I tend to air on the side of fiscal stimulus and government intervention during times of crisis. However, I don’t think the democrats went big enough. They did some patch work, mainly palliative stuff, but avoided going deep enough to secure high employment levels and thus the citizens’ trust. If the modern Republican party wasn’t such a joke they’d probably have a pretty good chance. I’m not ruling our their ability to “reform,” but it’s not likely.

Lou Dobbs or Charles Schumer?
John Boehner or Barak Obama?
Joe Biden or Sarah Palin?

I think in each case it would be “the conservative” that had something to worry about in the event of Christ’s return.

On meet the press yesterday they had Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT). The problem with the republican party today is that thinking people, myself included, left during the Bush years for a number of reasons which include:
* Republicans trampled our civil liberties while claiming they were the party of freedom.
* Republicans claimed to better utilize our military but then they nearly destroyed it and at least threw it into a quagmire we will never be able to extract it from to use it in the foreseeable future.
* Republicans claimed government was bad and the source rather than the cause of the problem and then proved their point by making the government bigger, more intrusive, more expensive and an even bigger problem.
* Republicans freely embraced government as a means of expanding and promoting their religious principles.

I could go on but back to Graham and Sanders on Meet the Press. Yesterday, this southern, fiscally conservative libertarian agrees with the socialist from Vermont on more issues than the Republican from South Carolina.

The Republicans and the Democrats are both going to expand government, spending and the national debt. The difference is that the Republicans admit upfront that the government can’t solve problems. At least the Democrats believe they can do something positive with more money and a bigger government. I assume both parties will fail in their efforts but at least the Democrats will pay for their mistakes as they go instead of putting it on a charge card and bankrupting the country.

I liked your rant though. But remember, everyone has their own Jesus. I’ve always preferred the Jesus who made asses out of the Pharisees, Socratic-style. That always appealed to me.

That’s a good one.

Where are they going to get this solid, likable candidate? Build it from spare parts?

Not to worry, the vocal wing of the party is an angry mob. They don’t want a solid likable candidate. The sole determinant in the 2012 election will be how much hatred the GOP can fuel for Obama.

If Jesus descended from on high during the half-time show at the Super Bowl in 2012, decided he liked it here and chose to run for President as a republican, he couldn’t possibly get through the primary. He would want people to have healthcare, tell them not to worry about their taxes, he would hire unemployed people, he wouldn’t support any of the wars, raise the miniumum wage, he’d tell Israel to get out of the West Bank and stop tormenting the Palestinians, he’d take our nukes apart and use the fuel to produce energy, downsize the military, promote immigration, provide amnesty to illegals, feed the poor, save the whales, end the death penalty, let out enough prisoners so we don’t incarcerate more people than any other country on earth… You get the idea.

How could he get to be the republican nominee with that platform and the religious right screaming “socialist” and demanding to see a birth certificate?

The main difference between JFK and Jesus is JFK’s dad had enough money to get him elected president. God doesn’t have enough money to get solid, likable republican elected based on his or her merits. Fueling hatred of Obama will be the way to go.

If the GOP nominates a reasonable ticket, then it could be about Obama.

What if the GOP turns out a solid, likable candidate? I know that doesn’t seem likely, but the GOP has traditionally been more efficient and better able to rally around a single cause. That cause this time around seems to be party survival. So, I suppose that could certainly produce a radical candidate, but what if it doesn’t?

The conventional wisdom is that presidential reelections ask the question “are you happy with the last 4 years and would you be happy with another 4 like them?” But that may not be true. That was the prevailing theme when Clinton ousted Bush in 1992, but it wasn’t the prevailing factor in 1996 when Clinton was reelected. In 2004, Kerry tried to make that argument, but it turns out that it matters who the challenger is. People don’t just think about it as a yes or no answer to the above question. Even though most people thought the country was on the wrong path in 2004 and were unhappy with the wars and economy, Kerry was painted as a radical liberal and a pansy and people were afraid to elect him.

I think the same thing will happen in 2012 and make “the question” on Obama somewhat irrelevant. It will definitely be interesting.