Is the Republican party really this dumb?

[trenchfoot]

I still don't buy it. Change some names and party-affiliations, and you'll have the same objections righties made to Obama in 08, or against Kerry in 04, or who knows what else.

I still believe if she were a (D) you'd not be so concerned.

The problem though, is that from actual evidence you're only going to find these kinds of women on the repub side of the fence.

 

[zinfamous]

I still don't buy it. Change some names and party-affiliations, and you'll have the same objections righties made to Obama in 08, or against Kerry in 04, or who knows what else.

I still believe if she were a (D) you'd not be so concerned.

um, no.


on all points.

to think that me not liking her terrifying end-times theology as a vehicle for legislation and her woeful lack of qualifications is a party-bias issues suggests that you have your own internal bias, and lack an ability to investigate and judge the merits of individuals beyond simple party lines.

 

[JockoJohnson]

um, no.


on all points.

to think that me not liking her terrifying end-times theology as a vehicle for legislation and her woeful lack of qualifications is a party-bias issues suggests that you have your own internal bias, and lack an ability to investigate and judge the merits of individuals beyond simple party lines.

Sounds like Pres. Obama minus the theology--he had no real experience and some awesome mentors prior to him coming into office and now look how good he is doing.

 

[JockoJohnson]

It's like when bush was destroying this country and the democrats offered up Kerry and Edwards. I hate bush but I'd rather eat my own feces than have those two in office.

^This. Does the opposing party not want to run any good candidates against a sitting president. I know Gore wasn't running against a sitting president...but it was Gore.

 

[dali71]

Mr Gore would definitely have not invaded Iraq and probably not Afghanistan either.

I wouldn't be so sure of that:

http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/commentary-war-against-terror-our-larger-tasks/p4343

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.

In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.

 

[jmarti445]

I voted for Obama, but I also am willing to vote across party lines. That being said, there isn't a canidate yet on the republican side who intrigues me. George W Bush is a stronger canidate then anything the Republican party has shown in this election and that is just sad.

Where are the Bob Dole's, the Ronald Reagan's, the Dwight Eisenhower's of the republician party. Hell I'd say Nixon would be a stronger canidate then these clowns the the republican party has introduced to us.

I want democrats to run against Obama also, I don't think Obama has been as horrible as people have made him out to be but I'd like to see a much better job. If Bill Clinton would run against Obama I'd vote for Clinton.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Kind of curious what Obama's campaign in 2012 will look like. "Hope and Change" cannot be used again.

How about, "Vote for me because the Republican candidate wants to turn you into a slave for the rich."

"If you think the economy has been bad with me in office, you're going to love it when the Republicans take over and outsource even more jobs to foreign countries. They'll also import more foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas to displace even more Americans from their jobs."

 

[spittledip]

George W Bush is a stronger canidate then anything the Republican party has shown in this election and that is just sad.

I never considered this... this is very true. The republicans do not have a candidate as strong as Bush was. Same thing for 2008 election. It will be strange if they win the 2012 election with any of the current candidates, but very possible. It seems to me that the base is much more reactionary than the democrats. Reactionary politics is how they will win it, if they do, of course.

 

[MovingTarget]

Where are the Bob Dole's, the Ronald Reagan's, the Dwight Eisenhower's of the republician party. Hell I'd say Nixon would be a stronger canidate then these clowns the the republican party has introduced to us.

Any one of those people would be run out of the modern party because they are too "liberal". The Republican party is no place for moderates anymore.

 

[Ausm]

Any one of those people would be run out of the modern party because they are too "liberal". The Republican party is no place for moderates anymore.

The migrated to the Democratic side and are known as "Bluedogs"

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, Obama was a fantastic campaigner.

Maybe it's just me, but I haven't heard an Obama speech for quite some time that I thought was as impressive as those he gave during the campaign. I've been wondering if Axlerod should be given more credit.

Kind of curious what Obama's campaign in 2012 will look like. "Hope and Change" cannot be used again.

Fern

I'm pretty sure his campaign will be 'holy shit look at how crazy that guy is'. The Republican party has continued to move to the right over the last 4 years, and they were already pretty far to the right. I'm sure Obama is praying that they nominate Perry, because that dude is nuts.

I would bet money right now that Obama's campaign is based around 'you might not like me, but jesus christ these guys are nuts'. Considering how poorly the Republican party polls, (and how poorly Obama polls right now) it's probably his best bet.

 

[Ausm]

I'm pretty sure his campaign will be 'holy shit look at how crazy that guy is'. The Republican party has continued to move to the right over the last 4 years, and they were already pretty far to the right. I'm sure Obama is praying that they nominate Perry, because that dude is nuts.

I would bet money right now that Obama's campaign is based around 'you might not like me, but jesus christ these guys are nuts'. Considering how poorly the Republican party polls, (and how poorly Obama polls right now) it's probably his best bet.

Any rational person would come to the same conclusion that's why I hope they keep these candidates

 

[JSt0rm]

I would bet money right now that Obama's campaign is based around 'you might not like me, but jesus christ these guys are nuts'.

But then perry will drop the "I AM jesus christ!" and rapture will come early. D:

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I would bet money right now that Obama's campaign is based around 'you might not like me, but jesus christ these guys are nuts'. Considering how poorly the Republican party polls, (and how poorly Obama polls right now) it's probably his best bet.

If one of the nutjobs wins the nomination, it will fire up the Democratic base and people who might otherwise not be motivated to vote at all or who wouldn't care are liable to come out and cast a vote against the Republican nutjob.

If the Republican base were smart they'd just nominate Romney or maybe Huntsman (liked his PBS Newshour interview). Big problem with Huntsman is that (I think) he suggested that evolution may have occurred and that the global warming science might be correct. That's like a huge sin on his side of the aisle.

 

[zinfamous]

If one of the nutjobs wins the nomination, it will fire up the Democratic base and people who might otherwise not be motivated to vote at all or who wouldn't care are liable to come out and cast a vote against the Republican nutjob.

If the Republican base were smart they'd just nominate Romney or maybe Huntsman (liked his PBS Newshour interview). Big problem with Huntsman is that (I think) he suggested that evolution may have occurred and that the global warming science might be correct. That's like a huge sin on his side of the aisle.

Holy shit, me too! that guy seems like he can actually process info in the same plane that real humans live in. Also, seems like a smart, rational guy.

 

[zinfamous]

I voted for Obama, but I also am willing to vote across party lines. That being said, there isn't a canidate yet on the republican side who intrigues me. George W Bush is a stronger canidate then anything the Republican party has shown in this election and that is just sad.

Where are the Bob Dole's, the Ronald Reagan's, the Dwight Eisenhower's of the republician party. Hell I'd say Nixon would be a stronger canidate then these clowns the the republican party has introduced to us.

I want democrats to run against Obama also, I don't think Obama has been as horrible as people have made him out to be but I'd like to see a much better job. If Bill Clinton would run against Obama I'd vote for Clinton.

I think if Clinton were able to run, he'd take every state and win the overall vote by at least 50 points. lol.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Holy shit, me too! that guy seems like he can actually process info in the same plane that real humans live in. Also, seems like a smart, rational guy.

Yeah. He seemed pretty down to earth and mellow. I liked that. (Unfortunately, he probably has no chance of getting the nomination or even remaining in the primary for very long.)

 

[jmarti445]

I think if Clinton were able to run, he'd take every state and win the overall vote by at least 50 points. lol.

Clinton would win every state with the exception of maybe Texas in the general election. I really don't know why Democrats aren't stepping up and running against Obama.
Take a look at the 1992 Election and see what I'm talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

You had 8 people running for president on the Republican side and 10 democrats. Plus Perot...Think about that for a minute.

I really want to see a good election this go around.

 

[sm625]

Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman? Seriously, this is the BEST you can field?

These candidates are chosen by a very small group of elites. We have very little ability to actually field our own candidate. But all the same I think Perry is just about bad enough to actually win. Yes you have to be really bad to actually win. Americans are just about dumb enough to elect another texas governer.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Republicans are pissed because we haven't invaded Iran, Egypt and Lybia yet.

So, they need to prop up some lunatic that will keep this country forehead deep in war. It's the Roman Emprire approach; keep looting, robbing and warring to keep the people under control - and your pockets full.