You could do that, but then you'd be the GOP. You can focus on purifying your base, which is probably a long term loser. Or you can focus on being "everyone else". Problem with being "everyone else" is that it's hard to get them to agree. Then, if you fix the rules so that you need 60% approval to get something done and only 40% to not get something done and then preach about how the government can't get anything done - well, that's how you can maintain some power even when you're purifying the base. It's a brilliant strategy to get years and maybe decades out of an ideology that should be on its last legs.

Eventually, the GOP will have to shift and re-align their base because there won't be enough people in the religious conservative + fiscal conservative base. And they'll shed some of their current members until they're not really viable and we'll play this game all over again. Who knows, maybe next time it will align so that the Dems become libertarians with laissez faire views on economics and social issues (no taxes and legalize weed!) while the the GOPs is more authoritarian (a bacon tax to pay for your health care!).

SI

Or better yet, go ahead and communicate better what it is they're missing in you as a candidate so they have a chance to understand it. Kind of hard to communicate it if you're not going to tell them (assuming he didn't do that previous or after this quote).

Actually the worst part of that quote is the second half-a white guy telling black people what's in their best interest for their families.

Yes, he had such a chance to gain votes there in the first place.:confused:

I can't stand the two-faced phony sumbitch but he really didn't have much to lose there regardless of what he said. If he convinced a few (naive IMO) voters that he's actually got a backbone or any actual position that he'll stick with then he accomplished about as much as he could.

My personal opinion is, health care should not be for profit. My conundrum with my own opinion is, I don't mind doctors and nurses and others, making pretty good salaries, but, how do you pay for that talent if it's not for profit? I don't know how to solve that issue, however, I do know it is not as simple as a black and white, snap of the fingers fix.

I'm not in favor of government health insurance/care. The government is neither a model for efficiency or a model demonstrating fiscal restraint. It's kind of like asking a bank robber to handle my finances. I'm in favor of a system that is not based on the bottom line or profit margins, that uses logic and sound reasoning not clouded by dollar signs to provide the best health care to everyone, regardless of their financial status.

I feel no sympathy for the health care industry and their razor thin margins, simply because I feel that it is not an industry that should be based on profits. Just seems odd that an industry that is supposed to help people, is hurting the people it's trying to help, by being 'for profit'. It kind of contradicts the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath in my opinion. Again, I admit, that this creates a contradiction in how I feel about the whole thing. I want the best, but, I don't believe it should be dictated by profits and I have no idea how to solve that conflict.


I have no idea. Probably not. Off the top of my head, the only country that comes close to population and diversity would be Russia? But each country is different and opinions on things such as personal responsibility for ones own health maintenance, cultural differences, genes, dietary habits, etc...kind of makes that not such an easy question when you consider those things.

Even if that's what he did (I haven't read the whole speech yet) the guy (and yes I know it's his speechwriter really) is tone-deaf. You don't communicate better to someone and then effectively say "I just dumbed that down for you because you're stupid." That's called shooting yourself in the foot.

Mitt didn't go see the NAACP to talk to the black people with whom the minds of 95% are made up already. He went because white people will talk about it and he gets points for showing up. It was a low-risk move. The booing makes it even better. Will get lots of replay on the FOX spin cycle, MSNBC will mock him for saying nothing new and we'll be in no different place than we were before.

If Team Mittens were smart, they'd have shown up with something substantive or interesting to say, but that'd require belonging to a party that still does that sort of thing.

I didn't quite understand this campaign stop. Obama figured these votes are so in the bag, he sent Biden to give a speech. To the NAACP convention. Biden.

I was wondering if Romney misread this as a chance to upstage the President. But if he had any chance, he would have had to deliver a speech that could have, you know, upstaged something- big, ambitious flowery speech to win over some moderates. Not just a "hey, I'm a good guy- just trust me to do what's right for you".

SI

Health insurance has small margins but pharmaceuticals and medical devices have a huge margin. One of the reasons we pay more is because medical suppliers make a shit ton more money in the U.S. than anywhere else.

According to Mitt it worked perfectly:

I don't see the problem with sending Biden. If anyone at the convention is considering race, then theyre voting Obama anyways. The NAACP is very familiar with Obama, so it makes sense to send Biden to contrast policies instead of just race. And Romney shows up not because he has any hope of making a dent in the black vote, but because it's what you do. A story about Romney skipping the NAACP convention is way worse than anything Romney said in his speech.

They still pay less and get better results. I don't care what people believe politically, but when someone does something better than us, we should copy it. Whether that's health care, how to build a bridge, and so on.

It's not hard to believe that black leaders would support Romney.

I can think of one who likes his ideas on health care.

Ziiiing! :D

SI

Listen/watch the whole thing. I got a different vibe from it.

So do we pay to cover the the lost of margins in other countries? If so, then isn't that what helps those countries look cheaper in those per capita costs?

Again, it's not simple as black and white as I pointed out in my earlier post.

I don't think either industry is granted by God to have those high profit margins, but even if what you suggest is true, why should I pay more so the French can pay less? If my bill grows slower and that means the suppliers have to find profit in other countries, I'm fine with that.

Higher taxes. You know, that evil bogeyman.

Of course not. We're special creatures that have special bodies that people around the world don't.

And I know it's complicated to fix/change, just saying that other systems kick our ass so maybe we should try and emulate them in some ways.

I agree with you, we shouldn't have to pay more to make up for them.

BTW, I'm all for banning prescription drug advertising.

I guess I disagree with you in kicking our ass in what way. I would argue other countries have healthier and more active lifestyles in general, which is a big help.

But why is that? Is it better access to doctors? I guess my point is that in other countries they statistically are beating us in most health care statistics. They live longer, are healthier, and ultimately receive the same care for cheaper. Why not try and emulate that the best we can?

I'd say the same thing for anything. If Canada found a way to build a kickass bridge that was better and cheaper than what we had, I'd want to copy how they did it and implement it here.

Yeah, I went back and watch the whole speech. It's got a much different tone than that if you listen to it as a whole. I also think that the crowd respected the fact that he showed up and didn't sugar-coat his feelings to avoid boos. More than half of the people gave him a very nice standing ovation at the end of the speech.

I didn't see anything bad with the speech. Takes guts to speak in front of a group your religion decries as inferior beings.

Doctors and medicine don't "stop" blood pressure, lung cancer from smoking, heart attacks, type II diabetes, obesity, ect., they just help manage it. If you don't take care of yourself, then medicine isn't going to automatically stop those kind of things that I've mentioned-that are usually brought on oneself (but not always)-from happening. Note, I'm not talking about things that just plain to due to getting the short stick of the straw in genetics and nature's luck.

The largest European countries barely break the 100 million population mark, can you scale this enough to a country of 300+ million people that has a much more diverse genetic population?

I can't help but think that this is not going to play well for Romney: Government documents indicate Mitt Romney continued at Bain after date when he says he left - Politics - The Boston Globe

Romney has been defending himself against a lot of specific factory and business liquidations (with significant layoffs) by saying that he left the company in 1999. He will have a tough time "no commenting" questions, given the fact that he will not release his tax records and that this article is indicating that he was still earning a six-figure salary (and listed as the sole stockholder).

I see how that does not look good. But it also strikes me as pretty in the weeds to penetrate the general consciousness. Tax filings are not sexy.

Also, there might be good reasons why the paper and the reality do not match up. I imagine that it takes a while to wind something like that down, and I can see how his name would technically still be on the books even as everyone knew that he was no longer in charge.

And, even if that is not true, it sounds true enough that it will play with the general public.

The targeted ads may be significantly different from region to region, but in my area (Rust Belt), Romney has been getting hammered by testimonial-type ads of people that were laid off from Bain-acquired companies.

Romney has largely defended himself by indicating that he was longer a part of the company by the time the economy got bad (his standard line is that he left to operate the Olympics in '99). I think this info continues the dialogue for the theme and now enhances it with a line like, "Mitt Romney says he played no part in the closing of Factory X. While his company was laying off X jobs, he was earning a six-figure salary and the President of the company." You could even throw in footage of him schmoozing during the 2000 Olympics, with a cash register ringing up the amount of money he earned vs the amount of jobs that were lost or outsourced.

I think it would be have a pretty big impact in Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania, etc.

After watching many ads over the last week, I've decided that neither one is fit to be President, and will be looking for a 3rd-party candidate.

I do love pulling out Hillary going after Obama in 2008 in the Romney ads though...

Gary Johnson is running for president. Former two term governor of New Mexico so it's not like he is just some third party guy running on "What if's" he has more executive experience than both Romney and the 2008 Obama.

The polling done in the states where the Bain ads are running shows they are haviing quite an effect.

Now a lot of that 51% were already clear on their choice, but there have to be undecideds in that group.

We scale back the empire or at the very least make countries like South Korea, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia pay for the United States providing their military. I choose choice #1 but if thats so impossible for politicians than let some of these countries with such great health care foot the bill for ours.

We are the world empire. History shows again and again that the big empires live gluttonous lifestyles. There is no doubt this contributes significantly to our high health care costs.

There is a guy in my neighborhood that has been flying the "Don't tread on me" flag for a couple of years. A few months ago he began posting signs with quotes from Thomas Jefferson. You know the kind where half of them describe 21st century things and Jefferson probably said none of them. Well this week he now has a Romney sign next to the Jefferson quote and the "Don't tread" flag. My wife gets very anxious every time we walk by the house that I am going to say something. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would be just as displeased with Romney's vision for America as he would be with Obama's.

He'd be too fascinated with his iPhone to worry about that.

I'm pretty sure that anyone looking solely to the wisdom of people 250 years ago to guide them is going to be displeased with the results

SI

I'll think you'll find a lot (if not all) of those countries would be very happy to see the back of the US military bases; you make it sound like they 'requested' the presence of the US military there which for some countries simply isn't the case ...

The US has some military bases in the UK because its strategically useful to the US it has no advantage to the UK at all ... in fact it makes the country more of a target from anyone anti-US (so don't expect any European country to be crying out in pain if the US wanted to withdraw their bases tomorrow).

Not to mention the money this would save, as well as allowing a bigger focus on making sure this country is adequately protected. Hell, I know from my time in the Army many communities in the US resented the presence of Army bases. I can only imagine how some european countries feel.

On a scale of 1 to 100 on supporting the US empire I am a 1 so I apologize if I sounded like I was blaming the countries listed for America's military bases. I just grow tired of the fact that we supposidly don't have money for domestic issues or debt pay down but we have all this money to police the world.

(Though I will concede that Germany tried to take over Europe twice in the last century so I think the some of the European countires probably appreciate the US bases there)

I am pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson would be transported to 2012 and say "Holy crap, you can get porn for free on a magic box?!" and we'd never see him again.

Overseas bases are a topic of bipartisan conversation in Washington. This is from January.

Bipartisan strategy takes shape to close overseas bases | Federal Times | federaltimes.com

I'm confused. Since when has a countries citizens had a voice in things like that? Things like US bases in foreign countries are not decided by the citizens of this country or the host country.

Every election, people talk about "could this be the year of a third party?" And then it never pans out.

I wonder, though, if this could be the year of a third party :) I mean, after 8%+ unemployment for half a decade during which both parties have tried and failed to right the ship, might there be some place for an alternative? And you have a lot of solid right-wingers who seem very lukewarm to Romney. Might they be willing to vote third-party?

My guess is no, mainly b/c this seems like it will be a close election. And too many people will be worried about "throwing away" their vote.

Which leads me to another point. If a party gets 5% or more of the vote in a presidential election, it is eligible for some federal matching funds in a future election. So why doesn't a party like the Libertarians try to run up the score in uncontested states and get to the 5% level?

Wouldn't it make sense to go to places like New York, Texas, California, Oklahoma, etc. and be honest about what you are doing? "Candidate [X] will win this state, so if you vote for him or his main opponent, your vote does not matter. Do you want your vote to matter? If so, vote for me; if we get over 5% of the vote, we will be eligible for funds to help break the two-party stalemate in Washington." You would have the platform to yourself the entire time. And I could see that message being pretty appealing to a lot of voters who won't otherwise have a reason to be engaged.

The year of the 3rd party will happen when a guy has a few billion dollars, wants to spend about half of them on a campaign and starts early and creates a revolution.

But mostly, he'll need a few billion dollars. And it'll be a he.

And funny charts. He'll need funny charts!



SI

I think the Libertarians are on record as saying they will never take the matching federal funds. If they got the 5% would they stick to that? Who knows but if the #1 principle of their platform is in direct opposition to matching funds if kind of puts them in a bind.

Gary Johnson does have an interesting approach this election cycle though. The election commission (made up of Democrats and Republicans... imagine that!) has decided a candidate needs 15% support in presidential polls to get into the debates. He has targeted a lot of the Southwestern states (NM, AZ, CO, CA, MT, WA, OR) that are already a tad more sympathetic to the Libertarian cause than say Missouri, Alabama, or New York. He figures if he can get into the debates the public may wake up a little to the D & R shell game. (Face it was Perot that solid of a candidate or just not Bush or Clinton?) One of the ideas is that if he can get his name in the polls of those states that enough people (>15%) will pick him for his Libertarian views or not even knowing who he is but just that he isn't Romney or Obama. Principled? Not exactly but the ideas in the past have gotten them like 1% so why not try something different?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icllj...ure=plpp_video

Libertarian Party knows they'll never get elected to anything other than local and the occasionally, stray state office. It's easy to stand on principle when your positions have no practical application.

Third party would likely have to be a moderate to win. You'd have to get both parties to nominate someone to the extreme and someone in the middle can get that in-between vote.