Who will take on Obama in 2012?

Yup, you sure do. And when we do that with the payroll tax issue, specifically, we see marginal actors like Bachmann saying no, and the party majority and leadership not only saying yes, but clearly convinced they can appease even the Tea Party caucus by tying the issue to spending cuts.

Besides, they wouldn't (and I don't) grant the false dichotomy that the poor and middle class have to suffer so the rich can pay less. There's such a thing as real wages, and it isn't exactly surprising that people who don't understand the concept don't understand the conservative position on taxes, either.

Prediction: Romney will win Florida and it won't even be close.

I thought when he first surged Gingrich could take the nomination, but his negatives are too great, but he and Perry have wounded Romney enough to make it easier for Obama to take him out in the fall.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

A six point spread isn't close, but I think Romney will do better than that. Florida isn't as conservative as SC and it is a big media state and Gingrich still doesn't have a lot of money. Romney is going to ignore Santorum and really go after Gingrich. I also predict Gingrich will have one less than stellar debate performance before Floridians vote and that will slow down his momentum.

Polls show Gingrich with a lead in Florida at the moment, but at least part of my prediction has happened. That wasn't one of his slam dunk debate performances against Romney yesterday. He didn't tank, but Romney was on the attack and Gingrich was clamped down and didn't have the audience cheering any of his one liners. Romney flip flopped again, moderating a bit his immigration stance now that he is in Florida where there are a lot of Hispanics. It is also hilarious seeing Romney attack Gingrich for being inconsistant on the issues.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

You mentioned the "eye of a needle" verse just under a year ago, and I replied to it then:

"There are translation issues around this passage, but the short explanation is that "eye of the needle" refers to a type of gate in walled cities of the time. It is a narrow passage, not an actual needle. It involves unloading your camel and passing the supplies through separately. Some people take this to mean that you need to get your priorities in order. Some take it to mean that it's simply difficult or cumbersome, but not impossible. Which certainly fits what I think most of us see in reality: that wealth is a difficult temptation for many people, but that it's still possible to be wealthy and good. It's just harder.

This is a great example of what I was saying to Jason about studying the Bible, though. I'm sure lots of it sounds simplistic when heard second and third hand and just taken at face value. Digging a little deeper yields a lot more nuance than its often given credit for."

On top of this, you generally hate the idea of people bringing their religion into politics, so I'm not sure what reason there is to suddenly advocate it.

You have often suggested that there's some kind of conflict between Christianity and capitalism, but that is easily refuted by something I'm quite positive I've said to you before: Christian teaching is voluntary. Taxes and redistributionist policies are not. Giving something willingly is dramatically different than advocating it be taken from others by force.

But when government takes taxes from you through representative goverment it isn't be taken by force, it is the will of the people.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. It is both the will of the people and taken by threat of force.

You're having a different argument: you're contending that laws have legitimacy because we live in a democratic society. That's completely true. But that's not the debate: the debate is over what laws should exist, and which people should support them if they are to be consistent in their beliefs. And in that debate people sometimes try to claim that Christian teaching encourages them to vote for more redistributionist tax policy. But that doesn't follow, because Christian teaching is about charity, and charity is voluntary (by definition). Thus, being Christian in no way requires or even encourages people to be for redistributionist tax policies.

This becomes quite obvious when you apply it to any other Christian edict. Christianity tells us we should attend church, too, but it doesn't then follow that it would be wise (or fair) for Christians to support laws mandating church attendance.

There used to be laws preventing businesses from being open on Sundays. They were declared unconstitutional.

Yup, perfect example. My Christianity does not compel me to impose observance of the Sabbath on others, just as it doesn't compel me to impose charity or any other virtue. A bit part of the value of observing these things is that they are observed willingly.

I realize things are fluid, and November can be very different from January, but right now it is hard to see how either Gingrich or Romney can win over Obama. Can anyone remember a more vicious rivalry between two presidential candidates? They are both in the mud in Florida, attacking each other pretty much for the same trivial stuff and ignoring issues. It is all personal and so toxic whoever is left standing is going to be dead man walking. Romney is a rich guy and uses the tax system to pay as little as possible. So what? And I still have no idea what Gingrich did as a consultant for Fanny Mae, but I'm, sure they didn't pay him over a million dollars for his advice as a historian. But again what does it matter? Despite what some right wingers think, Fanny Mae was at best a contributor to the housing crisis, not the ringleader, and whatever Gingrich did had zero impact on what happened. And all these personal attacks. It really does look like someone should make a late run (Jeb Bush?) and save the Republican party from these clowns.

Right now, the Bush name is pretty toxic itself. That would be like saying, "Here, President Obama, we're just not serious about wanting the white house at all."

...oh wait, that's kind of what they're doing now...

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

I guess I'll have eat my last post. After Thursday's debate I think it is over for Gingrich. It is pretty clear now he actually isn't as sharp as Romney. Romney has a lot of problems, but he is much more adept than Gingrich at being a shameless political whore who will say anything to get elected. Trying to engage Romney on that level was a serious mistake. And I would have thought Gingrich had enough of a brain to understand that routine of attacking the moderator was old stuff by now and it was foohardy to bring it out again, particularly in this situation when he himself had made Romney's taxes an issue.

Does it seem to anyone else that Gingrich and Romney are trying to argue about who is more corrupt? That would make them both obsolete in my head if I were even considering them.

Moon base derp

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

Newt Gingrich's campaign song:

What Romney will show up in the Fall, the Romney that finally showed some fire in his belly and ass kicked Gingrich in Florida, or the clueless millionaire who makes bonehead comments like this?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...-line-has-legs

Doesn't matter, they were only finding who'll lose to Obama in November anyway.

Meant to check in months ago to see how Will celebrated Perry's dropping out of the race, after all those months worrying he might get the nomination. Like I said early on, there was no use breaking a sweat about Perry because he never had the chance of a snowball in hell.