Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[StorminNorman]

I like how Obama boasted the stimulus saved 600,000 jobs at the same time it was announced more Americans were unemployed. Complete BS.

I thought Obama said that if we didn't pass the stimulus, we would face 8% unemployment. We did pass the stimulus and are at what, over 9%?

 

[Paradoxium]

It's really a beautiful scam if you think of it. There is no way of measuring how much jobs he cost at the creation of his x-number of jobs. It will always sound positive when state the gross output, and never know the actual net output. But basic economics and history tells you most government jobs are basically very inefficient to begin with, and thus will always burden the private sector to certain degree.

He can try cooking the numbers, but it won't change the employment reality after a certain time. Even the unemployment statistics are cooked to some degree (i.e. people who give up searching for jobs don't count as the unemployed according to government statistics), granted every other administration has done the same, but you would be naive to think he end this practice. As much change as GM truck to a Chrysler truck, both bankrupt and full of fail. t:

 

[SuBe]

He's not cooking numbers, he is just making them up as he goes along. Comepletely different.

 

[StorminNorman]

It's like cooking with play-doh.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I like how Obama boasted the stimulus saved 600,000 jobs at the same time it was announced more Americans were unemployed. Complete BS.

I thought Obama said that if we didn't pass the stimulus, we would face 8% unemployment. We did pass the stimulus and are at what, over 9%?

Of course it's BS. He's like the liberal version of "Teflon Ron" Reagan. No matter what you throw at him, people will continue liking him.

 

[Marx]

LAURA BUSH: I UNDERSTAND WHY CHENEY IS SPEAKING OUT
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/08/laura-bush-i-understand-why-cheneys-speaking-out/

Former first lady Laura Bush said Monday she knows why former Vice President Dick Cheney feels the need to attack President Obama's policies, and publicly defend his own administration's legacy.

But she explained why her husband, former President George Bush, has not given any public interviews or commented critically on the new administration since leaving office in January.

"I think that's [Cheney's] right as a citizen of the U.S., and I think he also feels obligated, and so I understand why he wants to speak out," Laura Bush said in an interview on ABC's Good Morning America broadcast Monday. "On the other hand, George feels like as a former president that he owes President Obama his silence on issues, and that there's no reason to second guess any decisions that he makes."

 

[DACrowe]

Presidential approval ratings less than a year into a Presidency are completely worthless.

That's why I am looking at the issues themselves.

I suggest you base it on whether people think Obama is effective. If the economy turns around over the next year, his approval ratings will be through the roof. If the American public thinks a president (an incumbent at that!) is doing a good job, they will be less dogmatic about his policies. And I do think Obama's policies will work. If the economy is in expansion in 2012 and we're out of Iraq and universal healthcare hasn't self-destructed (the biggest danger), then cries of "socialist" and "small government" will mean nothing.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I suggest you base it on whether people think Obama is effective. If the economy turns around over the next year, his approval ratings will be through the roof. If the American public thinks a president (an incumbent at that!) is doing a good job, they will be less dogmatic about his policies. And I do think Obama's policies will work. If the economy is in expansion in 2012 and we're out of Iraq and universal healthcare hasn't self-destructed (the biggest danger), then cries of "socialist" and "small government" will mean nothing.

We won't be out of Iraq in 2012. We're going to be there probably for the next 10 years or so.

 

[DACrowe]

We'll probably be there for decades, but in the same way we're in S. Korea and Germany. We'll be down to several thousand by 2012, supposedly.

 

[StorminNorman]

I suggest you base it on whether people think Obama is effective.

Why? The opinion of the American people right now about Obama is irrelevant.

If the economy turns around over the next year, his approval ratings will be through the roof. If the American public thinks a president (an incumbent at that!) is doing a good job, they will be less dogmatic about his policies. And I do think Obama's policies will work. If the economy is in expansion in 2012 and we're out of Iraq and universal healthcare hasn't self-destructed (the biggest danger), then cries of "socialist" and "small government" will mean nothing.

Being in or out of Iraq in 2012 won't mean anything. It all comes down to the economy. That's obvious.

 

[VampElvis]

I think it (presence in Iraq) counts in the sum total of things but it isn't the dealbreaker it was in '08.

 

[hippie_hunter]

LAURA BUSH: I UNDERSTAND WHY CHENEY IS SPEAKING OUT
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/08/laura-bush-i-understand-why-cheneys-speaking-out/

While I wish Cheney did lie low for a while, Laura does make a very valid point.

 

[Kelly]

I have no problem, AT ALL with Cheney speaking out. He just irritates, that's all. He has every right to speak out. He understands the protocal of a President not speaking out against a sitting President. That protocal does not keep him from speaking out, therefore he is. Just because he irritates me, has nothing to do with his right to do so.

I respect Bush's silence, he learned well from Presidents before him.......except of course Carter, but others have held to that protocal very and with respect.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I have no problem, AT ALL with Cheney speaking out. He just irritates, that's all. He has every right to speak out. He understands the protocal of a President not speaking out against a sitting President. That protocal does not keep him from speaking out, therefore he is. Just because he irritates me, has nothing to do with his right to do so.

I respect Bush's silence, he learned well from Presidents before him.......except of course Carter, but others have held to that protocal very and with respect.

Protocol.

 

[Kelly]

So? Did you get the point? good......*smiles*

 

[DACrowe]

I think Cheney has the right to say whatever he wants. But I think it is bad form and am under no illusions that he is trying to rewrite his legacy, as it is sinking in history will see him as a villain. There is little else to it.

Though it is ironic, because Al Gore was silent for two years until he spoke out against the Iraq War that was about to be waged at the end of 2002 and Cheney and his administration called Gore's statements disgraceful and unpatriotic.

How ironic, indeed.

 

[Kelly]

I would have to know Gore's exact wording to deem that reaction....


But you could be right...

 

[Kelly]

I would have to know Gore's exact wording to deem that reaction....


But you could be right...

 

[DACrowe]

Why? The opinion of the American people right now about Obama is irrelevant.

I was referring to his entire first term and how people judge his effectiveness, not just now. That is more important than whether people think his policies are "socialist" or not. Kind of like the Democrats who might ideologically disagree with Reagan but mostly supported him in 1984, because they liked his work on the job and he was the incumbent (it helped he was against a left-wing ideologue which may reverse if Palin, Jindal or Huckabee get the nomination in 2012).

Being in or out of Iraq in 2012 won't mean anything. It all comes down to the economy. That's obvious.

If we are mostly out of Iraq and the economy has turned around, then both domestically and foreign relations he will appear strong and popular on. Making him very hard to attack beyond the "big government" angle which if both things go well will be moot.

 

[redfirebird2008]

So? Did you get the point? good......*smiles*

You're a teacher. *smiles*

 

[DACrowe]

I would have to know Gore's exact wording to deem that reaction....


But you could be right...

Former Vice President Al Gore speaking to the Commonwealth of California in San Fransisco on September 23, 2002:

I’m speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country which I believe would be preferable to the course recommended by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.

To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.

.....

If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, “that’s for the Iraqis to come together and decide.”

.....

President Bush now asserts that we will take pre-emptive action even if we take the threat we perceive is not imminent. If other nations assert the same right then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear – any nation that perceives circumstances that could eventually lead to an imminent threat would be justified under this approach in taking military action against another nation. An unspoken part of this new doctrine appears to be that we claim this right for ourselves – and only for ourselves. It is, in that sense, part of a broader strategy to replace ideas like deterrence and containment with what some in the administration “dominance.”

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

Heh. Funny. Cheney said speaking out against his Administration during policy making was dangerous for the country and was endangering American lives. Now, he is speaking out against the new Administration MONTHS after leaving office and saying the same things about Obama. Afterall, Obama, like Gore is an unpatriotic disgrace that doesn't understand what it means to fight terrorism as he demonstrated so well in 2003 when they scoffed Gore and his like off to invade Iraq. Oh well.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Cheney is a fear-mongering prick.

 

[Marx]

GOP RAISES $14 MILLION IN ONE NIGHT FOR 2010
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/08/gop-raises-14-million-in-one-night-for-2010/

Monday evening’s high-profile Republican fundraising dinner yielded approximately $14 million, according to a joint statement released by congressional Republican leaders.

The event, which featured former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as the headliner, raised about $7.25 million for Senate Republicans and $7.2 million for House GOP candidates.

“As we look forward to the 2010 election cycle, we understand what’s at stake and the principles that we are fighting for on behalf of voters across the country,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

The annual joint fundraising dinner occupied political headlines in the run-up to Monday evening, because of a continuing controversy over whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would attend the event after she declined earlier this year to be the main speaker. Palin was expected to be in the audience.

“Tonight’s success is a testament to how well Republicans’ message of fiscal responsibility and smaller government is resonating,” said Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

 

[Kelly]

You're a teacher. *smiles*

Yeah, I'm sure no teachers make spelling errors....

 

[souvlaki]

Yeah, I'm sure no teachers make spelling errors....

lol. It really depends on what you teach. My history/psychology teacher in highschool was easily the worst speller I have ever met.