Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll laugh real hard if Obama is re-elected. The man is statistically the worst president this country has ever seen. They're saying he's worse than Carter.
Ron Paul is a great option if you are looking for a change from the status quo. You should read one of his books, Liberty Defined is an excellent read.
Yeah...the country continuing to go down the tubes is worth a real good belly laugh.
Well said! Candidates like Perry illustrate the very problem with the new "politics as religion" brand of GOP. Which is their very narrow appeal and the fact that none of their wacky stuff's gonna fly on a national level. But it's that very insularity (regional, ideological, and religious) that also insulates 'em from the broader "realities", with the current right wing "echo chamber" only making things worse.
And agreed that Romney might possibly make a viable candidate, though it's an open question whether enuff evangelicals would "hold their noses" and still vote for a Mormon (aka, a "cult" member, to them). Though no doubt there'll also be more than a few "reluctant" Obama voters as well ('cuz truly, both parties suck right now)!
I disagree. Perry was forced onto the scene by the establishment GOP (ie....see Bob Dole) .
He is now being soundlyrejected for who he really is....and that is not a conservative (and especially not a constitutionist) . In the past (before there were so many outlets to get information), he probably would have been served up and nominated as the GOP candidate. That isn't going to cut it any longer.
Perry respresents the old way candidates became the GOP nominee (i.e...well connected with the establishement) , not the new way.
Now that the last great "hype" hope, gov. perry, has deflated, right wingers are running for cover. The tea baggers, although a minority, have hijaked the gop, making it difficult for any respectable and balanced individual to get nominated, which makes the re-election efforts of Barack so much smoother, ultimately a blessing for the country, since our president can focus in the important issues at hand, while his re-election is basically guaranteed....
I fail to see how the GOP can lose the next presidential election since Obama and whomever is his opponent turns out to be are both republicans.
So, just keep high-fiving and back slapping as you continue to support Bush 3.0 for re-election.
Reminds me of all the euphoria when Clinton took office with a dem house and senate over how they'd be able to make the needed reforms....and promptly passed NAFTA sticking a big barky stick up the backside of the unions. Yay! Our side won! Now let's help push republican agendas! Whaaaaaaaat?
I fail to see how the GOP can lose the next presidential election since Obama and whomever is his opponent turns out to be are both republicans.
So, just keep high-fiving and back slapping as you continue to support Bush 3.0 for re-election.
Reminds me of all the euphoria when Clinton took office with a dem house and senate over how they'd be able to make the needed reforms....and promptly passed NAFTA sticking a big barky stick up the backside of the unions. Yay! Our side won! Now let's help push republican agendas! Whaaaaaaaat?
Well Obama is not a liberal that is for sure; however, some of what you want is better than none of what you want. This two party system keeps placing us in a situation of picking the lesser of two evils.
I'll laugh real hard if Obama is re-elected. The man is statistically the worst president this country has ever seen. They're saying he's worse than Carter.
Ron Paul is a great option if you are looking for a change from the status quo. You should read one of his books, Liberty Defined is an excellent read.
I'll laugh even harder if Ron Paul ever happens to be elected. He tries to simplify very complex economic problems and argues for policies that would be immensely counter-productive. He's supporting ideas that the vast majority of people would never support anyway, which means he's a waste of everyone's time.
I'll laugh even harder if Ron Paul ever happens to be elected. He tries to simplify very complex economic problems and argues for policies that would be immensely counter-productive. He's supporting ideas that the vast majority of people would never support anyway, which means he's a waste of everyone's time.
Yeah...it sucks when that pesky constitution gets in the way of the mass ignorance of the US populace.
Now that the last great "hype" hope, gov. perry, has deflated, right wingers are running for cover. The tea baggers, although a minority, have hijaked the gop, making it difficult for any respectable and balanced individual to get nominated, which makes the re-election efforts of Barack so much smoother, ultimately a blessing for the country, since our president can focus in the important issues at hand, while his re-election is basically guaranteed....
Oh come on. Things are just getting started. In the last election campaign at this time, the front runners ended up losing steam and support and McCain who was a lot farther behind at that point moved to the forefront. There is plenty of time for Ron Paul to gain a firm foothold ahead of Romney after Perry drops out. He's got the fundraising power; energized supporters; the best message and the best solutions and the music industry backing him.
With more people getting their news from the internet than TV and Newspapers, Survey: More Americans get news from Internet than newspapers or radio - CNN it is just a matter of time before Ron Paul becomes the most popular candidate BY FAR. The backing of the MSM won't make nearly as much of a difference as it did in the last election.
I fail to see how the GOP can lose the next presidential election since Obama and whomever is his opponent turns out to be are both republicans.
So, just keep high-fiving and back slapping as you continue to support Bush 3.0 for re-election.
Reminds me of all the euphoria when Clinton took office with a dem house and senate over how they'd be able to make the needed reforms....and promptly passed NAFTA sticking a big barky stick up the backside of the unions. Yay! Our side won! Now let's help push republican agendas! Whaaaaaaaat?
Obama isn't a republican. Oh, do you mean conservative? He's not that either.
If love of the unions is your measure of success in the WH, then you must really get a tingle up your leg with Obama.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,464,466 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by capitalcityguy
I disagree. Perry was forced onto the scene by the establishment GOP (ie....see Bob Dole) .
He is now being soundlyrejected for who he really is....and that is not a conservative (and especially not a constitutionist) . In the past (before there were so many outlets to get information), he probably would have been served up and nominated as the GOP candidate. That isn't going to cut it any longer.
Perry respresents the old way candidates became the GOP nominee (i.e...well connected with the establishement) , not the new way.
But regardless how Perry emerged, in a national election, I doubt that most mainstream folks are really gonna be as ideologically concerned as the purists, about things like whether they're a "constitutionist", or a true "conservative", "tea partier", real "libertarian", or whatever.
And I'd even suggest that it's this new, very "non-traditional" process that's responsible for much of the current slew of basically marginal (and unelectable) GOP candidates, with each representing some purist branch or the other of the party, but with none really capable of any broader consensus or following.
But regardless how Perry emerged, in a national election, I doubt that most mainstream folks are really gonna be as ideologically concerned as the purists, about things like whether they're a "constitutionist", or a true "conservative", "tea partier", real "libertarian", or whatever.
And I'd even suggest that it's this new, very "non-traditional" process that's responsible for much of the current slew of basically marginal (and unelectable) GOP candidates, with each representing some purist branch or the other of the party, but with none really capable of any broader consensus or following.
I think you bring up some valid points, but the candidates will be vetted prior to the mushy middle's chance to have a say. In the old days, Perry may have been able ride the establishment and make that journey (much like GW did) successfully, but those days are over.
I do take issue to your "mariginal" candidate's comment because that is mainstream media speak, not reality IMO.
My hope is that the public is tired of pandering and thus will wake up and vote for candidates based on the things they (the candidates) really believe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
