|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 11, 2011 12:16:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 11, 2011 14:21:46 GMT -8
With the current climate within the Republican Party there is no way that a Republican will come close to winning the White House. In order to receive the nomination the candidate will have to sell his or her soul to the wing-nut faction. Their views on the major issues will then be so far from the mainstream that there will be no way that they will win the votes of the Republican moderates and Independents. In the view of many on the right, Goldwater would have been accused of being a RINO.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 11, 2011 15:16:00 GMT -8
What I had thought would be a shoe in for the GOP this time is not going to be that easy. The lack of a truly inspirational candidate or two is a tough thing to overcome even as inept as Obama has proven himself to be. Newt or Romney are great candidates but too easy to vilify.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 11, 2011 17:11:16 GMT -8
With the current climate within the Republican Party there is no way that a Republican will come close to winning the White House. In order to receive the nomination the candidate will have to sell his or her soul to the wing-nut faction. Their views on the major issues will then be so far from the mainstream that there will be no way that they will win the votes of the Republican moderates and Independents. In the view of many on the right, Goldwater would have been accused of being a RINO. I'm not sure that Obama can win easily this time, even against a less than scintillating Republican candidate. Were Palin to get the nomination, then, yes. the GOP does not take back the White House. Romney would be a stronger candidate than McCain, and any of a number of others would probably give Obama a run for his money. If the economy is bad, and I fear it will be for some times, Obama will not win easily. If, in addition to that, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken power in Egypt and closed the Suez Canal or something equally or more hostile to our interests, Obama could loose to a decent though not outstanding GOP candidate. One cannot predict what events will occur between now and Nov., 2012, nor can one foresee how events will affect the election. Same for candidates. Someone little known today could emerge as an attractive presidential possibility. Here's how it works. If the electorate has soured on Obama, the Rep. candidate must be credible as an alternative. I think a Romney would be quite credible. A Palin might well seem so unprepared, however, that the voters could stick with Obama even if they think the man is in over his head. Candidates trying to unseat a sitting officeholder must pass that minimum test of credibility with the voters or the latter will decide to stick with the devil they know. Here's something that is very important. Obama may win reelection (even if somewhat narrowly), but the GOP may very well take control of both houses of Congress anyway. Obama would have to bend or get absolutely nothing done for two years. By the time of the 2014 elections, The One would have been in office for six years. This is not the 1930s, a decade in which the economy stank for years and FDR got reelected anyway. Obama might, therefore, have to govern his entire second term against a very hostile Republican Party eager to set up a return to power in 2016. From the GOP's perspective, that would be almost as good as controlling the White House and the Congress, with the exception being Obama's ability to appoint more very left-wing justices to the SCOTUS. It's important, if you favor the GOP, to hope that the party's candidate does not help the Dems hold onto at least one house of Congress. Palin would not fit that profile; she might turn off so many independents that they would vote Dem down the ticket and thwart GOP plans to control House and Senate. Yes, there are plenty of anti-RINOs in the Republican Party today. If they overplay their hand, they could well help Obama stay in 1600 Penn. Ave. for four more years. If conditions in the country otherwise resemble those of 2010 and Obama wins anyway, the Teapartiers will have no one to blame but themselves. That would be the mirror image of the Dems in the House right now who think they lost because they were not liberal enough! AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Feb 15, 2011 15:35:58 GMT -8
Yes, there are plenty of anti-RINOs in the Republican Party today. AzWm What's a RINO? A Republican who believes in civil liberties, hates bigotry, and doesn't think everyone oughtta be able to carry an AK-47? The repubs lost me a LONG time ago even though I still agree with them on the most important of issues (nat'l security). Most of these guys should be flying confederate flags. Well written, John. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Feb 15, 2011 16:06:49 GMT -8
What I had thought would be a shoe in for the GOP this time is not going to be that easy. The lack of a truly inspirational candidate or two is a tough thing to overcome even as inept as Obama has proven himself to be. Newt or Romney are great candidates but too easy to vilify. Agreed that Newty is way to easy to vilify, but Romney's problem isn't vilifying Democrats, it's the Tea Party nut jobs that seem to have taken control of the Republican Party. And let's face a rather simple fact here; you can claim Obama is inept, but his recent actions have raised his favorables with independents to the point that even with 9.5 percent reported unemployment, his personal rating is again at 50 percent. In '83 unemployment was around 10 percent - care to check on what Reagan's favorable rating was at that time? I'm being quite serious when I write this (IOW, I'm not trolling). Because of the Tea Party, anti-immigration nut jobs and undereducated white folks who resent the fact that it's their own fault they looked down on getting an education (just as far too many African-Americans have) they see no jobs and no future. And take my word for it, I see some of the same problems with the Democrats, but not to the extent we find in the Republican Party, which is being torn apart. I have no doubt at all that the Republicans will come up with a charismatic leader sometime in the near future, but the question is whether or not that leader can make it through the primaries. Would the TP have been happy with TDR (who I consider one of our greatest Presidents) when he was arguing in favor of conservation and setting aside vast tracts of land for national parks? Would they be happy with Ike, who built our interstate system? The Neo-Cons and other far-right factions vilified Goldwater in his later years because he changed his mind on gay rights and would they be happy with Reagan, who cut taxes but also signed two of the largest tax increases in recent history? And let's face it - the wing-nuts ran as being fiscal hawks but the first thing they've gone after is abortion. It's only been 6 weeks, but there just doesn't seem to be any desire to actually offer anything other than negativity. And that's a problem. I'm sure the wing-nuts believe Joe Scarbourough isn't "pure" because he works for MSNBC, but I think what he wrote today in Politico is quite accurate: www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49509.htmlAnd quite frankly, I think he's right on and given that I watch Morning Joe most every morning, I can attest that he often offers very, very good insider critiques of what's wrong with his party. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 15, 2011 16:28:56 GMT -8
What I had thought would be a shoe in for the GOP this time is not going to be that easy. The lack of a truly inspirational candidate or two is a tough thing to overcome even as inept as Obama has proven himself to be. Newt or Romney are great candidates but too easy to vilify. Agreed that Newty is way to easy to vilify, but Romney's problem isn't vilifying Democrats, it's the Tea Party nut jobs that seem to have taken control of the Republican Party. And let's face a rather simple fact here; you can claim Obama is inept, but his recent actions have raised his favorables with independents to the point that even with 9.5 percent reported unemployment, his personal rating is again at 50 percent. In '83 unemployment was around 10 percent - care to check on what Reagan's favorable rating was at that time? I'm being quite serious when I write this (IOW, I'm not trolling). Because of the Tea Party, anti-immigration nut jobs and undereducated white folks who resent the fact that it's their own fault they looked down on getting an education (just as far too many African-Americans have) they see no jobs and no future. And take my word for it, I see some of the same problems with the Democrats, but not to the extent we find in the Republican Party, which is being torn apart. I have no doubt at all that the Republicans will come up with a charismatic leader sometime in the near future, but the question is whether or not that leader can make it through the primaries. Would the TP have been happy with TDR (who I consider one of our greatest Presidents) when he was arguing in favor of conservation and setting aside vast tracts of land for national parks? Would they be happy with Ike, who built our interstate system? The Neo-Cons and other far-right factions vilified Goldwater in his later years because he changed his mind on gay rights and would they be happy with Reagan, who cut taxes but also signed two of the largest tax increases in recent history? And let's face it - the wing-nuts ran as being fiscal hawks but the first thing they've gone after is abortion. It's only been 6 weeks, but there just doesn't seem to be any desire to actually offer anything other than negativity. And that's a problem. I'm sure the wing-nuts believe Joe Scarbourough isn't "pure" because he works for MSNBC, but I think what he wrote today in Politico is quite accurate: www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49509.htmlAnd quite frankly, I think he's right on and given that I watch Morning Joe most every morning, I can attest that he often offers very, very good insider critiques of what's wrong with his party. =Bob Not bad, Bob. You lose some effect by using terms like "wingnut" when you say you are trying to be serious. Right now I would say that how Republicans approach this huge budget that purports to be reducing the deficit overall when all it really does is give you the illusion that this current year will have less of a deficit that last year. That is still a deficit and adds o our long term National Debt. There will be some delicate infighting to try to show which side is really trying to make some progress in both the long and short term in getting spending under control and as a result reduce our 14 trillion debt. Republicans need to clearly show that just reducing the rate on increasing the deficit is not reducing current deficit or addressing long term red ink. It will be fun to see how this plays out. It might be the defining issue that decides the 2012 election for President. I happen to think that because of the number of seats that are at risk in the Senate next time that the Republicans will gain more ground and take over the Senate and also just about hold serve in the House. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Feb 15, 2011 16:34:37 GMT -8
I'm not sure that Obama can win easily this time, even against a less than scintillating Republican candidate. Were Palin to get the nomination, then, yes. the GOP does not take back the White House. Romney would be a stronger candidate than McCain, and any of a number of others would probably give Obama a run for his money. If the economy is bad, and I fear it will be for some times, Obama will not win easily. If, in addition to that, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken power in Egypt and closed the Suez Canal or something equally or more hostile to our interests, Obama could loose to a decent though not outstanding GOP candidate. It's "lose", William. Just having some fun with ya since you taught language  . But that aside, Romney can't get through the primaries and I think we saw the impact of the wing-nut voting in the Nevada and Delaware Senate primaries. With decent candidates, the Republicand could have taken back the Senate. One cannot predict what events will occur between now and Nov., 2012, nor can one foresee how events will affect the election. Same for candidates. Someone little known today could emerge as an attractive presidential possibility. Here's how it works. If the electorate has soured on Obama, the Rep. candidate must be credible as an alternative. I think a Romney would be quite credible. A Palin might well seem so unprepared, however, that the voters could stick with Obama even if they think the man is in over his head. Candidates trying to unseat a sitting officeholder must pass that minimum test of credibility with the voters or the latter will decide to stick with the devil they know. Palin can't win, as you point out and as I point out, Romney can't get past the primaries. As near as I can tell, that leaves Huckabee, unless you think Pawlenty offers anything more than a voice that will help you sleep at night. And besides, Pawlenty's record on deficit reduction ain't that great.Here's something that is very important. Obama may win reelection (even if somewhat narrowly), but the GOP may very well take control of both houses of Congress anyway. Obama would have to bend or get absolutely nothing done for two years. By the time of the 2014 elections, The One would have been in office for six years. This is not the 1930s, a decade in which the economy stank for years and FDR got reelected anyway. Obama might, therefore, have to govern his entire second term against a very hostile Republican Party eager to set up a return to power in 2016. From the GOP's perspective, that would be almost as good as controlling the White House and the Congress, with the exception being Obama's ability to appoint more very left-wing justices to the SCOTUS. As opposed to the very right-wing Supremes that are currently sitting on the bench? You know who I mean - that would be the activist Supremes who agreed that corporations have the same rights as individuals. I do think your characterization of both houses being controlled by "a very hostile Republican Party" is a nonsensical view of politics in this country. A very hostile opposition tells the middle that their more concerned with politics instead of solving problems. In that situation, triangulation becomes a very real threat to the rightIt's important, if you favor the GOP, to hope that the party's candidate does not help the Dems hold onto at least one house of Congress. Palin would not fit that profile; she might turn off so many independents that they would vote Dem down the ticket and thwart GOP plans to control House and Senate. No, no - there's no "might" about it. Palin's negative numbers are beyond belief - she finished dead last in last week's CPAC poll.Yes, there are plenty of anti-RINOs in the Republican Party today. If they overplay their hand, they could well help Obama stay in 1600 Penn. Ave. for four more years. If conditions in the country otherwise resemble those of 2010 and Obama wins anyway, the Teapartiers will have no one to blame but themselves. That would be the mirror image of the Dems in the House right now who think they lost because they were not liberal enough! Will, they are not "anti-RINOS", they are nut jobs. But I do agree with you that the Progressives are fooling themselves if they thin they lost because they weren't more progressive. But, WTH, the far left is no better than the far right.
I'll end with this - Scarbourgh was on Chris Matthews today and ended with the comment that he doesn't hate Obama. He thinks he's a good man, a good father and believes in his values so he would guess that in 2011 that makes him a liberal even though he disagrees with pretty much all of Obama's policies.
I'm sorry, but all too often there seems to be nothing but hatred coming out of the Republican Party. There's a new poll showing that 51 percent of Republicans think Obama wasn't born in the U.S. (don't bother, Pooh) and that hatred doesn't go over well with the independents that now dominate our political landscape. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 16, 2011 16:31:34 GMT -8
>>>And let's face it - the wing-nuts ran as being fiscal hawks but the first thing they've gone after is (federal tax money for) abortion.<<<
FIFY.
Too bad.
Some people ought to be aborted.
Damned shame they didn't have a federal tax money supported program back in the day...
...for dishonest people who misrepresent the facts.
Mod's note - please refrain from the personal attacks and insults. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 16, 2011 23:24:47 GMT -8
What it will take to beat Obama is for the winner of the GOP primary, whoever they are, is to focus on the issues and and fly above the non-issues that the lap-dog, leftist media will focus upon. Since Obama will have absolutely nothing to run on and the GOP issues will virtually all be winners, it will be a lie laced, personal destruction campaign waged against the GOP candidate by the triumvirate of the Obama Campaign, major media/Hollywood and Union leadership.
The second thing that will assure a victory for the GOP is for the candidate to use the tried and true exposures of Obama's economic failures - debt, deficit, unemployment and "are you better of now rather than four years ago". The only ones who may be better off will be a few gov employees and Union members and he already had their vote anyhow.
The third thing is to focus on is Obama's failed energy policies like drilling moratoriums, canceled coal mine permits, chasing windmills, pushing for cap & tax, etc., all when oil prices are at historic highs. Obama could make Gray Davis look like J. Paul Getty.
Christie will be too fat, Romney too white and rich, Palin too dumb, Newt too old and callous, Huckabee too religious, etc. The policies of the GOP candidate could be tattooed on their foreheads and the major media would actually blur it out. It will be absolutely ridiculous to see the lengths that major media will go to in order to avoid discussions of the real issues and focus on the superficial. The Republican who can deal with that will win and win handily.
But if they get caught in their web of non-issues and distortions, you could have this:
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 17, 2011 7:55:11 GMT -8
>>>And let's face it - the wing-nuts ran as being fiscal hawks but the first thing they've gone after is (federal tax money for) abortion.<<< FIFY. Too bad. Some people ought to be aborted. Damned shame they didn't have a federal tax money supported program back in the day for.... Is this the kind of civility that William is asking for on this board? Mod's note - No. It's not. And it has been addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 17, 2011 8:44:10 GMT -8
What it will take to beat Obama is for the winner of the GOP primary, whoever they are, is to focus on the issues and and fly above the non-issues that the lap-dog, leftist media will focus upon. Since Obama will have absolutely nothing to run on and the GOP issues will virtually all be winners, it will be a lie laced, personal destruction campaign waged against the GOP candidate by the triumvirate of the Obama Campaign, major media/Hollywood and Union leadership. The second thing that will assure a victory for the GOP is for the candidate to use the tried and true exposures of Obama's economic failures - debt, deficit, unemployment and "are you better of now rather than four years ago". The only ones who may be better off will be a few gov employees and Union members and he already had their vote anyhow. The third thing is to focus on is Obama's failed energy policies like drilling moratoriums, canceled coal mine permits, chasing windmills, pushing for cap & tax, etc., all when oil prices are at historic highs. Obama could make Gray Davis look like J. Paul Getty. Christie will be too fat, Romney too white and rich, Palin too dumb, Newt too old and callous, Huckabee too religious, etc. The policies of the GOP candidate could be tattooed on their foreheads and the major media would actually blur it out. It will be absolutely ridiculous to see the lengths that major media will go to in order to avoid discussions of the real issues and focus on the superficial. The Republican who can deal with that will win and win handily. ROFL - Thanks, I needed that. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 17, 2011 10:40:49 GMT -8
What it will take to beat Obama is for the winner of the GOP primary, whoever they are, is to focus on the issues and and fly above the non-issues that the lap-dog, leftist media will focus upon. Since Obama will have absolutely nothing to run on and the GOP issues will virtually all be winners, it will be a lie laced, personal destruction campaign waged against the GOP candidate by the triumvirate of the Obama Campaign, major media/Hollywood and Union leadership. The second thing that will assure a victory for the GOP is for the candidate to use the tried and true exposures of Obama's economic failures - debt, deficit, unemployment and "are you better of now rather than four years ago". The only ones who may be better off will be a few gov employees and Union members and he already had their vote anyhow. The third thing is to focus on is Obama's failed energy policies like drilling moratoriums, canceled coal mine permits, chasing windmills, pushing for cap & tax, etc., all when oil prices are at historic highs. Obama could make Gray Davis look like J. Paul Getty. Christie will be too fat, Romney too white and rich, Palin too dumb, Newt too old and callous, Huckabee too religious, etc. The policies of the GOP candidate could be tattooed on their foreheads and the major media would actually blur it out. It will be absolutely ridiculous to see the lengths that major media will go to in order to avoid discussions of the real issues and focus on the superficial. The Republican who can deal with that will win and win handily. ROFL - Thanks, I needed that. Glad to help dust your floor.  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 17, 2011 11:40:39 GMT -8
loose/lose. That is an example of the limitations inherent in relying too much on a spell checker. You still need to do a word by word check to make sure you have not written a correctly spelled word where another correctly spelled word should have been.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 17, 2011 13:14:14 GMT -8
>>>And let's face it - the wing-nuts ran as being fiscal hawks but the first thing they've gone after is (federal tax money for) abortion.<<< FIFY. Too bad. Some people ought to be aborted. Damned shame they didn't have a federal tax money supported program back in the day for a$$hole babies like you. Is this the kind of civility that William is asking for on this board? No, probably not. But in the hierarchy of pejorative name calling, I wonder where you would rank "a$$hole" vis a vis "wing-nut". |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 17, 2011 14:15:35 GMT -8
I would rate "a$$hole" higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 17, 2011 14:49:21 GMT -8
I would rate "a$$hole" higher. Can you show me the list where you got that? I would have guessed the other way! |
|
|
|
Post by temeculaaztec on Feb 17, 2011 14:53:29 GMT -8
My Prediction: The Economy....if it flatlines or gets worse, Obama loses in 2012 (no matter the candidate of the GOP). If it improves (especially on unemployment, say drops to 6-7%)....Obama gets reelected.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 17, 2011 15:21:51 GMT -8
ROFL - Thanks, I needed that. Glad to help dust your floor. Icky. Lots of dog hair down there. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 17, 2011 15:25:50 GMT -8
Is this the kind of civility that William is asking for on this board? No, probably not. But in the hierarchy of pejorative name calling, I wonder where you would rank "a$$hole" vis a vis "wing-nut". You guys kill me. "A$$hole" = "Wing-Nut" but "Lefty", "Leftist", "Marxist", "Socialist", "Un-American", "Traitor" etc. are just fine. |
|
. But that aside, Romney can't get through the primaries and I think we saw the impact of the wing-nut voting in the Nevada and Delaware Senate primaries. With decent candidates, the Republicand could have taken back the Senate. 
