Pretty much.

Jihadi Cool: Terrorist Recruiters' Latest Weapon | KQED Public Media for Northern CA

I agree and disagree. I definitely don't think these guys are fiscally responsible all that much. (They seem to be outraged at government spending but have no problem with trillion dollar wars and "jobs" bills) I do however think they are sick of a lot of the Republicans as well. (It's a given that they hate Democrats) I agree with both of you that at heart they are ultimately GOP and will vote that way in the fall. But when the GOP starts spending (they are politicians, they will) I think that some of them will really see that Washington is broken and it could be enough to actually form a third party.

No doubt that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are not Ron Paul and Gary Johnson but at least we seem to be moving away from the religion nonsense that Bush took to another level. I guess I am just holding out hope while still knowing it realistically is not going to happen.

I fundamentally disagree. I think Bush used the religious rhetoric in his speeches a lot to play to his base, but then wisely did not follow through on too much of it.

On the other hand, I see us moving towards increased use of that religious rhetoric, and I don't think that the next person who uses it to gain power will be pragmatic enough not to let it influence them.

Well, I can speak only for myself but politics (especially federal politics) was very far removed for me until the Teri Schiavo debacle. IMO (an important distinction because I am sure some hold the exact opposite view) that moment to me was the most despicible use of federal power I had ever seen. I make no bones about being an athiest but I also respect people that are religious and keep it away from me. That to me was the point of no return. Even though I often come across as very anti-Obama and anti-liberal I am think I am really anti-government and Obama just happens to be in power. If he actually followed through on what should be liberal views (end war on drugs, end meddling in Middle East, keep religion out of politics) I would probably vote for him.

I agree that the Schiavo debacle was a massive...debacle, for lack of a better word. It was also (if you look at the statements by Republican leaders at the time) purely a political game to them in order to play to their base, rather than actual genuine concern or belief. Fucking disgraceful.

It's amazing how bent out of shape Republicans get about having a Democratic President, considering they've had the Presidency a lot more than the Democrats in the past 40 years.

Entitlement! Not just for poor black folk.

Maybe I'm off here (stop acting shocked), but I think for the most part that Obama is just a convinient punching dummy for people. The real frustration for most judging from reaction lies in Congress on both sides of the aisle. There's a lack of real leadership and self-control in both chambers right now. Obama's just one person and can only sign what's sent to him, even if he does advocate for some of it.

I'm not sure I'd call it a lack of leadership and self-control, but I think you're right that the real frustratino for most people lies with Congress. And there are a bunch of things people are frustrated with. In order to keep this post simply "I agree with MBBF" I'm not going to go into listing all of them here now, but I think both sides are frustrated with both sides of the aisle.

Broadly-speaking:

Democrats: Frustrated in the lack of (D) leadership and the inability to get legislation passed with historic levels of support. Frustrated with some of the compromises and backroom deals (not all compromises are bad). Frustrated with (R) for "taking their ball and going home" and refusing to be partners in governing the country and only focusing on impeding (D) efforts to do so.

Republicans: Frustrated with (D) policies (as the party in the minority typically is - although I would add that current (R)'s have taken this frustration to historic extremes, and it's really quite ridiculous). And I honestly believe that there is a subsection of Republican voters that are frustrated in (R) obstructionism and want to see the (R) party offering up alternatives and working within the system to try to effect change rather than just obstructing. Maybe that's me being foolish, but I honestly think there is a subsection that feels that way.

These never get old.........

Some of them may have an issue with Obama:

The Santelli rant would fit in nicely.

I was wondering if anyone had done a follow up with Peggy Joseph to see how life was for her now that she gets her gas free and doesn't have to make mortgage payments. Did a search but didn't find anything.

Dola........

Thought our resident Libertarian might be interested in these poll numbers, though it's still a long ways off.

Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41% - Rasmussen Reports™

That poll has more holes than Bushwood Country Club.

The assumption that Paul is the sole opposition in a race 2 1/2 years from now I think is a big enough hole. It makes for some fun discussion and little else.

I'll defer to Nate Silver of 538.com for the analysis of this one...
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Romney, Not Paul, Fares Best in '12 Matchups

Look at the crosstabs. The Not Sure number is very high and the GOP approval number is very low. This may be a decent picture of dissatisfaction with Obama, but the level of support for Paul is illusory.

It's a fair analysis, though he's certainly not saying that the poll results are inaccurate in any way. In fact, he specifically states that the Rasmussen assumption of voter turnout for 2012 may or may not prove to be correct. He just personally believes that the turnout should be weighted differently than Rasmussen.

Regardless, it's silly to get too worked up over the poll. The 2012 election is WAY too far away. That's 2 1/2 years for any/all of the involved politicians to screw something up.

Interesting that Obama loses to "Generic Republican," but beats every named Republican.

Sounds about right to me. If the Republican Party could nominate someone half-decent they'd definitely have a shot at my vote.

edit: Though I guess that makes sense, as Generic Republican pretty much becomes whatever you want it to be.

It's a poll about something that's happening 2 1/2 years from now. Anyone who takes it seriously even if it were based on the best polling logic ever is wasting their time. More than anything, I just wanted to get panerd's feedback on the possibility of a good run for Paul if things fall right.

I think it's a good indicator of the disfavor with the current president rather than someone actually liking a Republican candidate.

The Republicans will obviously end up nominating some clown like Romney or Palin but maybe Paul will decide to go 3rd party and make things really interesting. I think in the past he has always said he runs as a Republican and he uses the debates as an avenue to get his message out (that he wouldn't have as a 3rd party candidate) but with numbers like those they may have a tough time excluding him for the debates if he ran as a Libertarian. The Republicrat machine/corporate media would try and troll out the racism claims from the late 1970's if this happened but I still think it would be an interesting ride. (And maybe the death of the Republican party since Obama would almost certainly win in that 3 person scenario)

Notwithstanding the accuracy of that poll or anything...he wouldn't have numbers anywhere close to that if he ran as a Libertarian. I think he'd struggle to break 5% (a number not based on anything, that i just pulled out of my ass).

.

The Republicans can't stand Paul because he actually stands for the principles of their party. Just like the Democrats try to distance themselves from Kucinich when he speaks out against the war and bank bailouts the Republicans can't handle a guy that has actually done in his politcial career what they will campaign that they will do (even though none of them have when given the chance) in the fall elections. I don't get the hatred of Paul from the voters right but it easily understood why corporations would hate the guy (thus the immediate press to counter any positive Ron Paul article or event)

No doubt. Ultimately we will see the Democrat and Republicans both getting campagin contributions from all the usual suspects (AIG, Goldman Sachs, defense contractors, health insurance, etc) while the Libertarian candidate is all individual contributions. You would think the public would see right through that ("Goldman Sachs contrbuted to both McCain and Obama and nothing to Barr?") but they don't teach critical thinking in schools anymore.

* I still think he may be enough the way this country has been split 50/50 to influence an election though.

Well, people have followed up with Santelli and he's still against support for homeowners and still silent on the bailouts that were handed out to his industry.

I agree with both of your points in this post. I'd likely vote Kucinich for President though, so I gather I'm probably not your average "Corporate Democrat"

In that case I wonder which side he draws more supporters from? Republican I'd guess?

Yeah I am not talking about informed voters (i may disagree with a lot of people in this thread but still feel like every one of them has 1000 times the knowledge of the average voter) I am talking about the corporate national parties that tell all of the people who to vote for and who "has no chance".

I would think Republicans. It seems like in past elections that the contention has been the Green Party steals Democrat votes and the Libertarian steals Republican votes. Though I tend to think of this as more of a trick to convince people to vote for one of the two parties.

I will say that I voted for Barr but probably would have voted for Obama next. (Probably wouldn't have voted at all but you get my point) I think endless war and horrible Draconian social policies do more damage than the worst economic ideas. Of course I also am a teacher and am not pulling in 200K+. (and Obama doesn't seem to be doing much on the war front or even on basic civil rights issues)

Did I miss this or forget about it? Must have. Good Lord, that's fantastic. :D

Gross oversimplification IMO, and I can show you why.

Using the Ron Paul Wiki entry as a quick reference point to Paul's positions that are contentious

"Paul's stance on foreign policy is one of consistent nonintervention"
Not the stance of a party that I've been aligned with in recent years.

"Paul was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have objected to and voted against the Iraq War Resolution"
Not the stance of a party that I've been aligned with.

"During the 2009 Gaza War, Paul addressed Congress to voice his staunch opposition to the House's proposed resolution supporting Israel's actions."

"In 2000, Paul voted to end trade restrictions on Cuba"
Not a stance that I agree with (although some in the party certainly do)

Paul broke with his party by voting against the PATRIOT Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment
Not a stance of a party that I've been aligned with

Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency on American citizens.
Not a stance of a party that I've been aligned with.

Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage,
Not a stance of a party that I've been aligned with (in practice if not in theory)

I could keep going pretty easily but hopefully the point I'm aiming for has been made.

For all the stuff Paul gets right & he definitely manages to do that at times, he also gets a ton of stuff wrong, and it's those things that make him subject to so much criticism. I believe he too often operates/votes/acts in a theoretical world where state's rights are firmly recognized instead of acting within a world where they've been shredded while advocating for their restoration. That's probably not a great explanation of the distinction I'm trying to make but hopefully I managed to get it across anyway.

Basically war issues are what you are different on. (Can't argue with you on this) The rest (abortion, gay marriage, federal spy bureaucracies, etc) Paul just says are issues for the states, which is what Republicans will say for things like health care when it is to their advantage but not for others. So basically he isn't inconsistent like the rest of your party is? I guess you could say that isn’t your party, but not sure I understand why this is a good thing?

(I do get what you are saying about state's rights being less and less meaningful nowadays, but that doesn't make it right)

That's really a key distinction though, about the reality we operate under vs the one we wish we operated under.

Ideally, I'd prefer a country where laws governing various things weren't necessary, but I don't have that so I have to deal with the cards that are dealt. I can advocate to reach that state but until it exists I have to work with what I have.

Ideally, I'd prefer states being left to deal with these issues as they see fit but that isn't how things work today (nor in a long time), so I have to use the tools that are available to me to accomplish the desired ends. I can advocate to reach that situation but until it exists I am nowhere near ready to sacrifice the desired end simply because the means are imperfect.

The problem that Republicans have with Ron Paul, is that he believes in limited government whether the party is in power or not.

I agree with you more than you might think. I think Libertarians often live in their own little world sometime where they think 1800's Deadwood can exist in 21st century America That is why I said I would rather have a socially liberal president than an economically conservative one because I know they won't change any of the outrageous spending but they could actually impact some social issues.

But doesn't not voting for Paul because he is "kooky" and in favor of outdated state's rights basically cause state rights to erode even more and the power of the federal government to continue to grow? So his idealism is costing him votes and in effect also making things even worse?

I'm sure people will find it hard to believe, but this is why I am a Democrat - social issues. I'm fiscally conservative, but socially very liberal. I long ago came to grips with the fact that the two main parties are both corporateist though, and neither one of them will truly reign in spending (although Clinton did there for a brief shining moment balance the budget...god what I wouldn't give for him and that again), therefore I'm left to vote primarily based on social issues, so my vote inevitably puts me in the (D) category.

A fairly reasonable question/point afaic but then again, short of a full-blown "revolution" (be that at the ballot box, armed insurgency, whatever) leading to a thorough restructing of the federal government I don't anticipate those rights ever being restored to any remotely sufficient degree.

It kind of relates to what I've said at least a couple of times in the past IIRC, essentially that the Constitution is so bastardized at this point that it's practical function has been reduced to being a tool, just another means to an end. And I'm quite a bit more concerned about the ends than the means.

Poll: Most Find Their Income Tax Fair - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Just ahead of Tax Day, a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds that most Americans regard the income taxes that they will have to pay this year as fair, regardless of political partisanship, ideology or income level.
Sixty-two percent of all respondents in the poll said the income tax they have to pay is fair, while 30 percent called it unfair. That includes six in 10 Republicans and independents and just over two-thirds of Democrats – a display of cross-party agreement rarely seen on any topic. It also includes most liberals, moderates and conservatives.
Majorities across all income groups, moreover, called their income tax fair. Sixty-two percent of Americans in households earning $50,000 or less said so, as did the same percentage of people in households earning more.

another cbs/nyt poll

Polling the Tea Party - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

92% of tea partiers are scared that America is moving towards socialism -- but in a strange twist, most of them seem to like it.
Despite the fear that socialism is coming to America, 62% of tea party supporters also support Social Security and Medicare. In fact, nearly half of them either benefit from Social Security or Medicare or have somebody in their immediate family who does. And about one-third are directly beneficiaries at least one of the programs, compared to about one-fifth of the population at large

Some other highlights from the poll (NYT, CBS):

• 18% of Americans say they are tea party supporters.
• 66% of tea party supporters say they usually or always vote Republican. (Just 5% vote Democratic.)
• 73% say they are conservative.
• 41% believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.
• While 65% believe the Obama Administration treats blacks and whites equally, 56% believe it favors poor people over the middle-class and rich.
• 89% are white and 52% believe too much attention is paid to the problems facing African-Americans.
• 59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)
• 63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel.
• 66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, compared to 12% who view her unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 30% and 45%.)
• 24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.
• 52% believe the federal income taxes they pay are fair.
• 84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree (remember: 18% are tea partiers).

So lemme see here, 47% paid none but think that's "fair". What a shocker.

i was looking more at the 62% that think it's fair, and also the cross-party and majorities across income group numbers as interesting Jon.

Although I agree...paying none and being satisfied isn't exactly a shocker.

I definitely think there's something broken when we're abusing our currency with extraordinary public debt and I'm a homeowner, make $50k+, and pay $0 income tax. That's unfair, but really to the country moreso than me personally.

I'll end up paying a little bit next year, but not much. Paying much more would certainly be "fair" - though since the federal government can spend hundreds of billions that they don't have, I'm not sure why they need any of my, or anyone's tax money.

In that way, I don't think there's too much corelation between taxing and spending. I don't think raising taxes equals any real corresponding increase in government services, and vice versa.

Interesting that only 41% of tea people think he's a citizen. I read in the news about some Lt. Col. who is a bronze star awardee refusing to deploy because he believes Obama isn't a citizen, and thus not allowed to give orders as commander-in-chief. This must be the highest ranking birther in the services...totally whack.

Speaking of taxes, here's Obama's tax return. Nothing controversial here, I'm just find tax returns that are 63 pages longer than mine kind of interesting.

And it must be awesome to be a best-selling author. You can earn $5 million for work you did years ago.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...ete-return.pdf

My father-in-law still gets royalty checks for a science text he stopped updated more than a decade ago.

Obviously I haven't been paying attention but of the 47% that do not pay income taxes, are you saying that they do not get FICA taken out of their paychecks?

His view on Medicare are retarded but his views on Social Security aren't all that bad.