• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
To clarify, I was not referring to Limbaugh or Huckabee with my "ignorant redneck" comment, I was referring to Palin, because someone said Huckabee had folksy charm, and then someone else said "like Sarah Palin?", which was what I meant to respond to.


Ah, that makes more sense! Because Mike Huckabee is a very smart man, even if he is SUPER conservative.


Palin may not be an ignorant redneck, but she is not viewer friendly :( (at least not interview friendly)
 
My God...

is that what Washington Politicians think hip hop is?

That's just creepy.
 
Whenever somebody mentions him...not necessarily directly to me, but even when I hear a side-conversation on a bus, train, etc....I compulsively shout, "F**KING ***hole!" as loud as I can.

It's a neurological thing.

Oh my... :funny:

To clarify, I was not referring to Limbaugh or Huckabee with my "ignorant redneck" comment, I was referring to Palin, because someone said Huckabee had folksy charm, and then someone else said "like Sarah Palin?", which was what I meant to respond to.

That would be me. :cwink:
 
After watching a TiVo'd episode of Fox News Sunday I think I can add another name to the 2012 Republican Primary.

So far we have Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty and now Mitt Romney.
 
Romney has spoken like a 2012 candidate quite a bit as of late.
 
Absolutely.

I know after watching his interview on Sunday, even I would vote for him! [/excel]
 
[SIZE=+2]Prominent Republicans' Moves Scrutinized for Clues to 2012 Bids[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 4, 2009
[/SIZE]



Little more than four months into President Obama's first term, potential Republican rivals have begun to stir, taking preliminary steps toward 2012 presidential campaigns aimed at rejuvenating a party that has found itself at its lowest point in a generation.

Twice this week, the political community has seized on signs of activity among prospective GOP presidential candidates. On Monday, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney delivered a speech at the Heritage Foundation, where he slammed Obama for having taken what he called a foreign "tour of apology" this year. Romney ran unsuccessfully for his party's nomination in 2008, and his speech was seen as a forceful
expression of interest in another bid.

The next day, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced that he will not seek reelection next year, voluntarily leaving after his second term. Pawlenty was runner-up to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in Sen. John McCain's 2008 vice presidential sweepstakes, and his move was interpreted as a step toward a possible 2012 presidential run, freed from the responsibilities of managing a state while campaigning full time for more than two years.

A third Republican governor, Mississippi's Haley Barbour, has scheduled appearances in New Hampshire and Iowa for later this month. Barbour, a former party chairman, will help raise money for Republicans on his forays to the two states at the front of the presidential nomination calendar. But as one of the canniest politicians in the Republican Party, Barbour knows that landing in either of those states, let alone both, will stoke speculation about his interest in 2012 as well.

And when former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) tried yesterday to roll back his accusation that Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, was a racist, that, too, was taken as a sign of his desire to shed baggage should he decide to seek the nomination.

Presidential activity is as much illusory as real at this point, as much an opportunity to feed blog speculation and cable conversation as a sign of actual preparations for a presidential campaign. But at a time when the Republican Party is on its back, out of power in Congress and shut out of the White House, the search for prominent and popular leaders is underway and no better vehicle exists than the long process of selecting the party's next presidential nominee.

"This is a time when leaders in our party are trying to put forward a more compelling vision for voters," said Terry Nelson, a Republican strategist. "It's also a time when one group of leaders has exited the stage and a new group of leaders has to come onto the stage to effectively put forward that message."

That transition is underway, but it has been difficult. At times, the older generation of Republicans -- including former vice president Richard B. Cheney, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and one or another of the party's congressional leaders -- has dominated. But many Republicans see it as essential that a different group begins to emerge to help redefine the GOP, and that has raised speculation about potential Obama challengers.

The list of prospective Republican candidates is lengthy and lacks an obvious front-runner. A CNN poll released this week showed a virtual three-way tie among Palin, Romney and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who also ran in 2008. All had about a fifth of the support of Republicans. Gingrich came in fourth, followed by former Florida governor Jeb Bush, whose family name remains an impediment to any possible near-term presidential aspirations.

The list is elastic and likely to change in coming months. Others who are considered possible candidates include South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is another possible candidate, though his decision to run for the Senate in 2010 would make a presidential bid in 2012 more difficult.
Some Republicans see this presidential cycle starting more slowly than they expected, held back by voter fatigue after the long 2008 campaign, by the GOP's internal problems and by Obama's popularity. Voters "clearly have been intrigued by the persona of this new president and his family," said Tom Rath, a veteran New Hampshire strategist. "There was no hunger to start a debate right away."

Others believe it is moving apace, as swiftly as in other recent cycles and out of necessity, given the demands that running for president now entail. "The last thing anybody wants to do is look back in late 2010 or early 2011 and say, 'I wish I could run. I can see how I might have a chance but I squandered all this time and I don't have anything to show,' " said GOP strategist John Weaver.
The 2008 campaign was one of the longest in history, but Republican strategists think the competition for their 2012 nomination will be as long or longer. They expect to see candidates beginning their campaigns immediately after the 2010 midterm elections, and to do that, they must spend much of the next 18 months getting ready.

Over that time, prospective candidates must gauge whether they have the political viability and the financial wherewithal to mount a successful campaign. If the last campaign is any guide, some of those now looking will conclude they have no realistic chance of winning and drop out before the campaign even begins.

"Most potential candidates are going to be looking at putting something into the field in early 2011, and you can't do that if you don't work hard for the next year and a half," Nelson said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303492_pf.html
 
Unless Obama truly ****s up...he will win re-election.
 
Well...Obama is truly ****ing up.

Look at the polls. The policies of Barack Obama go against the wishes of the American people. Obama's approval ratings are high because people like the man and most don't pay all that much attention. But when it comes down to an election, the political environment changes. People do start paying attention. Obama's ratings will fall.
 
Going back to the Presidential nominees of the GOP, I am interested in the impact Hayley Barbour will have on Mike Huckabee and vice versa. The two, superficially, are very similar. Both are charming Southern governors. The fact Hayley Barbour is significantly more intelligent and politically savvy should help him, but he doesn't have Huckabee's Baptist Preacher roots.
 
I disagree. He would have to screw up big time and what he is doing now is seen as great by his democratic base and by the people that only like him without knowing his policies, the uninformed voter.

Right now, the GOP seem like bitter old fools and they are just driving that party further into the ground. I would say I am 90% certain the man will win 2012. I think the more important issue is looking at 2016.
 
I disagree. He would have to screw up big time and what he is doing now is seen as great by his democratic base and by the people that only like him without knowing his policies, the uninformed voter.

Seen as great by his Democratic base? I disagree. Obama's reliance upon Bush security tactics (no matter what Cheney says) will rub true liberals the wrong way. The uninformed voter will become informed, or at least more informed, in an election cycle.

Right now, the GOP seem like bitter old fools and they are just driving that party further into the ground. I would say I am 90% certain the man will win 2012. I think the more important issue is looking at 2016.

Luckily you being certain in June of 2009 is of no consequence to an election in 2012. You are right, however, Republicans should not be looking at 2012, they should be looking at 2010.
 
So you want to have a friendly gentleman's wager whether or not Obama wins re-election?
 
Not at this time.

I cannot predict today that Obama will not win, the political landscape will change many times between now and then. What I am saying is that the notion that Obama will win in 2012 simply because he is popular now is a flawed one.

America has to be in a significantly better position in 2012 than it was in 2008 for Obama to ensure victory. I think there is a very real possibility that America will not be.
 
Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) need to stay the hell away from Twitter, in particular the "lingo" that is used by teenagers on Twitter. Check this out:

http://***********/chuckgrassley

"Pres Obama while u sightseeing in Paris u said 'time to delivr on healthcare' When you are a "hammer" u think evrything is NAIL I'm no NAIL"

"Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us"time to deliver" on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND."


Embarrassing. I can't stand Twitter. It is part of the constant degradation of coherent communication within society.
 
Last edited:
Seen as great by his Democratic base? I disagree. Obama's reliance upon Bush security tactics (no matter what Cheney says) will rub true liberals the wrong way. The uninformed voter will become informed, or at least more informed, in an election cycle.



Luckily you being certain in June of 2009 is of no consequence to an election in 2012. You are right, however, Republicans should not be looking at 2012, they should be looking at 2010.

The GOP winning the house in 2010 would only mean that the American public has to decided to balance the power a bit in government, it wouldn't be because the GOP actually did anything impressive, I mean what have they done to look impressive since January? Winning the House in 2010 will just prove they aren't completely in the toilet, it will just look sad if they didn't win in 2010, just the Dems looked pathetic when they lost control of the house in 2002.
 
The GOP winning the house in 2010 would only mean that the American public has to decided to balance the power a bit in government, it wouldn't be because the GOP actually did anything impressive, I mean what have they done to look impressive since January? Winning the House in 2010 will just prove they aren't completely in the toilet, it will just look sad if they didn't win in 2010, just the Dems looked pathetic when they lost control of the house in 2002.

The American people don't give a damn about the balance of power - they care about results.

If Democrats made the country a better place, they would risk no chance of losing momentum next election.

If Republicans made the country a better place, they would risk no chance of losing momentum.

But that doesn't happen. When a political party gets too much power, they get overly ambitious. So they **** up. When they **** up, they lose power.

I fully believe Obama is ****ing up. He has exceeded all my expectations. He is exactly the President I thought he would not be. Combine that with the incompetency of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are going to lose their grasp on Washington.
 
The American people don't give a damn about the balance of power - they care about results.

If Democrats made the country a better place, they would risk no chance of losing momentum next election.

If Republicans made the country a better place, they would risk no chance of losing momentum.

But that doesn't happen. When a political party gets too much power, they get overly ambitious. So they **** up. When they **** up, they lose power.

I fully believe Obama is ****ing up. He has exceeded all my expectations. He is exactly the President I thought he would not be. Combine that with the incompetency of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are going to lose their grasp on Washington.

But does the American public think he is ****ing up? What is his current approval numbers? You are hardly an unbiased individual to ask this question to and I don't care about your perosonal opinion on him.

The American public has almost always wanted a balance in the government, to prevent one party from having too much power, with a few exceptions. If the GOP gets the house in 2010, that would because the American public would want more balance, not because the GOP did anything to deserve it.
 
As I discussed last year, whoever wins the election is basically screwed. There is no way in theory or practice anyone can fix the economy in one term. They can at most decelerate or accelerate.

In economic terms, I personally saw that both candidates were going to accelerate the problem, albeit to varying speeds, but ultimately the same destination. In other words, the outcome would have been more or less the same with McCain or Obama. Obama has (as Matt puts it) inherited a poisoned chalice.

It is immaterial right now whether the American public thinks he is screwing up. I mean the public approved of Geithner, and he is full of fail and tax fraud. Give or take near the end of the term, and the economy does not pickup pace, it will be a different story. I can assure you, there has been zero to no improvement if you wade through the cooked number. Consumer confidence means nothing if the fundamentals are wrong to begin with.

The only solace for Obama fanboys is no electable Democrat or Republican would have been able to resolve it either. That make some of you feel better?
 
As I discussed last year, whoever wins the election is basically screwed. There is no way in theory or practice anyone can fix the economy in one term. They can at most decelerate or accelerate.

In economic terms, I personally saw that both candidates were going to accelerate the problem, albeit to varying speeds, but ultimately the same destination. In other words, the outcome would have been more or less the same with McCain or Obama. Obama has (as Matt puts it) inherited a poisoned chalice.

It is immaterial right now whether the American public thinks he is screwing up. I mean the public approved of Geithner, and he is full of fail and tax fraud. Give or take near the end of the term, and the economy does not pickup pace, it will be a different story. I can assure you, there has been zero to no improvement if you wade through the cooked number. Consumer confidence means nothing if the fundamentals are wrong to begin with.

The only solace for Obama fanboys is no electable Democrat or Republican would have been able to resolve it either. That make some of you feel better?

You may be correct, but again it is a little early to pass this judgement, things could change for the better or the worst between now and 2012, things may may not be as bleak you say there are or maybe they are, it depends when we hit the bottom of this.

I just consider approval ratings more important then Norm's opinion.
 
You may be correct, but again it is a little early to pass this judgement, things could change for the better or the worst between now and 2012, things may may not be as bleak you say there are or maybe they are, it depends when we hit the bottom of this.

I just consider approval ratings more important then Norm's opinion.

His approval rating has dropped 12 points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"