“Establishment” Republicans In Crisis For Presidential Nominee In 2016

The “Establishment” Republicans are in a crisis, trying to find a Presidential nominee who Wall Street likes, and they thought they had New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, until his campaign collapsed, due to “Bridgegate”.

But then they thought they had a good alternative in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who gained establishment backing by working against labor unions in his state, and surviving a recall election. However, violation of campaign finance laws and conflicts of interest by the governor’s aides is now creating troubles for Walker, and making his possible candidacy problematical.

Add in other governors who have had ethics violations, or have faced major controversies in the way they govern, including South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley; Florida Governor Rick Scott: Texas Governor Rick Perry; Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal; Michigan Governor Rick Snyder; and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, among others.

Suddenly, looking to state governors as the solution for the “Establishment” Republicans to back against Tea Party types such as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, and Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin seems unlikely to be a productive alternative!

Again, the best choices seem to be former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, but the likelihood of either seeking or winning the GOP nomination for President seems highly unlikely!

Instead, some are looking to Governor John Kasich of Ohio and Governor Mike Pence of Indiana as possible choices, and this blogger will write about them more at a later time!

78 comments on ““Establishment” Republicans In Crisis For Presidential Nominee In 2016

  1. Mark February 20, 2014 9:36 am

    Wouldn’t you consider this one of the good effects, whether intended or not, of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling?

  2. Ronald February 20, 2014 11:42 am

    Mark, it will depend on what happens in the future!

  3. Mark February 20, 2014 5:46 pm

    “Mark, it will depend on what happens in the future!”

    What are some possible scenarios? Worst case?

  4. Ronald February 20, 2014 5:55 pm

    I believe, Mark, as I hinted at above, that Governor Kasich or Governor Pence could benefit from all this mess in the GOP. In my mind, Bush or Huntsman (particularly) would be the best scenario of all.

    The worst scenario of all, as I believe I have stated before, is for a Tea Party Senator–Cruz, Paul, Rubio as the nominee, and also Paul Ryan, who I have criticized bitterly during the 2012 campaign.

    But let me point out, in the end, it will not matter who is nominated, although the party as we know it could be destroyed by the Tea Party Senators in particular. But the Democrats will retain the White House, because as I have stated in many earlier blog posts, they have almost enough Electoral College votes to win with ANY Democrat, not just Hillary or Joe. How about 257 electoral votes out of 270 needed, and only needing one or two more states, depending on electoral votes, to win the White House?

    So the GOP is doing an exercise in futility, like Don Quixote battling the windmills, and even that, the GOP opposed wind power and prefers polluting oil and coal! LOL

  5. Mark February 20, 2014 6:21 pm

    So basically, the GOP is over already, when it comes to the Presidency, and the Democrats will be elected for the foreseeable future?

  6. Ronald February 20, 2014 6:31 pm

    I would never say NEVER, but in the next few elections for the White House, unless there is a massive turn around by voters, which is unlikely with the changing voter population, the Democrats have the vast edge. But this does not translate to the Congress necessarily.

    With the likelihood of Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, at the least, turning “Blue” with the growing Latino population, the Democrats have the potential to have a guaranteed majority of electoral votes between 350-400, when only needing 270.

  7. Mark February 20, 2014 6:51 pm

    You think the South will stay or will they attempt secession if there’s a permanent Democratic majority which forces cake makers to make cakes for gays, etc?

  8. Ronald February 20, 2014 7:20 pm

    HAHA, you are so funny, Mark, as if the issue of cakes is an important issue! I mean, what if a cake maker does not want to bake a cake for Jews, African Americans, Latinos, handicapped people, people over 65, etc? It is the biggest bull ever to invoke religion on something as stupid as that!

    The South might talk secession, but it is illegal, as can we forget the Civil War? But, ironically, the South could not survive without the financial support of the “Blue” states, as the South, as a group, are the poorest states, the worst educated states, the most regressive socially of all of the states.

    And do not forget, despite illegal efforts to suppress the vote, which will ultimately fail, the governments will change and not be supportive of secession.

    Of course, individuals will continue to pontificate, but it will not change the situation on the ground. At worst, maybe some of these malcontents will decide to leave the country, and discover they have made a mistake, and wish to return and stop complaining, when they realize the virtues of being Americans, and that no one should be denied the same rights and privileges for reasons of race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, which is what makes America stand out as a beacon to the world!

  9. Mark February 20, 2014 7:30 pm

    “what if a cake maker does not want to bake a cake for Jews, African Americans, Latinos, handicapped people, people over 65, etc?”

    What about going to another baker? That’s what I would do.

  10. Ronald February 20, 2014 7:42 pm

    Yes, Mark, one could go to another baker, but it is also the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says that discrimination in public places and businesses is unconstitutional. Business with the public is business,and personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with commerce!

  11. JOB February 20, 2014 10:24 pm

    Hi Mark. I owe you an apology. In the thread comparing JFK to Obama, I called two of your comments retarded, which of course would imply that you are retarded. For that, I apologize. You may be a very educated man, more educated than myself. And you report that you are quite the handsome f##ker. So I hope that you accept my apology. Now I ‘m not sure if you look back on previous posts because a lot of bloggers don’t. So I would like to start a dialogue here.

    First- As for the student loan debt, you are correct. Obama let the shit go down. But before it reached him it was started and passed through the worst Congress in history. This measure is a bastardization of our country, not too mention one of our founding fathers. Our POTUS along with our Congress once again placated to the banking system. The likes of Paulson helped get this passed, and why? Because they stand the most to gain.

    How can you as an American argue against this Mark. The politicians are telling these kids to go to college to better themselves. These kids take out ridiculous loans at ridiculous rates. And then we call them lazy when they can not find a job and decide to protest. All the while, interest rates are racking up, and the debt can not be forgiven by bankruptcy. We Americans are sticking it up the collective asses of our future generations, and then blogging about it. And I hope you don’t hold stock in any of the major retail banks Mark, because guess what the next bubble to pop is. But if Hillary is POTUS, we’ll probably just bail them out again.

    Second- The economy? Can you tell me how POTUS has affected our economy more that this shit Congress? Or the banks? I’d love to hear how his Socialistic agenda has kept major banking firms and big corporations from reinvesting in this country. I’ll be honest with ya Brother. The problem with the economy is that Obama is more of a Moderate Republican than a Socialist.

    Third- Taking money from the rich? Really? It’s called a tax and the fact that we are having a discussion on this subject is ridiculous. As the most industrialized nation in the world, we also enjoy the lowest corporate tax rate. The rate is between 15% & 33%. However, our Corporations share the same deductions that us individual citizens share. This is why US corporations that have hundreds of millions in profits get away with paying zero in Federal tax. Do you really want to defend this Mark? These motherf##kers sent jobs overseas. American jobs! Gone! Just so they can increase the capital gains of their investors (Who pay only 10%BTW). And then they get the satisfaction of paying zero percent income tax? Are you fucking kidding me?

    But anyway, I do apologize and congratulations again on your good looks.

  12. Ronald February 20, 2014 10:34 pm

    JOB, you are adding a lot of color to this blog! HAHAHA!

    I want you to know I agree wholeheartedly that Obama is closer to a moderate Republican of old times than a liberal Democrat. But the GOP keeps calling him a Socialist, even though ObamaCare is the Newt Gingrich-Bob Dole-Heritage Foundation plan of 1993, an alternative to the more leftist HillaryCare plan!

    I also think students should not be paying high interest rates, and should be allowed to avoid some debt payments, as their education benefits the nation, not just them.

    And the upper class definitely pays too low taxation, and that needs to end, so you see we actually agree much more than you might have believed!

    But as far as Mark is concerned, other than his good looks (he is cocky enough to claim so LOL), don’t bet he will agree with you on much, if anything, but certainly the word “retard” should not be used!

  13. Engineer Of Knowledge February 20, 2014 10:40 pm

    Yes Professor….I remember the local news in Baltimore did a piece when the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964. A young black boy went to a local barber shop to get his hair cut but was refused because he was black. The barber felt that if he cut the black boy’s hair, white people would not get their hair cut there because the clippers had touched and used to cut the black boy’s hair….like it had been contaminated. The Civil Rights Act was signed the next day and the little black boy went back to the same barber shop and they had to serve him with a hair cut as not to be breaking the law. I heard the same old bull talk back then that Mark has just once again brought up today. The more things change the more the same week minded people will bring up the same old tired arguments. It was wrong then….it is still wrong today. You serve the public….you serve everyone!

  14. JOB February 20, 2014 10:48 pm

    “I want you to know I agree wholeheartedly that Obama is closer to a moderate Republican of old times than a liberal Democrat. But the GOP keeps calling him a Socialist, even though ObamaCare is the Newt Gingrich-Bob Dole-Heritage Foundation plan of 1993, an alternative to the more leftist HillaryCare plan!”

    Ron, the GOP has been calling him a Socialist since ’08. The ACA has given the GOP even more ammunition than the fact that he’s from Chicago. But the fact is that the ACA sucks. Granted it does a few good things, but the fact is that the insurance agencies and the lobbyists still have the most to gain. It’s to bad that the GOP sees black more than they see greed.

    “I also think students should not be paying high interest rates, and should be allowed to avoid some debt payments, as their education benefits the nation, not just them.”

    I think higher education should be free, as did Jefferson.

    “if anything, but certainly the word “retard” should not be used!”
    I agree completely, and do apologize once again.

  15. Pragmatic Progressive February 21, 2014 9:02 am

    I second that Jane Doe.

  16. Rustbelt Democrat February 21, 2014 9:08 am

    Exactly as that post says, Obama is a Progressive. Period.

  17. Pragmatic Progressive February 21, 2014 9:14 am

    Thanks for that Jane Doe. 🙂

  18. Mark February 21, 2014 9:14 am

    “These motherf##kers sent jobs overseas”

    Are you really not smart to realize that they do that because of the combination of excessive regulation and taxation?

    If I want to be, say, an honest financial adviser, and I want to focus on that, I can’t do that in the United States, because due to the Patriot Act, I would have to spy on my clients, monitor their patterns of behavior, and report them to the government.

    Some might argue it’s necessary to fight terrorism. Assuming that is true, the regulations still make my job unenjoyable, so I might want to establish a foreign corporation as a ways to do what I truly want instead of expending so much of my time and money following regulations.

    If you want to give your kids the experience of opening a lemonade stand without asking the government, you only can do that in a foreign country as well. The government will bust your kid’s lemonade stand if you do that in the U.S.

  19. Ronald February 21, 2014 9:17 am

    Actually, these articles make a good point, of Obama’s record and his desire to do much more, but so far, with opposition, he has not been able to accomplish a lot of what many progressives wish. Having said that, I have published blog entries praising his accomplishments!

  20. Ronald February 21, 2014 9:18 am

    Mark, there is NOT excessive taxation, far from it, and regulation, if anything, is too little. And the Patriot Act was due to Bush and Cheney!

  21. Mark February 21, 2014 9:20 am

    The Patriot Act was signed by Bush. I oppose it. I oppose most of what was done during the Bush administration, including No Child Left Behind, the creation of the TSA, and the expansion of Medicare.

  22. Ronald February 21, 2014 9:30 am

    You are opposed to the expansion of Medicare, Part D, which makes lives of senior citizens easier, with cheaper prescription costs, Mark? This is one of the few things Bush did that was good to do!

  23. Ronald February 21, 2014 9:31 am

    Mark, you would prefer no security for airline travel? There are problems with TSA, but would it be safer without it? Really?

  24. Mark February 21, 2014 9:32 am

    “There are problems with TSA, but would it be safer without it? Really?”

    Yes, it would be safer without it. It’s pure show.

  25. Mark February 21, 2014 9:33 am

    “Mark, you would prefer no security for airline travel? ”

    No government-run security doesn’t mean no security.

  26. Ronald February 21, 2014 9:35 am

    But, Mark, if a disaster happened, the government would have its head handed to it, as reckless and irresponsible. Look at the big hullabaloo over Benghazi and Hillary Clinton for FOUR people! What it comes down to is the government is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t, but caution makes it sensible for criticism for doing too much, rather than too little!

  27. Ronald February 21, 2014 9:40 am

    Private security would cost more, and treat its workers with lack of respect, typical for private corporations, the same with prisons, which should NOT be privatized! They have no responsibility to America, only to profit. Look at the security business in Iraq and Afghanistan, very expensive and corrupt!

  28. Princess Leia February 21, 2014 10:57 am

    I think that Mark is Davy Knows Nothing in disguise. 😉

  29. Princess Leia February 21, 2014 10:59 am

    Thanks for those posts Jane Doe. Like you, I’m also getting sick and tired of progressives claiming that Obama is not a progressive.

  30. Ronald February 21, 2014 11:10 am

    Princess Leia, as much as I may not agree with Mark, I sense that he DOES have intelligence and knowledge, but just has a different viewpoint, while Dave just seems to be purely ignorant, sorry to say. IF Mark is Dave, then he puts on a good act! LOL HAHAHA!

  31. Jane Doe February 21, 2014 11:25 am

    @Princess Leia
    On another progressive blog I visit, The People’s View, those progressives are referred to as Emo Progressives or the Emo Left.

  32. Ronald February 21, 2014 11:35 am

    EMO progressives, purists who are never happy with any Democratic President, because he does not accomplish everything those on the left want, have also undermined Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, as much, if not more than, Barack Obama. Very sad, as no one can accomplish everything on an agenda!

  33. Jane Doe February 21, 2014 12:44 pm

    JOB’s comment that Obama is a Moderate Republican is why those links needed to be posted.

  34. Ronald February 21, 2014 1:05 pm

    Jane Doe, you are correct in what you say, but also realize that ObamaCare is similar to what Republicans wanted in the early 1990s, against HillaryCare, so some could say that it is similar to a moderate Republican view of 20 years ago on health care!

  35. JOB February 21, 2014 5:14 pm

    Thank you for the links Jane Doe. I checked them out and that’s quite a list that Mr. Shook put together. Maybe he’s right and the term Moderate Republican doesn’t even exist. So is it possible that Obama is just strictly Republican? LOLOLOL

    Look, I don’t mean to rain on your parade, or the parade of Rustbelt Democrat or Pragmatic Progressive for that matter. But know one thing, I’m only questioning his true intentions because some of his actions would lean a little “Right”. Check out this article. You may have forgotten some of his Progressive rhetoric.

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/25

  36. Jane Doe February 21, 2014 7:27 pm

    @JOB
    I participated on the forum of that site briefly a few years ago. I left because I very highly disagree with purist progressive critiques. Because I didn’t agree with them, I was labeled as “not a true progressive”. Then I found this and it enlightened me that erroneously portraying the President as ineffective and little better than the GOP is not a good strategy: http://www.winningprogressive.org/on-drew-westen-and-the-strategic-failure-of-the-lefts-persistent-attacks-on-president-obama

  37. Jane Doe February 21, 2014 7:34 pm

    We should not blindly praise President Obama for everything he does. But as progressives, it is our duty to provide the balanced view of President Obama that no one else in the media does, and to spend at least as much time praising good things our President does and attacking the GOP as we do calling our President and the Democrats out when they make a bad decision.

  38. Ronald February 21, 2014 7:41 pm

    I agree, Jane Doe, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT to what you have stated! There is no perfection, but supporting fringe candidates, as Ralph Nader against Al Gore in 2000, did great damage! We need to support our President whenever we can, and never abandon him, no matter what shortcomings he might display!

  39. Pragmatic Progressive February 21, 2014 7:55 pm

    @Jane Doe
    I had the same thing happen on FireDogLake because I didn’t constantly critique the President on every issue. I got the picture that they want Democrats to emulate the Tea Party Republicans, and never compromise, and those of us who accept compromise as a part of the process are considered “weak-spined,” “appeasers,” and “compromising for the sake of compromise.” I got sick of that and left that forum.

  40. Rustbelt Democrat February 21, 2014 8:18 pm

    The thing is, Democrats come from diverse regions of this country which makes it difficult to have a monolithic approach to policy.

  41. Princess Leia February 21, 2014 8:32 pm

    @Jane Doe and Pragmatic
    I ran into the same issue at Daily Kos.

  42. Southern Liberal February 21, 2014 8:49 pm

    I think that what everyone needs to keep in mind, both right and left, is that the President is a President of a diverse country.

  43. Jane Doe February 21, 2014 8:59 pm

    Exactly Southern Liberal! The extremes on the left and right have forgotten that the Founding Fathers established our great nation through compromise.

  44. Blue In A Red State February 21, 2014 9:18 pm

    Well said all! We progressives should not be sitting out elections because we don’t like the usage of drones or because we didn’t get the single payer option.

  45. Ronald February 21, 2014 9:41 pm

    Absolutely in agreement with all of you!

  46. Mark February 21, 2014 10:22 pm

    “But, Mark, if a disaster happened, the government would have its head handed to it,”

    LOL. That’s utterly ridiculous.

    How many people were fired for 9/11? What a joke.

  47. Ronald February 21, 2014 10:44 pm

    Mark, it is not a question of being fired. It is a question of non stop media exposure and blame being placed on people, with it never going away. Everything is not based on a job and money, but reputation!

  48. D February 21, 2014 11:13 pm

    Has Rick “Frothy” Santorum been totally written off? What a shame! He could make for a suitable choice as the 2016 presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

  49. Ronald February 21, 2014 11:29 pm

    No, D, you can be sure that Santorum will be in the mix, but he will not be the GOP nominee for President. He will make many have a headache or upset stomach that anyone could be that hateful, that biased, that stupid, and have been a United States Senator from the Northeast!

  50. JOB February 22, 2014 2:07 am

    I would like to first start off by saying that I find it hilarious that Liberals seem to be just like Conservatives with all the in-fighting. Not too mention all the different terminology. Seriously? Emo Progressive. That is too damn funny. And as much as I appreciate all the links from Jane Doe and Pragmatic Progressive, I don’t find them a useful retort against what I said. But I think I found the disconnect in our communication here.

    First- I am not a Progressive. Since I am new to this blog I will explain myself in brief. I have my ideas of what would make this country and it’s citizens prosperous. Some of my ideas are Conservative in nature while some of my ideas are Liberal in nature. I have ideas that most would label me a Socialist, if not downright Communist. But I do not, and will not follow a party platform. The professor hinted towards third party politics and how they devastate our system. He mentioned Nader in 2000. Well, I am a third party supporter. Our political system as a whole is f##ked and it needs to be shaken up.
    Second- As Ron said, we need to support our POTUS. But we also need to question him. It’s not only our right, it is our duty. He is a publicly elected official which mean his duty is to serve each and every one of us. If I have a complaint on a policy I will voice it. Just because I question him does not mean I don’t support him or refuse to acknowledge his accomplishments. But if I have a beef, I will voice it.
    Third- Of course I do not think that Obama is a Republican, even though he has placated to the banking industry as well as Wall Street. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1
    But you know something, for as long as I can remember (Reagan) I can’t recall a POTUS that hasn’t been in bed with the banks. So I guess it’s just the same ‘ol same ‘ol with the two party system. Some things get done that make this group of people happy, but make that group of people mad.
    Fourth- I have a question for Mrs. Doe or anyone else that would like to answer. The 2016 Presidential is upon us and we have our Democratic and Republican nominees. During their first debate one of them states that they can balance the budget by simply reconfiguring the way cost of living is assessed. My question is this, who said it? The Democrat, or the Republican?

    In closing, I will continue to question Obama or any other POTUS that I feel is not leading this country in what I feel is the right direction. It’s my right, and my duty. And I would expect the same out of everyone here, as Americans. Not too mention that everyone here seems pretty cool and level headed. Voicing your dislike on a policy is NOT disrespect. It’s just the action of an American citizen who wants better for his fellow Americans and for the generations that follow us……………………

    Ronald, unless Sanders or Warren is the 2016 Democratic nominee, I will most likely be voting Third Party.

  51. JOB February 22, 2014 4:20 am

    “Are you really not smart to realize that they do that because of the combination of excessive regulation and taxation?”

    Well hello Mark. To be honest with you, besides for one semester, I am not college educated. But the good news is that due to my educational shortcomings I have learned to survive using not my wits, but my senses. I can honestly say that when I close my eyes, I can smell bulls##t from more than a mile away.
    Can you please post a link that shows where our countries’ gross over regulation has forced good honest corporations overseas just so they can make a profit? As for taxation, where is it better?

    “If I want to be, say, an honest financial adviser, and I want to focus on that, I can’t do that in the United States, because due to the Patriot Act, I would have to spy on my clients, monitor their patterns of behavior, and report them to the government.
    Some might argue it’s necessary to fight terrorism. Assuming that is true, the regulations still make my job unenjoyable, so I might want to establish a foreign corporation as a ways to do what I truly want instead of expending so much of my time and money following regulations.”

    Mark, I am so sorry! But you picked the wrong scenario. My Brother is a financial adviser/Investment banker. I asked him today about your what if. I am sorry to say that all I received was laughter followed my a good ‘ol “Who told you that?”

    You see Mark, the first problem is that to be an honest and successful financial planner, you do not need to “legally” spy on your clients. Your success and earning power would be based off of your clients honesty. You would find that your clients would be more honest with you than they are their accountants.
    The second problem is that I can envision your scenario. But let’s face it. The only reason you would establish a foreign firm is so you could increase profits. Not regulations. Not taxation. Good old fashioned greed.

    “If you want to give your kids the experience of opening a lemonade stand without asking the government, you only can do that in a foreign country as well. The government will bust your kid’s lemonade stand if you do that in the U.S.”

    Can you provide some sort of info that leads you to believe this?

  52. Ronald February 22, 2014 7:17 am

    JOB, you are an amazing person, so colorful, and telling it as it is! LOL I KNOW we would have a grand time, with lots of laughter, if we ever met for lunch or dinner when and if I was in Chicago, or you were in South Florida! 🙂

    Let me say that if you will vote third party unless Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are the nominee, then indeed you are VERY MUCH to the left! LOL I will have you know, and you would discover if you investigated back in time, that I have said on here that Warren and Sanders are my two favorite Senators, on a list where I discussed my ten favorite Senators. But understand, both Senators are PROGRESSIVES, more so than Obama, and both are critics of the banks and Wall Street!

    You have every right and responsibility to challenge Obama or any President, but realize IF you vote third party, you are only helping the right wing, which clearly you are not in agreement with.

    I love how you challenge Mark, and I will sit here, with popcorn and watch the fight, better than any film I could see! LOL HAHAHAHA!

  53. Mark February 22, 2014 10:46 am

    “Can you provide some sort of info that leads you to believe this?”

    You should just use google sometimes. So I’m going to google: lemonade stand busted permit.

    Here’s one I found, among many:

    “Police in Georgia have shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls trying to save up for a trip to a water park, saying they didn’t have a business license or the required permits.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/georgia-police-bust-lemonade-stand_n_900230.html

    That alone to me is more than enough proof the U.S. is a police state.

    Regarding your brother, maybe he is in a big company and other people do the stuff I mentioned, but the Patriot Act does mandate that you spend a great amount of time and money checking patterns of behavior of your clients and reporting them to the government (without telling your clients). I.e., the Patriot Act forces people to do unpaid spy/police work. By the way, only big businesses have the economies of scale to absorb these costs, which make smaller financial companies go bankrupt. So only the very big survive.

    Regarding your education, you won’t learn anything from your social sciences profs at universities. Almost all are leftist unthinking types that teach envy and not reasoning. They also teach to feel outraged and to complain, usually at the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

  54. Southern Liberal February 22, 2014 12:17 pm

    I see voting for third parties as a wasted vote because candidates besides the Democrat and Republican candidates have no chance of winning. Even if you don’t like either candidate, you should still vote for the better of the two, since voting for someone else will change nothing, and will give the candidate you like the least a better chance of winning.

  55. Ronald February 22, 2014 12:19 pm

    Mark, you are wrongfully depicting social science professors as a group, as I teach people to think and question, not to accept right wing Fox News propaganda and the promotion of greed and selfishness as a virtue! You obviously have a problem with people who challenge the status quo, and I would hope, that you do not have children and teach them your cynicism.

    I cannot vouch for everyone else, but you are too easy at labeling a whole group, and you sound as if you are Fox News and right wing talk radio educated, which, if true, is very sad!

  56. Ronald February 22, 2014 12:21 pm

    Southern Liberal, I am in total agreement with you!

  57. Moderate Republican February 22, 2014 1:18 pm

    I’ve heard that Obama has described himself as being a Blue Dog Democrat.

  58. Ronald February 22, 2014 1:59 pm

    Moderate Republican, It is news to me that Obama has called himself a Blue Dog Democrat. Do you have a link to show that?

  59. JOB February 22, 2014 2:19 pm

    Thanks for the link Mark. Yes I checked out your claim and I was shocked to find so many. However, licensing and regulation are two different things. But I’m not going to argue the finer points with you because I agree with your statement about the U.S. becoming a police state. But there were quite a few stories that ended with a policeman or inspector making a mistake. Such is the case in Philadelphia. There a police were called after a resident phoned in a complaint. But it turns out the stand was legal because the children were under 16.

    http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Lemonade-Stand-Busted.html

    As for my Brother and his profession, he has his own firm along with one partner. And thanks for your tips on college professors.

  60. Pragmatic Progressive February 22, 2014 2:28 pm

    Exactly Rustbelt! Bernie and Elizabeth have some good ideas but Hilary has a better chance of appealing to the middle than they do.

  61. JOB February 22, 2014 2:36 pm

    Southern Liberal and Professor. A wasted vote is voting for someone that you do not believe in.

  62. Ronald February 22, 2014 2:38 pm

    JOB, you have a right to believe Mark on college professors, but I am telling you it is pure BS!

    And if you believe we have a police state, as Mark apparently does, I would suggest you follow the news closer, and maybe visit a large portion of other nations in the world, and then you will realize just how much freedom we have! Do you think, Mark and JOB, that the outrageous attacks on Obama personally and policy wise, would be possible in more than maybe 30-40 nations in the world today? Give me a break!

  63. Ronald February 22, 2014 2:43 pm

    Thanks, Moderate Republican!

  64. Southern Liberal February 22, 2014 2:50 pm

    The point of voting for a candidate is to maximize their chance of winning. The chance of a third party candidate winning are astronomical, so by voting for the lesser of two evils, voters are maximizing the chance of electing a candidate that is more tolerable.

  65. JOB February 22, 2014 2:52 pm

    Wow Ron, you are wound way to tight for a beautiful Saturday afternoon. The remark about professors was playful sarcasm, so relax. And I didn’t say we live in a police state. I said I can see us becoming one. And maybe that’s a tad extreme. But check out the lemonade stand articles, and you will be shaking your head. But the problem as I see it, is that the Police are here to enforce laws. They are not suppose to interpret them. If that was the case, you might find a lot less lemonade stand articles.

  66. Ronald February 22, 2014 3:10 pm

    JOB, I am not wound way too tight LOL Just pointing out that Mark is full of you know what in what he says about college professors in general, although there may be exceptions! But stereotyping an occupation does not do anyone any good, and Mark COULD learn from most college professors if he only opened up his closed mind, which is sad that he seems unwilling to do that!

  67. Jane Doe February 22, 2014 6:24 pm

    Some people say we need a multi-party system. While a a multi-party does give voters more choices, it also gives small fringe groups, like the Tea Party, the chance to gain power simply because they can be a more cohesive group.

  68. Mark February 23, 2014 1:57 pm

    “I cannot vouch for everyone else, but you are too easy at labeling a whole group,”

    I said almost all, not all.

  69. Mark February 23, 2014 2:00 pm

    By the way, prof, don’t you easily label a whole group too easily when you talk about tea partiers as if their whole motivation is racism?

  70. Ronald February 23, 2014 2:08 pm

    Mark, I never said ALL Tea Party Movement members, but many are clearly using the race card. Some are calling for the lynching of the President, some are calling for a march on the White House to overthrow Obama, some are advocating secession. All of this is very dangerous, and lunatics are drawn to this type of rhetoric!

  71. Jane Doe February 23, 2014 5:42 pm

    Thanks for that Rustbelt. Like that article, I also refuse to play the game of downplaying the GOTea’s extreme and repugnant ideas by describing them as “conservative” or “libertarian.” As the article says, they are neither of those things.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.