|
Former Congressman and now Governor Mike Pence seems to be whitewashing himself of his "Christian, conservative, Republican, in that order" past by being very ambiguous about his policies he'll advocate for as Governor (a state Senator recently said the only reason he authored a bill is because the Pence people asked him to, followed by a denial from Pence's transition office that the Pence people asked him to), his faith, and even what church he attends, even though his Wikipedia page lists the church he attends. Indianapolis Monthly magazine has part 1 of the profile and the author has a part 2 that delves a bit more into Pence's faith on his blog. There's a whole lot of speculation going on that either Indiana's Attorney General, or either the current or former Lt Gov (both women and both Republicans) would run for Governor if Pence decides on a 2016 Presidential run.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:02 |
|
|
Thus spake Santorum:quote:I think it is too early to be hitting the ground and traveling the early primary states, but I think it is important to stay engaged and continue to build on what we established in the 2012 cycle. That was part of his interview with Concord News Radio, of Concord New Hampshire. Joementum fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jan 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Former Congressman and now Governor Mike Pence seems to be whitewashing himself of his "Christian, conservative, Republican, in that order" past by being very ambiguous about his policies he'll advocate for as Governor (a state Senator recently said the only reason he authored a bill is because the Pence people asked him to, followed by a denial from Pence's transition office that the Pence people asked him to), his faith, and even what church he attends, even though his Wikipedia page lists the church he attends. Pence seems to be making at least nominal moves towards the center, perhaps to avoid controversy and anger like our neighbor Rick Snyder in Michigan. I wouldn't ever trust him though. Still wish Gregg and his sweet mustache had won. I think a Presidential run would be doomed; he's just not high profile enough and it's not like Governor of Indiana is a particularly prestigious job in the eyes of the country. Hello Towel fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jan 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Disgruntled Republicans that have worked with Pence in the past tell me it is't pivoting to the center, it's just slimy being silent on the issues. Fox News was home to POTUS candidates before they were candidates with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Will they be home to a third "before he was a candidate" with Dennis Kucinich? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-newest-paid-contributor-is-dennis-kucinich/
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Good for him. I've seen him go on a couple of their shows before. He's fiery and doesn't turn into a liberal punching bag. So I look forward to him making a couple of hosts want to cut their segment short.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
On today's episode of Rand Says the Paulest Things, Iron Dome style missile defense systems for US cities to prevent 9/11 style attacks.quote:One reportr asked whether he favored continued funds for the Iron Dome missile defense system. "Exactly how it's funded, or how the money changes hands, I'd have to look into how we do it," he said. "But absolutely I'm in favor of it. Think about on 9/11. There's no reason our White House, our Capitol, and our major cities shouldn't have a missile defense... I argue that there will be irrational actors on the stage. There's no way to stop irrationality from eventually getting weapons into the hands of people who might attack us." Also a bunch of stuff about settlements that should surprise nobody.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:On today's episode of Rand Says the Paulest Things, Iron Dome style missile defense systems for US cities to prevent 9/11 style attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
OK this is off topic- but I used to bank on Gabrielle Giffords making a return to Arizona politics in either a run for senator or the Governor's office. Looking at her now, though she does seem to have gotten remarkably better, it looks as if she's decided to be a gun-control lobbyist from now on. I should write her off shouldn't I?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Disgruntled Republicans that have worked with Pence in the past tell me it is't pivoting to the center, it's just slimy being silent on the issues. That's what I figured it would be. Unfortunately, he has some people tricked by it already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:OK this is off topic- but I used to bank on Gabrielle Giffords making a return to Arizona politics in either a run for senator or the Governor's office. Looking at her now, though she does seem to have gotten remarkably better, it looks as if she's decided to be a gun-control lobbyist from now on. I should write her off shouldn't I?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Houston Euler posted:I'm not sure how she could ever return to politics. She has trouble with verbal communication. That hasn't stopped anyone in Congress before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Houston Euler posted:I'm not sure how she could ever return to politics. She has trouble with verbal communication. Dan Quayle held office in both the House and the Senate. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
Houston Euler posted:I'm not sure how she could ever return to politics. She has trouble with verbal communication. I seem to have forgotten remind me, who exactly was the chief executive between Clinton and Obama?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I seem to have forgotten remind me, who exactly was the chief executive between Clinton and Obama? Dick Cheney of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Phil Lovas of the Arizona legislature has introduced a bill to move the date of the Arizona primary to the same date as the Iowa Caucuses. There are currently no co-sponsors to the bill, but I hope it picks up some steam.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Is there a a good reason why the caucus dates don't rotate? It seems like it gives Iowa and early states much more impact on the national discourse than later states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Is there a a good reason why the caucus dates don't rotate? It seems like it gives Iowa and early states much more impact on the national discourse than later states. No there's only bad reasons. It's a terrible and undemocratic system that only benefits small state conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Thus spake Santorum: Rick Santorum vs. Chris Christie in 2016. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I seem to have forgotten remind me, who exactly was the chief executive between Clinton and Obama?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Is there a a good reason why the caucus dates don't rotate? Not really. People will tell you that it's because Iowa and New Hampshire have special attributes and were picked by the parties. That's simply not historically accurate. Before 1972 the primaries were mostly for show, with most delegates just being chosen by the state party leadership. New Hampshire has run the first primary election since the 20's. It used to be on the Town Meeting ballot but has since been moved up. Iowa has run caucuses since the 19th century, but in 1972 the Democratic state party chairman wanted to make sure all the delegates at the state caucus had copies of the party platform. He needed time to print that and had a just crappy mimeograph machine so he pushed the precinct caucuses up to January so he'd have enough time. Seriously. It just so happens that the 1968 candidate selection process had been such an absolute disaster that Congress stepped in to reform it and the new delegate selection system was introduced for the 1972 election. And Iowa was first that year because Rich Bender had a bad printer. In 1976 Bill Gardner became Secretary of State for New Hampshire and New Hampshire now has a law that says it must be the first primary election ("of its type", to allow Iowa's caucuses to go first). Bill Gardner is still SoS and guards the state's position fiercely. It's really that simple: they lucked into it back in the day and guard the position because it gets the states a lot of attention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Houston Euler posted:There's "is our children learning", and there's having trouble uttering complete sentences on a permanent basis. Are you claiming Bush II didn't have trouble uttering complete sentences on a permanent basis? Because I've seen some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary. Seriously I get your point but I'll be dead in the cold, cold earth before I miss a chance to savage the capacities of that profoundly moronic boy prince.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's really that simple: they lucked into it back in the day and guard the position because it gets the states a lot of attention. Totally. And don't let any Iowan tell you that they somehow deserve this special right. They're not representative of the country (They're 91% white and 40% rural) and they're certainly not any more American. And for all their talk about being "gravely entrusted", the hard fact is that hardly any of them vote in the caucuses - Iowa turnout in the 2012 primary was six percent! They've held on to the steering wheel for decades, and it's high time that we return to an equal system as originally intended. Of course the real problem is identifying what the system would be. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/iowa-caucus-results_n_1184479.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Of course the real problem is identifying what the system would be. There's plenty of good suggestions. Rotating pods of states or regional primaries for example. Iowa and New Hampshire won't hold on forever. Letting the candidates be chosen by lily white "crowds" causes problems for both parties. It won't happen in an open election year, but when one of the parties has an incumbent, the other can try to pressure states to adopt new calendars. Either that or people will get fed up with Florida jumping the fence every year and enact federal reform. But there will probably be a few crazy years in between, like 1988 when the Iowa caucuses were held... in 1986.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Two primaries for every region allows more fluidity in the campaign. February: Pennsylvania, half of Northeast. March: New York, other half of Northeast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Are you claiming Bush II didn't have trouble uttering complete sentences on a permanent basis? Because I've seen some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary. That reminds me: many years ago I remember coming across some before-after footage put together for Bush Jr., purporting to show that his verbal fluency had deteriorated markedly since he was Governor. I'm sure the clips shown were picked for best effect but the difference was pretty striking. (I like to think they probably needed to have Bush tranq'ed to the point of ataxia for public appearances sometimes.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
monoceros4 posted:That reminds me: many years ago I remember coming across some before-after footage put together for Bush Jr., purporting to show that his verbal fluency had deteriorated markedly since he was Governor. I'm sure the clips shown were picked for best effect but the difference was pretty striking. (I like to think they probably needed to have Bush tranq'ed to the point of ataxia for public appearances sometimes.) I too remember seeing something like this, put forward to advance the argument that Bush wasn't entirely the subliterate cretin he appeared to be but rather intentionally played down his own abilities to not seem over-educated (or put more bluntly, not like the northeastern blueblood he actually is). As to the clip itself, I too don't remember enough to be able to locate it now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
I believe the clip you're looking for involved him answering a question about education in a gubernatorial debate against Richards. But on on my tablet on a poo poo WiFi connection so trying to find it and paste it in here is a right pain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I too remember seeing something like this, put forward to advance the argument that Bush wasn't entirely the subliterate cretin he appeared to be but rather intentionally played down his own abilities to not seem over-educated (or put more bluntly, not like the northeastern blueblood he actually is). As to the clip itself, I too don't remember enough to be able to locate it now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Two primaries for every region allows more fluidity in the campaign. I think it would make sense to do 5 states every 2 weeks for twenty weeks For instance First Tuesday in January: IA, NH, NV, SC, and a random big state (Cali, NY, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, NC) Second Tuesday: VT, AR, NM, GA and random big state. etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
I think we should do them all at once around March or so because it's not like we're really getting benefit out of staggering them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I think we should do them all at once around March or so because it's not like we're really getting benefit out of staggering them. The problem with that is that it would make it impossible for anything to shift. I guess depending on how you see it that could be a good thing, but if we had done all the primaries at once in 2008 Hillary Clinton would be president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:The problem with that is that it would make it impossible for anything to shift. I guess depending on how you see it that could be a good thing, but if we had done all the primaries at once in 2008 Hillary Clinton would be president. They already get 3 and a half years before March of an election year to campaign. That's plenty of time for things to shift.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Jawidar posted:This, perhaps? The difference is quite striking. I think that might have been it, yeah. (Read a couple of the comments by mistake. Now I need a drink.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:They already get 3 and a half years before March of an election year to campaign. That's plenty of time for things to shift. And also forcing people to go through a primary campaign is actually a fairly good indicator if they can manage a national campaign. The 'obvious' frontrunner who implodes hilariously in the primaries has been a thing for... what? 12 years now? 16? Longer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Jonked posted:Nobody pays attention until there is a horse race. Yeah, but you could still have the full primary process. Just have all the votes at the end instead of dividing them all throughout. This sounds logical, but really seems like it would cut down on the comedic value.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Jonked posted:Nobody pays attention until there is a horse race. You can still have a campaign without the stupidity of randomly spread out primary elections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
The argument against that is that having big primary elections means small insurgent campaigns that don't have establishment backing wouldn't have a chance. Obama's victory in Iowa, and Clinton's 3rd place finish behind Edwards, pushed him ahead. Obama wasn't a candidate running just for the hell of it, but he certainly wasn't the guy anyone expected to actually win the nomination in late 2007. If he had to raise money to run in multiple states in late 2007 for an early January 2008 election, he'd be toast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:The argument against that is that having big primary elections means small insurgent campaigns that don't have establishment backing wouldn't have a chance. Obama's victory in Iowa, and Clinton's 3rd place finish behind Edwards, pushed him ahead. Obama wasn't a candidate running just for the hell of it, but he certainly wasn't the guy anyone expected to actually win the nomination in late 2007. None of that actually required the binding primary elections. Iowa's caucuses for example do not determine pledged delegates - were you aware of that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Iowa's caucuses for example do not determine pledged delegates - were you aware of that? Under the rules adopted at the 2012 GOP convention they will for that party in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:02 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You can still have a campaign without the stupidity of randomly spread out primary elections. My dream system would one that updated the primary schedule to reflect the previous election. First primary goes the smallest state (in electoral votes) that was among the top ten most competitive states - IIRC, this would be Iowa, so no huge change. After that, you go down the line, Electoral votes divided by the spread in the last election, largest numbers go first - PA for instance would be 370 (20/.054) and would go before West Virginia with 19 (5/.26). Space them out between two and five days between primaries, maybe throw in a rest week somewhere, and you've got a fairly good selection process for who can win the presidency the best. It's probably a dumb system that would over-emphasis large battleground states, but EH.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 05:37
|
|