Perry throws in the towel
 

Another one bites the dust. Perry is gonna be throwing his support behind Newt. About time. If nothing else, the average iq of the remaining candidates just went up a few notches.

Now if Santorum would quit Newt might have a chance.:D

Good. He left sooner than I expected. I'll give him a modicum of respect for that. I think Santorum will leave, but Newt and Paul will stay just for the publicity.

Ol'Frothy should have never been let in.

Some one is gonna pop up in about 6 months or so and make sure Obama stays where he's at.

I think Newt is so full of himself that he'll hang on until his own party knocks him over the head and throws him out.

Then it'll be the Gov. Robamaney, out there all by his lonesome, trying to defend his indefensable past........................

Dave

I'm sure Newt will convince Paul to join him as independant just to make sure no repub wins at that point. It's his football and he damn sure better be QB

You know, I could see that conceited, arrogant prick doing that. Seriously.

And, it would be hilarious. Heck, I'd probably vote for them, even though I don't like Newt at all, just to keep things interesting.

Dave

Paul has already admitted that he knows he won't get the nod. I think he's simply trying to apply pressure to the platform, not that anyone really believes it, or that anyone will really follow it.

Newt, this is his last shot at the pie in the sky. He ain't gonna quit until all he has left is the opportunity to peddle as much influence as he can garner.

Newt may be an asshole, but he's not a stupid asshole. And if he doesn't make it to the top of the greasy pole, he realizes that there is still a percentage left in the game for him.

Anyone who thinks the two will team up in a third party is delusional.

Chas

The only republican capable of capturing a swing vote is Guy Smiley. Any other candidate is handing the election to the Dems on a silver platter. Actually, I'm not sure even Romney would put up enough of a fight.

Over the last few years, the Republicans have seemingly forgotten how to run a national election and I think there is enough of a divide in the party between fiscal and social conservatives that there is going to be trouble in that party for a long time.

I think the only one with a chance is Ron Paul. He is actually different enough from Obama that people will actually get that there are two totally different candidate out there.

Of course, his own party will never support him!

He's not electable. He's a Libertarian (Lite) and has a small dedicated group of voters, but I don't picture him getting anyone else that he hasn't already.

I don't know, Dave. America seems pretty desperate for change.

Wrecklessly desperate. And, I'm afraid that the change people are looking for is going to make life far more difficult than they imagine. What's more, I for one don't believe there is any necessity for it.

When you seek to turn the hands of time back 80-90 years, you have damn well better understand what life was really like back then.

Small clue; Unicorns didn't exist back then either.

Dave

Does anyone actually believe that just cause Paul got elected, he could do everything he would want to? I'd just like to see an honest man at the top, telling it like it is.

No, I don't believe he could push through most of his ideas, especially since 90-95% of his party would vehemently oppose most of his platform. He'd probably set new standards for ineffectiveness.

If we could just give him enough time to get rid of the Patriot Act, kill off the DEA, return some of the civil liberties we've lost since Dubya took office, and then send him off to crazy uncle paul's farm to live out the rest of his days, I'd be all for it.

+1.

Dave

Most he would get would be one term anyway. Likely too old for two.

Oddly, a lot of his views are not that removed from the great Republican presidents of years past. As many know, I think Eisenhower was the last great Republican president. Strange that the party that wants to push us into the past, is the one that seems furthest removed from the potential leader who actually embodies the views that they say they support.

A huge +1 here.

I don't like Ike, I love Ike.

Maybe if we could do some genetic work and produce a hybrid of Paul and Mosler, using Paul's genes for civil liberties and Moslers ideas on the economy, health care reform, and foreign policy.

+1.

Dave

+1.

Dave

You're oddly agreeable today Blue. ;)

Regards,

D-Ray

Oh there's green alligators and long necked geese . . .:D

What is the big thing the voter's want to see? Jobs, more jobs, still more jobs.

What is the mantra of the GOP candidates?

We have to get rid of Obama - not a freaking word about jobs.

Guess they are heading for 49 years in the wilderness.

Obama's failures certainly inlclude his (non) performance on jobs (and I don't mean his own in this instance, although he has easily set new lows for that during his dismal term).

I think Obama being gone is pretty much a given. America hasn't become a great country by typically being colossally stupid twice. I have faith that there are enough intelligent American citizens willing to vote this time around to overpower the marginally interested, completely detached, and frankly, dim-witted folks who are still cheering in Obama's corner.

They voted Bush in twice....

Who were they supposed to vote for? Kerry?

All things considered, sending Bush back for a second term goes in the 'smart' column.

I think that's the same situation we're in now, isn't it? Aren't a lot of 'smart' voters going to look at the crop of Republican nominees and think even less of them then people did of Kerry?

Really? So McConnell and Boehner had nothing to do with the non-performance bit - give me a break.

America used to be a meritocracy, it no konger is, so how is that for being stupid. Dim-witted is thinking that the way to restore America to what it briefly was is to give all the money to 1% and starve the other 99%. We are, or rather were, a consumer driven economy and beggaring the consumer is a sure fire method of tanking the economy.

The same smart column that put us 5.7 trillion in debt so he could give all his rich buddies a tax break.:rolleyes:

Rob, to be fair, taxes needed to be reduced across the board. What we've been doing in both parties for the last 40 years is insanity. Trading tax breaks back and forth between the rich and middle class. We need to get our collective heads out of our asses and reduce taxes for everyone to increase aggregate demand to a level that supports full employment. Anything less is unacceptable.

Also, I am far from rich and benefited significantly from the Bush tax cuts.

Since you're obviously so knowledgeable about money and economics, howcome you ain't rich???

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Chas

I don't think anyone has an issue with tax cuts. I think they were bad form at the time, with massive spending increases due to the "war".

Don I was making six figures and all I got out of that tax cut was enough to buy two packs of Marlboros a month,

I agree now is not the time for tax increases, though 15% for Mitt and his ilk is rediculous*. But when Bush was in it was "good times" for a while and is that not when we are supposed to pay down the debt? Instead he pissed it away.

BTW I will submit to you that the brief period when America was truly a meritocracy existed from 1946 until approximately 1968 or thereabouts. The top 1% in the 20s were even greedier than the current lot.

*Just don't bump it right away as I just sold a bunch of stock options that I had forgotten about until UBS called me.

The tax cuts preceeded the war.

If the tax cuts had not been extended, my family, with a household income not approaching 6 figures would be paying 1500.00 more per year in taxes. That may be a couple of packs of smokes for some, but it's a very significant number for my family.

Granted, the democratic party plan would have saved an additional 100.00, but the Bush tax cuts were important at the time and a solid financial/economic move to help us out of recession. I won't argue that there weren't better options for tax legislation, but it kept a significant amount of money in the pockets of the middle class, especially for married couples children.

Of course, the 15% capital gains tax is available to all of us, just not something that most of us can take advantage of as easily as those with too much money.

The list of things I didn't like about Bush could go for many posts, but the tax cuts wouldn't be on my list.

Gotta take the shots when they present themselves. :) Had I known then what I know now about economics, I would have pursued a degree in economics. It's a relatively recent interest of mine.

War preparation began on Sept 12, 2001.The tax cuts were before that?

Well I was paid bi-monthly and my tax break amounted to $5.00 each payday, I have no idea how you got $125 per month.

Excuse me but what Recession? I must have slept through it.

Not quite sure how many dependents you had then Rob, but there were things like the child tax credit; indexing of the personal exemption that gave families with children a bigger tax break.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yessir. June of 2001 for EGTRRA. The extension of that (JGTRRA) that simplified things a bit was in 2003, which may have been where your concern was centered.

In any case, I wouldn't oppose cutting taxes during spending if the conditions call for it.