PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Tell the truth, Republicans: You hate the GOP field for 2012.


Direckshun
03-12-2011, 12:47 AM
The top polling Republican in Iowa is Huckabee.

Followed by Sarah ****ing Palin.

So tell the truth: you hate the field as it stands (since there stands no field, I'm talking about all the likely suspects).

Any reason as to why Republicans are sitting on their hands at this point?

Dave Lane
03-12-2011, 12:51 AM
I still wish Rudy would get nominated. Oh my the fun.

healthpellets
03-12-2011, 02:14 AM
not a rePublican, however, i'll likely vote that way. however, if I Heart Huckabee gets nominated, i'll just vote 3d party.

If the R's put up a candidate like Huckabee or Palin, they'll just hand the Big O another 4 years.

Direckshun
03-12-2011, 02:22 AM
If the R's put up anybody who doesn't fall into the religious Tea Party mode, then you'll have another block of Republican voters who will vote 3rd party as well. That's the kooky thing.

Listen, I don't think Obama's headed for a 1984, but he's at least shaping up in leiu of a weak GOP field to do himself better than he did in 2008.

healthpellets
03-12-2011, 02:26 AM
two additional points:

1) if a viable 3d party lefty candidate can get some steam, there are plenty of far left Dems that would support such a candidate. the far left despises Obama for the healthcare debacle and his lack of action in WI.

2) the "Tea Party" is supposedly based only on economics. we need to get the religiosity out of the Republican party all together. if they'd abandon the "born again hypocrite" faction of the GOP and focus simply on economics, they'd have fewer problems with a strong argument for change.

Taco John
03-12-2011, 03:24 AM
I personally think a second Obama term is inevitable. This will just be a really entertaining show, and maybe an educational experience if we're lucky.

Silock
03-12-2011, 04:28 AM
At this point, I don't really mind Obama. He's no worse than Bush . . . he's the same guy in a different suit. They all are.

Voting 3rd party. Again. I can only hope the Republicans get back to fiscal conservatism and staying the hell out of peoples' business. I doubt it, though.

Republicans campaign on fear. Dems campaign on guilt. It's all just bullshit.

vailpass
03-12-2011, 05:49 AM
Not NEAR as much as I hate the D field.
Lock and load.

AndChiefs
03-12-2011, 07:31 AM
As it stands I won't be voting for either R or D again. I hate the entire R field and Obama is an empty suit who's out of his league.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 07:55 AM
I don't like Huckabee and I don't think Palin will/should run (although I'd vote for either over Obama), but I'm ok with most of the rest of the field of likely suspects. Newt and Bachman are probably unelectable though.

SNR
03-12-2011, 09:01 AM
I like Gary Johnson a lot if he runs.

At least if he gets nominated I won't have to hold my nose when I vote.

mlyonsd
03-12-2011, 09:58 AM
I don't like Huckabee and I don't think Palin will/should run (although I'd vote for either over Obama), but I'm ok with most of the rest of the field of likely suspects. Newt and Bachman are probably unelectable though.

Yup yup.

I will add that at least for me, the person best suited to turn the country around won't run. (Christie)

patteeu
03-12-2011, 10:42 AM
Yup yup.

I will add that at least for me, the person best suited to turn the country around won't run. (Christie)

Yeah, unfortunately it's not looking like it.

VAChief
03-12-2011, 12:02 PM
Yup yup.

I will add that at least for me, the person best suited to turn the country around won't run. (Christie)

Christie is the one R I would consider voting for even though I would like to know more specifics about his national policies.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2011, 12:04 PM
two additional points:

1) if a viable 3d party lefty candidate can get some steam, there are plenty of far left Dems that would support such a candidate. the far left despises Obama for the healthcare debacle and his lack of action in WI.

2) the "Tea Party" is supposedly based only on economics. we need to get the religiosity out of the Republican party all together. if they'd abandon the "born again hypocrite" faction of the GOP and focus simply on economics, they'd have fewer problems with a strong argument for change.

Math isn't your strong suit, I take it.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2011, 01:19 PM
two additional points:

1) if a viable 3d party lefty candidate can get some steam, there are plenty of far left Dems that would support such a candidate. the far left despises Obama for the healthcare debacle and his lack of action in WI.

2) the "Tea Party" is supposedly based only on economics. we need to get the religiosity out of the Republican party all together. if they'd abandon the "born again hypocrite" faction of the GOP and focus simply on economics, they'd have fewer problems with a strong argument for change.

I'd be happy if it was just the Dispensationalists that were routed out of the party because they're the Armageddonites who would just as soon want a 3rd WW in the ME so they can perfect Jews. Those Jews who refuse to burn in hell per them. This is their sole reason for supporting Israel.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2011, 01:21 PM
I like Gary Johnson a lot if he runs.

At least if he gets nominated I won't have to hold my nose when I vote.

He's another I could vote for too eventhough there are some stands I don't care for with him.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 03:52 PM
The thought of Sarah Palin as President makes me want to move to Canada. The rest of the field isn't exactly filling me with confidence either.

I have this feeling I will be voting for whatever sacrificial lamb the Libertarians trot out there. Like I did last election.

Taco John
03-12-2011, 05:28 PM
I'd give Christie a good, long, serious look.

ChiefsCountry
03-12-2011, 05:32 PM
I will add that at least for me, the person best suited to turn the country around won't run. (Christie)

This. :thumb:

stevieray
03-12-2011, 05:36 PM
I will add that at least for me, the person best suited to turn the country around won't run. (Christie)

He is definitely a breath of fresh air.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 05:55 PM
The top polling Republican in Iowa is Huckabee.

Followed by Sarah ****ing Palin.

So tell the truth: you hate the field as it stands (since there stands no field, I'm talking about all the likely suspects).

Any reason as to why Republicans are sitting on their hands at this point?

I don't like the candidates but it doesn't matter. I think even if the R's put up a great candidate (they won't) who could beat B.O. he'll still find a way to steal it and the media is going to destroy the R's candidate, they know just the right things to say to people with a ten second attention span.

B.O. sucks, his term thus far has been a disaster, but he'll win it again. That's how sad this whole situation is. It's a joke, and I don't care I've always been a firm believer that people always inevitably get what they deserve, and boy oh boy do some people have a date in the not so distant future with some real really bad karma.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 05:59 PM
I'd give Christie a good, long, serious look.

I don't know much about him, but what I have seen, I've liked so far.

Ultimately though, I don't think it will matter. Obama will likely win a second term regardless of who the Reps send.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:04 PM
I don't know much about him, but what I have seen, I've liked so far.

Ultimately though, I don't think it will matter. Obama will likely win a second term regardless of who the Reps send.

That and regardless of how bad he sucks and is destroying the country. I mean, I know it sounds crazy, but this country is crazy, it's pathological.

The United States is committing national suicide.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 06:06 PM
You guys are way too pessimistic. Even the swing dopes who elect our president can't be stupid enough to give this non-leader another 4 years of detached high life and golf courses.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:06 PM
That and regardless of how bad he sucks and is destroying the country. I mean, I know it sounds crazy, but this country is crazy, it's pathological.

The United States is committing national suicide.

We do love incumbents. That's part of the problem all by itself.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:07 PM
You guys are way too pessimistic. Even the swing dopes who elect our president can't be stupid enough to give this non-leader another 4 years of detached high life and golf courses.

I thought the same thing about Bush 2.0. Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 06:10 PM
I thought the same thing about Bush 2.0. Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.

Bush 2.0 was a superior option to the alternative. It's hard to see that being the case this year with Obama 2.0.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:13 PM
I thought the same thing about Bush 2.0. Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.

Bush sucked because he wanted liberals to love him, or at least like him.

B.O. is ten times worse, he's never run anything.

I never thought I'd see the day when a guy could do such a shitty job in any capacity never mind as leader of the free world, and the media puts a smiley face on it.

It's gotten so bad that half the voters in this country, you could piss right in their face, and tell them it's raining, and they'll say yup. And then say something really clever like "Winning".

This species has a amused itself to death.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:14 PM
Bush 2.0 was a superior option to the alternative. It's hard to see that being the case this year with Obama 2.0.

Imagine if the media held Obama to the same standards.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2011, 06:15 PM
This species has a amused itself to death.

Yep. Huxley nailed it. I would have put my money on Orwell, and lost.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:17 PM
Bush 2.0 was a superior option to the alternative. It's hard to see that being the case this year with Obama 2.0.

I know you're a Bush guy Pat, and that's fine, but I think it's highly debatable on who sucked less, Bush or Kerry. They were both awful.

And as much as Obama sucks, I have serious doubts that the Republicans will run anyone much better.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:20 PM
Bush sucked because he wanted liberals to love him, or at least like him.

B.O. is ten times worse, he's never run anything.

I never thought I'd see the day when a guy could do such a shitty job in any capacity never mind as leader of the free world, and the media puts a smiley face on it.

It's gotten so bad that half the voters in this country, you could piss right in their face, and tell them it's raining, and they'll say yup. And then say something really clever like "Winning".Bush sucked for a lot of reasons. Still though, have to say, I'd prefer him to Obama, and I never thought I'd say that about ANYONE because I couldn't stand Bush. Almost as much as the liberals hated him. (I never got into the whole "He's a nazi!" nonsense because that shows a serious lack of perspective)

This species has a amused itself to death.Bread and circuses. No different than in Roman times.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:21 PM
Yep. Huxley nailed it. I would have put my money on Orwell, and lost.

I've been saying this for twenty years so I'm not really blaming Obama for everything because the writing was on the wall a long, long time ago.

I guess I've been hoping against hope that somewhere along the line a champion would have emerged, fearing that it would inevitably be a dictator after the whole shithouse went up in flames.

Obama is more or less the exclamation point.

I've been saying this long before I even heard of Obama---

I was going to have the sad misfortune of being alive and a part of the generation that watched the United States of America fall apart.

|Zach|
03-12-2011, 06:22 PM
I was going to have the sad misfortune of being alive and a part of the generation that watched the United States of America fall apart.

That sounds pretty shitty for you.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2011, 06:22 PM
I know you're a Bush guy Pat, and that's fine, but I think it's highly debatable on who sucked less, Bush or Kerry. They were both awful.

IMO, it was no contest at the time. You can't take into account Bush 2.0 when saying that Bush wasn't a far better choice. That information wasn't yet available.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:23 PM
I've been saying this for twenty years so I'm not really blaming Obama for everything because the writing was on the wall a long, long time ago.

I guess I've been hoping against hope that somewhere along the line a champion would have emerged, fearing that it would inevitably be a dictator after the whole shithouse went up in flames.

Obama is more or less the exclamation point.

I've been saying this long before I even heard of Obama---

I was going to have the sad misfortune of being alive and a part of the generation that watched the United States of America fall apart.

You're waiting for Caesar too? And here I thought I was the only one.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:24 PM
That sounds pretty shitty for you.

Yeah it's a shitty feeling. I was born into this and got to see this great nation, with it's great ideas and wealth and opportunity that was so unique and precious---

And to watch politicians just sell it out and destroy it like it was nothing.

Yeah, shitty would be the right word to describe it.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:25 PM
You're waiting for Caesar too? And here I thought I was the only one.

Yup. We will live to see a dictator.

|Zach|
03-12-2011, 06:25 PM
Yeah it's a shitty feeling. I was born into this and got to see this great nation, with it's great ideas and wealth and opportunity that was so unique---

And to watch politicians just sell it out and destroy it like it was nothing.

Yeah, shitty would be the right word to describe it.

Good luck! LMAO

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:25 PM
IMO, it was no contest at the time. You can't take into account Bush 2.0 when saying that Bush was a far better choice. That information wasn't yet available.

Sorry, should have clarified.

GHWB = Bush 1.0
Dubya = Bush 2.0

Not referring to his second term.

Also, please don't take any of these posts as an endorsement of John Kerry on my behalf.

Although, had Kerry won, we wouldn't be dealing with the Obama administration right now. So we'd have that going for us (sort of...)

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:26 PM
Yup. We will live to see a dictator.

Don't give up hope, it might not be a bad thing. Rome had one it's greatest periods of prosperity under a dictatorship. We just have to hope ours is more Augustus and less Stalin.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:27 PM
Good luck! LMAO

I don't know why that's funny, but laugh it up, I guess.

While you still can.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2011, 06:28 PM
Sorry, should have clarified.

GHWB = Bush 1.0
Dubya = Bush 2.0

Not referring to his second term.

Also, please don't take any of these posts as an endorsement of John Kerry on my behalf.

Although, had Kerry won, we wouldn't be dealing with the Obama administration right now. So we'd have that going for us (sort of...)

That's my mistake then. It's a naming convention that I didn't understand.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:29 PM
That's my mistake then. It's a naming convention that I didn't understand.

Well I made it up, so how would you know? :D

|Zach|
03-12-2011, 06:30 PM
I don't know why that's funny, but laugh it up, I guess.

While you still can.

I think it is funny as hell to see this perspective from someone so hateful. It really proves something I have suspected all along.

It sucks to be you.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2011, 06:30 PM
I agree that we're done, but I'm not sad in the least. We're not worth our ideals. That's not really news.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:31 PM
Don't give up hope, it might not be a bad thing. Rome had one it's greatest periods of prosperity under a dictatorship. We just have to hope ours is more Augustus and less Stalin.

Oh, I believe at this point the only thing that could salvage America and possibly even restore it would be a dictator.

|Zach|
03-12-2011, 06:31 PM
I think it will be interesting to see how the nominations shake out. It is always pretty easy to make grand declarations at the perceived abilities of the other side when you don't have your own candidate in place with their own strengths and flaws.

Slainte
03-12-2011, 06:31 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uMijMWQlnUc" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe>
.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:32 PM
I agree that we're done, but I'm not sad in the least. We're not worth our ideals. That's not really news.

Think of it as an opportunity

"If there is no struggle there is no progress."

- Frederick Douglass

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:33 PM
Oh, I believe at this point the only thing that could salvage America and possibly even restore it would be a dictator.
Like I said, fingers crossed that he's more Augustus than Stalin.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2011, 06:34 PM
Oh, I believe at this point the only thing that could salvage America and possibly even restore it would be a dictator.

That may be even crazier than thinking that the people can take it back.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:35 PM
I think it is funny as hell you see this perspective from someone so hateful. It really proves something I have suspected all along.

Does it matter if I'm "hateful" or not? I'm flattered that you think that much of me to want to "prove something" but neither one of us is all that important.

It sucks to be you.

Yes it does suck to be a part of the generation that watched this great nation turn to shit and collapse. I'd have much rather prefered to have lived a long life, and died in my old age, believing that I left my beloved country better than when I found it.

|Zach|
03-12-2011, 06:36 PM
Does it matter if I'm "hateful" or not? I'm flattered that you think that much of me to want to "prove something" but neither one of us is all that important.



Yes it does suck to be a part of the generation that watched this great nation turn to shit and collapse. I'd have much rather prefered to have lived a long life, and died in my old age, believing that I left my beloved country better than when I found it.

We will bury you next to the drama llama.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:40 PM
That may be even crazier than thinking that the people can take it back.

You have faith in Congress? The executive? Our judiciary? You think that somehow their corruption and anti-constitution ideology is going to be vanquished through elections?

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:40 PM
We will bury you next to the drama llama.

YOu won't be burying me, Zach.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:42 PM
Like I said, fingers crossed that he's more Augustus than Stalin.

Yes, hopefully he will be a benevolent dictator, someone who will emerge from our military. A good man who believes in our laws and way of life. Somebody who wants to restore it to the way it was when he found it.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:43 PM
You have faith in Congress? The executive? Our judiciary? You think that somehow their corruption and anti-constitution ideology is going to be vanquished through elections?

Pretty ironic really (if we're right that is)

The only way to save the republic is by turning it into the antithesis of one.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:46 PM
Yes, hopefully he will be a benevolent dictator, someone who will emerge from our military. A good man who believes in our laws and way of life. Somebody who wants to restore it to the way it was when he found it.

Well, logically if that did come to pass it would almost certainly be someone from the military. Without the support of the troops no one person would be able to consolidate that much power.

I wonder if Afghanistan and Iraq = Gaul.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:47 PM
Pretty ironic really (if we're right that is)

The only way to save the republic is by turning it into the antithesis of one.

This whole thing could have been avoided with term limits.

For example, look at the damage Ted Kennedy left behind. Now multiply that by a few hundred.

Even Jesse Helms admitted that voting for federal funds and subsidies for farmers in his state was wrong, but it was the only way to keep getting re-elected. And he rationalized it by saying if he voted against them, the people would have just replaced him with somebody worse.

|Zach|
03-12-2011, 06:48 PM
YOu won't be burying me, Zach.

You are right. You sound like the kind of coward that would take his own life. Thinking that the big bad boogie man government was responsible for his unhappiness.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 06:50 PM
This whole thing could have been avoided with term limits.

For example, look at the damage Ted Kennedy left behind. Now multiply that by a few hundred.

Even Jesse Helms admitted that voting for federal funds and subsidies for farmers in his state was wrong, but it was the only way to keep getting re-elected. And he rationalized it by saying if he voted against them, the people would have just replaced him with somebody worse.

Don't have to convince me of that. I'd say two terms at whatever office you held. Federal level that is. The states can figure out what they want to do on their own.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:54 PM
You are right.

I wish I was wrong.

You sound like the kind of coward that would take his own life.

I have no intention of killing myself. I have a very bright future ahead of me.

Thinking that the big bad boogie man government was responsible for his unhappiness.

No, that's wrong. I'm saddened by what our elected officials have done to this country, but it's not the end of the world. I'll carry on just like Germans did after WW2.

Incidentally, they're doing ok these days. And so shall I.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 06:56 PM
Don't have to convince me of that. I'd say two terms at whatever office you held. Federal level that is. The states can figure out what they want to do on their own.

I think the two events that put this country on the wrong trajectory were the Civil War and the Kennedy assassination.

How about you?

Jaric
03-12-2011, 07:02 PM
I think the two events that put this country on the wrong trajectory were the Civil War and the Kennedy assassination.

How about you?

Interesting question. I might have to get back to you on that.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 07:02 PM
Interesting question. I might have to get back to you on that.

It would make for a great discussion.

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2011, 07:18 PM
You have faith in Congress? The executive? Our judiciary? You think that somehow their corruption and anti-constitution ideology is going to be vanquished through elections?

No. No. No. No.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 07:33 PM
The top polling Republican in Iowa is Huckabee.

Followed by Sarah ****ing Palin.

So tell the truth: you hate the field as it stands (since there stands no field, I'm talking about all the likely suspects).

Any reason as to why Republicans are sitting on their hands at this point?

Hey, maybe Obama will end the Patriot Act and close Gitmo during his second term. Or maybe he'll betray you again.

No matter. He can always count on you and Zach groveling at his feet and tossing his salad.

RJ
03-12-2011, 07:39 PM
I like Gary Johnson a lot if he runs.

At least if he gets nominated I won't have to hold my nose when I vote.


I'd vote for Johnson. It would be a wasted vote but I'd still do it if he were on the ballot.

Jaric
03-12-2011, 07:42 PM
It would make for a great discussion.

The civil war was probably the most pivotal moment in our history (revolution aside) I certainly see where you are going with it being on the road to ruin since it forever changed the balance of state/federal powers. However, it wasn't all bad, we are the world's one superpower, and the most dominant one at that since Roman times. Of course we are also in debt passed our eyeballs and on the verge of economic collapse. So we've got that going against us.

As a supporter of state rights though, I will agree with you on the civil war. I think without the power the federal government now wields we wouldn't be spending as much as we do at the federal level and therefore wouldn't be in our current mess. Of course, we might also have a new host of problems to deal with. Hard to tell. Overall though, it forever altered the balance of power. That has to count for something.

Now, the second one...That's a bit tougher. I can think of several moments in our history that had a massive effect on how our nation thinks and acts.

I think I will go with the New Deal. Falsely given credit for saving us from the depression, it set the precedent of Government as the nursemaid protector. The mindset which IMO is directly responsible for our current mess.

|Zach|
03-12-2011, 07:45 PM
No matter. He can always count on you and Zach groveling at his feet and tossing his salad.

Don't have time for any of that. I am busy running a business and enjoying times with friends and family. All things I have the freedom to do and enjoy because of my own hard work and the freedom this country gives me as an entrepreneur and a citizen. I realize how little control the person in the White House has over me compared to the decisions I make on a daily basis.

But I guess I could think life is really shitty like you. It just doesn't really fit for me though.

The Mad Crapper
03-12-2011, 07:52 PM
The civil war was probably the most pivotal moment in our history (revolution aside) I certainly see where you are going with it being on the road to ruin since it forever changed the balance of state/federal powers. However, it wasn't all bad, we are the world's one superpower, and the most dominant one at that since Roman times. Of course we are also in debt passed our eyeballs and on the verge of economic collapse. So we've got that going against us.

As a supporter of state rights though, I will agree with you on the civil war. I think without the power the federal government now wields we wouldn't be spending as much as we do at the federal level and therefore wouldn't be in our current mess. Of course, we might also have a new host of problems to deal with. Hard to tell. Overall though, it forever altered the balance of power. That has to count for something.

Great points all around. :thumb: I agree.

And you are right, no telling what kind of trajectory we'd be on if the south was allowed to secede (and never rejoined us eventually).

Now, the second one...That's a bit tougher. I can think of several moments in our history that had a massive effect on how our nation thinks and acts.

I think I will go with the New Deal. Falsely given credit for saving us from the depression, it set the precedent of Government as the nursemaid protector. The mindset which IMO is directly responsible for our current mess.

Yeah, Wilson and then FDR were central planners who grew the government and set us on the destructive course we are currently on.

Amnorix
03-12-2011, 09:57 PM
I agree that we're done, but I'm not sad in the least. We're not worth our ideals. That's not really news.

I love America and all that apple pie stuff, but let's face it, the notion that America has always been morally superior is a bunch of bullshit. We're certainly alot better than the dictatorships around the world, and our citizens have, on average, enjoyed more rights than most, but we've had MANY failings during our 200+ year history as well. Can we honestly look at, say, the United Kingdom and claim any moral highground over them over the last hundred years?

From Native Americans to slaves to the Mexican-American War (a blatant land grab) to denying minorities civil rights until 100 years after the Civil War, American ideals have always been alot more idealistic than realistic. We never did practice what we preached to the extent many Americans think.

And all this moaning that we're done and going to fall apart etc. is pretty ridiculous. Calm the hell down people. The US wasn't very likely to remain teh world's sole superpower for long pretty much regardless of what we did or didn't do. The world is a big place filled with alot of smart and energetic people who don't happen to be Americans.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 10:40 PM
I know you're a Bush guy Pat, and that's fine, but I think it's highly debatable on who sucked less, Bush or Kerry. They were both awful.

And as much as Obama sucks, I have serious doubts that the Republicans will run anyone much better.

We can agree to disagree on how much Bush was undervalued and how much Obama sucks then. :)

Edit: Oh, btw, I misunderstood your Bush 2.0 also. I thought you were referring to W's second term.

patteeu
03-12-2011, 10:45 PM
I think it will be interesting to see how the nominations shake out. It is always pretty easy to make grand declarations at the perceived abilities of the other side when you don't have your own candidate in place with their own strengths and flaws.

As a guy who isn't a committed conservative, to say the least, but who didn't vote for Obama last time, do you see any likely Republican candidates that interest you at all over Obama, |Zach|?

ClevelandBronco
03-12-2011, 11:53 PM
I love America and all that apple pie stuff...

Yeah. I don't. It was a blast watching the run, though.

|Zach|
03-13-2011, 12:28 AM
As a guy who isn't a committed conservative, to say the least, but who didn't vote for Obama last time, do you see any likely Republican candidates that interest you at all over Obama, |Zach|?

I'm not married to the Democrats. I think they have the best of intentions but suck pretty bad at execution. Here is the thing with conservatives. I just see so many of them as really phony. I think they are caught in the middle. They are in this grey area of being on the wrong side (just my opinion) of many social issues and they talk like they are somehow fiscal conservatives but it really is just talk. They have to wrestle with campaign for liberty types who seem to back up what they say but feel pretty extreme to me on a lot of issues. They also have to deal with the Palin type retards who think abortion and guns are the most important issues we face.

I actually like some of the things Huckabee does but some his religious silliness comes through a bit much for me. I will admit I do not know about some up and coming folks that could be a big part of the race. But I absolutely will give them a good listen.

Psyko Tek
03-13-2011, 01:02 AM
This whole thing could have been avoided with term limits.

For example, look at the damage Ted Kennedy left behind. Now multiply that by a few hundred.

Even Jesse Helms admitted that voting for federal funds and subsidies for farmers in his state was wrong, but it was the only way to keep getting re-elected. And he rationalized it by saying if he voted against them, the people would have just replaced him with somebody worse.

if they don't plan on playing to the masses to get re-elected they will sell out (even worse) to the CorpRATs for a big payoff after

no win situation

how many in congress came from the fool factories on the east coast (harvard and yale)
they have NO idea what we deal with everyday to get through life

The Mad Crapper
03-13-2011, 05:42 AM
Yeah. I don't. It was a blast watching the run, though.

They have no idea how dire the situation is.

http://www.moonbattery.com/1trillion.jpg

stevieray
03-13-2011, 06:53 PM
I love America and all that apple pie stuff, but let's face it, the notion that America has always been morally superior is a bunch of bullshit. We're certainly alot better than the dictatorships around the world, and our citizens have, on average, enjoyed more rights than most, but we've had MANY failings during our 200+ year history as well. Can we honestly look at, say, the United Kingdom and claim any moral highground over them over the last hundred years?

From Native Americans to slaves to the Mexican-American War (a blatant land grab) to denying minorities civil rights until 100 years after the Civil War, American ideals have always been alot more idealistic than realistic. We never did practice what we preached to the extent many Americans think.

And all this moaning that we're done and going to fall apart etc. is pretty ridiculous. Calm the hell down people. The US wasn't very likely to remain teh world's sole superpower for long pretty much regardless of what we did or didn't do. The world is a big place filled with alot of smart and energetic people who don't happen to be Americans.

the self loathing is pathetic.

vailpass
03-13-2011, 07:24 PM
Yeah. I don't. It was a blast watching the run, though.

:spock: That must suck.

Direckshun
03-13-2011, 07:28 PM
Not a lot of discussion by the Republicans here as to WHY the field for 2012 is so dry.

Any theories?

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2011, 07:32 PM
:spock: That must suck.

I guess if I cared about it happening, it might suck. I hadn't thought about from that angle.

The Mad Crapper
03-13-2011, 08:20 PM
As a guy who isn't a committed conservative, to say the least, but who didn't vote for Obama last time, do you see any likely Republican candidates that interest you at all over Obama, |Zach|?

It's funny how all of B.O.'s staunchest supporters on the MB say that they didn't even vote for him.

The Mad Crapper
03-13-2011, 08:25 PM
Not a lot of discussion by the Republicans here as to WHY the field for 2012 is so dry.

Any theories?

Theories? It's a done deal. The fix is in. Wash DC is a corrupt cesspool.

Right now I'm thinking of that scene in Schindlers list--- ah, forget it. It's not even worth explaining.

You'll find out and figure it out when you get hungry. Real hunger. You'll find out. Soon enough.

Chocolate Hog
03-13-2011, 08:32 PM
Santorum/Keyes 2012

Bewbies
03-13-2011, 09:13 PM
Not a lot of discussion by the Republicans here as to WHY the field for 2012 is so dry.

Any theories?

Because nobody has declared yet?

SNR
03-13-2011, 10:13 PM
I love America and all that apple pie stuff, but let's face it, the notion that America has always been morally superior is a bunch of bullshit. We're certainly alot better than the dictatorships around the world, and our citizens have, on average, enjoyed more rights than most, but we've had MANY failings during our 200+ year history as well. Can we honestly look at, say, the United Kingdom and claim any moral highground over them over the last hundred years?

From Native Americans to slaves to the Mexican-American War (a blatant land grab) to denying minorities civil rights until 100 years after the Civil War, American ideals have always been alot more idealistic than realistic. We never did practice what we preached to the extent many Americans think.

And all this moaning that we're done and going to fall apart etc. is pretty ridiculous. Calm the hell down people. The US wasn't very likely to remain teh world's sole superpower for long pretty much regardless of what we did or didn't do. The world is a big place filled with alot of smart and energetic people who don't happen to be Americans.Ever read Wretched Of The Earth by Franz Fanon?

The United States has had some very, very, very dark marks in its history and I'd still claim that its almost 250 year history is morally superior to that of the French and British empires from this century. By far.

go bowe
03-13-2011, 10:42 PM
Theories? It's a done deal. The fix is in. Wash DC is a corrupt cesspool.

Right now I'm thinking of that scene in Schindlers list--- ah, forget it. It's not even worth explaining.

You'll find out and figure it out when you get hungry. Real hunger. You'll find out. Soon enough.man, you're sounding really depressed lately...

what happened to that hateful brigand spewing hate and disarray?

you've lost your burst... :huh: :huh: :huh:

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 11:19 PM
Because nobody has declared yet?

:spock:

LMAO

Obama by 15-20%.... ROFL

Count Alex's Losses
03-24-2011, 12:50 PM
I personally think a second Obama term is inevitable. This will just be a really entertaining show

The best part of the show will be Obama talking up all the good he has done in four years. ROFL

Bewbies
03-24-2011, 01:11 PM
I don't see how Obama has a chance personally. He's Jimmy Carter, and we all saw how bad he got his ass kicked (by a former loser).

chiefsnorth
03-24-2011, 01:29 PM
There is no Reagan here to defeat Jimmy Carter this time, but there are good candidates. I think Tim Pawlenty would be a good choice.

jiveturkey
03-24-2011, 01:40 PM
There is no Reagan here to defeat Jimmy Carter this time, but there are good candidates. I think Tim Pawlenty would be a good choice.He's like the John Kerry of Repubs. 13 seconds into him speaking I'm asleep.

patteeu
03-24-2011, 01:44 PM
He's like the John Kerry of Repubs. 13 seconds into him speaking I'm asleep.

His campaign slogan is going to be, "Barack Obama gave you 4 years of white knuckle nervousness about the direction of our country. With me at the helm, you'll finally be able to rest easy." And it clocks in at just under 12 seconds so it will fit the window perfectly.

mlyonsd
03-24-2011, 01:48 PM
Seriously, the more we learn the administration has no clue on Libya is there any republican that could do worse?

go bowe
03-24-2011, 01:51 PM
It's funny how all of B.O.'s staunchest supporters on the MB say that they didn't even vote for him.i voted for the guy...

twice...

go bowe
03-24-2011, 02:03 PM
Seriously, the more we learn the administration has no clue on Libya is there any republican that could do worse?ron paul?

The Mad Crapper
03-24-2011, 03:13 PM
i voted for the guy...

twice...

LMAO

Actually, quite a few people in Texas did (primary).

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 03:26 PM
There is no Reagan here to defeat Jimmy Carter this time, but there are good candidates. I think Tim Pawlenty would be a good choice.

That's a good RINO choice. :LOL:

Cave Johnson
03-24-2011, 03:41 PM
I think I will go with the New Deal. Falsely given credit for saving us from the depression, it set the precedent of Government as the nursemaid protector. The mindset which IMO is directly responsible for our current mess.

This may be a product of a lack of research on my part, but my understanding was that unemployment dropped pretty significantly from '33-'37 but then spiked due to austerity measures.

What am I missing?

Cave Johnson
03-24-2011, 03:44 PM
man, you're sounding really depressed lately...

what happened to that hateful brigand spewing hate and disarray?

you've lost your burst... :huh: :huh: :huh:

It's exhausting work, waiting for the country to fall apart so you can unleash the mother of all "I told you so's."

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 04:37 PM
This may be a product of a lack of research on my part, but my understanding was that unemployment dropped pretty significantly from '33-'37 but then spiked due to austerity measures.

What am I missing?

1929: 3.2 percent

1930: 8.7 percent

1931: 15.9 percent

1932: 23.6 percent

1933: 24.9 percent

1934: 21.7 percent

1935: 20.1 percent

1936: 16.9 percent

1937: 14.3 percent

1938: 19.0 percent

1939: 17.2 percent

1940: 14.6 percent

FDR averaged 17.7 percent unemployment, which is staggering. FDR’s unemployment average was more than five times the 1929 level.

http://www.lvmises.ca/posts/articles/the-truth-about-fdr/

You'd be right at home with Newt Gingrich who told a group of Republicans after the recent election in 1995 that FDR "did bring us out of the Depression" making him the "the greatest figure of the 20th century." This should wake some Rs up about this man's support for a free-market economy.


BTW capitalism ended the Great Depression. It didn't end until after WWII when there were massive spending cuts.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 04:40 PM
Even UCLA study concurs:

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx


Problem was FDR thought the Depression was caused by low wages and prices. So he attempted to prop them up worsening conditions. Think about those unions you support.

Calcountry
03-24-2011, 04:57 PM
Any reason as to why Republicans are sitting on their hands at this point?Why would we want to steal the stage from that clusterfug in the White House?

Calcountry
03-24-2011, 05:04 PM
I don't like Huckabee and I don't think Palin will/should run (although I'd vote for either over Obama), but I'm ok with most of the rest of the field of likely suspects. Newt and Bachman are probably unelectable though.Why do you think so?

Calcountry
03-24-2011, 05:07 PM
The thought of Sarah Palin as President makes me want to move to Canada. The rest of the field isn't exactly filling me with confidence either.

I have this feeling I will be voting for whatever sacrificial lamb the Libertarians trot out there. Like I did last election.Dude, you already live in Canada.

Calcountry
03-24-2011, 05:13 PM
YOu won't be burying me, Zach.Speaking of this, I wonder how Jim would have felt about Obama?

Calcountry
03-24-2011, 05:15 PM
Even UCLA study concurs:



http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx


Problem was FDR thought the Depression was caused by low wages and prices. So he attempted to prop them up worsening conditions. Think about those unions you support. Amity Shlaes, "The forgotten man", is an excellent history of the times.

The Mad Crapper
03-24-2011, 05:44 PM
http://jimmycarter08.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/obamapolicycard.jpg

patteeu
03-24-2011, 08:36 PM
Why do you think so?

I think they enter the race already demonized in the minds of a large percentage of the voting population or at the very least in the minds of the media who will be influencing the voting population. I think it's possible for Gingrich to overcome it because he is definitely an idea guy and after the no-substance bum we have in there now, people will be starving for a guy who can not only articulate his vision, but who can also make concrete proposals about how to pursue it. I don't think Palin or Bachman would be able to overcome their antagonists.

go bowe
03-24-2011, 10:20 PM
I think they enter the race already demonized in the minds of a large percentage of the voting population or at the very least in the minds of the media who will be influencing the voting population. I think it's possible for Gingrich to overcome it because he is definitely an idea guy and after the no-substance bum we have in there now, people will be starving for a guy who can not only articulate his vision, but who can also make concrete proposals about how to pursue it. I don't think Palin or Bachman would be able to overcome their antagonists.antagonists?

you think palin and bachman couldn't get elected because they have antagonists?

might it have something to do with a lack of intellectual capacity or at least the serious appearance of it?

harriet meirs was more qualified, ffs...

patteeu
03-24-2011, 11:12 PM
antagonists?

you think palin and bachman couldn't get elected because they have antagonists?

might it have something to do with a lack of intellectual capacity or at least the serious appearance of it?

harriet meirs was more qualified, ffs...

I think that's what their antagonists would like us to believe, at least.

orange
03-25-2011, 12:01 AM
I think that's what their antagonists would like us to believe, at least.

With friends like these ...


Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol was among Sarah Palin's earliest Washington admirers, and helped bring her to the national stage ...

But Kristol -- one of her key boosters -- went on to raise many of the same questions that have undercut her prospects inside the Republican Party.

"When she quit as governor of Alaska, that was a questionable move from her point of view, but I thought at least then that she would come to the mainland and really participate in the national debate," he said. "Instead, [it] turns out that she loves Alaska, which is to her credit -- but then I don't know why she quit as governor."

"She has a very shrewd judgment about politics and policy and very good instincts -- but she hasn't done what Reagan ... did, which is really educate himself over a number of years," Kristol said.

"I think she's unlikely to be the Republican nominee, and to be honest I think she probably shouldn't be the Republican nominee for president," he said, adding that he thinks she's "unlikely" to run.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/Kristol_Palin_probably_wont_shouldnt_be_nominee.html?showall

Direckshun
03-25-2011, 12:04 AM
So who all do we have declared, now?

Herman Cain
Tim Pawlenty

Newt Gingrich -- exploratory committee
Jon Huntsman -- expected

Am I missing anything? Or are we seriously rolling with Pawlenty and Cain for the time being?

Dallas Chief
03-25-2011, 12:24 AM
So who all do we have declared, now?

Herman Cain
Tim Pawlenty

Newt Gingrich -- exploratory committee
Jon Huntsman -- expected

Am I missing anything? Or are we seriously rolling with Pawlenty and Cain for the time being?

Who's we? This ain't your party, Ms. What's the rush? The longer they wait to declare, the better. BO will continue to trip over his dick, why steal the spotlight from that hit show???

patteeu
03-25-2011, 06:45 AM
With friends like these ...


Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol...

Sounds like Kristol agrees with me about Palin. She doesn't seem to be seriously pursuing the nomination.

dirk digler
03-25-2011, 07:33 AM
I think they enter the race already demonized in the minds of a large percentage of the voting population or at the very least in the minds of the media who will be influencing the voting population. I think it's possible for Gingrich to overcome it because he is definitely an idea guy and after the no-substance bum we have in there now, people will be starving for a guy who can not only articulate his vision, but who can also make concrete proposals about how to pursue it. I don't think Palin or Bachman would be able to overcome their antagonists.

Newt has no chance of winning either the Republican nominee or becoming POTUS. To much baggage. People might have been able to forget\forgive his affairs but since he played a role in Clinton impeachment they won't.

I do think it is kind of funny you say people are starving for a guy who can articulate his vision, I wonder if it is something like this:
It is very hard to explain how you get from: VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya?

GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him. ...The United States doesn't need anybody's permission. We don't need to have NATO, who frankly, won't bring much to the fight. We don't need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening. And we don't have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.
To: I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qadhafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.LMAO A total flip flop in a span of about 2-3 weeks

mlyonsd
03-25-2011, 07:50 AM
Newt has no chance of winning either the Republican nominee or becoming POTUS. To much baggage. People might have been able to forget\forgive his affairs but since he played a role in Clinton impeachment they won't.

I do think it is kind of funny you say people are starving for a guy who can articulate his vision, I wonder if it is something like this:
LMAO A total flip flop in a span of about 2-3 weeks

After seeing what a total cluster F it's ended up being and the who's on first, who's in charge outcome I can understand flipping.

mlyonsd
03-25-2011, 07:50 AM
Sounds like Kristol agrees with me about Palin. She doesn't seem to be seriously pursuing the nomination.

Yes......dirk....are you paying attention?

The Mad Crapper
03-25-2011, 07:53 AM
Who's we? This ain't your party, Ms. What's the rush? The longer they wait to declare, the better. BO will continue to trip over his dick, why steal the spotlight from that hit show???

Exactly. Why roll out a qualified candidate now and give the media that much more time to destroy him/her.

dirk digler
03-25-2011, 08:03 AM
After seeing what a total cluster F it's ended up being and the who's on first, who's in charge outcome I can understand flipping.

Oh bs. He was for it if he was POTUS and then he flipped flopped all because Obama did what he asked for.

It is the same derangement syndrome Bush haters had.

Yes......dirk....are you paying attention?

We will see but just in case I have started a mylonsd beer account

stevieray
03-25-2011, 08:05 AM
Yes......dirk....are you paying attention?

are you kidding?

he's prolly fapping to her right now.

dirk digler
03-25-2011, 08:09 AM
he's prolly fapping to her right now.

You know it.

But that is not what he was talking about. We made a beer bet on whether she runs or not. So far it is not looking good for me dammit.

The Mad Crapper
03-25-2011, 08:09 AM
It is the same derangement syndrome Bush haters had.


Uh no.

dirk digler
03-25-2011, 08:13 AM
Uh no.

You are right...it might be worse :D

patteeu
03-25-2011, 08:15 AM
Oh bs. He was for it if he was POTUS and then he flipped flopped all because Obama did what he asked for.

It is the same derangement syndrome Bush haters had.



We will see but just in case I have started a mylonsd beer account

None of us really know what Obama is doing so it's hard to say he's doing what Gingrich asked for.

The Mad Crapper
03-25-2011, 08:16 AM
You are right...it might be worse :D

The Left's BDS was all about the Iraq war.

The Right's criticism of Obama is primarily about the economy and fiscal policy.

patteeu
03-25-2011, 08:16 AM
Newt has no chance of winning either the Republican nominee or becoming POTUS. To much baggage. People might have been able to forget\forgive his affairs but since he played a role in Clinton impeachment they won't.

I don't think his chances of winning are great by any means, but I think you're exaggerating when you say he has no chance.

dirk digler
03-25-2011, 08:28 AM
None of us really know what Obama is doing so it's hard to say he's doing what Gingrich asked for.

He wanted to intervene and then when Obama did he flipped flopped.

I think the playbook is fairly obvious now if Obama does something state the opposite even though you for what he did.

dirk digler
03-25-2011, 08:29 AM
The Left's BDS was all about the Iraq war.

The Right's criticism of Obama is primarily about the economy and fiscal policy.

I disagree with that. The left criticized everything Bush did and the right is now doing the same thing to Obama.

It is what it is.

The Mad Crapper
03-25-2011, 09:06 AM
I disagree with that. The left criticized everything Bush did and the right is now doing the same thing to Obama.

It is what it is.

But the difference is in the legitimacy of the criticism, and the level of over the top outrage.

Do you want to go tit for tat?

Cave Johnson
03-25-2011, 10:25 AM
BTW capitalism ended the Great Depression. It didn't end until after WWII when there were massive spending cuts.

Christ you're a moron. The unemployment rate in WW2 was quite low, as the result of massive government spending/mobilization on the war effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2011, 10:32 AM
I disagree with that. The left criticized everything Bush did and the right is now doing the same thing to Obama.

It is what it is.

You must admit he has given them a lot to work with~

patteeu
03-25-2011, 10:52 AM
He wanted to intervene and then when Obama did he flipped flopped.

I think the playbook is fairly obvious now if Obama does something state the opposite even though you for what he did.

That might explain some Republican flip flops. How do you explain all the Obama flip flops and do they make him unelectable?

go bowe
03-25-2011, 12:26 PM
I think that's what their antagonists would like us to believe, at least.well, mark me down as an antagonist then...

palin may be savvy (or have savvy advisors), but neither of them are going to scare anybody with their intellect or level of understanding of international events...

it just seems to me that the tea party could find more articulate and smarter representatives of their movement...

why sharon angle or the witch of delaware instead of a rand paul type?

aren't there any other rand pauls out there, or people who at least give the appearance that they have some clue what they're talking about...

it isn't the tea party's politics that bother me, it's the people who seem to be representing it on the national stage...

go bowe
03-25-2011, 12:32 PM
The Left's BDS was all about the Iraq war.

The Right's criticism of Obama is primarily about the economy and fiscal policy.oh humbug...

the criticisms about obama cover everything he's doing, has done, and hasn't done since his birth in kenya...

hell, bush was on perma-vacation and you guys complain when obama takes a short vacation...

soon you'll be complaining about his going golfing...

oh, wait...

patteeu
03-25-2011, 12:55 PM
well, mark me down as an antagonist then...

palin may be savvy (or have savvy advisors), but neither of them are going to scare anybody with their intellect or level of understanding of international events...

it just seems to me that the tea party could find more articulate and smarter representatives of their movement...

why sharon angle or the witch of delaware instead of a rand paul type?

aren't there any other rand pauls out there, or people who at least give the appearance that they have some clue what they're talking about...

it isn't the tea party's politics that bother me, it's the people who seem to be representing it on the national stage...

I think Michelle Bachman is pretty smart despite the well publicized gaffes we've seen. And I think Palin could get up to speed if she focused on it.

BTW, I didn't realize this until this morning, but Bachman is the sister of KC area weatherman, Gary Amble:

http://www.kctv5.com/2010/0510/23508694_320X240.jpg

go bowe
03-25-2011, 01:06 PM
I think Michelle Bachman is pretty smart despite the well publicized gaffes we've seen. And I think Palin could get up to speed if she focused on it.

BTW, I didn't realize this until this morning, but Bachman is the sister of KC area weatherman, Gary Amble:

http://www.kctv5.com/2010/0510/23508694_320X240.jpgwell, she should know which way the wind is blowing...

as far as palin getting up to speed, she's had plenty of time...

my main point though was why can't the tea party find more decent candidates like rand paul?

or obviously up to speed spokespersons?

KC Dan
03-25-2011, 01:10 PM
Wackman is a wackjob. If they can do no better, say hello to another 4 years to Obama...

go bowe
03-25-2011, 01:13 PM
Wackman is a wackjob. If they can do no better, say hello to another 4 years to Obama...yep, if harry freaking reid can beat a tea party whacko, surely the big o will be able to...

orange
03-25-2011, 01:14 PM
Bachman is the sister of KC area weatherman,

Bachman is the sister of a WEATHERMAN? COMMUNIST!!

I'll bet she dated Bill Ayers!

BucEyedPea
03-25-2011, 01:18 PM
Palin, Angle and the witch of Delaware are not Tea Partiers. They're hijackers. With an electorate who equates them with real TP then the liberty movement is off to a bad start.

patteeu
03-25-2011, 01:30 PM
well, she should know which way the wind is blowing...

as far as palin getting up to speed, she's had plenty of time...

my main point though was why can't the tea party find more decent candidates like rand paul?

or obviously up to speed spokespersons?

Palin has had plenty of time, but apparently not enough interest in doing so. That doesn't change my opinion of her.

I'm not sure why you think there aren't good candidates associated with the tea party faction of the Republicans. It's almost as if we're defining tea party to exclude sensible conservatives, which isn't a definition that works for me.

Chocolate Hog
03-25-2011, 01:31 PM
We've already had the first Republican presidential debate and it was Gingrich vs Gingrich.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2011, 06:31 PM
We've already had the first Rockefeller Republican RINO/NeoCon presidential debate and it was Gingrich vs Gingrich.

FYP :p

shirtsleeve
03-25-2011, 08:46 PM
Palin, Angle and the witch of Delaware are not Tea Partiers. They're hijackers. With an electorate who equates them with real TP then the liberty movement is off to a bad start.

This^

Ron and Rand Paul are about the closest thing to real representation of the tea party.

Judge Napolitano is about as close as it gets to real tea party commentary on news television.

go bowe
03-25-2011, 08:51 PM
Palin has had plenty of time, but apparently not enough interest in doing so. That doesn't change my opinion of her.

I'm not sure why you think there aren't good candidates associated with the tea party faction of the Republicans. It's almost as if we're defining tea party to exclude sensible conservatives, which isn't a definition that works for me.i'm sure there are good candidates, but not enough of them apparently to avoid having airheads and whackjobs as conspicuous candidates/spokespersons...

it's the fruit cases that get all the attention from the press...

the tp needs more rand pauls or people like him, that make sense and know how to articulate their position...

so no, i wouldn't define the tp as excluding sensible conservatives at all...

in fact, i wish they had more of them out front and fewer witches...

orange
03-25-2011, 08:56 PM
So who all do we have declared, now?

Herman Cain
Tim Pawlenty

Newt Gingrich -- exploratory committee
Jon Huntsman -- expected

Am I missing anything? Or are we seriously rolling with Pawlenty and Cain for the time being?

Presidential Campaign: ST. PAUL, Minn.Tea Party favorite and Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann is feeling pressure from the political calendar to rush a decision on a White House bid and may announce her intentions as early as May, one of her top advisers said Thursday.

Bachmann, a third-term congresswoman from Minnesota, could form a presidential Exploratory Committee before two televised Republican debates scheduled the first week of May, said Ed Brookover, a Bachmann adviser.

http://politifi.com/news/Michele-Bachmann-2012-Presidential-Campaign-Likely-To-Launch-Adviser-1806953.html

orange
03-25-2011, 08:59 PM
i'm sure there are good candidates, but not enough of them apparently to avoid having airheads and whackjobs as conspicuous candidates/spokespersons...

it's the fruit cases that get all the attention from the press...


Michele Bachmann for president? Among Republicans, she's more popular than you think.

http://www.slate.com/id/2289347/

Lots there - maybe separate-thread-worthy - but here's the takeaway:

Bachmann and Palin are lumped together for an obvious reason—they're high-powered Republican women. But as that Luntz focus group showed, Bachmann is taken more seriously than Palin in some circles. While Palin is a pundit who communicates through social networks and Fox News, Bachmann has a vote in Congress and daily vulnerability to press ambushes. There are millions of Republican women who, in the age of Palin, like the idea of another female candidate. If Palin does pass on the 2012 race, what happens if she endorses Bachmann? This has been a sleepy, late-starting campaign so far. Today we may have seen its first serious dark-horse candidate.

shirtsleeve
03-25-2011, 10:07 PM
Michele Bachmann for president? Among Republicans, she's more popular than you think.

http://www.slate.com/id/2289347/

Lots there - maybe separate-thread-worthy - but here's the takeaway:

Bachmann and Palin are lumped together for an obvious reason—they're high-powered Republican women. But as that Luntz focus group showed, Bachmann is taken more seriously than Palin in some circles. While Palin is a pundit who communicates through social networks and Fox News, Bachmann has a vote in Congress and daily vulnerability to press ambushes. There are millions of Republican women who, in the age of Palin, like the idea of another female candidate. If Palin does pass on the 2012 race, what happens if she endorses Bachmann? This has been a sleepy, late-starting campaign so far. Today we may have seen its first serious dark-horse candidate.

For POTUS? not so much, but I'd hit it.

patteeu
03-26-2011, 09:23 AM
Michele Bachmann for president? Among Republicans, she's more popular than you think.

http://www.slate.com/id/2289347/

Lots there - maybe separate-thread-worthy - but here's the takeaway:

Bachmann and Palin are lumped together for an obvious reason—they're high-powered Republican women. But as that Luntz focus group showed, Bachmann is taken more seriously than Palin in some circles. While Palin is a pundit who communicates through social networks and Fox News, Bachmann has a vote in Congress and daily vulnerability to press ambushes. There are millions of Republican women who, in the age of Palin, like the idea of another female candidate. If Palin does pass on the 2012 race, what happens if she endorses Bachmann? This has been a sleepy, late-starting campaign so far. Today we may have seen its first serious dark-horse candidate.

A ticket that included Bachman as the VP with Palin endorsing it, would be fairly strong IMO. Count me among those who take Bachman fairly seriously. I think she could hold her own in front of the campaign media and that she'd do fine in a debate with the Biden gaffe machine.