Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 68
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15,562
    vCash
    1500
    Sarah Palin could barely stand her ground against Joe Biden in a debate last election; Obama would make her look very bad in election debates if she were the Republican presidential candidate in 2012.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / SIUe
    Posts
    35,041
    vCash
    1500
    In strong Republican areas, the TP candidates are going to pick up a larger share of the vote than a traditional GOPer would have done because they really seem to do a better job of energizing the base. In strong Democratic areas, the TP candidates will do the reverse because they'll be turning away the moderates.

    The big question comes down to the split districts where you actually see much more voters in the middle. How are they going to react to the TPers?

    I think states like Nevada and Delaware would have been shoe-ins for the GOP in the Senate if they had a mainstream candidate. But then again, who really knows what would have happened?
    Member of the Owlluminati

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
    2011 Knicks Salary Cap Information

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    Oh i'm hoping off all the woman it's not Palin that's winning the primary. I'm just saying the GOP isn't this party that won't vote for women.

    If Condi came onto the scene, she'd have my vote in nano seconds.
    I completely agree with this point. Most republicans I know feel the same. Its funny really how many people think republicans are so bigoted, when most just want smaller government and a reasonable return of services for tax dollars provided. Its a dangerous assumption for the left to assume we all look like Archy Bunker. And I'll beleive in the dems and republicans' confidence come November. Until then its hot air.

    I'm also reminded of how Scott Brown getting elected in Mass was so impossible it was considered laughable by the left... and who was laughing after the election?

    Arrogance will get neither party anywhere. BUt I welcome the early celebration by the left.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    For Scott Brown, I'd say alot of Democrats were still laughing...considering many of those who elected him had no clue that he voted for "evil, socialized medicine" in Mass. Everyone was saying that he was the next President in 2012, and a couple weeks after him being elected I never heard a word about him.

    There's always a new flavor of the month for Republicans(Palin, Jindal, Boehner, etc), b/c let's be honest, after GWB the entire party was pretty much in disarray. I don't even know who leads the party, or who would be a viable candidate for them in 2012. That's part of the reason why we see a Republican political operation like the Tea Parties...created, funded, endorsed, sponsored, and attended by all Republicans. It's easier to fool people into saying "vote them all out"(aka vote Republicans back in), then presenting any new ideas.

    I like the idea of getting some new faces in, but I dont have any respect for the Tea Party...b/c I know what it is(a GOP political operation), and I know what's it's not(a grassroots movement).

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The Schmooze View Post
    For Scott Brown, I'd say alot of Democrats were still laughing...considering many of those who elected him had no clue that he voted for "evil, socialized medicine" in Mass. Everyone was saying that he was the next President in 2012, and a couple weeks after him being elected I never heard a word about him.

    There's always a new flavor of the month for Republicans(Palin, Jindal, Boehner, etc), b/c let's be honest, after GWB the entire party was pretty much in disarray. I don't even know who leads the party, or who would be a viable candidate for them in 2012. That's part of the reason why we see a Republican political operation like the Tea Parties...created, funded, endorsed, sponsored, and attended by all Republicans. It's easier to fool people into saying "vote them all out"(aka vote Republicans back in), then presenting any new ideas.

    I like the idea of getting some new faces in, but I dont have any respect for the Tea Party...b/c I know what it is(a GOP political operation), and I know what's it's not(a grassroots movement).
    I'd say anytime one party isn't in power their is a flavor of the month.

    John kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    4,969
    vCash
    1500
    If Republicans were smart, they would kick tea partiers out and make them form a new party. Extremism is the last thing we need in this country, and the tea party is about as extreme as it gets.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Malvern, PA
    Posts
    80,143
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by FOBolous View Post
    The GOP started a fire they can't control. They thought they can use the Tea Party Movement to regain congress but the Tea Party's doing the complete opposite. If the O'Donnel thing repeats throughout the Mid-Term...not only will the Tea Party cost them congress (Tea Party's candidates don't appeal to moderates) but many longtime career politicians in the GOP will lose their job.
    Not sure if you are saying GOP started the Tea Party movement, but they didn't (If that's not what you are saying then I just misinterpreted ). They certainly fueled the fire though because it served their purpose of showing dissension against the current establishment.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The Schmooze View Post
    For Scott Brown, I'd say alot of Democrats were still laughing...considering many of those who elected him had no clue that he voted for "evil, socialized medicine" in Mass. Everyone was saying that he was the next President in 2012, and a couple weeks after him being elected I never heard a word about him.

    There's always a new flavor of the month for Republicans(Palin, Jindal, Boehner, etc), b/c let's be honest, after GWB the entire party was pretty much in disarray. I don't even know who leads the party, or who would be a viable candidate for them in 2012. That's part of the reason why we see a Republican political operation like the Tea Parties...created, funded, endorsed, sponsored, and attended by all Republicans. It's easier to fool people into saying "vote them all out"(aka vote Republicans back in), then presenting any new ideas.

    I like the idea of getting some new faces in, but I dont have any respect for the Tea Party...b/c I know what it is(a GOP political operation), and I know what's it's not(a grassroots movement).
    A GOP political operation that votes against the GOP establishment.

    And I mean...when you control nothing in government, it's kind of tough to have a leader. I would assume the leaders right now are Boehner and McConnell.
    Last edited by gcoll; 09-15-2010 at 06:32 PM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,962
    vCash
    1500
    Conservatives like to call liberals socialist so I guess its fair to label the tea party and its candidates as fascist. Now which is better socialism or fascism? looks like we may be heading either way

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,760
    vCash
    1500
    I would rather not take control of either house than nominate candidates that do not hold to Conservative principles. In the brief snippets I heard about the losing candidate in Delaware he did not fit that bill. So I am completely fine with O'Donnel giving it a run to win the election. Though I don't personally believe that the TP's are so outside the mainstream of voters in this country especially in this current political climate. With more and more independents running from the Democratic party as the presidents approval ratings continue to fall. Right now it is not a good time to be an incumbent on either side of the aisle though as we have seen.

    One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread of gloating is the enthusiasm gap between the R's and D's I heard this morning that there was twice the turnout than was expected for the Republican primary. You factor that in with the fact that O'Donnel is going to be getting a lot of free publicity for a while due to the shock factor of her knocking off an establishment candidate her name will be known by everyone in the state before the day is over. If she continues campaigning as hard as she had to do to win the nomination she will be a very formidable opponent.

    As far as Palin and the presidency I don't think she will run I think she enjoys playing King maker with her endorsements. She is making money hand over fist running around and endorsing candidates. If she does run I hope she gets bounced quickly out of the primaries for the simple fact is I can't stand to listen to the woman speak. A name to look out for is Indiana's governor Mitch Daniels he has not officially announced but he is going to run for President. He is very quietly but quickly building his war chest to make a run at it. I for one would LOVE to see a Debate between Obama and Daniels.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,760
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by lamar2006 View Post
    Conservatives like to call liberals socialist so I guess its fair to label the tea party and its candidates as fascist. Now which is better socialism or fascism? looks like we may be heading either way
    often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

    You care to explain how the tea party candidates are fascist? Either you did not understand the definition of fascism or you know nothing about what the tea parties stand for.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by lamar2006 View Post
    Conservatives like to call liberals socialist so I guess its fair to label the tea party and its candidates as fascist. Now which is better socialism or fascism? looks like we may be heading either way
    Socialism and fascism are actually pretty similar.

    But. I mean. The Tea Party gets attacked a lot. Not necessarily called "fascist", but they are constantly called extremists.
    Last edited by gcoll; 09-15-2010 at 06:50 PM.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,337
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosiercubsfan View Post
    I would rather not take control of either house than nominate candidates that do not hold to Conservative principles. In the brief snippets I heard about the losing candidate in Delaware he did not fit that bill. So I am completely fine with O'Donnel giving it a run to win the election. Though I don't personally believe that the TP's are so outside the mainstream of voters in this country especially in this current political climate. With more and more independents running from the Democratic party as the presidents approval ratings continue to fall. Right now it is not a good time to be an incumbent on either side of the aisle though as we have seen.

    One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread of gloating is the enthusiasm gap between the R's and D's I heard this morning that there was twice the turnout than was expected for the Republican primary. You factor that in with the fact that O'Donnel is going to be getting a lot of free publicity for a while due to the shock factor of her knocking off an establishment candidate her name will be known by everyone in the state before the day is over. If she continues campaigning as hard as she had to do to win the nomination she will be a very formidable opponent.

    As far as Palin and the presidency I don't think she will run I think she enjoys playing King maker with her endorsements. She is making money hand over fist running around and endorsing candidates. If she does run I hope she gets bounced quickly out of the primaries for the simple fact is I can't stand to listen to the woman speak. A name to look out for is Indiana's governor Mitch Daniels he has not officially announced but he is going to run for President. He is very quietly but quickly building his war chest to make a run at it. I for one would LOVE to see a Debate between Obama and Daniels.
    To your first paragraph about who you would or would not want getting the nomination.... Not meant as a challenge to you, but as a statement from my point of view, if I felt that my choices were people who did not adhere to my political philosophy, and I had a choice of someone who bends in my direction, or, someone who leans in the opposite direction, I have no problem getting half a loaf then none at all.

    As far as the turnout, it was not that great, but, given a competitive race, of course there would be higher turnout than expected.

    In your last paragraph, I once heard the second hardest thing to do was run for president, the hardest was to stop running.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    My views are unelectable. So that whole "vote for the person closest" thing is sort of the reality I have to accept.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The Abyss of New York
    Posts
    4,883
    vCash
    1500

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •