Being "against the constitution" just means "something I don't like" nowadays.
Maybe, but the way in which the validity of any such argument is decided has not changed. Anyone can file a lawsuit to test constitutionality. If it has no merit the law will be upheld and the suit dismissed.
Nothing to really be upset about or bothered by. It's how the system works.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Maybe, but the way in which the validity of any such argument is decided has not changed. Anyone can file a lawsuit to test constitutionality. If it has no merit the law will be upheld and the suit dismissed.
Nothing to really be upset about or bothered by. It's how the system works.
That's true but the way it is portrayed in the news and by the tinpot politicians, it's whatever they don't like.
That's true but the way it is portrayed in the news and by the tinpot politicians, it's whatever they don't like.
For sure. It just makes them look stupid. If they think something is unconstitutional, challenge it. Don't publicly whine about it.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Watching Dick Cheney on Meet the Press was legitimately frightening.
That guy has to be one of the most evil people in the world. Zero remorse for lost lives of innocent people and outright stated he is more concerned with those they were right about than a few innocents that were unlucky in the process. Scary.
Has an administration (or members of) ever been retroactively charged/imprisioned after leaving office?
Cheney should be in a cell IMO. The guy is a disgusting ...person? Yeah I suppose we can call him a person.
__________________
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
"So it is no wonder that today’s blinkered apologists are desperate to call these acts anything but torture, which they clearly were."
Apologists like the NY Times maybe? That took everything hook, line and sinker during the run-up, and bent over backwards to use any and all euphemisms rather than the word torture?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
This might be gaining some steam here. It would be nice if the media would grab their balls and start pressing this a bit too. It's time that the Saudi's stop playing both sides.
Mitt Romney is moving quickly to reassemble his national political network, calling former aides, donors and other supporters over the weekend and on Monday in a concerted push to signal his seriousness about possibly launching a 2016 presidential campaign.
Romney’s message, as he told one senior Republican, was that he “almost certainly will” make what would be his third bid for the White House. His aggressive outreach came as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — Romney’s 2012 vice presidential running mate and the newly installed chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — announced Monday that he would not seek the presidency in 2016.
Romney’s activity indicates that his declaration of interest Friday to a group of 30 donors in New York was more than the release of a trial balloon. Instead, it was the start of a deliberate effort by the 2012 nominee to carve out space for himself in an emerging 2016 field also likely to include former Florida governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
Romney has worked the phones over the past few days, calling an array of key allies to discuss his potential 2016 campaign. Among them was Ryan, whom Romney phoned over the weekend to inform him personally of his plans to probably run. Ryan was encouraging, people with knowledge of the calls said.
Other Republicans with whom Romney spoke recently include Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Rob Portman (Ohio), former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Hewlett-Packard chief executive Meg Whitman, former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, former Missouri senator Jim Talent and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah).
In the conversations, Romney said he is intent on running to the right of Bush, who also is working vigorously to court donors and other party establishment figures for a 2016 bid. Romney has tried to assure conservatives that he shares their views on immigration and tax policy — and that should he enter the race, he will not forsake party orthodoxy.
That said, it’s not crazy for Romney to think that he’s still viable. While there are bad candidates, it’s also true that losing casts a pall over the memory of the campaign. Neutral incidents are remembered as missteps, and missteps are remembered as disasters. If John McCain had won the 2008 election, his decision to suspend his campaign amid the collapse of the economy would have looked wise instead of standing as a monument to political incompetence. And if Barack Obama had lost re-election, then his hyperfocus on particular segments of the electorate—black Americans, young women, Latinos—would have seemed like a waste of resources, instead of smart and efficient.
Romney made a lot of mistakes, from his rhetoric—a plutocratic message geared to “job creators”—to the actual structure of his campaign. But if “bad candidate” means he underperformed relative to the fundamentals, then he wasn’t a bad candidate. He was average. Given 1.8 percent gross domestic product growth in the first seven months of 2012, President Obama was projected to win 51.2 percent of the two-party vote. He won 52 percent, to Romney’s 48 percent.
It’s possible that a stronger, more charismatic Republican could have moved the needle and beat the fundamentals. But I doubt it. A growing economy is like a Power Star for an incumbent president, and barring some other disaster—like a bungled war or serious terrorist attack—there’s little you can do to stop the momentum. And even then, it’s difficult. John Kerry outperformed the fundamentals and still lost the 2004 election. It’s not that he was a bad candidate, it’s that beating an incumbent president is hard.
There won’t be an incumbent in 2016, and there’s a good chance Americans will want a different party at the helm. If Romney were the nominee, there’s no doubt that he could win the presidency. Indeed, it would fit the pattern of his political career—after losing his race for Senate in 1994, he came back to win a gubernatorial race in 2002.
The question isn’t whether he could win a general election, it’s whether he could win a Republican primary. Given the fractured field, I think he could, especially since the marquee candidate—Jeb Bush—is largely unproven in national politics.
With all of that said, however, I’m not sure if Romney is actually running for president, or if he’s playing a different game. In a story for BuzzFeed, McKay Coppins talks to Romney advisers who give this take on the former nominee’s thinking:
“Look, Jeb’s a good guy. I think the governor likes Jeb,” the adviser said. “But Jeb is Common Core, Jeb is immigration, Jeb has been talking about raising taxes recently. Can you imagine Jeb trying to get through a Republican primary? Can you imagine what Ted Cruz is going to do to Jeb Bush? I mean, that’s going to be ugly.”
Washington (CNN) - If a rematch of the 2012 presidential election were held today, GOP nominee Mitt Romney would top President Barack Obama in the popular vote, according to a new national survey.
But a CNN/ORC International poll also indicates that if Romney changes his mind and runs again for the White House, Hillary Clinton would best him by double digits in a hypothetical showdown.
The survey, released Sunday morning, also suggests that more Americans see Clinton as a strong and capable leader than those who feel the same way about Obama. But Clinton's numbers on five personal characteristics have slightly edged down the past few months.
And the poll points to a jump the past month in support among Republicans for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
How Romney fares
According to the poll, if the 2012 election were somehow held again, Romney would capture 53% of the popular vote, with the President at 44%. Obama beat Romney 51%-47% in the popular vote in the 2012 contest. And he won the all-important Electoral College by a wider margin, 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206.
Last November, an ABC News/Washington Post survey indicated that if the 2012 election were held again, Romney would have had a 49%-45% edge over Obama in the popular vote.
In Outliers, the New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell asserts, “The closer psychologists look at the careers of the gifted, the smaller the role innate talent seems to play and the bigger the role preparation seems to play.” This is the famous “10,000 hours” rule, and—whatever its scientific validity—Romney is a poster boy for it. Maybe he wasn’t a natural pol, but after six years of national campaigning, his speeches and rallies in the waning days of the 2012 campaign had a Reaganesque feel. This summer, as he campaigns around the country for GOP congressional candidates, his confidence and skill on the trail are unmatched by anyone other than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. Presidential campaigning is a learned skill, just like any other. If the candidate keeps growing, the skill set improves. First timers rarely win the nomination, much less the election. Experience goes a long way.
Well, they could do a lot worse than Romney. But I don't see it happening.
In fact I think Clinton takes it, except maybe if another female candidate pops up somewhere. People generally vote for shallow reasons, and the idea of a female president will just dominate that campaign.
Well, they could do a lot worse than Romney. But I don't see it happening.
In fact I think Clinton takes it, except maybe if another female candidate pops up somewhere. People generally vote for shallow reasons, and the idea of a female president will just dominate that campaign.
Elizabeth Warren is a better female candidate. Unless, of course, they want to win. Because she has no chance in hell of winning a general election unfortunately
If Romney ends up President somehow, I gotta find a way off this rock.
The Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, but sooner or later the pendulum will swing back their way. When it inevitably does, I hope it's someone like Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush in the White House rather than an extremist ideologues like Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, or Rand Paul.
That's by no means an endorsement of Romney or Bush, btw. But just think about how much worse it could be. They are by far the lesser evils amongst prominent Republicans.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
