Its Romney v Obama

April 11th, 2012 at 7:13 am by David Farrar

Rick Santorum has suspended his presidential bid, which effectively confirms former Massachusetts Governor as the Republican nominee.

Romney has around 60% of the delegates he needs, but should comfortably win enough in the remaining primaries.

It will be interesting to see if the GOP is able to unite behind Romney. Obama is the favourite at this stage – 61% on Intrade, against 37% for Romney. However the Republicans should now start to target Obama rather than each other.

The Pollster average of the polls has Obama at 46.1% and Romney 44.5%, so the race is definitely competitive. Of course it is electoral college votes that count, not the popular vote, but the two are linked.

Also at this stage the Republicans are favoured to retain the House and gain a majority in the Senate, so if Romney can win, he will probably have a supportive Congress.

Tags: , ,

86 Responses to “Its Romney v Obama”

  1. iMP (2,383 comments) says:

    I still wouldn’t give it to Romney yet. William Seward was the shoo-in favourite at the convention in 1860, but an inarticulate gangly lawyer came thru to win unexpectedly as everyone’s preferred second (a log splitting lawyer from Illinois called Lincoln) after the big money boys neutralised each other (Salmon and Chase etc). Don’t underestimate the Convention, Palin or Gingrich.

    I suspect Santorum has run out of money, and he has a sick three-year-old, but has cut a deal with Romney, who needs his Conservative vote credentials. Romney’s comment “Santorum is an important voice in our Party and the Nation” is interesting. I’d pick he will offer VPrez to Santorum and thus secure the Conserv. vote for the Romney/Mormon ticket. With Santorum’s constitunecy behind him (he won 11 states so far), Romney could win the Presidency. He has to unite the Consv. vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Forget about Obama. I think that it will be Hillary Clinton versus Mitt Romney. This fraudster Obama, will be brought down by his accusers , the birthers. He will resign when he knows that his time is up and he can’t hide anymore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Neil (586 comments) says:

    Be very wary about polls !!! Enough said.
    However one poll is not the same as others- how they are taken and the questions asked.
    One thing is certain. Look at polls to see whether they are registered voters(RV) or likely voters(LV)
    RV are those who have enrolled but include those who do not intend to vote. Remember in the US only about 56% of voters actually go to the polls, except last time when Obama’s enthusiasm lifted the figure.
    LV are those who intend to vote. These are the true voters. Republicans have the motivation to get out to vote while Obama’s legion of youth supporters will struggle to get out of bed. Obama’s numbers here will have fallen considerably after a disastrous first term. Look for them to plunge if the Supreme Court illegality of the Health legislation is carried, Obamacare.
    Ir’s going to be very closer with Obama marginally ahead.Look towards the US economy and jobs for guidance.
    Don’t agree with IMP about Santorum as VP. Too conservative and a turn off for independent voters. Marco Rubio from Florida or Rob Portman of Ohio.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    The birthers say that if Marco Rubio is nominated by Romney as his running mate, VP they will protest against him, since his parents were not US born citizens, therefore he can’t hold the position of VP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (9,916 comments) says:

    Santorum Pulls Out :-D

    (Sorry, I couldn’t help it. I am such a child.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    1+ RRM

    :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. kiwi in america (2,439 comments) says:

    iMP
    I’m sorry but the trajectory of the GOP primary was already firmly in Romney’s favour BEFORE Santorum pulled out. Santorum was the only candidate who had even a slight chance of catching Romney and he had to win 70% of all the remaining delegates to do so. Each month his share of delegates (not votes) was dropping not rising. Even in the southern evangelical dominated races that Santorum won, Romney still managed over 40% of delegates due to the proportional allocation format favoured by more GOP primaries this time around – vs winner take all that was the norm in the 2008 race. Rick fought a great fight and no major pundits predicted Santorum would do this well. Gingrich has no money and almost no media covering him and so few delegates that he’d need to win over 85% of whats left to overhaul Romney. Each candidate that dropped out needed to have all his/her votes to go to one of the not Romneys to beat Romney earlier in the year and that didn’t happen. Each time they were distributed around and Romney got a share of them. The super delegates are rallying to Romney. There will be no convention fight – no late entry by Palin. Like him or not Romney will be the nominee.

    I supported Rick Perry this time around (I was a strong Romney guy all the way through in 08) and I’ve been in Romney’s camp since Perry dropped out. He’s not the perfect candidate but then no one ever is. He’s learned much from this campaign and also having done it before in 08. For Romney to be pretty much at a statistical dead heat in the battleground states after such a bruising primary with Obama having all the power of incumbency is not a good place for Obama to start from. That said it will be a long hard slog for Romney – Obama will fight hard, long and dirty and no matter how bad his record he will have a strong media tail wind and plenty of money and so he will be difficult to beat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Okay, Falafulu Fisi, put your money where your mouth is then

    https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=US.DEM12.OBAMA

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (9,916 comments) says:

    It’s all good news for “The anti-constitutional Nigger” though I guess…?

    Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum… seriously, how does such a big portion of the main right-of-centre party in such a vast country always get behind such ridiculous fruit loops? Are these caricatures really the best and brightest that you want representing you? Seriously?

    Talk about the end of the American century if you like, but it’s not something the Arabs or the Comuniss are doing TO good old conservative America, these people are the architects of their own downfall and it seems like they just can’t understand why…

    Obama is hardly the strongest Dem character ever, but the right keeps egging on joke candidates to go up against him, more fool them. (And then when the media shows the jocularity they accuse them of being in the pay of the Democrats… wtf?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Romney would make a good president, he’s far more experienced than Obama was when he was running.
    Santorum is a fucking nut bar, the type of guy that gives Redbaiter wet dreams. He’s reckless enough to cause all sorts of problems and the US needs a level head if it is to reclaim its role as the greatest nation on earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. cha (4,009 comments) says:

    Not happy.

    To hell with the GOP-e. Barring a miracle, they got their big government, unconstitutional mandate loving, socialist abortionist Obama-lite RINO on the ballot, they can now get him elected.

    We are the resistance!!

    Shove him down our throats today, we shove him up your donkeys in November!!

    I can see November from my house!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    imp – im underestimating Palin. as if shes gonna swan into the convention and somehow grab the nomination. imagine the backlash after months of primarys. never happen.

    Rubio seems to be a hot favourite for the VP gig…

    Personally I hope Chris Christie steps up. CC v Biden will be fun to watch :)

    Im not expecting to see the “positive” campaign like last time either. Hope & change was the bullshit we all knew it was. the left are going to make race an issue the moment obama looks weak. they are going to go feral (just like kiwi labour, qld labour etc etc)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. iMP (2,383 comments) says:

    I agree, I actually think Romney would make a good -if aloof and out of touch- President, but he’s a good money manager, and that’s what America needs right now. Buuuuut, there is disquiet with him, folks just ain’t excited, and when it’s said to be all done and dusted (William Seward 1860) something can come from left field (like Mormon underpants, a sexual scandal, money Q.s, etc) and change everything.

    In politics, it ain’t done till its done and I just have a feeling it ain’t Romney. He’d do well in NZ, its the name of a sheep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. UpandComer (536 comments) says:

    i disagree that Obama has a bad record. He has negotiated the myriad problems he has faced pretty well. His only problem is he has not been political enough from the beginning, and tried to compromise too much with the Republicans. His other failing is his unwillingness to deal to the banks and hedge funders. The system they have over there is actually the worst kind of socialist system, with individual gains but socialised losses. Wall street has such incredible moral hazard the way it is structured it is no wonder they raise excessive dodgy capital. Obama should have told the banks to eat it when he had the political capital. He has got out of Iraq, is getting out of Afghanistan, employment is increasing, he got his health thing through although it could fall now, he hasn’t been too bad. And all in the face of the most cynical opposition imaginable. They have filibustered more times under this administration then ever, in history. I laugh at the ‘birther’ comment above. Obama is an American, and it is frankly retarded to imply that the birthers are correct. He will be supported by big money, but note that he was not in support of citizens united. I’ve watched the Colbert material on superpacs with Mark Potter his lawyer and Mccains campaign legal person. They are a travesty and I don’t see how you can argue otherwise. Obama has been to the right of the republican’s on national security. He has been very business friendly, stocking his cabinet full of Wall street guys. Most of the criticisms of him are not borne out by the facts. I really like Romney and wouldn’t mind if he won either, but I think Obama actually has a decent enough record, aside from letting wall street completely off the hook.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. iMP (2,383 comments) says:

    Watch the lib media and Hollywood play the Mormon/anti-Religious card now (jokes on Letterman, Leno, statements by Penn, etc)
    with Romney clearly the one to take down. It’s gonna get nasty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. tvb (4,416 comments) says:

    Obama will win providing the US economy does not tank. Santorum is not popular in his home state – why is that?? The Republican Party is not enthusiastic about Romney and many will stay home. He will have to pick a VP who can fire up the base, that has been the pattern of Republican nominees since Eisenhauer/Nixon. Obama is a formidable campaigner whereas Romney is not. So the race will be tight because of the economy. But if the Surpeme Court strikes down Obamacare then Obama will campaign against the Court and a good thing too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. tvb (4,416 comments) says:

    Obama will win providing the US economy does not tank. Santorum is not popular in his home state – why is that?? The Republican Party is not enthusiastic about Romney and many will stay home. He will have to pick a VP who can fire up the base, that has been the pattern of Republican nominees since Eisenhower/Nixon. Obama is a formidable campaigner whereas Romney is not. So the race will be tight because of the economy. But if the Supeme Court strikes down Obamacare then Obama will campaign against the Court and a good thing too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. UpandComer (536 comments) says:

    tvb do you think the Supreme Court is an example of why we should not have an entrenched Bill of rights in NZ? They are so cravenly political it seems our system is superior in not having that mess where everything a government does can be struck down at a judge’s discretion.

    That said they do have a point about the health care bill. I never have understood the ‘socialised medicine’ argument they make, as if that is a bad thing!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Before I back Romney I want to see his birth certificate, he hasn’t released it yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. cha (4,009 comments) says:

    Herman Cain to Mitt Romney: Pick Allen West for vice president.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I thought Falafulu would have had enough of this nonsense:
    ‘Forget about Obama. I think that it will be Hillary Clinton versus Mitt Romney. This fraudster Obama, will be brought down by his accusers , the birthers. He will resign when he knows that his time is up and he can’t hide anymore.’
    1. Obama will not resign – bet the farm on that
    2. Even if he did, the VP would be in the election.
    That’s okay though Falafulu, a lot of the time you are just so wrong that you find it hard to see how wrong you are. We are here to help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    cha
    Nice one from Herman eh – pick a war criminal!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    I’m a little surprised that Santorum did not at least wait until the axe fell with the Pennsylvania primaries on April 24. But I was only interested to see if he managed to make some way back from the 18 point shellacking he got when he lost the Senate seat in 2006.

    I don’t know why people continue to bang away about brokered conventions, especially if they think that the RNC and other nefarious forces are pulling the strings against various candidates, because a convention would empower such forces even more than primaries.

    … seriously, how does such a big portion of the main right-of-centre party in such a vast country always get behind such ridiculous fruit loops?

    Get behind? As you may have noticed they’ve all lost. Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich: all of them at one time or another surged in GOP primary polling, but the point is that as there various flaws were revealed GOP voters rejected them. And the key point is that the process no different from that of Democratic primaries that have included such “stars” as Dennis Kucinich, Howard Yeeeeaaaarrrggghh Dean, John Edwards and Joe mouth-in-gear-but-brain-not-engaged Biden. The 1992 Democratic primary candidates were so awful they were called “The Seven Dwarfs” – but some guy called Clinton came through in the end.

    The Pollster average of the polls has Obama at 46.1% and Romney 44.5%, so the race is definitely competitive. Of course it is electoral college votes that count, not the popular vote, but the two are linked.

    They’re linked only if one candidate pulls away to huge leads in the national polling, something unlikely to happen this year. And even when it does happen it’s not a good indicator, as Reagan-Carter showed in 1980 when Carter had big double-digit leads in such polls as late as August!

    Leave that sort of crap to the MSM – like these clowns at the WaPo, who have produced a poll with Democrat advantage of 11 points in the sampling. Even during Obama’s victory in 2008 the Democrat advantage was only 7 points and no one is expecting that to return. Yet this poll was trumpeted as showing Obama as having risen in job approval from 46% to 50%. As Gomer Pyle said: surprise, surprise, surprise.

    I don’t expect a single one of the moronic New Zealand media sites (including Radio NZ) to do a similar analysis, since screaming about which horse is in the lead is much more fun.

    What blogs like this one should do for the rest of this year is focus on the electoral college math and the swing states that really count. That’s the sort of analysis that’s interesting – and it might even produce accurate predictions! But as far as they go you can simply look at this early February thread for amusement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “Before I back Romney I want to see his birth certificate, he hasn’t released it yet.”

    gee youre clever Pete.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    I think the words “their / there” hate me!

    And “is”.

    but the point is that as there their various flaws were revealed GOP voters rejected them. And the key point is that the process is no different from that of Democratic primaries

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/the_biggest_gender_gap_ever/singleton/#comments

    Funnily enough, insisting women wanting an abortion be raped first with an invasive ultra-sound wand and planning to threaten one of the most basic of women’s health issues – contraception – means that outside the fundy Taliban you’d be hard pressed to find a women who is going to vote for the Republicans. And don’t even bother trying to find an educated women wearing a “Romeny 2012″ campaign button. Obama won’t have to talk about the economy, he just has to keep repeating “women are not an interest group”. Seriously, fighting the culture wars on issues of womens health means a 27 point gap between men and women, and that makes Romney unelectable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Go Turd Sandwich, GO!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    dime – there’s already a bit of history with Romney, part non-whiteness and birth certificates.

    His father was Mexican, and Romney is apparently a potential Mexican citizen, with full rights, although he appears to have been born in Detroit (where’s all the unlayered unliared proof of that?)

    Romney’s son got a bit of publicity for Obama Should Release Birth Certificate, Grades.

    There’s off message and then there’s Mitt Romney’s son, Matt Romney, who suggested on Thursday that President Obama should release his birth certificate and grades before his father releases his tax returns.

    After his brothers stepped in to distance the candidate from the remarks, Matt added that “that’s a suggestion from someone else.”

    Update: Matt Romney quickly clarified his remarks on Twitter via a brand new account that had never been used before. A spokeswoman for the Romney campaign confirmed to TPM that the account was indeed Romney’s son and that he had created it expressly to apologize.

    “I repeated a dumb joke. My bad,” he tweeted.

    So the Romney family backed off that.

    There has apparently been some minor issue about Romney’s birth certificate, I don’t know if he has released it or not.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Demand-Mitt-Romneys-Birth-Certificate/219983968026047

    It’s all a bit of an irrelevant sideshow when put into context of the presidency of the US. But that’s what happens these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    Nice one from Herman eh – pick a war criminal!

    Allen West was convicted on war crimes charges?

    No?

    How about charged with war crimes?

    No?

    Oh, you mean he’s a war criminal because leftist nutters accused him of being one. Well, that’s entirely substantial and irrefutable then. So much so that the assertion can be repeated ad infinitum and it will just slip past – probably.

    And I see we have another leftist on the loose with the crudest talking points of the Democrats this year – and quoting those from Salon too – surely a mark of high intelligence and informed commentary in a blog thread in New Zealand. By the way, talk of the GOP raping women with an invasive ultra-sound wand is so Doonesbury, and even the leftists who promote him pulled that series as too over-the-top nasty and stupid for their newspapers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    Romney is for perpetual war.

    He is no statesman or diplomat and doesn’t have the intelligence.

    He is simply a neocon face.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Obama Changed His Name in Canada?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    “…By the way, talk of the GOP raping women with an invasive ultra-sound wand is so Doonesbury…”

    So inserting a ten inch wand up a pregnant women’s vagina isn’t invasive rape?

    Let people take a look at the device in question and make up their own minds.

    From the manufacturers website:

    http://biometriccables.com/product/ust-981p-5/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    What Obama really doesn’t want you to know: “I come in peace” – the Roswell incident.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    Let people …

    … ignore the manufactured talking points of a desperate Democrat and focus on James Carville’s little dictum: “The economy, stupid”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. iMP (2,383 comments) says:

    The American economy will tank, and unemployment will blip up again, which will seriously hurt Obama.

    His trouble with Obamacare and the Supreme/Appeals Court, is that he has demonstrated a serious lack of experience of Executive politics, the separation of the Estates of Power; and the lunacy of a sitting President openly criticising the institution of the Supreme Court. What is scary is his mindset, that the President has the power and its not the role of the independent Courts to hold the Executive accountable to the Constitution as they interpret it.

    Get real Obama, you’re not in Kenya now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Scott Chris (6,133 comments) says:

    Rick Santorum has suspended his presidential bid

    Thank God. Anyone but Santorum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. iMP (2,383 comments) says:

    Santorum to the Sanitorium.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Fletch (6,361 comments) says:

    I would’ve like to have seen Allen West actually run for President.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    A 2 minute video from former President Clinton’s advisor , Dick Morris.

    What Will Obama Give Putin? Dick Morris TV

    Dick Morris is a true-leftist but he is alarmed about Obama’s defense sell-out to the Russians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. cha (4,009 comments) says:

    a sitting President openly criticising the institution of the Supreme Court.

    This.

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/04/04/but-saint-reagan-was-the-nicest-man-not-like-that-vicious-thug-obama/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Fletch (6,361 comments) says:

    Falafulu, some people say that is because Putin knows about Obama’s sealed documents, and Obama is being blackmailed…

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/forgerygate-blackmailed-by-putin-obama-betrays-united-states-and-her-allies/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. freddos (54 comments) says:

    It’s a ploy to stop a brokered convention where Ron Paul would win. Hopefully though many of Santorum’s crew will switch to Paul, he will win Texas and then when the real delegate numbers are revealed it will all be a lot closer.

    Ron Paul for the 3rd party win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. s.russell (1,640 comments) says:

    Yes, Santorum was a nutcase, but at least he had integrity. It says a lot about the failings of the US political system that the Republicans can nominate someone like Romney for president.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    Cha

    Since you’re here I thought I’d ask you how the hunt is going for the Neo-Nazis of Sanford? Any more news from Fox! Or have the police and FBI finally been directed by Eric Holder to go after the New Black Panthers, – you know, the guys who have been demanding that the Sanford authorities should arrest Zimmerman “dead or alive”. The ones who’ve placed a bounty on Zimmerman’s head, and called for an army of vigilantes to track him down and effect a citizen’s arrest.

    I think that Holder would have good grounds to go after the New Black Panthers on these issues, not to mention the conference call recorded over the weekend, where they said they planned to “suit up and boot up” and prepare for the next stages of the “race war.”

    There are those who say that Holder is both a tribal-Democrat and a black racist, but I live for the Audacity of Hope that will see him disprove those claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    …some people say that it is because Putin knows …

    Some people say that God doesn’t exist except in some people’s minds.

    Some people say Obama is linked with the anti-christ, like here: http://o.bamapost.com/
    It doesn’t make them right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    Some people say Obama worked for the CIA, with all that that implies – and as a long-standing symbol of speaking truth to power, what leftist will now step forward to deny Mr Pilger his sound and moral argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    “And don’t even bother trying to find an educated women wearing a “Romeny 2012″ campaign button.”

    Ironic really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Fletch (6,361 comments) says:

    When you get Obama giving the Russians even the serial numbers of Trident missiles it gives to Britain, something is very wrong there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    obama is the better singer..

    that’ll be the clincher..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. tvb (4,416 comments) says:

    There really is a lot of bull written about Obama. he is a very clever politician who is a brilliant campaigner and will be a formidable opponent for Romney in the fall. Romney is a person of no core beliefs with no narrative to sell his case in the fall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Obama’s God-like persona in the eyes of US (naive) voters is very similar to a former adviser to the King of Tonga (Tupou 4th), Jesse Bogdonoff when Mr Bogdonoff befriended the King to entrust him with ~$24 million dollars (Tongan Govt money) so he could invest it overseas. The king was stupid & naive, so he handed this American court jester (who was appointed by him) $24 million of Tongan Government money to invest and that money simply disappeared into a black hole. Obama made many promises in 2008, but actually delivered policies (simply because he appeared as nice guy) that have the opposite effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    iMP (535) Says:
    April 11th, 2012 at 10:43 am

    The American economy will tank, and unemployment will blip up again, which will seriously hurt Obama.

    Fingers crossed eh?


    His trouble with Obamacare and the Supreme/Appeals Court, is that he has demonstrated a serious lack of experience of Executive politics, the separation of the Estates of Power; and the lunacy of a sitting President openly criticising the institution of the Supreme Court. What is scary is his mindset, that the President has the power and its not the role of the independent Courts to hold the Executive accountable to the Constitution as they interpret it.

    He didn’t question the court’s power to judicially review the constitutionality of legislation, he merely said that the PPACA was supported by past precedent and that for the Supreme Court to overturn this legislation would be akin to returning to the ‘Lochner’ era.


    Get real Obama, you’re not in Kenya now.

    Are we playing “Is it racist?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    Okay

    All fun aside, one of the many questions I have of Romney will be whether he actually goes after Obama relentlessly or whether he’ll back off after a few well-chosen hints that maybe his attacks are racist. I’d hate to see a repeat of 2008 where McCain stuck it to his GOP competitors and then pulled his punches in the general election. You can be damned sure that Obama won’t. It will be Chicago politics all the way down.

    In any case I’ll only be interested in this race from a standpoint of strategy and tactics as I’m convinced that whoever wins there will be little meaningful change in all the things that are bankrupting America. Just one example: Obama is picking a fight with Congressman Paul Ryan about the latter’s budget. Mr Obama’s budget (booted 414-0 in the House) proposed spending $47 trillion over the next ten years, while Mr Ryan’s proposed spending $40 trillion. And yet Obama would try and convince people that his budget will bring America into an age of unicorns prancing in rich arcadian pastures and drinking from raspberry pools – while taking the Ryan route will bring the Zombie Apocalypse.

    It’s stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    tom hunter,


    I think that Holder would have good grounds to go after the New Black Panthers on these issues, not to mention the conference call recorded over the weekend, where they said they planned to “suit up and boot up” and prepare for the next stages of the “race war.”

    Going after the Black Panthers would give undue attention to their nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Scott Chris (6,133 comments) says:

    I would’ve like to have seen Allen West actually run for President.

    Nah, the guy mightn’t qualify as a war criminal but he certainly qualifies as a gung-ho redneck:

    West was charged with violating articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. During a hearing held as part of an Article 32 investigation in November 2003, West stated, “I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers.” The charges were ultimately referred to an Article 15 proceeding rather than court-martial, at which West was fined $5,000. LTC West accepted the judgment and retired with full benefits in the summer of 2004. Asked if he would act differently under similar circumstances again, West testified, “If it’s about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can.”

    Maybe that’s why you like him Fletch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. cha (4,009 comments) says:

    What, you doubt Fox News Tom.

    http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/040712-Neo-Nazi-group-patrolling-Sanford

    Florida members of the Detroit-based National Socialist Movement tell FOX35 they are patrolling the streets of Sanford.

    The National Socialist Movement says several Sanford citizens have called on them fearing their safety.

    The group’s commander talked with FOX35 Saturday about their presence in the now racially divided Florida town where Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman.

    Editor’s Note: The report originally published Saturday inadvertently referred to the National Socialist Movement as a civil rights group. We intended to refer to them as a “self-proclaimed” civil rights group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    Going after the Black Panthers would give undue attention to their nonsense.

    An argument I could accept from a Democratic administration if I did not see so many references to White-Right groups that are even smaller and weaker than the NBP.

    By the way:

    He didn’t question the court’s power to judicially review the constitutionality of legislation

    Debating points is one thing but there’s no need for non-American leftists to carry Obama’s water to this extent. Whether he committed an unthinking blurt or whether he really is so stupid as to not know about the 1803 decision, Marbury v. Madison, or whether this was just another cynical ploy to stir up his base (because how many citizens know about Marbury, the fact is that Obama did question SCOTUS’s power to review the constitutionality of legislation:

    I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

    And I — I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that, uhhh, an uninelected, uhhh, group of — of people would somehow overturn, uhhh, a duly constituted and — and passed, uh, law. Uh, well, uh, uh, is a good example. Uhh, and I’m pretty confident that this, — this court will recognize that, uh, and not take that step.

    All that stuff about the Lochner era was simply him walking-back later on from his initial stupid comments. And it would seem that he did not even get that right. Lochner is way before the New Deal, so it appears that Obama was actually thinking about Willard, which would be the more appropriate case in terms of the Commerce Clause. And even in that he’s being given the benefit of the doubt on stupidity. The fact that he also talked about Obamacare being passed with a strong majority tells me that he’s a bullshit artist who has gotten so used to just saying anything needed to win the emotional side of an argument in the heat of the moment – and not get called on it by an obliging media – that he can no longer help himself; he simply blurts during unscripted moments and then tries to walk it back with the help of his media buddies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Daigotsu (456 comments) says:

    LOL Obama is so screwed. I would love to see his face when he understands what the American people truly think of him.

    I hope Romney announces a full investigation into the Obama regime’s excesses with an eye to bringing those responsible to justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    What, you doubt Fox News Tom.

    What a pity I don’t watch Fox news, Cha. I also don’t read the Miami New Times, which is the source that gave this story legs and led it on to other news sites, including those favoured by many leftists, such as the Huffington Post.

    I rather appreciated these two quotes on the whole nonsense from James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, Wild Goose-Step Chase:

    Anyone reading this should have been highly skeptical. So should reporter Michael Miller. He did not travel 250 miles to Sanford to see these “patrols” in action. He did not speak to anyone in Sanford until Sunday, when he posted an update: “The Sanford Police Department says it has no evidence of neo-Nazis in the area.”

    His only source was “Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement,” a nutjob based in Detroit. Not only did Miller credulously transcribe Schoep’s bluster, passing it along as if it were established truth, he accompanied his piece with three publicity photos from the website of the “movement,” two of which purported to show “patrols” elsewhere (one in Arizona, one at an unspecified location on the U.S.-Mexico border).

    and this:

    Except for the Post and the News, these are primarily news aggregators with an attraction to sensationalism, so we suppose one could shrug it off as garbage in, garbage out–though that seems to be Miller’s approach to reporting as well.

    Sensationalism. I can count a Florida Fox TV station on that as well – but of course you’ll concentrate on them rather than the others when talking about lack of media credibility. As Taranto points out this is not the first time this sort of story has made the news, and usually via more “respectable” channels than the ones discussed here:

    We noted in 2008 that the Southern Poverty Law Center was issuing dubious claims of an upsurge in white supremacy as a backlash against Barack Obama, then the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. As we wrote at the time, “the white supremacists and the ‘experts’ who oppose them have a common interest in maximizing the perception of the former’s influence.”

    We learned this from a Washington Post article, about which we commented: “The notion of a white-supremacist backlash also is self-serving to the Post reporter, Eli Saslow, because ‘White Supremacists as Marginal as Ever’ wouldn’t be much of a story.”

    No it would not, and while Taranto points out that Saslow’s article had enough caveats in it to count as responsible journalism, even he did not extend his point about such nut-groups inflating their importance with wild claims, to the idea that groups like the Southern Poverty Law Centre would also want to exaggerate the prevalence of white-supremacist groups. Taranto sums it up well:

    While part of this is sheer sensationalism, there’s an ideological agenda at work here as well: The left imagines that “right wing” hate groups are on a continuum with mainstream conservatives and the Republican Party. Somebody like Jeff Schoep is primarily pandering to the prejudices of the left, and the Miami New Times report shows just how credulous the left can be when its prejudices are pandered to.

    The Left? The Left having prejudices? The left having its prejudices pandered to and thus being as credulous as any Fox news viewer?

    Say it ain’t so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    tom hunter (2,891) Says:
    April 11th, 2012 at 12:21 pm


    An argument I could accept from a Democratic administration if I did not see so many references to White-Right groups that are even smaller and weaker than the NBP.

    I can’t speak for others but I think they should be left alone as well. It does no good to make an issue out of these fringe groups that represent very few people. The problem is a self-defense law that encourages people to take the law into their own hands and thus cases like this, which inflame racial tensions, are inevitable and so are the fruit loops, like the NBP et al, who try to make mileage out of it. Focus on the real issues, i.e. the “stand your ground” law and the investigation of Zimmerman, and ignore the fringe groups.


    Debating points is one thing but there’s no need for non-American leftists to carry Obama’s water to this extent.

    Am I a non-American? :)


    …the fact is that Obama did question SCOTUS’s power to review the constitutionality of legislation:

    Obama – “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

    That was a silly thing to say I agree. But if you think that this demonstrates that a graduate of Harvard Law School is unaware of Marbury v Madison then go ahead and tell yourself that if it makes you feel better. I’ll take the contrary view that he misspoke.


    All that stuff about the Lochner era was simply him walking-back later on from his initial stupid comments. And it would seem that he did not even get that right. Lochner is way before the New Deal, so it appears that Obama was actually thinking about Willard, which would be the more appropriate case in terms of the Commerce Clause.

    I disagree. Obama made a valid point. He said:

    “We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce—a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.”

    So he was talking about prior to the New Deal. i.e. the Lochner “era” which included many cases including federal attempts to regulate interstate commerce.

    Essentially Obama is saying the same thing that everyone says when the US supreme court may reject a law they believe constitutional. They go on about “activist judges”. You hear conservatives all the time talk about judicial activism (when it’s legislation they favour). It doesn’t mean they reject the principle of judicial review.

    Obama certainly engaged his mouth before his brain, but the essential point he was trying to make was not outrageous and certainly not indicative of a man who thinks the supreme court does not have the power to strike out legislation on constitutional grounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    But if you think that this demonstrates that a graduate of Harvard Law School is unaware of Marbury v Madison then go ahead and tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

    That’s a little disingenuous of you. I gave three possibilities for Obama making this extraordinarily stupid statement and I thought my choice was clear in my final paragraph – that he simply blurts without thinking because he thinks he can get away with it. He usually does but the waterfall of public criticism was an exception in this case.

    As an aside, has anybody seen any article where Obama explains why he shifted from his opposition to the individual mandate – which he made quite a meal of in the 2008 primary against Hillary Clinton, since it was part of her health care proposals – to accepting it? I’d be especially interested in the constitutional arguments he took himself through rather than him coming to some pragmatic acceptance that it was needed to make the whole thing work.

    Of course in this quest I’m assuming that he did go through the thought process: that it was not just another unthinking, expedient argument needed to beat an opponent at a point in time. The latter would be the standard political approach, but a debasement supposedly not associated with Hope and Change.

    Am I a non-American?

    Well quite! KIA and BlairM are New Zealanders living (and voting) in the US, while I recall you stating that you had been raised there. Still a US voter then, even as you reside in NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    tom hunter,


    I gave three possibilities for Obama making this extraordinarily stupid statement

    I don’t think ignorance of Marbury v Madison is a realistic possibility.


    Well quite! KIA and BlairM are New Zealanders living (and voting) in the US, while I recall you stating that you had been raised there. Still a US voter then, even as you reside in NZ?

    No I’ve been raised in NZ. I can vote in the US though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Pete George, there is a possibility that Obama was born at a secret facility somewhere in Area-51. Because his claim for where he was born is a hallmark of Alien’s technology. Obama claimed to have been born at 2 different hospitals at the same time. See, that makes the bastard behave like a quantum particle, because he (& his supporters) claimed that he was born in Queens Memorial Hospital and Kapi’olani Medical Center. He was at 2 places at once. Therefore I conclude that he was conceived at area-51 and his mother gave birth to him at 2 different hospitals at the same time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    It’s always funny reading the drivel that “birthers” spout in these threads.

    Do you guys realize that you are prisoners of your own stupidity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Feanor (38 comments) says:

    You have to love an ignorant racist like iMP getting so upset about Obama’s comments on the Supreme Court that are far milder than comments from previous Republican presidents like Regan. It’s amazing how many far-right, racist extremists are attracted to Kiwiblog in general.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Feanor (38 comments) says:

    John Roberts: “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” (Roberts, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in a 1991 Supreme Court brief he co-wrote for the first Bush administration, while he was principal deputy solicitor general.)

    Mitt Romney: Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage.

    Newt Gingrich: “If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, the president can in fact ignore it,” said Gingrich to enthusiastic applause when speaking to a South Carolina anti-abortion group. He said the first confrontation would be over its historic ruling, known as the Boumediene decision, that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US courts. “I fully expect as president that there will be several occasions when we will collide. The first one, which is actually foreign policy, the Boumediene decision which extends American legal rights to enemy combatants on the battlefield is such an outrageous extension of the court in to the commander in chief’s role. I will issue an instruction on the opening day, first day I’m sworn in, I will issue an executive order to the national security apparatus that it will not enforce Boumediene and it will regard it as null and void because it is an absurd extension of the supreme court in to the commander in chief’s (authority).”

    Mitt Romney: The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act.

    Ronald Reagan: “Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right.”

    Ronald Reagan: The decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.

    GW Bush: I wouldn’t pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn’t be said in a school because it had the words “under God” in it. That’s an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution.

    Rick Santorum: “We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

    Ron Paul: “I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.”

    Barack Obama: I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

    Rick Santorum: Seven million Californians had their rights stripped away by activist 9th Circuit judges.
    Newt Gingrich: Court of Appeals overturning CA’s Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let’s end judicial supremacy.

    Speaker John Boehner: This latest FISA proposal from House Majority leaders is dead on arrival. It would outsource critical national security decisions to unelected judges and trial lawyers.

    Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO): Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions: This ‘Washington-knows-best’ mentality is evident in all branches of government, but is especially troublesome in the judiciary, where unelected judges have twisted the words of our Constitution to advance their own political, economic, and social agendas.

    Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL): I’m appalled that unelected judges have irresponsibly decided to legislate from the bench and overturn the will of the people.

    George W. Bush: This concept of a “living Constitution” gives unelected judges wide latitude in creating new laws and policies without accountability to the people.

    Thomas Sowell: Unelected judges can cut the voters out of the loop and decree liberal dogma as the law of the land.

    Laura Ingraham: We don’t want to be micromanaged by some unelected judge or some unelected bureaucrat on the international or national level.

    Gov. Rick Perry: [The American people are] fed up with unelected judges telling them when and where they can pray or observe the Ten Commandments.

    Pat Robertson: We are under the tyranny of a nonelected oligarchy. Just think, five unelected men and women who serve for life can change the moral fabric of our nation and take away the protections which our elected legislators have wisely put in place.

    Sen. Orrin Hatch: a small minority and their judicial activist allies are seeking to usurp the will of the people and impose same-sex marriage on all of the states. Ultimately, the American people, not unelected judges, should decide policy on critical social issues such as this one.

    Steve Forbes: You have judicial activism, where unelected Supreme Court justices are trying to impose a state income tax.

    Glenn Beck: Even if you agree that the role of government is to take wealth from one to another, should it be the role of unelected judges and justices that do this?

    Sen. John McCain: We would nominate judges of a different kind [...] And the people of America – voters in both parties whose wishes and convictions are so often disregarded by unelected judges – are entitled to know what those differences are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I’m so sorry tom, for calling Allen West a ‘war criminal’. It just seems a bit easier than saying he was a torturer who admitted assaulting an Iraqi…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Feanor
    It’s perhaps a commentary on the system that politicians of both stripes get upset with SCOTUS decisions. The ability to continually reinterpret the constitution is both a strength and a weakness, but it certainly imposes limits on the politicians not found here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. DJP6-25 (1,387 comments) says:

    Daigotsu 12:39 pm..Let’s hope so. They should go after ACORN too.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Well I am going to help Newt’s campaign here in Texas, but the odds of the GOP nominee not being Romney are miniscule right now. Newt would need a huge surge to peg him back.

    Romney is the worst GOP nominee since the party nominated Barry Goldwater (who was at least a real Conservative). He has run the most disgusting negative campaign I have ever seen in my entire life. He has spent massive amounts of his own money bombarding Gingrich and Santorum with negative ads. I’d never say that wasn’t his right, but the man is a hollow shell. He has no principles, other than the idea that he would very much like to be President.

    I think Obama is a terrible and incompetent President, but at least he has some vague idea of what he stands for. I have no idea what Romney stands for, because it has changed so damn much over the years. To me the key will be a GOP congress – if they win the Senate then Romney will make a decent President. But if congress remains split, we may as well have four more years of Obama, who will meander along and not do anything. I fear that Romney would actually try to compromise with a Democratic Senate, which would result in the complete destruction of the Republican Party as we know it.

    Can Romney win? Well he can’t campaign on the one thing that voters hate about Obama – his healthcare bill! What is he going to stand up and say? Is he simply going to run attack ads on Obama for being “a socialist”?! I don’t know what his strategy is. I don’t see a path to victory for him. He is not going to have a money advantage in the General. I don’t see how he wins. At least if Santorum had won the nomination, I could see him campaigning on healthcare and really hurting Obama in those rustbelt states where the election will be decided. But Romney has no show anywhere there except maybe Michigan, and that won’t be enough to take it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Dick Morris is a true-leftist..”

    fisi..you lie all the fucken time..eh..?

    morriss publishes ‘rightwing news’…

    ..’nuff said..?

    if morriss is ‘a true leftist’…i am a carnivorous member of act..

    ..whither credibility..eh..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Trouble for the Republicans is that Romney is the closest thing they could find to a candidate that might attract swing voters. Gingrich, Santorum and Perry, etc only really appealed to the true believers of the Bible belt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    an interesting benchmark is that the current republican thinking would have reagan labelled ‘a leftie’…

    ..the compassionate-conservative in america is as rare as the dodo..

    they are in the main..hate-filled bigots..

    ..hideous excuses for people…

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    I’m so sorry tom, for calling Allen West a ‘war criminal’. It just seems a bit easier than saying he was a torturer who admitted assaulting an Iraqi…

    Unfortunately for your “argument” (really more of a drive-by slur), assaulting an Iraqi prisoner does not even rise to the legal definition of torture – so you also might want to drop that word from the lexicon in describing West – assuming you’re interested in being factually descriptive. I’d go with Scott Chris’s gung-ho redneck, which is what you’d call most righties anyway and which showcases your progressiveness in race relations.

    It pays to be precise with language and terms. Otherwise you might get a president being called a “war criminal” after he goes off bombing countries without even trying to get approval in the Senate and Congress.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Oh tom, I do hate to quibble. I don’t know what definition of torture you use, but here is one:
    ‘any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.’
    And just in case the details of the incident in question are unclear:
    ‘West, who was not responsible for conducting interrogations in Iraq and had never conducted nor witnessed one, had his men detain Hamoodi. In the process of detaining Mr. Hamoodi, soldiers testified that Hamoodi appeared to reach for his weapon and needed to be subdued. Hamoodi was beaten by four soldiers from the 220th Field Artillery Battalion on the head and body. West then fired his pistol near Hamoodi’s head, after which Hamoodi provided West with names and information, which Hamoodi later described as “meaningless information induced by fear and pain.’
    So you tell me whether that was torture.
    After thinking about it some more, I have come around, Allen West would make an appropriate Vice-President.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Tom Hunter, you believe that GOP types should wear the white sheets and do a bit of cross burning if it would help them win the election ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    GOH – it certainly didn’t seem to harm Senator Robert Bryd’s 50 year career in the Democrat Party :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Daigotsu (456 comments) says:

    Right DPJ

    Just getting Obama out of office is not enough

    They need to do something to roll back the damage done during the lost years and make sure it never happens again

    Last I checked treason was a crime, esp. in wartime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    So you tell me whether that was torture.

    Ah – the good old UN convention. You do realise that by just one part of that definition – severe [mental] pain or suffering intentionally inflicted – any number of cops and prison guards in NZ are torturers, not to mention all the politicians who support solitary confinement? You’re cool with that?

    Surely the point is that, from within the US legal system that actually applied, nobody was willing or able to make such a charge stick – which means you can’t call him a torturer, let alone a war criminal – well not anymore than you can call him a stinky poophead. In any case you could surely denigrate him effectively, by simply and concisely saying that he fired a pistol near the head of an Iraqi prisoner who had been beaten by his troops, after which the prisoner provided useless information. I’m sure every left-winger would be horrified at that alone.

    Of course if one did just stick to such basic facts, people who know nothing of West – and who understand torture more as the sort of thing practiced by the Gestapo and the NKVD (perhaps even left-wingers) – might be inclined to shrug their shoulders and say that West actions don’t count as such. Perhaps they’d even vote for him.

    It’s therefore politically necessary, even vital, for left-wingers to describe such a person as a torturer and war criminal – constantly. I note that it seems to have failed so far. You might want to consider the idea that that says more about your definition of torture than it does about the moral and ethical failure of the people who voted for him or support him to this day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    So you tell me tom. Should America be proud of Allen West’s actions that day? I call beating someone and firing a gun beside his head to make him talk torture. What would you call it? Enhanced interogation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Daigotsu
    What treason?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Fletch (6,361 comments) says:

    The Left would call tickling someone on his tummy with a feather torture.
    I bet that’s the sort of thing they’re accusing West of.

    West is a real man, with real principles, so I’d give him the benefit of the doubt before taking on board what some progressive liberal told me was the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    Should America be proud of Allen West’s actions that day?
    No!
    I guess he was not either, since he reported the incident himself to his superiors. That is not an action typical of a torturer.

    I call beating someone and firing a gun beside his head to make him talk torture.
    Thank goodness laws are not written according the calls of mikenmild. By the way, West did not beat the man but did fire his handgun near the guy.

    What would you call it?
    I call it a case of an officer losing it somewhat under battlefield conditions. I think that if he was a Democrat we would never hear about this.

    Enhanced interrogation?
    Actually I think that’s still legal – despite Jon Stewart’s best efforts with UC Berkeley law professor and former Bush DOJ lawyer, John Yoo.

    Overall, still not worthy of the labels torturer and war criminal. You should save those for the real thing, otherwise it just sounds like hysterical, politically-inspired demagoguery – which is probably why it fails to gain any traction, even in NZ blogsites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    You enjoyed Yoo’s efforts with the torture memos then tom?
    And if it was torture, it magically would not be if the perpetrator reported himself? We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. tom hunter (4,808 comments) says:

    You enjoyed Yoo’s efforts with the torture memos then tom?

    I enjoyed watching an emotionally manipulative TV smartass crash on the rocks of cool reason and logic.

    Almost as much as I’ve enjoyed watching Obama supporters in turn watching their hero killing American citizens, employing predator drone strikes, rendition, military tribunals, and almost all the rest of the tactics of War Criminal Bush. I’d like to say they were squirming but the overwhelming view has been that of the clean consciences of righteous lefties and their memory holes. But at least Gitmo will close soon one day in Obama’s second term, maybe?

    And if it was torture,…

    I like that word if, it contains a multitude of universes.

    However, since what West did failed to qualify as torture, there is no need to us to agree to disagree on such hypothetical straw men, and we can perhaps return to the actual subject of this thread.

    What I think we can agree on is that you will continue to apply the terms “torturer” and “war criminal” to Allen West – and I will continue to point out what West actually did, so that people can draw their own conclusions, rather than being manipulated, in a classic debate framing approach, into imagining certain awful things by the use of single descriptive words and terms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    ‘I will continue to point out what West actually did, so that people can draw their own conclusions’
    Sorry tom, that’s what I did, provide the facts to counter your aasertions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote