Assuming 83 yr old Orrin Hatch retires....which seems very likely now.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/20/mitt-romney-utah-senate-race-250342
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/20/mitt-romney-utah-senate-race-250342
Looking like Romney is headed to the Senate
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
It'll be interesting to see what kind of Senator Romney will be (assuming it happens). I have to say that I've really come to like Utah's other one. Republicans have long been in sore need of more fighters and fewer capitulators.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I think it’ll be even more interesting to see how Trump tries to torpedo his candidacy.
He'll be a good Senator. He would have been a good President too.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
He should’ve thought about that before backpedaling from all the good things he did in MA to appease the nuts in his party.
There is the issue. For you and I, Governor Romney was a possibility but he ran as "that wasn't me". Frankly, it is a failure of the system more than Romney's failure. Both parties are getting worse about litmus tests for candidates. Governor Romney could win the election, but Governor Romney could never get nominated.
"All the good things?" You mean "Romneycare vs. Obamacare," right? There are significant differences between them and he explained many of them, though I believe he could have done a better job. First being that a state wide program is far different than a nationwide program, and the second being that the MA program was far more modest in its goals and requirements than Obamacare. MA only had 7 percent uninsured and it reduced it to about 2 percent. It was about far more modest coverage. If people wanted all the mandated services in Obamacare, the people in MA could get that on their own. Don't have time because I've got to get on the road, but I've read some detailed comparisons of the two and they're not the same - as Romney said at the time.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You’re making my point for me. Romneycare was a practical example of hybrid conservative/progressive legislation intended to improve lives in a fiscally reasonable manner...and he backpedaled from it. It was shameful.
As I keep saying: there's a reason for this. Everybody knows we're approaching a fiscal reckoning and both sides are digging in to prepare for it.
This will get better once we're past that.
Honestly, what Republicans really need, whether they like it or realize it or not, is somebody like Mitch Daniels. He's been pretty good at confronting these kinds of lingering problems -- both as governor and as Purdue's chief....certainly better than most who do more talking than doing.
We need a professional belt-tightener.
Of course he backpedalled from it. Republican voters wanted nothing to do with that.
You may think we're crazy for that -- that is certainly your prerogative and why you're not a Republican voter (duh). But it doesn't change that it's what the vast majority of us wanted -- and we're the ones whose votes Republican candidates need, not votes like yours.
I'm guessing you're at least a little bit familiar with the concept of representative republican government, right?
But the two parties skew the system. Instead of party primaries, one big primary with top two advancing. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats could combine in a way the current system fails to allow. The current system rewards extremes.
Correct, but that wasn't the only position Romney backed away from to "be" conservative enough to win the GOP nomination. There is a lot. I'm surprised Aloha doesn't remember that since he's such a big Romney fan.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Keep talking condescendingly, smartass. Romney’s backpedaling in that election is when the GOP lost me as a previous lifelong voter. I suspect there are many others like me, and increasingly fewer like you.
It's the same system we've almost always had.
It's not the system doing this. It's the circumstances.
But that's how parties work, Ranger. Of course we've been trying to remodel the Republican Party and of course that means losing some voters who don't want it that way.
Romney would never have gotten the nomination, let alone had any chance in the general, had he alienated his base as you say he should have. Look what came of Jeb Bush, for crying out loud.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion about any and all policy matters. But so is everybody else. And we should all make the choices that best fit what we want to see. Maybe we'll be successful with that, maybe we won't. But that's how systems like ours work.
It is both, recall this system led to a civil war when both sides hardened.
This won't lead to a Civil War. We have to deal with our conundrum whether we like it or not. And it stands to reason that battle lines are being drawn as they are.
It won't be permanent. But it will have a big impact on the outcome of the fundamental choices we're going to be faced with making.
I don't know, sooner or later California or Texas will get serious about leaving.
Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. Even assuming something like that would be constitutionally permissible, the logistics of secession would be way, WAY more complex than they were in 1861.
But I do think that their recent machinations are another symptom of our predicament. We're on an unsustainable path -- which necessarily means that big (and, most likely, painful) changes are going to have to be made...or else they'll be pressed upon us by external forces.
And, personally, I think it makes a lot of sense that the base voters in both parties are looking more for leaders who will fight for their basic social visions than capitulate them.
Then why don't Republicans create a new tax plan that focuses on the bottom 99%? Instead of trying to stay within the $1.5T budget (or whatever it is), chop $1T off the debt. That way in the 2018 elections they could boast of a new tax plan and hacking a big chunk off the debt, two of the three pillars (repealing Obamacare) of their main platform. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Yeah, I get it, they're afraid of losing their big donor boners but they wouldn't need them if they did the above. They'd get re-elected in a shoe-in.
In the past it we have had this tumult. One ended in a civil war. One ended with a combination of Civil Rights Amendments and the end of the Vietnam War. One ended with WWII starting. I don't know that we have a war about to end or start, so to solve it we need solutions that 51% can live with.
We have a sizable number that demand lower tax rates for corporations (and some for the wealthy). We have a sizable number that demand access to health care (and some single payer). I am having a real hard time seeing what the compromise is. It may be out there, but I'm not seeing it. And it is impacted by the fact the big money sits on the two extremes (be it Koch, Mercer, Soros, Steyer). Neither party can afford to unilaterally disarm their money by telling the extreme donors to get lost.
A system that allowed more moderate voices more power would, in my mind, help. And frankly, no way Mitch Daniels is winning today's GOP. He's as likely to win today's Democratic (0 on both).
Why armed militia groups are surging across the nation
Don’t assume the militias at the Charlottesville rally were white supremacists. This is what they believe now.
I could easily see a time in which social order decays rapidly into armed conflict. We all know liberals won't win a gun fight with butter knives.
Don’t assume the militias at the Charlottesville rally were white supremacists. This is what they believe now.
I could easily see a time in which social order decays rapidly into armed conflict. We all know liberals won't win a gun fight with butter knives.
Well, I don't know -- good question. Personally, I think it's because cutting taxes is just about all they know how to do very well. They've long talked about paring government spending. But they've never actually done it. The best I might be able to say is that they aren't quite as bad as Democrats at growing spending....but even that's questionable.
There really aren't too many political rewards -- including, and perhaps especially, from the corporate folks -- for cutting spending.
And this is among the biggest reasons why there's been a concerted effort to remodel the Republican Party. If the people we've been electing have been all talk and no action, what exactly would they expect to happen?
Personally, I just wish they'd act the way they speak. If they'd have done that, this whole Trump mess could've been avoided.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Personally, I just wish you’d realize that the way they speak isn’t practical and is post-policy. If they’d have done that, his whole Trump mess could’ve been avoided.
Mitch Daniels is far from a moderate.
I've pointed this out before to demonstrate this, I'll do so again. Back when he was (supposedly) toying with the idea of running for president, he did a "5 Books" interview where he recommended 5 books for people to read -- along with some explanation as to why. I think you can tell a lot about people from this sort of question.
Among his recommendations were Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose, and Charles ("The Bell Curve") Murray's "What It Means to Be a Libertarian". He also recommended a book by Virginia Postrel.
There is simply no way to describe these books and authors as "moderate". But he has a very moderate and pragmatic demeanor -- which, I think, leads people to think that he's similarly moderate ideologically. He isn't.
But what Daniels isn't is a rock-ribbed social conservative. He's -- at best -- a lukewarm social conservative. Mainly what he's known for is suggesting that we should take a break from social issues -- which would be wonderful, if it was plausible (fat chance).
Mmm, no. Maybe for you.
But, for me, I think Republican politicians (for the most part, anyway) say the right things. It's the doing part they've had trouble with. And that's what has led them to this point. What would lead them back to a better place is to start turning more of their words into concrete actions.
I would look at John Kasich, also not a moderate but one who was seen as one because he wasn't foaming at the mouth.
Mitch Daniels is probably 4 or 5 inches shorter than John Kasich is. But, between the two, Kasich is the midget.
I'm telling you, MD is the real deal. Do you realize how unique it is for him to have been able to freeze a major university's tuition for 6 years in a row? I'm not the least bit surprised by it, myself. But he's made a lot of waves in higher education -- and it's a sector that needed somebody to make a lot of waves. Because they're facing some rough roads ahead, too -- and he began talking about that from very early in his tenure there.
One of the reasons that I like Daniels so much is that he's capable of taking on big things and getting them in motion without freaking the hell out of people. Because changing big things is a hard thing to get people to accept.
The thing is the current GOP kingmaker wants to freak the heck out of people. When the rest of you get the party back from the Mercer's attack dog, we can talk. A LOT of Republicans view throwing 25 million off of insurance as a badge of honor. That is going to freak out a lot of people. One lone is going to struggle being heard. I have a buddy who is as much a Daniels fanboy as you. I do not know how Daniels convinces 25 million that being uninsured is great. But maybe there is a way.
The reason you like him is simple. Pragmatism is always better than ideology.
I admire Daniels for not lusting for the role of being president and instead making a pragmatic decision by taking a more modest position. More modest while at the same being a job where he could make a positive change in a field vitally important to our future. Pragmatic in that it was a position he could achieve.
As to Kasich, I was called an old naive fool by one of our most vocal Cooler liberals for suggesting that Hillary at least ask Kasich to be her running mate. Kasich could have helped in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan which combined to elect Trump. Would Kasich have accepted? Maybe, given his feelings about Trump.
the parties themselves ARE the problem.
do away with the parties, and let everyone and everything stand on their/it's own merits.
I do not disagree that parties are to blame but I cannot think of a Constitutional way to change that.
I know we've talked about this before, but I think in the long run, jungle primaries with transferable votes would go a long way to naturally mellowing the partisan divide.
I agree with that. I do think as is we can legally remove party names from ballots.
When have GOP politicians ever spoken the truth about spending? The only spending that's relevant is the entitlements (the big 3...Medicare, Medicaid, SS).
Other (discretionary) spending is already below long term historical averages as a % of GDP...and is projected to continue to decrease in future years. All the result of being crowded out by the big 3.
I suppose there has been some occasional commentary in passing about generically "cutting spending" by a few....but it's a rare breed indeed that speaks of cutting Medicare or SS. The rest is just bullshit.
At least the Dems are closer to honesty about it....they think taxes should go up. The GOP lives in total denial and fantasy land. Neither party cares much about the deficit....but it's my opinion that the GOP actually cares less.
Simpson Bowles provided a general solution. It was shit canned by GOP leadership that controlled Congress.
Yeah, that's not why Simpson Bowles went nowhere.
It's certainly true that Paul Ryan put forth his own prescription -- he didn't like the result and that's the responsible thing to do.
No, it went nowhere because the POTUS who commissioned it just orphaned it.
Similar threads
