|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 24, 2011 18:09:36 GMT -8
The problem is the Republican Party is NOT one party, but two if not three distinct voting blocks - 1/3 Tea Party; 1/3 Libertarian; 1/3 old line moderate. Their problem in 2012 is finding one guy or gal who would appeal across that spectrum. Ain't gonna happen. To address the "socialized" medicine issue, let me ask you this conservatives, how do you think medical insurance works? This is how it works - it's a co-op. You enroll as many people as you can into a system and you spead the risk among the very young to the very old. You spread the risk and the cost and you hope for a little profit (in the case of corporate insurance companies, of course, profits are squeerzed out of the members by reducung benefits and disallowing care (pre-existing conditions, anyone?) How is "universal health care any different? It isn't, except for the profit part. It's absolutely amazing to me how presumed smart conservatives allow themselved to be duped by the insurance companies. Do you really think they care about YOUR welfare?  I like how libs describe Republicans but yet never get their own party right. Frankly, I don't fit your categories but yet there are many just like me, conservative, independant, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 24, 2011 19:06:03 GMT -8
I like how libs describe Republicans but yet never get their own party right. Frankly, I don't fit your categories but yet there are many just like me, conservative, independant, etc. And I like how conservatives continually describe anyone who isn't conservative as "libs". The majority of the country is just left of center on social issues and just right of center on fiscal and monetary issues. Most of us "non-conservatives" are moderates. Not libs. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on May 24, 2011 19:34:44 GMT -8
I like how libs describe Republicans but yet never get their own party right. Frankly, I don't fit your categories but yet there are many just like me, conservative, independant, etc. And I like how conservatives continually describe anyone who isn't conservative as "libs". The majority of the country is just left of center on social issues and just right of center on fiscal and monetary issues. Most of us "non-conservatives" are moderates. Not libs. Yoda out... . + 1. Stu, everybody gets put in a box on here. A few are obviously far right or far left...most are not. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 25, 2011 5:27:45 GMT -8
I like how libs describe Republicans but yet never get their own party right. Frankly, I don't fit your categories but yet there are many just like me, conservative, independant, etc. And I like how conservatives continually describe anyone who isn't conservative as "libs". The majority of the country is just left of center on social issues and just right of center on fiscal and monetary issues. Most of us "non-conservatives" are moderates. Not libs. Yoda out... . I didn't - get it right. I was responding directly to Azdick about his liberal wing democratic party position in his psot. You took my response out of context and I see you got others to pile on. The -bob school of misdirection. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 25, 2011 9:33:43 GMT -8
And I like how conservatives continually describe anyone who isn't conservative as "libs". The majority of the country is just left of center on social issues and just right of center on fiscal and monetary issues. Most of us "non-conservatives" are moderates. Not libs. Yoda out... . + 1. Stu, everybody gets put in a box on here. A few are obviously far right or far left...most are not. +2 |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 25, 2011 18:00:51 GMT -8
The Republicans support actions which appear to take benefits away from people with less means while handing those same benefits to the better off through tax cuts and such things as oil subsidies.
If all Americans get wind of that like they did in New York last night, Republicans are going to get trashed again and again.
You have the oil companies making record profits and paying little or nothing in taxes, while really hurting consumers and you have tax cuts for people who have shown over the past ten years that the only trickle down you'll get from them is over a toilet, you have trouble.
Supporting the rich like that is real trouble when you also tell those less well off people that their entitlements, entitlements they have been paying for over the past 35 or 40 years, are going to be reduced while you support those same rich. If the Democrats describe what the Republicans are doing with sufficient clarity of message, Republicans are going to get trashed.
What part of this is hard for the Republicans to get? It is appearing to help those who don't need it while telling the less well off to suck it up is what will get Republicans trashed.
Idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 25, 2011 18:05:22 GMT -8
Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell said this morning (or maybe it was yesterday morning) on CNBC that, as a Democrat, he favored Michele Bachmann -- because she is unelectable. In a more serious answer, he suggested that if the Republicans were to nominate Mitt Romney, with Tim Pawlenty as his running mate, then they would pose a serious challenge -- although he thought that Obama was strong enough to win.
But he also said that he didn't think that Romney would ever get the nomination because he wasn't conservative enough to do so.
Yoda out...
.
|
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 25, 2011 18:17:30 GMT -8
I disagree. I think that Obama is not liberal enough. That is why he lost in the 2010 by elections. He ran on a platform of hope and change. What we got was GW Bush lite. We saw that in the health care reform bill. We liberals wanted a single payer system. What we got was the health insurance company full employment act. Disappointing. I welcome the left to nominate someone farther to the left of Obama! It isn't that he is not left enough, he is plenty left in many things. What he is that you are probably actually disappointed with is that he is spineless and is a typical politician. He looks towards polls and other political assessments to make decisions other than doing what he strongly feels and then leads his constituency to his position. That is probably the disappointment you feel, even if you don't realize it! Obama's problem is that he takes liberals for granted, because what Republicans offer, by contrast, is an anathema. He uses that horror against us. We will have to cure Obama of his smug position with regard to liberals. But Republicans will nominate and unknown or an idiot like Palin, because they are hostage to their own horror-the Tea party. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 25, 2011 18:19:50 GMT -8
Well said, huh? Now that's funny! |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 25, 2011 18:39:10 GMT -8
So name a Republican candidate who is conservative enough to get nominated yet moderate enough to get elected. I'm pretty sure that the conservatives here live under the delusion that their candidates appeal to the nation at large and would oppose the nomination of anyone who might. And for that reason, few who might will even run as they can't be nominated. Yoda out... . You expose your bias blatantly on the leading question. I, for one am very conservative but very moderate in most views. I certainly think that libertarian conservatives are pretty moderate as well. Ronald Reagan would be considered moderate by many standards and his strength of character was that he wasn't spineless and stuck to his values and core beliefs. If by "moderate" you mean spineless, you may want to look towards left-leaning libertarians and democratics. Would Reagan have made it through the primaries these days if he were to run as he did in '80? Let's face a simple fact; Barry Goldwater was the patron saint of the conservative movement that Nixon and Reagan advanced to gain the White House and in his last years Goldwater was vilified by the right because he came out in favor of gay rights. You claim to be moderate and knowing you I think that's a fairly accurate self-evaluation, but how many of you are left in the Republican Party? Certainly there is no one left in the Republican party my family believed in when I was a kid - the party of TDR, Henry Cabot Lodge and Nelson Rockefeller. The Southern Strategy worked longer than LBJ predicted, but it's become a rural party. That doesn't mean that Republicans can't win elections, be they Congressional, Senatorial or Presidential but it does mean that as long as the party has ideological litmus tests - and the Republican primary voters have a ton of them - the party will continue to marginalize itself because it eats all their young who might have a moderate idea that just might work. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 25, 2011 18:44:08 GMT -8
My point, confirmed. Conservatives aren't extremists, extremists are extremist. The point is that you have obviously bundled all conservatives into that camp when they aren't, which is my point. You have to properly define the box in which you want others to play. By essentially leading the questioning by placing all conservatives as unelectable extremists, your implication in the original psot, you are driving the answer. You and a great number of Conservatives aren't extremists. However, the majority of Republicans who vote in the primaries are. Quite frankly, I find that there are a lot of Republicans who now self-describe themselves as "Conservatives" rather than "Republicans". All this again leads me to believe that we need a new party in this country that reflects the views of those of us who live in the middle. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 25, 2011 18:46:19 GMT -8
Getting back to the basic question, the answer is yes. I think that Pawlenty and Romney are both capable of being nominated and elected. I'm not saying that their chances of winning are overwhelming, or even 50/50, for that matter. Why do you care? By your own words stated on here as infinitum you don't vote for Republicans. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 25, 2011 18:48:01 GMT -8
I disagree. I think that Obama is not liberal enough. That is why he lost in the 2010 by elections. He ran on a platform of hope and change. What we got was GW Bush lite. We saw that in the health care reform bill. We liberals wanted a single payer system. What we got was the health insurance company full employment act. Disappointing. And so they voted for Republicans? You lost because moderates want nothing to do with socialized medicine. Every poll, not just some polls, not just Fox news polls, EVERY poll, including the poll we like to call the election says that socialized medicine is wildly unpopular and radical. Every poll, not just some polls, not just Fox News polls says that 1.6 Trillion dollars in new Federal spending is reckless and dangerous. Every poll, not just some polls, not just Fox News polls say that Obama's handling of the economy has been dismal. The problem the liberals face this time around is that there's no cover for them. The have an actual record to defend and people are no longer buying the "Bush did it" line. They controlled the house, senate and the executive for two years and screwed everything up. Folks got a gander at what unfettered, unencumbered far left Liberalism looks like for the first time in generation or two and it scared the living crap out of them. These are problems the extreme left will have a difficult time over coming in the next year or so. You may get your radical lefty incumbent re-elected but it's a lock that the Senate will fall to the Republicans, you'll lose more house seats and more states will turn from Purple to Red. Just to maybe add some perspective to the budget issue: 1 million seconds = 11.6 days 1 billion seconds =31.7 years 1 trillion seconds = 31,709 years The Obama budget deficit is 1.6 Trillion dollars or : 50,735 years converted to seconds. The moderates are catching on. As long as they don't catch on to the incredibly over-bloated defense budget that provides you with your living? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 25, 2011 18:51:40 GMT -8
Come on Repubs! The only guy with the balls to answer the question was AW. Don't you think that this early in the election cycle that the basic question is very hard to answer. I would say, from my point of view, that most anyone could win should they win the nomination or they could lose in a landslide. Based on the last couple days and how Obama has further eroded part of his base by his stand on Israel, his chances have lessoned against any Republican. I would further say the Pawlenty just became a pretty viable candidate. Yeah, outside of AIPAC and the evangelicals, this country really cares about Israel? Hell, the only reason the Evangelicals care about Israel is because they need it in order to make Biblical prophesy true - ain't like the Evangelicals believe any Jew will ever get into Heaven. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 25, 2011 18:53:33 GMT -8
And I like how conservatives continually describe anyone who isn't conservative as "libs". The majority of the country is just left of center on social issues and just right of center on fiscal and monetary issues. Most of us "non-conservatives" are moderates. Not libs. Yoda out... . I didn't - get it right. I was responding directly to Azdick about his liberal wing democratic party position in his psot. You took my response out of context and I see you got others to pile on. The -bob school of misdirection. I don't engage in misdirection - I engage in logical arguments that you don't bother to take the time to understand. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 25, 2011 19:42:04 GMT -8
Don't you think that this early in the election cycle that the basic question is very hard to answer. I would say, from my point of view, that most anyone could win should they win the nomination or they could lose in a landslide. Based on the last couple days and how Obama has further eroded part of his base by his stand on Israel, his chances have lessoned against any Republican. I would further say the Pawlenty just became a pretty viable candidate. Yeah, outside of AIPAC and the evangelicals, this country really cares about Israel? Hell, the only reason the Evangelicals care about Israel is because they need it in order to make Biblical prophesy true - ain't like the Evangelicals believe any Jew will ever get into Heaven. =Bob I do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2011 23:46:03 GMT -8
Obama's problem is that he takes liberals for granted, because what Republicans offer, by contrast, is an anathema. He uses that horror against us. We will have to cure Obama of his smug position with regard to liberals. If there's one thing Obama isn't, it's stupid. If he is indeed taking liberals for granted then he is correct in doing so. Does anyone really believe that a liberal is gonna go vote for one of these nutcase republicans over Obama because he's "not liberal enough"? Nail and head, John. Romney won't get the nomination because as governor of Massachusetts, he agreed to Obamacare before anybody outside Illinois knew who Obama was. That will turn off about 1/3 of Republicans. Plus, he's a Mormon. That will turn off about another 20%. Pawlenty seems to be the only current candidate that doesn't have a bunch of other terminal warts. However, he's as boring as boring gets and so isn't going to motivate anybody to want to get out the vote. The election's still a year and a half away but it's Obama's to lose and as said above, he's too smart a guy to blow it so only a catastrophe beyond his control is going to enable the Republicans to get the White House back in 2012. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on May 26, 2011 10:44:54 GMT -8
I saw an interview on the Charlie Rose show this week discussing Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsmann. Of the three the most intriguing propsective candidate to the three writers being interviewed was Huntsmann.
I know next to nothing about Huntsmann, but found there thoughts intriguing. He sounds very similiar to G.H.W. Bush's in pedigree. Again, I haven't had time to research Huntsmann at all, and wondered what some of your thoughts where?
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 26, 2011 10:55:18 GMT -8
I welcome the left to nominate someone farther to the left of Obama! It isn't that he is not left enough, he is plenty left in many things. What he is that you are probably actually disappointed with is that he is spineless and is a typical politician. He looks towards polls and other political assessments to make decisions other than doing what he strongly feels and then leads his constituency to his position. That is probably the disappointment you feel, even if you don't realize it! Obama's problem is that he takes liberals for granted, because what Republicans offer, by contrast, is an anathema. He uses that horror against us. We will have to cure Obama of his smug position with regard to liberals. But Republicans will nominate and unknown or an idiot like Palin, because they are hostage to their own horror-the Tea party. Get it right please. The folks that got Bin Laden were the true professionals from the CT community writ large and the USSOCCOM operators who pulled it off. Obama gets credit for it being done on his watch and making some good top-level calls that were timely. I am confident that any president would have done the same thing. The folks that did the real work were the same folks from 2008 and before. I know a few of them. I see you like to talk in platitudes but please at least give credit where it belongs. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 26, 2011 10:59:09 GMT -8
I didn't - get it right. I was responding directly to Azdick about his liberal wing democratic party position in his psot. You took my response out of context and I see you got others to pile on. The -bob school of misdirection. I don't engage in misdirection - I engage in logical arguments that you don't bother to take the time to understand. =Bob -bob, I take the time to outline your strawman arguments and red herrings you constantly throw out, as well as how you totally misrepresent my psots. Feel free to counter with details sometime. In the meantime, I don't have the time to waste with your stuff these days. Sorry. |
|
