California Democratic insiders are crowing about Mitt Romney’s choice of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, saying the pick helps the Obama campaign, according to a Patch snap poll conducted over the weekend.
Republicans, meanwhile, said adding Ryan to the ticket could refocus the presidential campaign on economic issues and sway undecided voters—though not enough to turn the tide in true-blue California, some added.
Patch sent survey questions to 79 Republican and 63 Democratic party activists and elected officials within 48 hours of Romney’s announcement. Twenty-one Democrats and 21 Republicans responded.
More than three-quarters of Democratic respondents said Romney’s choice of Ryan—the chairman of the House Budget Committee and a strong advocate for cutting taxes and domestic spending—would galvanize California Democrats.
The pick “cements the image of Romney as ideologically committed to dismantling public support for middle class needs (education, health, broad based employment),” one Democrat wrote.
Eighty-one percent of Democrats strongly or somewhat agreed that Ryan’s presence on the GOP ticket would help Obama win senior citizens’ votes in California, while 90 percent agreed with the statement: "Now that Ryan is on the ticket, Democrats can win by running against Ryan's existing budget plans and particularly his proposal for Medicare."
Republicans: Choice Will Energize GOP Base
Republicans who responded to the unscientific survey cited Ryan’s fiscal conservatism and ability to appeal to the GOP base as strong selling points.
The pick “shows Romney is serious about addressing fiscal and economic issues,” one Republican wrote.
“It provides a theme for the Romney campaign that didn't exist before,” added another. “It also hopefully moves the dialogue away from Romney's personal finances and experiences at Bain Capital.”
Forty-eight percent of Republicans agreed that Ryan could help win over California’s undecided voters, while 43% disagreed and 10% were neutral.
“It will definitely energize the GOP base, but him on the ticket doesn't suddenly put California in play,” one insider commented. California hasn't gone for a Republican presidential candidate since favoring George Bush over Michael Dukakis in 1988.
Regardless of California’s fate, more than three-quarters of Republicans disagreed that the Democrats could win nationally by attacking Ryan’s budget plans, while only 10% agreed. And some even expressed hope that Californians could learn from the VP pick’s tough talk on budgeting.
“The pick of Ryan will help educate voters in California about the importance of limited government and how we cannot spend our way into prosperity,” wrote one Republican.
Insiders from both parties characterized Ryan as smart and charismatic.
“Whether or not someone agrees with his politics, the Paul Ryan VP candidacy provides a worthy adversary to the Obama-Biden campaign and a clear distinction between the two tickets,” one Democrat wrote.
Patch’s Red and Blue California Surveys
Our surveys are not a scientific random sample of any larger population but rather an effort to listen to a swath of influential local Republican and Democratic activists, party leaders and elected officials in California. All of these individuals have agreed to participate in the surveys, although not all responded to this weekend's questions.
Patch will be conducting Red California and Blue California surveys throughout 2012 in hopes of determining the true sentiment of conservatives and liberals on the ground in California. If you are an activist, party leader or elected official and would like to take part in weekly surveys that last just a few minutes, please email Sandra.Oshiro@Patch.com.
Red California Survey roster: Richard Adams (Studio City Neighborhood Council safety chief); Gary Aminoff (San Fernando Valley Republicans president); Michael Antonovich (Los Angeles County supervisor); Steve Baric (California Republican Party vice chair); Tony Beall (Rancho Santa Margarita City Council member); Susan Blau (Studio City political activist); Dion Bracco (Gilroy Council member, mayoral candidate); Daniel M. Brown (San Francisco GOP Central Committee member); Sue Caro (County GOP chairwoman); Scott Carpenter (Orange County political blogger); Tamara Colbert (Tea Party member); John Colbert (Former Republican candidate for Congress); Dylan Conroy (Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council representative); Irene DeBlasio (Republican activist); Steve Detrick (Elk Grove City Council member) Ben DiBenedetto (Studio City Neighborhood Council board member); Jane Diehl (Redondo Beach school board member); Chip Dykes (Oceanside City Council candidate); Laura Emdee (Redondo Beach school board member); Heidi Gallegos (Rowland Unified School District Board member); Andrew Gayner Carmichael (Patch blogger); Mike Gin (Redondo Beach mayor); Gil Gonzalez (State Senate candidate); David Hall (Mt. San Antonio College Board trustee); Alex Keledjian (La Canada Flintridge Young Republicans president); Ernest Koeppen (La Canada Flintridge resident); Becky Kolberg (Contra Costa GOP chair); Bob Kowell (Murrieta-Temecula Republican Assembly president); Greg Krikorian (State Assembly candidate); Jim Light (Balanced-growth advocate); Patrice Lynes (Activist); Morgan Martinez (former governor aide); Larry Masuoka (San Juan Unified School District Board member); Brad McGirr (Rancho Santa Margarita planning commissioner) Gina McNelley (Capistrano Valley Republican Women Federated member) Bridget Melson (East Bay Tea Party chair); Mark Meuser (State Senate candidate); Nathan Mintz (Former AD66 candidate); Larry Molton (California GOP member); Roger Niello (Sacramento County Chamber of Commerce president); Gayle Pacheco (Republican Women Federated member); Chris Pareja (Congressional candidate); Al Phillips (State Assembly candidate); Al Restivo (Former La Canada Republicans Club president); Matt Rexroad (Yolo County supervisor); Elizabeth Sanford (Political consultant); Scott Schmidt (Former LA Chapter Log Cabin Republicans president); Howard Schmidt (Chief of staff for Sacramento County supervisor); Nick Shih (Activist); Suzanne St. John (Activist); Mary Su (Walnut mayor); Gino Sund (Altadena Town Council member); Peter Tateishi (State Assembly candidate); Brad Torgan (LA Chapter Log Cabin Republicans president); Steve Vaus (City budget review committee member); Bob Walters (Former San Juan Unified School Board member); John Webb (Businessman).
Blue California Survey roster: Armando Gomez (City Councilman); Anita Avrick (School board member); Michael Barber (Supervisor); Reginald Bronner (Assembly candidate); Kathy Bisbee (CMAP executive director); Jennifer Browning (Campaign volunteer); David Burruto (County party chair); Ralph Carhart (Recreation and Parks district board member); Cat Tucker (Mayor Pro Tempore); Nancy Chaires (Planning commissioner); Jay Chen (Congressional candidate); Norman Chramoff (Party member); Ken Cooley (City Councilman); Joice Corridori (Political activist); Payne Domingo (School board trustee); Don Helverson (Teacher); James Donnelly (Democratic Club president); John Duran (City Councilman); Pablo Espinoza (Media director); Lucas Frerichs (City Councilman); Gary Blenner (Teacher); Gary Giacomo (Democratic Club member); Joanne Gifford (DNC delegate); Alan Haskvitz (Teacher); Lindsey Horvath (City Council member); Howard Hwang (Party member) Ilona Saari (Author); Juliana Inman (City Council member); Jeff Kravitz (Attorney); John Walker (Neighborhood Council president); Sarah Johnson (Community activist); Jessie Kallman (Democratic Club executive director); Michael Kapp (political activist); Ro Khanna (Former Obama administration official); Kris Kingdon (Former chamber executive director); Karen Knecht (Democratic Club member); Keith LaMar (Activist); Kristina Lawson (City Council member); Linda Rubin (Party member); Todd Loewenstein (School board member); Mary Ann Mancuso (Party member); Marc Perkel (Church founder); Marla Hart (Party member); Marsha Grilli (School board member); Jennifer Mason Wolfe (Teacher); Michelle Garcia (Party member); Richard M. Mathews (LACDP vice-chair, Region 1); Gary Miller (County party central committee member); Katrina Morales (Activist); Harry Munns (Harbor commissioner); Mark Nielsen (Former mayor); Don Nottoli (Supervisor); Peter Arellano (Council member); Jeffrey Prang (Mayor); Diana Prola (School board member); Kish Rajan (City Council member); Tony Santos (Former mayor); Tim Sbranti (Mayor); Jane Schafer-Kramer (Labor union activist); Bob Schelen (County party chair); Darren Suen (Former City Council candidate); Joe Terry (Talk show host); Robin Torello (Democrat Club chairwoman); James Tsai (Party member); Mark van Gorder (Supervisor candidate); Vince Monroy (Communications director); Jill Wain Meniatis (Democratic Club member); Lee Walkup (Party member); Sheila Young (Former mayor); Laurence Zakson (Convention delegate)
So you support countless civilian lives lost so America can be the world police? That's what beating the enemy—so many enemies...who do we choose first!—into complete surrender would accomplish, not to mention the loss of countless U.S. troops. A continual presence of U.S. troops on foreign soil? How do you suggest America pays for that? Taxes? Have you ever gone to war, Mr. Catman? Have you ever sent your child to war? Have you ever been a victim of war? If yes to any of the above, I would be able to have an ever-so-slightly different perspective on your commentary.
Unfortunately the world often requests and/or expects that we play that role. We generally comply because that's part of the cost of being the sole super-power on the planet that holds individual freedom and personal liberty as important principles to support and defend. I am all for going to the aid of our allies. I am not for maintaining a never-ending military presence in, for example, various NATO countries where our primary mission remains to help protect them from a threat that really no longer exists (the Soviet Union.) In many ways, though, we are very definitely fighting Islamic extremists "over there" so that there may be a lesser likelihood that we will have to fight them over here. I think we should close about half our active bases in Europe and several in Asia. I think we should bring those troops home and assign them to secure our southern border. I feel confident that if we give the right General that mission, and the tools to do the job, he or she will see it accomplished.
Equally gulity IMO - obviously deeply involved in the same crimes, which might have something to do with why Reid and Pelosi did nothing to impeach 'em.
C'mon Catman, you're smarter than (Intelligence?) Officer Greet, below, right? Understand that anyone with Supercomputers and Promis software, who was watching the markets in real-time had adequate information to no where the attacks were coming. See the following article - which has never really been addressed by the FBI (except to say something like Officer Barbrady might..."Nothing to see here children - move along.") - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32323
"Crossing the Rubicon", a book by the same author as the above article, shows conclusively that the US was preparing for the invasion of Afghanistan PRIOR to the pretext/contrived contigency-plan in question, here. We had told India that we would be invading Afghanistan, in October, at some point over the summer. "Training Exercise" OPERATION SWIFT SWORD, just happened to forward position all of our (needed) troops in the SW Asia region, too. Coincidence? Also, who turned off all of the Pentagon's SAMs? Did Osama do that from his cave? 'Couldn't have imagined plans being used as weapons', Ms. National Security Advisor? Funny but one of the (AT LEAST) seven Wargames ongoing that morning did JUST THAT. (That one was being run through the National Reconaissance Office - the spy satellite people ). Did Rumsfeld ever answer Rep. Cynthia McKinney's questiosn about whether "9/11" was a "National Security EVENT Day", or whether the "War Games" ongoing that morning compromised our response to the "Hijackings" ? So if Eric Holder is 'in contempt', why not him, too? You mention Japan - eerily similar the "intelligence failures" around Pearl Harbor, and the "New Pearl Harbor" wished for (and received) by the PNAC boys.
That doesn't matter, though. Folks like you are so mired in your dislike for Bush 43 that it doesnt matter what facts you are offered, they will never be from the right source or if they are from the right source they must have been massaged in his favor. Argue facts, cutop, if you can. Otherwise all you're doing is expressing unfounded and entirely biased opinion.
Snide dismissiveness doesn't equate to knowledge or wisdom though many folks who aregue as you do seem to wish that this were so. So because the FBI saw fit to not dignify a conspiracy theory like that offered at Global Research with any sort of substantive response, that means the theory must be true. Is that your premise? Sorry, but a group that apparently still doubts what caused the towers to fall on 9/11 doesn't hold a lot of credibility for me. Have you served in the military? If not, perhaps that might explain why you seem oblivous to the fact that the Pentagon routinely develops contingency plans for invasion of *or* by virtually every other major nation on earth *including* our current allies. Preparing such contingenies is a vital part of our military's mission of being prepared for almost any geo-political possibility. We run virtual and actual war games routinely and based on an almost unlimited number of variables. If doing so helps our military to be more responsive and better prepared for war, I, for one, have no problem with that whatsover. I get that you're concerned about what some refer to as a New World Order, but we don't need a group like PNAC to try to push the U.S. into supremacy among nations. I think the inherent greatness of our principles of self-government accomplishes that all by itself.
With regards to Al Qaeda in Iraq: "a most cursory internet search" revealed that AQI didn't exist until 2003 as a reaction to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. There were never any WMDs found in Iraq. After the invasion all that was discovered were a small amount of decayed chemical weapons dating back to the Iran-Iraq War. Remember? This is when Rick Santorum ejaculated that we finally found the smoking gun and that the war was just. This was summarily refuted by the directors of the Iraq Survey Group and Santorum was yet again the object of public ridicule. These are all fact. No opinions. The only opinion that I've expressed in this thread is that I feel that Bush's lie to get America psyched to go to war (the mythical connection between Iraq and 9/11) is far worse than the Senators approval to go to war based on misinformation. With regards to the sources you've presented, I have not criticized the sources themselves – rather, I've shown that they don't support the conclusions you have drawn. All part of courteous debate.
If you believe in "small government" then believe in it. i.e Cut defense spending at the same time as everything else. Then I'll believe you. Until then stop using tired old rhetoric. Paul Ryan will be a boost to the Democrats.
It' s hard to unpack all the self-delusion and ideological obfuscation in your post, and I don't have the time to try at this point. Yes the Pentagon does have contingency plans - and the ones we know about look an awfull lot like the events of September 11th 2001. I've already shown you the OPERATION NORTHWOODS plans in the past. www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf On "7/7" in London there was also an "exercise" going on - also one that paralleled exactly the "terrorist" attack, which we are told, then occured. Someone sent me this post from www.ctrl.org - a site you might try if you might give a try, if you'd like to understand (as opposed to being fooled by-) the world of "intelligence". http://georgewashington2.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/governments-have-admitted-that-they.html "•The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings" - That's part of your "War on Terra" too, right?
That the FBI is good at conveniently failing to investigate and prosecute itself and other lawless branches of "government" should come as a surprise to no one. How are all those killings on the Pine Ridge Reservation (during the AIM stand-off period, and previous) coming along? What, you mean they haven't prosecuted anyone for the COINTELPRO campaign of assassinations directed (by them) against the Black Panthers - SHOCKING!!! In this case the FBI suppressed crucial evidence which would have showed the ??? hitting the Pentagon, when they seized the security camera footage from the Gas Staion and Hotel across the way, and hid it. Every beam and girder in the WTC was chalked and numbered - and yet all of the evidence was quickly shipped offshore to China, to be melted into paper-clips (along with the remains of many of the victims and first responders). So I'm sorry, if I fail to follow you over that cliff, like another lemming....
It was never about abolishing taxes. Anyone who says they are a member, would be very surprised if they were put in a room full of other equally committed 'Tea Party Members' and see how radically different the issues/point of view and fundamentals to this 'movement'.
There are some very very basic Principles Of Economics (I was an econ major, hated it and thought it was fairly useless for accuracy for making future economic predictions) which nonetheless does have a basic framework of knowledge that does not follow the exact same line of thought that a normal rational person might come to after thinking of a solution to our problem. The basic idea "If the Economy is stagnating or continuing to slow down, we should cut government spending" seems logical, rational and obvious. Economically, that will make the economic downturn even worse. It is usually the Government INCREASING Spending at such times that can turn the situation around and help the economy to grow. It's not just so black and white - cut spending and the economy will pick up. Regardless of the profession or degree or working experience - how many people with real life experience who had someone come in for a day to see what their job was like (any profession) laugh at the ignorant person's suggestion like why not just get more customers ... or whatever. It's more complicated in real life.
According to the report issued by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued in June 2008, intelligence information available at the time substantiated the conclusions that Al Qaeda had a presence in Iraq before the war and that Iraq had WMD. If you dislike these findings then perhaps you should take that up with the 19 Senators, representing both parties, who issued the report. http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf "I have not criticized the sources themselves..." I see, so when you dismiss the CIA statement I linked as "Stu Cohen's CIA apologist paper" you are not criticising the source itself? If you say so. "There were never any WMDs found in Iraq. After the invasion all that was discovered were a small amount of decayed chemical weapons dating back to the Iran-Iraq War." So which is it? were there never WMD found or were there? And, really, whether or not they were found, does that definitively prove the weren't or aren't still there, buried out in desert territory the size of California? Have you ever tried to find something in the middle of the Mojave? That somoeone *really* didn't want found? Also, what about the WMD Iraq had *and used* against others? Do they not deserve consideration in your calculus? Or am I just being too discourteous for you?
Whew, if only that had indeed proven true! I'll leave you to all of your conspiracies. May they continue to bring you comfort.
What's interesting here are the parallels between what we're discussing and how we're actually conversing. I dismantled your arguments and put forth the real issue (that Bush conflated 9/11 with Iraq). You do nothing to address that point but rather attack me on a personal level (Liberals like me are so mired down in our hatred that we can't possibly see things rationally) and then when I point out the hypocrisy of your aggression, you retroactively go searching for an excuse. And the best you can come up with was that I described a source which you provided as a "CIA apologist paper". Really? That's not a criticism, but a neutral description of Stu Cohen's essay. As far as WMDs go, the decayed chemical weapons that they found were not WMDs. They were never classified by anyone other than Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra as a WMD. In fact these weapons had decayed so much that they were described as being less toxic than what the average American has in chemicals under their kitchen sink. http://wapo.st/NLMk52 Sure, there may be still WMDs buried in the deserts of Iraq. And Elvis may be alive and well in my basement. Not a strong argument. The point still remains that Bush rallied America to go to war by conflating 9/11 and Iraq. Everything else we're discussing is quite incidental to that. It was all part of the shell game. Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and he used 9/11 as the excuse. Can you refute that? http://cbsn.ws/Plcr4Z
If that kind of specious reasoning were true, people like Paul Wolfowitz wouldn't spend so much time and money advancing their elective "war of aggression" agenda - through such Neo-Con spooky front-groups. And there's about a dozen or more of them, almost all of them top-loaded with 'spooks' and 'public diplomats' - like yourself (though they earn the title, and accompanying paychecks, by declaring themselves as such). As I've explained to you previously - I don't engage in "Conspiracy theory" (I can prove everything I say), a termof obfuscation coined by PSY-OPS experts at the Pentagon and CIA (to re-cover Covert Operations that might otherwise be at risk of exposure) - but rather 'Covert Operations Research'. I take no comfort in having a Government that lies and murders (and commits virtually every crime in-between) to advance its covert agendas. I take comfort in the fact that with adequate research and cognitive ability, that we the people can speak out and expose these crimes.
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/former-marine-brandon-raub-is-locked-in-a-psych-ward-over-his-911-facebook-posts/19770/ "Former Marine Brandon Raub Is Locked In A Psych Ward Over His 9/11 Facebook Posts" .... When asked about why Raub was placed in a psychiatric ward, Rybiski said that the FBI “had nothing to do with that” and that the FBI typically doesn’t “make determinations such as that.” “We went out to interview him because of complaints that our office had received about people coming across his posts and perceiving them as threatening so our office along with Chesterfield County Police Department on Thursday,” Rybiski told us. ”When we left we had not arrested him, we had not placed our hands on him, we did not detain him and we did not charge him.” Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary said: “The Secret Service assisted the FBI with the interview. He was not arrested by the Secret Service. The Secret Service will continue to monitor the situation. We have no further comment at this time.” When asked who ordered Raub to be taken to the psychiatric ward, Leary pointed out that Raub was placed in a Chesterfield PD police car but gave no further details.
Chesterfield Police assisted federal authorities in their efforts to interview .... After speaking to Raub, officers believed him to be in need of further evaluation. .... Chesterfield police took Raub into custody for evaluation in accordance with Virginia State Code § 37.2-808 Emergency custody. Radio host Adam Kokesh reports that Raub’s hearing “is over but he is still being held at the John Randolph Hospital against his will.” Lawyers from the Rutherford Institute, who represented Brandon Raub during the three-hour heariing, will reportedly release a statement this evening. “I really love America, and I think that idea that you can be detained and sent somewhere without due process and a lawyer … is crazy,” Raub said." FWIW John - the Rutherford institute is a Right (wing)-leaning group, so Kudos to them for standing up for Constitutional principles. John Whitehead (former GOP Congressional candidate - who writes OpEd pieces for the Rutherofrd Inst.) once told me about his admiration for George H.W. Bush, and how meeting him inspired to become involved in politics - so despite the crimes of the Bush the Lesser, they apprently stand for something aside from political expediency.
A powerful movie and the truth about Barack Obama that has never been exposed to the public. The government does not want you to watch this movie! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/22/a_powerful_movie_115175.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html Ryan is having his ass handed to him in his home state, which certainly gives the rest of the country a lot to think about if he can't get any homerism love. Nate Silver currently has Wisconsin at an 87% likelihood win for Obama (up 5% just from last week). If WI is now locked on blue, Romney doesn't have room to loose a single swing state left and still have a chance to win. And coincidentally, I also see that Nate Silver's electoral map now has Florida tinting blue (62.6% likely to go Obama), when that state had been tinting red up until a few weeks ago: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/ Then you also have Romney being buried in his real home state; MI (96.6% likely to go Obama), his adopted state MA (99.4% likely to go Obama) and where Romney resides with hs car elevator, CA (100% likely to go Obama). If these guys can't get any love from their home folk, that gives most voters pause to really look into why (beyond the talk radio/Fox blitz) they should give this pair any serious consideration.
http://whyichangedmyvote.com/ PS: Goldman Sachs were recipients of the secret )% loans from the Fed. Check it out on Google and the audit of the Fed.