When President Obama is re-elected!!

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:25 am

When Mitt Romney wins those states that Obama won last time... Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, heck, maybe even Pennsylvania and Chris Christie's New Jersey... will there FINALLY be any movement on interstate shipments of wine? I mean, we know that, as a follower of Brigham Young, he does not imbibe. But will his "pro-business" laissez faire approach to government help facilitate a more liberal flow of commerce? Where do the Koch Bros. stand on the intertstate shipment of wine? Where are The Supremes on the issue these days? Does Clarence Thomas drink claret?

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:27 am

Is intertate shipment of wine a pro-the-underdog Democratic issue or a pro-libertarian-laissez-faire Republican issue?

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:29 am

Seriously, who is "better" for intertate shipment, the Dems or the Republicans?

I mean, every so often there is an issue for me that I find myself siding with those crazy Republicans on.

For example, Bushes Senior and Junior, as well as Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich, support missions to the moon and Mars, my beloved space program.

Under Barack, we don't have a manned space program for the first time in 50 years.

by **DavidG** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:08 am

I have no idea, Jim, but I think wine shipping falls so far under the radar that it's a non-issue in the Presidential race. Anyway, the pols ignore their ideological roots whenever it suits them for the issue of the moment.

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:23 am

Oh I realize that wine shipping will be a non issue in the coming Romney/Rubio (or Christie) administration, David, I'm just wondering if the issue will fare better under the Dems or Republican or neither. Probably neither. I'm guessing slightly better chances under the Dems. It's all about states rights, which means continued monopolization by the wholesalers.

by **Bacchus** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:37 am

Don't know about wine policies, but Mitt won't beat Obama.

by **Mike Christensen** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:38 am

I'd guess that the Koch brothers (the two that are big Republican donors) would probably be in favor of interstate shipment of wine, given that their other brother is a big wine collector. Or maybe they wouldn't for that reason...

But, I think this is a noise issue for most politicians.

I'm more upset about foie being outlawed in California in a few months. All that torturing of ducks by feeding them too much. The Horror!

Sigh, there's more animal cruelty in one factory pig farm or one cattle feed lot than all the foie producers in the world. But try outlawing the "other white meat" or beef. It's an easy way for PETA goons to feel good about themselves, because making a real impact on animal cruelty would actually cost money.

by **Bacchus** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:45 am

And PETA has the money, Mike. They get it from all the donations that come from their anti-seal hunt shenanigans up here in Newfoundland, much to the chagrin of the local sealers.

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:46 am

Oh boy I don't know, Bacchus, I just don't see Barack winning those swing states this time around, like Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia. The electoral college is going to be stacked heavily against him. If he loses just two of those states, he's toast. They say he would even lose Pennsylvania if the election were held today. If he can't win Pennsylvania -- and I don't think he will -- then he is toast. I'm predicting a healthy Romney victory. And may heaven help us all....

by **DavidG** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:52 am

Is there anything pending at the Supreme Court? That wouldn't be immediately subject to election politics. Change is more likely to come from Congress than the Executive branch at this point I would think.

Yes you'd think wine shipping would fare better with Dems and their personal freedom ideology than with Republicans and their states rights ideology. But again, they'll throw ideology under the bus if a specific issue means more dollars or votes. There's currently a bill in the house (HR 1161) that would put a real crimp in interstate shipping. Something like 116 co-sponsors. I guess it will stay alive at least in 2012 as this Congress goes another year.

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:56 am

Don't forcus on the popular vote. Sure, he's up by a few percentage points on Romney nationally. But it is those key swing states that decide elections: Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. Last time, Obama won not only those states but also some typically Republican states, like Virginia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Colorado, and New Mexico. Ain't gonna happen this time around. If anything, the Republicans are going to grab some Democratic leaning states, like Pennsylvania and even NJ if Christie is on the ticket. In the end, like in Gore v. Bush, and Bush v. Kerry, it is going to come down to Florida and Ohio. And there ain't no way Obama is going to win those two states this time around.

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:58 am

Amen, David. Yes, I would expect that the Big-Guy-Always-Wins climate in DC will benefit the monied interests, in this case the wholesalers. Which means I STILL won't be able to get shipments from K&L here in Maine. Crazy.

by **Bacchus** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:14 am

I hear what you're saying Jim, and it certainly seems to make sense on the surface of it. But I'm not even sure Obama would loose if the election were held today. It's easy to tell a pollster that you're unhappy with the government in mid-term. It's a different matter when you have to choose one person or another to actually be POTUS. Do Americans really want the nation to follow suit with what's been going on in the States that went republican last election -- Ohio, Wisconsin, etc.? Those folks all seem to feel they made a really bad mistake -- recall baby! Furthermore, Obama's numbers have been improving lately -- personal approval now at 49%. And then there's the Mormon issue. I know national polling numbers aren't that meaningful given the electoral college approach to elections, still, up is better than down. And Romney isn't without his negatives. Will the Evangelicals really rally behind him? From their perspective Mormonism is a cult, which means it's allied with Satan!! I'm wondering if they might just stay home if Romney is the nominee? Or do they hate Obama so much they'll hold their nose as they place their "X" next to Romney's name? Most Americans seem to agree that the very wealthy should get a tax increase; only one party is for that (and then only kinda). Do the majority of Americans, which I trust are among the ranks of the sane, really want the economic and social policies of the current republican party? If so, I'm no longer going to agree that America is the best of all possible worlds!

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:27 am

Or do they hate Obama so much they'll hold their nose as they place their "X" next to Romney's name?

I think the above is going to be the option.

The American political system is extremely toxic right now. Extremely polluted.

I think everything weighs in favor of the Republicans electorally. The population is shifting south, creating more congressional districts in Republican leaning regions, resulting in more electoral votes for the Republicans, all else equal.

Fox News and conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.

Big Money, emboldened by the U.S. Supreme Court, dominates at all levels. You should see what happened here in typically left of center Maine in the last statewide election, when unlimited amounts of Koch dollars came into the state at the last minute and the Republicans swept the state House, state Senate, and Governership for the first time in like, ever.

The U.S. is a right of center country in general. In times of trouble, like those we are experiencing, the crazies take over.

by **Bacchus** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:56 am

Well what will happen if the Reps take the House and Senate too?

I've often been mystified by American politics. In a country that prides itself on the ideas of freedom and democracy, and tries to sell itself to the rest of the world as the paragon of these values, it also seems to fear them terribly. And I don't want to let the Dems off the hook, but the Reps seems to work against these values all the more so.

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:05 am

Well what will happen if the Reps take the House and Senate too?

You mean like during the George W. Bush administration?

Bad things will happen, Bacchus. Like during the George W. Bush administration, very bad things...

by **pomilion** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:19 am

Ron Paul for President -- he'd have our backs!

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:22 am

I saw Ron Paul and Ralph Nader speak when I marched against the war in DC a few years back. I like his ideas on getting out of other countries. Otherwise, he's quite nutty.

by **Bacchus** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:26 am

Here's a bunch of analysts with a more hopeful vision:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... utors.html

by **pomilion** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:13 am

JimHow wrote:I saw Ron Paul and Ralph Nader speak when I marched against the war in DC a few years back. I like his ideas on getting out of other countries. Otherwise, he's quite nutty.

Couldn't agree more... In one of the debates he proposed abolishing the FAA and the FDA. Re: the latter, he said individual consumers could make up their own minds about whether a particular drug or food is safe, and apparently he thinks it practical for interstate airline flights to be handed off from state-to-state air traffic control as they travel across the country... The only thing I like about him is that he appears to really believe almost everything he says (however nutty it might be...).

by **Comte Flaneur** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:35 pm

I admire Ron Paul too for the purity of his ideology, his intellectual honesty and consistency...but in particular his campaign for honest money and curbs on big government (not mutually exclusive)...a world of commodity-(i.e, gold-)backed money and small government is clearly a better world than we have today where we are paying for the legacy of big government, easy money and white collar crime (collusion of corporate/business interests with corrupt politicians). But getting there is going to be painful - it is only likely after a war or a revolution.

I am assuming Obama wins in 2012 if the economy can stay out of recession. I must say that I am disappointed with Obama...not because he has failed to get the economy to an escape velocity, but because he is basiaclly just a corrupt opportunist and a dealmaker rather than a visionary and a revolutionary. I realised that when he appointed a Wall Street cabinet. Plus ca change.

by **DavidG** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:59 pm

I share your disappointment with Obama, Ian - the insider Wall Street influence is one of my biggest reasons. I do think he has a decent shot if the economy stays afloat. That's a big if.

Ron Paul is a nutcase in my opinion, but he at least seems true to his nutty ideals. For that I respect him, but I would never in a million years want to see him President. Who the hell knows what Mitt Romney stands for or would do? He's almost as dishonest in his politicking as Rick Perry. It sure looks like Mitt will be the Republican nominee right now, but if there is one thing you can rely on with respect to the primary game, it's that you can't rely on impressions this far out. A lot can happen in 6 months.

by **Gerry M.** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:20 pm

Romney is the biggest dissapointment in my book. For many years he lived next door to me when he first moved to Mass. when he went to Harvard and in the early days of his career. At that time he came accross very much as a moderate and I supported him in his early Senate runs. On a personal level I really liked the guy. The contrast between the guy I knew then and what I see now in him really scares the crap out of me. he has shown me that he is a man with no true conviction in any core beliefs other than satisftying the needs of his own ego.

Unfortunately, for a man who supposedly "lives his faith" and is a bishop in the Morman church, his moral compass is totally out of whack. he has literally thrown to the curb every major position he's held in his life in his blind quest to be President. This is all because he's convinced that in order to win he desperately needs the right wing of the Republican party. The frustrating issue is of course that the evangelicals are the major player of the right wing and they absoluting have no use for Mormans and see them as a cult rather than religion.

This is the most frustrating election in my memory. The rest of the Republicans are either a bunch of nut cases or have no shot at the nomination and Obama is an utter failure. The sad thing is I believe most Americans feel the same way and it's all ablut trying to pick the best of a bad lot and who will do the least damage for at least the next four years. On that basis I think, and hope, Obama gets back to at least hold the status quo until someone better comes along.

by **Jay Winton** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:57 pm

not quite ready to throw Obama under the train-there have been some positives i.e. Bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq. I think the true star of his administration is Hilary Clinton-one of the best SOS the country has ever had but I'm sure she will leave if Obama is reelected. Too bad the GOP can't nominate someone who could give us voters a real choice and real debate about the numerous issues facing the USA.

by **JimHow** on Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:30 pm

Obama/Clinton v. Romney/Rubio. Now there would be a battle royale!

by **robert goulet** on Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:25 am

Rom doesn't drink so i doubt anything comes out of it
obama does like the grape...and the cig.....and the golf....boy does he like the golf

by **JimHow** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:26 pm

Romney clinched the nomination last night.
Nobody in this field can beat him.
I'm sticking with my prediction:
Mitt Romney is the next President of the United States.
I hope I'm wrong.

Speaking of presidents.
I came upon a 3-hour documentary on YouTube (also available on Netflix) entitled:

JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America

.

Perhaps the best documentary I have ever watched. Some amazing footage, stuff I'd never seen before. Highly recommended. If you check it out on YouTube go to Part 2 (it is broken up in 15 minute parts), where the actual shooting occurs and they cover the hour-long manhunt for Oswald. Absolutely amazing stuff.

by **Bacchus** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:00 pm

I wish we had the emoticon with the little yellow guy eating the pop corn. I'm sure I'm going to be entertained by Newt's efforts to bring Romney down. I never doubted Romney would win the Rep nomination -- he's the only one in the bunch who can read.

I just don't want to underestimate what the Obama team might come up with. In any event, if Romney wins in Nov., I can see a certain group of other Repubs kicking themselves for not getting into the race.

I'll take a look at that documentary, Jim. It sounds interesting.

by **Houndsong** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:16 pm

New Hampshire should tell the tale as far as the nominee. Those voters had a good look at Romney from across the border. If they'll validate him he's good to go. You must have a good feel for those voters Jim, and I suppose you think they'll push him ahead?

by **JimHow** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:24 pm

I think so, Hound, it is hard to see any of those other candidates having any level of broad based appeal. Gingrich might have, but he has too much baggage. Poor Newt... He wants to arrest all the liberal judges, but it was the conservative justices of the Supeme Court that have allowed the unlimited corporate contributions that led to the attack ad deluge that brought him down. You reap what you sow....

by **Jay Winton** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:38 pm

good bye Bachmann. Perry next I bet.

by **Bacchus** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:53 pm

And speaking of reaping what you sow, I saw on one of the networks yesterday -- may even have been Fox News!! -- that one of the reasons Bachmann didn't do better amongst evangelicals and fundamentalists is precisely because she's a woman!!

by **Houndsong** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:05 pm

Bacchus wrote:And speaking of reaping what you sow, I saw on one of the networks yesterday -- may even have been Fox News!! -- that one of the reasons Bachmann didn't do better amongst evangelicals and fundamentalists is precisely because she's a woman!!

If so you'd think that would not bode well among those voters for Mitt, considering he's the post-evangelical candidate (with Huntsman, if he's still a factor).

by **Bacchus** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:34 pm

Recess Appointment baby :!:

by **DavidG** on Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:09 am

Bacchus wrote:And speaking of reaping what you sow, I saw on one of the networks yesterday -- may even have been Fox News!! -- that one of the reasons Bachmann didn't do better amongst evangelicals and fundamentalists is precisely because she's a woman!!

The Taliban wing of the Republican party went for for Santorum. That wont get him the nomination...

Romney does seem the obvious choice and he is the clear favorite at this point even if Santorum came close in IA. His money and organization and his experience will make it difficult to beat him, but I still say it's early days.

by **Houndsong** on Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:13 pm

Bump.

by **DavidG** on Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:55 pm

Yeah, it ain't over til the fat lady sings. I'm not ready to say the salamander is the front runner, though.

by **JimHow** on Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:00 pm

Pretty impressive victory for The Hypocrite last night.
I still say Mitt Romney is the next President of the U.S., though.
God, I hope I'm wrong.

by **Bacchus** on Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:44 pm

Hang in there, Jim. Don't count the Dems out just yet. Romney's speech last night seemed to suggest he's now going to run on a platform of lowering taxes for the rich. That might not ring so clearly for those who don't have their money in the Caymans! Besides, according to CNN the only groups that Mitt won last night were moderates (the Repubs still got a couple of those!?) and white males making more than $!00,000.00 per annum! If that demographic carries over into the general, Mitt might not have such an easy go of it.

by **JimHow** on Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:49 pm

The problem, Bacchus, is the Electoral College, which, for a number of reasons, gives the Republicans an edge even before the first vote is cast.

Obama is not going to win the toss up states he won last time, like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

Heck, he may not even win Pennsylvania.

If he doesn't win Florida, he is our next Jimmy Carter. Look for Marco Rubio (bringing in Florida and the latino vote) as the next Republican vice-presidential nominee.