he is a lot smarter and energetic than anybody else I have ever heard of.

We can also fact check the idea that firms went bankrupt. They did or didn’t. WP points out that some of the firms “destroyed” were still in business today.

That attacks on Romney were shown to be lies. I know that some people believe in ghosts and witches, so I figure lots of people will believe this too. If you believe all that crap in the face of such strong evidence to the contrary, it says more about you than Romney.

Posted by: C&J at January 15, 2012 11:54 AM
Comment #334543

phx8

BTW - your apparent need to see irrelevant internal records at Bain is a lot like those who want to see Obama’s birth certificate or those who think 9/11 was an inside job. I have been unable to dissuade those people and maybe I will also be unable to dissuade you.

Posted by: C&J at January 15, 2012 11:56 AM
Comment #334544

Adam,
Wait. Is RCP the one that does a composite of polls?

C&J,
Romney claims he created 100,000 jobs while at Bain. He claims to be a job creator.

He did not create 100,000 jobs.

He is not a job creator. He knows nothing about how to create jobs.

It seems more likely he destroyed jobs, and shipped jobs overseas. He made a lot of profit for Bain, but there is no information coming forth from Romney or Bain on the details.

And yes, I think it is entirely possible Romney made important decisions for Bain while working at the Olympic Committee. But once again, when it comes to Romney’s business activities for most of his life, no one knows, and Romney isn’t going to release any information.

Romney wants to be president. Ok. Much of his case for being qualified is based on his private business experience. He claims he created jobs. He claims to be a job creator. He claims to understand the economy on that basis, he can spark job creation.

So, what did he do?

Bain was private, and Romney doesn’t have to say a thing or release any records. He doesn’t have to run for president, either. Personally, I would like to see candidates who do more than just claim this or that without any proof, and then expect to be elected. Saying the equivalent of ‘I wasn’t anywhere near the scene of that particular crime!’ sounds like an alibi, not a reason to be the leader of the country.

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2012 12:17 PM
Comment #334545

phx8

Maybe I can think of something as good as “birther” to call those who believe in things that aren’t there and demands records.

Posted by: C&J at January 15, 2012 12:50 PM
Comment #334546

Adam, polls show that Obama won the 2008 election with the support of independents, and recent “polls” show independents abandoning Obama; can we assume, by these polls, that Obama has no chance of winning in November? I will use the same RCP polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/21/poll_voters_expect_obama_to_lose_in_2012.html

You quote a CBS poll proclaiming a republican victory, but it was a poll taken just prior to the election. All previous polls did not show the republican victory. If you look at polls taken at least 1 month prior to the 2010 election, you will see many of the polls gave the edge to the democrat, or within the margin of error. If you back up to 10 months earlier (as we are now) the democrats were given the decided edge:

http://www.pollingreport.com/2010.htm

Polls can and are manipulated for a physiological effect on the voters. Many polls ask loaded questions and many are slanted toward democrats, for the very purpose of manipulating the data.

If phx8 is correct about Rasmussen and RCP polls, then the same can be said for polls leaning democrat.

Posted by: Kathy at January 15, 2012 12:53 PM
Comment #334547


C&J, your clown comment was in regard to Colbert. You say it shows a disrespect for democracy.

While money is free speech seeks to control democracy.

Colbert disrespects democracy while Romney seeks to buy it.

Kathy, you bring up a good point, that many evangelicals are out of touch with what the leadership is saying.

Recently, the evangelical leadership met in Texas for the purpose of uniting behind one preferably evangelical Christian candidate to prevent Romney from getting the nomination. That meeting ended in failure. Although they don’t trust Romney on evangelical issues such as abortion and gay marriage, the head of the Baptist Convention is confident that 9 out of 10 evangelicals will vote for Romney rather than Obama. It’s all about the rhetoric.

Adam, we often underestimate the roll of hypocrisy in our election process and even the American way of life.

Posted by: jlw at January 15, 2012 1:05 PM
Comment #334549

jlw, it’s not about rhetoric, it’s about confidence in a candidate. We have 2 people from the left saying opposite statements; Adam Ducker saying the TP and religious right will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon or moderate and you saying the religious right will vote for Romney because the right is uninformed. Which is it, you can’t both be right. It sounds more like a fishing expedition. I propose we vote our conscience and are well informed on the issues. Just because we don’t agree with the left, does not make us ignorant. I would say and would be willing to put religious conservatives side by side, person to person, with any of the OWS supporters and would propose that the religious right would know much more about the issues than the left leaning OWS. If the OWS represent the 99%, then they most certainly represent 100% of the left.

If many of the evangelicals are out of touch with the leadership, then you could equally say many evangelicals can think for themselves. If the evangelicals obeyed their leadership, what would we be labled as then, by the left. It’s a kind of catch 22, isn’t it? The truth is, evangelicals don’t have leaders and neither does the TP. Who is the leadership of the OWS?

Posted by: Kathy at January 15, 2012 1:29 PM
Comment #334550

Kathy:

“…can we assume, by these polls, that Obama has no chance of winning in November?”

Your poll was taken September 2011. Obama’s approval and the economy have improved some since then. But there have certainly been weeks in 2011 where I think had the election been that week Obama would have lost.

Obama does have trouble with independents this time around but time is still on his side and there isn’t a GOP nominee yet. Polling a hypothetical candidate matchup is weak at this point. We’ll have to see how the polls stand once the nominees are clear cut to decide for sure.

“All previous polls did not show the republican victory.”

Clearly the polls closest to the election are going to be more accurate. But around July 2010 the GOP took a commanding lead in the generic congressional ballot and this made it clear to most people watching closely that the GOP was headed for a landslide. I think you’ll be hard pressed to find many polls between July 2010 and November 2010 that suggested the GOP wasn’t in favor of winning big.

“If phx8 is correct about Rasmussen and RCP polls, then the same can be said for polls leaning democrat.”

The problem with Rasmussen is they don’t release cross tabs to the public and their polls always differ dramatically from other polls taken at the same time. This has been troubling to folks who study pollsters.

I don’t know why you’re trying to back me into some black and white view of polls. I don’t think every poll is 100% correct but I do trust polls for the most part and I do not agree that we cannot put much faith in them. There are different types of polls aimed at different groups of people (voters, likely voters, all people, etc.).

I don’t think the goal of polling is to manipulate people. That is just a weak argument some people take when the poll numbers don’t line up with how partisans think things should be.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 15, 2012 1:30 PM
Comment #334551

jlw

So far Obama has raised more than all the Republican candidates combined. If it is possible to buy an election, presumably it would go to the higher bidder.

Posted by: C&J at January 15, 2012 1:31 PM
Comment #334553

C&J,
I don’t see why you would find it objectionable for Romney to release records. Other recent presidential candidates have released their returns. Obama released his returns in 2008 and again for this election. McCain released his returns. They are both wealthy men.

Romney claims his business experience makes him a good candidate for president. Fine. He apparently made a huge amount of money. What did he do?

I understand Bain Capital cannot release records right now because they are under FBI investigation. It may have nothing to do with Romney. Maybe a junior clerk in Accounting committed fraud. Who knows? Nevertheless, there is plenty of other material Romney could release to make his case. Bain has been involved in companies in almost every state of the union. If it has been a good thing, Romney should be happy to publicize his achievements.

You know, you run a very real risk by dismissing concerns about Romney’s business record and financial dealings as just so much Birtherism. A candidate’s history can be extremely important to voters. Remember a guy Herman Cain?

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2012 1:44 PM
Comment #334555

Phx8

What kind of records are you talking about?

I would agree that Romney should release tax returns. It really is none of our business, but it has become a ritual.

Business records are more complicated. People can read things into them and modern lawyers will certainty find things to sue over.

Did you hear about the case of Countrywide and its supposed discrimination against blacks. I am not making this up. Countrywide is being sued because about half of the black applicants paid higher rates than the average white applicant.

I know you probably understand statistics 101, but let me explain for those who don’t. Half of any group will be below average. The same statistic would have revealed that half of the whites paid more. Of course half paid less.

That the Justice Department would take such a case shows how dishonest and racist Justice has become under Obama. What firm would want to give these politicized crooks a clear shot?

You know that they will go after Bain anyway. It is dirty politics, much like they teach in Chicago.

Posted by: C&J at January 15, 2012 2:46 PM
Comment #334559
So far Obama has raised more than all the Republican candidates combined. If it is possible to buy an election, presumably it would go to the higher bidder.

LOL Jack! What a hilarious thing to say! If Romney is elected he will be the richest president in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. He is in fact FIFTY times richer than President Obama — and 1,800 times richer than an average American. With a net worth of $250 million and with 100 million in a blind trust (those numbers based on assets he had back in 2006, so he’s likely far richer than that by now) this would mean Romney generates one million dollars EVERY MONTH after taxes.
Yet despite being so enormously rich, Romney also collected a lot of government subsidized corporate welfare:
Mitt Romney no stranger to tax breaks, subsidies

If America likes oligarchs who got rich by being a corporate raider who simultaneously loved feeding deeply from the government trough, well, they’re sure to vote for Willard Romney!

Btw, here’s something from the Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC that is almost as funny as what Jack said:
If corporations are people “then Mitt Romney is a serial killer!”
:^)

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2012 3:52 PM
Comment #334561

C&J,
Here is a link on the Countrywide story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/us-settlement-reported-on-countrywide-lending.html

B of A settled for $335 million because it was charging more to blacks and hispanics with similar credit histories to whites for the same mortgages. It has been widely reported by a number of legitimate and respected sources. Nowhere do I see any suggestion that DOJ behaved in an unjust or dishonest manner, or that it had anything whatsoever to do with dirty politics.

As for records, releasing tax returns would be a minimal expectation. Romney is far from the first very very wealthy person to run.

Bain Capital records are problematic due to an FBI investigation into an unknown area. Depending on the investigation, it may stop Romney from releasing a lot of related material. But I do think it would be a good idea for Romney to make public whatever details he can release about a single business venture, his choice. Maybe he should go to that particular town and give a speech so that he can be surrounded by thankful employees.

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2012 3:59 PM
Comment #334562

phx8:

Maybe he should go to that particular town and give a speech so that he can be surrounded by thankful employees.

Hey, that would be a very effective Youtube video campaign to run against Romney — interview a different employee every single day until the election and have them speak out about what Romney’s corporate raiding did to their lives.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2012 4:25 PM
Comment #334563

Adrienne,
That Colbert line is pretty funny!

If I were in the DNC, that’s what I would do- interview employees who lost their jobs due to Bain layoffs and outsourcing. I’d bus as many as possible to the GOP convention and have them stand together where Willard and the media can see them.

After all the talk of the 1% and the havoc wrecked upon the economy by the financial sector, it’s hard to believe the GOP will actually nominate this guy. He’s a virtual postal boy for plutocracy and the class warfare that has been waged by the rich upon the middle class and poor. We’ve seen manufacturing jobs outsourced and destroyed, and financial services make enormous amounts of money at the expense of other, providing neither goods nor services, and now the GOP wants to formally approve of that by nominating Romney? Really?

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2012 5:23 PM
Comment #334565

Frank,
You asked me about Obama Care, and Obama’s hopes to change things.

You may regret asking my opinion on this matter, as I have several rather strong ones.

Our founding fathers considered serving in politics to be a obligation, a duty, a necessary evil, if you will, not something to be sought after as a career.

Personally, I don’t believe that Obama has caused very much ‘change’. Hum, nothing actually comes to mind, except doing as promised. He said he would bring the troops home and he is. That’s really not a lot. At least not my opinion. I’ll get to the so-called Obama care in a moment.

Rick Perry has said one thing that actually I approve of: Firing all the senators and representatives and sending them home where they belong. I wouldn’t so much fire them as I would require them to spend the vast majority of their time in their home states, working at their own jobs or careers. This includes the V.P. After all, the President and V.P really shouldn’t live so close together - in case of danger.

Being paid a supplemental salary. Just like our founding fathers were. This salary would not be a replacement for their living expenses. Merely enough to reimburse them for their time in in office. Maybe around $15,000 or so. (Bet no one would run for that job.)

Instead of having them actually living in Washington, D.C. I would simply buy some decent computers and equipment, (not necessarily top brand), install some type communication system, such as skype or “go to meeting”, pay for access for proximately 3 hours a day, 3 days a week, and make them live at home. Where they are available to the people who elected them.

I suppose the President should live in Washington, simply as a matter of convenience, since presumably they no longer represent individual voters.(Just their individual parties…. heck no - make them swear not to follow any of the guidelines of their party systems except those that are obviously common sense.) (And let the American people vote on each and every one.)

He would need to be in Washington in case of war, or major weather disasters. Frankly I can’t think of any other reasons they might be needed to live in Washington. So maybe I need to re-think that part.

The senators and representatives, might may need to come to Washington, D.C. 3-4 times a year,each session lasting no more than two weeks. This cost would be at the taxpayers expense. They would no longer have need of the obscenely extravagant homes, large offices, enormous staffs, fancy cars, etc. that they use now. If they couldn’t solve their problems in two weeks, they would not be able to run for office for at least 2 years. That threat would help out with gridlock. If they can’t compromise, we don’t need them holding everything up. (This includes my irritating Senator Jim Demint)

I also believe our ‘politicians’ should not be as involved as they are in so-called “fact-finding” missions oversea, (except in rare instances) or with lobbyists. The latter would be cause for censoring, and removal from office.


The problem with my solution is the high number of people who would no longer be employed. This unemployment figure would rock the economy to it’s very core. (Just like bringing home all the troops will do shortly.)

As far as the budget crisis goes, seems like he has just continued in Bush’s footsteps. After all, we know historically that Herbert Hoover, Republican, did not cause the Great Depression. He was simply unable to control it. Rather Hoover inherited from the previous presidents.

Obama did not cause our current economic status. He inherited it from our previous presidents. Must have been G.W.Bush,(Republican) since Clinton (Democrat) left him a nicely balanced budget.

G.W. also left us in a war we didn’t or want to fight. Iraq. He chose NOT to put our manpower into the countries that were actually involved in 9/11. I.e. Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. And possibly Pakistan. Instead he sought to fight Saddam. As if Saddam had suddenly started causing trouble. Saddam was doing nothing new. The only reason Bush took us to war in Iraq was because they had offended his father, the illustrious George Bush. You remember him - the one of “no more new taxes” George.

I know all the stories about the training camps, and WMD - stories, which have to my knowledge, never been found to be totally credible.

G.W. also thought he could lower taxes while still needing the money to fight this unpopular war, etc. It doesn’t take a lot of brains to realize that you can’t pay for something you don’t have the money for.

Now about this “Obama care” objection. Frankly I was glad to see it. Even though I believe that the Supreme Court will overturn the requirement that everyone must pay for insurance.

The Republicans, to my knowledge, have no idea what to do about health care.

NOT ONE HAS COME UP WITH A PLAN, LET ALONE, A BETTER PLAN..

Instead of criticizing, why not offer an alternative?

My current, individual insurance payment is $1291.00 A MONTH..

And it’s really not insurance. It’s a policy I get under S.C. law for the uninsured. I am considered uninsurable because of my age,57.(I’m ancient!)And ONE PILL!

Now one would assume I had lots of per-existing conditions. One would be wrong. I take synthroid every day. That’s it. ONE PILL.

No cholesterol, high-blood pressure, or diabetes. No strokes, no cancer or no heart attacks. Nothing. Just a single pill for my thyroid. And a fairly low dose. I do have to be monitored 3 times a year to insure the correct dosage level. Big deal. They take my blood send it to a lab, and I pay a tremendously high co-payment. I will probably NEVER hit my deductible of $5000.

My husband is a type two diabetic. He also has high blood pressure and high cholesterol. He was also paying the same astronomical amount until he dropped our insurance, went without for 6 months, and now pays $361.00. I am hoping to do the same shortly.

This cheaper insurance is a result of companies who are afraid of Obama care, and are voluntarily changing their attitudes towards people. Perhaps I should say “older” people. Or anyone who take one or two medications on a regular basis.

I defy any of you to try to get reasonable insurance for one person, over 50 who is honest about their health. And when you are unsuccessful, I’ll show you a convert to Obama care.

I dare you,Frank. Try. Just try.

Okay. I’m finished. Finally.

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at January 15, 2012 6:32 PM
Comment #334568

phx8

re Countrywide - I have no love of them. These are the guys who gave preferential loans to guys like Dodd and Frank big contribution and specially low rates.

But the whole idea of disparate impact is bogus and racist. If you identify any group, you can find some sort of disproportional impact. It is in the nature of a statistical distribution. Half of all people always fall below the median. If you identify them as victims, you can sue.

This is indeed a form of socialism, in the old and corrupt sense. Holder’s racist Justice Department wants to eliminate all non-political criteria from any business he can attack. The man is a disgrace. Among the good thing that will happen when Obama ceases to be president is that Holder and his klan will be back where they can do less harm. But this is a side issue.

The main issue - Bain records - you and I have absolutely no right to them. You can imagine the chilling effect if the firms of anybody who runs for office must divulge all records. I doubt Romney would have the legal right to release the records, in any case.

If I was Romney, I would give the one-finger wave to the morons asking for Bain records. People like me would applaud that someone has finally stood up to the pinheads who want to go on fishing expeditions. Oh wait, a big politician has already done that.

Did Obama release records from all the places he worked? I don’t think he has even released his school transcripts. What is he hiding?

Posted by: C&J at January 15, 2012 9:03 PM
Comment #334570

phx8:

After all the talk of the 1% and the havoc wrecked upon the economy by the financial sector, it’s hard to believe the GOP will actually nominate this guy. He’s a virtual postal boy for plutocracy and the class warfare that has been waged by the rich upon the middle class and poor. We’ve seen manufacturing jobs outsourced and destroyed, and financial services make enormous amounts of money at the expense of other, providing neither goods nor services, and now the GOP wants to formally approve of that by nominating Romney? Really?

Yeah. Looks like they’re going to. But the thing is, the GOP and the Tea Party absolutely LOVE the Plutocracy, and they aren’t the type of people to care about how dishonest and unethical Romney has been in order to amass his wealth. In fact, they totally admire that, because that’s the kind of behavior they themselves actually identify with strongly. No matter how poor individuals who always vote Republican may be in reality, they know that they’d be as callous, dishonest, and unethical as Romney is if they ever had the chance to be like him. Basically, he’s their Vulture Capitalist Hero. It’s sick and twisted, but it’s obviously very true. And even though these Republicans know that Romney doesn’t care at all about how hard middle class and poor people have been struggling in this ecconomy (even including people just like themselves) they know that they wouldn’t give a rats ass about anybody either if they were a multi-millionaire just like Willard.

Btw, more horrible-character revealing dirt coming out about “The Bain Way” of doing business when Romney was directly at the helm:
When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond

Also, Romney is now making an attempt to pay a bit of lip service with a stated “concern for the poor”, even though everything he’s said he’ll do as president will only help the rich and further hurt struggling people more than they already have been.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2012 10:06 PM
Comment #334572

Highlandangel1,

I personally have two friends who are still alive due to the Affordable Care Act. I’ll tell you the story of just one of those friends of mine.
He was diagnosed with Cancer in 2010, which forced him to stop working and touring (he’s a professional musician). The type of cancer he had was Multiple Myeloma, or cancer of the bone marrow.
Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act he was not able to afford health insurance, but was able obtain the insurance he needed because of Obama Care — for which he says he will always be eternally grateful. Without that insurance he would simply not have been able to get the Stem Cell Transplant which saved his life. He underwent the procedure this past May, and so far it seems to have been completely successful. He now grows stronger with every passing day — he just had another birthday, and is filled with light and love!

Obama Care may not have gone nearly as far as it should have for the American people, but nonetheless it IS saving the lives of untold numbers of our fellow citizens — people just like my friend. If or when it is repealed by the Republicans (The supposedly “Pro-Life” Party of NO), the reign of death, courtesy of the heartlessness and greed of the health insurance industry will once again resume.

When people vote in November, they should take such vital factors into careful consideration.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2012 10:40 PM
Comment #334574

Highlandangel1, I can agree with you on many of your points; especially the ones about the politicians spending most of their time in their respective states. But that would mean they would have to give up all the kiss-ass parties and lobbyist perks. For some reason, being sent to DC and a Rep or Senator makes people become really stupid.

Since I am almost 10 years older than you, I can understand the insurance issue; but tort reform and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would have done much more to curb insurance costs, than obamacare. All obamacare will do is cause a shortage of health workers and medicines.

Re/ Afghan/Iraq/Pakistan and the rest: turning Iraq or Afghan into a sea of glass would have worked as a great deterrent to any more problems.

Posted by: Frank at January 15, 2012 11:04 PM
Comment #334575

Shall we go ahead and call it for Willard? Or should we hold off and wait and see if Gingrich wins SC?:

Huntsman to drop out of GOP race, endorse Romney

Looks like Big Daddy Huntsman was tired of throwing money at Jon’s campaign. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that Huntsman was angling for the Romney VP slot — but that’s not going to happen because then it would be a solidly Mormon ticket. No, Romney has got to choose an Evangelical Republican due to the fact that his religion is an extremely serious drawback for him amongst the fanatical, narrowly Christian TeaOP base.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2012 11:12 PM
Comment #334576

Highlandangel,
Good comment. I know what you’re talking about. I could go on and on about it… I have a ‘pre-existing condition,’ pins and a metal plate in my ankle. Although I can run a mile, do yoga, and lift weights, I am a risk to have surgery to have the pins and plate removed. I really, really dislike the private health insurers. Medicare for all. It’s the only sensible solution.

Adrienne,
I’m sorry to say I know about bone marrow cancer. I knew a kid, Cody, who grew up with my son and was his college roommate freshman year. The guy died at the age of 21. A friend of my wife’s survived the cancer, but it was an excruciating experience. He said if it recurred, he would not let it be treated. Too painful.

Moving right along…

The VP question is an interesting one. I don’t think Romney will choose an evangelical. They don’t like him, and I’m sure he doesn’t like them either. He could put that aside, but why bother? It’s not like they are going to vote for someone else.

I think he will go with a candidate like General Petraeus, someone with military and foreign policy experience.

I’m hoping Obama will replace Biden with Hillary Clinton. The only question is whether she will want to run in 2016. She’s said that after this, she’s done. Does she mean it?

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2012 12:17 AM
Comment #334607

Kathy

Concerning Ron Paul and his spirituality.

His web site says:

‘Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.’

That is a pretty clear position.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 16, 2012 2:12 AM
Comment #334610

C&J,

Your criticism of the discrimination suit against Countrywide makes absolutely no sense. The statistical contrast is between the mean outcome of similarly qualified applicants differentiated only by race/ethnicity, etc. It is not a comparison of the lower qualified half of black applicants to some overall outcome or to overall white outcomes. That would be absurd. There are legitimate criticisms of the disparate outcome approach to discrimination suits, but this is not one.

Posted by: Rich at January 16, 2012 9:46 AM
Comment #334613

Tom Humes, thanks for the info on Ron Paul.

Most of those, on the left, refuse to answer questions. They simply pick a talking point and run with it. I appreciate your response.

Posted by: Kathy at January 16, 2012 10:15 AM
Comment #334616

Tom Humes:

Obama has made similar statements of faith. Is that clear as well that he’s a Christian?

Kathy:

I’m willing to discuss almost any topic with you for as long as you wish. What is and isn’t a talking point is open to debate.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 16, 2012 10:36 AM
Comment #334620

Kathy,
What question did you ask that you feel went unanswered? What issue did you raise that you felt did not receive a response? For example, you cut and paste this commnet, and provided the link:

“If this is really the best that Think Progress, Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, the Daily Kos, Rick Perry and the rest of the country’s know-nothings can come up with to smear Mitt Romney’s business career, they had better give it up before they make complete fools of themselves.”

I replied to you:

“I have great news for you! These attacks were launched by Gingrich and Perry because they apply to South Carolina, but Bain has done the same thing in almost every state in the union. Isn’t that wonderful! Because when the Democratic Party gets involved, it won’t be just a $5 million dollar campaign like the one by Newt- it will be have hundreds of millions of dollars behind it, and it will be nationwide, it will be researched and documented, it will be relentless, and there will be lines of people available for videotaped interviews describing what happened to them when Mitt Romney Came to Town.”

Perhaps you have something else in mind?

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2012 11:12 AM
Comment #334624

Rich

Correlation is not causality. Many loans are now made over internet, w/o anybody even meeting. I do most of my business this way and I get very good rates of interest on loans and credit cards. Nobody knows my race. In fact, I think that most of the calculations are done by machines.

To the extent we can identify differing behaviors among groups - which approaches a tautology otherwise we could not identify groups - we must expect different results.

Using statistical distributions in the way Justice does here is simply dishonest or stupid. I am prepared to believe that Holder is both, but the professionals should know better.

I get good rates on my loans because I take the time to figure them out. This path is open to all. If you want a loan, go to www.Schwab.com. They won’t know your race when they make the offer.

Posted by: C&J at January 16, 2012 12:12 PM
Comment #334625

As a voter in SC I have been bombarded with mail and phone calls from the Republican contenders. They are driving me batty. I came home from work yesterday to find 9 mailings from various candidates, and 17 telephone messages supporting candidates. I don’t care if Anna from Columbia, or Joe from Charleston thinks I should vote for their candidate. I don’t know Anna or Joe!

The Super-pacs behind most of the junk mail and phone calls are not really doing much good as far as I am concerned. Instead of pushing me toward a candidate, I find myself being pushed away from all of them. If they would simply put their funds into the deficient, I suspect it could be paid down in a hurry. They appear to be trying to solve the Post Office’s crisis all by themselves. And I am convinced, they all have stock in my phone company.

At this point, I find I will probably vote for the candidate who has bugged me the least. I know of several friends who feel the same way, and are threating not to vote at all! Will this mayhem cease and desist once and for all! Romney, Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum -take my advice. Go jump in a lake somewhere far away from SC.

About the voters of SC. There is an article on CNN.com that basically says it all. The number of younger voters in SC don’t turn out in as much as the older voters do.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/16/opinion/frum-south-carolina-generations/index.html?eref=rss_politics&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

I believe that is a shame, and with the new law requiring photo IDs, there may well be even less. It is up to the older, (not necessarily wiser) voters to vote cautiously, and with much fore-thought, as we actually represent most of SC.

I don’t know why everyone is so concerned about the Evangelical vote in SC. We are not all Evangelicals, nor are we all the red-necks most of the USA seems to think we are. We are simply hard working people, who believe in the family unit, not necessarily the nuclear family, who try to help our neighbors in time of need, care for the environment (it’s been supporting SC for years), and want a better life for our children.

Frankly, I find myself among the ranks of those wishing there were someone else to chose from.


Posted by: Highlandangel1 at January 16, 2012 12:55 PM
Comment #334627

phx8:

The VP question is an interesting one. I don’t think Romney will choose an evangelical. They don’t like him, and I’m sure he doesn’t like them either. He could put that aside, but why bother? It’s not like they are going to vote for someone else.

I think he will go with a candidate like General Petraeus, someone with military and foreign policy experience.

While I agree that Romney would probably personally prefer to pick someone like Petraeus, I really think he absolutely HAS to pick an evangelical running mate if he wants to gather up all the votes of the TeaOP base. I think it’ll probably have to be an evangelical southerner, or perhaps someone like Rick Santorum — who just won the big jackpot by getting a giant all-around endorsement from the conservative christian leadership.
The way I see it, Romney has got just too many things going against him when it comes to the Republican base otherwise. Actually, it’s much like it was with John McCain (I see so many parallels!). The GOP base didn’t like him at all either, and they definitely didn’t consider him to be properly christian enough — but once he picked Sarah Palin to spout all the rightwing evangelical stuff on his behalf, they were a lot more willing to climb aboard.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 16, 2012 1:04 PM
Comment #334629

Adrienne,
Well, we’ll see. Romney will need to make the election a referendum on Obama. His campaign manager is an opposition researcher, and Romney will do the same thing to Obama that he did to Gingrich- go negative, negative, negative. Why not? It’s not like Romney actually stands for anything.

The intent will be to discourage people from voting, to turn people off, just like Highlandangel. That will be the point of going negative, and all the various Republican voter ID laws for restricting turnout. Romney will need to make sure young voters and poor voters do NOT show up at the polls. If they do, he’s cooked.

Usually, a VP acts as an attack dog, to spare the candidate the indignity of making unpleasant accusations, such as Palin’s suggestion that Obama was “paling around with terrorists.” Petraeus would be a poor choice in that regard. Gingrich would be a logical choice, but like virtually everyone else, Gingrich can’t stand Romney. Same goes for Perry. Same goes for Huckabee. To paraphrase what a fellow named Robert Taft once said about another presidential candidate:

“You really have to get to know Romney to dislike him.”

Really, it’s hard to think of any VP candidates who would do Romney much good. The few who might can’t stand the guy.

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2012 1:48 PM
Comment #334631

phx8

Reelection campaigns always should be a referendum on the sitting president. We cannot be sure what we will get, but we have seen what we have got.

Of course, we do also have to consider the challenger. But the main question is whether you are happy with the sitting president.

Of course, we know why Democrats don’t want to make it a referendum on Obama.

Re requesting IDs from voters - I know we always try to repeat the homilies that everybody should vote, but I don’t agree. If you cannot be bothered to show up at the polls you probably should let people more interested than you are make the choices.

Posted by: C&J at January 16, 2012 2:10 PM
Comment #334632

tom humes re:Ron Paul’s spirituality

‘Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.’

That might somehow sound believable to you, but I’m not buying this for a single minute. Ron Paul has admitted that the philosophy of Ayn Rand had a formative influence upon his views. But Ayn Rand was an atheist, and sadly, she was also a high functioning sociopath whose philosophy held individual self interest (greed is good) as the absolute highest value. A philosophy that declared that society is nothing and that people owe nothing to society, nor to any human being other than themselves.

That is a pretty clear position.

Paul being a follower of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and that of Jesus Christ at the same time makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Rand’s philosophy does not square with the teachings of Jesus — indeed the two are diametrically opposed. Because Rand’s entire attitude and teachings are in fact the antithesis of what is outlined in the Sermon on the Mount. So I don’t think it’s at all clear what Ron Paul actually believes.

Btw some recent news about Ron Paul:
Ron Paul bills taxpayers $50,000 for first class flights

What was it that Paul said to Santorum in the last debate?
Oh yeah: “You’re a big spender, that’s all there is to it.” Well, looks like Paul can sometimes be a big spender too, at least when it comes to flying first class anyway.
I’m sure Ayn Rand would have applauded this though…

Posted by: Adrienne at January 16, 2012 2:16 PM
Comment #334633

C&J,
The voter ID votes are not being passed in order to make it easier or harder to vote. They are being passed to prevent people who do not have photo ID’s from voting, namely people who do not have driver licenses, the very young and the very old; likely Obama voters.

I think most Democrats would be fine with an election that is a referendum on Obama. It will be that way. But like polls that posit a generic candidate versus an actual one, the generic candidate usually does better. With Romney as the actual candidate- a virtual poster child for plutocracy, as well as a financial sector that outsources and destroys jobs, produces nothing, yet sucks huge amounts of money out of the economy- the referendum should work out just fine for Democrats.

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2012 2:26 PM
Comment #334634

phx8:

The voter ID votes are not being passed in order to make it easier or harder to vote. They are being passed to prevent people who do not have photo ID’s from voting, namely people who do not have driver licenses, the very young and the very old; likely Obama voters.

Don’t forget the inner city poor people (of all ages, and also likely Obama voters) who can’t afford to own cars, and have always had to rely on public transportation.

With Romney as the actual candidate- a virtual poster child for plutocracy, as well as a financial sector that outsources and destroys jobs, produces nothing, yet sucks huge amounts of money out of the economy- the referendum should work out just fine for Democrats.

It really is kind of amazing, isn’t it? That it now seems so likely that the GOP is going to choose to run a slick, insanely rich corporate elitist like Romney whose rhetoric and platform caters solely to 1%er’s like himself — and directly following the rise of OWS…!

Posted by: Adrienne at January 16, 2012 2:51 PM
Comment #334636

“Using statistical distributions in the way Justice does here is simply dishonest or stupid. I am prepared to believe that Holder is both, but the professionals should know better.”

C&J,

The allegations of disparate discriminatory practices were not originally brought by the Obama Justice Department. The allegations were originally made by the Federal Reserve Board in 2007 after an analysis of loans issued by Countrywide beginning in 2004 and referred to the Justice Department in 2007 for prosecution. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/279013-fed-on-cfc-charging-minorities-more.html

Posted by: Rich at January 16, 2012 2:57 PM
Comment #334639

Rich

The whole concept of disparate impact is wrong-headed as proof. If you notice such a pattern, you might check further, but never use the correlation as proof.

Have you noticed that blacks are represented way out of line with their numbers in places like entertainment and sports? Disparate impact, if applied the sports, would literally change the face of basketball and football. On a team of five players, we should expect at least four to be white. Do you know of such a team in the NBA?

The irony is that “discrimination” - as seen in disparate impact - seems to be strongest in places where race is NOT readily apparent but non-existent or very much pro-minority in place where race is easily detected, i.e. sports, fashion & entertainment.

Phx8

Seriously, do you know anybody who does not have a driver’s license, student ID, military ID or any of the scores of acceptable forms of identification. Those who don’t have such things can get one from the state authorities.

I always find it interesting that Democrats think the the stupidest losers are the ones who vote in large numbers for Democrats. These are the guys who cannot find polling places, don’t have IDs, can’t read ballots etc. Personally, I think that such people probably do tend to vote Democrat. Those who cannot read, don’t pay attention and are generally stupid …

Posted by: C&J at January 16, 2012 5:17 PM
Comment #334644

“Have you noticed that blacks are represented way out of line with their numbers in places like entertainment and sports?”

C&J,

The statistical comparison is between equally qualified applicants on relevant criteria. Do you honestly think that the Federal Reserve is incapable of applying such statistical analysis appropriately? Holder’s DOJ didn’t do the analysis, the Fed did!

The truth of the matter is simple: blacks and other minorities received less favorable mortgage terms than equally situated whites on objective criteria from Countrywide. If you read the link that I provided, you would understand that the Fed took into consideration alternative explanations. You would also consider the fact that B of A settled the suit without contesting the merits. It simply said that it occurred prior to its takeover of Countrywide and has put in place procedures to avoid such outcomes in the future.

As for your analogy, if equally qualified white basketball players based on relevant criteria (college scoring averages, rebounds, blocks, winning records, physical skills, etc.) were underrepresented on professional teams or were paid less than black athletes then there would be evidence of discriminative, disparate treatment against whites. But, there is no such evidence. The fact that some sports or fields of entertainment are dominated by minorities in a white majority society is hardly evidence of disparate and discriminative racial treatment. If anything, it is evidence that sports provide a level playing field and that minority athletes can thrive based upon their merit.

Discriminative, disparate treatment analysis is not based upon the idea that outcomes should be consistent with general population variables. It is based upon the concept that outcomes should be reasonably consistent with relevant objective criteria. People making the same amount of money with equivalent credit scores should have reasonably equivalent mortgage financing offers.


Posted by: Rich at January 16, 2012 7:46 PM
Comment #334645

All those people who are in a situation that they don’t have a pix ID amaze me. Maybe it is just a talking point.

Most of those referenced as disadvantaged would probably receive food stamps, welfare in general, and have to show a pix ID to get those benefits.

So what is the problem.

It there are those who genuinely fit that stereotype of person it would take hardly any effort at all for the local government to supply at no charge a picture ID. After all they spend a whole lot more on many a wasteful item.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 16, 2012 7:55 PM
Comment #334646

Tom Humes, It amazes me how stupid some are to realize that to get most government handouts you need a picture ID, to cash a check, open a bank account and many other everyday tasks. But to have to show that same ID to vote they get all flustrated and say that it is preventing them from doing their right to vote and all kinds of other excuses if they don’t have an ID.

Posted by: KAP at January 16, 2012 8:37 PM
Comment #334648

Rich

We should judge individuals by the contents of their characters and not the color of their skins.

The Fed applied the rule of disparate impact. It did not take into account behaviors. Specifically did not.

It is as if you take all the people qualified to play basketball but do not differentiate them.

The whole logic of disparate impact is flawed. It applies group standards to individuals and then brings it back to the group.

The problem with disparate impact is you do not need to find any actual cases of discrimination. The “equality” is dubious.

What about cases of affirmative action? you find that white and Asian applicants with higher scores and grades are passed over in favor of Hispanics and blacks with lower scores.

I saw this happen personally. My daughter was born in South America, so I sometimes used to check the box “origins in Latin America?. When we came to Virginia, I tried to get her into the gifted program. She was rejected because she had not been in before. Too bad. A couple weeks later I got a letter addressed to Juan. The school thought my daughter was Hispanic and offered her a place. Her abilities had no changed.

IMO - the over-representation of minorities in sports and entrainment - where race is very apparent - indicates a general lack of discrimination.

BTW - what does it mean to be equally qualified? In sports, they best “statistical players” are not always the ones you want.

Tom

“It there are those who genuinely fit that stereotype of person it would take hardly any effort at all for the local government to supply at no charge a picture ID. After all they spend a whole lot more on many a wasteful item. “

They DO. There is no trouble getting IDs. You can probably count the people w/o some kind of ID on one hand. People have IDs, but don’t want to show them if they are planning to vote more than once.

Posted by: C&J at January 16, 2012 9:30 PM
Comment #334651

I don’t know of anyone who has ever been prevented from voting due to lack of ID. Then again, I live in Oregon, where we vote by mail, so the problem does not come up.

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2012 10:03 PM
Comment #334654

Well phx8 I live in Ohio and we have to put SS# or Id# on the form to get our vote by mail ballots so even there we have to have some form of ID.

Posted by: KAP at January 16, 2012 10:27 PM
Comment #334655
You can probably count the people w/o some kind of ID on one hand.

As long as the number of these people is nonzero, these ID laws are unconstitutional because they are basically a poll tax for people without IDs.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 17, 2012 11:22 AM
Comment #334656

Warped Like I said some will come up with some kind of stupid excuse for not requiring ID. So by your thinking it would be OK for an illegal to vote or some one to vote multiple times.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2012 12:01 PM
Comment #334657


A group of Republicans just tried to vote illegally in New Hampshire and got caught. Let’s hope the receive jail time.

Posted by: jlw at January 17, 2012 2:12 PM
Comment #334658

If it’s true jlw I hope they do, and any Democrats along with them.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2012 2:17 PM
Comment #334659
OK for an illegal to vote or some one to vote multiple times.

No it wouldn’t be OK. For many years we haven’t required photo IDs to vote and we haven’t had any of those problems.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 17, 2012 2:25 PM
Comment #334661

Well warped we have photo ID’s for everything else, why not be safe voting area. Illegal voters have turned up in some areas so I see no reason why having a photo ID to vote is a problem. If it’s a problem for you then you are a problem.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2012 2:39 PM
Comment #334666


Kap, the group of Republicans were out to prove that people vote illegally and they got caught.

Since 2000, there has been one case of voter fraud in New Hampshire, now there are a few more.

I am not totally unsympathetic to voter id’s, if the taxpayers are going to pay for them and the states make a good effort to issue the id’s and encourage all citizens to vote.

But, I am totally unsympathetic to the Republican voter fraud argument. Even when Republicans produce evidence of voter fraud, they are isolated incidents and few of them.

It has gotten to the point where Republicans are pulling stupid stunts, like in New Hampshire, in an attempt to convince others that massive voter fraud is a problem.

Electronic voting machines are a bigger voter fraud issue, and I remember when Ohio Republicans, especially Ken Blackwell, were in love with casting out ballots for a hanging chad. Provisional ballots as well, thousands were trashed by Blackwell. Here is some more voter fraud, Ohio has become one of the most Republican gerrymandered states in the union.

Posted by: jlw at January 17, 2012 5:39 PM
Comment #334670

jlw, how about the Democrats who were caught stuffing ballot boxes in N.Y. Voter fraud is not just a one party thing both have their share of lets say illegalities when it comes to elections. If requiring an ID to cast a vote is the answer then so be it.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2012 7:12 PM
Comment #334673
we have photo ID’s for everything else, why not be safe voting area

Unlike those other things voting is an inalienable rights.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 17, 2012 7:42 PM
Comment #334676

With those inalienable rights comes responsibility Warped. If that right is being abused then we have to correct it and if it takes a photo ID then so be it. If we continue with the lefts lame excuses for voting then we can expect that right to be abused by those who are not elligible to vote such as illegals and people voting numerous times and some people stuffing ballot boxes as did some Democrats in N.Y.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2012 9:08 PM
Comment #334677

By the way Warped, I vote through the mail and before I get my ballot I have to fill out a paper and send it back to the headquarters and that paper must have either my SS # or drivers license # on it for verification. I do not complain about providing that info because if it curbs voter fraud or some other discrepency then so be it.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2012 9:15 PM
Comment #334678


Kap, I googled Democrats caught stuffing ballot boxes in New York and got nothing.

Posted by: jlw at January 17, 2012 9:38 PM
Comment #334680
With those inalienable rights comes responsibility Warped. If that right is being abused then we have to correct it
Bearing arms is an inalienable right that some people abuse, does this justify curbing those rights for law abiding citizens? Posted by: Warped Reality at January 17, 2012 9:40 PM
Comment #334681

Try voter fraud Troy N.Y. jlw

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2012 10:16 PM
Comment #334682

Warped you just shot yourself in the foot with that last comment because you have to show a PHOTO ID to buy a gun unless you buy it illegally like voting illegally. Plus the paper work and background check.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2012 10:19 PM
Comment #334683
you have to show a PHOTO ID to buy a gun unless you buy it illegally like voting illegally. Plus the paper work and background check.

Not at a gun show.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 17, 2012 10:33 PM
Comment #334685

If it’s a pistol don’t get caught with it because you’ll never get a permit to carry it Warped unless you register it and guess what you need to do that. Rifles and shot guns are a different animal not to many people will want to walk down city streets carrying one.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2012 10:43 PM
Comment #334686
If it’s a pistol don’t get caught

The same could be said regarding illegal voting.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 17, 2012 11:46 PM
Comment #334687

Hence the photo ID warped. Illegal voting would be minimized.

Posted by: KAP at January 17, 2012 11:52 PM
Comment #334689
Illegal voting would be minimized.

Illegal voting is already minimized. The only thing the ID would do is impose the equivalent of a poll tax on certain individuals.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 18, 2012 12:56 AM
Comment #334692

WR, I don’t know how many gun shows you have been to, but if you buy a gun at a gunshow, you are required to go through the same background check as you would if buying from a gunstore. That is a fact. If you are buying a gun from an individual: gunshow, swap trade, garage sale, etc.; it is up to the laws of the state. Some states require paper work and identification and others not. Only FFL dealers are required to do a background check, and most sales at gunshows are dealers who have tables set up in order to sell guns.

SS#, and driver’s license ID is required for a background check.

Futhermore, every state that passes a voter ID requirement draws out the same old liberal BS about cheating some people out of their right to vote. Ohio is a state that requires a voter ID and when we passed that law, we heard the same old crap from liberals; but the law passed and it works fine.

Re/poll tax: if you are saying the voter has to pay for an ID, again you are incorrect. If one does not have a drivers license, one can get a voter ID at no charge.

The only possible reason for liberals to make such a big deal about something that is working in a majority of states, is because they want to allow voter fraud. Perhaps WR would have no problem with a crook writing a check in his name and the bank just cashing it, no questions asked. If I cash a check in Ohio or Florida (the 2 states I live in), I am required to show a picture ID.

Posted by: Frank at January 18, 2012 8:11 AM
Comment #334694

That poll tax is just an excuse. Everyone is required to have a picture ID for everyday things. Alsio illegal voting has been minimized because of states that require ID to vote.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2012 9:22 AM
Comment #334695

That is just a BS excuse POLL TAX Warped. You liberals will come up with any excuse.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2012 9:26 AM
Comment #334696

That’s a BS excuse warped.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2012 9:46 AM
Comment #334698

Warped

That is a warped excuse. lol

Posted by: tom humes at January 18, 2012 10:40 AM
Comment #334704

Frank + KAP + tom humes,

Some states require paper work and identification and others not.
OK, so an ID isn’t required to buy a gun in all jurisdictions. It doesn’t have to be at a gunshow, but gunshows are the most prominent example of individuals (not official dealers) buying and selling guns without establishing the customer’s identity.
Re/poll tax: if you are saying the voter has to pay for an ID, again you are incorrect. If one does not have a drivers license, one can get a voter ID at no charge.

In Harman v. Forssenius the Supteme Court ruled that a Virginia requirement for voters to file a certificate of residency (at no charge) violated the 24th Amendment.

Here’s an excerpt from the opinion:

Construing the statutes in the manner least burdensome to the voter, it would seem that the voter could either obtain the certificate of residence from local election officials or prepare personally ‘a certificate in form substantially’ as set forth in the statute. The certificate must then be filed ‘in person, or otherwise’ with the city or county treasurer. This is plainly a cumbersome procedure. In effect, it amounts to annual re-registration which Virginia officials have sharply contrasted with the ‘simple’ poll tax system. 21 For many, it would probably seem far preferable to mail in the poll tax payment upon receipt of the bill. In addition, the certificate must be filed six months before the election, thus perpetuating one of the disenfranchising characteristics of the poll tax which the Twenty-fourth Amendment was designed to eliminate. We are thus constrained to hold that the requirement imposed upon the voter who refuses to pay the poll tax constitutes an abridgment of his right to vote by reason of failure to pay the poll tax.

The 24th amendment eliminates all cost barriers to voting whether they be monetary or not.

Perhaps WR would have no problem with a crook writing a check in his name and the bank just cashing it, no questions asked. If I cash a check in Ohio or Florida (the 2 states I live in), I am required to show a picture ID.

Cashing a check isn’t a constitutional right. The decision to require an ID is made by the bank, not the government. Voting is an inalienable right and someone’s rights should never be abridged.

Also illegal voting has been minimized because of states that require ID to vote.
Any proof to back up that statement? I believe the level of illegal voting in those states is the same today as it was before those laws: the level is zero or very close to zero.
That is a warped excuse. lol
tom, that’s the most creative rebuttal that I’ve ever read. Posted by: Warped Reality at January 18, 2012 12:56 PM
Comment #334706

Your right Warped a poll tax should be outlawed but a Photo ID is NOT a poll tax and requiring one to vote goes with the other parts of voting requirements such as proving residency, age, and showing you are who you say you are. So your poll tax excuse is still BS. How many people in this country don’t have some form of ID? I’ll bet it’s not very many because to get any government hand outs you need one.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2012 1:14 PM
Comment #334711

Let me interject here.

To show a picture ID to purchase liquor is therefore an excise tax.

To show a picture ID to do a bank transaction is therefore either a Fed Reserve tax or an IRS tax or some other creative tax.

To show a picture ID to get welfare is a poor tax.

To get a picture on your DL would be a priviledge tax.

And on and on.

The poll tax argument would not stand in Poland. Sorry Jack, no snub intended.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 18, 2012 1:47 PM
Comment #334712
a Photo ID is NOT a poll tax

In Harman v. Forssenius said a certificate of residence was equivalent to a poll tax. What is the difference between a certificate of residence and a photo ID.

requiring one to vote goes with the other parts of voting requirements such as proving residency, age, and showing you are who you say you are.
The time to prove one’s qualifications to vote is when one registers to vote, not when one shows up at the polling place to cast a ballot.
How many people in this country don’t have some form of ID?
About 11% of Americans do not have a photo ID
I’ll bet it’s not very many because to get any government hand outs you need one.

There are plenty of people who do not receive assistance from the government, and consequently don’t have a photo ID.

In any case as long as the number of people without a photo ID is nonzero then the law is unconstitutional. You simply cannot abridge anyone’s rights. If it were true that only a small number of individuals would be affected, it would still be a lousy excuse. We are endowed by our Creator with these rights and they cannot be taken away in this manner.

Posted by: Warped Reality at January 18, 2012 1:55 PM
Comment #334714

WR, you’re beating a dead horse on the showing ID’s at gun shows; every gun, bought by any citizen, at any gun show, in any state, requires an ID and FBI background check. If a gun is sold by a dealer in any other way, it is illegal and can only be done with the approval of te FBI and the ATF (as was done in fast and furious). Any gun, bought by any person, in any state, from a private citizen is legal; except for states requiring a bill of sale and transfer of the weapon (i.e. Illinois, run by liberals and intent on infringing on the rights of Americans).

Re/ voter ID: one last time (I will try to make this simple); if a voter does not have a driver’s license or picture ID, they can get one at the DMV for FREE. No fee is charged….

Posted by: Frank at January 18, 2012 2:06 PM
Comment #334715

I did have to show ID or at least put on the form my SS# or photo ID# if you don’t have either you can’t register. So if you don’t register you don’t vote so your poll tax excuse is still BS. YOU NEED SOME FORM OF ID TO REGISTER TO VOTE AND CHECKING THAT ID AT THE POLLING STATION IS NOT A POLL TAX. IT’s still BS WARPED

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2012 2:15 PM
Comment #334717

By the way warped out of those 11% I’ll bet there is a good persentage that are either to lazy or to stupid to get an ID.

Posted by: KAP at January 18, 2012 2:38 PM
Comment #334722

That 11% may be children who don’t need a photo ID, such as a 2 year old or any pre-school person.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at January 18, 2012 3:55 PM
Comment #334727

Here’s a good one; Pelosi supported OWS and now that one of those degenerates threw a smoke bomb at the WH; Pelosi is distancing herself from the OWS:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71577.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/17/pelosi-actually-we-dont-have-much-of-a-connection-to-occupy-wall-street/

This woman is an absolute dingbat: who still supports OWS? Not many.

Posted by: Frank at January 18, 2012 5:03 PM
Comment #334742


Most of the OWS consider Pelosi a traitor and their message of inequality is catching on. Now it isn’t just Democrats that are trying to cosy up to the message.

Republicans who talk about inequality are labeled traitors as well. They are denounced as engaging in class warfare by those who believe that only the wealthy are allowed to engage in that.

Contrary to a popular conservative belief, class warfare is a two way street. What is best for the wealthy is what is best for all is not a logical assumption.

Posted by: jlw at January 18, 2012 7:08 PM
Comment #334744

I love the way liberals support their socialist politicians, as long as the politicians agree with the liberal base; but when they don’t, well….let’s see how long it takes to throw them under the bus. Nancy Pelosi, WATCH OUT FOR THOSE BUS TIRES!

Bob Beckle, ardent extreme liberal, on Foxes “The Five” tonight, admitted the democrat’s social welfare program of several decades ago, and govenment housing, was a complete failure…go figure. Now, tell us…what does the left think of Bob Beckle now?

Posted by: Frank at January 18, 2012 7:42 PM
Comment #334752


And, conservatives just love their, noses glued to the anatomy parts of the 1%, politicians as well.

Bob Beckle, extreme liberal hero of conservatives. Is that the same Bob Beckle, extreme liberal that was singing the praises of Rick Santorum? Yes, I watch the B.S. show. It doesn’t seem to have the same affect on me.

To be fair and balanced, MSNBC will need an extreme conservative pundit that denounces Republican policies.

Frank, Are you saying you would support your fascist politicians even if they didn’t agree with you?

Posted by: jlw at January 18, 2012 9:18 PM
Comment #334756


Welfare programs of decades ago?

By the way Frank, In case you don’t know this, many on the left agree with Beckel that the welfare programs of decades ago had serious flaws. I particularly didn’t care for cramming poor Americans into government project housing and the rules that were very detrimental to families.

Another by the way, much of that was replaced by the Republican/Clinton welfare program one and a half decades ago.

The OWS recognizes that Democrats like Pelosi are a part of bought and paid for Republican/Democratic created corpocracy that is responsible for the growing inequity in America.

Unfortunately enough of Pelosi’s constituency doesn’t want to believe, it’s those other Congress persons that are the bad guys, not Nancy.

A lot of Republicans feel the same way about their representatives don’t they?

Posted by: jlw at January 18, 2012 11:03 PM
Comment #334757

Well, well, well — isn’t this special?!!!

Romney hiding millions in dozens of secret offshore accounts: report

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been hesitant to disclose his tax records and personal finances, and now it might be clear why: the former Massachusetts Governor has hidden tens of millions from the U.S. Treasury in secret offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands, according to ABC News.
Romney has invested over $33 million in more than a dozen funds
Bain Capital, holds 138 accounts in the Cayman Islands.

Having to pay only 15 percent on his enormous income just isn’t good enough for Romney, so he hides millions in multiple tax havens. Even though his income tax rate is far lower than what the majority of Americans are made to pay (19 percent).

Posted by: Adrienne at January 18, 2012 11:28 PM
Comment #334758

Adrienne,
I don’t think Republicans have really thought this through yet, the idea of a wealthy businessman placing large amounts of money in an overseas tax haven; or, they may simply not be aware of it.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean a person should do it.

Romney was probably taxed at a rate of 15%, because his Bain income probably came under the category of “carried interest,” which is treated like capital gains. It’s a special loophole created in the tax code for private equity investment funds and hedge funds. I don’t blame Romney for this. That’s the agreed rate.

If he really wanted to avoid taxes, he could invest in US government bonds, which pay interest that cannot be taxed by the states, or better yet, municipal bonds, which are both pay interest completely tax free.

Now, whether it’s fair that Romney be taxed at 15%, while a typical working person might be taxed at a 28%, that is a different matter. One would think Romney would advocate paying at least as the same as a typical working person. Instead, he advocates a tax policy where he would pay even less.

But to stash money in the Caymans? Really? Like I said, just because something is legal doesn’t mean a person should do it. In this case, it seems to me that it is highly inappropriate for a person who does this to be considered for President of the United States.

Posted by: phx8 at January 18, 2012 11:47 PM
Comment #334759


Romney might write a check to help pay off the debt. Let’s get that bet going between wealthy Democrats and wealthy Republicans; see which side can pony up the most on the debt. A couple of trillion and we can get that AAA rating back and get the economy stimulated.

Meanwhile, looks like quite a few working class tax breaks are in jeopardy.

The primary goes on. That tax trash talking tightened things up. Now, Gingrich is trashing Romney, calling him Obama, and Romney has trash talked Gingrich into Al Gore.

I can’t wait till one of them calls the other one Ronald Reagan, the half that was liberal.

Posted by: jlw at January 19, 2012 6:39 AM
Comment #334763

Phx8

“whether it’s fair that Romney be taxed at 15%, while a typical working person might be taxed at a 28%”

Are you saying that I would pay 28% on capital gains while Romney and Buffett would only have to pay 15% on capital gains?

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2012 10:08 AM
Comment #334768

kctim,
No, both you & Romney are subject to the same rates, which is fine. If you can qualify for the “carried interest” rate of 15%, that’s great, but not likely; that exclusion is a loophole for the people managing hedge funds and private equity investment funds. You’re also welcome to put your savings in the Cayman Islands. But I wouldn’t recommend doing that and then running for president; or paying a much lower percentage than most working people, and then demanding an additional tax cut, or a new tax structure that is disproportionately favorable. It’s not illegal, but most people perceive that as unfair.

Posted by: phx8 at January 19, 2012 11:30 AM
Comment #334771

Thanks Phx8. Appreciate the info on capital gains.

I wasn’t sure if you were talking about capital gains where we both are subject to the same rate or saying that he was paying 15% on income and others were paying 28% on income, even though he falls in the 35% tax bracket.

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2012 12:04 PM
Comment #334796
But to stash money in the Caymans? Really?

If Romney becomes the frontrunner, it’s going to be utterly hilarious. He’s so wildly out of touch with what America has been enduring, and so clearly touchy and defensive about his colossal fortune, it’s already making the man sound deranged every time he opens his mouth.

A small sample of Willard the Absurd:
Romney scolds protester for asking about the 99 percent

I honestly found this short clip to be as humorous as watching stand-up comedy.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 20, 2012 2:15 AM
Comment #380605

bad, louis vuitton handbags choosing a stylish case longchamp can also louboutin be longchamp a true religion jeans great option. Thin supra shoes rubberized cases can provide a marc jacobs fun splash reebok shoes of color, valentino shoes or prada handbags eye-catching new balance shoes design to your device. These items ghd hair will allow chanel handbags you longchamp outlet to express your herve leger personality through your oakley sunglasses phone burberry and also soccer jerseys can be toms shoes used polo ralph in michael kors outlet keeping your louboutin phone clean and birkin bag free converse shoes from tory burch outlet cosmetic defects. Furthermore, coach purses in such cases, insanity workout an additional amount soccer shoes is north face outlet added to the chi hair straighteners device.



This bottega veneta phone is one of nfl jerseys the coach outlet most versatile louboutin options when salvatore ferragamo it comes karen millen to mont blanc modern ray ban outlet Smartphone. However, this device can lululemon outlet be improved hollister by true religion outlet adding appropriate ralph lauren accessories. coach factory outlet Choosing mulberry the right accessories is mcm handbags the perfect louis vuitton outlet online way coach outlet store to asics running get the juicy couture outlet best coach outlet experience with any true religion Smartphone.

Posted by: korsu001 at July 6, 2014 11:32 PM
Post a comment