Romney picks his VP?

[Lucky]

Why would Romney's second term be key?



J

I did say at least 2017. But, if Romney were to win a second term, that would evidence a sea change in national politics sufficient to make progress possible, either because Romney would be backed by solid majorities in House and Senate, or that Congress had eventually been forced to work together like adults.

[Lucky]

"One thing is clear, though. No matter which guy wins in 2012, nothing will get done until at least 2017. Depressing."

Not clear to me. Few voters have even started looking yet. It's a weird time, and I can see things swinging quite a bit in either direction still.

And yeah, I too liked Huntsman early and often, but his campaign was as bad as his resume is good.

Why are you optimistic that we'll start making progress starting next year regardless of the winner of the Presidential election? Or did I misunderstand your assertion? I do agree with you that many voters haven't made up their minds, and that it's a weird time when things can change unpredictably. But how does that help us move forward as far as Washington making progress in addressing our important issues?

(And I have to ask...why don't you use the "Reply With Quote" function?)

[Judge Jude]

"(And I have to ask...why don't you use the "Reply With Quote" function?)"

more intriguing to me is why it matters to people. I guess I'm a maverick.


I'm not completely convinced yet that the House will stay Republican or the Senate will remain Democratic. Would be a helluva thing if both flipped, though, wouldn't it?

[Roto Rooter]

In the meanwhile the current VP lets his opinions fly

[revo]

"(And I have to ask...why don't you use the "Reply With Quote" function?)"

more intriguing to me is why it matters to people. I guess I'm a maverick.


I'm not completely convinced yet that the House will stay Republican or the Senate will remain Democratic. Would be a helluva thing if both flipped, though, wouldn't it?

Because it shows who you're replying to?

[nots]

from what I gather here, you're more liberal than conservative but you're not blinded by party loyalty like so many others are. If thats true, then I'm not surprised you dont like many of the repub candidates. That and they really didnt bring out many of their better candidates... Newt, Santorum, Paul, Cain, Bachmann are just organizational depth although Newt did have a few smart things to say. I liked Perry until he proved speaking/thinking was a foreign concept. I think he just cant debate because I've seen him do well in public speaking here in TX. You know I'm a Huntsman fan, but the guy's campaign was idiotic at best. Its like he was trying to see just how bad he could do. I dont like Romney, but the alternative is far worse so I know how I'm voting.

I consider myself as fiscally conservative as one can be that also believes capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

[Judge Jude]

"Because it shows who you're replying to?"

- usually it's to the person who just posted
- if not, I'll reference who made the post
- that is, unless who posted it seems irrelevant

even mavericks have systems!

my version is better than the people who copy-block long bits of text, yet they seem to get a pass.

[onejayhawk]

"Because it shows who you're replying to?"

- usually it's to the person who just posted
- if not, I'll reference who made the post
- that is, unless who posted it seems irrelevant

even mavericks have systems!

my version is better than the people who copy-block long bits of text, yet they seem to get a pass.

When did you join the Dallas staff?

J

[onejayhawk]

I did say at least 2017. But, if Romney were to win a second term, that would evidence a sea change in national politics sufficient to make progress possible, either because Romney would be backed by solid majorities in House and Senate, or that Congress had eventually been forced to work together like adults.

Betting odds are probably no longer than 10-1 that exactly that result occurs. The fact that the Republicans will nominate someone who clearly is not a conservative ideologue says something already. A real sea change would ahve to occur in Congress.

J

[cardboardbox]

I consider myself as fiscally conservative as one can be that also believes capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

anyone who is truly a fiscal conservative could not vote for obama.

[cardboardbox]

In the meanwhile the current VP lets his opinions fly

can you imagine what would happen if romney said this? It wouldnt blow over in a day like it will with biden.

[cardboardbox]

Romney isnt playing defense on the medicare topic:

[nots]

anyone who is truly a fiscal conservative could not vote for obama.

I was being flip.
Your side's continuously wanting to cut taxes in a vain effort to 'create jobs' or to have prosperity 'trickle down' doesn't resonate with me.
The other side's continuously wanting to spend well beyond the revenues generated and then tax the uber-wealthy to vainly generate a tiny, tiny fraction of what they spent doesn't resonate with me either. ( i realize I'm being overly simplistic but you get the jist, I'm sure).
For me, Obama isn't much (still waiting on that Gitmo closing), but he's likely to be better than Romney.

[Lucky]

anyone who is truly a fiscal conservative could not vote for obama.

I'm not sure about that, but it seems clear to me that anyone who is truly a fiscal conservative could not vote for Romney. He does not have a fiscally conservative plan for the economy, just a pandering package of tax cuts for the rich, spending cuts and deregulation.

The desire to cut taxes for the wealthy while indiscriminately cutting spending doesn't make one a fiscal conservative. It does show an ignorance of history and economics.

"Trickle down" didn't work, in the sense that prosperity did not find its way to the middle class. It did work in the sense that it was intended to...keeping as much money in the hands of the rich as possible. All Romney has come up with is in many ways similar, and no more likely to help our economy.

I have never seen a party so openly and proudly embrace so many bad policy ideas as today's far right. And based upon voting records, Paul Ryan fits right in there with the far right - very close to Michele Bachmann.

[cardboardbox]

Your side's continuously wanting to cut taxes in a vain effort to 'create jobs' or to have prosperity 'trickle down' doesn't resonate with me.
The other side's continuously wanting to spend well beyond the revenues generated and then tax the uber-wealthy to vainly generate a tiny, tiny fraction of what they spent doesn't resonate with me either. ( i realize I'm being overly simplistic but you get the jist, I'm sure).

nice try on "your side" but I'd vote for anyone I thought was good for our economic future. If President Romney wasnt getting the job done and the dems put up a reasonably moderate candidate with a sound economic plan I'd vote for the dem.