[ctcoldplay11]

For Obama to lose in 2012, Republicans are going to have to offer a REALLY strong candidate. As of now, it doesn't seem likely.

Does anyone else think the Republican Party, in its current state, is just sad? It has potential, but it needs to get rid of these backwoods freaks, and offer up, intelligent, worldly candidates that can appeal to Democratic-leaning voters.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by ctcoldplay11

For Obama to lose in 2012, Republicans are going to have to offer a REALLY strong candidate. As of now, it doesn't seem likely.

Does anyone else think the Republican Party, in its current state, is just sad? It has potential, but it needs to get rid of these backwoods freaks, and offer up, intelligent, worldly candidates that can appeal to Democratic-leaning voters.

And similarly, the Democrats need to get rid of the dynasty-type, ultra-wealthy, spend happy goons in their party. Both parties DO have bipartisan politicians, but they're in the minority.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by ctcoldplay11

For Obama to lose in 2012, Republicans are going to have to offer a REALLY strong candidate. As of now, it doesn't seem likely.

Does anyone else think the Republican Party, in its current state, is just sad? It has potential, but it needs to get rid of these backwoods freaks, and offer up, intelligent, worldly candidates that can appeal to Democratic-leaning voters.

I personally think Obama will be re-elected, but it's still early.

What will be more interesting is when all those young people have to start paying health insurance premiums in 2012. The bulk are clueless and just heard "free health insurance". 2014 elections could lame duck the heck out of Obama.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Or unless the only R candidate is a member of the "Tea Party".

Yea shame on those constitution loving, balanced budgety, limited government, libertly loving folks. What we need is bigger government, more social programs, higher taxes and more debt.

All jokes aside I'm not a Tea Party member, but as a whole have no issues with them. They are peaceful, play by the rules and hold fast to values we have long forgotten.

Originally Posted by ctcoldplay11

Does anyone else think the Republican Party, in its current state, is just sad? It has potential, but it needs to get rid of these backwoods freaks, and offer up, intelligent, worldly candidates that can appeal to Democratic-leaning voters.

Backwoods freaks? Like Scott Brown? Susan Collins? Jim DeMint? Lindsay Graham? John McCain? Rand Paul? Ron Paul? (One of them backwoods with a Ph D) Marco Rubio? Olympia Snowe?

Point is, I don't think you are being very fair about the party based on your description above.

Or do you mean if they have any form of Southern accent, that makes them stupid and backwoods? If so I can make a similar case for Shooomah, or Charlie Raaangal.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JViello

Yea shame on those constitution loving, balanced budgety, limited government, libertly loving folks. What we need is bigger government, more social programs, higher taxes and more debt.

They're great in theory, and if they weren't so angry and determined to destroy the entire Democratic party/Republicans/Independents who disagree with them at any cost, I'd be all for them. What they lack is bipartisanship. They're stagnant; a blockage in the American economy. Some of the most closed-minded, one-track-mind A-holes I know are members of the Tea Party. What I do appreciate about the TP (heh) is that they're separating themselves from the Republican party, making the traditional Rs look a hell of a lot better.

Regarding them wanting less government, I wonder how many of them are for a Gay marriage ban, or an abortion ban (I disagree with abortion BTW). My point is, they want government OUT of their lives, but IN the lives of people they disagree with.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by ctcoldplay11

Does anyone else think the Republican Party, in its current state, is just sad? It has potential, but it needs to get rid of these backwoods freaks, and offer up, intelligent, worldly candidates that can appeal to Democratic-leaning voters.

Honestly, I think they are sad. The RNC deliberately stroked a base that can never be satiated while not turning off the general public. Too many loose cannons and their captain (generally being Eric Cantor) is a shill, all the while facing even more far right opponents in primary bouts.

JV,

Here's the thing: they don't love the Constitution. They love what they think it is, but not what it actually is. Many have described taxation as an Unconstitutional act by the Government, for instance. They aren't for liberty, they are for tyranny by those that have power already, thinking that they might get a taste of that power.

I actually think some in the "Tea Party" in the grassroots are probably well balanced individuals, but the vast majority bear shocking resemblance to the Know Nothing Party.

As well Scott Brown, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe have been maligned by the Republican leadership. It looks like John McCain is also being sidelined. Jim DeMint is the classical nutter favouring a "balanced budget" amendment to the Constitution, and establishing English as the official language of the US. I like Scott Brown, Susan Collins, the old school John McCain, and Olympia Snowe (as I liked Chris Shays, M. Jodi Rell, and Rob Simmons) but to say they are now the mainstream power-brokers in the Republican party is pretty farcical.

Cambium,

I don't know where Fox got its' numbers, but most of the "debt" under Obama was putting the Wars of Afghanistan and Iraq on the books, something the predecessor's administration chose not to do. The wars only since their inception basically cost about $1.4BN a day. The problem Obama faces, and needs to deal with, is receipts.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by ctcoldplay11

For Obama to lose in 2012, Republicans are going to have to offer a REALLY strong candidate. As of now, it doesn't seem likely.

Does anyone else think the Republican Party, in its current state, is just sad? It has potential, but it needs to get rid of these backwoods freaks, and offer up, intelligent, worldly candidates that can appeal to Democratic-leaning voters.

Unless the Republicans get find a moderate candidate, they're gonna get their asses kicked. Mitt Romney is the closest thing that comes to being a moderate and even that is a stretch. Republicans have moved so far to the right over the last 30-odd years it is staggering. They just don't represent me anymore. That being said, I'm less than thrilled with Obama running for a second term, but considering those who are running against him I am likely to do so, because he's the lesser of evils. This has become the basis for how lots of people vote nowadays, and this points to a larger trend: People today don't vote for the candidate they love, they vote for the candidate they don't hate. People love to say voting is a responsibility of the citizens, but since most politicians neglect their responsibilities (serving the public, not their douchebag lobbyists), it's gotten to the point where people vote not out of enthusiasm but out of obligation. Unless there's some politician who has the balls to tear down K Street and start representing their constiuents, regardless of who wins in 2012 the campaign slogan should be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

I once heard Marion Barry's campaign slogan was "the devil you know." Kind of fitting.

[ctcoldplay11]

Originally Posted by JViello

Yea shame on those constitution loving, balanced budgety, limited government, libertly loving folks. What we need is bigger government, more social programs, higher taxes and more debt.

All jokes aside I'm not a Tea Party member, but as a whole have no issues with them. They are peaceful, play by the rules and hold fast to values we have long forgotten.



Backwoods freaks? Like Scott Brown? Susan Collins? Jim DeMint? Lindsay Graham? John McCain? Rand Paul? Ron Paul? (One of them backwoods with a Ph D) Marco Rubio? Olympia Snowe?

Point is, I don't think you are being very fair about the party based on your description above.

Or do you mean if they have any form of Southern accent, that makes them stupid and backwoods? If so I can make a similar case for Shooomah, or Charlie Raaangal.

Oh, come on JViello. Let's go through your list:

Scott Brown is a fluke. He will NOT be re-elected in MA, and will have to change his party affiliation to be a political contender in that State.

Republicans have wanted to boot Susan Collins from office for a LONG time. Just like her cohort Olympia Snowe. Furthermore, they are NOT Presidential candidates, nor will they ever be.

No idea who Jim DeMint is. AKA, not a national candidate for anything.

LINDSAY GRAHAM? Seriously? Seriously. I'm not even going there.

John McCain was a pretty decent Republican, but he got served by Obama, and will never run again for the Presidency.

Neither Rand & Ron Paul will ever win a Republican primary.

The only credible Republican you listed is Marco Rubio. He's a bit too conservative for my taste, but at least he's intelligent.

The point of my post was to point out the awful slew of Republicans vying for the Presidency as of NOW. Bachmann, Pawlenty, Palin (cough, cough), Perry, etc., etc. Romney is the only hope for Republicans in 2012. Sorry.

[ctcoldplay11]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

As well Scott Brown, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe have been maligned by the Republican leadership. It looks like John McCain is also being sidelined. Jim DeMint is the classical nutter favouring a "balanced budget" amendment to the Constitution, and establishing English as the official language of the US. I like Scott Brown, Susan Collins, the old school John McCain, and Olympia Snowe (as I liked Chris Shays, M. Jodi Rell, and Rob Simmons) but to say they are now the mainstream power-brokers in the Republican party is pretty farcical.

Perfectly said.