Rangerland Forum Information

[Hockey101]

No popular names in the debate in South Carolina, except for Ross Perot wannabe Ron Paul.

My reaction to that group (Pawlenty looked dead, Santorum uptight)....

[rightbug]

Romney scares me a little because he seems to be the most electable. Which is to say he's not a complete nutter and he was elected Governor of Massachusetts, a fairly liberal state. That said, I understand that one thing that came out during his tenure as governor is the thing that apparently sunk his campaign in 2008 -- He is supposedly deeply unlikeable on a personal level. All of the other Republican candidates apparently grew to hate him. It's also the reason he was never in the running for VP. I think the press didn't shine to him either which resulted in unfavorable coverage.

Huckabee scares me because he comes off as reasonable but he is apparently a nutter. Okay, that's perhaps unfair. He is extremely, extremely religious such that his core beliefs are far, far from the center.

I agree with your assessments of Paul and Gingrich.

[Hockey101]

Romney scares me a little because he seems to be the most electable. Which is to say he's not a complete nutter and he was elected Governor of Massachusetts, a fairly liberal state. That said, I understand that one thing that came out during his tenure as governor is the thing that apparently sunk his campaign in 2008 -- He is supposedly deeply unlikeable on a personal level. All of the other Republican candidates apparently grew to hate him. It's also the reason he was never in the running for VP. I think the press didn't shine to him either which resulted in unfavorable coverage.

Huckabee scares me because he comes off as reasonable but he is apparently a nutter. Okay, that's perhaps unfair. He is extremely, extremely religious such that his core beliefs are far, far from the center.

I agree with your assessments of Paul and Gingrich.

Romney is a hit or miss. Either he gets the support from not just Republicans casting anti-Obama votes, but also from the independents and moderate democrats, or he gets the anti-Obama votes only, and the majority of the rest goes to Obama.

The polls give him the edge, with Huckabee. The two together would be a strong force.

The Huck is very religious, but i don't think he will do too much on social issues as he will most likely inherit the current economy and the obligation of paying attention to national security and the Mid-East. I see Huckabee as a softie version of Bush.

It will be neck and neck between Huck and Mitt. If Huck runs anyway. We don't know yet. Looks like he will..., but not 100% sure. I'm siding with Romney as i did in 08. I like Huck too, but i really think this country needs a transitional executive office that will work with both parties. This country could benefit from leaving the extreme right and left it dealt with for the past 10 years or so.

[bloodorange]

The Huck is very religious, but i don't think he will do too much on social issues as he will most likely inherit the current economy and the obligation of paying attention to national security and the Mid-East.

Seeing as this seems to be the current Republican Congress's M.O. -- to focus on social issues after having been elected on the economy -- I find this hard to imagine.

[Hockey101]

Seeing as this seems to be the current Republican Congress's M.O. -- to focus on social issues after having been elected on the economy -- I find this hard to imagine.

I don't think he will take immediate action to push forth a law making something like....... abortions illegal. I am not saying he wouldn't do it, but it would be poor leadership on his part to focus on his conservative social agendas rather than the economy, the housing market, and national security. He would be like Obama but on the opposite side of political ideologies.

I don't think we need that now. I truly believe we need someone like Romney who has a good resume, has gone through excellent schooling, has a record of balancing a state's budget, with the addition of salvaging the Olympics in Salt Lake in little time considering what he had to do, and he managed to do well because he was able to communicate with democrats and republicans. I think he'd be a good one-term president. If he loses to Obama, then there is no doubt in my mind that this country will elect a Republican in 2016 and having talked to certain people i would put my money on Jeb Bush, believe it or not.

[Charlie]

I don't think he will take immediate action to push forth a law making something like....... abortions illegal. I am not saying he wouldn't do it, but it would be poor leadership on his part to focus on his conservative social agendas rather than the economy, the housing market, and national security. He would be like Obama but on the opposite side of political ideologies.

Wait, what? How was Obama pushing socially liberal agendas rather than focusing on the issues?

He passed healthcare, financial reform, and the stimulus. His three top goals that he campaigned on. How is that taking immediate action to push ideological goals? Banning abortion and passing healthcare are completely different. It would be like if Obama's first actions were to legalize gay marriage and pot.

[Hockey101]

Wait, what? How was Obama pushing socially liberal agendas rather than focusing on the issues?

He passed healthcare, financial reform, and the stimulus. His three top goals that he campaigned on. How is that taking immediate action to push ideological goals? Banning abortion and passing healthcare are completely different. It would be like if Obama's first actions were to legalize gay marriage and pot.

Gitmo and universal healthcare. The stimulus did not have much support, but he passed it anyway, and he planned on doing another one (smaller). Banning off-shore drilling, though not entirely as it would have probably made oil prices worse by now. Cap and trade. He actually did stop Bush's ban on foreign establishments that allow abortions.

So yeah.... he entered office and went with his liberal agendas of overspending, increasing government, and a move on a social issue.

[Charlie]

Gitmo and universal healthcare. The stimulus did not have much support, but he passed it anyway, and he planned on doing another one (smaller). Banning off-shore drilling, though not entirely as it would have probably made oil prices worse by now. Cap and trade. He actually did stop Bush's ban on foreign establishments that allow abortions.

So yeah.... he entered office and went with his liberal agendas of overspending, increasing government, and a move on a social issue.

Healthcare wasn't some ideological thing. Healthcare costs are an enormous problem. He created what he thinks is a solution.

Don't know where you are getting your facts about the stimulus not being supported. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/stimulus...ges-higher.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/05/...in4778192.shtml

Cap and Trade is an energy policy.

The only thing you mentioned that is at all ideological was closing Gitmo. The whole abortion thing is just politics. Reagan implemented it, Clinton immediately cancelled it, Bush immediately implemented it, Obama immediately cancelled it. It is a non story. Whatever party is in office does it.

Apparently in your mind anything Obama does is ideology driven because he has liberal ideals. If you think cap and trade and healthcare is just a liberal ideologue being partisan, then I don't know what to say. There is a big difference between having policies that are liberal/conservative and being an ideologue.

Supporting supply side economics doesn't make you an ideologue. Supporting Keynsian economics doesn't make you an ideologue. Creating a campaign around "family values" does. There is a big difference between having an opinion on something, and being ideology drive.

If Obama passing laws that go with a particular ideology make him ideology driven, then there is literally not a single politician who isn't.

[Hockey101]

Healthcare wasn't some ideological thing. Healthcare costs are an enormous problem. He created what he thinks is a solution.

Don't know where you are getting your facts about the stimulus not being supported. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/stimulus...ges-higher.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/05/...in4778192.shtml

Cap and Trade is an energy policy.

The only thing you mentioned that is at all ideological was closing Gitmo. The whole abortion thing is just politics. Reagan implemented it, Clinton immediately cancelled it, Bush immediately implemented it, Obama immediately cancelled it. It is a non story. Whatever party is in office does it.

Apparently in your mind anything Obama does is ideology driven because he has liberal ideals. If you think cap and trade and healthcare is just a liberal ideologue being partisan, then I don't know what to say. There is a big difference between having policies that are liberal/conservative and being an ideologue.

Supporting supply side economics doesn't make you an ideologue. Supporting Keynsian economics doesn't make you an ideologue. Creating a campaign around "family values" does. There is a big difference between having an opinion on something, and being ideology drive.

If Obama passing laws that go with a particular ideology make him ideology driven, then there is literally not a single politician who isn't.

Universal healthcare, the way Obama wanted it, was absolutely ideological as it was a blueprint of a socialist government's plan. He created something that is projected to increase costs and in the end signed a bill that was criticized by even the left as being too ineffective. We're not even 100% fully aware of what is in this bill because 2,000 pages of print is a joke in the first place.

The public opinion poll you posted was taken very early on, but if you followed your CBS link correctly it actually shows that opinion of the stimulus plan was trending towards disapproval. It even hit 40% around April and May of 2009. If you also do a search on a year after the stimulus plan you will see a majority of polls showing a negative reaction towards it as it pretty much failed considering the amount of money put into it.

Cap and trade is an energy policy, yes, and it can be good if activated at the right time. Now is not the right time during an economic crisis. Since energy is an inelastic good, the prices could go up if the companies do not reach government demand. This could very well be on utility companies. With energy prices up, the prices on food and goods expected to go up, and a 9% unemployment rate that we know of, it's not the time to push this agenda. We're not facing a prosperous era, and such a change means forced investments, costs for companies to obtain the right technology for government requirement. This is also a policy that most Americans don't have much interest in because one it's not a primary concern, not in this economy, and two it is a pathway to rising costs. Despite the risks that cap and trade may impose, this has not been a popular agenda.

And the abortion thing....it's a back and forth thing, but it is an ideological action taken, by both sides. The reply was to the previous statement made that Obama did nothing involving abortion. He did.

Like i said, healthcare reform the way Obama planned it to be was a liberal agenda. Healthcare reform can be done, but not the way Obama dreamed it to be. There are liberal/conservative agendas on both a social and non-social matter. Just because social issues are not involved, it doesn't mean that there isn't an ideology towards agendas covering other aspects.

This post has been edited by Hockey101: May 14 2011, 11:37 PM

[leedsy99]

Universal healthcare, the way Obama wanted it, was absolutely ideological as it was a blueprint of a socialist government's plan.

The blueprint for it is the system currently in place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney signed that law.

[Hockey101]

The blueprint for it is the system currently in place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney signed that law.

The watered down version of Obamacare is more similar to Romneycare, but Obama had the near exact government healthcare plan (originally) to that of European countries that are run on a socialist platform. I think if Italy would have one province, like Lazio, with such a plan and not the other provinces, there would be havoc.