Skip to main content

Which one of these guys is outside the GOP mainstream? (Photos: Reuters, WH)
Remember when Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment thought that Rick Perry had sunk his own campaign by making some rude comments about Ben Bernanke? And more importantly, do you remember how wrong their analysis turned out to be?

Well, they're at it again:

Romney adviser: Perry 'has lost'

Mitt Romney's campaign leapt just now on Rick Perry's restatement of his view that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme" and that promising to maintain it in its current form is a "monstrous lie."

"PERRY DOES NOT BELIEVE SOCIAL SECURITY SHOULD EXIST," read the headline of Romney's press release.

Romney adviser Stuart Stevens emails:

He has lost. No federal candidate has ever won on the Perry program to kill Social Security. Never has. never will.

Last I checked, the GOP nomination isn't a federal office. And while Perry's position might not be popular with the electorate at large, it's absolutely consistent with the GOP mainstream.

Perry says that Social Security is unworkable in its present form and that it needs to be replaced. That's exactly the same position that George W. Bush took in 2005 when he tried to privatize Social Security and it's exactly the same position that Paul Ryan and the House Republicans took with respect to Medicare when they proposed privatizing it earlier this year.

Mitt Romney has a different position. (For now, at least. He could change it tomorrow. This is Mitt Romney, after all.) He says Social Security works now and will continue to work in the future. I think that's the right position, but that's why I'm a Democrat. Rick Perry disagrees, and that's why he's a Republican.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:07 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What a gallery of assholes! (7+ / 0-)
  •  Exactly. Romney is way ahead of himself (and the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fury, JohnnySacks

    tea party).

    The community of fools might be small were it not such an accomplished proselytizer.

    by ZedMont on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:12:27 AM PDT

    •  Not necessarily. No bill has been introduced to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      relentless, Sue B

      Privatize or otherwise drastically change SS.  GOPers talk a big game, but they have never moved a bill to committee hearings that would drastically change SS.  They know that their older voters are scared to death by this kind of talk, and  older voters are the ones that vote, especially in primaries.

      It is all talk with them.  Perry is more out on a limb than most.  Romney can pummel Perry in Florida, Pennsylvania and other places with older populations by playing Reagan's statements on the need to shore up SS and it's importance to retirees.  The people who evidently believe it won't be there are in their 20s and 30s, maybe to mid 40s, but they vote at much lower percentages.

      Plus Perry will have the same problem as Bush.  The minute you start to divert payroll taxes to private accounts there is less money for current beneficiaries and they were smart enough to figure that out when Bush proposed it 6 years ago.  Since then we have had 2 big market crashes.

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:36:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But what's the President doing to payroll taxes? (0+ / 0-)

        I really don't get it.  Cutting payroll taxes is something the GOP always wanted to do.  They probably thought that cutting taxes that support S.S. would be one way of gradually destroying the entire S.S. system, so now our President is continuing to follow the conservative plan.   I give up.

    •  He's Strategizing The Superbowl (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... and ignoring the playoffs (gaaa, I hate sports metaphors!)

      I'm going with one or more of the post debate MSNBC commentators who said that Romney would do fine with his stance in the general election, but he first has to make it through the primary.

      Will the more moderate of the republicans come out and vote in the primaries?  Or will the tea party and the southern christian evangelicals, (definitely NOT pro-Romney) make a larger appearance?

  •  yep. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atdnext, Aquarius40

    hurrah for points well-made succinctly! As soon as Mitt gets tagged with "he's really a democrat-wolf in repub-sheep clothing", we will see him flip flop on this.

  •  Great point! (6+ / 0-)

    Let's hope you are so, so right. Because that will mean that whoever wins the nomination will lose the election.

    I will say, though, that the thought of Rick Perry, my very own Governor Goodhair, winning even the nomination scares the living daylights out of me.

    I see he spent a whole 24 hours here in Texas to get great videos and photos to use for his campaign ads.

    It was Lt. Govenor Dewhurst who had to declare Texas a disaster area so we could ask for federal funds. Perry was too busy prepping for his debut yesterday to bother with a minor point like that.

    Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

    by Sirenus on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:13:58 AM PDT

  •  It won't be long... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Before Mittens flip-flops on this again. I doubt his attacks on Ricky Perry's wish to abolish Social Security will go well at that teabagger gathering in New Hampshire he wants to star in.

  •  Prayer Circle? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Voodoo king, annieli

    For Perry to win the nomination?

    •  Isn't this the truth (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mimikatz, dfe

      I hear a lot of whistling through the graveyard.  It says something that everybody here thinks Obama can/will lose to Mitt Romney.  How far have we fallen?

      I think a lot of people on this site overestimate the power of the Tea Party in the Republican Party come election time.  This isn't a mid-term.  It's a presidential election.  The corporate/country club wing of the GOP is stronger than the Tea Party, if they're interested and motivated to vote.  The Tea Party is just a tool of this group.  They will be motivated and energized in 2012, and saner heads will prevail in the belief that Romney can actually win.  

      In 2010, the corporate GOP used the Tea Party's enthusiasm to make sweeping gains in the House in an off-year election, sacrificing a Delaware or Nevada senate seat for the gigantic tidal wave in the House.  They can't legislate with Obama (well, not as much as they'd like), so they only needed to win the House to shut the Dem agenda down.  They tolerated a little self-defeating crazy for the enthusiasm it generated elsewhere.  That's how you win the House.  

      They won't need the Tea Party to get psyched in 2012.  That, and his own eventual self destruction, will keep Perry from the nomination, no matter how hard we pray.

      •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

        Ending SS may be mainstream in the tiny portion of the electorate that is actually paying attention to these very early Primary Debates, but it is not a popular idea with the broad swath of routine Republican voters who will rouse from the stupor to come out and vote for one of the two candidates left standing sometime next year.  Romney gets this, while Perry is lost in a House of Mirrors that creates the illusion of genuine support for his extremist ideas.

        I predict that Perry wins some of the early Primaries but Romney cleans up when we get to the larger winner take all states - many of them Blue - and ultimately gets the nomination. In fact by next March, I suspect Perry will be fighting hard to keep Texas in his column since by that point it will be hard to not notice how much his fiscal policy's have damaged the state.

  •  Republicans no longer have a super ego (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glitterscale, Sue B

    All their basest desires on the political economy have come spilling out.  Elimination of social security is a desire they have kept, or had, suppressed for 75 years.  Now, it is on fully display with people like Perry and Ryan.  Romney is the party pooper.  That's why he's not likely to win the nomination.

    Rick Perry is a monstrous lie.

    by Paleo on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:15:14 AM PDT

  •  I'll bet anybody that right wing radio (8+ / 0-)

    will be repeating this for the next few days:

    It IS a ponzi scheme!!!
  •  Two birds with one stone for Romney. (11+ / 0-)

    Make Perry look unelectable and a guarantee for Obama's re-election (useful for primary).

    At the same time, make himself look acceptable for the big office in terms of the general election--blur the ideological differences between himself and Obama.

    He's banking on the Republican voters being somewhat rational in their blind obsession with defeating Obama.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:17:10 AM PDT

    •  LOL... (5+ / 0-)

      Good luck with that ridiculous strategy.

      The Romney campaign has no idea what is going on in the GOP grassroots. They need to spend a lot more time out of Boston.

      •  Romney wants the Middle Class to have the "highest (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MazeDancer, MKSinSA, JC from IA

        income on earth" LOL As Jon Stewart "IT WON'T BE THE MIDDLE CLASS ANYMORE BUT THE RICH "

        "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

        by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:26:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We need to analyze that statement (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StellaRay, dfe

          a little more closely.

          Romney is appealing to Americans' exceptionalism.....we had always been the best paid people and he promises to take us back to that place....insinuating that Obama has dropped the standard of living in this country.  It is the exact same dog-whistle shit that Reagan used, telling the country it was, is, and will always be better than the Soviet Union.  Romney is just expanding that idea to include the rest of the world.  

          Think like a republican and you will see what I mean....Romney is promising the middle class its life back and that is very, very dangerous.

          We can counter it.....there is plenty of evidence of just what Romney did to contribute to globalism and off-shoring, but we can't count on the media reporting what exactly it was that Bain Capital did.....I've made progress by comparing him to Richard Gere's character in "Pretty Woman"....he buys up companies, then cuts them up and sells them and pockets all the money. Gordon Gekko is another one that resonates.  Some of the more sociopathic neighbors think that's just fine, but then I ask them how THEY benefit from that kind of cutthroat "business" and they don't have an answer except to hope they have stock in the company.  

          We've seen Romney's game before.....Obama employed elements of it in his campaign too.  Because it fucking works.  There is so much doom and gloom (stoked by the shit in the media), that people are going to latch on anyone that promises to do it FOR them.  Obama's asking for folks to help; Romney is promising to do it FOR them.  Considering we have a big contingent of people right here on this website that expect the same thing, we have to be careful to laugh this shit off.

      •  Perry is a Manly Man. Mitt's a Mormon. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LaurenMonica, Sue B, MKSinSA

        That's the nomination race for the GOP.

        The GOP do not like Mitt. Rick's the Real Red Deal. Tall. White. Male. Mean. Mitt is wimpy, rich cruel. Mitt's only mean for his own self gain. Rick's Cowboy Mean. Tough when it count. Against the foe. Ultimate Justice helps everyone

        Elections are about love. Perry captures hearts. Mitt repels them

      •  Blind Obsession Will Get Perry Through The Primary (0+ / 0-)

        Blind obsession will vote R for any option in the general election, but the hard core Republicans who vote in the primary might just be the tea party and southern evangelical Christians who will overwhelmingly get out and vote for Perry in the primary.

        Romney's biggest battle will be the primary, not the general election, yet he seems to be battling mostly for the general election.

      •  I'm not sure WE have any idea (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geekesque, j1j2j3j4

        what is going on in the GOP grassroots.  I think they want to beat Obama REAL BAD.  Also, don't discount that the GOP grassroots is very good at doing what they're told to do.

      •  They know there are lots of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        old people who vote in GOP primaries.  

        It's the third rail for a reason.

        It will also make the establishment blanche at the thought of Perry winning.  

        Romney has played every angle pretty smart.  Consider his background and past positions, compare that with the current GOP, and it's clear he's overachieving.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:43:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Let's be clear. Rick Perry thinks social security (9+ / 0-)

    is unconstitutional.  He does not think it's "unworkable and needs to be replaced". Do not give him an inch or that will become the conventional wisdom.  And the republican base we're talking about?  The loudest applause of the night came during the execution discussion.  Need I say more?  They're soulless.  

    Got Social Security? Thank a Democrat!

    by Fury on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:17:24 AM PDT

    •  Perry thinks a lot of things (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jeopardydd, Fury, JohnnySacks

      He's just playing to the base.  Typical Republican hypocrite.  He will say and do anything to get elected.

    •  That's just disgusting. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No matter how you feel about the death penalty.  

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:39:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is really beyond his base (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      See comments above.  SS is a VERY popular program, especially with Seniors.  Today's beneficiaries can remember the '40s and '50s when many seniors lived in poverty and great fear of medical expenses.  Significant benefits didn't kick in until the mid 1960s, with Medicare and the retirement of people who had paid into SS for 30 years.  Even the Tea Partiers who aren't paid shills for the Koch Bros understand this even if they don't understand exactly how the program works.  The only people who don't like SS are the people who don't need it.  But so many Boomers have seen their retirement accounts busted that eliminating SS is going to be VERY unpopular.

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:43:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perry Also Supported Hilliarycare (0+ / 0-)

      When ascribing personal beliefs to Perry, one must keep in mind that he was first elected to office as a Democrat, supported Clinton and endorsed the Clinton Health Care bill. I'm not saying that anyone should expect him to govern as anything other then a far-right Republican as he has done in Texas. However, I doubt he has any more real convictions that Romney does, beyond enriching himself and his supporters.

  •  still believe despite the Pundits spin, Perry won (7+ / 0-)

    last night.

    The cheers he got when Brian Williams brought up his execution record, tells you how deeper the Yahoos will fall in love with him.

    Just wait for Rush Limbaugh's deliberation

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:17:57 AM PDT

    •  Perry clearly won. It isn't even debatable (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaurenMonica, RichM, CTDemoFarmer, justmy2

      in my book.

      •  The Baggers spin is "At least Rick Perry isn't a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MazeDancer, JohnnySacks

        flipflopper like ROmney"

        I hate to say this but I don't see how ROmney, a mormon, can beat Perry, a christian, in a GOP primary.

        in 2007, he lost to McCain who was politically dead and to Huckabee who was.... well a Yahoo.

        "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

        by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:29:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  GOP base still angry they agreed to go w/McCain (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LaurenMonica, StellaRay

          They want a True Conservative this time. Not some consultant approved "electable".

          They want True Conservatism so badly they were willing to go along with a girl until a Real Man rode into town. But now he's here. And their he's a true-believer-mean-SOB swooning over Rick is not going to stop.

          If you were a T-Party voter, last night your hero proved he's got the Right Stuff. Coached to make sure he stopped sounding like W, but with none of the Cowboy Strong removed. Polite, forceful, gun toting dream come true.

          Romney's still a flip-flopping, socialist Mormon. Can't win Iowa. Can't win SC. So NH determines whether Perry wins sooner rather than later.

      •  and truth is SS does need fixing... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        r2did2, JC from IA

        raise the taxable income level to $250K or higher.

        Plato's " The Cave" taught me to question reality.

        by CTDemoFarmer on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:44:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

          But, that would also increase the tax burden on the employers (they have to match the FICA contribution) and this is why it won't happen.

          - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

          by r2did2 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:12:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes and No (0+ / 0-)

            Many employers don't care because most of them have only a handful of employees that make more then the maximum. However, there is nothing to say that we can't maintain the cap for the Employer side and completely remove it for the Employee side.

      •  He may have "won" the debate... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but clearly, the biggest winner was not even on stage at the Reagan library. The real debate winner will be addressing Congress tonight on jobs. There is no way Rick Perry can win the general election by calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme," among other things.

        Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

        by alaprst on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:51:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  ""Won" with which voters?" is the question, (0+ / 0-)

      I think.  Perry seemed to me to be targeting General Election voters last night.  He isn't running in the General Election at this point, at least not yet.

      Going all psycho John Galt on SS may be fine for the kids, but I have my doubts that it plays all that well with the typical Republican Primary voter.

  •  My understanding is that some people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glitterscale, RichM, justmy2

    who get Social Security are African-American, so the GOP is against Social Security.

    The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

    "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

    by Punditus Maximus on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:19:05 AM PDT

  •  I think we probably need to do everything in our (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plubius, joe from Lowell

    Power to help Perry get the nomination, sure anything can happen in a general election and the dummy could win. But I'm more inclined to think no way this guy wins 270 electoral votes. Not with the views he's spewing on the campaign trail so far. All the Obama team needs to do is run ads with him saying Social security is a Ponzi scheme, say bye-bye to Florida.

    •  Bye bye FL indeed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe from Lowell, Voodoo king

      Assuming Obama plays hardball....

    •  strongly disagree (0+ / 0-)

      Obama stands a good chance of losing because

      a) reelections are about the incumbent instead of the challenger,

      b) Obama's approval ratings are too low for reelection, and

      c) the economy sucks and is not getting better.

      So I warn you to be careful for what you wish for (Perry) - you might just get it.

      •  Obama is in a better position than Reagan. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LaurenMonica, Loge, JohnnySacks, MKSinSA

        a) the challenger needs to clear the bar as an acceptable alternative.  Ask Sharon Angle about that.

        b) Obama's approval ratings are comparable to Reagan's at this time in 1983.

        c) Obama has out-performed where he's supposed to be, given the state of the economy, all along.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:29:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  how is Obama (0+ / 0-)

          in a better position than Reagan?

          Between Q1 1983 and Q2 1984, GDP growth AVERAGED 7%

          Obama is in a far, far worse position than Reagan.

          •  Obama is in bad shape, but it's too soon to call (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe from Lowell

            the election for the GOP

            "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

            by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:34:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  of course it is (0+ / 0-)

              that's why I didn't call it.

              I explicit said: "Obama stands a good chance of losing because..." and "So I warn you to be careful for what you wish for (Perry) - you might just get it."

              That's a warning - not a statement of certainty.

              •  Then you both agree :) (0+ / 0-)

                "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

                by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:38:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  not really (0+ / 0-)

                  I think Obama is likely to lose, absent some major change in either the economy or Obama's strategy between now and the election.  

                  he/she seems to think it is likely that Obama win win.

                  •  I think we don't know yet. The GOP field is weak (0+ / 0-)

                    and Obama is running against neither of them but against the economy

                    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

                    by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:49:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  "some major change in strategy" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    You mean like, changing from not running a re-election campaign to running a re-election campaign?

                    Yes, I agree: Obama needs to start running for re-election between now and the election.  If he does not, he probably won't win.

                    Art is the handmaid of human good.

                    by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:06:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  So does the best election predictor in America. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    This guy, who has correctly predicted the outcome of every presidential election for the past 30 years, is predicting an Obama victory.

                    Economic issues are important, but they are not the only relevant metrics.  Check out his formula - it literally works every time.

                    Art is the handmaid of human good.

                    by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:15:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                      •  An opinion about how a system with a perfect... (0+ / 0-)

                        record must be wrong is not "thoroughly debunked."  You can tell me the sun won't rise tomorrow, and have the cleverest explanation in the world for why.  I know where I'd put my money.

                        BTW, the strongest statement Silver makes is that Obama is not a lock for reelection.  I don't recall anyone saying he was.

                        Art is the handmaid of human good.

                        by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:55:40 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  it's not an "opinion" (0+ / 0-)

                          it uses mountains of data, and (OMG!) math.

                          I take it that you did not read it?

                          •  So does the never-wrong system. (0+ / 0-)

                            And the conclusion he draws still doesn't back up your argument.

                            Your starting to get personal.  You should cool it, regardless of how this debate seems to be going for you.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:07:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the (0+ / 0-)

                            "never-wrong" system uses a bunch of squishy subjective keys. some of them can go either way depending on what how the guy is feeling.

                            moreover, one point Nate Silver left out is that there are lots of professors making these kinds of predictions, and there were only a few elections that were in doubt during the last 30 years.

                            you have 10 papers about it, and a few are going to get the close elections correct by pure chance. those are the ones we would then hear about later, making it seem like they knew something.

                          •  If it is so bad, why does it work so well? (0+ / 0-)

                            And, in fact, we had many elections in the past 30 years that were in question at the time Lichtman made his predictions.

                            Carter was running about even with Reagan.  Mondale was running about even with Reagan.  Dukaksis was beating Bush.  Bush was riding high on his post-Desert Storm high.  Bush/Gore was close all along.  So was Bush/Kerry.  So was the 2008 race at this point.

                            So, actually, looking back, there was only one election in the past 30 years that was "in doubt" at the time Lichtman made his prediction.  

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:24:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That was NOT in doubt, that is. 1996. (0+ / 0-)

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:25:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nate Silver (0+ / 0-)

                            and I have already given you the answer to your question.

                            And you have not tried to rebut it.

                            Gotta go now. ttyl.

                          •  No, you haven't. And yes, I have. (0+ / 0-)

                            Success is the ultimate rebuttal.  As if demonstrably disproving your assertion about there being few elections that were "in doubt."

                            You just utterly ignored my response.

                            It probably would have been wiser to say nothing.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:28:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  again (0+ / 0-)

                            you haven't addressed any of Nate's points.

                            Nor have you addressed the fact that I made that there have been lots of similar papers by political scientists over the years, and with only a handful of elections in doubt the last 30 years, some of those papers would be correct BY CHANCE.

                            if you get 25 people to guess 3 or 4 outcomes of a coin toss, some will get it right by chance. That does not mean that there's predictive power in whatever model they used.

            •  I agree it's early, but (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              this is nothing like Reagan 1984.  The economy was smoking in 1983.  It's dead, right now.  Reagan's job approval was low in 1983, but support among his base was rock solid, and people were starting to feel better about the country than they had before.  Obama gets more hate mail at DKOS on a daily basis than Mitt Romney, and we've seen the polls on RT/WT and consumer confidence.  In 1983 UE was clearly trending lower.  UE in 2011 is stuck at 9+%, and if anything, professional opinions are that it could go higher.

              If you just look at the numbers, Obama is in a far worse position than ANY incumbant president since Lyndon Johnson (because of the war, not the economy).  It's worse than Reagan.  Worse than Bush II.  Worse than Bush I.  Even worse than Jimmy Carter.

              All of that said, this is not a guarantee Obama will lose.  I agree the GOP candidate has to pass the "acceptable alternative" bar (as John Kerry and Bob Dole did not), but barring a huge economic upswing, there isn't enough lipstick in the world to dress up this pig.

              •  After today learning that Gallup used 12,000 (0+ / 0-)

                whites vs 1,200 AA and 1,200 Hispanic for their daily tracking polls in August, I'm a bit skeptical about Gallup as far as today.  Look like Nate Silver was right when he said he was reserved on that poll.

                But that doesn't mean that Obama is a good shape either. As long there is bad news in the economy, Obama won't be able to recover in the Long term.

                "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

                by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:14:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Not worse than Carter, rmp690. (0+ / 0-)

                Have you used the comparison charts on Gallup?

                You'll see quite a bit of flux in most recent presidential polls over the time periods.  

                I think too much is read into this poll.

                Obama tracks most closely to Clinton.  Reagan hit a 35% low in his tenure, and gradually tracked up.


              •  People Forget how Disliked Reagan Actually Was (0+ / 0-)

                The Republican Party has been so good at papering over Reagan's actual tenure that even Democrats think he was universally loved. I remember Reagan being despised by a good portion of the nation, for both his lack of intelligence and his policies that relentless undid decades of progress. So no, Reagan was no shoo-in, but at the end of the day he won because he made his opponent more unlikable then he was. The one huge advantage Obama has is that he is still far more likable than any of his prospective opponents.

          •  Approval ratings, of course. YOUR point, remember? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Quoteh "jeopardydd" - b) Obama's approval ratings are too low for reelection, and

            Both Obama and Reagan's approval ratings are in the mid-40s 14 months before the election.

            We can also look at your a).

            Reagan was facing someone (Walter Mondale) whom the general public had just elected Vice President a few years before.  In other words, someone much more plausible as an alternative than Rick Perry.

            I agree, the economy is in tough shape - but there's a reason that the old chestnut about "...when unemployment is over 7%" has so many qualifiers, like "except Ronald Reagan" and "since World War Two."  That's because, while it's an important variable, it's a soft predictor, not a hard one.  Individual candidates have performed considerably better or worse than the economic numbers predict.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:04:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  again (0+ / 0-)

              Reagan's approval ratings followed the economy.

              From gallup:

              "His ratings moved back above 50% by November 1983 -- not only because the economy was picking up, but also in part as a result of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the terrorist explosion that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.

              By 1984, Reagan's job approval ratings were consistently above the 50% line that is a symbolic standard for an incumbent president seeking re-election. In Gallup's last October poll before the November 1984 election, Reagan received a 58% job approval rating"

              So unless you are suggesting that we are going to average 7% GDP rise from now to the next election like under Reagan, then this doesn't help your point at all.

              •  Your own quote rebuts you. (0+ / 0-)

                Did you, by chance, read it before you pasted it?

                From your quote: but also in part as a result of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the terrorist explosion that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.

                As I, and your quote, are saying, economic considerations are only one factor in presidential approval and reelection chances.

                The never-wrong predictor of elections I linked to includes economic considerations as two of his indicators, but his model includes numerous other factors as well.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:50:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the political (0+ / 0-)

                  scholarship is that the economy represents roughly 75% of a president's reelection.

                  and that's for all elections, not just ones where the economy is especially bad or especially good, in which case it may be a bigger factor.

                  it is NOT the only factor, but it is a giant one, in fact, by far the biggest.

                  yes, there is a possibility of something happening apart from the economy that could bounce up Obama's numbers. If japan attacks pearl harbor, Obama might win reelection. But it would take something very dramatic so long as the economy still sucks.

                •  oh (0+ / 0-)

                  and Obama's legitimately good foreign policy decisions and outcomes are already baked into the approval numbers. this is where he stands after Egypt, Libya, and Bin Laden.

                  Those don't get added to the approval rating at this point - they are a reason he isn't at an even lower approval rating right now.

                  •  But is there any reason to believe... (0+ / 0-)

                    that his record of foreign policy successes won't continue through next year?

                    Art is the handmaid of human good.

                    by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:57:45 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  that's not the question (0+ / 0-)

                      Obama didn't even get so much as a bump from Libya, even though he was proved 100% correct about it. People are already accounting for approval of his foreign policy decisions.

                      Foreign policy success is baked into the approval rating already.

                      unless there's something truly dramatic, like a major attack on the country, foreign policy is not going to change anything at this point.

                      •  It is indeed a question. (0+ / 0-)

                        Additional foreign policy successes, or failures, will make foreign policy a more significant factor in people's decision.  As you say, people's opinion about Obama's foreign policy record is pretty much already set, but the issue of how much importance they will place on that matter will depend on what happens between now and the election.

                        Art is the handmaid of human good.

                        by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:10:28 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  you have any evidence for that? (0+ / 0-)

                          I've given evidence that people have already baked foreign policy success into the approval rating (lack of a bump from Libya) and that his approval rate is not going up with continued successes on that front.

                          so do you have any evidence for your assertion that it would go up at all, much less by an very large amount that is needed?

                          •  Do I have any evidence that foreign policy... (0+ / 0-)

                            events happening will make foreign policy more important to people's decision?

                            Is that what you're asking?

                            Well...I have your own statement about how a major foreign policy/military event would do so.  Is that good enough for you?

                            BTW, you haven't offered any "evidence" for your opinion.  You merely asserted it.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:20:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                            do you have any evidence that dome thing non-major (unlike an attack on the US) will raise his approval rating?

                            I have evidence that at this point, it won't (Libya). People have already factored that in. It's already reflected into the approval rating.

                            anyways, I have go go do some work. I will look at any response you give later on.

                            Have a nice day.

                          •  Why do you keep talking about "approval rating?" (0+ / 0-)

                            My argument wasn't about his approval rating.  Go back and read what I actually wrote, and ask me a question about it if you wish.

                            Art is the handmaid of human good.

                            by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:26:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  his rating are not comparable to Reagan's (0+ / 0-)

          at this point... Reagan was already back above 50

          "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

          by justmy2 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:02:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, he wasn't. Link and data below. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MKSinSA, LaurenMonica

            Gallup's approval ratings for Reagan.

            Gallup released three polls of Reagan's approval in August 1983.  Reagan came out at 44, 43, and 43% approval.  He didn't hit 50% until November.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:11:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was looking at lines in a chart,I was off by 2-3 (0+ / 0-)
              Date      Organization      Approve     Disapprove    

              9/16-19/83     Gallup                 48         42     10    
              9/9-12/83         Gallup                 47         42     11

              I will let others decide who was more accurate...

              "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

              by justmy2 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:20:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yep (0+ / 0-)

                and right now Obama is at 42/50, compared to Reagan's 47/42.

                And Reagan's climbed a ton after that because we were averaging 7% GDP growth between Q1 1983 and Q2 1984.

                that's not going to happen with Obama.

                •  Looking at individual numbers instead of several (0+ / 0-)

         not a good way to interpret poll results.  You might have noticed that Reagan's numbers then dropped the next month.

                  Poll data is noisy.  Cherry-picking precisely the one that tells you what you want to hear and ignoring the rest is not how someone who really wants to understand the data looks at poll results.

                  Art is the handmaid of human good.

                  by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:53:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You referenced the poll numbers...not us (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    there is no cherry picking going is apples to apples..not august to September...

                    I don't even think it matters...tell me UE in June 2012, I will tell you who wins...regardless of a tracking poll...

                    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                    by justmy2 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:55:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Incorrect. I replied to someone else re: polls. (0+ / 0-)

                      Go back up to the comment I first replied to.  HE brought up Obama's poll numbers.  I responded by linking to the actual numbers, because his statement was wrong.

                      And you might have noticed - I replied to his argument in which he asserted the importance of polls by making your argument about the numbers this far out not being very useful.  That's what pointing out Reagan's bad numbers means: having bad numbers more than a year before the election doesn't tell us a whole lot.

                      Art is the handmaid of human good.

                      by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:05:47 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I only pointed it out as a correction (0+ / 0-)

                        I am not making any argument of relevance.  I have been consistent.

                        I apologize if it wasn't you who brought the polls up.  We agree on the value of any polls at this point.

                        "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                        by justmy2 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:14:38 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Reagan's (0+ / 0-)

                    numbers were over 50% by November of 1983.

                    That was with an economy growing at 10% for the quarter.

                    what are you suggesting will do that for Obama in the next 2 months?

                    •  I've not made any such prediction. (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm just questioning yours.

                      Anyway, the argument you're now making is a better one than the argument you started out making.  The direction of the economy could well, at some point, bring Obama down to where he actually does start performing worse than Reagan.

                      But this brings up back to the other area where Obama is in a better position than Reagan: his opponents.  Obama is doing considerably better than Reagan in head-to-heads against likely opponents.  Reagan was only up by 1 in a head-to-head with Mondale, while Obama consistently beats Perry (the candidate you brought up) by larger margins.  Given their similar approval ratings, this is best understood as a consequence of the quality of the opposition.

                      Art is the handmaid of human good.

                      by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:18:01 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  So, not 50%, then. About the same as Obama. (0+ / 0-)

                That's what I said.

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:51:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  no...those are not the same.... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Obama is at 42/50, compared to Reagan's 47/42.

                  and Reagan was trending up...President Obama is trending down...

                  there is not comfort to be taken from current polls and doing so if counter productive...

                  I actually think looking at polling now is part of the problem...

                  "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                  by justmy2 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:57:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Picking the one result you like is misleading. (0+ / 0-)

                    Poll data is inherently noisy.  That's why poll aggregators have become so popular.  Looking at all of the Gallup data - not just plucking out one poll for each of them - shows Obama and Reagan in about the same place.

                    Oh, and I'm not the one who brought up polling; I merely rebutted someone else's assertion about what the current polling shows - someone who, btw, singled out Obama's current poll numbers as a key reason why he can't be reelected.  I responded by making your point - that polling 14 months out is not a strong indicator - by pointing out Reagan's lousy polling.

                    Art is the handmaid of human good.

                    by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:01:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Only kind of disagree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cazcee, dfe

        Obama may lose because:

        a) This country actually believes teachers, unions, government workers, and poor people are the reason for the shitty economy

        b) The middle class believes they can become millionaires more than they believe rich republicans sit in country clubs laughing at how fucking gullible they are.

        c) Republicans aren't afraid to take the fight to democrats. Democrats are too busy with the circular firing squad bullshit instead of winning elections.

        d) Obama has no base. The democratic base thinks he's a sellout, independents have no fucking clue what they want, and republicans can't stand him. He's basically a good President on paper but a shitty one in reality.

        e) At the end of the day the country feels they made a statement on race by electing Obama but now are just more comfortable with a white Wall Street banker telling them they need to work harder to make sure Wall Street billionares have more.

        God Bless America

      •  Obama's Overall Approval Numbers not Hopeless (0+ / 0-)

        Obama's overall ratings are slightly better then Bush's who managed to pull out a victory. Many of the terrible number's - in the 30's - are just on his handling of jobs but his overall numbers are in the mid 40's. I think Obama wins this the same way Bush did: Focus on how untrustworthy your opponent is.

  •  Obviously (0+ / 0-)

    Romney is betting that "can beat Obama" will trump "want to kill Social Security" in the minds of the GOP voters when they get to the polls.

    maybe he's correct. I have no idea.

  •  Ponzu Scheme (6+ / 0-)

    I am off my metas! Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03)

    by annieli on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:20:59 AM PDT

  •  Romney's Message (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    googie, glitterscale, Mimikatz

    Romney is telling the GOP rank-and-file that Perry is unelectable.  This seems to be Perry's weakness, at the moment, and Romney is capitalizing on it.  It's not a bad strategy, because voters will start to worry about electing a guy who says SS should be abolished, and Perry will then have to modulate his remarks, opening him up to the classic GOP attack of "flip-flopping".  It'll be interesting to see how this all plays.

  •  Disagree (7+ / 0-)

    Polls show that even in mainstream GOP circles SS is popular. It's the wealthy elites who're against it, and they have the biggest megaphone to yell it.

  •  "that's why I'm a Democrat" (4+ / 0-)

    Well said.

    See, that is the thing we need to stick to.  Clinton did it.  Despite his faults, he knew about messaging, staying on message and KISS.  Keep it simple.

    I support SS.  That's why I'm a Democrat.
    I favor the rich paying their fair share.  That's why I'm a Democrat.
    I support religious freedom.  That's why I'm a Democrat.

  •  How people Quickly Forgot (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell, MKSinSA

    How District 26 was brought down in New York because of the issue of SS.

  •  I would think he lost (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I would think Perry lost when he gutted texas firefighting and half the state burned down.

    But then again, I doubt anyone has the balls to bring that up in a debate.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:25:46 AM PDT

  •  These people have opposed S.S. from the start. (0+ / 0-)

    There was a period when they stayed quiet about it, but killing Social Security has been the desire of Republicans for more than 70 years.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:27:12 AM PDT

    •  In the wealthy circle yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe from Lowell

      In the evangelical elderly circle not so much. And they make a powerful portion of the base.

    •  Republican leaders, not followers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoosierJay, joe from Lowell

      Followers, especially in the South, really need SS.  A greater percentage relies on SS in the South than elsewhere.  This is a strategy that will backfire because the people to whom it is aimed aren't a significant enough segment of GOP primary voters, let alone general election voters.

      Are younger people going to follow a climate denier because they like his stand on SS?  Would they really even like it?

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:48:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a primary. Older voters are an (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoosierJay, Mimikatz

    Even bigger percentage of the voters in a primary.

    Also this is a Republican primary so the other candidates will have access to Fox news.

    Perry may have just blown it.

  •  Romney and Perry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaurenMonica, PsychoSavannah

    have the same basic position -- Bush's position.  Perry went overboard rhetorically, but as long as Romney is endorsing privatization, what is he objecting to?  And why does he want to privatize if it isnt a ponzi scheme.  (he endorsed private accounts as late as last month).

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:29:28 AM PDT

  •  Romney's team is copying Eisenhower - so cute. (0+ / 0-)

    To be fair to Ike, here is what he said:

    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." (President Dwight Eisenhower, writing to his brother Edgar in 1954) [Emphasis mine]

    This ain't gonna help Mittens.  Eisenhower was akin to a modern Democrat in more ways than not.

    I found that quote in this gem of a piece:

    It is long but well worth the read.

  •  I wonder what Europeans thought when (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoosierJay, Mimikatz, SwedishJewfish

    they heard the thunderous cheers regarding Perry's number of executions!  One of the most distasteful, abhorent things I've seen in my entire life!

  •  The GOP mainstream (0+ / 0-)

    has been diverted into a fetid swamp, full of slimy, cold-blooded creatures.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by shoeless on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:33:49 AM PDT

  •  Can someone please explain to me (0+ / 0-)

    why there was no Democratic response to the Republican debate last night, and yet Michele Bachmann gets to give a response to a Presidential speech tonight?

    Who the hell makes these decisions?

    Still enjoying my stimulus package.

    by Kevvboy on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:35:26 AM PDT

  •  But - if Romney squeaks by - he is as strong... (0+ / 0-)

    as Obama on the issue, if not stronger. Romney never requested that Social Security be "on the table" for cuts. Romney isn't using a payroll tax holiday that could have profound effects on the solvency of the program.

    Essentially, Obama can't play the card that Hochul used so effectively in crushing her GOP opponent if Romney is the guy. Obviously, the distinction is clearer with Perry.

  •  Rick Perry has lost the race for Governor . . (0+ / 0-)

    Oops, I mean president.

    At least George Bush III can remember the office he's running for during a nationally televised debate.

    When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

    by PhillyJeff on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:41:01 AM PDT

  •  Thanks Jed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaurenMonica, indie17

    People (especially Kossacks) misunderestimate Perry at their peril.

    HE WILL BE THE GOP NOMINEE. There's absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind.  He was waiting to see if the big money boys were ready to get behind him and indeed they are.  He's ready to serve them as faithfully as Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

    Did you see the crowd erupt when he talked about Texas' death penalty? That's the kind of vitriol he'll indulge in for the next 14 months and it just might get him elected.

    Anybody who says Perry lost is NOT looking at the bigger picture, vis-a-vis the ingrained insanity of the Republican party.  


    Period. End of story.

    The Republican Party is Michael Douglas. The Tea Party is Glenn Close

    by Jank2112 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:41:31 AM PDT

    •  I point to New York 26 (0+ / 0-)

      as an example of why you're wrong.

      •  Here's the thing.. (0+ / 0-)

        If the Caver-in-Chief was willing to draw a line in the sand and say "Social Security is NOT on the table and never will be." I'd be fine, I'd sleep as soundly as Perry does after executing five mentally disabled inmates.

        However Obama has NOT done that. Therefore, if seniors don't see a protection for SSN from him, they may stay home, which would allow Repubs to steal another one.

        I hope I'm wrong, but I remember 1999 and 2000 and all the talk about how the simpleton from Texas was NEVER going to be elected President.

        The Republican Party is Michael Douglas. The Tea Party is Glenn Close

        by Jank2112 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:19:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  More succinctly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Democrats and Republicans alike underestimate how popular SS is.

  •  I wish there was a way to make the numbers work (0+ / 0-)

    such that all these GOP and Teabagger Social Security nay sayers could take their money out of SS and no longer have to pay payroll tax and we say "Fine, you're on your own.  Take all that money to the private sector for your retirement."  I wish we could do that and the cash flow could still be such that all the rest of us who wouldn't be dumb enough to do that could keep 100% of our projected benefits.  I know it can't work that way, but God I wish it could.  Because then when the stock market crashes again and again and again between now and their retirement, and when their retirement nest egg isn't worth shit, I'd love the satisfaction to say "Too bad, go fuck yourself".

  •  In Presidential years (0+ / 0-)

    the establishment "mainstream" Republicans actually vote, and there are more of them than teahadist zealots.

    There's no other explanation for John McCain winning the nomination in 2008.

    Electability matters to people in primaries.

    Even those GOP voters who hate Social Security will think twice about voting for Rick Perry if they think advocating for its destruction will cost the GOP the Presidency.

    I think Romney is branding himself as the "safe bet to take out Obama" in the minds of primary voters. Last night was a massive strategic victory for him.  If outflanking your opponent was all that mattered in Presidential primaries, we'd have nominated Kucinich.

  •  romney agrees with paul ryan's plan to privitize (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    medicare & social security, where rick perry is letting his stance know romney is trying to be slick rick on the issue.. he's on the same page as perry

  •  Do all Rethugs' parents live with them, or do they (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    collect Social Security benefits?  Are all the people who plan to vote Rethug so rich they'll refuse Social Security benefits?

    My cousin in Dallas called me this morning to say that his mother is in hospice care at home, with lots of benefits and home visits by qualified medical personnel, courtesy of Medicare.  Yet when I talk to him at length tomorrow (I'm away from home at the moment), I wonder if he's going to tell me how evil taxes are.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:56:37 AM PDT

    •  The GOP (0+ / 0-)

      calls it cutting entitlements and they don't realize that the main two entitlements they want to cut are Medicare and Social Security.

      We are entitled to them  We paid into FICA every pay check plus our boss matched it as part of our wages.

      The government has no money in this on Social Security.  It is OUR money.  

      One thing for sure when a republican leaders says he wants to fix something, it means make it worthless.

      Look at Ryan with Medicare.  He wanted to make it worthless and so did the republicans in the House, they voted for it.

  •  Not quite (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoosierJay, SwedishJewfish
    He says Social Security works now and will continue to work in the future. I think that's the right position, but that's why I'm a Democrat. Rick Perry disagrees, and that's why he's a Republican.

    I'm afraid its not that simple. Democratic Party elites routinely talk about a 'entitlements' as a 'crisis'.  They have repeatedly linked the allegedly all important problem of the deficit with SS.    They have split hairs over 'slashing' versus 'cutting' benefits, and current versus future beneficiaries.  The official Democratic Party position seems to be that we have to change the system now to save it in the future, and the threat is one largely of the Village's imagination.  SS is in crisis, but it is a political one - one party is hostile to it, and the other is, at best, ambivalent. That is the crisis. SS needs saving from that threat.

    For all those that think that Republicans taking an unpopular position against SS will harm them politically, I'd say that only works if Democrats will clearly support SS. Remember that everyone claims they are saving it, even when they propose cutting it or privatizing it.  This is not a time for nuance.  It is not a time for weasel words.  Democrats will get no electoral benefit for wanting to cut SS less than Republicans. And if the argument is between privatizing it and cutting it, or cutting it more or less, we are all screwed.

    Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

    by David Kaib on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:00:57 AM PDT

  •  Can't wait for the polling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I can no more figure out how Republicans will react than I can figure out what fruit flies are thinking, so I'm really interested to see how this affects Perrys numbers among the R faithful. I hope it helps him, because he's such a buffoon I can see now that Obama would beat him like a drum.

    If it does hurt him, I hope that inspires him to go after Romneycare with all the viciousness we've been led to believe he has in him.

  •  Atta boy Mitt! (0+ / 0-)

    Question is how long before he flip flops?????

  •  Obama Should Hope, as Do I (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that Perry and not Romney is the GOP nominee.  Then, if Obama campaigns on preserving Social Security alone, he'll win FL and re-election.

    Readers & Book Lovers Pull up a chair! You're never too old to be a Meta Groupie

    by Limelite on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:47:18 AM PDT

  •  After hearing the clip of Perry's remarks... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and Mittster's answer to the following question, I am convinced of one thing. The real winner of last night's debate was NEITHER Rick Perry nor Mitt Romney. It was President Obama. Today's GOP will never accept a candidate who not only made remarks defending Social Security during last night's debate but also enacted health care reform legislation modeled after the plan President Obama enacted. Rick Perry, whose remarks were spot on as far as GOP/Teahead orthodoxy is concerned. demonstrated that he is too nutty and out of touch to be president. In short, Rick Perry is the 1964 Barry Goldwater on steroids, and his nomination (even with Obama's numbers tanking at this time) will drag Republicans to a defeat that could make the Johnson landslide whose victim was Barry Goldwater look like a close election.

    Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

    by alaprst on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:49:13 AM PDT

  •  It absolutely amazes me (0+ / 0-)

    That their base buys into this bullshit and drafts crudely spelled signs to push it. For a significant percentage of them, that SS check is most if not all of the income they have coming in during any given month (or the only income they will look to receive when older).

    I think even Darwin would be scratching his head at such a blatant disregard for self-preservation.

  •  We need to destroy U.S. Conservatism. (0+ / 0-)

    It shouldn't be too difficult.  Conservatism is a politicial ideology of the past.  It was mostly the politics of the rich and powerful and was meant to preserve their power, wealth, and dominance.  It is therefore just about the exact opposite of the "American dream" that makes it possible for everyone to work their way up from the very bottom of society to the top.  This vision of political, economic, and social climbing is basically a liberal view that believes that education can give everyone the tools they need for success, and that governments can provide the education and create the environment that makes it all possible.

     The notion that conservatism is good for a modern society is wrong, and we need to make that clear to the American people.  If the GOP can be successful in teaching lies, why can't we succeed in teaching the truth?  Let's stop the GOP from changing the English language and destroying our belief in the liberal American dream.

  •  I think Rachel Maddow got it right last night. (0+ / 0-)

    In looking at Mittens' past statements on SS, he has really advocated for a lot of the same SS-Killing ideas as the others, he is just characterizing his position(s) as "saving" the system, rather than wanting to end it.

    Kind of in the same way as the Republican Budget Plan wants to "save" MediCare with a voucher system.

    Romney is just being a tiny bit more clever than Perry in his choice of phrasing, is all; I doubt if one could slide a piece of newsprint between their two positions in reality.

  •  Romney up on intrade... (0+ / 0-)

    He gained about 6 percentage points, putting his odds of winning the nomination equal with Perry. Apparently someone is buying his argument. Or some of his backers are making a little push. I though it was smart politics for him to express a basic support for SS though -- it's one of those things that "government better keep its hands off my medicare" teapartiers might actually realize serves them in some way. And seniors always vote.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site