| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
khoiey
2925 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2009 : 10:28:53 PM
|
I don't think GOP will win the election in 2012 unless the GOP party can come up with a good candidate. And if the economy continue this way through out 2012, then I think GOP may have a chance.
So far I am thinking of Romney on GOP side when it all come down to fixing economy.
Regardless of what, I don't think Hilary will have a shot in 2016 if Obama is out in 2012. |
|
|
|
lemeuss
1842 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2009 : 11:14:09 PM
|
RP RP RP RP RP RP
...or, RP.
Someone that's not full of **** and false promises of change, thats for sure...I cant think of many. |
|
|
darkstar
25944 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 04:01:04 AM
|
| I think the anti-Dem vote will be so strong, I don't think it will matter who runs... |
|
|
MisterVA
8615 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 05:53:32 AM
|
| I am impressed by that OH Congressman John Boehner. Sen John Thune of SD is another solid guy. |
|
|
KipW
933 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 08:28:27 AM
|
Best bet in my opinion would be Huckabee.
|
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
8850 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 08:38:17 AM
|
"I think the anti-Dem vote will be so strong, I don't think it will matter who runs..."
Wishful thinking as usual.
If the Dems' melting down is the GOP's only hope [and I believe that it is], then the GOP may just as well field another loser candidate in 2012 [eg: Palin, Sandford, Guilliani?] If nothing else, the entertainment value would be worth something. |
|
|
bungalowmo
83 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 08:41:10 AM
|
| The face of the GOP should be -------- ALFRED E. NEWMAN. |
|
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 09:04:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemeuss
RP RP RP RP RP RP
...or, RP.
Someone that's not full of **** and false promises of change, thats for sure...I cant think of many.
RON PAUL isn't even a republican. He's a closet 3rd party. |
|
|
craigppls
2039 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 09:35:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by KipW
Best bet in my opinion would be Huckabee.
no way... |
|
|
Goat roper
1424 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 09:54:08 AM
|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"RON PAUL isn't even a republican. He's a closet 3rd party."
I nominate this as the dumb statement of the day award. You seem to be confusing a real Republican and a Neo con. |
|
|
VVance
6506 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 10:13:11 AM
|
Maybe they should just run against this...
http://www.ka5cvh.com/political/liberal_brain.gif |
|
|
toddblue
4296 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 10:21:16 AM
|
Goat Roper,
Ron Paul started out as a Libertarian. He runs as a Republican for political expediency. He still holds himsef out as a Libertarian. I wish the Republicans had enough sense to follow his lead. But, he is not what the Republican party stands for.
quote:
Originally posted by Goat roper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"RON PAUL isn't even a republican. He's a closet 3rd party."
I nominate this as the dumb statement of the day award. You seem to be confusing a real Republican and a Neo con.
|
|
|
Boulderco
1775 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 11:05:56 AM
|
| I'd sure like to see a libertarian Republican come to the forefront. |
|
|
VVance
6506 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 11:13:43 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by toddblue
Goat Roper,
Ron Paul started out as a Libertarian. He runs as a Republican for political expediency. He still holds himsef out as a Libertarian. I wish the Republicans had enough sense to follow his lead. But, he is not what the Republican party stands for.
quote:
Originally posted by Goat roper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"RON PAUL isn't even a republican. He's a closet 3rd party."
I nominate this as the dumb statement of the day award. You seem to be confusing a real Republican and a Neo con.
You hit the nail on the head. The Republican Party is split right now as to what it's platform should be. There is an on going battle between the Liberal wing and the Conservative wing. As for the recent Presidential election, the party ran it's most Liberal candidate perhaps ever. The result speaks to as what the direction should be, IMO. |
|
|
Jonas
1177 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 11:20:54 AM
|
| What about Bloomberg? I don't know too much about him aside from his good business sense. |
|
|
ddmortgage
396 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 11:22:57 AM
|
| Bernie Madoff, He can steal all of the other country's money and fix all of our troubles.... |
|
|
rtrefflich
5176 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 11:25:24 AM
|
Bloomberg is a Democrat and would run on the Dem ticket for anything he runs for again.
quote:
Originally posted by Jonas
What about Bloomberg? I don't know too much about him aside from his good business sense.
|
|
|
rtrefflich
5176 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 11:26:58 AM
|
Wait, don't we have Obama to do that already?
quote:
Originally posted by ddmortgage
Bernie Madoff, He can steal all of the other country's money and fix all of our troubles....
|
|
|
ddmortgage
396 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 11:40:28 AM
|
[quote]Originally posted by rtrefflich
Wait, don't we have Obama to do that already?
True but Obama is stealing from us... lol |
|
|
808
4508 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 11:42:34 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
I don't think GOP will win the election in 2012 unless the GOP party can come up with a good candidate. And if the economy continue this way through out 2012, then I think GOP may have a chance.
So far I am thinking of Romney on GOP side when it all come down to fixing economy.
Regardless of what, I don't think Hilary will have a shot in 2016 if Obama is out in 2012.
Romney is a Mormon which will work against him on a National Scale. The liberals & gays are blaming the Mormons for the Prop8 vote & if a candidate cant take Cailfornia and all those electoral votes it's gonna be hard to get any momentum & inertia going on to be the GOP nominee.
If the economy is in total shambles take a strong look at Ron Paul, although if that does come to manifest I'm leaving this board because the Kool Aid drinking Pon Paul fanatics will show up in droves again just like they & the the no comp check appraisers did last yr. |
|
|
frank drigotas j
3845 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 12:03:19 PM
|
On all fronts, there is a decided slide to liberalism in this country.
I could post the examples, but you know what I am talking about.
I think the GOP really has a problem in light of that. |
|
|
benjamin
6861 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 12:11:45 PM
|
| Ron Paul, third party, might be the right time. |
|
|
VVance
6506 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 12:55:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frank drigotas jr
On all fronts, there is a decided slide to liberalism in this country.
I could post the examples, but you know what I am talking about.
I think the GOP really has a problem in light of that.
Couldn't disagree more. There is an agenda being driven by the media towards liberalism, indeed. However, I maintain a majority of the country still identifies themselves as conservative.
If the Republican Party ran a qualified conservative candidate who was then defeated, I would then agree with you.
I cannot remember a candidate, who was a conserative, that lost a Presidential election. I do, however, remember many liberals who have lost. |
|
|
frank drigotas j
3845 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 1:02:09 PM
|
I'm thinking about the growing minority populations, the emergence of gay rights, yes, the media, our own personal spending and borrowing habits, the incidence of, and tolerance for extramarital affairs, etc. etc.
I am afraid also that, with the bureaucratic bastions emerging from all of the new government programs, there will be even more votes for self perpetuating liberalism.
dollar |
|
|
VVance
6506 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 1:11:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frank drigotas jr
I'm thinking about the growing minority populations, the emergence of gay rights, yes, the media, our own personal spending and borrowing habits, the incidence of, and tolerance for extramarital affairs, etc. etc.
I am afraid also that, with the bureaucratic bastions emerging from all of the new government programs, there will be even more votes for self perpetuating liberalism.
dollar
I do see your point and agree.
I don't know how a capitalist system survives when a huge percentage of the people rely upon government so heavilly? I guess we're going to see. |
|
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 1:20:24 PM
|
Come again? I think you are the confused one.
quote:
Originally posted by Goat roper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"RON PAUL isn't even a republican. He's a closet 3rd party."
I nominate this as the dumb statement of the day award. You seem to be confusing a real Republican and a Neo con.
|
|
|
assassin17
7693 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 1:37:36 PM
|
There is nothing criminal with having a "liberal" mindset. To each his own. Many people are "liberal" in the true sense, especially since it is an original tenet of conservatism to tolerate as long as it does not affect others individually.
However, the Democratic Party is not actually "liberal" and the word is being used as a coverup for what they actually are, which is OPPRESSIVE to personal freedoms while furthering niche-group agendas where minority opinion can rule over majority opinion, as long as that minority opinion adheres to the goals of the Party machine (hand-picked leadership).
They do this by using a tactic now called "political-correctness", which used to be truly known as "coercion" and "bullying", which furthers views not shared by the large majority of citizens. They attempt to immediately oppress any form of dissent to their own leadership goals and use organizations like ACORN and unions (the tactic of 'strength in numbers') to intimidate people into giving them what they want, which is power and control over your personal choice and individuality. By controlling your personal money supply through overtaxation, which is then used to "provide" handout programs, they create a society of total dependence, which thus creates a society of total submission. It is after that submission that they are guaranteed your vote.
To be in power allows this group to alter power, to alter the laws of our society, until it is twisted into producing a people with a reasonable amount of free will handing over enough power to their government (under a guise of passivity, the pleasantness of being fooled without physical force) to then control those people and remove the freedoms without most people ever seeing it coming.
Witness the "Gay Marriage" brainwashing, whereby the public line is to tell us all that everyone has a right to their own feelings on the subject, yet if you express a feeling against their party-line you are afterwards "eliminated" through intimidation. Even numerous public votes on the subject are sidestepped and ridiculed, which will continue until they can get exactly what they want. In no way is there any acceptance that society as a whole is ever allowed to reject a Party goal, despite the public appearance that individuals retain a right to be unaffected by things they dislike. Instead of violence, they hit you in the wallet. Is there any wonder why California is not going to receive any bailout until their public is made to suffer into submission and go along with the Party-line?
The only difference between Democratic regimes and Communists is the lack of force used to obtain the goal. However, while you may not see the Party itself performing any violence, they do expect their followers to provide the dirty work for them when necessary (As seen in union violence and intimidation and also confrontations with voters). Another common tactic is rampant use of fraud. It is the Party of coercion, a wolf disguised as a lamb. Unfortunately, truly "liberal" voters fail to understand that this party is not liberal in any way. It is a deception. Libertarians are the only true "Liberals" in this country, the Democratic Party is only borrowing the name to hide what they really are.
Until the 1990s, "liberal" was a sarcastic mocking slur against them because they were so opposite of actually being liberal. Unfortunately, voters actually forgot that and fooled themselves into voting for Democrats for the wrong reasons. |
|
|
Mandyvilla
6300 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 1:37:54 PM
|
RP would be nice, but let's face it, the guy will be 77 at the next election - it ain't gonna happen. I have heard/seen some of his son's opinions crop up and I suspect he is being groomed for the job. This early on, anything can happen.
I like Romney - but I am concerned that the Mormon issue would be a drag.
I see Boehner on the tube quite a bit and I think he's being test driven.
The gov from SC was never on my radar.
But there is PLENTY of time....plenty. |
|
|
lemeuss
1842 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 1:38:29 PM
|
| I gave my opinion for who should be the face of the GOP. Ron Paul is the only one I feel has the track record and consistency, and has been right on almost everything. Whether or not he's a "true republican" doesn't matter to me, that's how he ran, and that's who I think should be the face of the party. |
|
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 1:39:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mandyvilla
RP would be nice, but let's face it, the guy will be 77 at the next election - it ain't gonna happen. I have heard/seen some of his son's opinions crop up and I suspect he is being groomed for the job. This early on, anything can happen.
His son isn't ready just as I'm still believing that Obama isn't ready. |
|
|
assassin17
7693 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 1:43:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemeuss
I gave my opinion for who should be the face of the GOP. Ron Paul is the only one I feel has the track record and consistency, and has been right on almost everything. Whether or not he's a "true republican" doesn't matter to me, that's how he ran, and that's who I think should be the face of the party.
20 years too late for this guy. You can't re-elect a corpse. Wasn't that the argument against McCain? Why should RP be given a different standard? |
|
|
RANDY P
4163 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 1:45:41 PM
|
I'd say Clint Eastwood, but he's way over the hill these days.
rjp |
|
|
khoiey
2925 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 1:47:13 PM
|
Assassin17, one can say the same thing about the Republican party. The key here is that both Democratic and Republican parties have screwed Americans royally in the ass.
Until we have someone who can sell on the 3rd party platform, there is no difference between GOP and DEM. Only that GOP is the lesser of evil.
quote:
Originally posted by assassin17
There is nothing criminal with having a "liberal" mindset. To each his own. Many people are "liberal" in the true sense, especially since it is an original tenet of conservatism to tolerate as long as it does not affect others individually.
However, the Democratic Party is not actually "liberal" and the word is being used as a coverup for what they actually are, which is OPPRESSIVE to personal freedoms while furthering niche-group agendas where minority opinion can rule over majority opinion, as long as that minority opinion adheres to the goals of the Party machine (hand-picked leadership).
They do this by using a tactic now called "political-correctness", which used to be truly known as "coercion" and "bullying", which furthers views not shared by the large majority of citizens. They attempt to immediately oppress any form of dissent to their own leadership goals and use organizations like ACORN and unions (the tactic of 'strength in numbers') to intimidate people into giving them what they want, which is power and control over your personal choice and individuality. By controlling your personal money supply through overtaxation, which is then used to "provide" handout programs, they create a society of total dependence, which thus creates a society of total submission. It is after that submission that they are guaranteed your vote.
To be in power allows this group to alter power, to alter the laws of our society, until it is twisted into producing a people with a reasonable amount of free will handing over enough power to their government (under a guise of passivity, the pleasantness of being fooled without physical force) to then control those people and remove the freedoms without most people ever seeing it coming.
Witness the "Gay Marriage" brainwashing, whereby the public line is to tell us all that everyone has a right to their own feelings on the subject, yet if you express a feeling against their party-line you are afterwards "eliminated" through intimidation. Even numerous public votes on the subject are sidestepped and ridiculed, which will continue until they can get exactly what they want. In no way is there any acceptance that society as a whole is ever allowed to reject a Party goal, despite the public appearance that individuals retain a right to be unaffected by things they dislike. Instead of violence, they hit you in the wallet. Is there any wonder why California is not going to receive any bailout until their public is made to suffer into submission and go along with the Party-line?
The only difference between Democratic regimes and Communists is the lack of force used to obtain the goal. However, while you may not see the Party itself performing any violence, they do expect their followers to provide the dirty work for them when necessary (As seen in union violence and intimidation and also confrontations with voters). Another common tactic is rampant use of fraud. It is the Party of coercion, a wolf disguised as a lamb. Unfortunately, truly "liberal" voters fail to understand that this party is not liberal in any way. It is a deception. Libertarians are the only true "Liberals" in this country, the Democratic Party is only borrowing the name to hide what they really are.
Until the 1990s, "liberal" was a sarcastic mocking slur against them because they were so opposite of actually being liberal. Unfortunately, voters actually forgot that and fooled themselves into voting for Democrats for the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
seaRick1
834 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 2:22:49 PM
|
He should have done that last year. He'll never win anything as a Republican. Makes too much sense for that screwed up party - maybe a little more moderation.....instead of everything being extreme right! Establishing a viable 3rd party is going to be a process that will take numerous elections to have a chance. And his anti-war stance completely pissed off the Wild West mentality of the Republicans. quote:
Originally posted by benjamin
Ron Paul, third party, might be the right time.
|
|
|
RANDY P
4163 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 2:26:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
He should have done that last year. He'll never win anything as a Republican. Makes too much sense for that screwed up party - maybe a little more moderation.....instead of everything being extreme right! Establishing a viable 3rd party is going to be a process that will take numerous elections to have a chance. And his anti-war stance completely pissed off the Wild West mentality of the Republicans. quote:
Originally posted by benjamin
Ron Paul, third party, might be the right time.
I have a feeling Rick that anything with an (R) next to it is too extreme Right for you.
rjp
PS: How's that "Hope and Change" working for ya? |
|
|
assassin17
7693 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 2:26:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by khoiey
Assassin17, one can say the same thing about the Republican party. The key here is that both Democratic and Republican parties have screwed Americans royally in the ass.
No, one cannot, unless one has no actual understanding of the differences between these parties. The media interpretations, and the popular public interpretations, are not the truth of what these parties stand for. The platforms have not screwed anyone, the elected people IN congress have done it on their own.
An anonymous "third party" is not an automatic panacea, as that third party could be anything at all. Most-certainly, nobody is going to vote for a "Goulash Party", made up of all views, as if that is going to appease everyone. No society will ever vote for a bowl of hash, it's not even plausible to desire.
The Republican Party has never professed to be "Liberal", that is the Libertarian Party. The GOP feels that would be chaotic and that government by representation is necessary to form a society, but not for control over individual economics and rights. It is much more of a middle-ground than Libertarian (Liberal) or Democrat views, which is why it always becomes so appealing after the Dems have been in power.
Today's problem is that all senators and representatives IGNORE the constituents they represent and are allowed to do so by constant re-election from voters who do not care or know about politics and only go for the name they recognize, because most voters do not understand how these people affect their daily lives over the long-term. Politicians know that people who live from paycheck to paycheck can never have a long-term mindset and poverty is the perfect way to keep that in check.
Term limits are a MUST to remove this problem, but they will never be implemented by the people who would be limited. You are never going to see Ted Kennedy, not even from the grave, vote to limit his term. He makes way too much in kickbacks and bribes to ever give up the easy living. So do all the rest.
Republicans have never stated an intention to give individuals higher freedom than governing, they want economic freedom for individuals and corporations, and have no problem with being governed by representatives to handle other matters.
What Conservatives, Republicans being a large portion of this but NOT the only conservatives, do NOT like is forcing of personal views upon the masses via government intervention. Once society itself accepts something on its own, most conservatives have very few problems with it (civil rights legislation, abortion, gay rights, etc... all become the norm). It is only when the government FORCES it upon everyone that it becomes an issue (tax-funds to minority programs, tax-funded abortions, alteration of existing marriage laws, etc) because it then is a government who is NOT representing the views of the masses. Republicans may not LIKE recent trends, but they will accept it as long as they aren't forced to contribute to it... and therein lies the war with Democrats.
Republicans believe the people are responsible for themselves economically, while government is to provide functions for society as a whole (defense, infrastructure). they are never going to give niche rights a concern, because that is not what they believe a government is for... SOCIETY is what creates its own norms, not force.
Liberals, on the other hand, want liberation or freedom of EVERYTHING. That just isn't feasible because there are too many bad people on the planet and a lack of management will kill any corporation, even a country.
Democrats believe that the government is responsible to provide for the people, which as I stated creates a society of submission to the will of the leaders via economic dependency. The liberal tag is merely sarcasm, they are definitely not concerned with individual rights, only the rights which the government will provide. |
|
|
assassin17
7693 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 2:29:19 PM
|
Term limits are the only answer. It is the only way to guarantee that fresh faces are in power who will have life experience that mirrors the current generations and views of society. We cannot keep electing people until death. Same for the Supreme Court.
New faces also FORCE voters to notice who is running and pay attention. |
|
|
VVance
6506 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 3:05:49 PM
|
According to this Pew Poll.....
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/06/24/pewpalin/ |
|
|
assassin17
7693 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 3:45:29 PM
|
Gingrich is way more popular than Romney in the party, but he'd be the Kiss of Death in an election because he has no crossover appeal at all. Might as well throw McCain to the wolves again.
Palin does, but the attacks on her have only just begun. "Mommy" figures won't be elected unless "Daddy" fails, which is imminent after Obama is done beating us all with his belt. Possible, but not likely, although I do like her habit of killing wolves rather than running away.
Hillary has an excellent chance if she wants it, but she has to have the balls to be willing to backstab someone... What am I saying??? Of COURSE she will!
In fact, overturning the incumbent of your party is almost an admission of guilt during an election. If Obama tanks as expected, Hillary would have her second batch of Bad Luck Syndrome, as voters would consider Dems in a turmoil and flock to the GOP. Her hardest fight is against her own party, but if she gives it up (just words, Bill, no "action"!) she kills any future bid due to her age.
Nobody stands out in the GOP right now. It's got to be a fresh face we won't see for two years. Someone is prepping right now and I'm hoping for Paul Ryan myself. I want someone to battle corruption in politicians, so I don't mind Palin. Just leave Bobby Jindal in the backwoods where he belongs... Ugh, he's raw. |
|
|
seaRick1
834 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 4:51:22 PM
|
Listen numbnuts......I have voted for Republican Presidental candidates before (how many Democrats have you voted for? Let me guess....ZERO!) and numerous local Republican candidates before - see my previous posts. It's just that when the party is going extreme right, they have nothing to offer me, nor for alot of independents. I didn't vote for either one of our state's candidates for governor because they both sucked beyond belief. And don't tell me that Rossi is some wonderful candidate. He is just as pathetic as Gregoire. I have never voted for Gregoire (our Democratic governor for you guys out of WA state), nor will I. She is pathetic beyond imagination. I would love nothing more than a strong viable 3rd party in this country - unfortunatley there is too much $$ in our political system these days for that to happen. You give me a moderate Republican candidate (which McCain USED to be until the party powers told him to move straight right) and I will seriously consider voting for him/her. And please, for that party to put Palin on the ticket - what a cold slap in the face. It was an act of desperation because they knew they were dropping in the polls. She's great to look at, but that's all. McCain from 5 or 10 yrs ago would have been a good viable candidate, but he caved last year to his party's pressure. And your party is controlled by those hard core right wing religious nutjobs......they can take a hike.
But if Obama does not turn this disaster around within his first term, I will not be voting for him. I will go either Republican (depending on who it is - Romney is a possiblity) or Independent - I've voted that way before and I'll do it again. quote:
Originally posted by RANDY P
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
He should have done that last year. He'll never win anything as a Republican. Makes too much sense for that screwed up party - maybe a little more moderation.....instead of everything being extreme right! Establishing a viable 3rd party is going to be a process that will take numerous elections to have a chance. And his anti-war stance completely pissed off the Wild West mentality of the Republicans. quote:
Originally posted by benjamin
Ron Paul, third party, might be the right time.
I have a feeling Rick that anything with an (R) next to it is too extreme Right for you.
rjp
PS: How's that "Hope and Change" working for ya?
|
|
|
MisterVA
8615 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 5:11:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
He should have done that last year. He'll never win anything as a Republican. Makes too much sense for that screwed up party - maybe a little more moderation.....instead of everything being extreme right! Establishing a viable 3rd party is going to be a process that will take numerous elections to have a chance. And his anti-war stance completely pissed off the Wild West mentality of the Republicans. quote:
Originally posted by benjamin
Ron Paul, third party, might be the right time.
One thing that seemed to have been lost is that the Libertarians did have a candidate last year. It was NOT Ron Paul, but you never would have known it. There were several months in the campaign to push for the Libertarian candidate, but they didn't do that. They pretended that Ron Paul was not running for re-election to Congress, but rather for President although he did not appear on any ballots. I voted Libertarian last year. Just as I voted Reform in 1992. |
|
|
Jonas
1177 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 5:35:31 PM
|
Bob Barr was the candidate, no? I like the idea of limiting the terms of Senators as was stated in this thread. On the mention of a second bailout I'm starting to regret not researching Barr more...
quote:
Originally posted by MisterVA
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
He should have done that last year. He'll never win anything as a Republican. Makes too much sense for that screwed up party - maybe a little more moderation.....instead of everything being extreme right! Establishing a viable 3rd party is going to be a process that will take numerous elections to have a chance. And his anti-war stance completely pissed off the Wild West mentality of the Republicans. quote:
Originally posted by benjamin
Ron Paul, third party, might be the right time.
One thing that seemed to have been lost is that the Libertarians did have a candidate last year. It was NOT Ron Paul, but you never would have known it. There were several months in the campaign to push for the Libertarian candidate, but they didn't do that. They pretended that Ron Paul was not running for re-election to Congress, but rather for President although he did not appear on any ballots. I voted Libertarian last year. Just as I voted Reform in 1992.
|
|
|
Jonas
1177 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 5:37:58 PM
|
| Also, for all elections, they should remove the party designation from the ballot. This would stop blind partisan voting from ill-informed folk. |
|
|
VVance
6506 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 5:48:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
Listen numbnuts......I have voted for Republican Presidental candidates before (how many Democrats have you voted for? Let me guess....ZERO!) and numerous local Republican candidates before - see my previous posts. It's just that when the party is going extreme right, they have nothing to offer me, nor for alot of independents. I didn't vote for either one of our state's candidates for governor because they both sucked beyond belief. And don't tell me that Rossi is some wonderful candidate. He is just as pathetic as Gregoire. I have never voted for Gregoire (our Democratic governor for you guys out of WA state), nor will I. She is pathetic beyond imagination. I would love nothing more than a strong viable 3rd party in this country - unfortunatley there is too much $$ in our political system these days for that to happen. You give me a moderate Republican candidate (which McCain USED to be until the party powers told him to move straight right) and I will seriously consider voting for him/her. And please, for that party to put Palin on the ticket - what a cold slap in the face. It was an act of desperation because they knew they were dropping in the polls. She's great to look at, but that's all. McCain from 5 or 10 yrs ago would have been a good viable candidate, but he caved last year to his party's pressure. And your party is controlled by those hard core right wing religious nutjobs......they can take a hike.
But if Obama does not turn this disaster around within his first term, I will not be voting for him. I will go either Republican (depending on who it is - Romney is a possiblity) or Independent - I've voted that way before and I'll do it again. quote:
Originally posted by RANDY P
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
He should have done that last year. He'll never win anything as a Republican. Makes too much sense for that screwed up party - maybe a little more moderation.....instead of everything being extreme right! Establishing a viable 3rd party is going to be a process that will take numerous elections to have a chance. And his anti-war stance completely pissed off the Wild West mentality of the Republicans. quote:
Originally posted by benjamin
Ron Paul, third party, might be the right time.
I have a feeling Rick that anything with an (R) next to it is too extreme Right for you.
rjp
PS: How's that "Hope and Change" working for ya?
McCain was not a conservative candidate. Amnesty? Nope. Taxes? Nope again. Voting record? No way. The only issue you could claim he was conservative on is abortion.
The moderate, blue blood, country club Republicans supported this guy all the way. If they continue to get their type of candidate at the top of the ticket, there is no question who will continue to control the executive branch. |
|
|
MisterVA
8615 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 7:17:25 PM
|
| Actually, I think the Libertarians have a golden opportunity to pick up 5 or 6 seats in the House if they go for it in 50 or so races throughout the country. That is where it has to start. And it has to start in 2010, not 2012. I have not changed my registration yet from Vermont to Florida. Not sure how I will affiliate myself. I certainly want to be able to vote in the Primary in 2012, but I may just do a switch in time to do that and change back afterwards. |
|
|
seaRick1
834 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 7:25:48 PM
|
If you're referring to having an extreme right winger as the Republican nominee, then I think you're dead wrong. That type of a candidate will not appeal much to the independents....which often times make the difference in a close election. I think McCain was hurt deeply by Palin on the ticket. Alot of you might disagree, but I really think it is true. Who the heck can respect someone like that? She was a joke, pure and simple. There are so many more qualified Republican candidates than her, it's not even close. I will be watching very closely who they bring to the forefront in a couple of years, like Jindal. I do have alot of interest in him as a potential candidate so I'm curious about what he will have to say and stand for.quote:
Originally posted by VVance
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
Listen numbnuts......I have voted for Republican Presidental candidates before (how many Democrats have you voted for? Let me guess....ZERO!) and numerous local Republican candidates before - see my previous posts. It's just that when the party is going extreme right, they have nothing to offer me, nor for alot of independents. I didn't vote for either one of our state's candidates for governor because they both sucked beyond belief. And don't tell me that Rossi is some wonderful candidate. He is just as pathetic as Gregoire. I have never voted for Gregoire (our Democratic governor for you guys out of WA state), nor will I. She is pathetic beyond imagination. I would love nothing more than a strong viable 3rd party in this country - unfortunatley there is too much $$ in our political system these days for that to happen. You give me a moderate Republican candidate (which McCain USED to be until the party powers told him to move straight right) and I will seriously consider voting for him/her. And please, for that party to put Palin on the ticket - what a cold slap in the face. It was an act of desperation because they knew they were dropping in the polls. She's great to look at, but that's all. McCain from 5 or 10 yrs ago would have been a good viable candidate, but he caved last year to his party's pressure. And your party is controlled by those hard core right wing religious nutjobs......they can take a hike.
But if Obama does not turn this disaster around within his first term, I will not be voting for him. I will go either Republican (depending on who it is - Romney is a possiblity) or Independent - I've voted that way before and I'll do it again. quote:
Originally posted by RANDY P
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
He should have done that last year. He'll never win anything as a Republican. Makes too much sense for that screwed up party - maybe a little more moderation.....instead of everything being extreme right! Establishing a viable 3rd party is going to be a process that will take numerous elections to have a chance. And his anti-war stance completely pissed off the Wild West mentality of the Republicans. quote:
Originally posted by benjamin
Ron Paul, third party, might be the right time.
I have a feeling Rick that anything with an (R) next to it is too extreme Right for you.
rjp
PS: How's that "Hope and Change" working for ya?
McCain was not a conservative candidate. Amnesty? Nope. Taxes? Nope again. Voting record? No way. The only issue you could claim he was conservative on is abortion.
The moderate, blue blood, country club Republicans supported this guy all the way. If they continue to get their type of candidate at the top of the ticket, there is no question who will continue to control the executive branch.
|
|
|
VVance
6506 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 8:21:33 PM
|
| If Palin hurt the ticket, then how on earth did Obama get elected with Biden??? |
|
|
assassin17
7693 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 8:32:14 PM
|
Actually, McCain was getting slaughtered in every single poll prior to selecting Palin. Her appeal is the only thing that made it close and the loss of some of the "bounce" is nothing unusual.
I contend that if Palin were a known name at the top of that ticket, she might have won over selecting an inexperienced pawn... But that was obviously not the case for her and it doesn't matter if we argue whether it would be better or not. By 2012 we'll know enough about her to decide if she's worth it or not, I'm in no hurry about her or any independent candidate yet. |
|
|
VVance
6506 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 8:41:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by assassin17
Actually, McCain was getting slaughtered in every single poll prior to selecting Palin. Her appeal is the only thing that made it close and the loss of some of the "bounce" is nothing unusual.
I contend that if Palin were a known name at the top of that ticket, she might have won over selecting an inexperienced pawn... But that was obviously not the case for her and it doesn't matter if we argue whether it would be better or not. By 2012 we'll know enough about her to decide if she's worth it or not, I'm in no hurry about her or any independent candidate yet.
As usual, you are right. |
|
|
seaRick1
834 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 9:42:20 PM
|
McCain wasn't that far behind in the polls until the Aug/Sept timeframe, if memory serves me correct.....which isn't always a guarantee I must admit. But when the economy started to unravel in September, that's when everything went downhill for John. Hell, he should be happy he doesn't have to deal with this freaking mess. I sure wouldn't because no matter what you do you're going to piss alot of people off. Remember, these are not 'normal times' for this country right now - over 6 + million jobs lost since Jan 1, 2008. quote:
Originally posted by assassin17
Actually, McCain was getting slaughtered in every single poll prior to selecting Palin. Her appeal is the only thing that made it close and the loss of some of the "bounce" is nothing unusual.
I contend that if Palin were a known name at the top of that ticket, she might have won over selecting an inexperienced pawn... But that was obviously not the case for her and it doesn't matter if we argue whether it would be better or not. By 2012 we'll know enough about her to decide if she's worth it or not, I'm in no hurry about her or any independent candidate yet.
|
|
|
assassin17
7693 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2009 : 10:08:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by seaRick1
McCain wasn't that far behind in the polls until the Aug/Sept timeframe, if memory serves me correct.....which isn't always a guarantee I must admit.
McCain bottomed out on June 8 and July 22.
Palin was announced on August 29th.
McCain topped out on September 6 and the bounce disappeared about a week later, returning it right back to where it was in July.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/polling/index.html
NY Times
Sarah Palin cost him nothing, she simply could not gain him anything after the bailout voting fiasco, where McCain let Bush and everyone else in Congress remove his tough-guy image and reveal that he was a party-line-following pansy just like all the rest of his congressional cohorts. Simply put, McCain, at the top of the ticket, was a fraud of a "maverick" and revealed that he would do nothing except follow orders.
Of course, he then turned upon Palin like all the other GOP in order to save face. Truth is, conservatives loved her and not him, but the independents rolled away like a buffalo herd after he gave up on resisting the bank bailout which would have made him a pop hero. |
|
|
|
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
|
|
Search for: 
