Observation: Republican party intimidated by the worst President in U.S. history

[Burgold]

I never understand the "Mitch Daniels is the budget genius" theory we hear around here.

Mitch Daniels was Bush's budget director at the time of the disasterous budgets that put us in this horrible hole that we find ourselves in now. His resume in this area may look good, but his record is horrible.

It's sort of like all the people who tout Reagan as a Fiscal Conservative and as a guy who was strong against deficits.

[twa]

??

in a choice between Dems did race matter or not?...you can do away with the Rep bias by examining the primary voting.

IMO using race in factoring your vote is racist no matter your race.

example of primary voting

Obama now has such a lock on the loyalties of African Americans -- 84 percent of the black vote in Alabama, 87 percent in Georgia, 84 percent in Maryland, and on and on -- that the black vote is no longer contestable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802364.html

[addicted]

Come on, Palin should be out there, Huckabee, Bush, Delay, Condi Rice, George Allen, Trump... where are the Big time Senators and Reps? The biggest names in the Republican Party are sitting on the sidelines. Where are the guys who are always brought onto Meet the Press or the Sunday Morning Political circuit?

Do they lack ambition, a plan, or is what we've been hearing about Obama for three years just partisan bull cookies?

Come on are you for real?

Who would benifit more with the announcement of a candicy in May 2011? The Democraps of course. The Republicants are just hanging out in the wings letting 2012 get closer before announcing the latest douchbag thats gonna save all of us from ourselves.

It doesn't show weakness imo that they don't have a candidate yet, in fact that shows me quite the opposite. If they were weak they'd announce today who was running and watch as the media watch dogs rip dude to shreads over the next few months. By not announcing you are controlling how much time and dirt someone can dig up on you. Fact is those who are not going to vote for that piece of crap Obama today aren't going to vote for that piece of crap next November either. Those who are, will vote for him next 2012. What difference does the announcement this early actually make? None. I've been suspecting for a while now that the democraps would start to get unraveled with the late announcements and this post and others like it actually are proof of my suspicions. It's a shrewd move not to help your enemy and they are actually doing good for themselves while that piece of crap is across the pond soul searching for himself and losing more votes.

[Burgold]

Come on are you for real?

Who would benifit more with the announcement of a candicy in May 2011? The Democraps of course. The Republicants are just hanging out in the wings letting 2012 get closer before announcing the latest douchbag thats gonna save all of us from ourselves.

It doesn't show weakness imo that they don't have a candidate yet, in fact that shows me quite the opposite. If they were weak they'd announce today who was running and watch as the media watch dogs rip dude to shreads over the next few months. By not announcing you are controlling how much time and dirt someone can dig up on you. Fact is those who are not going to vote for that piece of crap Obama today aren't going to vote for that piece of crap next November either. Those who are, will vote for him next 2012. What difference does the announcement this early actually make? None.

So, what your saying is that it takes strength to hide in the shadows cowering instead of laying out your platform and answering questions. Only a weak candidate is willing to go out there and take on comers and face issues and their own skeletons. A strong candidate needs to shy away from dirt and the truth or hard issues because it might hurt him/her too much. Gotcha :thumbsup:

[addicted]

So, what your saying is that it takes strength to hide in the shadows cowering instead of laying out your platform and answering questions. Only a weak candidate is willing to go out there and take on comers and face issues and their own skeletons. A strong candidate needs to shy away from dirt and the truth or hard issues because it might hurt him/her too much. Gotcha :thumbsup:

Nope but name one person demanding that these candidates for the Republican party stand up and answer questions in May 2011 that doesn't have a vested interest in ensuring that the Democraps keep the oval office. Thanks for proving my point pal. They aren't stupid like you think they are, or I think they are. Why telegraph your moves to your enemy when you don't have too?

[Hersh]

Nope but name one person demanding that these candidates for the Republican party stand up and answer questions in May 2011 that doesn't have a vested interest in ensuring that the Democraps keep the oval office. Thanks for proving my point pal. They aren't stupid like you think they are, or I think they are. Why telegraph your moves to your enemy when you don't have too?

Everyone in the so-called Tea Party. Everyone who makes being pro-life their primary voting reason. Everyone that loves Paul Ryan and defends his plan to eliminate medicare. I could go on, but the point is that the litmus tests have already started.

[Burgold]

Well Gosh, I think everyone who showed up to the first Republican debate and about two-thirds of those who listened to it. More, I think you underestimate how many allies the GOP has in the media. Going further, it takes time to raise money and gather steam. If you're the guy (or the gal) and you've got an idea that really will make a difference... that's when you jump in and the snowball becomes an avalanche.

Is there a latecomer candidate you can think of who's ever won their party's nomination?

[Wrong Direction]

It's only natural that they feel protective of the President, especially when they feel he's being attacked on racial grounds or politicians are using coded language that they are sensitive to.

So is it natural for whites to vote against the black president because they feel he's being protected and supported on racial grounds, and that his supporters are using coded language that whites are sensitive to?

Funny how this stuff goes both ways. I wonder why so few acknowledge it.

[mcsluggo]

Well Gosh, I think everyone who showed up to the first Republican debate and about two-thirds of those who listened to it. More, I think you underestimate how many allies the GOP has in the media. Going further, it takes time to raise money and gather steam. If you're the guy (or the gal) and you've got an idea that really will make a difference... that's when you jump in and the snowball becomes an avalanche.

Is there a latecomer candidate you can think of who's ever won their party's nomination?

Bobby Kennedy was sure as hell GOING to.....

[Burgold]

Bobby Kennedy was sure as hell GOING to.....

[88Comrade2000]

Come on are you for real?

Who would benifit more with the announcement of a candicy in May 2011? The Democraps of course. The Republicants are just hanging out in the wings letting 2012 get closer before announcing the latest douchbag thats gonna save all of us from ourselves.

It doesn't show weakness imo that they don't have a candidate yet, in fact that shows me quite the opposite. If they were weak they'd announce today who was running and watch as the media watch dogs rip dude to shreads over the next few months. By not announcing you are controlling how much time and dirt someone can dig up on you. Fact is those who are not going to vote for that piece of crap Obama today aren't going to vote for that piece of crap next November either. Those who are, will vote for him next 2012. What difference does the announcement this early actually make? None. I've been suspecting for a while now that the democraps would start to get unraveled with the late announcements and this post and others like it actually are proof of my suspicions. It's a shrewd move not to help your enemy and they are actually doing good for themselves while that piece of crap is across the pond soul searching for himself and losing more votes.

To run a modern campaign for the nomination you will need to be able to raise money and lots of it for the early primaries. Right now the nomination race is set to start in late Jan. with Florida, though that will probably change. If a candidate is seriously considering a bid for the nomination they need to decide and get into the race no later than Labor Day. Those people in Iowa and New Hampshire love to be wooed. The moment there is a Republican nominee- that person will have plenty of attacks on him or her.

---------- Post added May-24th-2011 at 04:35 PM ----------

Bobby Kennedy was sure as hell GOING to.....

He probably would've beaten Nixon also.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I suspect that the Republican Candidate for 2012 has yet to revel there intentions, as yet.

I agree with those who say that it is a mistake to come out and announce too early. It only give the Democratic Party more time to take shots at you. If I'm thinking of running for office and I know that the large majority of media is left leaning, I'm going to give them a little time as possible to crucify me.

I think the strongest GOP Presidential Candidate might be Jeb Bush.

[PeterMP]

I suspect that the Republican Candidate for 2012 has yet to revel there intentions, as yet.

I agree with those who say that it is a mistake to come out and announce too early. It only give the Democratic Party more time to take shots at you. If I'm thinking of running for office and I know that the large majority of media is left leaning, I'm going to give them a little time as possible to crucify me.

I think the strongest GOP Presidential Candidate might be Jeb Bush.

Here's a list of people that have visited NH and Iowa.

http://www.p2012.org/chrnnewh/newhvisits12.html

http://www.p2012.org/chrniowa/iowavisits12.html

Of the people that haven't made a large number of visits, the only person that could jump in and still win is probably Bush because he'd have the name recognition and probably be able to raise money pretty easily.

People like Christy, Jindal, etc. wouldn't win. It isn't even about money, but about having an organization in place and on the ground at these initial primary locations.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Here's a list of people that have visited NH.

http://www.p2012.org/chrnnewh/newhvisits12.html

http://www.p2012.org/chrniowa/iowavisits12.html

Of the people that haven't made a large number of visits, the only person that could jump in and still win is probably Bush because he'd have the name recognition and probably be able to raise money pretty easily.

People like Christy, Jindal, etc. wouldn't win. It isn't even about money, but about having an organization in place and on the ground at these initial primary locations.

Yeah, that's kind of what I think as well. Bush would win the GOP nomination in a walkover and, he has a strong enough track record in Florida to give him something to run on. He has one of the strongest political support positions in either party and his family has enough money to make this doable. He is also married to a women of hispanic decent and he speaks the language fluently. He would also be a sure thing to bring in Florida, which you have to win if you want to be a serious contender for President.

If you teamed him with a Ryan, Christy, Perry or Palin, one of these younger GOP risers, that would be a very attractive GOP ticket.

[JMS]

Yeah, that's kind of what I think as well. Bush would win the GOP nomination in a walkover and, he has a strong enough track record in Florida to give him something to run on. He has one of the strongest political support positions in either party and his family has enough money to make this doable. He is also married to a women of hispanic decent and he speaks the language fluently. He would also be a sure thing to bring in Florida, which you have to win if you want to be a serious contender for President.

If you teamed him with a Ryan, Christy, Perry or Palin, one of these younger GOP risers, that would be a very attractive GOP ticket.

So much for Bush wasn't a real conservative talk.. It's really very funny that you think the Tea Party would embrace the brother of the man who turned a 200 billion dollar surplus into a 1.4 trillion dollar deficite; while destroying our economy in the process... I didn't say wrong, I just said funny.

[Larry]

Yeah, I can't possibly think of a way the GOP can say "We haven't changed a bit in 30 years" louder than nominating Bush, 3.0. Maybe Bush/Palin, yeah, that would really say "we've changed".

[ABQCOWBOY]

So much for Bush wasn't a real conservative talk.. It's really very funny that you think the Tea Party would embrace the brother of the man who turned a 200 billion dollar surplus into a 1.4 trillion dollar deficite; while destroying our economy in the process... I didn't say wrong, I just said funny.

Lots of people are pushing him to run. I will say that Jeb is not GW and it would be a mistake to think that he is. Besides, I don't think that the issue of deficit would be a real strong point for either party. This Administration will likely avoid that issue if possible. Never the less, it will be brought up and if you have a fiscal conservative such as somebody like a Christy or a Ryan as your running mate, you could offer a very appealing ticket to a lot of GOP voters.

---------- Post added May-25th-2011 at 02:13 PM ----------

Yeah, I can't possibly think of a way the GOP can say "We haven't changed a bit in 30 years" louder than nominating Bush, 3.0. Maybe Bush/Palin, yeah, that would really say "we've changed".

Hope and Change will likely not be the direction a GOP ticket would run on. I think that this line of thinking is more inline with how Democrats see things. I don't think the GOP is thinking that way. I think they are looking at a return to the more fiscally conservative roots type platform.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[Predicto]

Hope and Change will likely not be the direction a GOP ticket would run on. I think that this line of thinking is more inline with how Democrats see things. I don't think the GOP is thinking that way. I think they are looking at a return to the more fiscally conservative roots type platform.

So, pre-Ronald Reagan GOP eh? I like it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

So, pre-Ronald Reagan GOP eh? I like it.

To be honest Predicto, I don't really know that they will or will not get somebody as a Presidential Candidate that will live up to the stated party line. I mean, there are lots of Republicans who claim they support Fiscal Responsibility but they really don't. A lot of times, it comes down to getting elected and then re-elected. I would very much like to seem the stay firm to this promise but I can't say that they will.

I think that if we were all honest about politics and politicians in this country, we could probably all see that campaign promise and actual production are often very different. The current President is a good example of this IMO. I don't think either side expected what we've gotten from President Obama. Those on the left expected him to be much more left and those on the right expected him to be much less left. Those in the middle probably expected him to be more fiscally responsible.

I basically just looking at what the GOP might come up with and might try to run with. It's really not more then that. Once somebody gets elected, it's a whole different ball game.

[Predicto]

To be honest Predicto, I don't really know that they will or will not get somebody as a Presidential Candidate that will live up to the stated party line. I mean, there are lots of Republicans who claim they support Fiscal Responsibility but they really don't. A lot of times, it comes down to getting elected and then re-elected. I would very much like to seem the stay firm to this promise but I can't say that they will.

I think that if we were all honest about politics and politicians in this country, we could probably all see that campaign promise and actual production are often very different. The current President is a good example of this IMO. I don't think either side expected what we've gotten from President Obama. Those on the left expected him to be much more left and those on the right expected him to be much less left. Those in the middle probably expected him to be more fiscally responsible.

I basically just looking at what the GOP might come up with and might try to run with. It's really not more then that. Once somebody gets elected, it's a whole different ball game.

The thing that bugs me is how the GOP claims to be fiscally responsible, but there is absolutely ZERO evidence of it from ANY GOP politician except Tom Coburn for the past 30 years, ever since Ronald Reagan proved the axiom that it is only what you say and how you say it that matters, not what you actually do.

Bottom line - what the GOP stands for is lower taxes, at all times, especially for the investor class, no matter what it does to the fiscal situation. That is a very different thing from fiscal responsibility.

It is a principle that is appealling to a lot of people, but as a government policy, it is no more responsible than the opposite - offering more services to everyone without regard to what the services cost. They are two sides of the same irresponsible coin.

[isle-hawg]

The thing that bugs me is how the GOP claims to be fiscally responsible, but there is absolutely ZERO evidence of it from ANY GOP politician except Tom Coburn for the past 30 years, ever since Ronald Reagan proved the axiom that it is only what you say and how you say it that matters, not what you actually do.

Bottom line - what the GOP stands for is lower taxes, at all times, especially for the investor class, no matter what it does to the fiscal situation. That is a very different thing from fiscal responsibility.

It is a principle that is appealling to a lot of people, but as a government policy, it is no more responsible than the opposite - offering more services to everyone without regard to what the services cost. They are two sides of the same irresponsible coin.

So true - which is why I think anyone who aligns themselves with EITHER of these two self-serving parties as misguided to put it politely in a public forum! We have seen first hand how both parties when in complete control of govt take a balanced budget and run up historic deficits.

[Burgold]

I love the fact that a thread with such a goofy and mostly tongue-in-cheek title (and OP) has had such a long and pretty substantive life.

I agree with Predicto on the fiscal conservatancy thing. I don't remember the Republicans ever standing for fiscal conservatism in my lifetime. I do think they represent lower taxes, but they are not one in the same.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The thing that bugs me is how the GOP claims to be fiscally responsible, but there is absolutely ZERO evidence of it from ANY GOP politician except Tom Coburn for the past 30 years, ever since Ronald Reagan proved the axiom that it is only what you say and how you say it that matters, not what you actually do.

Bottom line - what the GOP stands for is lower taxes, at all times, especially for the investor class, no matter what it does to the fiscal situation. That is a very different thing from fiscal responsibility.

It is a principle that is appealling to a lot of people, but as a government policy, it is no more responsible than the opposite - offering more services to everyone without regard to what the services cost. They are two sides of the same irresponsible coin.

Both parties do this. The GOP is no more or no less guilty of doing this. I was listening to a Radio Show earlier today and there was a Democratic Congressman being interviewed. I am sorry, I did not get the name, but essentially they were talking about the difference between political victories and what is actually good for Americans. The gentleman was saying that while he believed this Administration had handled the Paul Ryan plan skillfully by basically allowing Ryan to present his plan and then using the very strict cuts proposed in that plan to score political points, it was a skillful political move but he went on to say that the politics of the thing really didn't and wouldn't help the American People. He said that he thought both parties could have taken that plan and used it as a basis to start constructive discussion on how to best deal with the problems we are all facing. He said that it's the difference between creating good legislation and playing party politics.

I thought is was interesting to listen to him speak. I have to admit that I was a little depressed in hearing his commentary but it's nothing I didn't already know and it's also not going away any time soon. It is what it is.

[Burgold]

I'm not sure the Ryan proposal was an honest proposal to begin with. It was really far out there to use as a template.