Originally Posted By dshyates The GOP courted the crazies by pandering to them for their vote. Now the crazies have them by the b****. Haha. Now only an extremist with zero chance of winning in the general is all that will get the nomination. I am glad to finally see the "win at all cost" philosophy they have been operating on since Nixon finally come home to roost. It is funny that their base can't see that their leadership will lie, cheat, and steal to win, all while bragging about their moral fortitude. Their greed is destroying the country all while wrapping themselves in the flag claiming to be the real patriots. All they really care about is making their overlords even richer. They don't give a crap that that money doesn't just appear out of thin air, it is being taken from the dwindling middle class. A lot of Liberals say that their goal is to distroy the middle class. They don't. It is just the heartless end result of giving all the money to the wealthy. And they simply don't care.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Donny, you wouldn't know an empty suit if you were wearing it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry I have a lot say about Perry when I have a chance. One quick thing for now: there's one thing that works against him as far as GOP election strategy goes: he's from a solid Red state. I don't think there's any doubt as to where Texas' electoral votes will go come next November regardless of who the Republican nominee is. But, a candidate like Romney has the potential of bringing with him a traditionally-Blue state and its electoral votes, and there might be others.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Donny may be a knucklehead...but 39% approval of Obama right now isn't exactly a glowing review. Obama's only saving grace may be that the Republicans can't help but to step in their own poop.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I am surprised Pawlenty bailed out already, while Gingrich stays in. Maybe he sees a chance to scoop up a lucrative Fox News analyst job now that so many of their regulars are still in the race.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I honestly believe that the reason Huckabee stayed in the race sooo long in '08 after it was clear he couldn't win the nom was to secure his tv slot with fox. It worked like a charm. And yeah, Obama's got 'approval' trouble - especially in the midwest, but compared to what? Bachmann? Even Romney? Certainly not Perry. 'SOMEBODY' will be the GOP nominee next summer. Somewhat likeliest seems to be Romney - because of the money - but I'm not sure how he gets the primary wins. Republicans don't like him, don't trust him, and evangelicals think he's a cult leader. If the GOP goes with their nutjob base, it'll be Bachmann. I just don't see Perry as a strong contender anywhere outside of the deep south. And I suspect he'll have money problems too - if you don't win primaries, donors don't donate - that's why Pawlenty's out. And Gingrich and Santorum aren't far behind. I still believe that Obama can beat either Romney or certainly Bachmann. I like his chances. It's congress I'm worried about.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Congress has an even lower approval rating than Obama. And that includes the Tea Party. Their standing with moderates took a huge hit with the debt ceiling shenanigans.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Their standing with moderates took a huge hit with the debt ceiling shenanigans.<< True, but I wonder how 'moderate' someone can actually be if they ever had a positive view of the tea party's policies.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It rarely fails that the "out" (of the white house) party is punished in mid-terms if the economy is bad. (Sometimes even when the economy is okay.) Some people who are self-described moderates simply go into "throw out the bums" mode. And they can safely be described as moderates because they DO vote for both parties, and don't have hard left or right positions in general. Many just don't think as much about politics in general as we do, and just vote their general displeasure when the economy is bad without giving it much more thought than that.
Originally Posted By gadzuux People who are easily fooled by misdirection. They're told that US long term debt is the biggest problem facing the nation, and they fall right in line. Never mind that the biggest problem facing our nation is right in front of their noses - unemployment and a tanking economy. Neither of these 'biggest problems' are helped by slashing federal spending. It 'should be' simple, but for some reason it isn't. And this points to yet another 'biggest problem' in the country - the sheer ignorance of approximately half it's population.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 In other words, many of the people who voted the Democrats in in droves in 2006 and 2008 votes GOP in 2010. It's not that they suddenly changed their political philosophies. They just voted for the "out" party. A surprisingly large group of people does that.
Originally Posted By ecdc I think, given the utter loathing most Americans have for their government right now, it's amazing Obama has the approval rating he does. Let's not forget how long Bush's hovered in the low thirties. And poor Dick Cheney—no one liked him. It's clear there's more than just the Dem base that likes Obama and respects him as the adult in the room. There's also plenty of "libs" that will vote for him (even if holding their nose) so that the crazy Republican du jour won't get it.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I haven't looked it up ecdc...but any idea what the historicaly outlook has been on Vice President's? I can't think of any who have really been "beloved".
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Most are pretty much ignored. But Cheney was quite visible and gave the impression that he was pulling the strings and setting the agenda moreso than any VP in recent memory.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, I was certainly not a Cheney fan but you can make an argument that he was one of the most qualified VPs we have had in the modern era. At least, in terms of defense and foreign affairs. It is no surprise that he was more engaged than other VPs might have been and in hindsight it does seem to have been a achilles heel for Bush (who had a couple of his own bad heels).
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>you can make an argument that he was one of the most qualified VPs we have had in the modern era<< Yes, and it's stunning how wrong he turned out to be on most everything given his years of experience in the White House in various administrations.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think references to his position the first time going toe to toe with Saddam (and not finishing the job) are likely more true than he is willing to admit. I still believe the middle east is better off without Saddam but the fiction about WMDs was the straw on the camel's back with me and the Bush administration. I'm starting to believe the most level headed of the group was Condoleeza Rice and I'm afraid she got steamrolled.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, that isn't fair. I know Powell resisted too but it appears he felt like his duty to the President was the ultimate factor.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Just look what he got handed for his loyalty - he was turned into a patsey for the UN speech with the claims of uranium and mobile enrichment facilities - and all of it was just a bunch of prefabricated lies to false-justify our way into war. I'm still appalled.
