I saw the segment, and agreed with your guests. Your issue comparisons were clearly hand-picked to make a point rather than reflect the big picture. Seriously, claiming Obama's more conservative because Reagan had gays sleep in the White House? Ending DADT - even if it's a slow end - is a much bigger deal. Similarly, why are you comparing Lebanon to Afghanistan? Why not compare Grenada to Afghanistan, or Lebanon to Iraq? Hand-picked.
And you're calling Iran-Contra a LIBERAL act? Geez, no! It was an act of greed, corruption, and authoritarianism! That has nothing to do with who's more conservative!
Yeah I usually enjoy Young Turks clips, but that segment was asinine. You are right about one thing, though - Reagan would never win with the modern GOP. Anyone not drunk on spiked tea knows that.
New poll today burnishes that view, 48-47. Jerome's point is the cross-tabs are a nightmare.
I withhold judgement, especially on 2012. Maybe unemployment improves - even a legit 1% would matter. Maybe the BP relief well continues to be ahead of schedule and the issue, while still an unmitigated disaster, fades from voters' minds. Maybe, after the midterms, the Afghanistan timetable actually holds (HA!). Anything could happen.
That was true until Perry. He's grabbed power at the state level the way Bush grabbed at the national level, illegally with a state legislature controlled by his own party looking the other way (at least until the HPV vaccination orders, which was too much even for them). He rammed through the Trans-Texas Corridor project everyone (including the state GOP platform) opposed, and controls board appointments like a tyrant. His longevity is part of his power - every single position on state boards and commissions has come up during his tenure. All bureaucrats and commissioners owe him their jobs and loyalty, and do what he wants.
I'm inclined to agree about health care (please don't let the right-wing win the war of words again, though, with "Obamacare'), but I don't think the religion will be an issue. After one cycle of beating up a guy over something like that, the nation seems to move on, like Smith and Catholics.
I do think Huckabee, Palin, and maybe a Pence will split the religious vote. A more mainstream figure, like Pawlenty or Romney (Jindal won't run, I don't think), will probably be the nominee. The argument for Romney in that scenario is that he's next-in-line, and the GOP always nominates who's next-in-line. That sounds cliched, but heck, they even nominated John McCain before his dive to the right.
I'm not a socialist, but it really ticks me off that so many folks get up in arms about that word yet don't even really know what it means. Geez.
The problem with a poll like this, though, is that you'll get 90% support for more intervention in one district and 65% opposition in two districts. A majority thus support intervention, but it breaks down to 2 congressmen against it and just one for it.
Oh come on, Rand Paul isn't just a pro-BP anti-civil rights joke, he's also corrupt! If it wasn't for the faux board and hypocrisy, I might get where you were coming from, but the guy just doesn't smell right. He's like Palin, he lives in a world of his own making with his own rules and expects others to play by those rules too, and isn't so much mad as he is surprised when they don't.
Yeah, it took school prayer and a new devotion to the abortion issue to make most of those folks actually care about government. Before the religious right era of evangelicalism, they thought it best to hide in their southern hovels and ignore politics. It was Schlafly, Schaeffer, and Falwell who figured out how to take it mainstream. Fortunately I think the movement is broadening its focus. The old guard will remain who it is and that probably explains the TP merger, but the younger generation cares as much about climate change and African poverty as they do abortion, and they're actually pro-gay rights.