Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time for US to Support Her!

George W. Bush, in his first run, fooled an America desperate for a return to Ronald Reagan that he was a Reagan style conservative. He fooled just barely enough to get in. It was only his incumbency status, and our nation being "at war" (9/11 was still fresh in America's memory), that squeaked him through the second time. Anything but a landslide in either case.

Hawk,
I do not believe the American electorate will re-elect BHO. He is to our detriment and to the detriment of our country and has failed to do the job he was elected to do. He had no leadeship ability coming in due to his lack of executive experience and he has displayed through his appointments and his decision making that on the job training has not worked either.. One only has to look at his list of czar appointees, some in his cabinet, and his closest advisors to determine what he knows and who he is.
Hopefully and prayerfully the Republican party will nominate someone with the ability to communicate to all of those in America that vote but do not know how to do their own research and listen to what either someone tells them or to a talking head on TV or Radio.
The Vann Jones saga (which continues), Obama's history with Jerimiah Wright, his appointments of Kevin Jennings, Cass Sunstein, Robert Creamer, John Holdren, and Eric Holder to name a few ought to be enough to disqualify him with voters. Now throw in 8% or higher unemployment and a $100 bill that is worth about 75% of what it was when he took office and his incumbant advantage is gone IMHO.
Michelle Bachman can beat this guy if she "takes the gloves off" and pounds him on his record and his lack of leadership. I am a little concerned that our country is not ready to elect a women president though. I hope I am wrong because she has more "fire" than Mitt. . All points purely my observations and my opinions.
BTW and FWIW "I have not officially endorsed a candidate yet."

Dave

I'd vote for Bachmann if she was the only choice against what's his name, but truth is she's fluff as far as I'm concerned. She was IRS and I despise IRS and anyone low enough to work for the Service. People ought to have a little more honor than that.

Current contenders are either not electable or not someone I could for for as opposed to voting against the other choice. I might could get behind Alan West if he ran but there's much I don't know about the man.

Anyway, I don't want two fuggin' Micheles in the White House back to back.

So fooling the public allowed Bush to win the first time. Who would have thought a politician would stoop to fooling the public? Then circumstances allowed Bush 43 to win reelection. News flash, circumstances always play a major role in presidential elections and they are not looking to be in Obama�s favor in 2012.

There�s no Reagan in the line-up this time, but there are dull old men with no vision, far right-wingers, kooks, airheads, and maybe 1 or 2 guys who could win the center and beat Obama. Some of current crop of potential Republican candidates would not only lose the center they would lose moderate Republicans and give Obama a landslide.

There�s no need to energize the republican base, Obama has already done that. Whoever wins the center wins the election; it really is that simple. That�s why I and many other well-right-of-center voters are going to support a moderate Republican as long as they are not some dull old man like McCain.

Bachmann's not my pick either. I'd much rather see a Paul/Johnson ticket, but I would vote for Bachmann.

Being willing to vote for anyone but Obama is not the same as being enthusiastic. The former just tells you who the base will vote for. The latter tells you that the base will interest independents into also voting their way. We need the latter not the former.

Right now Bachman is the only frontrunner for me. Romney and Huntsman are out as Rino's. Newt shot himself in the foot with his comments on the budget as did Pawlenty with his cowardly showing at the last debate against Romney. I like Paul but he is unelectable and don't really know anything much about Johnson. I like Cain but he doesn't seem to be getting any traction, but then again that is the MSM for ya.

Just because she worked for the IRS between 1988-1993 doesn't mean anything "big government". You know there is a need to pay SOME taxes so just because she worked for them in some capacity doesn't mean she is tainted goods.

You couldn't be more wrong about her being "big government"! She has been a Tea Party member from the start and holds many Libertarian views. She wants to slash government spending, lower taxes to businesses and individuals and make government smaller. You can debate other issues but her being "big government" is one that is completely wrong.

You lost any credibility you had making this statement. What the hell does the name have to do with anything?

For those who are getting hung up on her 5 year ('88-93) IRS tenure, you are making a foolish generalization. Why did she quit after 5 years? Maybe she saw the waste, fraud and abuse and wanted out? Maybe she wanted to go to Congress and do something positive? Having worked for the IRS gives her MORE "street cred" when she calls them out for the bloated bureaucracy they are!

Gary Johnson 2012

This isn't addressed to you big but isn't the "middle" a continuously growing base of voters? If I'm not mistaken the last election cycles saw a big increase in voters identifying themselves as independent.

Agreed. In fact there are former IRS workers out there who are part of a movement advancing the position that there is no law requiring anyone to pay personal income tax to the IRS. They assert that when asked to show the law requiring it, they researched it and could not produce a single such law, causing them ultimately to resign from their jobs with the IRS. This is about as radical an anti-IRS position as can be imagined, yet they too are former IRS employees. Being a former IRS employee doesn't equate to being pro-IRS.

Having some time in the IRS could be a good thing. Possibly a bit more insight and desire to make it go away. I can't make too much of a short stint there either way. At least she had a job. That puts her above Obama. Has there ever been anyone less qualified for anything than Obama????

Seems reasonable to me.

The left wingers will all vote for Obama and the right wingers will all vote for anyone but Obama. The center votes their pocket book when that�s the issue and it will be in this election.

Credibility was never a deep concern of mine. So far as the "Micheles" remark, you need to work on your sense of humor.

As far as her tenure with IRS, I rather imagine that's a lot like trying gay once then claiming your not. The problem there isn't the length of career, it's the mindset that allows one to enter the field to start with. It reeks of Big Government mentality. Don't trust Bachmann and never will. Fluff, no substance, sort of like Barry....

That's a consequence of the Republican Party's controlling establishment having been taken over by neoconservatives. Many of the Reagan/Goldwater/Taft type Republicans became disgusted and started calling themselves Independents. We have, largely, the George W. Bush administration to thank for this. This is hardly an argument, however, for the Republican Party moving even further from the Reagan/Goldwater/Taft base. Just the opposite.

Americans have proven they don't want an intelligent candidate. Case in point the idiot holding the office now. GW

The center is largely made up of people who are not strongly political in their thinking, i.e., they don't have a strongly developed political view or position. Therefore they are subject to be swayed one way or the other. One is more likely to be swayed when one sees enthusiasm and excitement among those who advocate a political view. They want to know what all the excitement is about, and excitement is contagious. McCain couldn't have that effect because he himself was not a true believer in conservatism (he was a centrist, like the sort of candidate you're recommending now), and therefore excited no one. The base, in fact, was disgusted. This disgust was observed by independents, with predictable results.

She was a litigator FOR the IRS for cryin' out loud! If she were a Nazi, or any other bad thing (a litigator FOR the IRS is bad enough), she'd still be popular with a certain element because she says the things that that particular element can be whipped into a frenzy about. If you think she's going to appeal to the moderates, and the independents (who are going to play a major role in the next election), then you're [bleep] in a flat hat. I don't know what the answer is, but I know what it's not...it's not Obama and his ilk...and it's not more of the same that we've been getting from the Republicans. I think we're just f*cked!