How bad does the gop need Chris Cristie

[Boss]

A case can be made for Cruz and for Gov. Scott Walker (R) WI.

Nominating Cruz for the GOP is presidential suicide.

LOL... Save it! You're not exactly Charles Krauthammer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you're saying the Republican Right, rather than Obama's Experience in Office, and long list of accomplishments allowed Dem's to capture the White House.

Until the far right of the GOP accepts that our population is younger, darker, more feminist, less religious, technocratic, and forward looking, we cannot win the presidency or the senate. yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A case can be made for Cruz and for Gov. Scott Walker (R) WI.

Nominating Cruz for the GOP is presidential suicide.

LOL... Save it! You're not exactly Charles Krauthammer.

However, Nyvin is correct: Cruz cannot get 40% of the vote.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both Bushes were moderates. Reagan talked like a conservative but governed like a moderate.

Ronald Reagan defined modern conservatism. To claim he was a moderate is boneheaded. Yes, he governed pragmatically... conservatism IS pragmatic! Being pragmatic doesn't make you a moderate.

H.W. Bush got elected on the coat tails of Reagan. He ran as a Reagan conservative. He lost reelection because he wasn't a conservative. George W. was arguably the most socially conservative Republican to hold office in our lifetime. Both Bush's were establishment neo-statists, like McCain and Romney. This is what some people like to call "moderate."

Reagan was a neo-statist as well, the growth of government and civil service under his presidency proving the claim.

 

[Iceweasel]

Also it was President Carter that lowered it from 98%...not Reagan.

Reagan Showed it Can Be Done: Lower the Top Rate to 28 Percent and Raise More Revenue | Tax Foundation

As the chart below shows, Reagan lowered the top marginal income tax rate from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988. Individual income tax revenue increased, even after adjusting for inflation and population growth.

 

[Dot Com]

. . . because the far right can't field a candidate that the rest of America won't throw up when s/he speaks.

John McCain, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

Mitt Romney, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

"radical"? Who is that? the current POTUS is a moderate Dem at best. I'm disappointed in how many times he's caved to the rw in his 1st-term. Its embarrassing how much he tried to work across the aisle on moderate legislation only to be strung-along until the ast minute and, quelle surprise, the repubs welch on their *cough* compromise.

 

[Iceweasel]

Reagan was a neo-statist as well, the growth of government and civil service under his presidency proving the claim.

Limiting Government, 1980?2010 | Cato Institute

...federal spending had risen relentlessly for three decades both absolutely and relative to the nation’s wealth. Had that trend continued, the federal government would have grown relative to national income by about 25 percent (from one-fifth of GDP to one-fourth). Instead of increasing, the relative size of government stayed roughly the same as it had been in the 1970s. Reagan thus shrank the size of government compared to what it would have been if past trends had continued.

 

[Redfish]

. . . because the far right can't field a candidate that the rest of America won't throw up when s/he speaks.

John McCain, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

Mitt Romney, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

"radical"? Who is that? the current POTUS is a moderate Dem at best. I'm disappointed in how many times he's caved to the rw in his 1st-term. Its embarrassing how much he tried to work across the aisle on moderate legislation only to be strung-along until the ast minute and, quelle surprise, the repubs welch on their *cough* compromise.

Come on, wake up. Obama is an Alinsky radical. He was elected by a biased media, white guilt, and black pride. He was elected because of his skin color and the fact that the media refused to do a proper vetting of him like they did of every other candidate from either party.

Obama is a marxist collectivist, read his books, look at his mentors, listen to his early speeches. He hates the history of the USA and its culture, he hates capitalism. Taking over healthcare is step 1 in the Alinsky playbook for radical left wing takeover.

Ignorance is destroying our country as fools like you praise the destroyers.

 

[Boss]

So you're saying the Republican Right, rather than Obama's Experience in Office, and long list of accomplishments allowed Dem's to capture the White House.

Until the far right of the GOP accepts that our population is younger, darker, more feminist, less religious, technocratic, and forward looking, we cannot win the presidency or the senate. yes.

Wow Jake... sounds like we need to stick our racist bigoted women-hating heads in the oven and commit suicide, so future generations don't have to tolerate our despicable behavior?

I think what you need to do is take a step back and try to comprehend that whatever stereotypes you've developed for this "far right" you speak of, are what is destroying America right now. You can't simply apply these templates to Americans as if we all fit into your mold. We are comprised of 350 million unique individuals who all think differently.

Our population is NOT younger. There are 70 million Baby Boomers reaching age of retirement as we speak. We've never been a majority of "darker" people or feminists. Evangelical (religious) voters comprise the single largest voting bloc. You may wish we were more technocratic, but the statistics don't support the argument that we are. And what the hell does "forward thinking" even mean? Is that another liberal catch phrase for "liberalist thinking?"

Republicans can't and won't win the presidency or congress unless they stand for something.

 

[Mojo2]

A case can be made for Cruz and for Gov. Scott Walker (R) WI.

Nominating Cruz for the GOP is presidential suicide.

Oh, even Ronald Reagan was thought to be a "threat to the future of capitalism"!

Cue Ayn Rand...

Now I want to give you a brief indication of the kinds of issues that are coming up, on which you might want to know my views.

1. The Presidential election of 1976. I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him.

My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word—i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose—see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.​

From Rand’s final public speech, “Sanction of the Victims,” delivered November 21, 1981:

In conclusion, let me touch briefly on another question often asked me: What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don’t think of him—and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called “Moral Majority” and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling—apparently with his approval—to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.

The threat to the future of capitalism is the fact that Reagan might fail so badly that he will become another ghost, like Herbert Hoover, to be invoked as an example of capitalism’s failure for another fifty years.

Observe Reagan’s futile attempts to arouse the country by some sort of inspirational appeal. He is right in thinking that the country needs an inspirational element. But he will not find it in the God-Family-Tradition swamp.​

If you know any conservative Republican Ayn Rand fans, you should forward this post to them, just to annoy ‘em.

Dangerous Minds | Ayn Rand absolutely hated Ronald Reagan

She was obviously wrong about Reagan, as you are about Cruz.

 

[Boss]

Nominating Cruz for the GOP is presidential suicide.

LOL... Save it! You're not exactly Charles Krauthammer.

However, Nyvin is correct: Cruz cannot get 40% of the vote.

Nyvin is not correct. Nyvin, like you, has an OPINION. Opinions are neither "correct" or "incorrect" they are just OPINIONS. You agree with Nyvin's opinion.

When Cruz began the run for his seat in the Senate, all the "political experts" who knew everything about Texas politics and what was going on, gave him a 2% chance of victory. Early polls showed him with 11% (or less) of the vote. No one knew who he was, compared to his opponent who everyone knew. Outspent by huge political coffers, he was the quintessential underdog, and he won. I'll take Cruz and 40% in 2014 for a 2016 victory any day, any time!

But now, let me explain to my conservative friends what is really going on here... this is what liberals like to do, and the establishment GOP is now getting in on the game as well... it's called "poisoning the well" or destroying potential competition in the eyes of the public through politics of personal destruction.

 

[Iceweasel]

Ayn didn't come from a capitalist country and obviously didn't understand what she was babbling about.

 

[Mojo2]

John McCain, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

Mitt Romney, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

"radical"? Who is that? the current POTUS is a moderate Dem at best. I'm disappointed in how many times he's caved to the rw in his 1st-term. Its embarrassing how much he tried to work across the aisle on moderate legislation only to be strung-along until the ast minute and, quelle surprise, the repubs welch on their *cough* compromise.

Come on, wake up. Obama is an Alinsky radical. He was elected by a biased media, white guilt, and black pride. He was elected because of his skin color and the fact that the media refused to do a proper vetting of him like they did of every other candidate from either party.

Obama is a marxist collectivist, read his books, look at his mentors, listen to his early speeches. He hates the history of the USA and its culture, he hates capitalism. Taking over healthcare is step 1 in the Alinsky playbook for radical left wing takeover.

Ignorance is destroying our country as fools like you praise the destroyers.

Damn STRONG post!

 

[Dot Com]

John McCain, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

Mitt Romney, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

"radical"? Who is that? the current POTUS is a moderate Dem at best. I'm disappointed in how many times he's caved to the rw in his 1st-term. Its embarrassing how much he tried to work across the aisle on moderate legislation only to be strung-along until the ast minute and, quelle surprise, the repubs welch on their *cough* compromise.

Come on, wake up. Obama is an Alinsky radical. He was elected by a biased media, white guilt, and black pride. He was elected because of his skin color and the fact that the media refused to do a proper vetting of him like they did of every other candidate from either party.

Obama is a marxist collectivist, read his books, look at his mentors, listen to his early speeches. He hates the history of the USA and its culture, he hates capitalism. Taking over healthcare is step 1 in the Alinsky playbook for radical left wing takeover.

Ignorance is destroying our country as fools like you praise the destroyers.

that would explain why he just got reelected Stop w/ your rw conspiracy theories

The main reason Dem's keep winning is that they have "ideas" AND their Repub predecessors fuck things up so badly through budget-busting, tax-cuts & deregulation (tired failed ideas) that voters need a long, well-deserved break from their willful malevolence.

 

[Iceweasel]

The main reason Dem's keep winning is that they have "ideas" ...blah blah blah:

Yep, their ideas are hope, change, Republicans are evil, rich people got their money unfairly (but contributions are welcome and well the rich Democrats are different anyway), we're against gay marriage until after we're elected, Republicans are evil. The Tea Party is really evil. Fairness means taking someone else's wealth. Etc, etc.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Please, Please, Please allow Sarah Paliin to be the 2016 Republican nominee for President of the United States of America. The Democratic nominee wouldn't even have to run a campaign. The self-immolation before the media would be a thing to behold, again.

Really? You can't be serious. You must be a Dem mole.

I hear this a lot from liberals. I know that it also worries some moderate republicans that she might actually run and could win the GOP nomination. I don't think she will run. But there is a part of me that would love to see her do so. I believe liberal minds would be totally blown at how much raw support the woman has across America. I think, midway through her campaign, the snarky smirking over-confident wishing she would run, would be replaced by genuine fear that she might actually win. The chuckles and laughs over superfluous comments she made over silly things that don't matter, would give way to more serious attempts to address the juggernaut. It would be fun to watch a bunch of smart ass liberals get what they begged for and see Palin clean their proverbial clocks.

Plus... A Palin/Hillary debate could be sold on pay-per-view! Nothing like a good cat fight!

Libs, especially the "men" are all nipply about the prospect of a woman president so why not Palin

LOL

Lefties want qualified people of either sex.

$arah is a serial quitter and failure at everything except saying really stoopid crap on a really stoopid fake news network. $he's doing what $he's good at - fleecing the really stoopid people who watch that fake news network.

As to the OP, the R certainly needs SOMEthing. At the rate they're going, they will lose the next prez election too because who wants crooked grafters who only want to keep giving money to the wealthy, jobs to China, force bigger and more invasive government on us and take away more and more rights?

Pardon the grammar and mish-mash syntax, but I'm sure my meaning made the leap.

 

[Redfish]

"radical"? Who is that? the current POTUS is a moderate Dem at best. I'm disappointed in how many times he's caved to the rw in his 1st-term. Its embarrassing how much he tried to work across the aisle on moderate legislation only to be strung-along until the ast minute and, quelle surprise, the repubs welch on their *cough* compromise.

Come on, wake up. Obama is an Alinsky radical. He was elected by a biased media, white guilt, and black pride. He was elected because of his skin color and the fact that the media refused to do a proper vetting of him like they did of every other candidate from either party.

Obama is a marxist collectivist, read his books, look at his mentors, listen to his early speeches. He hates the history of the USA and its culture, he hates capitalism. Taking over healthcare is step 1 in the Alinsky playbook for radical left wing takeover.

Ignorance is destroying our country as fools like you praise the destroyers.

that would explain why he just got reelected Stop w/ your rw conspiracy theories

The main reason Dem's keep winning is that they have "ideas" AND their Repub predecessors fuck things up so badly through budget-busting, tax-cuts & deregulation (tired failed ideas) that voters need a long, well-deserved break from their willful malevolence.

Obama got elected the second time for the same reasons as the first time----biased media, black pride, white guilt, no vetting.

The problem that is "fucking up" the country is not R or D---the problem is liberalism in both parties. The idea that govt is responsible to taking care of everyone, giving everyone free stuff, and kissing everyone's ass when they fall down.

 

[Mojo2]

LOL... Save it! You're not exactly Charles Krauthammer.

However, Nyvin is correct: Cruz cannot get 40% of the vote.

Nyvin is not correct. Nyvin, like you, has an OPINION. Opinions are neither "correct" or "incorrect" they are just OPINIONS. You agree with Nyvin's opinion.

When Cruz began the run for his seat in the Senate, all the "political experts" who knew everything about Texas politics and what was going on, gave him a 2% chance of victory. Early polls showed him with 11% (or less) of the vote. No one knew who he was, compared to his opponent who everyone knew. Outspent by huge political coffers, he was the quintessential underdog, and he won. I'll take Cruz and 40% in 2014 for a 2016 victory any day, any time!

But now, let me explain to my conservative friends what is really going on here... this is what liberals like to do, and the establishment GOP is now getting in on the game as well... it's called "poisoning the well" or destroying potential competition in the eyes of the public through politics of personal destruction.

The Dems have whittled Christie's 1 point lead over Hillary to a 3 point deficit IIRC in a poll ot hypothetical 2016 match-ups.

How?

Bridgegate.

I mention this only to illustrate your point.

I'm no fan of Christie. But I'd pull his lever against any Dem.

I think Cruz is the Dem's 'secretest' fear. They speak of him in the same manner they did of Palin when she was still a serious candidate for the VP.

I think he's got guts and smarts and the "'vision' thing." He knows our history and reveres our Constitution. He has a terrific narrative (as they liked to say about Obama) but, unlike Obama, Cruz has traditional American values. A college debate champion who has argued before the Supreme Court, Cruz is a stud. The real deal.

And a real Conservative.

 

[bendog]

I'm not so sure that the dems have "better ideas" so much as the gop just has none that are capabele of winning a majority vote. We've lost 5 out the last 6 popular votes. Our likely nominee will be Rand Paul, and frankly I think a Hillary win would be vital to protect our economy from his quasi libertarian nutty ideas.

W at least initially campaigned as believing the govt had a role in making life better for the middle class and promoting ways for lower income people to better themselves. Today, we label those people as "takers." And that's not even getting into our nuttiness on stuff that shouldn't even be questionable, such as universal access to contraception and a path to citizenship. I mean, F it, if we can't even do that.

 

[Iceweasel]

No matter who gets nominated the driving force will be the economy. If it still sucks it will depend on how well the media can put a positive spin on it.