2012 Election

[aknowledgeableperson]

It is not a matter of comparing Newt to Obama but the Dems (or PACS) using Newt's past in attack ads.

[phuqueue]

I don't think Newt's personal life will hurt him that much (I do think his terrible numbers with independents and with voters in general -- 56% unfavorable with 100% name recognition, yikes -- will, but how much of that can be attributed to his personal life, I don't know) but I think it's silly that akp can't see any distinction whatsoever between philanderers who don't make "family values" part of their platform and hypocrites who do. Can you really trust a "do as I say, not as I do" figure with a job where anything he does may have tremendous national or even global repercussions? It's a character issue -- if he thinks this rule doesn't apply to him for some special reason, what else does he think he can ignore? And that's not just empty rhetoric, there's already a clear example of the same hypocrisy in a completely unrelated field, advocating the fucking death penalty for possession of too much marijuana, which he himself has used in the past. I don't excuse Kennedy or Clinton cheating on their wives (and I don't excuse Clinton perjuring himself to hide it, either), but tu quoque isn't a valid argument. That Dems have cheated on their wives in the past doesn't make it okay that Gingrich did too, and the fact that Gingrich runs on a platform of hypocrisy makes his situation arguably much worse.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Evidently there are those who do not think or believe that people can change over time. Are you the same person that you were in college? The same person at 45 as you were at 25? Look at Warren Beatty. A serial skirt-chaser until his marriage 20 years ago. People who couldn't care less about religion who become deeply religious, and the reverse. People changing minds about abortion or the death penalty. Yes, it is hard to believe a change when it comes to pols but people do change.

In Newt's case you can accept that he has changed or you don't

[FangKC]

That is exactly the problem for Newt. While many people believe some people can change, most people I've talked to don't believe that Newt has changed--especially the women. What they believe is that he will say anything to get elected to public office. This is a core issue in his high negative ratings.

The other issue is the appearance that Newt continues to feed at the public trough because of his post-political advisory role with Freddie Mac. This, after years of criticizing them, and lobbying other Congress members to not regulate Freddie Mac--all to the tune of $1.6 million.

Then there is the problem with his stopping payment of ailmony and child support to his first wife, who had to take him to court to pay. That's being a "deadbeat Dad." Boy, he really set an example in how to care of your children. His first wife had to turn to her church to help pay bills and keep utilities on.

He left two wives after they became ill. The first wife had cancer, and the second wife had multiple sclerosis.

Now, imagine him running against Obama, who has by all appearances a very stable marriage, and is very family-oriented. There are many Republican women that are moderates, and might consider crossing party lines and vote for Obama, but never admit to it openly.

There are also a lot of voters who are very tired of politicians feeding at the public trough after they leave office. It is one of the most commonly cited issues that Americans want changed--politicians who turn into lobbyists after public service.

[Highlander]

people see that Obama does have blame for the current situation, especially with the nixing of the pipeline.

As someone who has worked in the energy industry for 30 years, the idea that nixing this pipeline has some big negative national level economic impact is absurd.

Oil prices are set in the world market, so it would be just plain wrong to claim this pipeline is going to lower the price of oil by more than a few cents per barrel.

Plus, even if approved today, the pipeline would take at least 18 months to complete, so it can't be the cause of current economic problems.

The whole jobs issue has been ginned up to proivde cover to corrupt congressmen who are getting paid off by the owner.

I don't think that is quite true. You fail to realize the significance of Canadian Tar Sand operations. The scale is such that it is a game changer in terms of crude oil availability. The oil is difficult to extract so it's expensive and, consequently, tar sand production and getting the product to market isn't going to substantially lower the price of gasoline. That much is true. The tar sand operations would not be profitable if crude oil prices fell significantly, it's just too expensive to extract. Nonetheless, the volume of oil is so significant, the oil produced could very well be a buffer against higher oil prices for quite some time to come.

Heavy oil can only be refined in select refineries around the planet, most of them in the southern US. The whole idea of the pipeline is to get a substantial source of oil to a place it can be refined; and the options are few. Whether the refined product eventually leaves the country or not is inmaterial. Crude oil prices drive gasoline prices, not the day to day availibility of gasoline which is essentially a manufactured product. Gasoline is exported from the US because it makes sense to do so; California refiners can get their product to market much cheaper by sending it to Asia than getting it to the east coast of the US. We can refine trillions of gallons of oil into gasoline and it doesn't make much differenct in gas prices because crude oil prices are very high and rising. In any event, refine petroleum is one manufactured product we can and do export and the impact on jobs in the US is hardly insignificant. It's profound and it brings significant wealth back into the US.

It's pretty easy to say that this or that industry or project isn't going to make much of a difference economically but here is one that actually had potential to have a huge impact with minimal (despite all the noise) environmental risk. Obama has gotten into the habit of listening to the wrong people on issues like this and I think it's going to come back to haunt him.

[knucklehead]

The main point of my original post was that the XL pipeline wasn't going to create many jobs directly. I take it you agree with that.

As for effects on world oil prices, I would note that the capacity of the XL expansion is about 500,000 barrels a day. World Oil production is about 85 million barrels a day. The volume isn't big enough to make a big difference in price.

You argue that the XL pipeilne is the first step to a future huge expansion of tar sands production. That strikes me as being to vague and uncertain to make the "jobs killer" charge against Obama stick and certainly has next to nothing to do with current economic conditions. Who is financing the proposed huge expansion?

Tar Sands isn't my issue. How many barrels a day do you advocate from these deposits in Canada? The primary evnironmental objections appear to center on greenhouse gas emmissions, water usage and water pollution. What are the environmental implications of the huge expansion you are advocating in those areas?

[phuqueue]

Evidently there are those who do not think or believe that people can change over time. Are you the same person that you were in college? The same person at 45 as you were at 25? Look at Warren Beatty. A serial skirt-chaser until his marriage 20 years ago. People who couldn't care less about religion who become deeply religious, and the reverse. People changing minds about abortion or the death penalty. Yes, it is hard to believe a change when it comes to pols but people do change.

In Newt's case you can accept that he has changed or you don't

I don't know if Warren Beatty is an apt comparison since Newt continued to be a serial skirt-chaser well after he was married a few times. In any case, I'm not really worried specifically about whether or not he is cheating or will cheat again, but he's only been married to his current wife for like ten or twelve years, well after he went after Clinton, so I don't think "people change" is an adequate response to "he is a hypocrite." He didn't get over his skirt-chasing and then become a champion of family values.

With regard specifically to the point I made about his position on marijuana, I don't think I could foresee myself ever advocating capital punishment for someone involved in something I myself used to do, even if I had later changed my mind about whether it was all right to have done it. Granted, as far as I know Gingrich never possessed above whatever the threshold was that he set, so he's not advocating execution for a specific act he himself has committed, but the distinction between using marijuana and possessing some arbitrary quantity of it is not really stark enough for me to be comfortable with letting the former slide and punishing the latter with death.

[KCMax]

Santorum to spread his message in St. Charles, MO today. The Missouri GOP Primary is Feb. 7. But its non-binding. And Gingrich isn't even on the ballot. Could Missouri have been more important in selecting the Presidential nominee?

GOP primary seen as a ‘missed opportunity’ for Missouri

[KCMax]

lolwut

Donald Trump Staff Reaching Out to Financers, Campaign Managers to Explore Third Party Bid

[mean]

Between Gary Johnson presumably getting the Libertarian nomination (and siphoning many of the Ron Paul fanatics) and Trump running, why not just hand the election to Obama? Fools.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Trump won't be taken seriously by many, would seem to be more of a attention grabbing announcement. Was interviewed Sunday on one of the news programs and he stated he dropped out of the GOP race while at the top. If I remember right he did zoom to the top but was on his way down before leaving. Think he got whacked by Obama's birth cert. and by Obama's standup during the roast.

[AllThingsKC]

Romney wins Florida, followed by Newt, Santorum, and Paul.

That is, if we trust Florida to count their votes correctly the first time.

[KCMax]

Rick Santorum will hold a rally at John Knox Village in Lee's Summit Friday, which tells you all you need to know about his base.

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/sa ... nt-friday/

[shinatoo]

Rick Santorum will hold a rally at John Knox Village in Lee's Summit Friday, which tells you all you need to know about his base.

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/sa ... nt-friday/

Actually, it tells us all we need to know about you.

[KCMax]

Rick Santorum will hold a rally at John Knox Village in Lee's Summit Friday, which tells you all you need to know about his base.

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/sa ... nt-friday/

Actually, it tells us all we need to know about you.

I didn't think that was a big secret.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Looks like Trump has endorsed Romney.

If Romney ends up being the GOP candidate how does that affect any third party bid?

[mean]

I don't think it does. The Ron Paul faithful may defect to Gary Johnson, but it won't be dramatic. Romney will lose to Obama.

[FangKC]

Especially if Americans keep seeing headlines like this.

Jobless rate drops to lowest level in almost three years

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... hree-years

[shinatoo]

Especially if Americans keep seeing headlines like this.

Jobless rate drops to lowest level in almost three years

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... hree-years

Very misleading title, as the stats are about the unemployment rate and not the jobless rate.

Unemployment only indicates the people seeking jobs that have registered with the unemployment office as a percentage of total jobs.

Jobless rate is the total number of employable people compared to the total number of jobs.

Unemployment would be zero if everyone quit looking for work.

[KCMax]

Obama tied with Romney, Paul, Santorum leads Gingrich by 7. The approval/disapproval gap for the GOP contenders is much higher than Obama's though.

http://20poundsofheadlines.wordpress.co ... for-potus/