She has all the right moves and is a true conservative.
Bachmann Rallies Voters in Iowa Ahead of Key GOP Poll
Published July 02, 2011
| Associated Press
Print Email Share Comments
FoxNews
July 2: Michele Bachmann speaks at the State Capitol Building in Des Moines, IA
MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa � Republican candidate Michele Bachmann spent Saturday shaking hands in Iowa diners and strolling through a bustling farmers market as she tried to capitalize on her early popularity in the state that kicks off the presidential campaign season.
An Iowa native, the tea party favorite ranked nearly even with GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney in a recent poll of Republicans likely to participate in the state's lead off caucuses next year. But just six weeks before the state's closely-watched straw poll, the Minnesota congresswoman has done little to campaign or set up an organization here.
Beginning her first sustained campaign trip to Iowa as an announced candidate, Bachmann introduced herself to audiences from Iowa City to Des Moines in a new campaign bus emblazoned with her name. She spent much of Saturday posing for pictures and signing autographs rather than in meetings with key GOP activists.
"I have every confidence our team is going to deliver," Bachmann told The Associated Press after meeting about 100 supporters and politically curious Iowans at a stop in Marshalltown. "I am going to be here in Iowa campaigning all through July."
Proof that her Iowa campaign was still coming together met Bachmann in Iowa City, where she met about 100 weekend breakfast regulars and Republican activists at the Bluebird Diner near the University of Iowa. Local resident Sheila Reiland told Bachmann's campaign chairman in the crowded diner that she signed up last week on Bachmann's website to volunteer but had heard nothing from any campaign staff.
"She is my candidate, and I want to do what I can to help her," said Reiland, a registered nurse who went to Washington, D.C., this year to attend a health care rally Bachmann headlined. "But I haven't heard anything back."
Bachmann's Iowa campaign chairman, state Sen. Kent Sorenson, acknowledged having a lot to do in a short time since the Iowa Legislature was in session until Thursday. But he told Reiland: "You will be hearing from us."
Bachmann met privately aboard her campaign bus with activists en route from Cedar Rapids, where she strolled through the city's crowded downtown farmer's market, to Marshalltown about 70 miles west. She also planned to meet with GOP activists Saturday evening in Des Moines after headlining a tea party rally.
But her trip, which continues Sunday in western Iowa, was more about raising Bachmann's name identification around the state, Sorenson said.
Bachmann had been weighing a presidential bid since January but only began raising money toward a campaign in June. On Saturday, she dismissed claims that she was scrambling to get organized in Iowa. Bachmann said she had been laying the groundwork for her Iowa campaign since last month, before she officially announced her White House bid last week in her childhood home of Waterloo, Iowa.
In Marshalltown, campaign aides handed out supporter cards outside Taylor's Maid-Rite, a popular downtown lunch spot where about 100 people met Bachmann's bus. Standing on a platform next to the bus in the afternoon sun, Bachmann asked residents for support.
"We need your help at the straw poll. Will you come out and help me? We'll bring around the buses. We'll pick you up, whatever you need. We'll get you down there," she said. "We need your help because winning back the White House begins in Iowa."
Bachmann stopped short of saying she expected to win the straw poll, an early organizational test of support that draws thousands of Iowa Republican faithful -- and a heavy contingent of national political media -- to Iowa State University in Ames on Aug. 13.
But Bachmann said she hopes her close second-place showing to national GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney in The Des Moines Register's recent poll of Iowa Republican caucusgoers makes her the favorite for the event.
"I certainly hope that's the case," she told the AP. "We're certainly working to make that happen."
Bachmann plans to return to Iowa next week, aides said.
David Harris of Marshalltown was signing his supporter card and said he planned to go to Ames for the straw poll. The Republican said he had not participated in the caucuses for more than a decade, but said he was drawn to Bachmann's popularity with tea party supporters.
"She has an energy that's stirring the grassroots, people like me who have not been part of politics for a while," Harris said.
Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-iowa-ahead-key-gop-poll/#ixzz1R1D73XIF
Yah, me too. But she needs another conservative to run with her.
I know she�s some kind of lawyer, but she comes across as an air-head. Come to think of it, lawyer and air-head are not mutually exclusive. Obama is a lawyer, right?
To beat Obama republicans have to win the center where independent voters are politically. Pick a right-winger to run against him and Obama wins his second term. The nomination system is set up so that the same idiots who gave us McCain last time will give us another loser this time. Maybe it�s time to let some different folks go first in the nomination process.
Michelle Bachmann is AWESOME!
She has my vote!
A Bachmann/Perry ticket would be great!
To beat Obama republicans have to win the center where independent voters are politically. Pick a right-winger to run against him and Obama wins his second term. The nomination system is set up so that the same idiots who gave us McCain last time will give us another loser this time. Maybe it�s time to let some different folks go first in the nomination process.
What you said is contradictory. You say we need the middle to win. But then say another guy like McCain will surely lose as well. The middle is what we had with McCain.
I think somebody to the right who can speak intelligently and with conviction in the face of the MSM has the potential to capture the middle and win decisively.
I think somebody to the right who can speak intelligently and with conviction in the face of the MSM has the potential to capture the middle and win decisively.
Me too. The country is primed and ready for a real conservative.
Strike while the iron is hot.
Rick Perry and Sarah Palin will just be "spoilers" if they enter the race.
Anyone who would vote for Palin will vote for Bachman in the General election.The reverse is not true.
Rick Perry will be painted as "another G W B " by Obama and his media shills . Some independent voters will believe it.
Bachman has less of the type of "baggage" which will turn off independent voters than any of the other candidates in my opinion.
The anti-Obama vote will be all the excitement conservatives need ; the base does not need to be energized , so the question comes down to who can WIN and GOVERN the best.
Romney fails the second test.
Bachmann/Cain ticket they have my vote
Bachman was a tax attorney enforcer for the IRS.
She's "big government" to the core.
No thanks.
Bachman was a tax attorney enforcer for the IRS.
She's "big government" to the core.
No thanks.
And which of the oft mentioned names is NOT ?
Bachman was a tax attorney enforcer for the IRS.
She's "big government" to the core.
No thanks.
And which of the oft mentioned names is NOT ?
So,..if they all are, why do you bother?
Big government doesn't represent the people. Big government represents big government.
They are not all the same as far as GUN RIGHTS , or haven't you noticed?
Bachmann has possibilities, certainly head and shoulders above that other female oft mentioned in the same context.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
I've noticed the rhetoric,..but that's about all.
This much I know.
Big government doesn't want to share its power with the people.
Bristoe , you are old enough to know that being a single-issue voter is the only way to keep from going crazy.They all have records on gun rights. You can disregard rhetoric.
Well,..it's like this.
When you see somebody's face on TV,..when their name is "oft mentioned",..it means that they're playing the game.
If they get elected it will be because the big money put them there.
When big money puts someone in office, big money owns them.
To sum up,..*all* of the "oft mentioned" names have made it known that they can be owned.
Vote for whoever you choose. But if it's an "oft mentioned" name,..tomorrow is going to be just like today.
Michelle is the best chance at bringing the GOP away from the debacle of the last many years.
GWB, while making some good decisions regarding our national security, was a 1st degree RINO on nearly every domestic issue. Simply put, he was awful.
Perry is cut from the exact same cloth & would be a bit better than Romney, but not much. Still the suck.
The attacks on Bachmann, same as those on Palin, and the types they are coming from, show exactly WHY she is the right choice.
We have done MUCH worse than either, many times, so this absurd notion of,
unelectable, extreme, airhead & the countless lib and RINO attacks are clear, desperate, unfounded attacks by a couple of segments that feel their grip slipping. [bleep] 'em, the rotten bastards.
http://michelebachmann.com/landingn...417&gclid=CKe10Ka05akCFcQ32godz0PcaQ
Bachman was a tax attorney enforcer for the IRS.
She's "big government" to the core.
No thanks.
And which of the oft mentioned names is NOT ?
So,..if they all are, why do you bother?
Big government doesn't represent the people. Big government represents big government.
The next president will likely get at least two picks for our Supreme Court. That alone is reason enough to stop acting so apathetic and pick a side. With our current debt, our out of control immigration and 2+ SCJs on the line, I'm going to vote for the best candidate available to defeat Obama.....
Bachmann has possibilities, certainly head and shoulders above that other female oft mentioned in the same context.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
Didn't you say some time ago you wanted a paul/trump ticket?
Bachmann has possibilities, certainly head and shoulders above that other female oft mentioned in the same context.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
Didn't you say some time ago you wanted a paul/trump ticket?
Never said anything like that and never would. Those two are terminal nutcases.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
...waiting for Bows to chime in with the Palin line.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
Used to be this old schizo hung out downtown.
He had this peculiar habit of ending every sentence with, "Mannnnnnn,...don't be givvin' me that off the wall stuff".
You remind me of him every time you say:
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
Bachmann has possibilities, certainly head and shoulders above that other female oft mentioned in the same context.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
Didn't you say some time ago you wanted a paul/trump ticket?
Never said anything like that and never would. Those two are terminal nutcases.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
I have not endorsed any candidate either,so, what makes you special?
Spanokopitas: "I'll have 2 eegs over easy, bacon, toast and orange juice. I have not yet endorsed any candidate".
I didn't see anything in the article that tells me anything about her.
One thing is for certain, she's not a true conservative because she's not in the kook category like Ron Paul. If one is a true conservative one must be shunned by all except for the kooks according to the Gospel of the fire.
Your order will be right up.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
Spanokopitas: "What's the weather supposed to be like at Big Sur this afternoon? I have not yet endorsed any candidate".
Well,..it's like this.
When you see somebody's face on TV,..when their name is "oft mentioned",..it means that they're playing the game.
If they get elected it will be because the big money put them there.
When big money puts someone in office, big money owns them.
To sum up,..*all* of the "oft mentioned" names have made it known that they can be owned.
Vote for whoever you choose. But if it's an "oft mentioned" name,..tomorrow is going to be just like today.
Dang Bristoe you are one smart cat. I never realized how smart.
Spanokopitas: "What's the weather supposed to be like at Big Sur this afternoon? I have not yet endorsed any candidate".
You funny. I have not endorsed any cadidate yet.
...waiting for Bows to chime in with the Palin line.
PALIN : BACHMANN
2012
Spanokopitas: "What's the weather supposed to be like at Big Sur this afternoon? I have not yet endorsed any candidate".
I am nowhere near Big Sur but I can assure you the weather is magnificent. Now go back to making small chips out of big chunks for your Betters and quit bothering me.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate. When I do would you like me to tell you first so you can feel even more important than you think you are?
Spanokopitas: "What's the weather supposed to be like at Big Sur this afternoon? I have not yet endorsed any candidate".
I am nowhere near Big Sur but I can assure you the weather is magnificent. Now go back to making small chips out of big chunks for your Betters and quit bothering me.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
There it is again.
Bachmann has possibilities, certainly head and shoulders above that other female oft mentioned in the same context.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
Didn't you say some time ago you wanted a paul/trump ticket?
Never said anything like that and never would. Those two are terminal nutcases.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
I have not endorsed any candidate either,so, what makes you special?
What makes me so special? I'm an elitist and I can easily get Bristoe's goat.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
What you said is contradictory. You say we need the middle to win. But then say another guy like McCain will surely lose as well. The middle is what we had with McCain.
I didn't say McCain was a right-winger. He lost becasue he's an old curmudgeon who ran on the war when it was the economy voters were worried about even saying he didn't know much about it. Then he made the stupid mistake of suspending his campaign to go to Washington to deal with TARP only to be ignored.
I think somebody to the right who can speak intelligently and with conviction in the face of the MSM has the potential to capture the middle and win decisively.
I thought the tread was about Michelle Bachmann. She can try to fake it going forward but she can't hide from the postions and things she has already said.
Like what Ive heard so far, and she's dang easy on the eye's.
Gunner
The next president will likely get at least two picks for our Supreme Court. That alone is reason enough to stop acting so apathetic and pick a side. With our current debt, our out of control immigration and 2+ SCJs on the line, I'm going to vote for the best candidate available to defeat Obama.....
+1
That's the right strategy. I�ll overlook baggage and positions I don�t agree with if the candidate looks like he can beat Obama. The problem is getting such a candidate past all the ideologues and nominated.
So now it comes down to eye candy. She might steel some of the woman�s vote from Obama, but she's too right-wing to win.
So now it comes down to eye candy. She might steel some of the woman’s vote from Obama, but she's too right-wing to win.
Seems many said the same about RR but he won. Which of her positions do you not agree with???
No, its just alot easier to listen to and look at a pretty lady in politics.
clinton
napolitano
pelosi
See my point?
Gunner
I know she�s some kind of lawyer, but she comes across as an air-head. Come to think of it, lawyer and air-head are not mutually exclusive. Obama is a lawyer, right?
To beat Obama republicans have to win the center where independent voters are politically. Pick a right-winger to run against him and Obama wins his second term. The nomination system is set up so that the same idiots who gave us McCain last time will give us another loser this time. Maybe it�s time to let some different folks go first in the nomination process.
LOL yah get another moderate like George Bush so you can bitch about them spending like Obama or do you have another agenda.
So now it comes down to eye candy. She might steel some of the woman�s vote from Obama, but she's too right-wing to win.
It seems to me guys here on the 'fire fall for eye candy, all show and no go. Wonder why that would be.
Bachmann is too much of a nut job to win. I think that's what you meant to say. Same with Palin. Nominating either of them will be a guaranteed defeat. Most Americans want a more centrist and intelligent candidate.
I have endorsed a candidate.....wait for it........Obama!!!
Dont keep us waitin' Paddler whos Your man?
Gunner
I have endorsed a nut job.....wait for it........Obama!!!
Won't argue your point...carry on.
isn't obama the guy who gave the zetias fully auto and our guys bean bags?
Right on eyeball, and dont forget his rump rangin' bud, holder
Gunner
For the life of me, how could any American loving person vote for Obama again? He has done more long term damage abroad and weakened this great country, than any one person in history.
I have not settled on a specific canidate. One thng I know for sure....I would say this to your face. If you are voting for Obama.... to are a disgrace and a traitor.
isn't obama the guy who gave the zetias fully auto and our guys bean bags?
Yes, you saw it correctly.
Your eyeball did not deceive you.
But to a liberal that's a good thing. An American patriot died. Mexicans were allowed to continue bringing drugs, other illegals, and violence and corruption into this country. And progressive anti-American congress critters have more fictitious ammunition against law abiding gun owners.
For the liberals, it's perfect.
I have endorsed a nut job.....wait for it........Obama!!!
Won't argue your point...carry on.
Yep it is tough arguing with stupid people like paddler. He needed one of those over his ass while he was younger no doubt.
To beat Obama republicans have to win the center where independent voters are politically. Pick a right-winger to run against him and Obama wins his second term.
Just the opposite. The more excited is the Republican base about their candidate, the more said excitement becomes contagious to independents. When there's little or no excitement in the Republican base, independents look to the Democrats. It's all about
force multipliers. The base is only a
force multiplier when it's enthusiastic about their candidate, and they're only enthusiastic when they believe him to be a
true believer conservative. Compare the Reagan candidacy with the McCain candidacy for an example of this.
I think somebody to the right who can speak intelligently and with conviction in the face of the MSM has the potential to capture the middle and win decisively.
Me too. The country is primed and ready for a real conservative.
Strike while the iron is hot.
Exactly. It's 1979 all over again.
And the GOP needs to implement a plan to assassinate voter fraud ASAFP.
Gunner
Rick Perry will be painted as "another G W B " by Obama and his media shills .
Yep. Paul/Bachman, Johnson/Bachman, or Paul/Johnson would be a sure thing landslide.
Well,..it's like this.
When you see somebody's face on TV,..when their name is "oft mentioned",..it means that they're playing the game.
If they get elected it will be because the big money put them there.
When big money puts someone in office, big money owns them.
To sum up,..*all* of the "oft mentioned" names have made it known that they can be owned.
Vote for whoever you choose. But if it's an "oft mentioned" name,..tomorrow is going to be just like today.
This is true.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
We're all waiting with bated breath.
I'm with you on this one.
"For the life of me, how could any American loving person vote for Obama again?"
Simple, because this country is full of ignorant uninformed people. You've basically got two types of people that voted for Obama - those that are lazy and ignorant, the useless SOB's that feed off the government teat, and the "government educated" brainwashed idiots that have some type of Socialist/Marxist agenda that they learned in our educational system.
So now it comes down to eye candy. She might steel some of the woman’s vote from Obama, but she's too right-wing to win.
It seems to me guys here on the 'fire fall for eye candy, all show and no go. Wonder why that would be.
Bachmann is too much of a nut job to win. I think that's what you meant to say. Same with Palin. Nominating either of them will be a guaranteed defeat. Most Americans want a more centrist and intelligent candidate.
I have endorsed a candidate.....wait for it........Obama!!!
You are a [bleep] idiot troll.
You are a [bleep] idiot troll.
I know you're serious, but you made me laugh out loud.
Seems many said the same about RR but he won. Which of her positions do you not agree with???
Being well to the right of center myself I agree with most of what I have heard her say. Problem is, someone that far to the right can�t win the center and without the center Obama gets reelected. I would rather have a candidate who can beat Obama than one I agree with on everything.
The more excited is the Republican base about their candidate, the more said excitement becomes contagious to independents.
I�ve heard something similar before, but it was from a liberal when John Kerry was running against Bush. It�s what ideologues believe and tell others.
To beat Obama republicans have to win the center where independent voters are politically. Pick a right-winger to run against him and Obama wins his second term. The nomination system is set up so that the same idiots who gave us McCain last time will give us another loser this time. Maybe it�s time to let some different folks go first in the nomination process.
What you said is contradictory. You say we need the middle to win. But then say another guy like McCain will surely lose as well. The middle is what we had with McCain.
I think somebody to the right who can speak intelligently and with conviction in the face of the MSM has the potential to capture the middle and win decisively.
My feelings exactly. Going for someone in the middle who can appeal to the middle is a recipe for disaster. We don't need someone who is afraid of being conservative, of scaring the middle. We need someone who, like Reagan, can demolish the great deceiver, the incompetent Obama.
I listened to one of Reagan's speeches the other day. He attacked Carter forcefully and without worrying about hurting people's feelings. He called out Carter as the abject failure he was. We need that attitude in our next Republican candidate for president. No Rhino's need apply.
Seems many said the same about RR but he won. Which of her positions do you not agree with???
Being well to the right of center myself I agree with most of what I have heard her say. Problem is, someone that far to the right can�t win the center and without the center Obama gets reelected. I would rather have a candidate who can beat Obama than one I agree with on everything.
So tell me when a Rhino has ever won the presidency? Never is the answer. Our best Republican presidents have always been conservatives.
I'm voting against Obama.
No candidate will beat BHO without STRONG support from independents and moderates. Nominate someone anathema to the middle and elect BHO. Simple as that.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
So tell me when a Rhino has ever won the presidency? Never is the answer. Our best Republican presidents have always been conservatives.
Depends on your definition of Rhino and conservative. Was Bush with his compassionate conservatism a Rhino or a conservative? Was Bush with his new Medicare entitlement a Rhino or a conservative? Then there�s the debt he rang up. If you want to call him a conservative that puts you to the left of me.
The Republican candidate doesn�t have to excite the conservative base; the chance to beat Obama is all that�s needed. What the Republican candidate must do to beat Obama is win the center. Beating Obama is the goal, if you don�t think so then you�re not just on the wrong page, you�re reading the wrong playbook.
I have endorsed a candidate.....wait for it........Obama!!!
If you are trying to further define yourself as an idiot, there could be no better way.
After two years of proving himself the incompetent impostor I knew him to be from the start, any who still openly support him are either traitors or imbeciles or both. You're in poor company.
No candidate will beat BHO without STRONG support from independents and moderates. Nominate someone anathema to the middle and elect BHO. Simple as that.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
+1
Problem is the nomination process favors the right and left wings of the political spectrum. What we really need is a new nomination process that gives equal weight to the center and doesn�t allow the same few states to dominate the process year after year.
No candidate will beat BHO without STRONG support from independents and moderates. Nominate someone anathema to the middle and elect BHO. Simple as that.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
You are just flat-out wrong , Spanky.You listen too hard to the "experts" , half of whom are guaranteed to be wrong.
Sitting presidents are defeated by circumstances more than by an opponent.The opponent needs to be disciplined in his [or her]message and inspire the base of his party to attract donations.
Kerry had that , but couldn't unseat Bush.The power of incumbency is about the first thing a smart political observer learns.
The "independent" voter is smarter than the straight party voters.He knows that the ability of a president to bring about change lies mostly in his power of appointments and the backing he gets from his congresspeople.Romney is weaker than most ANY of the other candidates in that area.
I am an independent and will vote against Obama , just like in 2008.
It sure would be nice - and might even jar some of my $$$ loose - if the "R's" would give me someone to vote FOR.
Bachman does it for me.
Bachman was a tax attorney enforcer for the IRS.
She's "big government" to the core.
No thanks.
And which of the oft mentioned names is NOT ?
So,..if they all are, why do you bother?
Big government doesn't represent the people. Big government represents big government.
The next president will likely get at least two picks for our Supreme Court. That alone is reason enough to stop acting so apathetic and pick a side. With our current debt, our out of control immigration and 2+ SCJs on the line, I'm going to vote for the best candidate available to defeat Obama.....
There are times I like the way you think, not often, but nonetheless certain times!
Steve
Middle-schmiddle.
I've said it before here, and I'll say it again: No one can out-lib a lib. The libs will ALWAYS vote for the lib, and the conservatives will NEVER vote for a pseudo-lib. Hence McCain. I don't believe anyone had more middle support than McCain, but many of the conservatives I talked to refused to vote for him no matter how much I tried to sell the "Anyone but Oblahblah" mentality. Most said, "...if Americans are that stupid, they deserve what they get." And they were correct.
There are such things as Conservative Democrats, and they get just as excited about American values as any Republican. Hence Ronald Reagan. Gallop, years ago, took a poll of positions and revealed that over 80% of the country had conservative views, yet the elections are almost always 50%:50% or extremely close to it. We need another polarizing, humorous, just can't hate him (her) Ronald Reagan.
That said, I'm voting against Oblahblah ...I just hope I don't have to hold my nose, again, like I did for McCain.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
If you make this your signature you will save time.
I don't know why people who claim to be conservative continue to say that a conservative can't win. A right wing true conservative who can accurately and passionately explain why true conservative principles work will win. The dedicated left will not be swayed but who cares. Show the people in the "middle" how and why conservatism works. Show the advantages of limited government and adherence to the Constitution. What is needed is a great communicator who truly believes in the greatness of the USA.
Well that's my 2 cents.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate :-)
Ernie
To beat Obama republicans have to win the center where independent voters are politically. Pick a right-winger to run against him and Obama wins his second term. The nomination system is set up so that the same idiots who gave us McCain last time will give us another loser this time. Maybe it�s time to let some different folks go first in the nomination process.
What you said is contradictory. You say we need the middle to win. But then say another guy like McCain will surely lose as well. The middle is what we had with McCain.
I think somebody to the right who can speak intelligently and with conviction in the face of the MSM has the potential to capture the middle and win decisively.
My feelings exactly. Going for someone in the middle who can appeal to the middle is a recipe for disaster. We don't need someone who is afraid of being conservative, of scaring the middle. We need someone who, like Reagan, can demolish the great deceiver, the incompetent Obama.
I listened to one of Reagan's speeches the other day. He attacked Carter forcefully and without worrying about hurting people's feelings. He called out Carter as the abject failure he was. We need that attitude in our next Republican candidate for president. No Rhino's need apply.
Exactly!! We need another Know-Nothing with dementia in the White House!!!!
Problem is most here communicate with most here, hence they do not see the Big Picture. There are many in the electorate who do not see the universe as we do. We of very Conservative demeanor are in the low minority, so to win an election against a popular incumbent it is necessary to send up a candidate that has a chance of winning.
This candidate will not be a favorite of many, if any, in this backwater yet he might defeat BHO. To that end I will endorse the candidate who has the best opportunity to defeat BHO.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
The more excited is the Republican base about their candidate, the more said excitement becomes contagious to independents.
I�ve heard something similar before, but it was from a liberal when John Kerry was running against Bush. It�s what ideologues believe and tell others.
It's simply reality. Your way has been tried, e.g., Bob Dole, John McCain. Your kind always recommends that kind of candidate because they're not perceived as staunchly conservative, and therefore will supposedly draw more independent votes. Doesn't work. If the base isn't enthusiastic, no one else will even take a serous look. Reagan won two landslides because the base was enthusiastic. That enthusiasm got them talking to whoever would listen, and their enthusiasm became contagious. Independents started listening to the arguments for traditional conservatism and became converts, or at least willing to give it a try. Eliminate the base enthusiasm element and eliminate this
force multiplier factor and lose the election to the democrats, who are
always excited about
their candidate.
Going for someone in the middle who can appeal to the middle is a recipe for disaster. We don't need someone who is afraid of being conservative, of scaring the middle. We need someone who, like Reagan, can demolish the great deceiver, the incompetent Obama.
I listened to one of Reagan's speeches the other day. He attacked Carter forcefully and without worrying about hurting people's feelings. He called out Carter as the abject failure he was. We need that attitude in our next Republican candidate for president. No Rhino's need apply.
Exactly. I was there and it's all still fresh in my memory. I was one of those Republican base members who was enthusiastic about Reagan's authentic conservatism, and I and others like me were eager to talk Reagan up to whoever would listen. You cannot pay for that kind of advertising. No amount of money can purchase it. It only comes from an enthusiastic base, and that requires a
true believer conservative.
No candidate will beat BHO without STRONG support from independents and moderates. Nominate someone anathema to the middle and elect BHO. Simple as that.
Sounds familiar. I recall that precise argument being made by the left when it looked like Ronald Reagan was going to become the Republican nominee. The left assured us that this would drive away the moderates and assure our defeat, that we'd have a much better chance of attracting the moderates with Gerald Ford, someone willing to compromise with the left, which attitude was referred to by the left as being an "adult." I was there. I remember it like last week. Reagan was generally perceived as a true believer in conservatism without compromise, and won in a landslide. The left just couldn't understand it, just as you don't today.
Your way has been tried, e.g., Bob Dole, John McCain.
And what about Bush 43? Do you count him as a conservative? Dole and McCain lost because they were dull old men with no vision for the future, not because they were moderate. Reagon was close enough to the center to win over many democrats.
Your way has been tried, e.g., Bob Dole, John McCain.
And what about Bush 43? Do you count him as a conservative? Dole and McCain lost because they were dull old men with no vision for the future, not because they were moderate. Reagon was close enough to the center to win over many democrats.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bachmann's not my pick either. I'd much rather see a Paul/Johnson ticket, but I would vote for Bachmann.
There�s no need to energize the republican base, Obama has already done that.
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.
Bachman was a tax attorney enforcer for the IRS.
She's "big government" to the core.
No thanks.
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.
Anyway, I don't want two fuggin' Micheles in the White House back to back.
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!
I like Paul ... and don't really know anything much about Johnson.
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.
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.
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????
Anyway, I don't want two fuggin' Micheles in the White House back to back.
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!
Seems reasonable to me.
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.
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.
Anyway, I don't want two fuggin' Micheles in the White House back to back.
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!
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....
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.
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.
So now it comes down to eye candy. She might steel some of the woman’s vote from Obama, but she's too right-wing to win.
It seems to me guys here on the 'fire fall for eye candy, all show and no go. Wonder why that would be.
Bachmann is too much of a nut job to win. I think that's what you meant to say. Same with Palin. Nominating either of them will be a guaranteed defeat. Most Americans want a more centrist and intelligent candidate.
I have endorsed a candidate.....wait for it........Obama!!!
Americans have proven they don't want an intelligent candidate. Case in point the idiot holding the office now.
GW
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
The Left will vote for BHO the Right will not. This is as obvious as saying the sun will rise tomorrow.
Problem is there are not enough in either camp to elect a President. Hence each camp must capture votes from the Middle. The Middle is an amorphous mass of the politically naive who won't pay much attention to either candidate until maybe two weeks before the election. This mass will vote for whoever promises it more and scares it less.
BHO, with the willing help from the MSM, will appear to move to the center and the other candidate will do the same. If the other candidate is some rightwingnut he or she will have a difficult time fighting the MSM headwinds and defeating a popular sitting President.
Therefore, to win, it is incumbent upon the GOP to send up someone who can capture a large percentage of the Middle in spite of opposition from the MSM and the general lassitude of the politically unsophisticated middle. This will not be an easy task and may even prove impossible.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
The Left will vote for BHO the Right will not. This is as obvious as saying the sun will rise tomorrow.
Correct.
Problem is there are not enough in either camp to elect a President. Hence each camp must capture votes from the Middle.
Correct.
The Middle is an amorphous mass of the politically naive who won't pay much attention to either candidate until maybe two weeks before the election.
Correct. This is precisely why the Republican base needs to be enthusiastic, because the middle only pays attention in that brief period of time to those who are enthusiastic, and ignores those who are not. Paid advertising is useless without an excited base. Create a base that's not enthusiastic and guarantee the middle will go for Obama.
So far she is my front runner.
The Left will vote for BHO the Right will not. This is as obvious as saying the sun will rise tomorrow.
Problem is there are not enough in either camp to elect a President. Hence each camp must capture votes from the Middle. The Middle is an amorphous mass of the politically naive who won't pay much attention to either candidate until maybe two weeks before the election. This mass will vote for whoever promises it more and scares it less.
BHO, with the willing help from the MSM, will appear to move to the center and the other candidate will do the same. If the other candidate is some rightwingnut he or she will have a difficult time fighting the MSM headwinds and defeating a popular sitting President.
Therefore, to win, it is incumbent upon the GOP to send up someone who can capture a large percentage of the Middle in spite of opposition from the MSM and the general lassitude of the politically unsophisticated middle. This will not be an easy task and may even prove impossible.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
That is because you don't understand that the Tea Party is made up of Independents from the middle.
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.
Tea Party = Independent.
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.
Tea Party = Independent.
Yep, the growing additional percentage of those calling themselves independent since the G.W. Bush administration are fiscal conservatives and constitutionalists who grew disgusted with the Republican Party during the G.W. Bush administration, dominated by neocons as it was.
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.
Tea Party = Independent.
True,
to a degree, but don't confuse "Independent" with "Moderate". There is a very clear difference. Independent folks know what they believe & usually don't need a lot of time to decide what's "Right". Many Moderates, on the other hand, must do a long, drawn out session of mental gymnastics to come to a decision, IF they can ever even arrive at one & many simply default back to the indoctrination of public schools and media, as it's just
easier. This is why breaking the chains of liberalism on education is so terribly important.
To beat Obama republicans have to win the center where independent voters are politically. Pick a right-winger to run against him and Obama wins his second term.
Just the opposite. The more excited is the Republican base about their candidate, the more said excitement becomes contagious to independents. When there's little or no excitement in the Republican base, independents look to the Democrats. It's all about
force multipliers. The base is only a
force multiplier when it's enthusiastic about their candidate, and they're only enthusiastic when they believe him to be a
true believer conservative. Compare the Reagan candidacy with the McCain candidacy for an example of this.
I agree with you 100% about Reagan reaching out to the independents and pulling them on-board for his two conservative landslides.
He looked them in the eye with a big grin and reaching out and over the MSM asked the voters to trust him.
The voters did vote based on �Hope and Change� in the first Reagan election.
They liked what he did and voted on the Reagan performance for the second election.
That landslide was one for the record books.
That base excitement or force multiplier as you call it is based on voter trust as much as anything.
Some call it �Presidential Charisma.�
It will take a robust and tough Primary to sort out the GOP chaff and find that candidate.
It is early yet, but your Paul/Johnson or Bachmann ticket has a long, long ways to go.
They will need a good primary to raise to the top.
Being lucky as well as good never hurts either.
The latest RCP poll average has Bachmann at 9%, Paul at 6.7%, and Johnson so low he isn�t even included on their list.
Meanwhile, the two not in the race yet are 30 to almost 50 percent ahead; Palin at 12.8% and Perry at 11.3%
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!
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!
By your own admission, you don't know what the answer is. Therefore your first premise holds little credibility.
Remember Ronald Reagan was first a LIBERAL!!! Read that again!! He had his epiphany and became the standard bearer for American conservatism. I think the moderates and independents will be supporters of Bachmann or any like minded conservative/libertarian.
Bachman being an IRS employee can speak to the faults of that agency more so than any other republican candidate to date.
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!
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!
By your own admission, you don't know what the answer is. Therefore your first premise holds little credibility.
Remember Ronald Reagan was first a LIBERAL!!! Read that again!! He had his epiphany and became the standard bearer for American conservatism. I think the moderates and independents will be supporters of Bachmann or any like minded conservative/libertarian.
Bachman being an IRS employee can speak to the faults of that agency more so than any other republican candidate to date.
Well do 'you' know what the answer is? We'll find out which premise holds credibility come November of next year.
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.
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.
If that is the case they sure won't vote for Obama. Lot of those that voted for him first time don't have jobs now, lot's of us forgetting that point. Everyone seems focused on the center, they came out big in the azz whopping the dems got in 2010. Lot of those elected were tea party folks. Saying the center won't vote for tea party or conservative candidates is just foolish.
The Left will vote for BHO the Right will not. This is as obvious as saying the sun will rise tomorrow.
Problem is there are not enough in either camp to elect a President. Hence each camp must capture votes from the Middle. The Middle is an amorphous mass of the politically naive who won't pay much attention to either candidate until maybe two weeks before the election. This mass will vote for whoever promises it more and scares it less.
BHO, with the willing help from the MSM, will appear to move to the center and the other candidate will do the same. If the other candidate is some rightwingnut he or she will have a difficult time fighting the MSM headwinds and defeating a popular sitting President.
Therefore, to win, it is incumbent upon the GOP to send up someone who can capture a large percentage of the Middle in spite of opposition from the MSM and the general lassitude of the politically unsophisticated middle. This will not be an easy task and may even prove impossible.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
Unfortunately, you have it pretty well nailed.
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.
Tea Party = Independent.
True,
to a degree, but don't confuse "Independent" with "Moderate". There is a very clear difference. Independent folks know what they believe & usually don't need a lot of time to decide what's "Right". Many Moderates, on the other hand, must do a long, drawn out session of mental gymnastics to come to a decision, IF they can ever even arrive at one & many simply default back to the indoctrination of public schools and media, as it's just
easier. This is why breaking the chains of liberalism on education is so terribly important.
You are right. Independents comprise three primary groups: True conservatives (limited Federal sovereignty, maximum State sovereignty and individual sovereignty), true liberals (socialists, communists, and fascists), and moderates (go with the flow).
A right of center candidate will pick up votes from the true conservative and moderates. A left of center candidate will pick up votes from the true liberal and moderate.
The moderate vote is the swing vote because that vote will go with the most enthusiastic base. Remember, moderates allows go with the flow.
Finding a candidate who will appeal to the "middle" is not a viable argument. 2010 saw Rand Paul beat the GOP preferred guy in the primary and go on to win; 2010 saw Marco Rubio defeat the sitting governor in the primary and then have to defeat him and the dem in the election and he won handily. Both supported by the tea party. There were many more of these stories. Obama's appproval rating is at 40% people, he doesn't have the middle. Many of his voters from 2008 don't have jobs now. They certainly won't vote for him. Who the R's have to nominate is someone that is knowledgeable of the facts, can speak clearly & concisley, and will speak out constantly about Obama being a failure. Bachmann fits. Perry might.
Finding a candidate who will appeal to the "middle" is not a viable argument. 2010 saw Rand Paul beat the GOP preferred guy in the primary and go on to win; 2010 saw Marco Rubio defeat the sitting governor in the primary and then have to defeat him and the dem in the election and he won handily. Both supported by the tea party. There were many more of these stories. Obama's appproval rating is at 40% people, he doesn't have the middle. Many of his voters from 2008 don't have jobs now. They certainly won't vote for him. Who the R's have to nominate is someone that is knowledgeable of the facts, can speak clearly & concisley, and will speak out constantly about Obama being a failure. Bachmann fits. Perry might.
Remember, the presidency is a national vote. America is a motley crew.
Finding a candidate who will appeal to the "middle" is not a viable argument. 2010 saw Rand Paul beat the GOP preferred guy in the primary and go on to win; 2010 saw Marco Rubio defeat the sitting governor in the primary and then have to defeat him and the dem in the election and he won handily. Both supported by the tea party. There were many more of these stories. Obama's appproval rating is at 40% people, he doesn't have the middle. Many of his voters from 2008 don't have jobs now. They certainly won't vote for him. Who the R's have to nominate is someone that is knowledgeable of the facts, can speak clearly & concisley, and will speak out constantly about Obama being a failure. Bachmann fits. Perry might.
Exactly.
The Tea Party is part of the Republican base. Teapartiers may be "Independent" but they will never vote for BHO. They will vote en banc for whoever the GOP sends up.
Finding a candidate who will appeal to the "middle" is not a viable argument. 2010 saw Rand Paul beat the GOP preferred guy in the primary and go on to win; 2010 saw Marco Rubio defeat the sitting governor in the primary and then have to defeat him and the dem in the election and he won handily. Both supported by the tea party. There were many more of these stories. Obama's appproval rating is at 40% people, he doesn't have the middle. Many of his voters from 2008 don't have jobs now. They certainly won't vote for him. Who the R's have to nominate is someone that is knowledgeable of the facts, can speak clearly & concisley, and will speak out constantly about Obama being a failure. Bachmann fits. Perry might.
Perry is the worst kind of chameleon. He is very smart & the very worst kind of RINO. Bachmann, while a bit less polished than Perry, has a natural honesty that can't be learned.
Though Perry has crafted his persona as some sort of conservative, his actions prove otherwise. The lack of spine in the immigration debate for one. He kind of
said a few things that sounded kind of good, while
doing pretty much nothing. The "Sanctuary City" garbage brought up during the Summer session of the Texas legislature was not ever anything serious, it was never put forth in any serious manner that had a chance of being anything but smoke. Don't fall for his schtick. He is a RINO, plain & simple.
Let Palin draw some more fire from the libs and RINOs & then endorse Bachmann as late in the game as possible for best results. If she goes in the direction of Perry, she will have proven many who are wary of her correct. Hope that is not the case, but it
could be.
i cannot accept that the independents are all polically unsophisticated. in various numbers and degrees they encompass the left, center, right, and Libertarian perspectives.
sure, there's some ne'r do wells, who only watch for the last two weeks of the election season, to gain an idea as to who is most "popular."
but i suggest the independents are the backbone of the election outcome, as both parties send their constructed messages to the center of the electorate.
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.
That�s the theory that keeps political consultants employed, but it�s far from reality. Many people in the center just don�t buy the BS from left or right wingers. An enthusiastic left or right base turns the center off. To win the center we need a candidate who can convince them they�ll have more money in their pocket if he�s elected. Reagan knew that and used it against Carter to good effect, and kept his job for a second term because the economy was improving; remember stay the course? Bush 41 rode that same wave into office.
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.
McCain lost because he was a dull old fart running on the war. When the economy went south McCain said he didn�t know much about it and made similarly stupid statements. Then he did the ultimate dumb thing of suspending his campaign to go to Washington to deal with TARP, only to be ignored. The economy and war fatigue is what won Obama the election, not some ideological change in the nation from right to center to well left of center, although the liberals tried to make that claim.
Now the same idiots who gave us McCain are at play again. That�s my real peeve. Why should the same bunch always have first crack at narrowing down the candidates? To fix Washington the primary process needs to be fixed or we�ll just keep getting the same bunch of horse sh*t candidates for president.
Finding a candidate who will appeal to the "middle" is not a viable argument. 2010 saw Rand Paul beat the GOP preferred guy in the primary and go on to win; 2010 saw Marco Rubio defeat the sitting governor in the primary and then have to defeat him and the dem in the election and he won handily. Both supported by the tea party. There were many more of these stories. Obama's appproval rating is at 40% people, he doesn't have the middle. Many of his voters from 2008 don't have jobs now. They certainly won't vote for him. Who the R's have to nominate is someone that is knowledgeable of the facts, can speak clearly & concisley, and will speak out constantly about Obama being a failure. Bachmann fits. Perry might.
Tea Party = Independent.
It is true, based on the last election that the Tea party won with the Independent voters.
And no GOP contender is gonna win without the Tea Party.
So based on the last election, who is the Top Gun in the Tea Party?
Bachmann has a lot of momentum right now, but she is not polling nationally in the top three nor as TP Top Gun�yet.
Perry has a lot of momentum right now, ahead of Bachmann in some polls, but I don�t see him beating Michele�inside the Tea Party.
And I don�t see Cain beating Bachmann or Perry�inside the Tea Party.
On the other hand, I still don�t see anybody taking the Top Gun slot away from the 2010 Tea Party Top Gun�the one with all those political IOU�s in her hip pocket.
Seems many said the same about RR but he won. Which of her positions do you not agree with???
Being well to the right of center myself I agree with most of what I have heard her say. Problem is, someone that far to the right can�t win the center and without the center Obama gets reelected. I would rather have a candidate who can beat Obama than one I agree with on everything.
we tried the center with mc lame and before that with bob cold
The Left will vote for BHO the Right will not. This is as obvious as saying the sun will rise tomorrow.
Problem is there are not enough in either camp to elect a President. Hence each camp must capture votes from the Middle. The Middle is an amorphous mass of the politically naive who won't pay much attention to either candidate until maybe two weeks before the election. This mass will vote for whoever promises it more and scares it less.
BHO, with the willing help from the MSM, will appear to move to the center and the other candidate will do the same. If the other candidate is some rightwingnut he or she will have a difficult time fighting the MSM headwinds and defeating a popular sitting President.
Therefore, to win, it is incumbent upon the GOP to send up someone who can capture a large percentage of the Middle in spite of opposition from the MSM and the general lassitude of the politically unsophisticated middle. This will not be an easy task and may even prove impossible.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
That is because you don't understand that the Tea Party is made up of Independents from the middle.
barkoff is right, the middle is more conservative than the republican party at this time.
On the other hand�it is true that that so-called moderate middle that swings elections is largely which side is enthused more than the other side and show up to vote�
A recent report in Salon explained
Rutgers political scientist David Redlawsk estimates that 5 million people voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and then voted for a Republican in 2010.
Boy, 5 million people! That is not even 6 percent of the entire voting electorate! (Or maybe even less, because the number of people who claim they voted for Obama is probably high.)[...]
Truly independent voters are still mythical creatures.
They exist in the imaginations of commentators who�ve spent most of their adult lives in Washington, D.C.
Otherwise, the electorate is largely made up of Democratic voters and Republican voters.
In this last election, more Republican voters showed up than Democratic voters. In 2008, the opposite was true.
She's "big government" to the core.
And which of the oft mentioned names is NOT ?
Sarah Palin!
Palin '12!!!
(Yes I believe she will run, I've been hoping she'll announce today!)
Right on eyeball, and dont forget his rump rangin' bud, holder
Gunner
Or the genius one heartbeat from the presidency, Joe "Piehole" Biden.
We need another Know-Nothing with dementia in the White House!!!!
THAT explains why you're voting for 0bama! Makes perfect sense!
Me, I'll be voting for someone that has a chance to pull America back from the brink of total disaster!
we tried the center with mc lame and before that with bob cold
Neither lost because they were near the center politically, they lost because they were poor candidates from the get go. Dole was a throw-away against Clinton for his second term; back when spending was under control and the economy was doing great. Dole was 73, the oldest first-time presidential nominee even beating Ronald Reagan. McCain ran on the Iraq war and was poorly prepared to run on the economy and even said he didn�t know much about it.
If Republicans run some rightwingnut this time they�ll not only lose the center they�ll lose moderate Republicans and give Obama a landslide victory that he�ll falsely claim is a mandate for more socialist laws.
Michelle's one of the good guys, along with Demint, West, Rubio etc and they all have one thing in common. They are all Tea Party endorsed leaders. It's obvious that the media has taken the anti-Palin playbook and simple changed the target. I hope that she can polish her debate performance and get past this "rap" that they have stuck to her. As some of you know, I have never been super impressed with her impromptu speaking but I don't see that as something her cannot improve significantly on with a some more interviews and debates. I just hope it happens before this media created creature takes on a life of it's own. And I'll say this again- Chris Wallace can BLOW ME.
Michelle's one of the good guys, along with Demint, West, Rubio etc and they all have one thing in common. They are all Tea Party endorsed leaders. It's obvious that the media has taken the anti-Palin playbook and simple changed the target. I hope that she can polish her debate performance and get past this "rap" that they have stuck to her. As some of you know, I have never been super impressed with her impromptu speaking but I don't see that as something her cannot improve significantly on with a some more interviews and debates. I just hope it happens before this media created creature takes on a life of it's own. And I'll say this again- Chris Wallace can BLOW ME.
Chris Matthews can too.....
The next election will be won/lost on accomplishments/record. Talking points won't be enough. What are hers?
The next election will be won/lost on accomplishments/record. Talking points won't be enough. What are hers?
It should be won on character and whether a candidate has the right views and understanding of our current problems and what needs doing to fix them. Nothing else.
I'll buy that, but I believe the voting public is going to want to know exactly what they are getting this go-round.
The next election will be won/lost on accomplishments/record. Talking points won't be enough. What are hers?
It should be won on character and whether a candidate has the right views and understanding of our current problems and what needs doing to fix them. Nothing else.
For those who are actually educate themselves on the candidates, that works. Unfortunately, a
huge segment of the population is voting blind and dumb.
George
My question was serious. She sounds good, but what has she done?
I'll buy that, but I believe the voting public is going to want to know exactly what they are getting this go-round.
For most of them that would be a first!
My question was serious. She sounds good, but what has she done?
Many on here have complained about her being former IRS. She introduced HR 86 which is summarized as follows:
End Tax Uncertainty Act of 2011 - Makes permanent: (1) the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; (2) provisions of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 that reduce income tax rates on dividend and capital gains income; and (3) the repeal of the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT) on individual taxpayers; and (2) reduce to 25% the maximum income tax rate on corporations, including personal service corporations
Don't think she has much use for taxes or the IRS. More answers to your question will follow.
My question was serious. She sounds good, but what has she done?
HR 87 to repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Can anything from those two idiots be good?
My question was serious. She sounds good, but what has she done?
HR 1285 Military Healthcare Affordability Act.
Military Health Care Affordability Act - Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) so long as the United States sends men and women into battle, the United States will be faithful to care for them upon their return; (2) as the veteran answered the call of duty, so too, is the United States duty-bound to answer the call of the veteran; and (3) the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have the tools and ingenuity to provide continued excellent health care without increasing TRICARE payments from the veteran before fiscal year 2014.
Extends through FY2013 (under current law, through FY2011) the prohibition on increases in certain health care costs and restrictions on health benefit adjustments for members of the Armed Forces, retirees, and their dependents, including charges and premiums under TRICARE (a DOD managed care program) and cost-sharing requirements under the DOD pharmacy benefits program.
My question was serious. She sounds good, but what has she done?
Co-Sponsor: HR 2 Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Act
Obamacare
My question was serious. She sounds good, but what has she done?
Co-Sponsor HR 49 American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act.
Summary:
American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to implement a competitive leasing program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources on the Coastal Plain of Alaska.
Amends the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 to repeal the prohibition against leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Deems any oil and gas leasing programs and activities authorized by this Act to be in compliance with ANWR purposes.
Authorizes the Secretary to designate up to 45,000 acres of the Coastal Plain as a Special Area, after consultation with the state of Alaska, the city of Kaktovik, and the North Slope Borough.
Permits directional drilling in the Special Area.
Prescribes procedures governing Coastal Plain lease sales, as well as terms and conditions, including: (1) environmental protection; (2) federal and state distribution of revenues; (3) rights-of-way; and (4) local government impact aid and community service assistance.
My question was serious. She sounds good, but what has she done?
Co-Sponsor HR 97
Free Industry Act - Amends the Clean Air Act to: (1) exclude from the definition of the term "air pollutant" carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride; and (2) declare that nothing in the Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.
My question was serious. She sounds good, but what has she done?
Co-sponsor HR 125
Enumerated Powers Act - Requires each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. Declares that failure to comply with this requirement shall give rise to a point of order in either chamber of Congress.
My question was serious. She sounds good, but what has she done?
Co-sponsor HR 153
Ensuring Affordable Energy Act - Prohibits any funds appropriated or otherwise available for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from being used to implement or enforce: (1) a cap-and-trade program; or (2) any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to emissions of one or more greenhouse gases from stationary sources that is issued or becomes applicable or effective after January 1, 2011.
One last thing: She is totally against any increase in the debt ceiling. Unlike many republicans.
Are any of those law, or just recent stuff?
Are any of those law, or just recent stuff?
I honestly didn't look at that. Intention was to see where she stood on various issues that might be important. Whether it has become law or not really doesn't indicate a lot as it takes more than one congesswoman to pass a law. Much the same as TRH looks at RP's position on issues. We want to vote for someone that has the same priorities and position statements. Michele has met most of mine from a personal point of view. So have Palin and West.
She sounds okay, and like I said...I'm voting against Obama. It would be nice to have somebody with a proven record of accomplishment running against Obama, since highlighting his is the only way to beat him.
Thanks for doing all the look-ups.
Of course, as you are already seeing, nothing is enough for a few here on the �Fire.
WTF do they think a House Member can do�one of 435...in time much of this will pass the House�after the 2012 election, much will become law.
I'm not saying she's not "good enough". I've just never heard of here 'til the last year or so, and wondering if she's ever done anything before that.
The democrats in her district hate her with a passion. They threw a local female socialist (Taryl Clark) at her last fall, 2011 and Michele kicked her arse. Ms. Clark is a MN. version of Debbie Snagletooth Schultz the DNC national propaganda minister.
Michele has either sponsored or co-sponsored a lot of small government, libertarian, pro business, anti-EPA legislation.
She is a proponent of states rights and is a huge Second Amendment supporter.
I'll buy that, but I believe the voting public is going to want to know exactly what they are getting this go-round.
Any candidate who gets up in front of the people and tells them exactly how dire the situation is and what it will take to truly fix it will be lucky to get 2% of the vote.
It's gonna take more than goring the ox,...he's gonna have to be nuked.
Candidates will talk about a little bit of reform here and there,...but they're not going to explain what 14 trillion dollars of debt and 75 trillion dollars in entitlements over the next 20 years really means.
Yup, and "Hope and Change" ain't gonna get this time...from either party.
Uh-huh,..they're going to have to tell specific lies this go around.
We are going to have to do much better than Mitt. In the past few weeks he spoke of the perils of man made global warming and said he could work with the democrats. No thank you.
I see the dems are running around the idea of late that the republicans are purposely killing the economy. Uh, no, look in the mirror for real reason.
We are going to have to do much better than Mitt. In the past few weeks he spoke of the perils of man made global warming and said he could work with the democrats. No thank you.
I see the dems are running around the idea of late that the republicans are purposely killing the economy. Uh, no, look in the mirror for real reason.
They lie like the devil.
I see the dems are running around the idea of late that the republicans are purposely killing the economy. Uh, no, look in the mirror for real reason.
I hope it's a two-way mirror. There's no doubt the liberals have us on a break neck pace to hell. But the republicans have been part of the problem, just to a lesser degree. And Romney will fit that bill perfectly as he carries out his contract with the enemy under the guise of "compromise for the common good". There is NO MORE ROOM for compromise on anything in my opinion. In fact, anything less than someone willing to do a 180 degree turn in this country will bear witness to and be complicit in our peril.
Sure is a lot of pissin and moaning around here but the simple fact remains; unless the GOP sends up a candidate who can take a large percentage of the "middle" votes BHO glides into a second deadly term.
Romney will be the nominee.
I have not endorsed Romney or any other candidate.
You may be right�
June 04 2011
Daily Caller: Mitt Romney Snags Coveted Alec Baldwin Endorsement
Right now I see Michelle Bachman as just another amature politician lawyer. How do I know she is not out to perpetuate the strangle hold lawyers have on legislative bodies all over this country? Something like what we have in the Whitehouse now. I will say her politics are much closer to mine than to Obama's and she will get my vote over Obama. But, I sure hate voting for amature lawyer politicans. kwg
You sound more right than wrong.
Daily Caller: Mitt Romney Snags Coveted Alec Baldwin Endorsement
Yeah sure sounds like our man
Sure is a lot of pissin and moaning around here but the simple fact remains; unless the GOP sends up a candidate who can take a large percentage of the "middle" votes BHO glides into a second deadly term.
No offense but I'm getting tired of this bullschit theory because it isn't based on reality or proven by history at all. Why is it that people claim a conservative can't win? What's your proof? Who says the "middle" wouldn't vote for a conservative over Hussein? The historical fact is that we haven't nominated a conservative since Ronald Reagan and what happened then? A friggin landslide victory with PLENTY of middle voters. Just the contrary to what you and others have claimed on this subject. We nominate a "moderate" like McCain and we lose to the most under qualified candidate to ever hold office. Show me ANY conservative in the last 50 years that ran on the republican ticket and lost- name ANY. You can't. And because of that, I will never accept this attitude ever.
Exactly!! We need another Know-Nothing with dementia in the White House!!!!
I thought you were voting Obama. Oh...you weren't being sarcastic! Gotcha.
Sure is a lot of pissin and moaning around here but the simple fact remains; unless the GOP sends up a candidate who can take a large percentage of the "middle" votes BHO glides into a second deadly term.
No offense but I'm getting tired of this bullschit theory because it isn't based on reality or proven by history at all. Why is it that people claim a conservative can't win? What's your proof? Who says the "middle" wouldn't vote for a conservative over Hussein? The historical fact is that we haven't nominated a conservative since Ronald Reagan and what happened then? A friggin landslide victory with PLENTY of middle voters. Just the contrary to what you and others have claimed on this subject. We nominate a "moderate" like McCain and we lose to the most under qualified candidate to ever hold office. Show me ANY conservative in the last 50 years that ran on the republican ticket and lost- name ANY. You can't. And because of that, I will never accept this attitude ever.
Never said a Conservative couldn't win. Reagan won because he was up against a very unpopular incumbent. That was then this is now. The Republican will be going against a popular Black incumbent who has the MSM in his pocket. Unless that Republican can capture a large percent of the middle BHO will glide to a second term.
Send up a rightwingnut and sit back to endure four more years.
Romney will be the nominee.
I have not endorsed Romney or any other candidate.
And just how was Reagan a conservative? He more than tripled the debt. He may have played the part of conservative, but remember he was an actor. His actions tell a different story. Of course, he had Alzheimer's during his second term.
Get used to it, fellas---- Obama 2012!!!
Sure is a lot of pissin and moaning around here but the simple fact remains; unless the GOP sends up a candidate who can take a large percentage of the "middle" votes BHO glides into a second deadly term.
Romney will be the nominee.
I have not endorsed Romney or any other candidate.
It isn't a "fact". Hate to break it to you "Your Eliteness" but your opinion is just that, an opinion.
Sure is a lot of pissin and moaning around here but the simple fact remains; unless the GOP sends up a candidate who can take a large percentage of the "middle" votes BHO glides into a second deadly term.
No offense but I'm getting tired of this bullschit theory because it isn't based on reality or proven by history at all. Why is it that people claim a conservative can't win? What's your proof? Who says the "middle" wouldn't vote for a conservative over Hussein? The historical fact is that we haven't nominated a conservative since Ronald Reagan and what happened then? A friggin landslide victory with PLENTY of middle voters. Just the contrary to what you and others have claimed on this subject. We nominate a "moderate" like McCain and we lose to the most under qualified candidate to ever hold office. Show me ANY conservative in the last 50 years that ran on the republican ticket and lost- name ANY. You can't. And because of that, I will never accept this attitude ever.
Never said a Conservative couldn't win. Reagan won because he was up against a very unpopular incumbent. That was then this is now. The Republican will be going against a popular Black incumbent who has the MSM in his pocket. Unless that Republican can capture a large percent of the middle BHO will glide to a second term.
Send up a rightwingnut and sit back to endure four more years.
Romney will be the nominee.
I have not endorsed Romney or any other candidate.
How can anyone consider somebody with a 40% approval rating a popular president???? Outlaw Patriot was exactly right about conservatives being able to win the mysterious "middle".
[ The historical fact is that we haven't nominated a conservative since Ronald Reagan and what happened then?
Lets not pretend that Regan was all about tax cuts guys! He spoke well but he also was the king of expanding big government and tax increases.
And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion
His creation of the department of veterans affairs contributed to an increase in the federal workforce of more than 60,000 people during his presidency.
Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal.
Conservatives love Regan for what they wanted him to be but not so much for who he was.
Why is it that no one can ever mention Reagan without having 10 people go off on a damn tangent about his record being conservative or not? The point was that no one here can name a conservative that was on the ticket and lost in the last half century- period. So, when people make this generic claim that we have to somehow cow tow to the wishy washy "middle" in order to win an election, it's based completely one someone's subjective opinion of a hypothetical election. So why should be sell out the conservative cause and sacrifice our principles because someone has a gut feeling that a conservative can't get any "middle" votes?
Romney is Obama lite. He instituted state run healthcare. He's supported ethanol subsidies that are depleting our topsoil for no good reason. He's personally granted same sex marriage licenses as governor despite his claim to oppose it. He's talked about supporting the global warming agenda. He lost to McCain who lost to Obama. He's now talking about reaching across the aisle right when the country needs a man of character to stand up for the opposition and draw a line in the sand.
He's a RINO republican from a blue state. The left wants Romney to run. They think they can beat the man because he doesn't represent anything radically different than their own candidate. And if he did win, they can manipulate him into giving into their agenda to at least a lesser degree.
I see the dems are running around the idea of late that the republicans are purposely killing the economy. Uh, no, look in the mirror for real reason.
I hope it's a two-way mirror. There's no doubt the liberals have us on a break neck pace to hell. But the republicans have been part of the problem, just to a lesser degree. And Romney will fit that bill perfectly as he carries out his contract with the enemy under the guise of "compromise for the common good". There is NO MORE ROOM for compromise on anything in my opinion. In fact, anything less than someone willing to do a 180 degree turn in this country will bear witness to and be complicit in our peril.
I agree, but what the Democrats mean when they disingenuously suggest the Republicans are intentionally trying to ruin the economy is that what
the Tea Party Republicans are doing is that, e.g., refusing to raise the debt limit and such.
You may be right�
June 04 2011
Daily Caller: Mitt Romney Snags Coveted Alec Baldwin Endorsement
Oh yeah. That will excite the Republican base alright. This is going to be Clinton vs Dole all over again with that loser.
Sure is a lot of pissin and moaning around here but the simple fact remains; unless the GOP sends up a candidate who can take a large percentage of the "middle" votes BHO glides into a second deadly term.
No offense but I'm getting tired of this bullschit theory because it isn't based on reality or proven by history at all. Why is it that people claim a conservative can't win? What's your proof? Who says the "middle" wouldn't vote for a conservative over Hussein? The historical fact is that we haven't nominated a conservative since Ronald Reagan and what happened then? A friggin landslide victory with PLENTY of middle voters. Just the contrary to what you and others have claimed on this subject. We nominate a "moderate" like McCain and we lose to the most under qualified candidate to ever hold office. Show me ANY conservative in the last 50 years that ran on the republican ticket and lost- name ANY. You can't. And because of that, I will never accept this attitude ever.
Well said.
I'm always suspicious of folks claiming to be conservative Republicans with the recommendation that Spanky is constantly putting out there, because it's identical to the recommendation Republicans invariably receive from
the radical left, i.e., folks who don't have the best interest of the Republican Party at heart. Makes me very suspicious indeed. Why is Spanky's advice to Republicans identical to that of radical leftists? I know why
they give us that advice (because they're hoping we're stupid enough to follow it). Why does
he, is the question.
You want to win? Then take the advice given to the Republican Party by the radical left
and turn it on its head.
Reagan won because he was up against a very unpopular incumbent. Send up a rightwingnut and sit back to endure four more years.
OK, that says it all right there. Those two sentences reveal that you are no conservative. A conservative understands that conservatism is a winning message because it makes sense once competently explained and defended. Reagan won because conservatism, competently explained and defended, is a winning political philosophy, and that because it's grounded in reality. Calling "rightwingism" (i.e., the advocacy of constitutionally limited and decentralized government) nuts reveals you as a non-rightwinger. You slipped, my friend.
And just how was Reagan a conservative? He more than tripled the debt.
He had a Democrat Congress.
Lets not pretend that Regan was all about tax cuts guys! He spoke well but he also was the king of expanding big government and tax increases.
For the current discussion, it doesn't matter whether or not he was truly a conservative (I say he was, but that's irrelevant for this discussion). The important question is whether the American people
believed he was. They most definitely did (that was also the constant message from the MSM), and he was elected in
two landslides.
Hawk, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes
Sure is a lot of pissin and moaning around here but the simple fact remains; unless the GOP sends up a candidate who can take a large percentage of the "middle" votes BHO glides into a second deadly term.
Romney will be the nominee.
I have not endorsed Romney or any other candidate.
It isn't a "fact". Hate to break it to you "Your Eliteness" but your opinion is just that, an opinion.
Hate to break it to you but my statement is fact not opinion. Anyone who believes the Presidency can be won without a significant share of the "middle" vote is delusional.
BHO's approvals are in the 40's now but wait till next year this time after the MSM has has pushed him above 50%. It will be impossible to defeat him with a Ron Paul or other rightwingnutcase.---Spano, the Elite one.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate
Hate to break it to you but my statement is fact not opinion. Anyone who believes the Presidency can be won without a significant share of the "middle" vote is delusional.
No one denies that. You're railing against a straw man with that one. The only question in consideration is
how that objective is achieved. History shows that your way leads to Clinton defeating Bush and Dole in two consecutive elections, and Obama defeating McCain. Our way leads to Reagan defeating Carter and Mondale in two consecutive landslides.
George H.W. Bush, Dole, and McCain were portrayed as, and believed to be, compromisers
who would appeal to the middle. Reagan was portrayed as, and believed to be,
uncompromisingly conservative. Reagan's approach drew in the independents, while G.H.W. Bush (term run number two), Dole, and McCain, failed miserably to do so.
G.H.W. Bush won his first term only because he was Reagan's vice president, and people thought they were voting for four more years of Reagan, i.e., uncompromising conservatism, which goes to disprove your theory (and the theory held by the left in general) that the Reagan phenomenon was strictly a personality thing. Only when G.H.W Bush proved to be a compromiser who could deal with the left and thus "appeal to the middle" was he defeated by a leftist Democrat.
Reagan was no conservative. When Carter left office, our debt was 32.5% of the GDP, which was the lowest since WW II. Reagan managed to raise it to 43.8% by the end of his first term and 53.1% by the end of his second term, or $2 trillion. That was back when a trillion dollars was real money:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_termsHe also poo pooed Carter's push for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. He was "the Great Communicator", which meant he could deliver his lines like a B movie actor. He was in no way a conservative.
We need our best and brightest, which rules out Bachmann, Palin, and any other sh*t-for-brains right wing, Tea Party buffoon.
In my opinion the way to achieve a victory is to nominate the most Conservative candidate who has a decent chance of beating BHO.
You may think that Candidate must be hard core Right wing. I don't. May we just agree to disagree on this one?
Reagan was no conservative. When Carter left office, our debt was 32.5% of the GDP, which was the lowest since WW II. Reagan managed to raise it to 43.8% by the end of his first term and 53.1% by the end of his second term, or $2 trillion. That was back when a trillion dollars was real money:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_termsHe also poo pooed Carter's push for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. He was "the Great Communicator", which meant he could deliver his lines like a B movie actor. He was in no way a conservative.
We need our best and brightest, which rules out Bachmann, Palin, and any other sh*t-for-brains right wing, Tea Party buffoon.
He had a Democrat Congress, but the question whether or not he was a conservative is entirely irrelevant. The only important factors vis a vis this discussion are 1) did the MSM portray him as an extreme conservative, and 2) did the American public view him as a principled conservative. The answers are yes and yes. Therefore it is not the case that a candidate so viewed cannot win the presidency. In fact history instructs us that it's a huge advantage to being so elected.
In my opinion the way to achieve a victory is to nominate the most Conservative candidate who has a decent chance of beating BHO.
You may think that Candidate must be hard core Right wing. I don't. May we just agree to disagree on this one?
Of course we may, but I will call you on it every time you mischaracterize my position and that of others on this point.
Don't forget we need to remove part of congress too.
Don't forget we need to remove part of congress too.
Oh definitely.
Sure is a lot of pissin and moaning around here but the simple fact remains; unless the GOP sends up a candidate who can take a large percentage of the "middle" votes BHO glides into a second deadly term.
Romney will be the nominee.
I have not endorsed Romney or any other candidate.
It isn't a "fact". Hate to break it to you "Your Eliteness" but your opinion is just that, an opinion.
Hate to break it to you but my statement is fact not opinion. Anyone who believes the Presidency can be won without a significant share of the "middle" vote is delusional.
BHO's approvals are in the 40's now but wait till next year this time after the MSM has has pushed him above 50%. It will be impossible to defeat him with a Ron Paul or other rightwingnutcase.---Spano, the Elite one.
I have not yet endorsed any candidate
�Facts� should be supported with facts.
Until you start doing that, your unsupported �facts� are just opinion.
When your opinion is contradicted by facts�for example�when the record is the opposite of what you say it is�credibility problems arise.
Here are a couple of provable facts�
The MSM can ignore but can�t change the record�no President since FDR has been reelected with Obama�s present unemployment numbers.
And it is a fact that your �middle� vote is based on voter enthusiasm more than on voters changing their minds.
A recent report in Salon explained:
Rutgers political scientist David Redlawsk estimates that 5 million people voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and then voted for a Republican in 2010.
Boy, 5 million people! That is not even 6 percent of the entire voting electorate! (Or maybe even less, because the number of people who claim they voted for Obama is probably high.)
[...]
Truly independent voters are still mythical creatures. They exist in the imaginations of commentators who�ve spent most of their adult lives in Washington, D.C. Otherwise, the electorate is largely made up of Democratic voters and Republican voters.
In this last election, more Republican voters showed up than Democratic voters.
In 2008, the opposite was true.
You may as well knock this thread in the head.Obama just gave the nomination to Gov. Perry.
Start choosing the second spot .
Sure is a lot of pissin and moaning around here but the simple fact remains; unless the GOP sends up a candidate who can take a large percentage of the "middle" votes BHO glides into a second deadly term.
No offense but I'm getting tired of this bullschit theory because it isn't based on reality or proven by history at all. Why is it that people claim a conservative can't win? What's your proof? Who says the "middle" wouldn't vote for a conservative over Hussein? The historical fact is that we haven't nominated a conservative since Ronald Reagan and what happened then? A friggin landslide victory with PLENTY of middle voters. Just the contrary to what you and others have claimed on this subject. We nominate a "moderate" like McCain and we lose to the most under qualified candidate to ever hold office. Show me ANY conservative in the last 50 years that ran on the republican ticket and lost- name ANY. You can't. And because of that, I will never accept this attitude ever.
We have never nominated a conservative starting with Washington. We vote for the Red Team or the Blue Team and march off the cliff.
We have never nominated a conservative starting with Washington. We vote for the Red Team or the Blue Team and march off the cliff.
1964, Barry Goldwater. Reagan was also perceived as a Goldwater style conservative.
We have never nominated a conservative starting with Washington. We vote for the Red Team or the Blue Team and march off the cliff.
I would argue that Calvin Coolidge was as close to a conservative as we have seen.
I know she�s some kind of lawyer, but she comes across as an air-head. Come to think of it, lawyer and air-head are not mutually exclusive. Obama is a lawyer, right?
If she looked the way you suggested she would look like Margaret Thatcher. I think she is packaged quite adequately. And, you are right about the other character.
[quote=OutlawPatriot]Why is it that no one can ever mention Reagan without having 10 people go off on a damn tangent about his record being conservative or not? ]
I think too many in the GOP have foggy vision when it comes to Regan and forgets that to get re-elected he became a middle of the road candidate on many issues. Bachmann is a wing nut who panders to the far right and will do and say anything crazy to flame the base. She is not stupid but she is not the best the GOP can do I hope. Bachmann is Sarah Palin with out all of the deep thought or Palin-lite.
Can't get elected without moving to the middle some what. This country is not ready for a crazy right winger.
I am truly amazed you can use the term "deep thought" and Palin in the same sentence. Inconceivable. She's never had a deep or original thought. You're right on about the other, though. The country isn't ready nor does it need a crazy right winger, and Bachmann is the personification. Carry on.
What exactly are some of you claiming are these "far right" positions for which she cannot stand and still capture "middle" voters? All these vague descriptions of her positions aren't helping the discussion. Name some and we can discuss them. I admittedly am about as far right as it gets.
When I try and think of "far right" issues I tend to think of abortion and gay marriage. If those are some of the thing to which you refer, have you looked at any of the popular polls lately? About 75% of the country wants LESS abortion and about 50% doesn't want abortion at all. And about 60% of the people consider marriage between a man and a woman.
Those two issues are the most right winged I can think of and those typically poll far from a fringe group- more like half the country. So, how is it that we cannot get middle voters? If you have any other issues to share that are scaring away middle voters, please by all means share them here, SPECIFICALLY. Because frankly, I think most of the people making this claim are throwing out generalities that are not accurate.
I think most of the people making this claim are throwing out generalities that are accurate.
Inaccurate?
I think most of the people making this claim are throwing out generalities that are accurate.
Inaccurate?
Corrected.
I think most of the people making this claim are throwing out generalities that are accurate.
Inaccurate?
Corrected.
I see.
Actually, you're incorrect. The majority of Americans disagree with Bachmann, who would prohibit all abortions. Most of us aren't going to tell a woman what she can and cannot do, and will not tell others who they can and cannot marry. NO candidate will win with Bachmann's positions on those issues. We like to keep our noses out of other's private lives.
It's called the Nunya principle, as in it's Nunya F*ckin' Business.
It wasn't McCain being in the middle that lost the election, it was the fact that he was running from the same party whose President had controlled the WH for two terms, jacked up the deficit (nothing compared to now, though), pooched the Afghan War, created and FUBAR'd the Iraq War, and presided over the near-collapse of the American financial system... that's the popular perception of what McCain represented. It's a tough platform for election.
Actually, you're incorrect. The majority of Americans disagree with Bachmann, who would prohibit all abortions. Most of us aren't going to tell a woman what she can and cannot do, and will not tell others who they can and cannot marry. NO candidate will win with Bachmann's positions on those issues. We like to keep our noses out of other's private lives.
It's called the Nunya principle, as in it's Nunya F*ckin' Business.
What exactly is her position on abortion? If it's simply that Roe v Wade needs overturning, then I agree completely, since it wasn't based in law, but rather was a raw act of despotism on the part of the US Supreme Court. The abortion question belongs at the state level, with each state making its own law on the matter.
Haven't followed it but didn't she recently make another gaff, this time about slaves or something?
Haven't followed it but didn't she recently make another gaff, this time about slaves or something?
She said the Founding Fathers were committed to eliminating slavery. She was right in the sense that many of them were so committed, but realized that the Southern states wouldn't join the union unless it was left to the states to decide on its legality individually. The anti-slavery Founding Fathers figured that once the union was formed, they could gradually work on eliminating slavery. They didn't realize quite how deeply it was going to become institutionalized in the South. Not really a gaff if you think about it that way. She probably should have said
many of the Founding Fathers were committed to ending slavery.
I am truly amazed you can use the term "deep thought" and Palin in the same sentence. Inconceivable. She's never had a deep or original thought. You're right on about the other, though. The country isn't ready nor does it need a crazy right winger, and Bachmann is the personification. Carry on.
Both Bachmann and Palin are far more intelligent than the loser Marxist Barrack Hussein Obamination!
So what is your point.
Both Bachmann and Palin are far more intelligent than the loser Marxist Barrack Hussein Obamination!
So what is your point
Or Piddler. miles
About 75% of the country wants LESS abortion and about 50% doesn't want abortion at all. And about 60% of the people consider marriage between a man and a woman.
If those are your issues that you are willing to elect Bachmann on.... Well enought said. Certinaly there are a few pressing innuse out there that keep you up at night and have nothing to do about a womans right to choose and marriage. Non starter issues for most of the country except the far right. Will not get you elected for sure.
Try againe!
Haven't followed it but didn't she recently make another gaff, this time about slaves or something?
She said the Founding Fathers were committed to eliminating slavery. She was right in the sense that many of them were so committed, but realized that the Southern states wouldn't join the union unless it was left to the states to decide on its legality individually. The anti-slavery Founding Fathers figured that once the union was formed, they could gradually work on eliminating slavery. They didn't realize quite how deeply it was going to become institutionalized in the South. Not really a gaff if you think about it that way. She probably should have said
many of the Founding Fathers were committed to ending slavery.
Many owned slaves so how commited were they?
Bachman mis-spoke, no way! If she puts O'Donnell on her ticket we all will forget who Sarah was! Bachamn... the new Sarah, with only 1/2 the brains. Is that possible?
We can round and round but the point is both Ladies are brain less when it comes to American history especially of the revolutionary era and constitutional history.
The three biggies to me right now is the economy, the deficit, and empire building. Of the two Ladies, Bachman probably has the edge being a tax attorney on the economy. As to the deficit and empire building both are clueless but so isn't every man running except RP.
Good points and I agree with you. Both ladies are brain dead and should not be incharge of anything other than the PTA.
Anyone seriously running for President should have the brains not to say something that needs to be "explained" or "interpreted" by her handlers.
Anyone seriously running for President should have the brains not to say something that needs to be "explained" or "interpreted" by her handlers.
DITTOS and DOUBLE DITTOS!!!!!
Anyone seriously running for President should have the brains not to say something that needs to be "explained" or "interpreted" by her handlers.
It hasn't helped Obama; he can't even be explained.
Until the right figures out who they are, they're going to have trouble winning no matter who they put up.
You have the one segment of the right who thinks US world domination trumps every other issue. You have another segment who views moral issues above all else. Then you have some who want as little government as possible in every aspect.
Those groups don't mesh very well as we've seen right here on a conservative dominated board.
We can round and round but the point is both Ladies are brain less when it comes to American history especially of the revolutionary era and constitutional history.
The three biggies to me right now is the economy, the deficit, and empire building. Of the two Ladies, Bachman probably has the edge being a tax attorney on the economy. As to the deficit and empire building both are clueless but so isn't every man running except RP.
Palin has got her American history exactly right ever time and that is proven fact.
Palin handled the Alaskan deficit better than any other Alaskan Governor and that is proven fact.
Anyone who denies or continues to dispute the proven factual record is either trolling or clueless.
Until the right figures out who they are, they're going to have trouble winning no matter who they put up.
You have the one segment of the right who thinks US world domination trumps every other issue. You have another segment who views moral issues above all else. Then you have some who want as little government as possible in every aspect.
Those groups don't mesh very well as we've seen right here on a conservative dominated board.
Doesn't matter, anyway. Same people gonna be calling the shots.
Even a big chunk of the Democrats figured that out after peace loving Obama sent another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Elections don't alter the agenda.
Anyone seriously running for President should have the brains not to say something that needs to be "explained" or "interpreted" by her handlers.
Nobody has a bigger problem with HIS record than Flip-Flop Romney.
Bachmann was clearly confused on the slavery issue, the follow up explanation was merely spin so that she wouldn't look so ignernt. Didn't fool anybody. She's not somebody I would want in charge of the PTA, as the education of our children is far too important to be entrusted to the likes of her.
Somebody above was wrong, if you can imagine that somebody on the internet could be wrong. McCain's fatal mistake was choosing Palin as his running mate. For many Americans, her stupidity killed the ticket. I could have voted for McCain, but when his choice was announced, I lost all faith in his judgement.
Palin has got her American history exactly right ever time and that is proven fact.
Palin handled the Alaskan deficit better than any other Alaskan Governor and that is proven fact.
Anyone who denies or continues to dispute the proven factual record is either trolling or clueless.
How much did Alaska's spending increase from her first day in office to the time she left?
Just the facts Bow.
McCain's fatal mistake was choosing Palin as his running mate. For many Americans, her stupidity killed the ticket. I could have voted for McCain, but when his choice was announced, I lost all faith in his judgement.
McCain had bigger problems than just 'You Betcha' girl.
He wanted to increase our overseas involvement at a time our economy was tumbling. He ran to DC to help push the Wall St bailouts on the backs of the taxpayer. And of course, my personal favorite,...he said we needed illegals because Americans wouldn't pick lettuce for $50 an hour.
Bachmann was clearly confused on the slavery issue, the follow up explanation was merely spin so that she wouldn't look so ignernt. Didn't fool anybody. She's not somebody I would want in charge of the PTA, as the education of our children is far too important to be entrusted to the likes of her.
Somebody above was wrong, if you can imagine that somebody on the internet could be wrong. McCain's fatal mistake was choosing Palin as his running mate. For many Americans, her stupidity killed the ticket. I could have voted for McCain, but when his choice was announced, I lost all faith in his judgement.
Ignorant people who call people �ignernt� and don�t know how to spell �judgment� have nothing but name calling to bring to the conversation.
So how much did Palin energize McCain�s floundering campaign?
You can look up how much the crowd size increased thanks to Palin.
It is a matter of record.
Nobody ever said she didn't bring energy to the campaign, and she's a lot better looking than McCain. What she didn't bring was brains, because she has none. Unfortunately, the electorate falls for the sizzle too often, and doesn't insist on the steak.
I thought the "ignernt" was a nice, folksy touch, and appropriate given her propensity for intentionally dropping her "g"s. Oh, and thanks for picking up the typo, except for the fact that I spelled it correctly, of course. You may kiss my ass now, BSer.
Good points and I agree with you. Both ladies are brain dead and should not be incharge of anything other than the PTA.
I have never heard of a brain dead Fed. tax attorney nor a brain dead Governor with an 80% approval rating.
You haven't? Let me help you out--- Bachmann and Palin. Of course, Palin's approval rating would have fallen if she wasn't a quitter. Anybody seen a poll on whether or not Alaskans think she made the right decision? I understand they're glad to be rid of her.
Until the right figures out who they are, they're going to have trouble winning no matter who they put up.
You have the one segment of the right who thinks US world domination trumps every other issue. You have another segment who views moral issues above all else. Then you have some who want as little government as possible in every aspect.
Those groups don't mesh very well as we've seen right here on a conservative dominated board.
You got that right Laddie.
Did I miss something? Did Mrs. Palin announce she is in the big game or is she still a quit term Governor of a very small state?
Well yes she is a a rich "reality" show hostess well onto becoming a plutocrat of some moment. May she continue to prosper in her chosen field.
Anyway, I don't want two fuggin' Micheles in the White House back to back.
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!
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.... Sort of, but with differences.
Paler of complexion, sure of ancestry and birth place, and less inclined to misinterpret own gender.
On your other points, Dan, complete agreement.
Screw BAchman. And the horse she rode in on. And all the rest of these GD people Team R seem so endeared by. I chit you not, if it's another pawlenty, bachman, McDole, huckabutt, romney, or any of these other useless pukes the
GOP has had stuck in their throats and unable to dislodge for the last 20 years, I swear to God above, I'll vote for Obama.
I'll do it!
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.
That�s the theory that keeps political consultants employed, but it�s far from reality. Many people in the center just don�t buy the BS from left or right wingers. An enthusiastic left or right base turns the center off. To win the center we need a candidate who can convince them they�ll have more money in their pocket if he�s elected. Reagan knew that and used it against Carter to good effect, and kept his job for a second term because the economy was improving; remember stay the course? Bush 41 rode that same wave into office.
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.
McCain lost because he was a dull old fart running on the war. When the economy went south McCain said he didn�t know much about it and made similarly stupid statements. Then he did the ultimate dumb thing of suspending his campaign to go to Washington to deal with TARP, only to be ignored. The economy and war fatigue is what won Obama the election, not some ideological change in the nation from right to center to well left of center, although the liberals tried to make that claim.
Now the same idiots who gave us McCain are at play again. That�s my real peeve. Why should the same bunch always have first crack at narrowing down the candidates? To fix Washington the primary process needs to be fixed or we�ll just keep getting the same bunch of horse sh*t candidates for president.
Best post on the whole thread!
barkoff is right, the middle is more conservative than the republican party at this time.
There's a bulls eye, right there.
That eyeball of yours sees crystal clear.... and right to the heart of this matter.
we tried the center with mc lame and before that with bob cold
Neither lost because they were near the center politically, they lost because they were poor candidates from the get go. Dole was a throw-away against Clinton for his second term; back when spending was under control and the economy was doing great. Dole was 73, the oldest first-time presidential nominee even beating Ronald Reagan. McCain ran on the Iraq war and was poorly prepared to run on the economy and even said he didn�t know much about it.
If Republicans run some rightwingnut this time they�ll not only lose the center they�ll lose moderate Republicans and give Obama a landslide victory that he�ll falsely claim is a mandate for more socialist laws.
And ya done it again!
The
GOP needs relegated to the dung heap of history. They either have nothing left to offer or have decided they're the enemy. Either way their demise is nigh at hand if they don't make DRASTIC changes in their tired, worn out old ways.
And I honestly don't give a [bleep] anymore. I hope they DO finish their slow and ugly suicide, in a very public manner. I"m done with 'em. Strait to hell, the entire lot. Sooner the better, too. I swear to God they've become worse than the liberals. TRH, DD, RRR and a few others on here see it. All you blind SOB's evidently need a few more big spoonfulls of their chit stuffed down your throats and a few more of their injections directly up your asses.
Here's to hoping you get both, soon and plenteous.
Any candidate who gets up in front of the people and tells them exactly how dire the situation is and what it will take to truly fix it will be lucky to get 2% of the vote.
It's gonna take more than goring the ox,...he's gonna have to be nuked.
Candidates will talk about a little bit of reform here and there,...but they're not going to explain what 14 trillion dollars of debt and 75 trillion dollars in entitlements over the next 20 years really means.
you knucklehead neocon team R loving pseudo-cons need to start listening to this man, and a few others on here. TRH made some excellent points in this thread as did many others.
You people deserve the dingleBarry's and AlGalore's of the political world. You really do.
Sarah Palin/Ron Paul in 2012.
All the rest is just meaningless twaddle.
And I swear to God I'll vote for Obama.
I will! I'll do it!
I'm going to go finish reading the thread. ONly about half way through... and pissed off, as usual...
Haven't followed it but didn't she recently make another gaff, this time about slaves or something?
She said the Founding Fathers were committed to eliminating slavery. She was right in the sense that many of them were so committed, but realized that the Southern states wouldn't join the union unless it was left to the states to decide on its legality individually. The anti-slavery Founding Fathers figured that once the union was formed, they could gradually work on eliminating slavery. They didn't realize quite how deeply it was going to become institutionalized in the South. Not really a gaff if you think about it that way. She probably should have said
many of the Founding Fathers were committed to ending slavery.
Many owned slaves so how commited were they?
Bachman mis-spoke, no way! If she puts O'Donnell on her ticket we all will forget who Sarah was! Bachamn... the new Sarah, with only 1/2 the brains. Is that possible?
You being a teacher have a lot of balls talking about Sarah and Bachmann being stupid when a few posts up you spelled again as "againe". And if you are going to berate Bachmann learn how to spell her name. You libs are so much a legend in your own minds.
Good points and I agree with you. Both ladies are brain dead and should not be incharge of anything other than the PTA.
Another one from our brain dead teacher. In charge is two words, no wonder our educational system is in the toilet.
Bachmann was clearly confused on the slavery issue, the follow up explanation was merely spin so that she wouldn't look so ignernt. Didn't fool anybody. She's not somebody I would want in charge of the PTA, as the education of our children is far too important to be entrusted to the likes of her.
Somebody above was wrong, if you can imagine that somebody on the internet could be wrong. McCain's fatal mistake was choosing Palin as his running mate. For many Americans, her stupidity killed the ticket. I could have voted for McCain, but when his choice was announced, I lost all faith in his judgement.
You can't even spell ignorant, dumb azz. Until you can spell you shouldn't call others stupid. Spelling is third grade stuff and you haven't conquered it yet.
You haven't? Let me help you out--- Bachmann and Palin. Of course, Palin's approval rating would have fallen if she wasn't a quitter. Anybody seen a poll on whether or not Alaskans think she made the right decision? I understand they're glad to be rid of her.
Not me nor most Alaskans I know. How many up here do you personally know? That is what I thought.
I chit you not, if it's another pawlenty, bachman, McDole, huckabutt, romney, or any of these other useless pukes the GOP has had stuck in their throats and unable to dislodge for the last 20 years, I swear to God above, I'll vote for Obama.
I'll do it!
Having trouble understanding how you're putting Bachmann in the same category with those folks. Palin and Bachmann are allies. I actually prefer Bachmann to Palin, as I think she's more authentically conservative than Palin. Of course I'd much rather have Paul/Johnson, as they are the real real deal.
barkoff is right, the middle is more conservative than the republican party at this time.
There's a bulls eye, right there.
That eyeball of yours sees crystal clear.... and right to the heart of this matter.
It might be that some terms are being confused here.
The middle refers to those who are neither right nor left. Same for
the center and
the moderates. Then there's
independents. An independent could be an independent for several reasons. They could be independent because they're neither left nor right, but rather in the middle, or they could be independent because the Democrat Party is not left wing enough for them or the Republican Party is not right wing enough for them. Independent is more of a mixed bag kind of reference than is the middle.
I don't think Bachman has the gumption let alone guts to take on the establishment repubs. They need kicked in the nuts, HARD and repeatedly. Palin has proven not only willing but eager and her success in that arena still resounds loud and clear to more than a few.
Establishment Repubs, neocons, war mongers, fed reserve lovers, etc etc - everything that is wrong on the right - fears Palin just as much if not more than the liberal left. I don't see that with Bachman.
To be honest I like Bachman better than any of the rest of the field of retards and rejects and retreads, but the margin is small.
Then there's this
Now the same idiots who gave us McCain are at play again. That�s my real peeve. Why should the same bunch always have first crack at narrowing down the candidates? To fix Washington the primary process needs to be fixed or we�ll just keep getting the same bunch of horse sh*t candidates for president.
I've said it since high school and still believe it true. the American people only
think they choose their president. Fact is they choose one name from the two chosen for them. That's not a choice and it's not we the people running the government, it's being led along on a rope like a tame milking cow choosing which milker gets to grab and yank your tits for the next 4 years.
I don't think Bachman has the gumption let alone guts to take on the establishment repubs. They need kicked in the nuts, HARD and repeatedly. Palin has proven not only willing but eager and her success in that arena still resounds loud and clear to more than a few.
Establishment Repubs, neocons, war mongers, fed reserve lovers, etc etc - everything that is wrong on the right - fears Palin just as much if not more than the liberal left. I don't see that with Bachman.
To be honest I like Bachman better than any of the rest of the field of retards and rejects and retreads, but the margin is small.
Then there's this
Now the same idiots who gave us McCain are at play again. That�s my real peeve. Why should the same bunch always have first crack at narrowing down the candidates? To fix Washington the primary process needs to be fixed or we�ll just keep getting the same bunch of horse sh*t candidates for president.
I've said it since high school and still believe it true. the American people only
think they choose their president. Fact is they choose one name from the two chosen for them. That's not a choice and it's not we the people running the government, it's being led along on a rope like a tame milking cow choosing which milker gets to grab and yank your tits for the next 4 years.
I have my suspicions about the primary process too.
.....
Screw BAchman. And the horse she rode in on. And all the rest of these GD people Team R seem so endeared by. I chit you not, if it's another pawlenty, bachman, McDole, huckabutt, romney, or any of these other useless pukes the GOP has had stuck in their throats and unable to dislodge for the last 20 years, I swear to God above, I'll vote for Obama.
I'll do it!
I like your anger Archer.
Too many get numbed down and accept the crap that's forced on us instead of taking a stand. The only thing more annoying than liberals are conservatives who vote for some half azzed Republican under the pretense they are a little bit better than the other side. We keep sliding down this hole and everyone stands around pulling their little peckers wondering why things ain't changing.
Until folks get a pair of balls and quit accepting the notion we have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, we'll be destined to watch our wallets lighten and our rights continually come under attack.
Originally Posted By: northwestalaska
Good points and I agree with you. Both ladies are brain dead and should not be incharge of anything other than the PTA.
Originally Posted By: Bowsinger
I have never heard of a brain dead Fed. tax attorney nor a brain dead Governor with an 80% approval rating
You haven't? Let me help you out--- Bachmann and Palin. Of course, Palin's approval rating would have fallen if she wasn't a quitter. Anybody seen a poll on whether or not Alaskans think she made the right decision? I understand they're glad to be rid of her.
You are no help at all�Based on what Bachmann and Palin have accomplished�
Anyone doing as good as Bachmann according to all those voters in Minnesota and all her supporters in the primary polls, can�t possible be brain dead.
Therefore, it is a statistical certainty that you must be the one who is brain dead.
You should see a doctor.
The real world fact that Palin is doing even better than Bachmann can mean only one thing.
It is too late and no use for you to see a doctor�DOA
�so that she (Bachmann or Bachman or Bachamn) wouldn't look so �ignernt.�
Only Ignorant People who truly Brain Dead would call someone of achievement; �ignernt�
DFTFT
I don't think Bachman has the gumption let alone guts to take on the establishment repubs. They need kicked in the nuts, HARD and repeatedly. Palin has proven not only willing but eager and her success in that arena still resounds loud and clear to more than a few.
Establishment Repubs, neocons, war mongers, fed reserve lovers, etc etc - everything that is wrong on the right - fears Palin just as much if not more than the liberal left. I don't see that with Bachman.
To be honest I like Bachman better than any of the rest of the field of retards and rejects and retreads, but the margin is small.
Then there's this
Now the same idiots who gave us McCain are at play again. That’s my real peeve. Why should the same bunch always have first crack at narrowing down the candidates? To fix Washington the primary process needs to be fixed or we’ll just keep getting the same bunch of horse sh*t candidates for president.
I've said it since high school and still believe it true. the American people only
think they choose their president. Fact is they choose one name from the two chosen for them. That's not a choice and it's not we the people running the government, it's being led along on a rope like a tame milking cow choosing which milker gets to grab and yank your tits for the next 4 years.
You are dead right AH. Since the founding of the second republic (yes, this is the second republic) "We the People" have been smoke and mirrors. We the People have never been in control of the Federal Republic. The second republic was founded by special interest and for special interest and the special interest do not include We the People.
You are no help at all�Based on what Bachmann and Palin have accomplished�
Anyone doing as good as Bachmann according to all those voters in Minnesota and all her supporters in the primary polls, can�t possible be brain dead.
Therefore, it is a statistical certainty that you must be the one who is brain dead.
You should see a doctor.
The real world fact that Palin is doing even better than Bachmann can mean only one thing.
It is too late and no use for you to see a doctor�DOA
�so that she (Bachmann or Bachman or Bachamn) wouldn't look so �ignernt.�
Only Ignorant People who truly Brain Dead would call someone of achievement; �ignernt�
There is none so blind as he who will not see. Go ahead and waste time and money on Palin and Bachmann. A nomination for either of them is futile.
Too many get numbed down and accept the crap that's forced on us instead of taking a stand. The only thing more annoying than liberals are conservatives who vote for some half azzed Republican under the pretense they are a little bit better than the other side. We keep sliding down this hole and everyone stands around pulling their little peckers wondering why things ain't changing.
Until folks get a pair of balls and quit accepting the notion we have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, we'll be destined to watch our wallets lighten and our rights continually come under attack.
I'm pretty much at this stage myself. The republican party has basically taken my vote for granted for the better part of my life. I go in, holding my nose, and vote for a guy like McLame simply because of this age old attitude "well he's better than Obama". Even though that may be true, I am completely done voting AGAINST someone else. I want to vote FOR someone for a change. If the Rs put up someone like McCain 2.0 (ie Romney etc), I WILL write in my own candidate. Nothing will change until we stop being enablers.
If the Rs put up someone like McCain 2.0 (ie Romney etc), I WILL write in my own candidate. Nothing will change until we stop being enablers.
I've been considering doing the same, i.e., if someone like Romney is the candidate, writing in Ron Paul.
Palin has got her American history exactly right ever time and that is proven fact.
Palin handled the Alaskan deficit better than any other Alaskan Governor and that is proven fact.
Anyone who denies or continues to dispute the proven factual record is either trolling or clueless.
Do you live under a rock?
For starters Alaska has not run a deficit in the near past so just like Palin you havent a clue! Remember we send all residents a check each fall.
Lets have some Palin fun!
1-When asked about how as President she would avoid investigations similar to the one compelling her resignation as Governor of Alaska she responded, "I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out."
2-"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." --Sarah Palin, on Paul Revere's midnight ride, June 3, 2011
3-"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010
4- Palin responded: "Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I�ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."
But, of course, the Pledge wasn't "good enough" for the Founding Fathers. It was not written until 100 years AFTER the Revolutionary era, in 1892, by a man named Francis Bellamy
This list goes on and on. Here is a link for you to look at. Its a good thing that Palin is cute because being stupid is not attractive.
LINK:
http://www.ranker.com/list/13-social-studies-facts-sarah-palin-got-wrong/kel-varnsenLots of people are picking on Sarah but she makes it so easy!
If the Rs put up someone like McCain 2.0 (ie Romney etc), I WILL write in my own candidate. Nothing will change until we stop being enablers.
I've been considering doing the same, i.e., if someone like Romney is the candidate, writing in Ron Paul.
I probably wouldn't write in Ron but I would seriously consider his son Rand.
Do you live under a rock?
For starters Alaska has not run a deficit in the near past so just like Palin you haven�t a clue! Remember we send all residents a check each fall.
Golly-gee, I also misspoke, I said �deficit� when I meant to say �budget�.
Only someone who really does live under a rock could have ignored the problems that low oil prices would have had on the increasing Alaska budget.
�Governor Palin reduced earmark requests for the state of Alaska by 80% during her administration, requesting only earmarks that would benefit the country as a whole.
Governor Palin reduced spending in her budget for Fiscal Year 2010 by more than one billion dollars from the previous governor� s Fiscal Year 2007 budget, a 9.5% real reduction in spending.
Governor Palin FY2010 budget was $10.57 billion compared to Governor Murkowski�s FY2007 budget of nearly $11.7 billion. At the same time, she fulfilled her campaign promise to forward fund education, allowing districts greater flexibility and predictability in their planning.
Governor Palin vetoed half a billion dollars in spending, the largest veto in state history.
Governor Palin invested $5 billion in state savings.
Governor Palin reformed Alaska�s public employee retirement system to make it solvent.
Governor Palin accepted less state per diem for herself and her family than her predecessors even though she had a larger family.�Lets have some Palin fun!
Quote:
1-When asked about how as President she would avoid investigations similar to the one compelling her resignation as Governor of Alaska she responded, "I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out."
Palin, of course got it right�this one is easy�
This quote is from 2009 and the Governor was used to dealing with the Alaska Department of Law.
Dozens of federal lawsuits, complaints and FOIAs are filed daily against the President, the VP, all the rest of the department chiefs and on down the organizational charts.
All are handled by the appropriate legal departments up to and including the Justice Department which has the final responsibility.
All handled at tax payers expense with no cost to the President, ect.
Which was Palin�s point in the first place.
What is your point???? Quote:
2-"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." --Sarah Palin, on Paul Revere's midnight ride, June 3, 2011
I still cannot believe that a short offhand causal remark about Paul Revere made in passing to a group of MSM has still got the Palinophobic Misogynists suffering from advanced PDS.
Especially since it has been proven Palin got it right.
So what is your point????
Palin drops her �g�s� like John Wayne????Quote:
3-"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010
A simple misspeak that was corrected in the next sentence.
So what is your point???? Quote:
4- Palin responded: "Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I�ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."
But, of course, the Pledge wasn't "good enough" for the Founding Fathers. It was not written until 100 years AFTER the Revolutionary era, in 1892, by a man named Francis Bellamy
This one is easy too�the Pledge is, of course, based on the Ideals of the Founding Fathers .
And it is worth fighting for�This list goes on and on. Here is a link for you to look at. Its a good thing that Palin is cute because being stupid is not attractive.
LINK:
http://www.ranker.com/list/13-social-studies-facts-sarah-palin-got-wrong/kel-varnsenLots of people are picking on Sarah but she makes it so easy!
And of course, you could do a look-up on the minor mistakes and misspeaks made by any public figure.
How does that make them stupid?
Or is it just Palin you are calling stupid?
Is that your real point????
It is called Palinophobia-fear of Mama Grizzlies. It is pretty common�widespread here on the �Fire.
Thanks for the link. I bookmarked. What pretty bimbo.
Do you live under a rock?
For starters Alaska has not run a deficit in the near past so just like Palin you haven�t a clue! Remember we send all residents a check each fall.
[b]Golly-gee, I also misspoke, I said �deficit� when I meant to say �budget�.
Only someone who really does live under a rock could have ignored the problems that low oil prices would have had on the increasing Alaska budget.
Low Oil Prices? Seriously?
Historical Oil Prices Palin inherited an Alaskan State Government downsized by the low oil prices in the early 2000's, and was governor during near-peak prices recently...
I'm simply amazed at how the Palin pantie sniffers can spin her idiotic remarks to say she is right. Her panties must have some special smell.
Do you live under a rock?
For starters Alaska has not run a deficit in the near past so just like Palin you haven�t a clue! Remember we send all residents a check each fall.
[b]Golly-gee, I also misspoke, I said �deficit� when I meant to say �budget�.
Only someone who really does live under a rock could have ignored the problems that low oil prices would have had on the increasing Alaska budget.
Low Oil Prices? Seriously?
Historical Oil Prices Palin inherited an Alaskan State Government downsized by the low oil prices in the early 2000's, and was governor during near-peak prices recently...
Yes, that is exactly Palin�s point.
It is a lot harder to reduce government spending during good times than it is to do when times get tough.
I cannot find any other Governor who has done that.
And last I checked oil prices still rise and fall�
Did I miss something? Did Mrs. Palin announce she is in the big game or is she still a quit term Governor of a very small our biggest state?
Well yes she is a a rich "reality" show hostess well onto becoming a plutocrat of some moment. May she continue to prosper in her chosen field.
There, fixed it for you.
Do you live under a rock?
For starters Alaska has not run a deficit in the near past so just like Palin you haven�t a clue! Remember we send all residents a check each fall.
Golly-gee, I also misspoke, I said �deficit� when I meant to say �budget�.
Only someone who really does live under a rock could have ignored the problems that low oil prices would have had on the increasing Alaska budget.
�Governor Palin reduced earmark requests for the state of Alaska by 80% during her administration, requesting only earmarks that would benefit the country as a whole.
Governor Palin reduced spending in her budget for Fiscal Year 2010 by more than one billion dollars from the previous governor� s Fiscal Year 2007 budget, a 9.5% real reduction in spending.
Governor Palin FY2010 budget was $10.57 billion compared to Governor Murkowski�s FY2007 budget of nearly $11.7 billion. At the same time, she fulfilled her campaign promise to forward fund education, allowing districts greater flexibility and predictability in their planning.
Governor Palin vetoed half a billion dollars in spending, the largest veto in state history.
Governor Palin invested $5 billion in state savings.
Governor Palin reformed Alaska�s public employee retirement system to make it solvent.
Governor Palin accepted less state per diem for herself and her family than her predecessors even though she had a larger family.�Lets have some Palin fun!
Quote:
1-When asked about how as President she would avoid investigations similar to the one compelling her resignation as Governor of Alaska she responded, "I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out."
Palin, of course got it right�this one is easy�
This quote is from 2009 and the Governor was used to dealing with the Alaska Department of Law.
Dozens of federal lawsuits, complaints and FOIAs are filed daily against the President, the VP, all the rest of the department chiefs and on down the organizational charts.
All are handled by the appropriate legal departments up to and including the Justice Department which has the final responsibility.
All handled at tax payers expense with no cost to the President, ect.
Which was Palin�s point in the first place.
What is your point???? Quote:
2-"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." --Sarah Palin, on Paul Revere's midnight ride, June 3, 2011
I still cannot believe that a short offhand causal remark about Paul Revere made in passing to a group of MSM has still got the Palinophobic Misogynists suffering from advanced PDS.
Especially since it has been proven Palin got it right.
So what is your point????
Palin drops her �g�s� like John Wayne????Quote:
3-"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010
A simple misspeak that was corrected in the next sentence.
So what is your point???? Quote:
4- Palin responded: "Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I�ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."
But, of course, the Pledge wasn't "good enough" for the Founding Fathers. It was not written until 100 years AFTER the Revolutionary era, in 1892, by a man named Francis Bellamy
This one is easy too�the Pledge is, of course, based on the Ideals of the Founding Fathers .
And it is worth fighting for�This list goes on and on. Here is a link for you to look at. Its a good thing that Palin is cute because being stupid is not attractive.
LINK:
http://www.ranker.com/list/13-social-studies-facts-sarah-palin-got-wrong/kel-varnsenLots of people are picking on Sarah but she makes it so easy!
And of course, you could do a look-up on the minor mistakes and misspeaks made by any public figure.
How does that make them stupid?
Or is it just Palin you are calling stupid?
Is that your real point????
It is called Palinophobia-fear of Mama Grizzlies. It is pretty common�widespread here on the �Fire. I said this before about Bachmann but it applies equally to your girl, "Anyone seriously running For President should be intelligent enough not to say things that must be 'explained' and 'interpreted' by her handlers'".
Did I miss something? Did Mrs. Palin announce she is in the big game or is she still a quit term Governor of a very small our biggest state?
Well yes she is a a rich "reality" show hostess well onto becoming a plutocrat of some moment. May she continue to prosper in her chosen field.
There, fixed it for you.
I don't need you to "fix" things for me. Your attempted fix only indicates your ignorance. Alaska is a very small state.
Have you been a dickhead your whole life?
[quote=SpanokopitasI said this before about Bachmann but it applies equally to your girl, "Anyone seriously running For President should be intelligent enough not to say things that must be 'explained' and 'interpreted' by her handlers'". [/quote]
But that doesn�t apply to your guy and HIS handlers????
Only applies to these two women who are so different than those snobbish bitches that you say you so admire????
Where is your perfect candidate (endorsed or otherwise) who had never had to rephrase and explain????
And please explain the 24,000 email pages that your fellow Palinophobics have gone over and all they found was that Palin communicates at a level higher than most CEOs.
Gynophobia-Fear of women.
Caligynephobia- Fear of beautiful women.
Palinophobia-fear of Mama Grizzlies.
Careful BSser, your ignernce is showing.
Bows backs up his statements with documentation.
The only documentation associated with you is that certifying your being a libtard troll.
Meditate on this: Most recent Zogby poll has Bachmann at 34%, Cain at 15% and Romney at 14%. Same poll has her in a statistical dead heat with the marxist in chief. A conservative can win and MB will do it!!
Have you been a dickhead your whole life?
No. Can you refute my statement with fact or would you rather sling stupidity?
Come on Bow!
Palin's mistakes are waht keeps late night shows spinning! The lady is a walking-talking gaff! How do support this kind of stupid?
Atleast she looks nice....just please don't speak!
[quote=SpanokopitasI said this before about Bachmann but it applies equally to your girl, "Anyone seriously running For President should be intelligent enough not to say things that must be 'explained' and 'interpreted' by her handlers'".
But that doesn�t apply to your guy and HIS handlers????
Only applies to these two women who are so different than those snobbish bitches that you say you so admire????
Where is your perfect candidate (endorsed or otherwise) who had never had to rephrase and explain????
And please explain the 24,000 email pages that your fellow Palinophobics have gone over and all they found was that Palin communicates at a level higher than most CEOs.
Gynophobia-Fear of women.
Caligynephobia- Fear of beautiful women.
Palinophobia-fear of Mama Grizzlies. [/quote]
Bows---Who is my guy? Please enlighten me. As far as I know I don't have a "guy" or "gal". I have not yet endorsed any candidate.
Romney will be the nominee.
I've seen a lot of Palin gaffes, and I've seen 8 years worth of Bush gaffes. Clinton? Only on conservative-leaning shows. Oblahma? Same. Ever really seen Oblahma off-the-cuff, no prompter or speech-writers? It's better described as no eloquence. Never hear about those, though.
Since the second Palin was announced, there has been a non-stop smear campaign. Oddly, the campaign didn't end with the '08 defeat. How much smear endured for Ferraro? Who the heck even remembers who ran with Dukakis? How about Kemp? Lieberman?
I'll guarantee that EVERY one of these politicians made innumerable gaffes after defeat. The difference? None were recorded. How many of you are GRILLED DAILY about your complete knowledge and memory of American and or world history, not to mention Constitutional law, and all subjects long forgotten to obscurity?
Ever seen Biden grilled about ANYTHING? How about the annointed one? How much traction did the asthmatic "breathalyzer" get? Oh, he meant the asthmatic "inhalator". Had Palin repeated the exact sentences, there would've been non-stop 24/7 play-by-play, super-slow-motion, 3-D HiDef coverage. Why is every Oblahma "town-hall" STACKED? Every question pre-screened for softball worthiness?
Republican THREATS are ENGINEERED by the left and MSM for stupidity. Funny how all seem to be scholars. Bush 43 even got the liberal academia golden-child of an MBA from Harvard! No, he's a complete dunce. But then again, only degrees from Harvard awarded to LIBERALS are real... daddy must've bought it, right? Verbal mis-steps need only apply for broadcast.
I would not hesitate to vote for Palin or Bachman or Rice; the only problem is they've all been effectively smeared into oblivion. I'm hopeful, but not confident.
Your guy is the guy(s) that you never dump on like you dump on the two ladies in the race.
Double standard. Only �her� gaffs are worthy of comment, not �his� gaffs.
You always say ~I like her, but�
You continually call supporters of the females in this race �panty sniffers.�
If and when you endorse Romney, do you plan to sniff his panties?
Palinophobia-fear of Mama Grizzlies.
Gynophobia-Fear of women.
Caligynephobia- Fear of beautiful women.
I almost forgot�
Misogyny-hatred or dislike of women.
Have you been a dickhead your whole life?
No. Can you refute my statement with fact or would you rather sling stupidity?
My post was meant to be a jab but I see you have NO [bleep] sense of humor. Your still a dickhead and I don't have to prove a damn thing to you. Keep on believing Alaska is the smallest state in the nation.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
This line gets used a lot, usually by some dumb ass with his eyes closed, like you, piddler. Democrat troll is all that you are. miles
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
This line gets used a lot, usually by some dumb ass with his eyes closed, like you, piddler. Democrat troll is all that you are. miles
See the other thread, Miles. You're welcome to jump in on the action. No takers as of yet, too much BS, no backup.
Have you been a dickhead your whole life?
No. Can you refute my statement with fact or would you rather sling stupidity?
My post was meant to be a jab but I see you have NO [bleep] sense of humor. Your still a dickhead and I don't have to prove a damn thing to you. Keep on believing Alaska is the smallest state in the nation.
Alaska is the most important state�
See the other thread, Miles.
Only other thread that I have run across is one where a man has offered you a bet and so far, I do not see your reply. They are hollering "crickets" on that thread. Piddle, piddle. miles
Bow:
My only point is there has to be someone in the GOP who is electable. Bachmann and Palin pander to the far right by selling fear and throwing out jabs without offering solutions. Both are dumb as a box of rocks but fear sells when the base is involved. If either makes through 3 primaries I will be surprised and if either makes it to the general election the base will not be large enough to elect either one. Most of the country is closer to the middle on MOST issues than either the far right or the far left. Most of us want stability and an end to the polarized approach that we have seen in the past 3-4 election cycles. Hell we elected them to lead not to take care of the rich and special interest! I get so tired seeing both sides protect their big donors rather than taking care of us the electorate.
Plain and simple boys Bachmann and Palin are empty-headed
Dinks who are riding the media hype, will say anything to stay in the news cycle and are unelectable. I will bet that Bachamnn gets deposed in her next election cycle back home! Time will tell
PS:
Let�s stop being so nasty and personnel in out posts. Surely you guys are smart enough to type something meaningful rather than tossing $h*t bombs at each other.
Your guy is the guy(s) that you never dump on like you dump on the two ladies in the race.
Double standard. Only �her� gaffs are worthy of comment, not �his� gaffs.
You always say ~I like her, but�
You continually call supporters of the females in this race �panty sniffers.�
If and when you endorse Romney, do you plan to sniff his panties?
Palinophobia-fear of Mama Grizzlies.
Gynophobia-Fear of women.
Caligynephobia- Fear of beautiful women.
I almost forgot�
Misogyny-hatred or dislike of women.
Have you been a dickhead your whole life?
No. Can you refute my statement with fact or would you rather sling stupidity?
My post was meant to be a jab but I see you have NO [bleep] sense of humor. Your still a dickhead and I don't have to prove a damn thing to you. Keep on believing Alaska is the smallest state in the nation.
Never said AK is the smallest state. It is actually the fourth smallest. ND,VT, and WY. are smaller.
Your puerile language brands you as an illiterate. Perhaps that is why you like Perky Palin.
[quote]See the other thread, Miles.
Here you go. Still no takers, just lots of whining by the dumbsh*ts:
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...e_Best_Thing_about_People_Wh#Post5379568
Have you been a dickhead your whole life?
No. Can you refute my statement with fact or would you rather sling stupidity?
My post was meant to be a jab but I see you have NO [bleep] sense of humor. Your still a dickhead and I don't have to prove a damn thing to you. Keep on believing Alaska is the smallest state in the nation.
Never said AK is the smallest state. It is actually the fourth smallest. ND,VT, and WY. are smaller.
Your puerile language brands you as an illiterate. Perhaps that is why you like Perky Palin.
Alaska is the biggest state, you know it and I know it so give it up already. And if you can find one post of mine where I said I was a Palin bot, I will write you a public apology. It won't happen because I never said it. lol
Bow:
My only point is there has to be someone in the GOP who is electable. Bachmann and Palin pander to the far right by selling fear and throwing out jabs without offering solutions. Both are dumb as a box of rocks but fear sells when the base is involved. If either makes through 3 primaries I will be surprised and if either makes it to the general election the base will not be large enough to elect either one. Most of the country is closer to the middle on MOST issues than either the far right or the far left. Most of us want stability and an end to the polarized approach that we have seen in the past 3-4 election cycles. Hell we elected them to lead not to take care of the rich and special interest! I get so tired seeing both sides protect their big donors rather than taking care of us the electorate.
Plain and simple boys Bachmann and Palin are empty-headed
Dinks who are riding the media hype, will say anything to stay in the news cycle and are unelectable. I will bet that Bachamnn gets deposed in her next election cycle back home! Time will tell
PS:
Let�s stop being so nasty and personnel in out posts. Surely you guys are smart enough to type something meaningful rather than tossing $h*t bombs at each other.
Your guy is the guy(s) that you never dump on like you dump on the two ladies in the race.
Double standard. Only �her� gaffs are worthy of comment, not �his� gaffs.
You always say ~I like her, but�
You continually call supporters of the females in this race �panty sniffers.�
If and when you endorse Romney, do you plan to sniff his panties?
Palinophobia-fear of Mama Grizzlies.
Gynophobia-Fear of women.
Caligynephobia- Fear of beautiful women.
I almost forgot�
Misogyny-hatred or dislike of women.
My quote was to Spano but he didn�t respond with much�
Nothing personal, but I don�t live under a rock and there is nothing even close to being right in your posts about Palin or even Bachmann for that matter.
I am not here to defend Bachmann except to repeat that Fed. Tax attorneys are not empty-headed Dinks nor dumb as a box of rocks. And her conservative record in Congress proves my point.
As for Palin�there is nothing in her communications; in her speeches or interviews, in her Op-Eds or her emails to prove your point. How can someone as bad as you say she is�continue to do so well????
You stick with your late night comic shows and their baseless slander and I will go with 24,000 pages of emails that have been gone over by the leftwingloon colostomy.
Notice that these three opinions are from AOL, NYDNews, and a Democrat who really wanted to find a gaffe or something-anything on Palin:
In an analysis of Palin�s writings entitled �Writing analysts claim Palin writes �better than most educated American�s�
�AOL News brought samples to two writing analysts who independently evaluated 24,000 pages of the former governor�s emails. They came back in agreement that Palin composed her messages at an eighth-grade level, an excellent score for a chief executive, they said.
�I�m a centrist Democrat, and would have loved to support my hunch that Ms. Palin is illiterate,� said 2tor Chief Executive Officer John Katzman.
�However, the emails say something else. Ms. Palin writes emails on her Blackberry at a grade level of 8.5.
�If she were a student and showing me her work, I�d say �It�s fine, clear writing,�� he said, admitting that emails he wrote scored lower than Palin�s on the widely used Flesch-Kincaid readability test.
While some would initially scoff or laugh at Palin�s grade-level assessment, past speakers and writers of note have scored comparably.
Abraham Lincoln�s Gettysburg Address was a 9.1 and Martin Luther King�s famed �I have a Dream� came in at 8.8.
Remember, Palin�s results were based on e-mails, not riveting speeches, so the fact that they score remotely close to the aforementioned works is intriguing .
Overall, this is good news for Palin, as her writing was found to be better than some CEOs�. The New York Daily News sheds further light on her abilities:
It turns out Palin�s writing skills are still better than most educated Americans.
Global Language Monitor gave Palin�s emails a score of 8.2, which actually exceeds that of most chief executives.�
THAT is not stupid; THAT is not some walking-talking gaff; THAT is not some brain dead, empty-headed Dink who is dumber that a box of rocks.
Let me give you some examples of stupid:
Calling her not electable when Palin won 5 elections that people just like you said she couldn�t possible win. She was way down in all the polls�
Saying she shouldn�t speak when the crowds continue to fill every venue.
Somebody is out of step here and I don�t think it is the Regiment.
People that say Palin cost McCain his election when the record shows that McCain moved ahead of Obama in the polls after Palin came onboard and before the economy caved in. THAT little jewel is in a class by itself when it comes to stupid.
Or just hiding under a rock and denying Palin�s record as a Governor or Mayor or what she did to all those Big Oil Men. THAT is also a matter of record.
All anyone has to do to vote and get it right in any election is:
Look at the Record.
Bows---I appreciate your (usually) polite and erudite postings.
Have you ever heard of Columbus Ohio? Columbus is a small town located in central Ohio, it is also the state capital. Columbus has a larger population than the entire (small) state of Alaska.
I suppose your girl may be competent to be mayor of Columbus but she is most certainly not competent to be President. Do you think she would serve a full term?
We are discussing politics here which means that in this context Alaska is smaller than Columbus Ohio. Give it up, square miles don't vote, people do.
We are discussing politics here which means that in this context Alaska is smaller than Columbus Ohio. Give it up, square miles don't vote, people do.
vel, yeah. that is true. but every State, as large as Alaska and as small as Rhode Island has two Senators to support their cause in the on-going discussion.
democracy and republicanism are two different things, don'cha know? they will put you on ignore if you can't or refuse to kowtow to their worldview.
We are discussing politics here which means that in this context Alaska is smaller than Columbus Ohio. Give it up, square miles don't vote, people do.
vel, yeah. that is true. but every State, as large as Alaska and as small as Rhode Island has two Senators to support their cause in the on-going discussion.
democracy and republicanism are two different things, don'cha know? they will put you on ignore if you can't or refuse to kowtow to their worldview.
I've been put on ignore by some of the weaker links around here. I haven't put anyone on ignore and likely never will. Once I have pissed enough people off I'll probably get bored and move on.
Seems to me if you don't enjoy verbal jousting you should hide your lack of mental ability and keep quiet.
Here you go. Still no takers, just lots of whining by the dumbsh*ts:
I really did not care or I would have looked for it. I just respond when I stumble across one of your posts. Just living the new life you wished on me, pointing out how stupid you are. Easy job really. miles
Or just hiding under a rock and denying Palin�s record as a Governor or Mayor or what she did to all those Big Oil Men. THAT is also a matter of record.
This may be your best post Bow. I will not hide under a rock and lets keep in mind that as governor Palin was responsible for one of the LARGEST TAX INCREASES ever when she pushed through the oil tax legislation and yes it is a mater of HER record. Does the TEA PARTY know that Palin is a Tax and Spend Republican? Ouch!
By the way her Lieutenant Governor; Shawn Parnell has spent all of his term undoing Palin�s work with the oil tax increase. Palin is highly respected here in Alaska.
Keep trying, you will find something that point to Palin as something other than a Dink!
Bows---I appreciate your (usually) polite and erudite postings.
Have you ever heard of Columbus Ohio? Columbus is a small town located in central Ohio, it is also the state capital. Columbus has a larger population than the entire (small) state of Alaska.
I suppose your girl may be competent to be mayor of Columbus but she is most certainly not competent to be President. Do you think she would serve a full term?
Spano---I don�t appreciate your (always) patronizing and condescending �panty sniffing�
Palin postings.
�Do you think she would serve a full term?�
And sometimes stupid posts�WTF does the size of the city or the state have to do with competence of the Mayor or Governor????
When is the last time Chicago or San Francisco had a Mayor that was worth a $hit????
When is the last time that Illinois or California had a Governor with a record of reduced spending, increased transparency, ethics reform, ect, that who make them qualified to shine Palin�s shoes????
Alaska is still the most important state�
Or just hiding under a rock and denying Palin�s record as a Governor or Mayor or what she did to all those Big Oil Men. THAT is also a matter of record.
This may be your best post Bow. I will not hide under a rock and lets keep in mind that as governor Palin was responsible for one of the LARGEST TAX INCREASES ever when she pushed through the oil tax legislation and yes it is a mater of HER record. Does the TEA PARTY know that Palin is a Tax and Spend Republican? Ouch!
By the way her Lieutenant Governor; Shawn Parnell has spent all of his term undoing Palin�s work with the oil tax increase. Palin is highly respected here in Alaska.
Keep trying, you will find something that point to Palin as something other than a Dink!
Governor Palin reduced earmark requests for the state of Alaska by 80% during her administration, requesting only earmarks that would benefit the country as a whole.
Governor Palin reduced spending in her budget for Fiscal Year 2010 by more than one billion dollars from the previous governor� s Fiscal Year 2007 budget, a 9.5% real reduction in spending.
Governor Palin FY2010 budget was $10.57 billion compared to Governor Murkowski�s FY2007 budget of nearly $11.7 billion.
At the same time, she fulfilled her campaign promise to forward fund education, allowing districts greater flexibility and predictability in their planning.
Governor Palin vetoed half a billion dollars in spending, the largest veto in state history.
Governor Palin invested $5 billion in state savings.
Governor Palin reformed Alaska�s public employee retirement system to make it solvent.
Governor Palin accepted less state per diem for herself and her family than her predecessors even though she had a larger family.
Bows---I appreciate your (usually) polite and erudite postings.
Have you ever heard of Columbus Ohio? Columbus is a small town located in central Ohio, it is also the state capital. Columbus has a larger population than the entire (small) state of Alaska.
I suppose your girl may be competent to be mayor of Columbus but she is most certainly not competent to be President. Do you think she would serve a full term?
Spano---I don�t appreciate your (always) patronizing and condescending �panty sniffing�
Palin postings.
�Do you think she would serve a full term?�
And sometimes stupid posts�WTF does the size of the city or the state have to do with competence of the Mayor or Governor????
When is the last time Chicago or San Francisco had a Mayor that was worth a $hit????
When is the last time that Illinois or California had a Governor with a record of reduced spending, increased transparency, ethics reform, ect, that who make them qualified to shine Palin�s shoes????
Alaska is still the most important state�
Bows---Sometimes you get a little more "hot" about your gal than is necessary. If she doesn't have the gut or gizzard to govern a state smaller than Columbus Ohio how would you (or anyone) expect her to serve a FULL term as President? I, and many others on this Conservative site don't get your or her message.
Explain to me and others why Alaska, a very small state, is the most important state. Have you ever been there? I have and have friends and relatives there who do not at all like your gal and they have lived there many years.
Some very fine pionts but let's not for get her HUGE TAX INCREASE on the oil industry. You forgot to address that one Bow.
By the way tier III retirement was so successful that less than 4 years later it has become tier IV and it is a mess as well.
Palin is a DINK plain and simple and by the way is she running for anything or just filling her bank account? Hummmmmm...