2012 Presidential Campaign

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Hard to say.

On the other hand, it seems as if every time he opens his mouth he says something stupid. And his solution to that is...to open his mouth more often.

I wonder if disappearing would help. I'm talking on the Chinese VP level.

[larrymcg421]

The national polls still show a somewhat tight race. Obama leads by 3.7 points in the RCP average and Gallup has varied from a tie to 2 pt margin lately. What really looks bad for Romney are the state polls. Obama has led in 28 of the last 32 polls in swing states (this counts WI, but not MI or PA). Back during the primaries, Nate Silver had an article out explaining that Romney fared better against Obama nationally, but Santorum had a better matchup in the electoral college. Not sure if that's really correct, but Romney definitely seems to have an electoral college problem right now.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I wonder if disappearing would help. I'm talking on the Chinese VP level.

As in just shutting up and not saying anything? No, probably not.

As in literally disappearing? Probably depends on who replaces him. It'd almost have to be an unknown quantity to get folks to swing to the Republican ticket and deprive the Obama campaign of enough time to negatively define the new candidate in voters' minds.

Originally Posted by Mitt Romney

When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that.

On the other hand, when he says things like the above when he opens his mouth, maybe just shutting up would be for the best.

Part of me wants to see that quote of his get some national play and see how people react to the breathtaking level of stupidity that shows. Part of me is afraid that a substantial chunk of the population might actually share that stupidity.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

On the other hand, when he says things like the above when he opens his mouth, maybe just shutting up would be for the best.

No, no! Let him keep talking.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...&dlvrit=574655

New polling by Reuters/Ipsos indicates that during the past two weeks - since just after the Democratic National Convention - support for Romney among Americans age 60 and older has crumbled, from a 20-point lead over Democratic President Barack Obama to less than 4 points.

Romney's double-digit advantages among older voters on the issues of healthcare and Medicare - the nation's health insurance program for those over 65 and the disabled - also have evaporated, and Obama has begun to build an advantage in both areas.

[SackAttack]

Saw a poll earlier alleging a 14 point Romney lead among the middle class.

How do you lead by double digits in the middle class and old folks and still trail the overall horse race?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Saw a poll earlier alleging a 14 point Romney lead among the middle class.

How do you lead by double digits in the middle class and old folks and still trail the overall horse race?

Bad math?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Saw a poll earlier alleging a 14 point Romney lead among the middle class.

How do you lead by double digits in the middle class and old folks and still trail the overall horse race?

No way Rmoney leads by 14pts among the middle class.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by mckerney

No, no! Let him keep talking.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...&dlvrit=574655

Thank you, Bill Clinton.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Saw a poll earlier alleging a 14 point Romney lead among the middle class.

How do you lead by double digits in the middle class and old folks and still trail the overall horse race?

Because there are so many poor in this country?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Random observation (born of something that's been floating around my FB wall a few times today)

I can't help but giggle a bit at claims hyping "Romney as Thurston Howell" column by NYT writer David Brooks as something from the conservative p.o.v. There may well be conservatives critical of Romney's comments, but Brooks ain't one of 'em. I'm almost as close to being a northern liberal as Brooks is to being a conservative.

I've had a few thoughts on this among other "not really a conservative" posts but haven't necessarily been able to formulate as good an argument as Rod Dreher (who very few would call not a "true" conservative) did a few days ago:

What Is A Conservative? | The American Conservative

A reader writes:

Rod, I’d love to hear you articulate what it means to be a conservative. Seriously. Not a Fox News, Republican-group think conservative, but a real one.

Thanks for the opportunity. I should start by saying that I don’t think there is only one way to be a conservative. There is not conservatism; there are conservatisms, and they draw from each other. The best general definition of “conservative” that I know is Russell Kirk’s essay on Ten Conservative Principles. Kirk begins:

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims.

I cannot improve on Kirk’s list, but I would say that for me, the first of his Ten Conservative Principles speaks deepest to why I am a conservative:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

As most of my readers know, my conservatism is primarily religious, social, and cultural. I am not as keenly concerned with the things most important to others who consider themselves conservative in our time and place, namely libertarians, foreign-policy realists, and free marketers. This is not to say that I disagree with them (though at times I do), but only that the things most important to me as a conservative are religious, social, and cultural. In that regard, I sometimes find myself opposing particular policies and principles advocated by others within the broader conservative party.

And you know, that’s fine. I have no interest in denouncing them as traitors, turncoats, or heretics. If you read George H. Nash’s canonical history of American intellectual conservatism since 1945 — and you absolutely should if you care about these things — you will learn that what we call conservatism draws on both traditional conservatism (that is, generally, social and cultural conservatism), and libertarian anti-statism (which entails strong free-market principles). Conservatism — American conservatism, that is — is the result of the blending of these two schools of thought, which cannot be completely reconciled, but rather exist, or should exist, in creative tension.

I, for example, don’t see how anyone can call himself a conservative in a meaningful sense and be in favor of the unrestrained free market. But that’s an argument worth having. I don’t think it’s prudent or wise to declare that anyone who disagrees with me is therefore not a conservative. I don’t understand economics as well as I ought to, so perhaps I have something to learn from them. And, many free-market fundamentalists on the libertarian side don’t understand culture and society as well as they might, and have something to learn from people like me.

Anyway, as Kirk said, conservatism is an attitude toward the world, not a dogmatic religion. It irritates me to no end that the American conservative mind is so closed, even to thinkers and resources in its own tradition. As Kirk’s tenth canon says, “The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.” That means that we have to be willing and able to think creatively about conservative principles, and apply them to new facts and circumstances.

I suppose one way to think about conservatism — sorry, conservatisms — is by asking the question, “What do you want to conserve?” Kirk once said that the traditional family was the institution most important to conserve. I agree with that, and most of my conservatism comes from that conviction. That’s why, for example, I don’t place as much value on economic liberty as many conservatives do. If an economic practice undermines the integrity of the family and the familist order (which itself depends on a strong religious sense), then I am likely to oppose it. One of the reasons I have come to be much more skeptical of the aggressively militaristic and nationalistic foreign policy many conservatives advocate is the effect of war on family life (that is, of soldiers deployed and returned), and of what the acceptance of torture does to our moral sensibility. Similarly, I am in principle willing to accept more involvement of the state for the sake of shoring up the family and the moral order than libertarians are.

What I hate is the intra-conservative mob shutting up dissenters by calling them RINOs, heretics, “unpatriotic,” or what have you. And yes, I also mean those who would deny pro-choice and pro-gay rights Republicans — whose views I oppose — a voice in the debate. If the eight years of George W. Bush taught us anything, it ought to have been to listen to dissenters, and to approach the big questions of politics and statecraft with a certain intellectual humility. That, it seems to me, is a truly conservative disposition.

Anyway, I’m going on too long. I’m going to be away from the keys for most of Saturday and Sunday, but I’ll approve comments as I can. What I would like to see in the comments is a thoughtful exploration of what you think it means to be a conservative. I like to have this And please, liberal readers, don’t troll this thread. You’re welcome to contribute, but keep it constructive.

[JPhillips]

I would think any respectable poll would define the middle class as somehow between the top and bottom income earners. Number of poor wouldn't really matter because eventually the least poor would become the middle.

But that's really too much analysis. There aren't that many poor people. @15% qualify from the 2010 census. There isn't a secret stock of moochers lifting Obama's poll numbers.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I've had a few thoughts on this among other "not really a conservative" posts but haven't necessarily been able to formulate as good an argument as Rod Dreher (who very few would call not a "true" conservative) did a few days ago:

What Is A Conservative? | The American Conservative

I think this definition fits our current times.

A conservative is someone that opposes whatever liberals prefer, updated daily.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I would think any respectable poll would define the middle class as somehow between the top and bottom income earners. Number of poor wouldn't really matter because eventually the least poor would become the middle.

But that's really too much analysis. There aren't that many poor people. @15% qualify from the 2010 census. There isn't a secret stock of moochers lifting Obama's poll numbers.

The important part is not how the census defines poor, it's how the poll defines middle class. I was tongue-in-cheek responding to how the Democrats like to balloon up the number of poor, often trying to portray things as "rich" vs "poor" and not really talk about a real middle class.

Heck the whole "99%" thing is another good example.

[JediKooter]

What Is A Conservative? | The American Conservative

It sounds like he's going up against the 'No True Scotsman' argument to me.

[JPhillips]

This guy says Romney is winning by a landslide.

http://www.unskewedpolls.com/index.cfm

If you weigh the polls properly...

[RainMaker]

Weighing the polls that way would show McCain winning in 2008.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This guy says Romney is winning by a landslide.

http://www.unskewedpolls.com/index.cfm

If you weigh the polls properly...

Why did I read that website? Is there anyway I can get my brain cells back?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I've had a few thoughts on this among other "not really a conservative" posts but haven't necessarily been able to formulate as good an argument as Rod Dreher (who very few would call not a "true" conservative) did a few days ago:

Not a terrible article. I'm not wholly in agreement with it (as I believe there are at least some pretty reliably identifiable tenets for the various "conservatisms") but it ain't a terrible piece.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Why did I read that website? Is there anyway I can get my brain cells back?

Seriously. I can't even read anymore of it...my head hurts from supposed "logic" and all the "reasonable assumptions" that have to be made in order to reweigh the polls like that.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Seriously. I can't even read anymore of it...my head hurts from supposed "logic" and all the "reasonable assumptions" that have to be made in order to reweigh the polls like that.

Exactly. Also, when you lead off with "I'm not one for conspiracy theories..." and then go off on a rant basically crying about how the mainstream media has conspired for decades to sway the vote towards democrats, you loose any little bit of credibility you might have had.

[larrymcg421]

I love how they use Patrick Caddell as an example of a Democratic pollster to bolster their claims.

he has defended the Bush administration by arguing that Republicans did not exploit the issue of gay marriage in the presidential election of 2004. He also denounced Democrats in the House who voted against the Palm Sunday Compromise, which sought to reinstate Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, as "cold blooded," and called environmentalism "a conspiracy 'to basically deconstruct capitalism.'"

[Ksyrup]

This sounds stupider than I'm sure he intended. I mean, maybe he's thinking of some sort of sensor that can detect cabin pressure and allow windows to be opened when on the ground in emergency circumstances. Or maybe not...

Romney’s wife, Ann, was in attendance, and the candidate spoke of the concern he had for her when her plane had to make an emergency landing Friday en route to Santa Monica because of an electrical malfunction.

“I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were,” Romney said. “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.”

[cartman]

I'm sure that the wholesale introduction of oxygen and massive winds to a potentially combustible situation couldn't have any unintended effects besides allowing passengers to breathe. As long as they haven't passed out from the rapid decompression.

[Ksyrup]

Looks like he picked the wrong year to run for president,

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Looks like he picked the wrong year to run for president,

LOL!

Perfect cartoon from over a year ago...



http://blogs.courant.com/bob_engleha...il-7-2011.html

[IlliniCub]

As someone who works in the education field....these new Michelle Obama lunches are not doing it for me

[mckerney]

Also from Mitt Romney on 60 Minutes, when asked if the government should provide care to people without insurance.

Well, we do provide care for people who don't have insurance. If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.

Hmm, I wonder what else I can find on Romney's emergency care plan. Oh, it looks like he talked to Glen Beck about it once.

When they show up at the hospital, they get care. They get free care paid for by you and me. If that's not a form of socialism, I don't know what is.

While there you have it. Mitt Romney is a socialist.

[mckerney]

I do have to say that I am really looking forward to the next Romney Reboot. At this rate we could get 3 or 4 more in before election day.

[RainMaker]

Bill Simmons mentioned that Romney should pay to end the ref lockout.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Bill Simmons mentioned that Romney should pay to end the ref lockout.

Romney may not seem to have any real convictions, but the one thing we know that he believes in is not paying workers.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This guy says Romney is winning by a landslide.

UnSkewed Polls -- erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics

If you weigh the polls properly...

He's like the Nate Silver of his local asylum

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not a terrible article. I'm not wholly in agreement with it (as I believe there are at least some pretty reliably identifiable tenets for the various "conservatisms") but it ain't a terrible piece.

Tacking back to Brooks, that is the kind of conservatism he identifies with himself. Dreher and Brooks are not all that different, and Brooks basically writes that in his latest column:

The Conservative Mind - NYTimes.com

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by IlliniCub

As someone who works in the education field....these new Michelle Obama lunches are not doing it for me

As someone with a 5th grader I agree. This has been a topic of discussion in my house for the 1st month of the school year. I'm all for having kids eat healthier, but if your healthy menu pushes kids to either deciding not to eat or just bringing unhealthy food to school then you're not solving anything.

My son has eaten school lunch almost exclusively since 1st grade. Last year he started complaining about the lunches and this year Whole Wheat Tacos were the last straw for him. After that he asked if he could bring his lunch. From what he's said he and most of his friends avoid the whole wheat bread items because they're "disgusting" (which I'm sure is true for school lunch whole wheat). They go as far as using a fork to pick off whatever they're putting on the bread and that's serving as their lunch.

Also, if your kid is fat it's not because of school lunches. I have my doubts that there's ever been a kid anywhere that liked school lunch enough to get fat off of them.

[JPhillips]

I have my doubts that there's ever been a kid anywhere that liked school lunch enough to get fat off of them.

Without getting into the lunch debate, this is wrong. Look at the calorie count and the sodium level of school lunches. As a rule they are no better than sending your kid to McDonalds every day. They aren't the only reason for obesity, but they play a significant part, especially for poor kids getting multiple meals a day.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Without getting into the lunch debate, this is wrong. Look at the calorie count and the sodium level of school lunches. As a rule they are no better than sending your kid to McDonalds every day. They aren't the only reason for obesity, but they play a significant part, especially for poor kids getting multiple meals a day.

And you pick the sentence where I'm obviously being facetious to make your argument?

Like I said, I'm all for making healthier school lunches. It needs to be done in a way that encourages kids to actually eat something though. A lot of that could be solved simply by getting rid of things like Nachos, Corn Dogs, and Pizza (of course kids don't eat the pizza now because it's whole wheat as well). I can tell you, from talking to the kids my son plays with around here, that what they're doing now with them is just driving them to either not eat enough or just bring lunches from home. You're not going to find a whole lot of elementary aged kids that like whole wheat bread products (especially when you consider the fact that this is whole wheat bread at a school) and when you make every bread product in school lunches whole wheat what you end up doing is throwing away a hell of a lot of whole wheat.

Last year they started introducing the fruit options to kids, which seemed to go over very well. What's happening in Kaden's school now is on the few days that they offer a non-whole wheat option (corn dogs, nachos, ect) they run out of whatever it is within the first couple of classes that each lunch and the rest of the days kids seem to be picking through their lunch to find what they are willing to eat.

It makes no sense to still offer things like Corn Dogs and Nachos on some days while changing the Turkey Sandwich to Turkey on Whole Wheat. That's going to drive most kids this age away from the healthier things on the menu.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

what you end up doing is throwing away a hell of a lot of whole wheat.

I've wondered more than once if that isn't the real plan here. Maybe it's a stimulus for the bread companies,or wheat growers, or both. But anybody that thinks that the vast majority of kids are gonna choose whole wheat over going hungry doesn't seem to know kids very well at all.

The whole thing largely seems to be power-tripping adults trying desperately to invent a way to be relevant rather anything to do with kids.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I can tell you, from talking to the kids my son plays with around here, that what they're doing now with them is just driving them to either not eat enough...

oh noes. american kid not eating enough.

Originally Posted by Atocep

You're not going to find a whole lot of elementary aged kids that like whole wheat bread products (especially when you consider the fact that this is whole wheat bread at a school) and when you make every bread product in school lunches whole wheat what you end up doing is throwing away a hell of a lot of whole wheat.

We're just talking about whole wheat here, right? It's not like it's cyanide or anything.

Originally Posted by Atocep

It makes no sense to still offer things like Corn Dogs and Nachos on some days while changing the Turkey Sandwich to Turkey on Whole Wheat.

Makes sense to me. Just because progress isn't 100% doesn't mean we should give up and do nothing.

[molson]

So no more pizza boat Fridays in elementary school? I have great memories of that shit even though it shortened my lifespan.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

oh noes. american kid not eating enough.

When I pay $2.60 a day for my kid to eat at school I'd like to know that he's actually eating something. Actually taking care of your kid is part of your responsibility as a parent.

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Makes sense to me. Just because progress isn't 100% doesn't mean we should give up and do nothing.

Which is the exact point I made right? I didn't mention eliminating the actual unhealthy options on the menu or commend them for the fruit options introduced last year, did I? I said we should just throw our hands up and say "fuck it, let them deep fried snickers and wash it down with a cup of bacon grease."

Are you twisting my points to be a douche or do you actually have a point?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good to see that stupid isn't restricted to people named Akin in our fair state.

Congressman: Blacks Who Don’t Vote 'Ought to Give Us Their Color Back' - Emanuel Cleaver - Fox Nation

Can we reset in this state and just start all over?

[DaddyTorgo]

"OH NOES WHOLE WEAT!!!"

Just make your kids grow up eating whole wheat instead of processed white crap and this wouldn't be a problem.

I never have eaten anything BUT whole wheat bread. I don't even know what white bread tastes like (aside from like...rolls and such).

But for sandwiches...always whole wheat. Anything else is nasty.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

But for sandwiches...always whole wheat.

Not everybody likes to eat something that has the texture & taste of dirt.

Anything grainier than honey wheat (or the various other tricks played to make the whole wheat crap remotely edible) I wouldn't make a dog eat.

[SackAttack]

Paul Ryan vs. The Stench - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

This cannot possibly be real.

[Crapshoot]

I love whole wheat bread. You people are strange.

[JediKooter]

So do kids no longer have recess and PE in school? Is this why school lunches are making kids fat?

Back in my day, we had recess 2 or 3 times a day, plus PE class and then in Jr high and high school, we had PE every day. I wasn't fat then. But I tell you what, I got fat when I got older and stopped exercising. <\oldManVoice>

[MrBug708]

Whole Wheat is pretty good. Wheat bread with the grains in it isn't my thing

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So do kids no longer have recess and PE in school? Is this why school lunches are making kids fat?

Varies. Some have the amount we remember as kids, others have zero at all.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not everybody likes to eat something that has the texture & taste of dirt.

Anything grainier than honey wheat (or the various other tricks played to make the whole wheat crap remotely edible) I wouldn't make a dog eat.

To be clear - I'm not talking like whole weat with the grains in it and shit.

And honey wheat is DELICIOUS.

I'm talking like...Pepperidge Farm Whole Wheat.

I don't understand people who eat like...wonderbread-style white bread.

/shrugs/

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Varies. Some have the amount we remember as kids, others have zero at all.

Correct. A lot (including this school) have rules against games that promote "aggression". That bans nearly every game we would have played at recess as kids as the rules basically prevent anything that involves physical contact. That is a rule here, btw, no touching during recess or anywhere else. So no tag, basketball, kickball, throwing a football, ect. Some schools do not allow running at all during recess.

PE has pushed more toward physical exercise than games and activities. Dodgeball is a huge no-no now in a lot, if not most, schools. Basketball, floor hockey, and games we may have played as kids are broken down into smaller non-contact games like Hot Spot.

It varies a great deal from school to school even within the same district.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Varies. Some have the amount we remember as kids, others have zero at all.

That's just crazy.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Correct. A lot (including this school) have rules against games that promote "aggression". That bans nearly every game we would have played at recess as kids as the rules basically prevent anything that involves physical contact. That is a rule here, btw, no touching during recess or anywhere else. So no tag, basketball, kickball, throwing a football, ect. Some schools do not allow running at all during recess.

PE has pushed more toward physical exercise than games and activities. Dodgeball is a huge no-no now in a lot, if not most, schools. Basketball, floor hockey, and games we may have played as kids are broken down into smaller non-contact games like Hot Spot.

It varies a great deal from school to school even within the same district.

That's just crazier.

Well, that time not spent exercising definitely isn't being spent on more education: SAT Reading Scores Are the Lowest They've Been in 40 Years - Yahoo! News