PDA

View Full Version : David Horowitz says better than I could what I've been trying to say



DenButsu
04-03-2009, 10:18 PM
There are parts of this I'd take issue with (eg. that Obama has ceded his domestic agenda to the House), but in terms of the overall gist of this piece, I think he's pretty much on target with this one.


Obama Derangement Syndrome
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, March 30, 2009

I have been watching an interesting phenomenon on the Right, which is beginning to cause me concern. I am referring to the over-the-top hysteria in response to the first months in office of our new president, which distinctly reminds me of the “Bush Is Hitler” crowd on the Left.

Speaking of this crowd, have you seen any “I am so sorry” postings from that quarter as Obama continues and even escalates the former president's war policy in Afghanistan and attempts to consolidate his military occupation of Iraq?

Conservatives, please. Let's not duplicate the manias of the Left as we figure out how to deal with Mr. Obama. He is not exactly the anti-Christ, although a disturbing number of people on the Right are convinced he is.

I have recently received commentaries that claim that "Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history" and "never has a politician in this land had such a quasi-religious impact on so many people" and "Obama is a narcissist," which leads the author to then compare Obama to David Koresh, Charles Manson, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. Excuse me while I blow my nose.

This fellow has failed to notice that all politicians are narcissists – and that a recent American president was a world-class exponent of the imperial me. So what? Political egos are one of the reasons the Founders put checks and balances on executive power. As for serial lying, is there a politician that cannot be accused of that? And once, the same recent president set a pretty a high bar in this category, and we survived it. As for Obama's speeches, they are hardly in the Huey Long, Louie Farrakhan, Fidel Castro vein. They are in fact eloquently and cleverly centrist and sober.

So what's the panic? It is true that Obama has shown surprising ineptitude in his first months in office, but he's not a zero with no accomplishments as many conservatives seem to think – unless you regard beating the Clinton machine and winning the presidency as nothing. But in doing this you fall into the “Bush-is-an-idiot” bag of liberal miasmas.

It is also true Obama has ceded his domestic economic agenda to the House Democrats and spent a lot of money in the process. But what’s the surprise in this? After all, Bush and McCain both proposed (and in Bush's case pushed through) massive government giveaways (which amount to government takeovers as well). This is bad, but it doesn't make Obama a closet Mussolini, however deplorable the conservatives among us may regard it. Moreover, he's already run into political resistance even within his own party. Charlie Rangel has made it clear that the itemized deduction tax hike is not going through his committee – and that should tell you that the American system, the one the Founders created, is still in place.

Even as astute a conservative thinker as Mark Steyn has been swept up in the tide that thinks Obama is a “transformative” radical. But look again at his approach to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, as noted, he is carrying out the Bush policies – the same that he once joined his fellow Democrats in condemning. And that should be reassuring to anyone concerned about where he is heading as commander-in-chief.

In other words, while it's reasonable to be unhappy with a Democratic administration and even concerned because the Democrats are now a socialist party in the European sense, we are not witnessing the coming of the anti-Christ. A good strategy for political conflicts is to understand your opponent first – not to underestimate him, but not to overestimate him either.

Once conservatives do that, they will find some silver linings in the first moves of the Obama administration. Through a combination of ineptitude and zeal, Obama has in two short months locked down the conservative and Republican base. On fetal stem-cell research, on borders (e-verification), on spending, on unions, on shutting down talk radio, Obama has flexed the leftist muscle so nakedly and unmistakably that there isn’t a conservative left who will vote Democratic in the next election (and there were many who did so in the last).

As we move forward, Obama faces increasingly tough choices in the wars against Islamic fascism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza and Iran. Hopefully, he will make the right choices, and should he do so conservatives will need to be there to support him. If he makes the wrong choices, conservatives will need to be there to oppose him. But neither our support nor our opposition should be based on hysterical responses to policies that we just don't like. Let’s leave that kind of behavior to the liberals who invented it.
________________________________________________
David Horowitz is the founder of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and author of the new book, One Party Classroom.
FrontPage Magazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C437EEA9-A9A9-490D-B5E4-CD952FDEEE17)

SmthBluCitrus
04-03-2009, 10:27 PM
It's bound to happen though. The minority is going to try to do whatever they can to dissuade the greater majority in order to hemorrhage support. If that includes linking a current sitting leader to one of the foulest and most deviant leaders of recent memory -- they're going to do it.

That's politics.

DenButsu
04-03-2009, 10:30 PM
Yeah, I know, but when it happens here, where we're at least ostensibly trying to have good, meaningful, civil political debates and discussions, I think it merits talking about. There's nothing wrong with trying to set the bar a little higher.

SmthBluCitrus
04-03-2009, 10:34 PM
No, I absolutely agree. We certainly had our own cheerleaders on the left the past ... however many years -- eight-plus (and extending into the Obama administration). And, that definitely includes those of us on this board. PHX -- I'm looking in your direction.

I admit, I have a tendency to fall along fierce partisan lines from time to time. I think we all do; it's only human nature.

DenButsu
04-03-2009, 10:39 PM
Yeah, I agree, and the concept definitely applies to the left as well as the right - to all points on the political spectrum.

ari1013
04-03-2009, 10:59 PM
It's bound to happen though. The minority is going to try to do whatever they can to dissuade the greater majority in order to hemorrhage support. If that includes linking a current sitting leader to one of the foulest and most deviant leaders of recent memory -- they're going to do it.

That's politics.
I didn't see Bush's name in there ;)

SmthBluCitrus
04-03-2009, 11:00 PM
:laugh2:

gcoll
04-04-2009, 01:11 AM
I like David Horowitz.

blenderboy5
04-04-2009, 10:23 AM
Good read for the most part. But he does the annoying thing of excusing Obama's excessive spending and such by saying "It's okay, Bush did it too." By saying "Bush is a conservative, and he did this, so if Obama does it conservatives don't have to demonize him for it," it assumes 1) Bush was a traditional conservative and 2) Masssive government spending in the Bush admin (especially in the economic sector) was conservative.

And he's right about the whole "We can't compare Obama to Stalin and get mad when Bush is compared to Hitler" idea. They're both childish, even if Obama is more of a European socialist than Bush (and things like universal health care, massive so called shovel ready projects, etc are closer, not saying he's a socialist of course because he's not).

LetsGoA's
04-04-2009, 06:47 PM
LoL Horowitz is so washed up it really is not even funny anymore. His hey-day was over when various members of bush and Cheney's teams either resigned or were indited on criminal charges.

DenButsu
04-05-2009, 12:54 PM
And he's right about the whole "We can't compare Obama to Stalin and get mad when Bush is compared to Hitler" idea. They're both childish, even if Obama is more of a European socialist than Bush (and things like universal health care, massive so called shovel ready projects, etc are closer, not saying he's a socialist of course because he's not).

What does "European socialism" have to do with Stalinism?

blenderboy5
04-05-2009, 01:22 PM
What does "European socialism" have to do with Stalinism?

Some far righters compare Obama to Stalin, Mao, Marx, or any other well known communist or socialist. I didn't say the comparison was accurate, but it is what it is.

Zep
04-05-2009, 01:59 PM
Some far righters compare Obama to Stalin, Mao, Marx, or any other well known communist or socialist. I didn't say the comparison was accurate, but it is what it is.

You ready for opening day man???



YANKEES WOOOOOO!


sorry had to get that out of my system.

lakersrock
04-05-2009, 06:44 PM
there isn’t a conservative left who will vote Democratic in the next election (and there were many who did so in the last).

That's exactly right. So that means he can't lose any liberal support at all or he has virtually no chance of re-election. When our economy doesn't rocket back up and jobs don't become easily available everywhere to all, his spending will have been proven stupid and even the democrats (not liberals) wouldn't vote for him. He's basically put his re-election on the stimulus. If it works, he'll save his job. If it doesn't, he, the House and Senate will go back to the right. Then they'll get to try eradicating the greatest deficit in the history of mankind.

cabernetluver
04-05-2009, 09:24 PM
That's exactly right. So that means he can't lose any liberal support at all or he has virtually no chance of re-election. When our economy doesn't rocket back up and jobs don't become easily available everywhere to all, his spending will have been proven stupid and even the democrats (not liberals) wouldn't vote for him. He's basically put his re-election on the stimulus. If it works, he'll save his job. If it doesn't, he, the House and Senate will go back to the right. Then they'll get to try eradicating the greatest deficit in the history of mankind.

You are so stuck in the Bush era politics where it is all about conservative v liberal. The fact is, it is the center that will determine who wins and loses. You are right that the economy will determine his future, but, if the GOP puts up someone like Sarah Palin, they lose again.

Seppuku
04-06-2009, 01:44 AM
You are so stuck in the Bush era politics where it is all about conservative v liberal. The fact is, it is the center that will determine who wins and loses. You are right that the economy will determine his future, but, if the GOP puts up someone like Sarah Palin, they lose again.

I don't believe it will come down to just being a Palin personality and leadership thing. If the GOP can't figure out and present an alternative to their recent history of failure, they will lose again. Being the team that created the trouble and then fighting to thwart any solutions that anyone else brings to the table so you can go back to your same losing policies is not really a good plan for them.

Cubsrule
04-06-2009, 02:58 AM
You are so stuck in the Bush era politics where it is all about conservative v liberal. The fact is, it is the center that will determine who wins and loses. You are right that the economy will determine his future, but, if the GOP puts up someone like Sarah Palin, they lose again.

Since the election has ended what exactly has the GOP done to promote Palin? Because frankly I don't see it.

Zep
04-06-2009, 08:49 AM
Since the election has ended what exactly has the GOP done to promote Palin? Because frankly I don't see it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112252/GOP-Faithful-Like-Palin-Romney-Huckabee-2012.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/poll-palin-top-gop-pick-f_n_147505.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/01/sarah-palin-pac.html

http://www.palin4pres2012.com/

The GOP isn't going to start promoting ANYONE until a clear candidate emerges. But the fact that she's polling right up there with Romney and Huckabee among the GOP faithful, leads me to believe that she might have a strong enough base to make a push for the nod.

Personally, I don't think it would be the brightest thing to do, but I wouldn't have thought she'd have been selected as a VP candidate either, so what do I know.

cabernetluver
04-06-2009, 09:52 AM
Since the election has ended what exactly has the GOP done to promote Palin? Because frankly I don't see it.

First, she has been active, but more importantly, I did not write Palin per se, I wrote like Palin. Did you miss the word like? Do not set up arguments that were not made.

Cubsrule
04-06-2009, 02:48 PM
First, she has been active, but more importantly, I did not write Palin per se, I wrote like Palin. Did you miss the word like? Do not set up arguments that were not made.

There is no other candidate in the GOP like Palin. Who else that's a serious candidate for 2012 had as many problems as Palin did?

Cubsrule
04-06-2009, 02:50 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/112252/GOP-Faithful-Like-Palin-Romney-Huckabee-2012.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/poll-palin-top-gop-pick-f_n_147505.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/01/sarah-palin-pac.html

http://www.palin4pres2012.com/

The GOP isn't going to start promoting ANYONE until a clear candidate emerges. But the fact that she's polling right up there with Romney and Huckabee among the GOP faithful, leads me to believe that she might have a strong enough base to make a push for the nod.

Personally, I don't think it would be the brightest thing to do, but I wouldn't have thought she'd have been selected as a VP candidate either, so what do I know.

I've seen them giving guys like Romney and Ryan a nudge here and there. And those links are things she or others have done, not the GOP.

cabernetluver
04-06-2009, 02:56 PM
I can't make this stuff up.

Michelle Bachman is one of those people who has been pretty up front. Let's see what the Minnesota Independent (http://minnesotaindependent.com/31237/bachmann-reedcuation-camps) has to say


U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann says she fears the Obama administration will create “re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.” Audio after the jump. Here’s what Bachmann said on Minnesota radio station KTLK-AM (podcast) this weekend (in reference to The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, a proposed expansion of the AmeriCorps program that Obama may sign into law this week): It’s under the guise of — quote — volunteerism. But it’s not volunteers at all. It’s payingpeople to do work on behalf of government. … I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.

here is the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a1S-ToTwOA&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/06/bachmann-obama-wants-re-e_n_183552.html&feature=player_embedded) if you want to hear it yourself.

Oh, and just to head off the wing nuts who think this is real, factcheck .org debunked the "mandatory service" here (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_congress_creating_a_mandatory_public_service.ht ml)

So back to my point, yes if the economy is not turned around by the time President Obama runs again, he will be vulnerable, but not if the GOP puts up someone like Palin or, Bachman. It will have to be someone who is perceived to be in the centrist wing of the party.

SmthBluCitrus
04-06-2009, 03:03 PM
Man ... I love me some Michele Bachmann!

Cubsrule
04-06-2009, 03:16 PM
I can't make this stuff up.

Michelle Bachman is one of those people who has been pretty up front. Let's see what the Minnesota Independent (http://minnesotaindependent.com/31237/bachmann-reedcuation-camps) has to say



here is the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a1S-ToTwOA&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/06/bachmann-obama-wants-re-e_n_183552.html&feature=player_embedded) if you want to hear it yourself.

Oh, and just to head off the wing nuts who think this is real, factcheck .org debunked the "mandatory service" here (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_congress_creating_a_mandatory_public_service.ht ml)

So back to my point, yes if the economy is not turned around by the time President Obama runs again, he will be vulnerable, but not if the GOP puts up someone like Palin or, Bachman. It will have to be someone who is perceived to be in the centrist wing of the party.

To be honest anyone who thinks Bachman is a serious candidate is drunker than you.

SmthBluCitrus
04-06-2009, 03:19 PM
Who said she was a candidate?

cabernetluver
04-06-2009, 03:24 PM
To be honest anyone who thinks Bachman is a serious candidate is drunker than you.

tsk tsk tsk.

First shame on you for saying I am drunk. I have never made a personal comment about you.

Second, you once again failed to either, 1. read my post or 2. understand the simple language I used. I was pointing out to you, in the clearest terms I could find, that the GOP cannot just put up a CERTAIN TYPE of candidate.

Why don't you point out where I wrote the Michelle Bachman was running.

lakersrock
04-06-2009, 04:38 PM
You are so stuck in the Bush era politics where it is all about conservative v liberal. The fact is, it is the center that will determine who wins and loses. You are right that the economy will determine his future, but, if the GOP puts up someone like Sarah Palin, they lose again.

obama's budget puts us at 5T+ deficit. If it doesn't turn around the economy and get a ton of jobs before the elections in a year and a half, the Senate and House will go back to a Republican majority, thus stopping any more of his insane ideas. So in 2012, just about any Republican candidate will beat him if all this spending doesn't work. All he will have done is succeed in screwing us and future generations.

cabernetluver
04-06-2009, 04:57 PM
obama's budget puts us at 5T+ deficit. If it doesn't turn around the economy and get a ton of jobs before the elections in a year and a half, the Senate and House will go back to a Republican majority, thus stopping any more of his insane ideas. So in 2012, just about any Republican candidate will beat him if all this spending doesn't work. All he will have done is succeed in screwing us and future generations.

Given your name, I will just shake my head from left to right and back again. You see, we both cheer for the same basketball team, so I don't want to demean you. I have already agreed that if the economy is not perceived as having turned around, Obama will be vulnerable. The place anyone but the most partisan would say is the "just about any" part of your statement.

The vulnerability is only an opportunity. What you fail to acknowledge is that simple fact. The reason the Democrats were able to take over both houses of congress and the White House is not just the opportunity given them by the GOP and the economy. Those things only created the chance.

What the Democratic Party was able to do, was convert the opportunity by running the right people. In congress, they found yellow dog type Democrats to run. For the president, they found a person who was and is perceived by a substantial majority to be a centrist. Now I am not asking you to acknowledge these positions, but only to acknowledge the polls that show this.

You can rant your honest feelings, but by the time you were born, I had already seen bad candidates win, because they were faced with even worse candidates. On the other hand, let's just agree on who we think will own the Larry O'Brien NBA Championship Trophy.

ari1013
04-06-2009, 05:47 PM
obama's budget puts us at 5T+ deficit. If it doesn't turn around the economy and get a ton of jobs before the elections in a year and a half, the Senate and House will go back to a Republican majority, thus stopping any more of his insane ideas. So in 2012, just about any Republican candidate will beat him if all this spending doesn't work. All he will have done is succeed in screwing us and future generations.
How many times are you going to write posts where you blatantly are making **** up? If this was a sports forum you'd have gotten a ban already for posting so many fake rumors. Oh wait...

lakersrock
04-06-2009, 08:13 PM
How many times are you going to write posts where you blatantly are making **** up? If this was a sports forum you'd have gotten a ban already for posting so many fake rumors. Oh wait...

I did make it up. I was actually making obama sound better than I should have. Instead of 5T, I forgot the 1 in front of the 5T.


It’ll (National Debt) hit $12.7-trillion by the end of the fiscal year on September 30th. The Administration’s four year estimate shows that by the end of September 2012, the Debt will have soared to $16.2-trillion – which amounts to nearly 100% of the projected Gross Domestic Product that year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4872310.shtml

So yeah, if his crap doesn't work, he'll lose to Palin, Romney or Huckabee. I even think Rush would beat him at that point. In Sept. 08, the debt was 10T. After his four years, it'll be 16T. That's kind of inexcusable to most Americans.

cabernetluver
04-06-2009, 08:41 PM
How many times are you going to write posts where you blatantly are making **** up? If this was a sports forum you'd have gotten a ban already for posting so many fake rumors. Oh wait...

Ari, as you know, there are certain subjects that I look to you for your expertise, and others, like wine, that well not so much.

When it comes to econ, I know I am out of my depth compared to you. I think that some people need to learn when to express their knowledge, and other times to learn to hide their ignorance.

ari1013
04-07-2009, 12:20 AM
I did make it up. I was actually making obama sound better than I should have. Instead of 5T, I forgot the 1 in front of the 5T.



http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4872310.shtml

So yeah, if his crap doesn't work, he'll lose to Palin, Romney or Huckabee. I even think Rush would beat him at that point. In Sept. 08, the debt was 10T. After his four years, it'll be 16T. That's kind of inexcusable to most Americans.
1. Deficit and debt are different concepts.

2. WTF are you talking about with forgetting the "1 in front of the 5T?"

I will report every single one of your blatant BS posts from here on out. You've been warned.

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 12:42 AM
Who said she was a candidate?

I assumed when he brought up Bachman after Palin that he was referring to her as a strong candidate. Either way, its doubtful either of them are major players in 2012.

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 12:50 AM
tsk tsk tsk.

First shame on you for saying I am drunk. I have never made a personal comment about you.

Second, you once again failed to either, 1. read my post or 2. understand the simple language I used. I was pointing out to you, in the clearest terms I could find, that the GOP cannot just put up a CERTAIN TYPE of candidate.

Why don't you point out where I wrote the Michelle Bachman was running.

It was a compliment considering you love cabernet. Either way, why put Bachman's name up at all, anyone and everyone knows she would never win? Also I know perfectly well we just can't throw anyone up there if the economy is still bad and expect to win. Thats all I was referring to, you said we can't throw Bachman up there and I said anyone who thinks she is a serious candidate is drunker than you. Thats all, now move on.

SmthBluCitrus
04-07-2009, 08:25 AM
I assumed when he brought up Bachman after Palin that he was referring to her as a strong candidate. Either way, its doubtful either of them are major players in 2012.

I think you need to go back and re-read what he actually wrote. "Some body like Palin, or Bachmann" means something entirely different.

cabernetluver
04-07-2009, 09:44 AM
It was a compliment considering you love cabernet. Either way, why put Bachman's name up at all, anyone and everyone knows she would never win? Also I know perfectly well we just can't throw anyone up there if the economy is still bad and expect to win. Thats all I was referring to, you said we can't throw Bachman up there and I said anyone who thinks she is a serious candidate is drunker than you. Thats all, now move on.

It is never a compliment to call someone drunk. It is an insult to presume such.

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 02:57 PM
I think you need to go back and re-read what he actually wrote. "Some body like Palin, or Bachmann" means something entirely different.

Ok so who is someone like Palin or Bachmann that is a serious candidate?

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 02:58 PM
It is never a compliment to call someone drunk. It is an insult to presume such.

Get over it.

SmthBluCitrus
04-07-2009, 03:09 PM
Ok so who is someone like Palin or Bachmann that is a serious candidate?

You seriously need a list of divisive right wingers?

Well, for instance:

Sarah Palin herself -- definitely a serious candidate.
John Thune
Mike Pence
Mike Huckabee -- who's been making some wild and outlandish comments as of late

You need more?

SmthBluCitrus
04-07-2009, 03:10 PM
Get over it.

Maybe apologize. It was a lame attempt at humor.

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 03:12 PM
You seriously need a list of divisive right wingers?

Well, for instance:

Sarah Palin herself -- definitely a serious candidate.
John Thune
Mike Pence
Mike Huckabee -- who's been making some wild and outlandish comments as of late

You need more?

None of them at this point are serious candidates, now that could be a mute point three years from now, but I doubt it.

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 03:13 PM
Maybe apologize. It was a lame attempt at humor.

Ugh no, I could care less to be honest.

SmthBluCitrus
04-07-2009, 03:15 PM
None of them at this point are serious candidates, now that could be a mute point three years from now, but I doubt it.

It's "moot" point, not "mute."

And yes, they are all "serious" candidates. Seeing as how there's really no formal leadership within the Republican Party at this point -- Michael Steele is a wash -- any single one of these has the potential to step up and take control of that wing of the party.

And, either way (whether the Obama administration is seen as successful or as a failure), that appears to be the wing of the party that is going to be the one to step up and put forth a candidate in 2012.

SmthBluCitrus
04-07-2009, 03:16 PM
Ugh no, I could care less to be honest.

You're just being obstinate and prideful. You literally called the guy a drunk and now you refuse to own up to that because you "meant it as a compliment."

That's pretty effin' lame and ****** of you.

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 03:19 PM
You're just being obstinate and prideful. You literally called the guy a drunk and now you refuse to own up to that because you "meant it as a compliment."

That's pretty effin' lame and ****** of you.

I didn't call the guy a drunk, read what I posted, and you both need to get over it, this a freakin internet forum not AA.

cabernetluver
04-07-2009, 03:22 PM
I didn't call the guy a drunk, read what I posted, and you both need to get over it, this a freakin internet forum not AA.

You need to own up when you make a mistake.

From the rules as published

2) Flaming. I know things can get pretty heated when you're discussing sports, but there's no need to get personal. Anyone who engages in name-calling, baiting, etc faces warnings via infractions and an eventual ban.

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 03:25 PM
You need to own up when you make a mistake.

Own up to what, I don't know you personally. You can call me drunk, stubborn, I could care less.

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 03:31 PM
You need to own up when you make a mistake.

From the rules as published

2) Flaming. I know things can get pretty heated when you're discussing sports, but there's no need to get personal. Anyone who engages in name-calling, baiting, etc faces warnings via infractions and an eventual ban.

I didn't call you anything, all I said was anyone who thinks Bachmann is a serious candidate is drunker than you. Maybe I should have said is drinking more cabernet, either way it wasn't meant to be an insult but if you want to take it before Wrigs, by all means. But if you think it was in bad taste then I am sorry.

ari1013
04-07-2009, 03:36 PM
It's "moot" point, not "mute."

And yes, they are all "serious" candidates. Seeing as how there's really no formal leadership within the Republican Party at this point -- Michael Steele is a wash -- any single one of these has the potential to step up and take control of that wing of the party.

And, either way (whether the Obama administration is seen as successful or as a failure), that appears to be the wing of the party that is going to be the one to step up and put forth a candidate in 2012.
Well, maybe to him it was a very quiet point?

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 03:38 PM
Well, maybe to him it was a very quiet point?

Yes it was, I probably get those two mixed up on most posts. Not that I care, most people know what I mean :p.

ari1013
04-07-2009, 03:58 PM
I'm just trying to lighten things up in here. Let's get back on topic.


What GOP leaders do you guys think actually have a shot at winning their primary while going mainstream?

Cubsrule
04-07-2009, 04:04 PM
I'm just trying to lighten things up in here. Let's get back on topic.


What GOP leaders do you guys think actually have a shot at winning their primary while going mainstream?

Its hard to say, if the economy is still lagging I think Romney's a big contender, Huckabee will likely try but likely won't get too far, same with Palin. Considering Obama hasn't even been in office a 100 days yet. It likely depends on what the main issue is, what will be the main issue?

ari1013
04-07-2009, 05:51 PM
Its hard to say, if the economy is still lagging I think Romney's a big contender, Huckabee will likely try but likely won't get too far, same with Palin. Considering Obama hasn't even been in office a 100 days yet. It likely depends on what the main issue is, what will be the main issue?
The only issue will be Obama. Honestly, can you really imagine anything else?

By mainstream, I mean basically running as a moderate in the primaries and not banking hard-to-the-right. I can't see Romney doing that because he's already shown that he'll say whatever it takes to make voters see him as the furthest thing from Obama (you know, despite his record in Mass). He's probably a favorite overall, but that's not really what I was getting at.

blenderboy5
04-07-2009, 06:36 PM
I'm just trying to lighten things up in here. Let's get back on topic.


What GOP leaders do you guys think actually have a shot at winning their primary while going mainstream?

I realize what you said already, but I think Romney has the best shot, and can alternate between moderate and right enough.

He can point to his work with health care, his not far stance on abortion and gay marriage, etc.

cabernetluver
04-07-2009, 08:02 PM
I realize what you said already, but I think Romney has the best shot, and can alternate between moderate and right enough.

He can point to his work with health care, his not far stance on abortion and gay marriage, etc.

BB, you have a good point, if 2008 race had not happened. He has painted himself a picture that is different than he would have had absent 2008. He wanted to be the conservative choice, and if I remember, he did not completely convince you that he was honest. He convinced me, and a lot of what he said will come back to paint him as a far right wing Republican in the general if he gets that far.

I would imagine the Huntsman and Pawlenty might have a better chance.

blenderboy5
04-07-2009, 08:27 PM
BB, you have a good point, if 2008 race had not happened. He has painted himself a picture that is different than he would have had absent 2008. He wanted to be the conservative choice, and if I remember, he did not completely convince you that he was honest. He convinced me, and a lot of what he said will come back to paint him as a far right wing Republican in the general if he gets that far.

I would imagine the Huntsman and Pawlenty might have a better chance.

He isn't honest. In fact, Romney reminded me of the GOP's version of John Kerry (minus Vietnam plus actually making his own money). Willing to say anything to win.