PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Honestly does anyone see a candidate that can defeat Barry?


RNR
05-24-2011, 02:53 PM
I am on record several times with my disapproval of Obama and consider him an embarrassment to the office. That said it is my fear there is not a candidate lined up that can beat him. If you disagree please list who you think can or will~

HonestChieffan
05-24-2011, 02:55 PM
still sorting out. and Barrys still making things worse.

|Zach|
05-24-2011, 02:55 PM
Republican party is completely fractured. Beholden to very different things. They have their work cut out for them.

|Zach|
05-24-2011, 02:56 PM
still sorting out. and Barrys still making things worse.

So you answer is "no".
LMAO

vailpass
05-24-2011, 02:59 PM
So you answer is "no".
LMAO

Not sure where you draw that conclusion, his answer was straight forward.

RNR
05-24-2011, 03:01 PM
Republican party is completely fractured. Beholden to very different things. They have their work cut out for them.

IMO they jumped on the tea party bandwagon and that worked great for the mid term election. I also think this is what has caused the fracture. I have said before, now that they have high jacked the tea party the leopard must change its spots to retain a large portion of the independent support~

RNR
05-24-2011, 03:26 PM
I voted waiting on a late entry. I see someone voted yes but did not list who :lame:

alpha_omega
05-24-2011, 03:30 PM
Depends on what happens between now and then.

dirk digler
05-24-2011, 03:36 PM
Nope. All the big names decided not to run because they know they would lose.

|Zach|
05-24-2011, 03:38 PM
It isn't the candidates that are the problem.

It is different parties trying to fit under the same umbrella.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2011, 03:41 PM
Per polls the best bet is still Ron Paul.

DJ's left nut
05-24-2011, 03:44 PM
No, not really.

The Republicans best options are way too young still. Rubio, Haley, Ryan, etc... just aren't ready.

He's very beatable, but the right spent too much time giving people 'their turn' (I'm looking at you, John McCain) or propping up gimmick options (do I even need to mention Palin here) and not enough time developing legitimate national candidates.

The Republicans did a very bad job of gearing up for 2012. Granted, Obama himself was very much a darkhorse when the 2008 elections started, so there's time for a real candidate to emerge. But right now, no, there's nobody on the right that's truly ready for prime time, IMO.

RNR
05-24-2011, 03:44 PM
Per polls the best bet is still Ron Paul.

I would take him in a heart beat over Barry. That said he and I have one thing in common we will not be elected president...ever~

Brock
05-24-2011, 03:47 PM
Few people want a political party in complete control of the government. People are finally wising up, vote gridlock.

ClevelandBronco
05-24-2011, 03:51 PM
I'm having a difficult time imagining a candidate that isn't a better option, but I have no faith in the American people, so it'll be what it'll be.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2011, 05:26 PM
I would take him in a heart beat over Barry. That said he and I have one thing in common we will not be elected president...ever~

That's now a cliche, imo. Polls are not showing he's unelectable necessarily. They're showing he would be in a dead heat with Obama due to the Indie vote. It's the Republican leadership that will prevent him from winning the GOP primary.

Besides, if everyone who thinks this just stopped—it could happen.

Ugly Duck
05-24-2011, 05:36 PM
The President has a 60% approval rating in spite of high gas prices, and 72% of Americans HATE the Republi's "Profitize Medicare" plan. But remember that the ridiculous proposition that corporations are people is now the law of the land... they're now "SuperPeople" that can spend unlimited funds on campaigns in secret. Oligarchs will inundate the airwaves with propaganda... and we have enough dummys in this country to re-elect George Bush. I picked "waiting for late" campaigners.

RNR
05-24-2011, 05:37 PM
That's now a cliche, imo. Polls are not showing he's unelectable necessarily. They're showing he would be in a dead heat with Obama due to the Indie vote. It's the Republican leadership that will prevent him from winning the GOP primary.

Besides, if everyone who thinks this just stopped—it could happen.

I assure you it was not posted as a cliche. I firmly believe he will never be elected. There is a lot I like about him but he will suffer the same fate as Nader. He will go down as someone who affected elections but never had a chance to win one~

RNR
05-24-2011, 05:38 PM
The President has a 60% approval rating in spite of high gas prices, and 72% of Americans HATE the Republi's "Profitize Medicare" plan. But remember that the ridiculous proposition that corporations are people is now the law of the land... they're now "SuperPeople" that can spend unlimited funds on campaigns in secret. Oligarchs will inundate the airwaves with propaganda... and we have enough dummys in this country to re-elect George Bush. I picked "waiting for late" campaigners.

Link? MSNBC emploee poll?

CrazyPhuD
05-24-2011, 05:45 PM
The President has a 60% approval rating in spite of high gas prices, and 72% of Americans HATE the Republi's "Profitize Medicare" plan. But remember that the ridiculous proposition that corporations are people is now the law of the land... they're now "SuperPeople" that can spend unlimited funds on campaigns in secret. Oligarchs will inundate the airwaves with propaganda... and we have enough dummys in this country to re-elect George Bush. I picked "waiting for late" campaigners.

Huh? What 60% approval rating?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/obamas-bin-laden-polling-bounce-is-mostly-over/239214/

Gallup's tracking polls conducted through Tuesday night put his job-approval rating at 48 percent, higher than the 43-to-44 percent weekly averages he had before the commando mission but lower than the 51 percent he scored in the week immediately after. The president will enjoy some residual benefits from the raid but will probably not reap a strong and long-lasting boost in his overall approval rating.

Frankly this election will mostly likely be about the economy. If it doesn't improve by the time the elections come, short of him running against Hilter, it won't matter who he runs against, he'll lose. If they do improve significantly then he'll very likely win. Really it's a single issue election, nothing else matters.

RNR
05-24-2011, 05:56 PM
Huh? What 60% approval rating?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/obamas-bin-laden-polling-bounce-is-mostly-over/239214/



Frankly this election will mostly likely be about the economy. If it doesn't improve by the time the elections come, short of him running against Hilter, it won't matter who he runs against, he'll lose. If they do improve significantly then he'll very likely win. Really it's a single issue election, nothing else matters.

I called him on it also. He pulled that out of his ass~

mlyonsd
05-24-2011, 05:58 PM
It is early but the only candidates I see beating him right now vow not to run.

BigMeatballDave
05-24-2011, 06:01 PM
There are some horrible, horrible candidates.

Based on that, Barry is likely to be re-elected.

Taco John
05-24-2011, 06:05 PM
No, I don't see Barry losing the election. It would take a black swan event to dislodge him at this point.

CrazyPhuD
05-24-2011, 06:11 PM
Per polls the best bet is still Ron Paul.

Sorry Paul has effectively no shot of ever winning a national election. He'd be the ideal opponent for Obama because he'd lose most matchups. He might be one of the few candidates that would lose to Obama even with a bad economy.

Why? His age alone will be a big issue, he'll be 77 when the elections come around, don't underestimate the impact of that concern. To neutralize that he'd have to have a significantly younger VP that is well liked so people can say, well if he dies in office I'm ok with the VP. Pick the wrong VP and he'll be at a huge disadvantage.

But the bigger viewpoint is actually his viewpoints. One of the reasons that incumbents win is because they don't have to take extreme policy views to win the primaries. Those same 'extreme' views can kill them in general elections because they can be used against them very effectively. Winning elections isn't about who's the best candidate, it's often about who people are more afraid of. If you can install fear into a set of voters you can more easily sway them. Many of Ron Paul's views can be considered politically extreme and he'd get crucifiable for them. Plus there is a real question of if he'll moderate his views when it comes time for the general election. One of the things I like about Ron Paul is that he really believes what he says and I would find it doubtful he'll moderate that.

This is one of the issues with libertarian views in current politics. They sit effectively in the no mans lands of politics. Certain parts are very liberal for republicans but also certain parts are very conservative for democrats. Considering he's not likely to pull the democratic vote with his liberal views the question is can he pull independents? With him saying social security i unconstitutional hes going to get hurt by the elderly vote(the most reliable vote). Just consider his performance in the 08 elections, it was very poor. Nice guy, some interesting views, but WAY to extreme and not willing to compromise(which I like BTW) to get elected to national office.

patteeu
05-24-2011, 06:32 PM
Several. It all depends on what happens (mainly to the economy) between now and election time. People will be happy to vote for a competent but bland Pawlenty or an always optimistic, obviously business-saavy guy who may be a flip flopper on some issues in Mitt Romney if they think Obama is doing more damage than good. I sure wouldn't want to be riding into the election on 8+% unemployment, a shrinking dollar, and a stagnant economy if I were the incumbent. Especially if I were running against a guy who had more relevant experience than I did even after I'd spent 4 years in office.

patteeu
05-24-2011, 06:42 PM
No, not really.

The Republicans best options are way too young still. Rubio, Haley, Ryan, etc... just aren't ready.

He's very beatable, but the right spent too much time giving people 'their turn' (I'm looking at you, John McCain) or propping up gimmick options (do I even need to mention Palin here) and not enough time developing legitimate national candidates.

The Republicans did a very bad job of gearing up for 2012. Granted, Obama himself was very much a darkhorse when the 2008 elections started, so there's time for a real candidate to emerge. But right now, no, there's nobody on the right that's truly ready for prime time, IMO.

The bolded part is almost completely wrong, IMO. McCain won the nomination by pulling in independents, not because the Republican party gave it to him. More importantly, the Republican party is filled with decent candidates for POTUS but most have decided not to run. The people I'm talking about are the vast array of governors they've managed to elect/re-elect since they lost the WH to Obama. There's no job better for grooming a POTUS candidate than the governors office and the GOP has had the lion's share including, for example, Rick Perry, Haley Barbour, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, and John Kasich. And of course, former governors Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee are also decent candidates.

Saul Good
05-24-2011, 06:43 PM
Romney could beat him.

notorious
05-24-2011, 07:53 PM
If Herman Cain had the money behind him, he would put up one hell of a fight.


He has basically given the Republican Elites the finger, and that is a huge bonus in my book.

pr_capone
05-24-2011, 07:57 PM
I would like to see Chris Christie run. Dunno about 2012 but definitely in 2016.

Jenson71
05-24-2011, 08:01 PM
Romney could put up a good fight, but I think it would end up being a losing ticket. Mitch Daniels would have been a strong candidate, but he closed the door for now.

Romney is the closest I could see.

Saul Good
05-24-2011, 08:04 PM
Romney could put up a good fight, but I think it would end up being a losing ticket. Mitch Daniels would have been a strong candidate, but he closed the door for now.

Romney is the closest I could see.

The Republican candidate just needs to not be an embarrassment. The rest is a referendum on Obama. That's the way it always is with an incumbent. Romney is smart, well-spoken, and looks the part. Maybe even more important is that he doesn't seem to be gaffe prone.

notorious
05-24-2011, 08:04 PM
I would like to see Chris Christie run. Dunno about 2012 but definitely in 2016.


This, but I think he is going to wait.


Christie would be awesome, but Cain is my guy this time around.

cdcox
05-24-2011, 08:13 PM
For the republicans to win the White House they need each of the following to happen:

1, They need to run someone that is insulated from the extreme positions of the tea party. Otherwise, the negatives will start driving independent voters away. Romney or Pawlenty would work.
2. They need to avoid a serious 3rd party run from the right.
3. They for the economy to take another dip.

ChiefsCountry
05-24-2011, 08:17 PM
Christie could win it, but he is not intrested right now which is a shame.

Discuss Thrower
05-24-2011, 09:52 PM
Christie could win it, but he is not intrested right now which is a shame.

Too busy being attacked in his home state for being pro millionaire.

Bewbies
05-24-2011, 10:03 PM
For the republicans to win the White House they need each of the following to happen:

1, They need to run someone that is insulated from the extreme positions of the tea party. Otherwise, the negatives will start driving independent voters away. Romney or Pawlenty would work.
2. They need to avoid a serious 3rd party run from the right.
3. They for the economy to take another dip.

No.

Obama has to run on his record, and in 2 years he has 1 accomplishment to brag of, killing Bin Laden with his bare hands.

Running a "moderate" RINO type is a recipe for a loss. Always.

The Republicans are running against Jimmy Carter again, that's a very hard position to be in and expect you can win. LMAO

Mr. Kotter
05-24-2011, 10:12 PM
Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE....who answers a simple "yes" to this, at this point in history, is an utter and complete clueless douchebag (eight and counting, FTR.)

Seriously. The Reps have nothing to offer--nada.

Too bad. Seriously.... :shake:

Jenson71
05-24-2011, 10:14 PM
I don't see current-Christie ever winning it. He strikes me as more divisive than Hilary Clinton.

Mr. Kotter
05-24-2011, 10:16 PM
For the republicans to win the White House they need each of the following to happen:

1, They need to run someone that is insulated from the extreme positions of the tea party. Otherwise, the negatives will start driving independent voters away. Romney or Pawlenty would work.
2. They need to avoid a serious 3rd party run from the right.
3. They for the economy to take another dip.

TRUTH. :thumb:

End of Therad... seriously.

Dave Lane
05-24-2011, 10:17 PM
I assure you it was not posted as a cliche. I firmly believe he will never be elected. There is a lot I like about him but he will suffer the same fate as Nader. He will go down as someone who affected elections but never had a chance to win one~

Ron Paul will never, even if he dies and re-animates as a zombie, ever be president. Nor will his son.

Mr. Kotter
05-24-2011, 10:18 PM
The Republican candidate just needs to not be an embarrassment. The rest is a referendum on Obama. That's the way it always is with an incumbent. Romney is smart, well-spoken, and looks the part. Maybe even more important is that he doesn't seem to be gaffe prone.

He is Mormon. Hate to say it...but, it's the end of the story. Period. The END. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
05-24-2011, 10:19 PM
Ron Paul will never, even if he dies and re-animates as a zombie, ever be president. Nor will his son.

A liberal post? Yes.

However, the truth is...what it is. Get over it Tea-Party douchebags. It ain't happening. Ever. :shrug:

Dave Lane
05-24-2011, 10:21 PM
The Republican candidate just needs to not be an embarrassment. The rest is a referendum on Obama. That's the way it always is with an incumbent. Romney is smart, well-spoken, and looks the part. Maybe even more important is that he doesn't seem to be gaffe prone.

The Mormon thing will be a albatross around his neck much like Obama being black was a negative with a big part of the electorate. The problem is Romney isn't a Democrat where he would be more widely accepted.

cdcox
05-24-2011, 10:22 PM
No.

Obama has to run on his record, and in 2 years he has 1 accomplishment to brag of, killing Bin Laden with his bare hands.

Running a "moderate" RINO type is a recipe for a loss. Always.

The Republicans are running against Jimmy Carter again, that's a very hard position to be in and expect you can win. LMAO

The republicans don't have a Ronald Regan.

Speaking historically there is not much comparison between Jimmy Carter --who allowed himself to be literally consumed by the hostage crisis and who faced a strong challenge for the nomination within his own party -- and Obama.

They both presided over a weak economy, but so did Ronald Regan during his first term.

Jenson71
05-24-2011, 10:24 PM
He is Mormon. Hate to say it...but, it's the end of the story. Period. The END. :shrug:

I doubt that. I don't think it's a big deal at all.

Mr. Kotter
05-24-2011, 10:26 PM
The republicans don't have a Ronald Regan.

Speaking historically there is not much comparison between Jimmy Carter --who allowed himself to be literally consumed by the hostage crisis and who faced a strong challenge for the nomination within his own party -- and Obama.

They both presided over a weak economy, but so did Ronald Regan during his first term.

Ignoring the '83-'84 economic bounce...diminishes your credibility.

Which FWIW, was stronger than what Obama is currently seeing. Heh. Just sayin'... :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
05-24-2011, 10:27 PM
I doubt that. I don't think it's a big deal at all.

If the Republicans agree...it will be Obama in a landslide. Which suits me, at this point. :hmmm:

cdcox
05-24-2011, 10:30 PM
The Mormon thing will be a albatross around his neck much like Obama being black was a negative with a big part of the electorate. The problem is Romney isn't a Democrat where he would be more widely accepted.

In the general election, independents are where it is at, and I don't think most independents will put too much stock in him being a Mormon. Independents aren't ideologically driven, and the Mormons aren't nearly as marginalized as they were 40 years ago. Being Mormon could hurt him in the primaries, but if he were to get the nomination, I don't think with will matter in the general.

Mr. Kotter
05-24-2011, 10:36 PM
In the general election, independents are where it is at, and I don't think most independents will put too much stock in him being a Mormon. Independents aren't ideologically driven, and the Mormons aren't nearly as marginalized as they were 40 years ago. Being Mormon could hurt him in the primaries, but if he were to get the nomination, I don't think with will matter in the general.

I'd be inclined to agree with one important exception: it will depress, in a serious way, Republican turn-out. When holding-their-nose, to vote for a Mormon....becomes the reality, too many Republicans will sit the election out, rather than cast their vote for Romney.

Obama wins in a landslide, if that's the ticket. The only thing that would change that, potentially....would be a popular third party candidacy.

cdcox
05-24-2011, 10:41 PM
Ignoring the '83-'84 economic bounce...diminishes your credibility.

Which FWIW, was stronger than what Obama is currently seeing. Heh. Just sayin'... :hmmm:

I graduated with my BS in 1983 and believe me, I didn't feel any bounce. I went to grad school and hit the job market again in late 1984 and it just felt like the sun was just coming from behind the clouds. Economists only recognize the beginning of a recovery 6 months after it happened. Statistically there was a recovery, but people on the street didn't feel it until 1984 at the earliest.

Yes, Regan got a bounce, but he presided over 3 years of crap before that.

cdcox
05-24-2011, 10:45 PM
I'd be inclined to agree with one important exception: it will depress, in a serious way, Republican turn-out. When holding-their-nose, to vote for a Mormon....becomes the reality, too many Republicans will sit the election out, rather than cast their vote for Romney.

Obama wins in a landslide, if that's the ticket. The only thing that would change that, potentially....would be a popular third party candidacy.

Not sure I follow you here. A 3rd party candidate would in all likelihood come from the right. That will split the conservative vote and ensure an Obama re-election regardless of what independents do.

Psyko Tek
05-24-2011, 10:47 PM
Republican party is completely fractured. Beholden to very different things. They have their work cut out for them.

1/2 republican owned the industry the other half trying to cut the deficit

yeah they hopefully will break this 2 pARTY SYSTEM INTO SOMETHING THAT MAY WORK

stevieray
05-24-2011, 11:30 PM
I graduated with my BS in 1983 and believe me, I didn't feel any bounce. I went to grad school and hit the job market again in late 1984 and it just felt like the sun was just coming from behind the clouds. Economists only recognize the beginning of a recovery 6 months after it happened. Statistically there was a recovery, but people on the street didn't feel it until 1984 at the earliest.

Yes, Regan got a bounce, but he presided over 3 years of crap before that.

I remember those days well, I had just gotten out of the military. It was pretty bleak.

More importantly than the recovery, I think a lot of Reagan's strength came from making the country feel good about itself again after two decades of chaos and turmoil.

cdcox
05-24-2011, 11:40 PM
I remember those days well, I had just gotten out of the military. It was pretty bleak.

More importantly than the recovery, I think a lot of Reagan's strength came from making the country feel good about itself again after two decades of chaos and turmoil.

Yep.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-24-2011, 11:53 PM
If Herman Cain had the money behind him, he would put up one hell of a fight.


He has basically given the Republican Elites the finger, and that is a huge bonus in my book.

I must have missed the bolded part as Cain(former Fed Chairman) is certainly part of the Elite. Also those saying they like Ron Paul, but he isn't electable are just throwing away their votes. It's a defeatist attitude, change is not affected in this way.

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 01:01 AM
Link? MSNBC emploee poll?

AP-GfK poll: Obama approval hits 60 percent

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's approval rating has hit its highest point in two years — 60 percent — and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected

In worrisome signs for Republicans, the president's standing improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy, and independents — a key voting bloc in the November 2012 presidential election — caused the overall uptick in support by sliding back to Obama after fleeing for much of the past two years.

Comfortable majorities of the public now call Obama a strong leader who will keep America safe. Nearly three-fourths — 73 percent — also now say they are confident that Obama can effectively handle terrorist threats. And he improved his standing on Afghanistan, Iraq and the United States' relationships with other countries.

Despite a sluggish recovery from the Great Recession, 52 percent of Americans now approve of Obama's stewardship of the economy, giving him his best rating on that issue since the early days of his presidency; 52 percent also now like how he's handling the nation's stubbornly high 9 percent unemployment.

Also, more Americans — 45 percent, up from 35 percent in March — say the country is headed in the right direction.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110511/ap_on_re_us/us_ap_poll_obama_boost

Otter
05-25-2011, 01:16 AM
Republican party is completely fractured. Beholden to very different things. They have their work cut out for them.

If you look at what was being said about Democrats only a couple short years ago it's pretty much the same thing.

I don't know why you guys feel you have to pound your chest and say "Barry! Barry! Barry!" unless you just crawled out of a cave and have no idea how this stuff works.

Answer me this: who was Bum **** Barry 6 months before he got elected?

Exactly.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 05:55 AM
If Herman Cain had the money behind him, he would put up one hell of a fight.


He has basically given the Republican Elites the finger, and that is a huge bonus in my book.

I like him quite a bit. His answer on Sunday Morning to the question about palestinian "right of return" was embarrassing though. He clearly didn't know what that phrase meant. That doesn't disqualify him, IMO, but it's a significant mark against him.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 05:57 AM
Christie could win it, but he is not intrested right now which is a shame.

I bet he's interested, but he suffered a potentially career-ending setback early in his career for trying to jump to higher office too quickly, iirc, and that might be tempering his enthusiasm.

|Zach|
05-25-2011, 06:07 AM
If you look at what was being said about Democrats only a couple short years ago it's pretty much the same thing.

I don't know why you guys feel you have to pound your chest and say "Barry! Barry! Barry!" unless you just crawled out of a cave and have no idea how this stuff works.

Answer me this: who was Bum **** Barry 6 months before he got elected?

Exactly.

I completely disagree with you. Obama was a big deal 6 months before he got elected. I understand your point but the time you used to make is ridiculous. I know people get sick of me saying this on here but it keeps showing itself to be true. You saw some of the push pull even when Newt declared himself.

This isn't about the candidates involved (even though they suck) it is about the party and how fractured it is. You have pretty distinct groups IMO.

Campaign for Liberty types who have an ideology and believe in it in an uncompromising fashion.

Palin type retards who believe every idiotic thing that goes in one ear and out the other/ They think guns and abortion are the most important thing issues.

And the every day folks who think the government is spending too much money and isn't happy about it but doesnt think that government should be so small that it should fit in everyone's bedroom.

The umbrella isn't big enough and two of those groups absolutely will cut off their nose to spite their face.

notorious
05-25-2011, 07:03 AM
I must have missed the bolded part as Cain(former Fed Chairman) is certainly part of the Elite.

Listen to him one time and you will change your mind.

Amnorix
05-25-2011, 07:08 AM
I don't, but it's still early. I think Mitt would have the best chance, but doubt he'll survive Republican primaries.

notorious
05-25-2011, 07:10 AM
Who was Barrack Obama at this time during the last election cycle?

Pedro
05-25-2011, 07:10 AM
Few people want a political party in complete control of the government. People are finally wising up, vote gridlock.
I've been a believer in gridlock for a long, long time. That's the only time we get bipartisan government.

If it were up to me, the President would be selected after elections for the House and Senate were complete, and the leader of the minority party would become the President.

|Zach|
05-25-2011, 07:14 AM
Who was Barrack Obama at this time during the last election cycle?

A declared candiate for POTUS. He had been for months at this point.

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/DM21007BO.jpg

notorious
05-25-2011, 07:16 AM
A declared candiate for POTUS. He had been for months at this point.

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/DM21007BO.jpg

Did anyone give him a notable chance?


That is my point.

Pedro
05-25-2011, 07:16 AM
I don't, but it's still early. I think Mitt would have the best chance, but doubt he'll survive Republican primaries.
Romney was my choice in 2008. Unfortunately, once again the Republicans will not be smart enough to nominate him. He doesn't practice the "right" form of Christianity, and Romneycare resembles Obamacare too closely to appease the hard-core conservatives.

I also think the Tea Party was a nice fun way for Republicans to blow off steam after the bad election results of 2008, but the Tea Party will ultimately cost the Republican Party a whole lot of votes. It sure looks like the Tea Party prevented the Republicans from retaking the Senate in the 2010 elections, and I expect more of the same. The very vocal minority who embrace the Tea Party will be outnumbered by the rest of us who are very wary of it.

durtyrute
05-25-2011, 07:17 AM
Whoever they want to win will win.

|Zach|
05-25-2011, 07:20 AM
Did anyone give him a notable chance?


That is my point.

Yes. Not a lot of people but it kept growing and it helped that he had previous momentum from a good showing at the last inauguration. People tapped the guy as a rising star in the party.

Of course he was a dark horse but this hilarious notion that Barack Obama fell out of the sky 6 months before becoming POTUS is kind of silly.

Any rising star with the talent (I don't know who this could be do you?) probably doesn't even give it a whirl because it is looking so bad.

|Zach|
05-25-2011, 07:26 AM
Yes. Not a lot of people but it kept growing and it helped that he had previous momentum from a good showing at the last inauguration. People tapped the guy as a rising star in the party.

Of course he was a dark horse but this hilarious notion that Barack Obama fell out of the sky 6 months before becoming POTUS is kind of silly.

Any rising star with the talent (I don't know who this could be do you?) probably doesn't even give it a whirl because it is looking so bad.

Hell, there is a post from me in May 2007 talking about how he had a fighters chance and that the campaign was doing good work.

There was already a "Obama is a muslim sleeper cell" thread on this board Feb of 2007. LMAO

notorious
05-25-2011, 07:27 AM
Yes. Not a lot of people but it kept growing and it helped that he had previous momentum from a good showing at the last inauguration. People tapped the guy as a rising star in the party.

Of course he was a dark horse but this hilarious notion that Barack Obama fell out of the sky 6 months before becoming POTUS is kind of silly.

Any rising star with the talent (I don't know who this could be do you?) probably doesn't even give it a whirl because it is looking so bad.


To normal people that don't follow politics (about 95% of the country), Obama DID fall out of the sky.

That was a large reason why he did so well. He appeared hip and cool, and brought a fresh look. It didn't hurt him that the Pubs fucked up things pretty bad.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2011, 07:29 AM
Romney was my choice in 2008. Unfortunately, once again the Republicans will not be smart enough to nominate him.

No they won't be stupid to elect a liberal again. As for him being a Mormon that is NO factor for me at all.

|Zach|
05-25-2011, 07:31 AM
To normal people that don't follow politics (about 95% of the country), Obama DID fall out of the sky.

That was a large reason why he did so well. He appeared hip and cool, and brought a fresh look. It didn't hurt him that the Pubs ****ed up things pretty bad.

As I said previously in this thread it isn't the lack of candidates that will harm the Republican party. It is the makeup of the party itself.

I think it is pretty telling that as bad as I hear Obama and the democrats have done from everyone the GOP can't get their shit together to put up something stronger. It is so bad guys like you are sitting around hoping the for political version of your team drafting Tom Brady in the 7th round.

Cave Johnson
05-25-2011, 07:33 AM
Romney has his own problem with independents. Namely, that his track record is buying companies via LBOs and laying people off. Not sure that'll play well in a climate of 8+% unemployment.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2011, 07:33 AM
The republicans don't have a Ronald Reagan.

Speaking historically there is not much comparison between Jimmy Carter --who allowed himself to be literally consumed by the hostage crisis and who faced a strong challenge for the nomination within his own party -- and Obama.

They both presided over a weak economy, but so did Ronald Regan during his first term.

FYP

BucEyedPea
05-25-2011, 07:34 AM
For the republicans to win the White House they need each of the following to happen:

1, They need to run someone that is insulated from the extreme positions of the tea party. Otherwise, the negatives will start driving independent voters away. Romney or Pawlenty would work.
2. They need to avoid a serious 3rd party run from the right.
3. They for the economy to take another dip.
Didn't you claim to be a conservative at one time? Or was it tip-tap that thought you were one?

BucEyedPea
05-25-2011, 07:36 AM
Sorry Paul has effectively no shot of ever winning a national election. He'd be the ideal opponent for Obama because he'd lose most matchups. He might be one of the few candidates that would lose to Obama even with a bad economy.

Seems like polls of actual voting public show he has a better chance in a national election because of the Independents. He's also better known now than he was in 2008.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2011, 07:39 AM
No, I don't see Barry losing the election. It would take a black swan event to dislodge him at this point.

Especially after that dressing-down by Nibi, in public no less, in front of the world. The blacks won't forget this either even if he loses the Jewish vote, who overwhelmingly donate to the Democrats but who are a much smaller voting block compared to the blacks.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 07:41 AM
To normal people that don't follow politics (about 95% of the country), Obama DID fall out of the sky.

That was a large reason why he did so well. He appeared hip and cool, and brought a fresh look. It didn't hurt him that the Pubs fucked up things pretty bad.

He announced his candidacy for POTUS 21 months before the election so I wouldn't call that falling out of the sky. That is much earlier than anyone on the Republican side has done.

Pedro
05-25-2011, 07:44 AM
No they won't be stupid to elect a liberal again. As for him being a Mormon that is NO factor for me at all.
So instead of nominating an electable candidate, the Republicans went with McCain/Palin. How did that work out for the Republicans?

BucEyedPea
05-25-2011, 07:45 AM
He announced his candidacy for POTUS 21 months before the election so I wouldn't call that falling out of the sky. That is much earlier than anyone on the Republican side has done.

That just moves the date for when he fell out of the sky earlier. I had hardly heard of him. It was a D that mentioned him on a BB in 2004 to me who was enthralled with him. So he fell out of the sky for me then...which was forgotten until he announced.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2011, 07:48 AM
So instead of nominating an electable candidate, the Republicans went with McCain/Palin. How did that work out for the Republicans?

In other words, it's more important to have an "electable" candidate because he has an R at the end of his name, eventhough there really is no real difference between the two candidates?

Why even vote?

Really, I am convinced that the right becomes more delusional over time. I don't want another Bush. I will only go for one party rule again, if it's a radical pro-Constitution guy because there will never be a restoration of America. That includes FP more than ever. I mean look at the comments in this thread. A Constitutionalist candidate is labled "extreme."

Donger
05-25-2011, 07:48 AM
Yes, Pawlenty.

Amnorix
05-25-2011, 07:51 AM
Romney has his own problem with independents. Namely, that his track record is buying companies via LBOs and laying people off. Not sure that'll play well in a climate of 8+% unemployment.

I think he's more like to win more votes than he will lose with a "I'm a businessman, not a career politician" approach, layoffs or not.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 07:52 AM
As I said previously in this thread it isn't the lack of candidates that will harm the Republican party. It is the makeup of the party itself.

I think it is pretty telling that as bad as I hear Obama and the democrats have done from everyone the GOP can't get their shit together to put up something stronger. It is so bad guys like you are sitting around hoping the for political version of your team drafting Tom Brady in the 7th round.

I agree with you Zach on the makeup of the party. There was a story out yesterday how the Tea Party is going to do everything they can to stop Romney from winning the nomination.

And if Romney (or someone they don't approve of) does some how win the nomination I can see them putting a candidate of their own and make it a 3-way race. That is really what cost the Republicans in the election yesterday in NY along with their medicare stance.

notorious
05-25-2011, 07:52 AM
As I said previously in this thread it isn't the lack of candidates that will harm the Republican party. It is the makeup of the party itself.

I think it is pretty telling that as bad as I hear Obama and the democrats have done from everyone the GOP can't get their shit together to put up something stronger. It is so bad guys like you are sitting around hoping the for political version of your team drafting Tom Brady in the 7th round.

My team?

Fuck. :facepalm:

I agree with everything but that fucking moronic statement.

I honestly think that the Republicans have screwed themselves by not sticking to who they should be the last 15-20 years. A majority of the Pub politicians are a falsehood and I am embarrased to be thought of them being on "my team".


Get your shit straight before you fire off thinking that I am just another hardcore Republican supporter that posts blindly in DC.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 07:54 AM
FreedomWorks' Goal: Stop Mitt Romney In 2012

WASHINGTON – A top goal of the nation’s most influential national Tea Party group is to stop Mitt Romney from winning the Republican nomination for president.

Interviews with top officials at FreedomWorks, a Washington-based organizing hub for Tea Party activists around the country, revealed that much of their thinking about the 2012 election revolves around derailing the former Massachusetts governor.

“Romney has a record and we don’t really like it that much,” said Adam Brandon, the group’s communications director.

FreedomWorks is led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) and Matt Kibbe, an economist and former Capitol Hill aide. More than 30 employees, as well as a fresh class of several interns, work out of spacious seventh floor offices near the U.S. Capitol. The group knows they cannot impose their will on the fiercely independent conservative organizers fueling the Tea Party. But they say the activist base is just as anti-Romney as they are.

Kibbe said in an interview that FreedomWorks has no plans at the moment to endorse an opponent of Romney’s in the primary. But others in the organization made clear they will devote considerable resources toward helping whoever emerges as the most viable Republican in the primary other than the putative front runner.

Brendan Steinhauser, who travels around the country meeting with activists as FreedomWorks’ top liaison to the grassroots, said most people he talks to are “definitely trying to stop Romney.”

“I don’t think I’ve met any groups or any local activists that like him or want him to be president,” Steinhauser said. “They just don’t believe he’s authentic. That’s the biggest problem in addition to the health care thing.”

notorious
05-25-2011, 07:55 AM
He announced his candidacy for POTUS 21 months before the election so I wouldn't call that falling out of the sky. That is much earlier than anyone on the Republican side has done.

Majority of the US didn't know him very well at all.

Pedro
05-25-2011, 07:55 AM
In other words, it's more important to have an "electable" candidate because he has an R at the end of his name, eventhough there really is no real difference between the two candidates?

Why even vote?

Really, I am convinced that the right becomes more delusional over time. I don't want another Bush. I will only go for one party rule again, if it's a radical pro-Constitution guy because there will never be a restoration of America. That includes FP more than ever. I mean look at the comments in this thread. A Constitutionalist candidate is labled "extreme."
If you think there is no real difference between Obama and Romney, then you are delusional.

mlyonsd
05-25-2011, 07:58 AM
He announced his candidacy for POTUS 21 months before the election so I wouldn't call that falling out of the sky. That is much earlier than anyone on the Republican side has done.That's about the time he quit his Senate job to run isn't it?

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 08:04 AM
Majority of the US didn't know him very well at all.

With the exception of Newt and Romney every Republican candidate falls into that category too then

notorious
05-25-2011, 08:06 AM
With the exception of Newt and Romney every Republican candidate falls into that category too then

Exactly.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 08:07 AM
That's about the time he quit his Senate job to run isn't it?

Yep :D

BTW Palin is releasing a movie about herself that cost over $1 million dollars in Iowa. I am starting to get real real thirsty. :)

After the 2010 elections, Sarah Palin reached out to a conservative filmmaker to make a film about her “extolling” her governorship and lay “to rest lingering questions about her controversial decision to resign from office,” RealClearPolitics’ Conroy (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) reports. “The result is a two-hour-long, sweeping epic, a rough cut of which Bannon screened privately for Sarah and Todd Palin last Wednesday in Arizona, where Alaska's most famous couple has been rumored to have purchased a new home. When it premieres in Iowa next month, the film is poised to serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin's prospective presidential campaign -- an unconventional reintroduction to the nation that she and her political team have spent months eagerly anticipating, even as Beltway Republicans have largely concluded that she won't run.”

mlyonsd
05-25-2011, 08:10 AM
Yep :D

BTW Palin is releasing a movie about herself that cost over $1 million dollars in Iowa. I am starting to get real real thirsty. :)

Have you got posters of her hanging in your bedroom? She seems to have you in a spell or something. :p

I'm not worried.

Pedro
05-25-2011, 08:19 AM
After the 2010 elections, Sarah Palin reached out to a conservative filmmaker to make a film about her “extolling” her governorship and lay “to rest lingering questions about her controversial decision to resign from office,” RealClearPolitics’ Conroy reports. “The result is a two-hour-long, sweeping epic, a rough cut of which Bannon screened privately for Sarah and Todd Palin last Wednesday in Arizona, where Alaska's most famous couple has been rumored to have purchased a new home. When it premieres in Iowa next month, the film is poised to serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin's prospective presidential campaign -- an unconventional reintroduction to the nation that she and her political team have spent months eagerly anticipating, even as Beltway Republicans have largely concluded that she won't run.”


That would have to be one hell of a movie to convince anyone that she could stand up to the pressures of being President when she couldn't as Governor of Alaska.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 08:38 AM
A declared candiate for POTUS. He had been for months at this point.

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/DM21007BO.jpg

He was a long shot candidate 6 months before the primaries started. He was the Tom Miller (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Miller/) of the democratic field in terms of qualifications and he was the Rick Santorum (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Santorum/) in terms of name recognition.

No one considered him to be a force to be reckoned with. The big guns were Hillary, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and maybe Chris Dodd.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 08:43 AM
Romney has his own problem with independents. Namely, that his track record is buying companies via LBOs and laying people off. Not sure that'll play well in a climate of 8+% unemployment.

Haha. But a President who presided over the worst 4 year period of unemployment in decades is a cinch to get re-elected, right?

patteeu
05-25-2011, 08:51 AM
My team?

****. :facepalm:

I agree with everything but that ****ing moronic statement.

I honestly think that the Republicans have screwed themselves by not sticking to who they should be the last 15-20 years. A majority of the Pub politicians are a falsehood and I am embarrased to be thought of them being on "my team".


Get your shit straight before you fire off thinking that I am just another hardcore Republican supporter that posts blindly in DC.

I've got to believe you're in your 30s or younger if you think the Republicans of the last 15-20 years haven't been sticking to who they should be as if the party has ever been seriously conservative during any of our lifetimes. Ronald Reagan was an anomaly. A pleasant anomaly who generated a much stronger streak of conservatism (just as Barry Goldwater had generated the smaller streak of which Reagan was a part) within the party, but it's always been filled with moderates who, at best, gave lip service to the conservative ideas of small government and individual liberty.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your comment to mean something other than what you intended. It's just that I've heard lots of people express nostalgia for a conservative GOP that never really existed. It can't exist as long as candidates require the support of moderate voters (who insist on many aspects of big government) to get elected.

Taco John
05-25-2011, 08:55 AM
For the republicans to win the White House they need each of the following to happen:

1, They need to run someone that is insulated from the extreme positions of the tea party. Otherwise, the negatives will start driving independent voters away. Romney or Pawlenty would work.
2. They need to avoid a serious 3rd party run from the right.
3. They for the economy to take another dip.

You think a Republican can win without the support of the tea party? I can't believe you're thinking very deeply about this with a take like that.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 08:58 AM
You think a Republican can win without the support of the tea party? I can't believe you're thinking very deeply about this with a take like that.

I think cdcox addresses that with his 2nd point. If the nominee alienates the tea party enough to generate a conservative 3rd party candidate in the general election, he or she is toast. If he or she doesn't, it's reasonable to assume, IMO, that he or she will get the lion's share of votes from tea partiers.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 09:07 AM
He was a long shot candidate 6 months before the primaries started. He was the Tom Miller (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Miller/) of the democratic field in terms of qualifications and he was the Rick Santorum (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Santorum/) in terms of name recognition.

No one considered him to be a force to be reckoned with. The big guns were Hillary, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and maybe Chris Dodd.

You are wrong. The first three months in 2007 he raised $20 million dollars which matched Hillary. He was always in the Top 3 and the first primary was January 2008 he announced in February 2007.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 09:08 AM
Have you got posters of her hanging in your bedroom? She seems to have you in a spell or something. :p

I'm not worried.

Honestly I had forgotten all about Palin until I read that this morning. I had pretty much resigned to losing our bet. :harumph:

BucEyedPea
05-25-2011, 09:09 AM
If you think there is no real difference between Obama and Romney, then you are delusional.

Nope.

Not if you note the word "real". Romney is from Marxist Mass and I put up a post in the last election of his many liberal policies, and raising taxes by converting them into fees instead. I am from Mass and my mother liked socialism. She LOVED Romney and never voted for a R ever before in her life.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

RNR
05-25-2011, 09:29 AM
I don't, but it's still early. I think Mitt would have the best chance, but doubt he'll survive Republican primaries.

Well he has experience in health care and he believes he will become a god in the afterlife :rolleyes: If this clown is the best the right has to offer Barry wins and it won't be close~

Cave Johnson
05-25-2011, 09:44 AM
I think he's more like to win more votes than he will lose with a "I'm a businessman, not a career politician" approach, layoffs or not.

Obama will have plenty of capital to paint Romney in that light, and the fact that he looks the part certainly can't help.

Haha. But a President who presided over the worst 4 year period of unemployment in decades is a cinch to get re-elected, right?

I'm not going to convince you of this, but the trajectory of the economy (i.e., improvement, or lack thereof) will be more important to voters than past job losses.

FishingRod
05-25-2011, 09:45 AM
If the economy doesn’t turn around Dan Quayle might be able to beat him. Ask Bush Sr.

orange
05-25-2011, 09:58 AM
Haha. But a President who presided over the worst 4 year period of unemployment in decades is a cinch to get re-elected, right?

1936 1940

Cave Johnson
05-25-2011, 10:02 AM
Yep :D

BTW Palin is releasing a movie about herself that cost over $1 million dollars in Iowa. I am starting to get real real thirsty. :)

And buying/bought a house in AZ.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 10:09 AM
1936 1940

You can also point to this little known nugget

Just once since 1896 has a sitting president lost his re-election after taking over from the opposite party four years earlier: Carter in 1980.

Cave Johnson
05-25-2011, 10:20 AM
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/06/james-wolcott-republicans2012-201106

mlyonsd
05-25-2011, 10:24 AM
And buying/bought a house in AZ.

She's got a thing for McCain.

tooge
05-25-2011, 10:30 AM
I could defeat him fairly easily by simply telling the truth, but I'm not running

Cave Johnson
05-25-2011, 10:32 AM
She's got a thing for McCain.

He does seem to pull young, attractive chicks.

vailpass
05-25-2011, 10:33 AM
Let's hope whoever runs agains obama knows enough not to make a toast in front of the Queen of Engalnd while they are playing "God Save the Queen".

Cave Johnson
05-25-2011, 10:40 AM
Per the National Review. After all that certainty that the President was Carter reincarnated, I'd be as disappointed as y'all are too.

"With Governor Daniels deciding over the weekend not to run, it is slowly dawning on the Republican mind that the party’s choice may effectively come down to Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty. This prospect produces a range of emotions running from disappointment to panic."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267935/republican-field-it-rich-lowry

ClevelandBronco
05-25-2011, 10:48 AM
...raising taxes by converting them into fees instead...

Yes. It's insane to think that people should pay for the services that they choose to use. Just crazy.

ROYC75
05-25-2011, 11:14 AM
Whoever runs on the GOP will have plenty of arrows to lodge Obama's way. Obo better do lots of homework on finding arrows to fling back. He's so afraid of theis election, he's digging up dirt on people who are not running for the presidency.

This will be one ugly general election.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 11:22 AM
1936 1940

in decades

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 11:25 AM
Whoever runs on the GOP will have plenty of arrows to lodge Obama's way. Obo better do lots of homework on finding arrows to fling back. He's so afraid of theis election, he's digging up dirt on people who are not running for the presidency.

This will be one ugly general election.

That won't be hard. Whoever the Republicans nominate will have had to run to the hard right to win which will give plenty of ammo to use. Plus all of the major Republican candidates have large anal warts.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 11:32 AM
That won't be hard. Whoever the Republicans nominate will have had to run to the hard right to win which will give plenty of ammo to use. Plus all of the major Republican candidates have large anal warts.

I don't think so. Most of the Republican primaries are going to award delegates proportionally this time around so it won't be winner take all.* That gives people like Romney, who has an established, nationwide network a huge advantage. He'll be competitive in almost all states, even if he avoids taking some of the right wing stands that are unpopular outside of the conservative, tea party wing of the GOP. He has to appeal to conservatives, but he doesn't have to take any pledges to transition to the gold standard or pursue a constitutional amendment on abortion, or eliminate Medicare, for example.

_____________
* BTW, this will make it appear that Ron Paul does better this time around, but he still has no shot. I don't know if that will be enough to appease the Paulians or if they'll take their dolls and go play in a 3rd party candidate's dollhouse, but they'll surely crow about it either way.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 11:51 AM
I don't think so. Most of the Republican primaries are going to award delegates proportionally this time around so it won't be winner take all.* That gives people like Romney, who has an established, nationwide network a huge advantage. He'll be competitive in almost all states, even if he avoids taking some of the right wing stands that are unpopular outside of the conservative, tea party wing of the GOP. He has to appeal to conservatives, but he doesn't have to take any pledges to transition to the gold standard or pursue a constitutional amendment on abortion, or eliminate Medicare, for example.

_____________
* BTW, this will make it appear that Ron Paul does better this time around, but he still has no shot. I don't know if that will be enough to appease the Paulians or if they'll take their dolls and go play in a 3rd party candidate's dollhouse, but they'll surely crow about it either way.

Possibly but then if that happens you can expect a 3rd party run from the Tea Party.

|Zach|
05-25-2011, 12:15 PM
Whoever runs on the GOP will have plenty of arrows to lodge Obama's way. Obo better do lots of homework on finding arrows to fling back. He's so afraid of theis election, he's digging up dirt on people who are not running for the presidency.

This will be one ugly general election.

Obama doesn't have to do all that much. The right is doing a fine job with the arrows on their own candidates.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 02:02 PM
Possibly but then if that happens you can expect a 3rd party run from the Tea Party.

I don't know why you're so confident of that. Sounds like wishful thinking to me. It all depends on how well the candidate walks the line. Unlike you and Zach, apparently, I think there is a region between the hardcore tea party right and the incremental reform moderates where substantial portions of both factions can co-exist. No one wins if the right backs a 3rd party. Even Ron Paul recognized that last time, even if some of his most zealous backers didn't.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 02:04 PM
Obama doesn't have to do all that much. The right is doing a fine job with the arrows on their own candidates.

Meanwhile, Obama's already shot himself in both feet and he's working on his knees.

|Zach|
05-25-2011, 02:15 PM
Meanwhile, Obama's already shot himself in both feet and he's working on his knees.

Well have fun painting him as that vulnerable. It will make it that much more hilarious when he gets another 4.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 02:21 PM
Well have fun painting him as that vulnerable. It will make it that much more hilarious when he gets another 4.

He's definitely vulnerable. But loads of money and committed support from the largest group of people who vote on the basis of race can overcome a lot of incompetence so I'm not saying that the GOP has it in the bag.

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 02:30 PM
Haha. But a President who presided over the worst 4 year period of unemployment in decades is a cinch to get re-elected, right?

Bush cannot run again... he's served the maximum allowed. Republis will have to run somebody new.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4bb614577f8b9a1667ae0100/chart-020510-update.gif

RNR
05-25-2011, 02:31 PM
I don't think so. Most of the Republican primaries are going to award delegates proportionally this time around so it won't be winner take all.* That gives people like Romney, who has an established, nationwide network a huge advantage. He'll be competitive in almost all states, even if he avoids taking some of the right wing stands that are unpopular outside of the conservative, tea party wing of the GOP. He has to appeal to conservatives, but he doesn't have to take any pledges to transition to the gold standard or pursue a constitutional amendment on abortion, or eliminate Medicare, for example.

_____________
* BTW, this will make it appear that Ron Paul does better this time around, but he still has no shot. I don't know if that will be enough to appease the Paulians or if they'll take their dolls and go play in a 3rd party candidate's dollhouse, but they'll surely crow about it either way.

Romney has zero chance. Obama should be ripe for the taking, but this clown cannot do it. He has a better shot at the factious 3rd level and God status he prays for. This bastardized tea party movement is going to bite the right in the ass. Barry has totally shit the bed and the fact there is even a doubt much less serious doubt he will lose shows what a cluster**** the right is.

Disappointing and unbelievable how they are screwing up a golden chance to swoop into power. I would hope they can launch a candidate to make a run. If that is the move this is a great slow play. That or the leopard simply cannot change it's spots~

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 02:33 PM
I don't know why you're so confident of that. Sounds like wishful thinking to me. It all depends on how well the candidate walks the line. Unlike you and Zach, apparently, I think there is a region between the hardcore tea party right and the incremental reform moderates where substantial portions of both factions can co-exist. No one wins if the right backs a 3rd party. Even Ron Paul recognized that last time, even if some of his most zealous backers didn't.

A 3rd party run really depends on who gets the nomination. For example if Romney wins I would almost guarantee a 3rd party candidate put up by the Tea Party.

And you are right the Republicans won't win if the hard right backs a 3rd party we saw that last night and in the 2010 mid terms. But the Tea Party doesn't care they are tired of RINO's.

RNR
05-25-2011, 02:36 PM
A 3rd party run really depends on who gets the nomination. For example if Romney wins I would almost guarantee a 3rd party candidate put up by the Tea Party.

Their slogan will be "We are shooting for 2nd place" cause in that situation Barry gets 4 more~

patteeu
05-25-2011, 02:37 PM
Romney has zero chance. Obama should be ripe for the taking, but this clown cannot do it. He has a better shot at the factious 3rd level and God status he prays for. This bastardized tea party movement is going to bite the right in the ass. Barry has totally shit the bed and the fact there is even a doubt much less serious doubt he will lose shows what a cluster**** the right is.

Disappointing and unbelievable how they are screwing up a golden chance to swoop into power. I would hope the can launch a candidate to make a run. If that is the move this is a great slow play. That or the leopard simply cannot change it's spots~

I remember some people around here saying that a black man had zero chance of winning the Presidency back in 2008. I don't think you're any more right about Romney than those people were about Obama.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 02:39 PM
Their slogan will be "We are shooting for 2nd place" cause in that situation Barry gets 4 more~

Sounds good to me ;)

RNR
05-25-2011, 02:41 PM
I remember some people around here saying that a black man had zero chance of winning the Presidency back in 2008. I don't think you're any more right about Romney than those people were about Obama.

I would gamble on it and give you odds. He was the anti Bush and faced a weak wishy washy McCain and a former pinup girl. Alfred E. Newman could have been elected in that situation~

RNR
05-25-2011, 02:42 PM
Sounds good to me ;)

4321 ;)

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 02:45 PM
I would gamble on it and give you odds. He was the anti Bush and faced a weak wishy washy McCain and a former pinup girl. Alfred E. Newman could have been elected in that situation~

The problem with Romney is he is not a genuine person and is as fake as they come. He doesn't have any core beliefs because he has flip flopped on all of them.

patteeu
05-25-2011, 02:48 PM
A 3rd party run really depends on who gets the nomination. For example if Romney wins I would almost guarantee a 3rd party candidate put up by the Tea Party.

And you are right the Republicans won't win if the hard right backs a 3rd party we saw that last night and in the 2010 mid terms. But the Tea Party doesn't care they are tired of RINO's.

I think the RINO thing is hilarious. It's as if people think the Republican party was filled with staunch conservatives at some point in the recent past. I remember when RINO meant someone who wore the Republican label but voted frequently with democrats or frequently supported democrat policies like Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney (Mitt's dad) and Richard Riordan. The way "RINO" is being thrown around these days, Ronald Reagan might qualify.

I don't think there will be a 3rd party run from the tea party right of any consequence. This might be a case of my wishful thinking, but I don't think Dick Armey would take things in that direction and he's one of the main guys behind the "stop Mitt Romney as #1 goal" movement right now.

mlyonsd
05-25-2011, 02:49 PM
The problem with Romney is he is not a genuine person and is as fake as they come. He doesn't have any core beliefs because he has flip flopped on all of them.

Is 'Romney' the British code word for Obama now? I'm so confused.

RNR
05-25-2011, 02:50 PM
The problem with Romney is he is not a genuine person and is as fake as they come. He doesn't have any core beliefs because he has flip flopped on all of them.

I have said before I would vote for the next car that drives by my house over Barry. If it comes down to those two I think I will sit it out~

patteeu
05-25-2011, 02:52 PM
Bush cannot run again... he's served the maximum allowed. Republis will have to run somebody new.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4bb614577f8b9a1667ae0100/chart-020510-update.gif

Here's the unemployment rate over the past few years. Those high values on the right side of the graph are your boy's. After a while, there's just not that many more jobs to lose:

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_112810_1306356620614.gif

RNR
05-25-2011, 02:57 PM
Here's the unemployment rate over the past few years. Those high values on the right side of the graph are your boy's. After a while, there's just not that many more jobs to lose:

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_112810_1306356620614.gif

What are the real numbers under Barry. People who took huge pay cuts just to get work and those who no longer are in the system. The number is way north of 10%~

RNR
05-25-2011, 02:57 PM
Is 'Romney' the British code word for Obama now? I'm so confused.

LMAO

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 03:03 PM
I think the RINO thing is hilarious. It's as if people think the Republican party was filled with staunch conservatives at some point in the recent past. I remember when RINO meant someone who wore the Republican label but voted frequently with democrats or frequently supported democrat policies like Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney (Mitt's dad) and Richard Riordan. The way "RINO" is being thrown around these days, Ronald Reagan might qualify.

I don't think there will be a 3rd party run from the tea party right of any consequence. This might be a case of my wishful thinking, but I don't think Dick Armey would take things in that direction and he's one of the main guys behind the "stop Mitt Romney as #1 goal" movement right now.

I agree with your RINO viewpoint. What it is doing is driving away the moderate Republicans from the party or marginalizing them.

I do think you have wishful thinking because I see them playing a huge role in who gets nominated\elected. They are not going to sit quietly and let a guy like Romney win.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 03:04 PM
I'm so confused.

That doesn't surprise me :p

patteeu
05-25-2011, 03:07 PM
I agree with your RINO viewpoint. What it is doing is driving away the moderate Republicans from the party or marginalizing them.

I do think you have wishful thinking because I see them playing a huge role in who gets nominated\elected. They are not going to sit quietly and let a guy like Romney win.

I'm a tea party conservative and I could support Romney.

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 03:17 PM
I'm a tea party conservative and I could support Romney.

You have always been a Romney supporter so that doesn't surprise me.

RNR
05-25-2011, 03:20 PM
I'm a tea party conservative and I could support Romney.

Please tell me what you like about that guy~

vailpass
05-25-2011, 03:25 PM
The problem with Romney is he is not a genuine person and is as fake as they come. He doesn't have any core beliefs because he has flip flopped on all of them.

LMAO As opposed to the current President?

mikey23545
05-25-2011, 03:29 PM
Bush cannot run again... he's served the maximum allowed. Republis will have to run somebody new.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4bb614577f8b9a1667ae0100/chart-020510-update.gif

Bet you don't wanna show that chart as jobs lost vs. Democratic control of Congress, do you?

dirk digler
05-25-2011, 03:35 PM
LMAO As opposed to the current President?

It seems you are misinformed...

No. 4: Extend child tax credits and marriage-penalty fixes
No. 16: Increase minority access to capital
No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses
No. 37: Extend the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes
No. 38: Extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)
No. 48: Close the “doughnut hole” in Medicare prescription drug plan
No. 51: Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions
No. 53: Give tax credits to those who need help to pay health premiums
No. 55: Require large employers to contribute to a national health plan
No. 56: Require children to have health insurance coverage
No. 57: Expand eligibility for Medicaid
No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
No. 63: Require health plans to disclose how much of the premium goes to patient care
No. 65: Establish an independent health institute to provide accurate and objective information
No. 69: In non-competitive markets, force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care
No. 70: Eliminate the higher subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans
No. 93: Reinstate executive order to hire an additional 100,000 federal employees with disabilities within five years.
No. 105: Increase the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health
No. 109: Fully fund the Veterans Administration
No. 113: Expand the Veterans Administration’s number of “centers of excellence” in specialty care
No. 121: Fully fund the Violence Against Women Act
No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
No. 126: Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq
No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq
No. 161: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war
No. 167: Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
No. 172: Open “America Houses” in Islamic cities around the globe
No. 182: Allocate Homeland Security funding according to risk
No. 195: Seek verifiable reductions in nuclear stockpiles
No. 196: Extend monitoring and verification provisions of the START I Treaty
No. 197: Stand down nuclear forces to be reduced under the Moscow Treaty
No. 215: Create a rapid response fund for emerging democracies
No. 222: Grant Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba
No. 225: Establish an Energy Partnership for the Americas
No. 229: Expand the Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers
No. 239: Release presidential records
No. 241: Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
No. 244: Provide affordable, high-quality child care
No. 247: Recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession
No. 259: Reduce subsidies to private student lenders and protect student borrowers
No. 269: Increase funding for national parks and forests
No. 275: Expand Pell grants for low-income students
No. 290: Push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
No. 293: Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy
No. 315: Establish ‘Promise Neighborhoods’ for areas of concentrated poverty
No. 359: Rebuild schools in New Orleans
No. 371: Fund a major expansion of AmeriCorps
No. 411: Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
No. 422: Create new financial regulations
No. 427: Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees
No. 433: Sign a “universal” health care bill
No. 435: Create new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud
No. 449: Raise fuel economy standards
No. 458: Invest in all types of alternative energy
No. 483: Invest in public transportation
No. 495: Double federal spending for research on clean fuels
No. 500: Increase funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
No. 513: Reverse restrictions on stem cell research

And one last one

Kill Bin Laden in Pakistan

orange
05-25-2011, 04:21 PM
1936 1940

in decades

Yes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif

And?

The electorate is a little more sophisticated than you think. We historically don't hold Democratic Presidents responsible for the depressions their Republican predecessors leave them.

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 04:29 PM
Those high values on the right side of the graph are your boy's. [/IMG]

True... The President is effectively digging us out of the hole that Republis dug for us. Even you will admit that the trend in the bush admin is the wrong direction, whereas the trend in the Obama admin is in the right direction. Bush had us crashing in a devastating trend, Obama is correcting that trend.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4bb614577f8b9a1667ae0100/chart-020510-update.gif

Bet you don't wanna show that chart as jobs lost vs. Democratic control of Congress, do you?

What bill was passed by Congress & ratified by the Senate in the last blip of the Bush regime that you think caused the crash? (crickets)

FD
05-25-2011, 06:14 PM
People should really stop with these charts showing job losses/unemployment broken down by party in power. They are misleading and presume that the President/Congress have a lot of influence over the performance of the economy and that is simply wrong.

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2011, 08:55 PM
I remember those days well, I had just gotten out of the military. It was pretty bleak.

More importantly than the recovery, I think a lot of Reagan's strength came from making the country feel good about itself again after two decades of chaos and turmoil.

Agreed. But the economic bump was felt earlier in some sectors. I was one.

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2011, 08:57 PM
Did anyone give him a notable chance?


That is my point.

Anyone who was really paying close attention? Yeah....we gave him a decent chance. Given the impending backlash? Yeah.

Pitt Gorilla
05-25-2011, 08:58 PM
Any Condi Rice supporters? I think she'd be an interesting option, although I highly doubt she's interested.

banyon
05-25-2011, 10:06 PM
No, I don't see Barry losing the election. It would take a black swan event to dislodge him at this point.

You seem to have perhaps gained some practical wisdom since the last election.

This is a far cry from when you "guaranteed" us that Paul would win the Republican nomination in 08'.

Rausch
05-25-2011, 10:14 PM
No, I don't see Barry losing the election. It would take a black swan event to dislodge him at this point.

"Come at me bro..."

ClevelandBronco
05-25-2011, 10:35 PM
Any Condi Rice supporters? I think she'd be an interesting option, although I highly doubt she's interested.

Do we know where she stands on much of anything?

Rausch
05-25-2011, 10:42 PM
Do we know where she stands on much of anything?

I'm pretty sure she supports the owners and not the players...

patteeu
05-25-2011, 11:06 PM
Please tell me what you like about that guy~

He's a grown up. He's a more than competent manager/executive. I'm confident he's a good person (partly because he's a mormon). He's conservative enough and his focus is on economics rather than social issues when it comes to his public responsibilities. He's also got the charisma it takes to win (unlike a guy like Steve Forbes who was the guy I liked best in 1996 and 2000).

What I don't like about him is that he's opposed to the Fair Tax. And he has to show that he can overcome the vulnerabilities that his opponents will try to exploit (e.g. health care reform and his religion).

patteeu
05-25-2011, 11:09 PM
Any Condi Rice supporters? I think she'd be an interesting option, although I highly doubt she's interested.

I'd vote for her over Obama, but I doubt that I'd support her in the primaries. I'm not impressed.

RNR
05-26-2011, 05:01 AM
He's a grown up. He's a more than competent manager/executive. I'm confident he's a good person (partly because he's a mormon). He's conservative enough and his focus is on economics rather than social issues when it comes to his public responsibilities. He's also got the charisma it takes to win (unlike a guy like Steve Forbes who was the guy I liked best in 1996 and 2000).

What I don't like about him is that he's opposed to the Fair Tax. And he has to show that he can overcome the vulnerabilities that his opponents will try to exploit (e.g. health care reform and his religion).

Wow where to start. I am sorry but his health care debacle is one reason along with the Mormon faith is reason enough for me to take a pass on this guy. I read criticism of Barry’s church all the time and agree with some of it. I do draw the line with believing you will become a God over your own planet, and black being a curse and with blessing a person can become white. I will not go into the underwear and sister wives nonsense. You can scramble to pull up their revisionist explanations if you would like but I do not want this guy near the office~

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 07:47 AM
Romney is a socialist. Therefore Romney will be a competent manager/executive of what Obama's socialism. Not that a president was ever intended to be a frickin' manager. A president is to preside not centrally plan economies. So Romney isn't even conservative enough on economics either. He's just a national socialist on economics. Actually I suspect Romney is more a neo-mercantilist/corporatist on economics.


Yes, Romeny may be able to charm the pants off NeoCons like patteeu et al. Just a euphemism for another no change candidate. Herman Cain is another corporatist who has the right soundbites.

Meanwhile, people are leaving states like Romney's Massachusetts.

patteeu
05-26-2011, 11:34 AM
Wow where to start. I am sorry but his health care debacle is one reason along with the Mormon faith is reason enough for me to take a pass on this guy. I read criticism of Barry’s church all the time and agree with some of it. I do draw the line with believing you will become a God over your own planet, and black being a curse and with blessing a person can become white. I will not go into the underwear and sister wives nonsense. You can scramble to pull up their revisionist explanations if you would like but I do not want this guy near the office~

The reason I included that mention of his religion has nothing to do with his religious beliefs and everything to do with the fact that every Mormon I've ever known has been a top notch person. I realize that there are probably some bad Mormons out there, but because of my experiences I associate characteristics like "hard-working", "over-achieving", "generous", "friendly", "dependable", "thoughtful" and "trust-worthy" with the people of that faith. Mitt Romney hasn't done anything to dissuade me from assuming he fits that stereotype.

I think your reasons for taking his religion as a negative are rubbish at best and ignorant bigotry at worst. I don't see any good reason to find fault in his church's teachings on the afterlife when they're no more crazy and no more unfounded than the afterlife beliefs (and many of the other beliefs) of most Christians. How do you feel about the belief that a guy walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead? Please.

BTW, most of the criticism of Obama's church wasn't about the religion. It was about the racial and anti-American politics.

RNR
05-26-2011, 11:57 AM
The reason I included that mention of his religion has nothing to do with his religious beliefs and everything to do with the fact that every Mormon I've ever known has been a top notch person. I realize that there are probably some bad Mormons out there, but because of my experiences I associate characteristics like "hard-working", "over-achieving", "generous", "friendly", "dependable", "thoughtful" and "trust-worthy" with the people of that faith. Mitt Romney hasn't done anything to dissuade me from assuming he fits that stereotype.

I think your reasons for taking his religion as a negative are rubbish at best and ignorant bigotry at worst. I don't see any good reason to find fault in his church's teachings on the afterlife when they're no more crazy and no more unfounded than the afterlife beliefs (and many of the other beliefs) of most Christians. How do you feel about the belief that a guy walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead? Please.

BTW, most of the criticism of Obama's church wasn't about the religion. It was about the racial and anti-American politics.

And I believe the Mormon religion is rubbish. I am agnostic. I do think a person who wishes to take the highest office needs to be looked at as far as beliefs and actions. I believe in his right to have that faith and my right to call him out on it~

patteeu
05-26-2011, 12:01 PM
And I believe the Mormon religion is rubbish. I am agnostic. I do think a person who wishes to take the highest office needs to be looked at as far as beliefs and actions. I believe in his right to have that faith and my right to call him out on it~

I believe in both of those rights too. I just find it non-agnostic of you to hold mainstream Christian beliefs in what appears to be higher regard than Mormon beliefs when both are equally supernatural. And I don't believe you really understand Mormon beliefs because they don't believe that black people are cursed.

RNR
05-26-2011, 12:20 PM
I believe in both of those rights too. I just find it non-agnostic of you to hold mainstream Christian beliefs in what appears to be higher regard than Mormon beliefs when both are equally supernatural. And I don't believe you really understand Mormon beliefs because they don't believe that black people are cursed.

The Mormon Church taught for years that the reason blacks were black and inferior was because in the pre-Earth life, there was a war in Heaven, and they were less valiant than the whites. So God cursed them with a black skin. Also, the Book of Mormon teaches the reason why the Indians have darker skin was because of a curse for being unrighteous

vailpass
05-26-2011, 12:22 PM
LMAO

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ggy62PrEiuk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
05-26-2011, 12:29 PM
The Mormon Church taught for years that the reason blacks were black and inferior was because in the pre-Earth life, there was a war in Heaven, and they were less valiant than the whites. So God cursed them with a black skin. Also, the Book of Mormon teaches the reason why the Indians have darker skin was because of a curse for being unrighteous

America used to allow slavery by law too. We don't now. Are you really going to hold historical positions of his church against a guy who has never given us any reason to think he's racist?

RNR
05-26-2011, 12:34 PM
America used to allow slavery by law too. We don't now. Are you really going to hold historical positions of his church against a guy who has never given us any reason to think he's racist?

That racism is in the scriptures he holds as holy, so yes I am~

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 01:00 PM
That racism is in the scriptures he holds as holy, so yes I am~

Mormons also believe in polygamy but mainstream Mormons don't practice it anymore.

patteeu
05-26-2011, 01:01 PM
That racism is in the scriptures he holds as holy, so yes I am~

Do you hold Christians to the same literal standards when it comes to the Bible?

patteeu
05-26-2011, 01:02 PM
Mormons also believe in polygamy but mainstream Mormons don't practice it anymore.

Mainstream Mormons don't practice it anymore because they don't believe in polygamy. That's another historical concept that's been discarded by all but fringe groups.

RNR
05-26-2011, 01:07 PM
Do you hold Christians to the same literal standards when it comes to the Bible?
I don’t understand the question. Mormons claim to be Christians~

patteeu
05-26-2011, 01:09 PM
I don’t understand the question. Mormons claim to be Christians~

Yes, I meant other Old/New Testament Christians like Baptists, Lutherans, and Catholics. Or Jews for that matter.

Cave Johnson
05-26-2011, 01:13 PM
The Mormon Church taught for years that the reason blacks were black and inferior was because in the pre-Earth life, there was a war in Heaven, and they were less valiant than the whites. So God cursed them with a black skin. Also, the Book of Mormon teaches the reason why the Indians have darker skin was because of a curse for being unrighteous

Ditto. Only last year, according to this 1995-era site, did the Church remove headings and other emphasis on race in the Book of Mormon.

Pat can spin it all he wants to, but Mormons are way out there. Magic underwear, getting your own planet, multiple wives, etc.

http://truthandgrace.com/Racism.html

The LDS Church has made subtle — but significant — changes to chapter headings in its online version of the faith’s signature scripture, The Book of Mormon, toning down some earlier racial allusions.

The words “skin of blackness” were removed from the introductory italicized summary in 2 Nephi, Chapter 5, in describing the “curse” God put on disbelieving Lamanites.

Deeper into the volume, in Mormon, Chapter 5, the heading changes from calling Lamanites “a dark, filthy, and loathsome people” to “because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them.”

In both cases, the text itself remains unchanged.

RNR
05-26-2011, 01:20 PM
Yes, I meant other Old/New Testament Christians like Baptists, Lutherans, and Catholics. Or Jews for that matter.

Come on Pat there are close to 35 thousand different varieties of Christianity. You wish for an assessment on all of them? I addressed the one pertaining to the discussion. If you would like to further the discussion of religion I am certain there is a thread you could bump, or start a new one~

patteeu
05-26-2011, 02:13 PM
Come on Pat there are close to 35 thousand different varieties of Christianity. You wish for an assessment on all of them? I addressed the one pertaining to the discussion. If you would like to further the discussion of religion I am certain there is a thread you could bump, or start a new one~

It's not really a complicated question, but I'm pretty sure I understand why you're feigning ignorance.

RNR
05-26-2011, 02:22 PM
It's not really a complicated question, but I'm pretty sure I understand why you're feigning ignorance.

No I am not at all. If a person has faith and that faith wishes no harm or does not degrade anyone cool, file in. I would be more than glad to discuss this with you in a thread about different religions. Wrong thread I have already pointed out what pertains to this thread. If a member of Fred Phelps church runs you can bet your ass I will express my opinion~

RNR
05-26-2011, 02:30 PM
It's not really a complicated question, but I'm pretty sure I understand why you're feigning ignorance.

If for some reason you think I am ducking Christians you are wrong. I have made my feelings about the bible rather clear~

patteeu
05-26-2011, 02:46 PM
If for some reason you think I am ducking Christians you are wrong. I have made my feelings about the bible rather clear~

I usually don't spend much time in the religious threads so I have no idea where you stand. Can I assume that you're opposed to all of the announced GOP candidates because they believe in religions filled with supernatural beliefs?

RNR
05-26-2011, 03:02 PM
I usually don't spend much time in the religious threads so I have no idea where you stand. Can I assume that you're opposed to all of the announced GOP candidates because they believe in religions filled with supernatural beliefs?

I do not agree with their beliefs but as long as it is not hate based I am ok with them~

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 03:05 PM
I see through the quotes pat is making accusations about what is inside someone mind. LOL!

Ugly Duck
05-27-2011, 04:31 PM
Two heavyweights are entering the race:

...............................2012 REPUBLICAN TICKET.............................

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bachmann-crazy.jpghttp://justjudyjudyjudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/sarah-palin-crazy.jpg