DRSmith Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 yay for Ron Paul with the distant second!BOOOOO for Mitt for Brains! Seems like a smart fellow would attract some center votes not sure what the problem is that people have with mormons though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Seems like a smart fellow would attract some center votes not sure what the problem is that people have with mormons though Hoping you arent thinking I dislike him because hes a Mormon. I cant stand his positions on most things. And I really dislike his sideburns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 Hoping you arent thinking I dislike him because hes a Mormon. I cant stand his positions on most things. And I really dislike his sideburns I was not talking about you I was just remembering the last election cycle and the letter than came out of a baptist council and what many were saying on the right wing boards at the times about him not being a real Christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Bush didn't have anything to do with the deficit. The war, provoked or not, had nothing to do with the deficit. No one was even thinking of going trillions into the red while Bush was president, that all started with the O-man. Your kidding right. Bush cut taxes and increased spending to support the two wars and Championed big government spending on social programs such as expanded drug benefits without paying for it. The bank crisis also occurred on his watch that received Billions of tax payer dollars to bail out. ---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 08:04 PM ---------- At this point, Obama has been pretty good.... I don't know how you write that when his "stimulus" bills make many forget/forgive Bush's reckless spending? He campaigned against the Bush tax cuts yet HE pushed them through the remainder of his term. He voted against raising the debt limit while a Senator now is championing raising it more. I'd say the House with Pelosi leading got much of what they deserved though. They were at times petty, obstinant, and obstructive while somehow simultaneously being cowards who bribed everyone in sight and compromised too of their bills into the ditch for the illusion of bipartisanship. Agree -- the Dems were arrogant when Obama took office, thought that the landslide victory meant the country turned liberal. Pelosi is the D equivalent to the R version's in Gingrich to middle America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 hate that guy and he would be a way bigger disaster than McCain was. Graham isnt a centrist, he's on the establishment team (and that team doesnt have an R or D distinction, they just want to keep their power) I'm quite certain that the Glenn Beck wing of the party would consider him a disaster. I consider that a good thing. I don't know what being an establishment guy has to do with being a centrist. Last I checked the two aren't mutually exclusive. He is a centrist, according to his words and his actions. Is he an establishment guy? Maybe, I guess. But excluding Ron Paul, who's a viable candidate on either side who isn't an "establishment guy"? Graham is smart, reasonable and pretty independent. That puts him ahead of 99% of the politicians, in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 It happens on the left too. Any politician who doesn't embrace every single extreme of the party is criticized by their own party, specifically by the elitisists. Both parties have their flaws, which is why no person can realistically follow either party uniformly, and why I am often wary of politicians who claim they do. Disagree. If that were so, then when the Republicans were unanimously filibustering every single proposal, then the Democrats would have been unanimously overriding them. ---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 09:36 PM ---------- I was not talking about you I was just remembering the last election cycle and the letter than came out of a baptist council and what many were saying on the right wing boards at the times about him not being a real Christian Yeah, but now you're talking about why Republicans have a problem with his religion. I recall one commentator, looking a the field for 08, observing that "the party of the sanctity of marriage" has a dozen people running for President. And the only one who's been married to only one person, for his entire life, is the one that can't possibly be elected, for "not being Christian". ---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 09:41 PM ---------- I don't know how you write that when his "stimulus" bills make many forget/forgive Bush's reckless spending? Bill. Singular. I know that the right-wing spin machine likes to pretend that Bush left office three months before Obama was elected. :secret:But it's not true. He campaigned against the Bush tax cuts yet HE pushed them through the remainder of his term. Wrong again. HE allowed the Republicans to push them through, since the Republicans were threatening to destroy the American economy if he didn't. He voted against raising the debt limit while a Senator now is championing raising it more. True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailToTheRedskins14 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 The only hope for America is Ron Paul. Consider him a Republican if you must, but I list him with only a couple others as true American politicians. Paul right now looks to be the one that can get the fascist status quo out of the White House. Obama is Bush Jr. With better speeches and a friendlier smile. They both serve the corporate dollar. That said, I have little confidence Paul would win if he did run. If Bush can get re-elected, Obama will too. Obama is on ESPN and the Tyra Banks Show. He gets higher ratings than Dancing with the Stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Imploding, not yet. The republican party is made up factions that really don't care for each other. I think the imploding occurs in 2012 when one of two things happen: 1. Tea Party gains more control of the Republican party, leading to a right wing nominee that can't win the fall. The old style republicans either find an independent candidate, vote for Obama or don't vote at all. 2. Tea Party goes third party. I think Obama wins a closer reelection unless things gets worse. 2012 actually looks good for the Repubs at the House and Senate but my gut tells me if things stay the same or get better; Dems will have somewhat of a comeback. 2012 the full voting electorate will be participating. ---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 11:25 PM ---------- Oh it isn't too late to be getting ready to run in 2012. Obama is already setting up his reelection apparatus. Even though right now there's supposed to be 4 primaries/caucus in February and everything else after March; Arizona is already planning a vote to move earlier despite any penalities. That means those early primaries may move also; so it could end up like 2008 when things kick off in early January. You want to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination; you need to be announcing by the Spring. If there's an independent thinking about it; they need to look at the landscape this fall to see if there's a mood for a third candidate and if so; probably announce in winter 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box76 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 If the 2010 elections told any of you anything its that the US is tired of the lies and deciet the D's have served. Obama doesnt stand a chance in 2012 and the reason the economy has upticked slightly is consumer confidence now that the idjits have left the building. Expect more vetting of the democratic party by the somewhat sane and now leary voter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Bill. Singular. I know that the right-wing spin machine likes to pretend that Bush left office three months before Obama was elected. WTF you talking about Larry? Bush was despised the end of his term by most and the Rs got ran out of office in 2008 due to their reckless spending. McCain was going to be more of the same. Wrong again. HE allowed the Republicans to push them through, since the Republicans were threatening to destroy the American economy if he didn't. No YOU are wrong sir - he could of just let the Bush tax cuts expire for all and revert back to the tax rates of the Clinton admin (when we had a budget surplus and doing the evil of paying down the debt instead of adding to it). Was Clinton destroying the economy IYO with these tax rates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 [quote name=Larry;8122526 Yeah' date=' but now you're talking about why Republicans have a problem with his religion. I recall one commentator, looking a the field for 08, observing that "the party of the sanctity of marriage" has a dozen people running for President. And the only one who's been married to only one person, for his entire life, is the one that can't possibly be elected, for "not being Christian". I found it funny more than a year out on one right wing board they were blaming the liberal media for Romney not getting the nod since they did a story on could a Mormon get the nod. Completely ignoring the fact the media was reporting on a letter and comments by various evangilical leaders at time when the primaries were going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I recall one commentator, looking a the field for 08, observing that "the party of the sanctity of marriage" has a dozen people running for President. And the only one who's been married to only one person, for his entire life, is the one that can't possibly be elected, for "not being Christian". . Huck and Paul have remarried?...by my count 3 of the top 4 have been and stayed married Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Let's see how the debt ceiling debate goes. Will the GOP force a government shut-down? The tea-party folks may start to get frustrated at what happens, "why aren't we cutting 50% of the budget!". I think Michelle Bachmann delivering a tea-party response is a shrewd move by her. I think she's shrill and has a grating personality. But I think she is genuinely supporting of tea-party policies and someone tea-party folks have learned to trust (as is DeMint). I'd watch for a rift in rhetoric between the tea-party and GOP; but mostly the tea-party folks sometimes appear to be window-dressing of words and haven't attacked their leadership as much as I'd like to see. Were I a tea-party voter, there is plenty to be suspicious of the GOP over. In fact the House GOP would look better in my eyes if they didn't keep Bohener's power-structure intact. The Boehner-Blunt-Cantor-Drier wing of the GOP annoys me to no end. They are yes-men for business. I honestly think I like I like Maxine Waters better than all of the GOP House leadership (except Hensarling). She's not shy about the position she is advocating and why she is advocating them. The GOP was dishonest with the level of cuts they can potentially deliver and I don't like the way they are framing the Democratic agenda as "Obama's socialistic agenda". Of course that tactic worked for the D's against Bush for a couple of election cycles... politics frustrates me because I don't see anyone I like. Traits I want to see in politician (in order of importance): 1) Honesty, transparency, and truthfulness so that I can have even a good-faith trust that they are doing what they are doing to help the country. 2) Vision. I want to see a person who has a vision beyond "I want what the GOP wants, I want what the Democrats want". 3) Intelligent, smart, saavy - I want to see people operate out of competence in a way that demonstrates they know what they are doing and can accomplish their promises. 4) Courage. I can't think of one Congressman or one Senator who encompasses this. I would like to see a Ross Perot-type of person aim not for the Presidency or even a Senate seat; but have the vision to say "I'm going to get a House seat, and in 4 years recruit 3-4 colleagues for my caucus and in 10-12 years have a 20 member caucus." In times like this when the GOP has a large House majority, a 20 member caucus might seem like much; but would be a powerful force if the two main parties are more narrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailToTheRedskins14 Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Traits I want to see in politician (in order of importance): 1) Honesty, transparency, and truthfulness so that I can have even a good-faith trust that they are doing what they are doing to help the country. 2) Vision. I want to see a person who has a vision beyond "I want what the GOP wants, I want what the Democrats want". 3) Intelligent, smart, saavy - I want to see people operate out of competence in a way that demonstrates they know what they are doing and can accomplish their promises. 4) Courage. I can't think of one Congressman or one Senator who encompasses this[\quote] 1. Ron Paul has the cleanest, most consistent voting record probably in the history of American politics. He is transparent. Listed as a Republican, he was against the wars, against the Patriot Act and against any policy that infringes in civil liberties. He also repeatedly calls for the end of occupations on foreign land if the country doesn't want us there. 2. He is much beyond the rest of the Republicans in that he is not scared to speak out and against his party. His vision I would guess is one of a Libertarian America. 3. The guy is clearly smart and I somewhat group him with guys like Ross Perot. Paul and Ralph Nader just the other day announces of Conservative/Progressive alliance to tackle the important issues that both sides can agree on. I'm unable to get a link at the moment, but there's a YouTube video of them making a lot of sense. 4. He has the courage to call out the Federal Reserve, request an audit of the Fed, and lead a committee to look into the Fed. No one else even bothers because its too much of a hassle. He also drives himself everywhere and doesn't use the taxpayer's money to get around. He clearly separates himself from the rest of the politicians in this country. Warning, I'm a Ron Paul homer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Traits I want to see in politician (in order of importance): 1) Honesty, transparency, and truthfulness so that I can have even a good-faith trust that they are doing what they are doing to help the country. 2) Vision. I want to see a person who has a vision beyond "I want what the GOP wants, I want what the Democrats want". 3) Intelligent, smart, saavy - I want to see people operate out of competence in a way that demonstrates they know what they are doing and can accomplish their promises. 4) Courage. I like this list, but the Obama Presidency has also shown me the importance of leadership. I think this has been Obama's biggest failure. He's not a natural general. He doesn't know how to take Congress by the throat and get things done and get them (his own party) to stop behaving like petty, squabbling, ball-less brats. I'd argue that compared to most politicians that Obama is honest, has a solid vision, is certainly intelligent, smart and savvy, and even is courageous (he's not afraid to go after big changes, for example), but despite that I think he's not a great President. I think the reason for that is his "leadership" skills or rather his leadership style requires a level of professionalism and maturity and duty from his peers that he just ain't getting. Every so often, a President needs to be a General, a Dictator, and a ****. I think Obama is weaker then he should be in becoming those three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It just seems strange of late, you have no one who wants to clearly announce if they are running. You have fights now over CPAC and their inviting gay Republicans to the even and the social cons saying they will boycott. Paul Ryan has been tabbed to give the oppistion respone to the presidents state of union address and Michelle Bachman is saying she will give her own response. This is like watching the Dem infighting during health care when they would not all get on the same page and this it seemed cost them at election time. Not even close. Weren't you one of the posters who thought the GOP wouldn't win back the House????? Just keep up the wishful thinking, maybe you will be able to use that psycosis to keep happy until the Senate and President are all GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 There's a bigger chance that the Skins win the Super Bowl next year than Obama wins the next presidential election. You either are a die-hard Redskins homer or you are the worlds worst gambler/odds maker. :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 Not even close. Weren't you one of the posters who thought the GOP wouldn't win back the House?????Just keep up the wishful thinking, maybe you will be able to use that psycosis to keep happy until the Senate and President are all GOP. No I did not think they would get the senate espicially in light of the mental light weights the tea party was pushing I guess you missed where I posted that there infighting lead to them losing. I think if the tea party keeps pushing the party more and more right and seeing as they seemed to now be dominated by the same religous right folks that hurt the party before it will be awhile before things change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Traits I want to see in politician (in order of importance): 1) Honesty, transparency, and truthfulness so that I can have even a good-faith trust that they are doing what they are doing to help the country. 2) Vision. I want to see a person who has a vision beyond "I want what the GOP wants, I want what the Democrats want". 3) Intelligent, smart, saavy - I want to see people operate out of competence in a way that demonstrates they know what they are doing and can accomplish their promises. 4) Courage. Mitt Romney is going to be the front runner for the GOP nomination. He is extremely well funded and the one weakness in his political armor, social conservatives, he's made a strength since 2008. Problem is judging by your list the only Trait Romney has on your list is intelligence. The former pro choice governor of Mass. who only became pro life when he decided to seek national office certainly doesn't seem to have "honesty" covered. Vision, again from a republican perspective; Romney championed and passed comprehensive healthcare reform on a state level which wasn't that far away from Obamacare. Courage, again tough to give him any medels for telling the social conservatives what they want to hear so he can get himself elected. I will give Romney intelligence. It's intelligent for him not to commit until the election is closer. As soon as he commits as the front runner he will have to start burning his cash, and defending his name from the media which will start to take pot shots from all sides. Who were the Republican front runners for the 2008 election in 2006? Guliani and the actor from Tenn, Fred Thompson. Obama wasn't even in the top six in 2006 on the democratic side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Too the OP. It is way to early to say that they are imploding. To those who think that an Obama re-election is a foregone conclusion, It depends greatly on what happens in the next year or so. The first two years of his presidency have not been a success by any measure. Unemployment has spiked dramatically after he was elected, the budget deficit has grown under his leadership (more on the Congress than on Obama however. But he unfairly gets blame for that) Having the Republican sweep into control of the House was the best thing that could have happened for Obama's re-election chances. But until the Republican nominee is identified, it is kinda hard to dismiss them (much like it was kinda hard to dismiss Obama when Hillary was a lock for the nomination) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 I wonder what happens if Bachman decides to run, she would get tea party/ social con support But I think she would scare the heck out of indies and moderate pubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I wonder what happens if Bachman decides to run, she would get tea party/ social con supportBut I think she would scare the heck out of indies and moderate pubs Nothing of substance. Same as if Palin runs. Won't make it anywhere near the top 3 and will probably be rendered irrelevant and forced to drop out (or waste lots of money) well before the end of the primaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 I guess some could be waiting to see if things improve that way they know if they are going to wasting their time and money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Oh he could definitely run, and he very well might from what Im hearing. The problem is that just like Paul, he'll likely never get nominated. The establishment neo-con wing wont allow it. He wouldnt even be allowed at most debates, and when he did participate, the rest would gang up and mock. I think that some of the mocking that Ron Paul gets is completely deserved. In many ways, he is an utter nutball. But we've discussed that before. I also think that if a competent governor like Gary Johnson came along, presenting the good parts of Paul's platform without the fringe parts, he could be a major force to be reckoned with, both within the GOP and with moderates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.