Predictions? Thoughts? Have at it.
137 thoughts on “Open Thread: New Hampshire”
Comments are closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Predictions? Thoughts? Have at it.
Comments are closed.
Blogs For Victory 
I’m becoming more and more concerned about the future of our country as I observe what is happening among the candidates for the presidential nomination by the Republican party. They seem to be so divided, trying to prove who is the “real” conservative among them. And this only reinforces the divisions within this country among our voters in regard to who is going to be “popular” enough to get the nomination and perhaps defeat Obama in the presidential election. Although there seems to some consensus among them and the commentators that our economy is the number one issue, I still don’t see anyone coming out with a clear and practical plan for solving this problem that will basically be good for all Americans. Some of the candidates have talked as if their plan would do that, but they do so from a position of trying to convince a portion of the voters to get them on the ballot. The election and the nomination process is too much of a “popularity contest” to really implement some of the basic changes that need to be made in how we Americans intend to operate our system of government. I’m not sure that we know how to do that any longer and many of the rules that implement a process of “power politics” that is based on “popularity” are too engrained to be changed. I don’t think that our next election is going to solve our basic problems in this divided nation.
Well said, Bob. I agree!!
Just curious, Bob. Do you see any possible way that we do solve the “basic problems in this divided nation” in a civil, non-violent way? Quite frankly, I’m losing hope that we can.
J.R.,
I think that the first thing that needs to be done is to impeach President Obama for everything that he has done against our Constitution and our way of conducting our government.
If we can’t find anyone with enough political courage and authority to take him to court before the Senate regarding this matter, it would help to have some people in some states just to raise some questions with their election boards regarding his legal rights to even be on their ballots as a “legitimate” candidate for the office of President of these “united” States.
If we are really a nation where “the rule of law” governs how we conduct our civic joint activities, then we have to apply these laws in consistent ways. And the application has to go beyond what is “popular” with the public or the party in “control” or “politically correct” for the commentators and the media. The application of our laws will require a level of mature courage and judgment that may be higher than our current level of commitment, but I think that it is our only hope. And violence is ultimately not going to solve our problems.
J.R., I think the solutions offered will be calm, rational, civil and non-violent. However, those of us who have bothered to study the history of the Left know that it will resort to violence to achieve its ends.
We have seen how the Left in this country has been so emboldened by the Administration that it has become more blatant in its use of violent tactics and its open use of union thuggery to pursue its agenda.
So we will need a whole new Justice Department to deal with this, one focused on the rule of law and not just on the skin color of the criminals.
I think it may be possible to quell overt and widespread violence, but the damage done to race relations and the resentment so callously fostered in the promotion of class warfare will take decades to heal, if it can be done at all.
We can heal the economy, we can stabilize our foreign relations, we can address the budgetary concerns, we can trim the federal government and start a return to Constitutional governance, we can protect our borders and achieve a fair and reasonable approach the problem of illegal aliens who have been here for a long time and put down roots, we can rebuild the military, but the deep and widespread damage to the heart and soul of the nation may be our most long-lasting problem.
Bob, while it would be gratifying to pursue legal action against Obama, and while it would support the rule of law we supposedly believe in as a foundation of our entire system, I think the rabidly radical Left has established a narrative in which trying to do so would do more harm than good.
At this point I think it would be a better tactic to just ignore Barry and the Boyz, and start a campaign to rebuild knowledge of and faith in our Constitutional form of government.
For example, I think that if we were to support Jindal and Rubio in an effort to legally establish their right to pursue the presidency, we could educate the nation about the insults to our rule of law, and the complicity of the Democrat Party and the media in ignoring or covering up blatant violations of its requirements, without the corollary damage of attacking Obama head-on.
Going after Obama would be the same as drawing a line in the sand, setting up a situation where people would have to take sides, and have the effect of contributing to the Left’s efforts to divide this country. I think the balance sheet of what we could accomplish vs what it would cost would be deep in the red.
But I think there would be great power in the statement “Although we hate to eliminate some of our best and brightest from the possibility of serving as President, the most important thing is the rule of law, because if we ignore this when it is convenient we start down the slippery slope to an unconstitutional form of government, and even to anarchy”.
And people could look at this and draw their own inevitable conclusion, which is of course that the Left doesn’t CARE about the rule of law and will subvert it any time it gets in the way of their goals, and that the Democrat Party and the media were parties to this effort to do an end run around the Constitution.
Amazona,
If you really believe that the action that you recommend in your statement: “For example, I think that if we were to support Jindal and Rubio in an effort to legally establish their right to pursue the presidency, we could educate the nation about the insults to our rule of law, and the complicity of the Democrat Party and the media in ignoring or covering up blatant violations of its requirements, without the corollary damage of attacking Obama head-on.”, then you apparently believe that Obama is “above” the law or too “powerful” to be subjected to it. And you seem to believe that the Democrat Party and the media are also in favor of a continued “illegal” operation of much of our government. If this is really the case, that our President and the Democratic Party and our national media are no longer in favor of operating our government in accord with “the rule of law”, then I’m afraid that we are doomed. A non-violent revolution is what we need, but that is never easy, because it requires some really mature and courageous action on the part of many citizens, and I don’t think enough of them are ready for such action.
Bob,
Yes, you are correct in saying that, “not enough of them are ready for that type of action,” at least the non-violent type of action … and the main reason for this is because too many are relying on the government, and are therefore duped into the mentality that the government will take care of them for the rest of their days. That’s sad, really, because that means we have a hard road to pave in order to cover this generation’s mistake of voting for big government liberalism. And in order to dethrone the establishment, it will take a major uprising. Which I don’t see happening. If it would have happened in 2008, we might have had a start by now, but it didn’t.
I don’t want to say “so, oh well” but what else can ya do?
This generation has been brainwashed, unlike former generations that voted right, because they weren’t brainwashed like this generation.
What can we expect? Probably more of the same, just from the way things are showing.
I think it is because that the differences between the candidates have been so great lately. We think the differences are very small when looking at the Republicans, but we only say that because we look at the economic plans and how they would deal with world issues. Obviously we cringe at Ron Paul because he is the one that stands out against our wishes on the latter.
However, in this case, the difference between the frontrunner and each of the other candidates could just as easily be a bottomless pit in their minds, and mine for that matter. If you are completely anti-abortion, like I am, you would personally in the back of your mind, feel that someone who has shown in their adult past a pro-abortion tendency is inherently evil.
If you are a conservative freedom loving capitalist, you look at the frontrunner who impletmented Romneycare and think that he is an enemy to the country…….you think it in the back of your mind, and believe it, but you don’t say it.
The differences are small everywhere else, but where it really counts, on the matters of the heart, the non-Mitts have to continue to fight to wrest the nomination from him. And since each one believes they still have a chance to be that person if only the others drop out, they are still trying to make the others drop out.
Prediction: If Huntsman gets less than 15% he drops out, if not, they all will be in it in South Carolina. Romney FTW – 30%, Ron Paul 22%, Newt Gingrich 16%, Huntsman 15%, Santorum 14%, Perry 3%.
FYI, Ron Paul’s ground game in my state, a caucus/primary state that isn’t due until March is off and running, I’ve been approached to caucus for him already by an organized camp – of course I set them straight, but still.
doug, I absolutely disagree with you when you pronounce what others might think “in the back of their minds”.
I know many people who, when the idea of legalized abortion was presented in the pseudo-fairness language of “freedom of CHOICE”, simply went along with the idea that this is a highly personal decision that should be up to the woman.
While I don’t like, or even respect, this, I also find it dramatically different from being “PRO-abortion”. If anything, it is usually a cop-out to avoid being for or against.
I also know many people who started from the position of believing in the claim of this being nothing more than a personal “choice” who started to evaluate that position, who started to see the fallacy of it, and who not only moved to the realization that it is not about this airy-fairy, supposedly fair, “choice” issue at all but is brutal murder of human beings.
Millions of women have HAD abortions, and then realized how wrong they had been.
To call these people, who have had the courage to examine their positions and realize that they were wrong, “inherently evil” is so vicious, so pompously judgmental, so profoundly bigoted and self-righteous on so many levels, I think it paints a very ugly picture of anyone who does so.
Ditto for the insanity of your absolutist pronouncement about being “..an enemy to the country..”
I thank God for many things, every day. Today I thank God that you are in a very tiny minority of people who evidently discard the idea of redemption and forgiveness in favor of brutal bigotry, and whose ignorance of states’ rights makes it impossible for them to grasp the difference between the legality of state legislation and what would not be permitted on a federal level.
“Inherently EVIL”
“ENEMY to the country”
Pshaw.
I respect and admire people who have the moral courage to examine their beliefs and admit it when they decide they had been wrong.
I find this far more admirable than the inability to ever modify a belief, and the arrogance to assume that a belief, once latched onto, must by definition be the only way to look at something.
I think “an enemy to the country” would be one who sees his election as a mandate to pursue his own personal agenda, rather than obey his oath to his state to follow and implement the laws that state has voted on.
If we are insisting on elected officials who are willing to bypass the rule of law and ignore the 10th Amendment, and the Constitutional background summarized in that amendment, to apply the restraints on federal scope and power to individual states, we are, if not actually the melodramatic “enemy to the country” denounced by doug, at the very least complicit in undermining the Constitution because we just don’t agree with what it says.
Amazona, I understand what you are saying and can see where it would relate to those who haven’t examined the issue of abortion. However, I was referring to the GOP candidates, all of them know they have examined it and know each other have and are intelligent enough to examine it. So if they know that another one of them is fine with it, then they will have problems with the moral nature of that person (when I say ‘evil’ it is the moral nature I am referring to).
Again, on the issue of liberty and free choice of the people… Each of the GOP candidates are intelligent and have had proper knowledge and background to formulate a moral background on the issue of whether they believe they can use a big stick of government to enslave people or whether people can be free.
If someone who hasn’t learned there are two sides of a coin picks the wrong side, we don’t say they are wrong, we say they are uninformed.
The GOP candidates ARE NOT uninformed on those two issues of the heart, therefore it makes sense that if there are differences between them on those issues, the individuals CAN have an opinion that that candidate is inherently moral or immoral when it comes to those issues. (whose view of evil or morality is correct is a judgement I leave to others) however, in their view and mine, for the reference, we can make a judgement on those in relation to our view of morality.
Amazona,
”
I thank God for many things, every day. Today I thank God that you are in a very tiny minority of people who evidently discard the idea of redemption and forgiveness in favor of brutal bigotry, and whose ignorance of states’ rights makes it impossible for them to grasp the difference between the legality of state legislation and what would not be permitted on a federal level.”
Thank you Amazona,
I am particularly proud to be an Abraham Lincoln Republican.
You do see Amazona, that your definition of what would be acceptable, would not include Abraham Lincoln. There are some things worth fighting for, some things that you have to get off your high horse of the 10th amendment and just say it’s not right for a state to do. The civil war, thankfully, was fought over one of those issues. That particular issue wasn’t something the founders didn’t even contemplate.
Today those issues are what they didn’t contemplate. Such as a time when our government would be more oppressive than the British government was. A time where more Americans would be murdered before taking their first breath each year than there were citizens back then.
Is this supposed to be a claim that Abraham Lincoln was a judgmental bigot, or ignorant or uncaring of the rights of states to make their own laws?
I suggest that trying to cloak self-righteous arrogance in the guise of being “..an Abraham Lincoln Republican…” is not only bizarre but dishonest. I have never read anything about Lincoln to indicate that he was even remotely similar to the smug self-styled morally superior lecturer that you seem to be.
I find an oddly Leftist-styled distortion of fact in your efforts to smear Mitt Romney—particularly in your deceitful claim that he was ever “PRO-abortion” when not a single statement of his supports that lie. It casts suspicion upon the rest of your screed. If an argument has to be based on a lie, how much credibility can the argument have?
For that matter, if an argument has to be based on a melodramatic if not downright hysterical claim such as “…an ENEMY TO THE COUNTRY..” how serious can it be?
Having been born and raised in Illinois not very far from Lincoln’s New Salem homestead and being force fed a steady diet of “how great Lincoln was”. And after reading tons of Lincoln’s early writings I would challenge anyone to read those same writings and conclude anything other than Lincoln was a big government statist.
Some of his writings are outright socialist. If Lincoln were alive today I would take the award away from Johm McCain and give to Lincoln the title of Darth Rino.
I denounce myself.
Oh, doug, are you really arguing that the Constitution is a “living document” that has to change with the times?
Shame on you.
And shame on your ignorance of history, and of the Constitution.
First, one more time, the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Civil War was started by the South and based not on a federal effort to circumvent state law but on a perception that the election of Lincoln might, in the future, be a threat to slavery. Some slave states seceded from the Union.
Got that? There was no state law challenged, at the time of secession, by the federal government. Later, there came a claim of the rights of states to make their own laws, but by that time there was also the beginning of the 13th Amendment, which made it unconstitutional to have slaves, and put state laws allowing slavery into the “..prohibited to it..” category. The 10th Amendment aspect of the struggle came late to the party, after acts of treason against the United States.
“President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war.”
Got that? The first time the federal government tried to overrule a state law on slavery took place after two years of war. It was not the precipitating factor.
The precipitating factors were, in order, the illegal secession of several states based on a fear of what might, someday, occur, followed by the creation of a new government, followed by an attack on a military installation of the United States.
Here is a timeline of the beginning of the war. Perhaps you can point out the “issue” of “….it’s not right for a state to do.."
Unless you are arguing that it is “..it’s not right for a state to ..” secede from the Union and start its own country, in which case I would agree with you.
(Sidebar: It is generally agreed, by those studying not just the Constitution but the contemporaneous writings of the Founders, that the “General Welfare” clause was meant to mean the general welfare OF THE UNION, which would of course make the preservation of the Union a Constitutional mandate, an enumerated duty of the federal government.)
Note that secession, the creation of the Confederacy, and the seizing of federal forts all took place BEFORE LINCOLN WAS EVEN INAUGURATED.
January 1861 — The South Secedes.
When Abraham Lincoln, a known opponent of slavery, was elected president, the South Carolina legislature perceived a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union known as the United States of America. The secession of South Carolina was followed by the secession of six more states — Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas — and the threat of secession by four more — Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America.
February 1861 — The South Creates a Government.
At a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, the seven seceding states created the Confederate Constitution, a document similar to the United States Constitution, but with greater stress on the autonomy of each state. Jefferson Davis was named provisional president of the Confederacy until elections could be held.
February 1861 — The South Seizes Federal Forts.
When President Buchanan — Lincoln’s predecessor — refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.
March 1861 — Lincoln’s Inauguration.
At Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, the new president said he had no plans to end slavery in those states where it already existed, but he also said he would not accept secession. He hoped to resolve the national crisis without warfare.
April 1861 — Attack on Fort Sumter.
When President Lincoln planned to send supplies to Fort Sumter, he alerted the state in advance, in an attempt to avoid hostilities. South Carolina, however, feared a trick; the commander of the fort, Robert Anderson, was asked to surrender immediately. Anderson offered to surrender, but only after he had exhausted his supplies. His offer was rejected, and on April 12, the Civil War began with shots fired on the fort.
******************************
One more time—the war began on April 12, 1861, and the first federal intervention in a state’s right to have laws allowing slavery was January 1, 1863.
doug, you’re scrambling to try to rehabilitate your comments, and it’s not making much sense. For example, you say “Amazona, I understand what you are saying and can see where it would relate to those who haven’t examined the issue of abortion. However, I was referring to the GOP candidates, all of them know they have examined it…. ”
So? Someone had one opinion before examining the issue and came to a different conclusion after examining it.
I contend that is a good thing, and also a sign of moral integrity, in being able to admit to being wrong and changing after learning more and giving the issue more thought.
“.. (when I say ‘evil’ it is the moral nature I am referring to).”
Yeah, well, “evil” is by definition something of a moral nature.
I am reminded of a song by the one-time poster boy of self-righteous identification of the moral failings of others, Bob Dylan, who grew up a little and then wryly commented on his own and other absolutists’ pronouncements on morality when he wrote:
Right and wrong, I defined these terms,
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
But I was so much older then—
I’m younger than that now.
Dylan attributed his previous assurance to the arrogance of callow youth, but I am sure there are other reasons as well…..
A NYT blog has an interesting chart comparing the polling volatility of different candidates from the current as well as previous campaigns.
While Romney’s polling has been extremely stable, Gingrich’s has been far and away the most volatile, which supports what almost everyone I know has been saying about Gingrich. He says some things that everyone likes, and his poll numbers shoot up. Then he either says something people don’t like or something negative about him comes to light that turns people off, and his poll numbers plunge. Sorry, not my idea of Presidential material. Also, not something I’ve seen mentioned, but something that I suspect a lot of people are thinking; it’s difficult to envision a mannequin as First Lady.
Care for a saucer of milk Spook?
LOL Count; I expected that response from Bardolf, not you. Yeah, I suppose it is a pretty catty observation, but tell me you don’t think the same thing every time you see Calista. I’m thinking her hair spray provider might be a good investment opportunity. Just think; if Newt loses, she could earn extra money by posing as herself at Madame Tussaud’s, and no one would know the difference.
Now, now, spook. I’ve seen Calista speak, I think on a TV book review show, and she came across much better than she does on the campaign trail.
Maybe she needs to consult with Mitt’s stylist, the one who suggested the one errant lock of hair to break up the molded perfection of his ‘do, to help her get rid of her Helmet Hair.
But she’s very smart, very well grounded in history (especially American history) and her knowledge and respect for the founding of this country would be a very nice change from sour Michelle, who didn’t even LIKE the country till it started to fawn over Barry, and who clearly still has reservations, as shown by her nasty comment about “all that fuss just for a flag” and the look on her face as she put her LEFT hand over her RIGHT breast during the National Anthem.
I’d take a weatherproof, windproof, ‘do over that any day.
BTW, have you noticed how many GOP candidates have really REALLY blonde wives?
It may not matter who the GOP nominee is.
And U.S. News and World Report isn’t exactly a Right-Wing rag.
Rush just reminded me of this too funny headline from last fall.
Obama raises more from Bain Capital than Romney
Early returns have Mr. Paul leading Mr. Romney by one point. 28% to 27% Santorum is doing a very respectable 20%.This nomination is far from over.
is anyone else getting SICK and TIRED of the GOP candidates and the circular firing squad?
I mean now we have the skank wasperman shitz using our own attack adds against each other against our party…
jeesh enough already
When he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, Romney was adamantly pro-choice. “I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one,” he wrote in response to National Abortion Rights Action League’s candidate survey. ”Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s.” –
“The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using force against, or among the people anywhere.” – Abraham Lincoln
So GMB, Lincoln like Romney was portrayed wrongly as big government guy. He has also been portrayed as a corporate stooge/lawyer
Lincoln enjoyed, as did all the railroad’s lawyers, a free pass for unlimited travel, which no doubt helped when he was floating his candidacy for president—he served as a railroad lawyer up until the day of his nomination. On March 19, 1860, just two weeks before the opening of the Republican Convention in Chicago, where he was nominated as a candidate for president (on May 18), Lincoln defended the railroad in court in that same city and won the case, helping cement his credentials as a candidate for the Republicans.
Romney will continue in the Lincoln tradition and win big in today’s NH primary!
He is perfectly right for these times that try mens souls. He appeals to enough reasonably minded people and when the time comes will fight hard against the pro-choice death machine.
Railroads? Who said anything about railroads? Most of Lincoln’s writings are very mundane but every once in a while you get a nugget of what the man thought.
Anyone that Karl Marx would praise is suspect in my mind.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/abc-exclusive-ron-paul-defends-romney-lashes-out-at-his-critics/
Ron Paul is defending Romney. Strange indeed.
RP is a mental nutjob
“RP is a mental nutjob”
Could not agree with you more. He also a racist and an anti-semite. However saying that, should the man end up being the repub nominee I would vote for him Let me say why.
First Mr. Paul woill get absolutely no cooperation from a repub controlled congress. Therefor it is highly likely that Mr. Paul would veto every single bill sent to him. This would force congress to either work with him or work with the donkyrats to override any vetos.
This in effect would show everyone what the repubs in congress are made of.
Second in regards to Mr.Pauls antisemitism. I have no doubt that Mr. Paul hates jews in general. This however is not as bad as it seems. Mr.Paul would end any reason for the Jews in Israel to cooperate in thier own desrtuction. Imagine the next time the muzzies are foolish enough to start a war with Israel and the Jews ignore the U.N. when it comes time time for the muzzies to cru uncle.
Well, that’s it for Newt. And the Santorum boom is over, too. Perry will quit after South Carolina. Paul will hang on, trying to leverage a prime speaking spot at the convention. Huntsman will probably quit, too.
It’s Mitt, kids. Learn to love the idea that, come November, you all WILL vote for a man who was pro-abortion for most of his political career, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control and created the model for Obamacare.
What, I wonder, will the poor little Tea Party do now without a “real conservative” carrying the banner? Not start a third party, that’s for sure. My bet is: Suck it up and vote AGAINST Obama, but not FOR Romney.
Great stuff.
First, as Amazona pointed out. He was NEVER pro-abortion. He was reflexively pri-choice like his mom and after study is now a strong advocate for life.
Gay rights comes in way at the bottom of any conservatives list and Paul is also for getting the govt out of the bedroom. Unlike Obama and the lobs who even want to say what kind of light bulb you can screw into place.
The NRA can protect itself.
A state is not the country and Romney has given hisnword to repeal Obamacare and stop illegal immigration as Ann Coulter rightly stated.
The TEA Partybwill continue the good fight , because it is not about them, but about your kids future and their grandkids future. They won’t go 3rd partyy because they are pragmatic.
bardolf:
Never pro-abortion? Exactly how little do you know about Mr. Romney? To fully understand his history support of abortion rights (abortion services, by the way, were offered by his health care plan in Massachusetts AND he attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser), have a look: http://prolifeprofiles.com/romney
Justify it all you want. If you believe that those who believe that women should have a right to choose are “evil,” then you just nominated an evil, evil man.
Jack
He was pro-choice not pro-abortion. If he fails to nominate pro life judges as a litmus test he would indeed be evil.
mehoff in chi town
we will see, GULP you may be rrrrrrrr right.
we will know by the end of jan.
spook, since you are active in the Tea Party and have stated that you personally know or have spoken to hundreds of Tea Party folks, can you give us the Tea Party view on the Republican nominees? You’ve said that you support Romney. What is it about Romney that appeals to a Tea Party supporter?
Watson,
I haven’t talked to anyone for whom Romney is the first choice, but I also haven’t talked with anyone who has said they couldn’t vote for Romney. Surprisingly, most people I talk to rate him as their 2nd or 3rd choice. We played bridge the other night with a couple from our Patriot’s group. He’s a retired banker, and, between Bridge and the Saints/Lions game, we talked politics. He reiterated the phrase that I hear most often among Tea Party folks: “the country can’t survive a 2nd Obama term.”
In 2008 Romney was actually my first choice, and McCain was my 4th or 5th choice. Had McCain not picked Palin as his running mate, I would likely have left the Presidential spot blank. I won’t have any reservations voting for Romney. My own personal experience during this campaign reflects what I hear most often from other Tea Party members: I’ve taken a close look at each of the other candidates to see if, by chance, there is one to the right of Romney who is electable, and I’m coming to the conclusion that there isn’t. One thing I’ve noticed about Romney is that he’s gradually become more conservative the older he gets. I don’t think it will be that difficult for the Tea Party to exert substantial influence on him to continue in that direction.
As far as what about Romney appeals to me from a Tea Party perspective, I can’t put my finger on any single factor, other than that I think he’s a decent man and has the most well rounded background. Someone may correct me, but, to the best of my knowledge, he’s the only presidential candidate in my lifetime with both an MBA and a law degree. I can’t predict the future, but I’d be extremely surprised (if he’s elected) if he doesn’t surround himself with the best and brightest minds from the private sector, as opposed to the current occupant of the White House, 92% of whose cabinet and cabinet-level staff has no private sector experience.
And if he’s elected and he doesn’t perform to our expectations, we’ll fire him. I like firing politicians who don’t meet my expectations, heh.
Spook
Can’t resist, but I noticed that Romney was one of the first students in the joint MBA/Law program at Harvard. He has all the skills of Obama and Bush put together!
Spook, I’m curious. And I mean this question in all sincerity. What was it about Palin that you liked 4 yrs ago and given her history since then, do you feel the same way? And if so, why?
Thanks.
Spook,
I’ve got really terrible news for you. Once Romney finishes up with the GOP primaries and has to start appealing to the electorate at large, he’s not going to get more conservative. He will, like every Republican politician before him, tack to the left. He must if he is going to appeal to the moderates, the centrists and the independents who, as always, make the difference in these elections.
He will, of course, spend as much time as he can beating up on Obama. That’s to be expected. But he will also be forced to go out of his way to show that he is not an extreme right-winger. This will mean heading toward the center.
Fortunately for him, that will not be hard to do because that is the kind of person he is. He is a left of center moderate. He might be pretending to be a conservative to win the nomination, but this whole “in his heart is is a conservative” stuff is a bunch of hooey, just as it was with McCain. (Remember him?)
Wingers always claim they want a “real conservative,” a true believer, someone who believes the pure, unrefined, GOP poison I so despise. But, true to form, you don’t nominate them. You nominate the least scary, most electable of the bunch.
This time, it’s Mitt. Enjoy.
This is an important election but I’ve heard that before. As a conservative, I’ve voted a straight Republican ticket since Ronald Reagan. Since, I’ve had to vote for G. H. W. (Read my Lips) Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain for it was important. I’ve seriously have had it and if Romney is the Republican nominee, I’m staying home on election day. I find it very strange that in the Republican nomination process, in the Iowa caucus and the primaries, Democrats and independents are in the process. If the Republican party wants to be a moderate party, that’s their prerogative. I’m feeling disenfranchised and my vote taken for granted.
After the election I will see if their were more like me, and check out my options as far as possibly a third party. I had felt that with the emergence of the Tea Party and it’s affect on the House, that the GOP would return to being more Reaganist.
The McCain – Romney campaign strategy in corralling the nomination is commendable, divide and conquer.
Things under three years of Obama have been horrible, the next five will be worse but I’ll survive.
Russ,
Thank you for the perspective from a faux conservative, if not a liberal in disquise. A mindset like this is part of the problem not the solution. However maybe you can share with us what part of Reagan’s socially conservative positions you supported the most. Maybe it was Reagan’s effort to overturn Roe v Wade, oh wait he never did. Or maybe it was Reagan’s efforts to rid the government of needless bureaucracies, oh wait he never did. Or maybe it was Reagan’s strong attendance in Church, of which he rarely attended.
So what part of Reagan’s staunch conservatism did you support the most Russ?
Mitch,
I read quite a bit about Sarah Palin in early 2008, before she was on anyone’s radar (ie. before the press savaged her). Her rise from PTA to Mayor, to head of the Oil and Gas Commission to Governor was truly an American success story. Her approval rating in Alaska was 92%, higher than any other governor in the country. Corrupt politicians from her own party ended up in the Graybar Hotel because of her efforts. So I was delighted when McCain picked her. I still think she’s a neat lady, but I’m glad she decided not to run for President. She would be too much of a lightening rod to ever get much done. Besides, I think she’s having too much fun doing what she’s doing.
If Romney manages to get the nomination he will need the Tea Party and other conservatives. He cannot afford to lose any conservatives since Obama’s machine will be working triple overtime to get him re-elected…legitimately or by fraud.
Romney will need to be the Anti-Obama, and that means using conservative points to bash Obama’s disasterous policies and ‘leadership’. Look for Romney to choose a conservative VP. But it will be one that hasn’t tried to stick a knife in him…like Newt.
I’m not 100% thrilled with Romney but he’s the best alternative to four more years of ‘The Won’.
It needs to be pointed out that Jack in Chicago’s frame of political reference comes from the cartoonish construct of the media, and he has bought into that paradigm completely. Liberals like Jack actually think that they are center moderates, therefore anyone to the right of them is a “right winger”, and I suspect he also thinks that Obama is a center moderate. The democratic party has moved so far left, that the center has vanished on the horizon to them, a concept of which most of them will never really understand.
Like Spook, I was a big Romney supporter in 2008 and will be again in 2012. I despised McCain and still do, considering him to be one of the most repugnant of career politicians. It also may surprise Jack that most conservatives are in full support of legal rights for gay couples, and while Romney did support a woman’s right to “choose” (ie: commit manslaughter), he has had a change of heart on that issue when confronted with making actual life altering decisions, showing that he does have a conscience and presence of mind to admit his mistake, of which I respect. That being said, I believe that most conservatives do support the option of abortion in extreme situations like rape, incest, etc., as I do. Mitt has also demonstrated the ability to be elected in a very blue state, a fact of which must have people like jack a little scared, especially considering that Obama will have a very difficult time winning any red states this time around, and that’s a fact that all of us will “Enjoy”!
Cluster, well said, and I’d like to pick up where you left off.
I had to chuckle at Jack’s (someone said a while back that he’s our ol’ buddy, Cyber Actor, which, given his rhetoric, makes sense) take on Romney. First of all, Romney isn’t going to have to tack to the left, because most people already see him as pretty near the center on hot button issues. The thing is, most of us who are interested in ending the error of 2008 at one term, are not focused on “hot button” issues. Like Amazona, I don’t think the President actually has much say about “hot button” issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, gun control, etc.. As I’ve said in the past, I think the next President (assuming it’s not Obama) will be a transitional President, not a transformational President; someone who grabs the rudder that’s been locked into a violent left turn and straightens it out; someone who recognizes that we can’t continue to borrow $.42 of every dollar without something bad happening. Right now it appears Romney is that individual.
Second, I think many, if not most on the Left have a mistaken view of the Tea Party. They still think the Tea Party is made up of hicks and hayseeds who hold up signs showing Obama with a Hitler mustache and attend loud rallies on the court house square. They’ve lost sight of the fact the the Tea Party has progressed way beyond that cartoonish image into a solid grass-roots movement that is busy across the country nominating and electing Conservatives at local and state levels, beginning with precinct committeemen, and educating the public about the Constitution.
Thanks Spook. I appreciate your response. I too am glad she had the good sense to retire from politics. We have enough controversial figures as it is.
Have a good day.
See, Mitch; we can have a conversation. You ask me an honest, civil question, and you’ll get an honest, civil answer. How about you answer something in return. Do you support Obama’s re-election? If not, who would you like to see replace him?
In line with the question earlier about how the Tea Party views Romney, I submit this.
So about a third of Tea Party supporters voted for Romney and two thirds didn’t. Those Tea Party results for Romney and Paul are almost identical to the overall results, which makes me think that the Tea Party isn’t much different than the rest of the voters in the New Hampshire primary. Santorum did get more Tea Party votes than from non-Tea Party voters, which would support the supposition that Tea Party folks lean toward social conservatives–something you have rejected in the past.
As for the idea that Romney is becoming more conservative as he gets older, that’s one interpretation. The other is that he is doing whatever he thinks will get him the nomination.
The other is that he is doing whatever he thinks will get him the nomination.
And how is that different than Obama? Who panders to nearly every subset of society with promises of which he ignored when elected. Remember closing Gitmo? Or adjudicating KSM in a civilian trial? The far left sure loved that during the 2008 campaign only to be hoodwinked.
Well, cluster, if that’s where you set the bar, then okay… The other side does it, so we should, too? You sound like tiredoflibbs; that’s her justification for everything. I thought the Tea Party stood for something more than that, but I could be wrong. I think spook thinks it stands for more than that. But basically, what you’re saying is that Romney is just like any other politician and you’re okay with that because he’s got an R after his name.
Actually, there is one candidate in the Republican field who is not like any other politician, and that is Paul. But Tea Party folks don’t seem that interested in him.
Nope – just calling you out on your hypocrisy. I honestly think Mitt is far less of a panderer than Obama, and actually says what he means and means what he says – which is refreshing. Much like Reagan.
Actually, there is one candidate in the Republican field who is not like any other politician, and that is Paul. But Tea Party folks don’t seem that interested in him.
That’s because he is a complete idiot.
wow watty, can you be any more wrong?
I use YOUR PARTY’s tactics against yours and your party’s silly little “gotcha” arguments. What is amazing is that you complain at their use (by us) and you use them and give a pass to your party who is the master creator of those tactics.
Your ASSumptions about us are very amusing plus completely wrong. But then again, you have nothing to present from your side due to your failed pResident, so you resort to your usual tactics while again, complaining about others. All you can do is tear down the opposition because your pResident has nothing on which to run.
typical and pathetic.
Cluster, don’t present facts to watty for he does not know what to do with them nor can he defend them without trying to project his and his party’s weaknesses on us.
To him, obAMATEUR does not “pander” but “considers all, in his open and embracing attitude”. obAMATEUR has, in fact, done all what they accuse the right of doing – pandering to Wall Street , the special interests, lobbyists, etc. etc.
Watty can’t defend anything from his pResident, so he has to create scenarios and stereotypes of the right to attack.
He is the typical liberal mindless drone, nothing more.
Closer to 40% than a third, and more than any other candidate. And it certainly disproves the meme that Romney won’t get any of the Tea Party vote.
You’ve got to love the way cluster and tired project whatever they want. You two live in a rich fantasy world. As far as my assumptions about you, tired, I’m just going by what you have said several times in the past, which is that your tactics are justified because the other side did it first. Such a principled stand, tired.
Anyway, thanks for the input, spook. 37% is about the same as the entire population of NH voters, so I don’t see the Tea Party behaving any differently in that regard. I asked because, from the outside, it doesn’t seem like Romney would be the first choice, or even an acceptable choice of a Tea Party voter, but you have supported him since 2008, so I was trying to get some insight. The reason I said Paul is different is because, idiot or not, he doesn’t appear to allow his ideals to be as easily corrupted by the election process as the other candidates, Republican or Democrat. It’s hard to see Romney as someone who stands behind principles given his history and the positions he now professes to have.
Anyway, on to South Carolina.
Gee watty apparently your reading incomprehension has gotten the better of you again.
They are not MY tactics they are yours and your parties thrown back at you. You don’t like them obviously. It is a shame that you and your party so freely use them in spite the fact that you loathe and do not accept them. When used against you, you call it projection…. interesting.
Why is that?
If you don’t like them, then why support a party and a pResident that uses them so freely when they have nothing else on which to run? “Four more years” in this case will not cut it since this pResident has screwed up everything he has touched.
Cluster,
I liked Reaganomics, total federal revenues doubled from $517 billion in ’80 to $1 trillion in ’90. The economic boom he created through his policies lasted 92 months of growth, without a recession. From 11/82 to 7/90, we had the longest period of time sustained growth in US history, at that point. The economy grew 33% (in real inflation adjusted terms.) To put in prospective, from the ’50s to 1973 economic growth averaged 3.6% – under Carter it was 1.6%. Reagan increased revenues coming into the federal government but allowed taxpayers to keep more of their money by reducing tax rates. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created, inflation fell, interest rates fell and the stock market soared.
Reagan ended the Cold War with the Soviets by spending more than they could through socialism. Reagan increased military spending by 50% in the ‘80s and reduced it by 15% once the Cold War ended. He did so without decreasing domestic spending. Total spending on our national defense never equaled our domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare & net interest is excluded from equation.
While Reagan increased revenues and used those revenues to end the Cold War, he had difficulty in reducing domestic spending because he had to deal with Tip O’Neal who wasn’t going to allow increased spending on MX missiles and reduce domestic spending. If Reagan could have convinced him, the budget would have been balanced 5 to 10 years sooner.
Even as far back as a Democrat he opposed socialized healthcare. Although he did sign into law the “Therapeutic Abortion Act”, as governor, he did so in the belief it would reduce “back room abortions.” and he blamed doctors and his inexperience as governor, he did, however, support a Constitutional Amendment against abortion.
As the Founding Fathers, Reagan didn’t support a Department of Education. I liked that he made Rehnquist as Chief Justice and his appointment of Scalia but I don’t care for his appointments of Kennedy and O’Connor.
Now you can believe what you want as far as how conservative I am or that I’m conservative at all. For me my faith comes first. I converted Catholic in ‘95, thus I can’t support capitol punishment. If that doesn’t make me a “true” conservative, so be it. Beyond faith, next my ideology, then party.
I’m 60 and since Reagan, I’ve followed national politics a lot. I’m not much of a reader but I have gotten my information over the years from National Review, Human Events and now the American Standard. I research at the Heritage Foundation website and follow legislation at Thomas. Most of my down time isn’t watching American Idol or such but Fox News. I’ve for decades sent letters to the local paper defending conservative principles.
I ‘m a realist, my decision to sit out this election,if Romney is the nominee, is not going to effect it. Under the electoral collage, living in Illinois, my vote doesn’t matter. But as you see, I’ve got a lot of defending of conservatives and republicans in our local paper. Even within the Illinois Republican Party, there is much disdain with conservatives but I am what I am and you can believe what you want.
I have no argument with you on Reagan’s fiscal or foreign policies, which I thought were brilliant and suspect Mitt will do much of the same. However Reagan was NOT a social conservative, publicly at least, so those who critique Romney on this same issue and cite Reagan as the example, are wrong.
Cluster,
Although Reagan wasn’t a social conservative, he also didn’t alienate social conservatives. I also see Romney in that same mold.
I ‘m a realist, my decision to sit out this election,if Romney is the nominee, is not going to effect it.
Russ, I hope you’ll reconsider staying home. Leave the presidential choice blank if you want, but at least vote for conservative candidates for other offices.
Looks like the party is going to continue a while longer. 10-year treasuries just sold at auction for a record low 1.9% yield.
RetiredSpook,
I may do as you said, but here it’s difficult when most of Republican Party is liberal-lite. However, I do have Rep. Shimkus who has a voting record as an conservative, I do like him, alot of the Dems don’t.
I will give the PEE YOU vote to mcLame2 if he wins….with the present GOP being our saving grace we are screwed.
Here’s hoping that Romney surprises us all.
Romney is a guaranteed RINO. just a quick glance at his record and that much is painfully clear.
I will say one thing, this election once Romney becomes the nominee won’t have that sharp contrast that you Tea Party guys desire. Instead, it will have a slight difference between the candidates.
In that case, Obama will win. Why vote for the Liberal – Lite, when you can have the liberal who by the way has presided over the unemployment rate dropping from about 10 to 8.5%.
James,
You’re hilarious – that world you occupy must be fun. First of all, when Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7% and he told us that the stimulus would PREVENT the rate from going over 8%. So care to revise that statement?
Secondly, Mitt is a huge contrast to Obama in terms of fiscal and foreign policy, not too mention experience, of which Mitt is far superior to Obama, even including his 3 years as President. And lastly, “liberals” constitute just 20% of the country according to most polls, so when voters have that decision to make, they will go with the candidate more center “right”.
Cluster,
When Obama came into the White House, the country was losing 600k jobs a month. If you even take the unemployment rate 6 months after he passed the stimulus, and he would “own” the economy you’d be fair…but hey, you’re the last thing from fair and are instead a partisan hack.
The unemployment rate will be below 8% by election day, and he will win the election.
now to address your other asinine remarks.
Secondly, Mitt is a huge contrast to Obama in terms of fiscal and foreign policy,
what differences are there on foreign policy? please tell us. Fiscal policy wise, you are correct, Mitt is an idiot just like the rest of the conservative gang who predicted hyper inflation and collapse….reminds me of Spook.
not too mention experience, of which Mitt is far superior to Obama, even including his 3 years as President.
Good luck convincing the rest of the country on that.
And lastly, “liberals” constitute just 20% of the country according to most polls, so when voters have that decision to make, they will go with the candidate more center “right”.
That’s why Clinton won handily in two elections, that’s why the Dems had majorities in the House for 40 years. That’s why the GOP has been in power for the last century…oh wait, it hasn’t.
Nice dream you live in. You want to make a guarantee like you did in 2008 with McCain and see where it ends up?
James,
You are sorely mistaken if you think Obama is like Clinton. Clinton was a far more intelligent and reasonable President than Obama, in fact I voted for Clinton in 1996. And sorry to upset you about the unemployment rate, but your argument is with Obama, not me. He is the one that clearly stated that with his 2009 stimulus, unemployment would not go over 8%.
In terms of foreign policy, Mitt will support Israel, Mitt will not bow to world leaders, Mitt will not cut crucial defense spending, and Mitt will engage Iran and lead through strength – all of which are opposite of Obama.
“You want to make a guarantee like you did in 2008 with McCain and see where it ends up?”
I’ve been hoping for the ol’ Cluster guarantee for a while now. It’s the absolute kiss of death for the GOP.
I got the following email from a friend of mine in New Hampshire. As you read it, ask yourself if you can picture a President Romney doing any of those things.
Leonard,
please keep from posting SPAM. That post is embarrassing for you to even post or much less believe.
you must be Neo’s cousin
What specific points do you take issue with, James?
“Leonard”
Every so called point in that email is either 1. exaggerated 2. false 3. outright lie 4. proven wrong 5. myth.
I will let you tell me what points you think are true, without a doubt.
Mitt nailed it last night – Obama wants to fundamentally change America (his own words), while Mitt plans to “restore” America. Great line. In fact, Mitt will win simply by using Obama’s own words against him.
Cluster,
Mitt Happens!
Every so called point in that email is either 1. exaggerated 2. false 3. outright lie 4. proven wrong 5. myth.
James, it’s been a while since I took logic in college, but my recollection is that in order to prove a statement false, one only has to prove an element in that statement is false. So, if I can prove that at least one of those points is not “1. exaggerated 2. false 3. outright lie 4. proven wrong 5. myth.”, then it is you who is the liar, right?
WHEN – he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn’t matter.
There’s convincing evidence that Obama and Bill and Bernadine were friends, or, at the very least friendly acquaintances. Obama served on several boards with Bill Ayers, and began his first campaign for public office in the Ayers’ living room. There’s also convincing evidence that Ayers wrote one of Obama’s books.
WHEN – he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco – a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home – people said it didn’t matter.
There is absolutely nothing about this statement that is “exaggerated, false, outright lie, proven wrong or myth”.
WHEN – it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn’t matter.
There is absolutely nothing about this statement that is “exaggerated, false, outright lie, proven wrong or myth”.
WHEN – he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist /Communists, people said it didn’t matter.
There is absolutely nothing about this statement that is “exaggerated, false, outright lie, proven wrong or myth”.
WHEN – he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this Nation” into something else, people said it didn’t matter.
Other than the fact that he said “the United States of America” instead of “this nation”, this is a direct quote from 5 days before the 2008 election. Do I need to post the video?
WHEN – he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn’t matter.
Again, completely true.
WHEN – he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.
Completely, 100% true.
That’s about half of the points that are 100% true. Admittedly, there are a few that are exaggerations, very few that are completely false. I’m having fun, James; do you want me to go on?
I’ll close with this: YOU’RE A LIAR, JAMES!
Another great line!
when he attended a racist cult
when he admitted to be a doper
when he rode in the back seat with druggies and homosexuals
when he lied about his eligibility to hold office
when he illegally visited pakistan
when he lied about his draft status
when he lied about his ss
when he lied about his BC
when he lied about…….the next 100 pages….
Leonard, to “James” or really tommy-boy, your claims are false because he claims them to be so.
They are of the belief if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes true – you know, Bush was appointed President, Iraq had no WMDs, obAMATEUR inherited a really bad economy and that is why his policies are not working in addition to the Arab spring, the earthquake in Japan, droughts, floods, etc. etc.
But don’t expect tommy-boy to defend his statement. He and his fellow drones like bodie (or whatever he calls himself nowadays), mitchie, sunny won’t do such a thing no matter how many times you challenge them do so.
They will continue to lie, dodge, deflect and regurgitate dumbed down talking points, nothing more.
good one Leonard
funny
my comment is awaiting moderation?????
I believe the correct term is that your comment in is alien purgatory//Moderator
multiple links??? If you have more than one it sits in the moderation pool.
Bagni’s moderation hold had nothing to do with too many links. It had to do with the fact that it contributed less than zero to the conversation. If I could reach through cyberspace and grab the little fella by the neck, I’d stick him in a moderation pool that even his cardboard space ship wouldn’t get him out of.//Moderator
na nu na nu dork
OR
you post was stupid BS…..
I report you decide.
I am waiting for SC before I make up my mind, I believe that will be the FIRST real sign of who is going anywhere.
That will be followed by Fla on the 26th of Jan.
I am really sick of the GOP circular firing squad going on now.
Amazona January 10, 2012 at 1:27 pm #
And Romney was elected to be Governor of Massachusetts, not King. His job was to represent the people, and the people in this overwhelmingly Liberal state WANTED state-run medical care, and voted for it.
One of the best descriptions that I have heard yet.
Thanks
praise to be allahbabba
US denies killing Iran nuclear scientist with magnetic bomb
OOPs
Say WHATTTT SUCKAH???
Michelle Obama’s claim she’s being branded an ‘angry black woman’
NOW she is REALLY pissed….Oh Wait!!
ROTFLMAO
Video appears to show troops urinating on corpses
By Craig Whitlock
The Marine Corps said Wednesday that it is investigating the origins of a video on the Internet that purports to show Marines in combat gear urinating on the corpses of three Taliban insurgents.
WHAT?????
no ears on dog tag chains?
ahhhh the good old days….and no video cell phones 🙂
Not to start a firestorm here and it is OT but historically, the “honor” goes to the Japanese collecting ears and noses. Semper Fi
DB
you weren’t in the boonies in Viet Nam were you?
just saying……..not that any Marines did such a thing mind you…… 🙂
The chain of responsibility for abuse
and torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdaduh … in the Afghanistan desecration video did not begin and end with enlisted men, as theBush administration claimeduh … Obama administration whined. But is a direct result of the policies of the President and his Sec Def.IMPEACHMENT is too good for these monsters!
count
IMPEACHMENT is too good for these monsters!
wizzing on their bodies?
im good wit dat….. :0
murtha? ded kennedydrunk?
Clearly an act of war. Oil prices will go up. You will blame Obama.
Ron Paul is nuts though.
baldork
YUP
alinsky 101
Still waiting on Florida — first closed primary State.
Ah,
The deadly quagmire of cardboard contentment. Understood’
your comment in is alien purgatory
AKA
your mamas basement, in the cardboard box spaceship vault….LOL
I’d like to know to where in the past you’d like this restoration to occur Cluster. When was our country better than it is now and better for whom? It seems to me that the arguments made by all presidential candidates for the entire history of our country are; barring particular circumstances, are essentially the same. And before you answer, think about the rebuttal.
Romney is the presumptive candidate and yet after campaigning for 5 yrs, he only received 40% of the vote. In order to win, he’ll tack left to the center and then he’ll loose. Real smart conservatives might re-think their ideology and come to terms as to why it doesn’t have mass appeal and until it does, you’ll continue to be seen as disruptive,confrontational, obstructionist and unable to govern.
It’s “lose” not “loose”. And I think we ought to restore the country back to the slave days, when people were property, and women couldn’t vote. How about you? (At least this is where you were going wasn’t it? Liberals are so transparent)
you’ll continue to be seen as disruptive,confrontational, obstructionist and unable to govern.
Really? Is that why conservatives have won 5 of the last 8 POTUS elections, and just swept Congress in 2010???
By the current definition of “conservative” none of the past 5 Republican presidents were conservative. Not a one. I am not “a” liberal, I am liberal on certain things but something I know very well is don’t piss down back and tell me it’s raining. 2012 is not 2010. Circumstances have changed and the teapeople who were elected have done a piss-poor job of governing because they are inexperienced, inept and hate government. That is why congress has it’s lowest approval ratings in the history of polls, why the speaker of the house is essentially n unreliable mute, why the debt crisis lowered our credit rating and why extending tax cuts to the middle class almost came to an end. It also explains in part why Scott Brown is in so much trouble, why Scott Walker is on the verge of a recall, why union busting legislation failed in Ohio and why voter disenfranchisement efforts are failing all over the country.
To mention Reagan, who hasn’t been President in almost 25 yrs, he increased the national debt 189% and GWB increased it 55% plus blowing through a surplus and having 2 unfunded wars.
Informed, intelligent say this country is center right. It is not extreme right and this website is about as extreme as it gets, next to skinheads, Birchers and the KKK.
What is promoted is deregulation to the point of anarchy, the limitation of civil rights, the glorification of an imagined romanticized version of history that none of us have experienced as adults, let alone in our life time. Woodrow Wilson my ass. When was he President? 1913! dbchmidt here wants to go back over a 100 yrs because all of our problems are HIS fault. Good luck with that pal.
The extreme form of conservativism promoted here is detrimental to solving our current problems. In fact they are responsible in part for creating them in the 1st place and that is why your ideas are unpopular to the nation as a whole. Teapeople who have been elected to congress are most unpopular in their own districts and nationwide, Teapeople have less approval that Muslim’s. Fox News viewers are less informed than those who watch no news at all and Romney will be the nominee and he will lose. (Not loose, thanks.)
Well that certainly was a reasonable and well thought out response mitch/sarc.
Once your anger subsides, you might want to reexamine your views of the current political landscape through a less partisan and less emotional lens.
Your reading comprehension needs to improve because I said “If we could overturn a few of Wilson’s mandates…” and not a return to 1913. At least we have desegregated both the military and federal workers since Wilson. Now if we could return the election of Senators to the States they represent and return our laws based on the Constitution, Federal, State and municipal laws as written in lieu of case law–that would be a good start.
If you also want to look at what was required to get the Great Society passed–it would make the ObamaCare closed door, ram-it-through no matter what the people say look like child’s play in comparison. That was a great marker (even though there are many others) for the beginning of the plantation and/or entitlement mentality. If I wanted to live like I was in Europe–I would have stayed there.
To answer your question honestly mitch, I would like the days of Reagan to return – a very strong national defense, no apologies for America, a robust private market, and a sense of good ol fashion American optimism. These days of liberal whining are really annoying.
I find whining annoying as well. Action is more productive.Pining for the past is more romanticized sentiment as well. The conditions will never be the same and we forget the bad while emphasizing the good. Reagan is dead and gone and hasn’t been President in almost 25 yrs. I am not a Reagan worshiper although I think highly of his son.
I am optimistic by nature but I have a tendency to project. Consequently I think most people have a healthy outlook as well.
I also do not have any problem with apologizing as you say. I am sure that there have been times in your life that you behaved in a manner which afterward required some reflection and an apology. I think the ability to recognize ones’ mistakes is a sign of strength and character and builds respect. People who have to insist that they are never wrong about anything I find to be highly suspect, untrustworthy and shallow. I think the idea of American exceptionalism is arrogant and when a leader of a country projects this attitude it just reinforces preconceived ideas about the entire country he or she is representing. Cultures, societies and politics evolve and change and there is a vast difference between humility and weakness. We are supposed to be getting better, not remaining entrenched in defensiveness. I know that most on this blog will accuse me of all sorts of things for saying this but each country is exceptional in it’s own way. The Germans are great engineers. The French and Italians have great art and food. The Chinese have a very long history but the way anything foreign is dismissed and disrespected on this blog only reinforces my negative opinion of conservative extremism. I will say though, that some are more reasonable than others and i appreciate that.
I am not a Reagan worshiper although I think highly of his son. – mitch
The radio talk show host or the gay dancer?
Mitch, apologizing to your spouse or friends is noble and honorable. Apologizing for our country is naive and weak. And there has never been a country that has accomplished more, or liberated more people in the entire history of this planet than the USA – no other country even comes close and yet we are the youngest country as well, so that’s what we mean by American exceptionalism. Your inability to grasp that is typical of a moral relativist, ie: weak and timid progressive, and one who is best suited for the sidelines rather than leadership
How about we start before Johnson and the Great Society, to replace the Kennedy Camelot, and the War on Poverty, which are still a big losers, for a start. If we could overturn a few of Wilson’s mandates we would be a lot better off as a people, nation, and on our way to righting this ship.
If nothing else, it is a start for you, Mitch, to research and better understand before you sound like the fool you appear to be. Apparently, you seem to be history-intolerant.
Mitch, to research and better understand before you sound like the fool
He cant
He is
Yes the downslide of this country started when “progressives” managed to fool the populace into putting them into power.
“Progressives” was the label Socialists used to make them more acceptable to the American people.
Let’s start back to the times before Teddy Roosevelt. Oh, we can keep the park system, but get rid of everything else that is far from reasonable.
The lies that Republicans want dirty air, dirty water, return to the days of Jim Crow are just that, lies – dumbed down talking points for the mindless lefty ignoranuses that pollute this country (and you know who you are) – to scare said ignoranuses into voting Democrat.
To be a liberal was at one time, one who believed in the Constitution, small government and less intrusive laws. These were the Classic Liberals, which are more conservative. The Democrats have bastardized the term, much like the Socialists have bastardized “progressive”.
The nomination process has started with the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary are over. It is a long way to the convention, however, Romney already looks to be the nominee. Many on this blog support him and would like this process to end. Do you really? I ask that because going into South Carolina, you still have the group from New Hampshire there. Perry will spend a lot of money but he’s really toast. Paul with his core constituency is in it for the long hall. Huntsman is done in South Carolina and that leaves Gingrich and Santorum. Gingrich has money and will go after Romney, Perry is too. It’s not good for Romney but let’s say Romney overcomes it and wins convincingly in South Carolina forcing Gingrich and Santorum out. Paul is the person left, with his core constituency. He continues on, primary after primary, picking up the anti-Romney votes along the way. I’m not saying Paul is a threat to Romney, he can’t get the nomination. What I am saying is, Paul will get enough delegates for a major role in the convention, and will press, with some authority, for concessions in the Party platform. Does anybody really want that?
Ron Paul would make a great Treasury Secretary.
Russ
Don’t you feel strange saying the most fiscally conservative candidate should have no part of the GOP because he holds isolationist tendencies?
You can have a major role if you support the genocide against the unborn, but if you question the wisdom of world police officer you should go away? You can bankrupt the country with wars and Medicare handouts, the GOP will tut- tut and allow you a place in the conversation, but if you think a country with the atomic bomb can defend itself against a country surrounded by Arabs who hate it you are nuts.
Bardolf, what do you think of Mr Paul’s ability to bring home the pork to his district? Little bit hypocritical don’t ya think?
Paul is NOT a fiscal conservative. He is a fiscal libertarian.
$.5 million dollars for a youth festival? LOLzer How is that any different than the cowboy poetry fest of dingy harrys?
Fiscal conservative/libertarian? My old rigid, doomy, cranky, butt!!
Beg Pardon, it was 4.5 million dollars not .5 million dollars. Kind of out did dingy harry on that one.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/ron_paul_makes.php
GMB
Should Dr. Paul’s district have its tax dollars flow to DC with no return? No.
Clueless
I used conservative as an adjective not a noun. Who do you believe is the most fiscally conservative and by what definition numb nuts?
Bardolf,
It’s beyond isolationist tendencies, there are other issues as legalizing drugs. Paul has a tight knit core constituency which has followed him for years, most outside the Republican Party, libertarians and independents. To add an anti-Romney vote, due to the fact the other real candidates are out, doesn’t justify him having major air time on a televised convention and major input in the party platform. This is not the first time he has ran for president, then as well as now, he never has expected to win. It was a means for him to get attention for his causes. Because of the lack of major support over the years, he hasn’t been taken seriously, as such, has never been fully vetted. In all the years he’s been in Congress, can you name one single piece of legislation that he has authored that passed in Congress? Granted, his libertarian views of less government and his views of less taxes fit within the Republican Party but so does Gingrich’s, Santorum’s, Perry’s, Bachman’s, Huntsman’s and Romney’s. And they have played more of a major role in the Republican Party as governors and legislators than Paul.
“Should Dr. Paul’s district have its tax dollars flow to DC with no return? No.”
Byrd could not have said it better.
Mr. Paul’s porkshop?
http://www.americanindependent.com/160697/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget
Talk the talk? Maybe Mr. Paul should walk the walk? No?
It’s beyond isolationist tendencies, there are other issues as legalizing drugs- Russ
I go frequently abroad and find it quite bizarre in e.g. Europe that I need to go to the pharmacy to buy aspirin while Tylenol and other medications are not even sold. When I ask people the response is that these drugs are dangerous and if taken improperly are fatal.
When people come to the U.S. they find it strange that the drinking age for alcohol is 21. I say that if young people drink and drive it is fatal. The same Europeans argue that part of the problem is that responsibility is delayed to 21 and is unnatural. It isn’t scientific, it is cultural.
In US history, George Washington and TJ self-medicated themselves with opium when they were in severe pain. It is in fact only nanny state liberalism and anti-Chinese sentiment that made it illegal.
Ron Paul is consistent. Once down the road of making certain chemicals illegal while more scientifically harmful chemicals legal (marijuana vs. tobacco e.g) , the state can outlaw salt or french fries or sugar or whatever it likes in the name of healthy living.
The negative ads against Gingrich in Iowa varied from his positions on issues opposite to the conservative mantle he espouses, to his activities as a private citizen, mainly how much money he earned advising Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
Gingrich has gone after Romney’s claim of being conservative and has used Romney’s own words on tape to show it. On Romney’s claim that he’s a businessman and not a politician., again, Gingrich brought out Romney’s history of attempts to seek office, calling his denials as “pious baloney.”
All of this is part of politics, hardball with high stakes.
Now, when politicians run for office their records in office are subject to scrutiny. However, Romney isn’t running for President as the former Governor of Massachusetts but as a businessman from the private sector who knows how to fix the economy. As his record as governor has been put under scrutiny, he has at least tried to defend it. Since he is saying his main credentials for being President is his private sector experience, when can that record be scrutinized without it being called an attack on capitalism?
Cluster:
He’s not gay and he’s a psychologist. Not that your impressed, I imagine your not but it shows that you stereotype. I agree that our nation has accomplished allot but we are not perfect. We have done some horrendous things and I see nothing wrong with being more honest about it. It was conservatives who made this apology claim.I think it’s shrewd. And besides, it’s old news.
I imagine your not but it shows that you stereotype.
That was actually said tongue in cheek – why are liberals always humor deficient? But if you want a great example of stereo typing, just listen to any liberal describe the republican party. Or better yet, describe minorities. Hell to a liberal, if a black person doesn’t support democrats, there must be something wrong with them, and that mitch is the epitome of stereotyping.
Why do you categorize? Any liberal? Maybe this is your attempt at comedy which is, after all, liberal. Maybe you should expand your social circle.
In one year and eight days barky will have to pay for his golf games own his own dime again. 🙂
In einem Jahr und acht Tage, Herr barky besalt für sein Golf Spiele selbts. 🙂
And if he is re-elected?
And if he is re-elected?
Lots more golf on the taxpayers’ dime.
Has anyone seen that Gingrich 28 minute Bain video? It is an interesting piece of class warfare, or is it success envy?
I think it’s neither. I think it’s uncontrolable rage on Newts part. Another Rumplestiltskin stamping his feet. Newt’s behavior; and Perry’s as well, is like giving the enigma machine code to the Democrats.The conservatives are making the Democrats case for them. That’s real smart but if you read this link, it all makes perfect sense.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/yes-romney-could-lose.html
Newt Gingrich, out of government, in the private sector, has a consulting firm. Clients pay them for advice, one was Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are both under the umbrella of the federal government, financed by the federal government, the American people. Did Freddie Mac break any law when it sought advice from a consulting firm? Did Gingrich’s consulting firm break any laws in providing a contract for services to Freddie Mac? Did Gingrich’s firm violate any laws because of the amount they charged for their services? What was said of this entrepreneur in Iowa?
Mitt Romney, out of government, in the private sector has several businesses. One was Bale Capitol which would collect failing business, restructure them (meaning the possibility of displacing workers), and invest capitol in hopes of making them profitable (meaning growing and creating jobs). Some business ventures succeeded and some failed, went bankrupt. When Bane Capitol purchased these failing businesses, while restructuring and displacing workers, did they break any laws? Not that I’m aware of.
Rick Perry nor Newt Gingrich didn’t start down this slippery slope of attacking capitalism.