JoeB131 Handicaps the 2016 GOP Field

[rightwinger]

Yeah...why would any American care about four deaths in Libya, lies by government officials, and a persist cover up by the executive branch?

I mean really!!!

Why?

Because we have lived with terrorist attack for the last 35 years. We saw 211 Marines killed under Reagan. We saw the WTC attack and USS Cole under Clinton, we saw 3000 killed under Bush. We have seen endless terrorist attacks on our embassies and accept them as being a part of our modern day world

We have had terrorist attacks for decades...so what's the big deal about this one?

Liberal logic....

I don't see your answer other than Republicans exploiting a terrorist attack for politcal gain

 

[gipper]

Why?

Because we have lived with terrorist attack for the last 35 years. We saw 211 Marines killed under Reagan. We saw the WTC attack and USS Cole under Clinton, we saw 3000 killed under Bush. We have seen endless terrorist attacks on our embassies and accept them as being a part of our modern day world

We have had terrorist attacks for decades...so what's the big deal about this one?

Liberal logic....

I don't see your answer other than Republicans exploiting a terrorist attack for politcal gain

You see things as Ds good Rs bad. As such, anything a D does is okay...hence nothing to see with Benghazi.

We all know if Benghazi happened under an R POTUS, you and the MSM would be screaming IMPEACH NOW!

Your hypocrisy is truly amazing. How can one be so slanted?

 

[rightwinger]

We have had terrorist attacks for decades...so what's the big deal about this one?

Liberal logic....

I don't see your answer other than Republicans exploiting a terrorist attack for politcal gain

You see things as Ds good Rs bad. As such, anything a D does is okay...hence nothing to see with Benghazi.

We all know if Benghazi happened under an R POTUS, you and the MSM would be screaming IMPEACH NOW!

Your hypocrisy is truly amazing. How can one be so slanted?

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush gave up the worst terrorist attak in the history of the US and Democrats AND the media supported him. I can assure you that Obama would not have been provided the same courtesy

 

[gipper]

I don't see your answer other than Republicans exploiting a terrorist attack for politcal gain

You see things as Ds good Rs bad. As such, anything a D does is okay...hence nothing to see with Benghazi.

We all know if Benghazi happened under an R POTUS, you and the MSM would be screaming IMPEACH NOW!

Your hypocrisy is truly amazing. How can one be so slanted?

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush gave up the worst terrorist attak in the history of the US and Democrats AND the media supported him. I can assure you that Obama would not have been provided the same courtesy

No you are fucking nuts.

To think there are any analogies between 9/11 and Benghazi, is DUMB.

A big uncontrolled government ALWAYS lies...and in this case, you accept the lies as truth. That too is DUMB!

 

[rightwinger]

You see things as Ds good Rs bad. As such, anything a D does is okay...hence nothing to see with Benghazi.

We all know if Benghazi happened under an R POTUS, you and the MSM would be screaming IMPEACH NOW!

Your hypocrisy is truly amazing. How can one be so slanted?

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush gave up the worst terrorist attak in the history of the US and Democrats AND the media supported him. I can assure you that Obama would not have been provided the same courtesy

No you are fucking nuts.

To think there are any analogies between 9/11 and Benghazi, is DUMB.

A big uncontrolled government ALWAYS lies...and in this case, you accept the lies as truth. That too is DUMB!

Actually, in order of magnitude, you are correct

There is no comparison

 

[Statistikhengst]

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush gave up the worst terrorist attak in the history of the US and Democrats AND the media supported him. I can assure you that Obama would not have been provided the same courtesy

No you are fucking nuts.

To think there are any analogies between 9/11 and Benghazi, is DUMB.

A big uncontrolled government ALWAYS lies...and in this case, you accept the lies as truth. That too is DUMB!

Actually, in order of magnitude, you are correct

There is no comparison

Indeed, but somehow I get the feelling that he doesn't quite get the jist, here...

 

[GHook93]

We really need to break this up into two categories. The Retreads and the Fresh Blood.

The Retreads are relevant because since 1968, every GOP candidate has either been a sitting president, someone who has run before or the son of a president. The GOP likes established, vetted candidates. Sadly, those are sadly lacking.

Jeb Bush would actually be the ideal candidate. A successful two-term governor of a major swing state, married to a Hispanic woman so he could appeal to that elusive voter base, actually doesn't come off like a crazy person when he talks.
His downside, though, is that his name is Bush, and given the absolute disaster his brother's presidency was, no one would go down that road a third time. Also has alienated the Nativist wing by saying Immigrants are kind of alright sometimes. 1-1

Mike Huckabee could be a strong candidate. He did very well in 2008 on a shoestring budget, he's appealing, likable and though he represents the religious wing of the party, doesn't come off like a crazy zealot most of the time. His downside, though, is that the Wall Street Wing is scared to death of him, and he had a bad habit of giving parole to anyone in the Arkansas prison system that said "Jesus' sincerely enough. A couple of those guys have gone on to rape and murder people. In 2008, my boss said he'd vote for Hillary if Huck got the nomination. I suspect that Wall Street would go all in behind the Democrat if he was the nominee.

Rick Santorum- Represents the religious wing, DOES come off like a nutty Zealot when he talks. The only reason why he lasted as long as he did was that the GOP base had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support Romney, and he was the last thing they could grasp on to.

Rick Perry- Governor of a major state with a decent economic record. Appeals to all the major constituencies. Downside- His 2012 campaign was a disaster, and you don't get a second chance to make a first impression.

Fresh Blood -

Chris Christie- Governor of a major state, but not one the Democrats are likely to lose. Had a good reputation as a get things done kind of guy. However, Bridgegate and the fact that NJ is seriously in the red right now has taken the luster off this guy. Also, the ODS crowd is never going to forgive him for palling around with Obama after Hurricane Sandy.

Scott Walker- On paper, pretty solid. A midwest governor who has applied conservative talking points effectively. The downside, he's kind of bland in person. Also, is the country ready to elect a president who never earned a college degree in this day in age?

Mike Pence- Again, Midwest governor with a solid record. However, he lacks name recognition.

Piyush Jindal - I refuse to call him "Bobby". The guy's a weather vane, really trying to see which way the wind is blowing and usually getting it wrong. When he's term-limited out, he's done.

Marco Rubio - Probably ruined his chances with his flip-flopping on immigration.

Ted Cruz - ONly if the GOP wants to lose 45 states and completely give in to the crazies.

Rand Paul - I honestly don't see this guy winning a single state in the general election. But he could make some serious waves using the same nuts who show up and voted for his dad all those times.

Of that list here is my choices in order:
Cruz (Cruz scares you into thinking he would lose every state, but be willfully ignorant)
Paul (comments on the Civil Rights Act were misinterpreted, but they still will hurt him. Nevertheless, he has great ideas, comes off honest and many would be attracted to him)
Pence (love the guy),
Walker (he is doing amazing things, but the no college record is an issue),
Christie (more fiscally conservative then is given credit for. It is also commendable that he can get so many fiscal conservative things done in such a blue state)
Jindal (like the guy, just like the above better),
Huckabee (he is a fair tax man that excites me, but something about him doesn't jell with me),
Perry (His last campaign did him in for me, despite my love and respect for Texas) and Bush (I don't want another Bush, esp one more liberal then his brother)!

 

[Toro]

The people who are raising money and putting together an infrastructure are Bush, Christie, Paul and Walker. You can't win without either.

 

[Meister]

I don't see your answer other than Republicans exploiting a terrorist attack for politcal gain

You see things as Ds good Rs bad. As such, anything a D does is okay...hence nothing to see with Benghazi.

We all know if Benghazi happened under an R POTUS, you and the MSM would be screaming IMPEACH NOW!

Your hypocrisy is truly amazing. How can one be so slanted?

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush gave up the worst terrorist attak in the history of the US and Democrats AND the media supported him. I can assure you that Obama would not have been provided the same courtesy

Actually, Clinton helped immensely in that tragedy when he stifled our own intelligence.
I know, I know....it doesn't have as good of a ring to you as Boooooooooosh.

 

[rightwinger]

You see things as Ds good Rs bad. As such, anything a D does is okay...hence nothing to see with Benghazi.

We all know if Benghazi happened under an R POTUS, you and the MSM would be screaming IMPEACH NOW!

Your hypocrisy is truly amazing. How can one be so slanted?

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush gave up the worst terrorist attak in the history of the US and Democrats AND the media supported him. I can assure you that Obama would not have been provided the same courtesy

Actually, Clinton helped immensely in that tragedy when he stifled our own intelligence.
I know, I know....it doesn't have as good of a ring to you as Boooooooooosh.

Actually, Bush ignored the threat of terrorism

and we paid a horrible price

 

[Meister]

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush gave up the worst terrorist attak in the history of the US and Democrats AND the media supported him. I can assure you that Obama would not have been provided the same courtesy

Actually, Clinton helped immensely in that tragedy when he stifled our own intelligence.
I know, I know....it doesn't have as good of a ring to you as Boooooooooosh.

Actually, Bush ignored the threat of terrorism

and we paid a horrible price

Yes....Boooooooosh.

But, your first black president fragged the intelligence to where the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. CIA and the FBI were not communicating because of Clinton.....at least admit that.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, Clinton helped immensely in that tragedy when he stifled our own intelligence.
I know, I know....it doesn't have as good of a ring to you as Boooooooooosh.

Actually, Bush ignored the threat of terrorism

and we paid a horrible price

Yes....Boooooooosh.

But, your first black president fragged the intelligence to where the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. CIA and the FBI were not communicating because of Clinton.....at least admit that.

Yes George W Bush was President during the worst terrorist attack in history

George W Bush had no concerns with the threat of terrorism and had yet to meet with his top advisors on the subject

 

[Statistikhengst]

The people who are raising money and putting together an infrastructure are Bush, Christie, Paul and Walker. You can't win without either.

I could see a quick groundswell fundraising for Ted Cruz were Rand Paul somehow to bomb out, but it looks like Paul has made the most serious overtures of all during this weird time of every very likely candidate saying "what, me?".




Well, hell, since about half of America has now completely converted to the Bread and Circuses mentality of the Roman Empire, maybe they will simply want to see a Bush-Clinton rematch.

How old is Ross Perot these days??

 

[rightwinger]

We really need to break this up into two categories. The Retreads and the Fresh Blood.

The Retreads are relevant because since 1968, every GOP candidate has either been a sitting president, someone who has run before or the son of a president. The GOP likes established, vetted candidates. Sadly, those are sadly lacking.

Jeb Bush would actually be the ideal candidate. A successful two-term governor of a major swing state, married to a Hispanic woman so he could appeal to that elusive voter base, actually doesn't come off like a crazy person when he talks.
His downside, though, is that his name is Bush, and given the absolute disaster his brother's presidency was, no one would go down that road a third time. Also has alienated the Nativist wing by saying Immigrants are kind of alright sometimes. 1-1

Mike Huckabee could be a strong candidate. He did very well in 2008 on a shoestring budget, he's appealing, likable and though he represents the religious wing of the party, doesn't come off like a crazy zealot most of the time. His downside, though, is that the Wall Street Wing is scared to death of him, and he had a bad habit of giving parole to anyone in the Arkansas prison system that said "Jesus' sincerely enough. A couple of those guys have gone on to rape and murder people. In 2008, my boss said he'd vote for Hillary if Huck got the nomination. I suspect that Wall Street would go all in behind the Democrat if he was the nominee.

Rick Santorum- Represents the religious wing, DOES come off like a nutty Zealot when he talks. The only reason why he lasted as long as he did was that the GOP base had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support Romney, and he was the last thing they could grasp on to.

Rick Perry- Governor of a major state with a decent economic record. Appeals to all the major constituencies. Downside- His 2012 campaign was a disaster, and you don't get a second chance to make a first impression.

Fresh Blood -

Chris Christie- Governor of a major state, but not one the Democrats are likely to lose. Had a good reputation as a get things done kind of guy. However, Bridgegate and the fact that NJ is seriously in the red right now has taken the luster off this guy. Also, the ODS crowd is never going to forgive him for palling around with Obama after Hurricane Sandy.

Scott Walker- On paper, pretty solid. A midwest governor who has applied conservative talking points effectively. The downside, he's kind of bland in person. Also, is the country ready to elect a president who never earned a college degree in this day in age?

Mike Pence- Again, Midwest governor with a solid record. However, he lacks name recognition.

Piyush Jindal - I refuse to call him "Bobby". The guy's a weather vane, really trying to see which way the wind is blowing and usually getting it wrong. When he's term-limited out, he's done.

Marco Rubio - Probably ruined his chances with his flip-flopping on immigration.

Ted Cruz - ONly if the GOP wants to lose 45 states and completely give in to the crazies.

Rand Paul - I honestly don't see this guy winning a single state in the general election. But he could make some serious waves using the same nuts who show up and voted for his dad all those times.

Of that list here is my choices in order:
Cruz (Cruz scares you into thinking he would lose every state, but be willfully ignorant)
Paul (comments on the Civil Rights Act were misinterpreted, but they still will hurt him. Nevertheless, he has great ideas, comes off honest and many would be attracted to him)
Pence (love the guy),
Walker (he is doing amazing things, but the no college record is an issue),
Christie (more fiscally conservative then is given credit for. It is also commendable that he can get so many fiscal conservative things done in such a blue state)
Jindal (like the guy, just like the above better),
Huckabee (he is a fair tax man that excites me, but something about him doesn't jell with me),
Perry (His last campaign did him in for me, despite my love and respect for Texas) and Bush (I don't want another Bush, esp one more liberal then his brother)!

Of the list, both Cruz and Paul will be last ones out of the clown car

Both will ride along as long as they have TeaTard money to spend but neither is capable of winning the White House

 

[Meister]

Actually, Bush ignored the threat of terrorism

and we paid a horrible price

Yes....Boooooooosh.

But, your first black president fragged the intelligence to where the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. CIA and the FBI were not communicating because of Clinton.....at least admit that.

Yes George W Bush was President during the worst terrorist attack in history

George W Bush had no concerns with the threat of terrorism and had yet to meet with his top advisors on the subject

You say he had no concerns......you and I know that was BS. Clinton knew there was an issue....what did he do??????????
Without the dots being connected......just what was Boooooosh supposed to do?
Close the airports? Create Homeland Security before 9/11? Profile the muslims?

Give me a break with your finger pointing.....nothing but partisan politics.

 

[mudwhistle]

The people who are raising money and putting together an infrastructure are Bush, Christie, Paul and Walker. You can't win without either.

I could see a quick groundswell fundraising for Ted Cruz were Rand Paul somehow to bomb out, but it looks like Paul has made the most serious overtures of all during this weird time of every very likely candidate saying "what, me?".




Well, hell, since about half of America has now completely converted to the Bread and Circuses mentality of the Roman Empire, maybe they will simply want to see a Bush-Clinton rematch.

How old is Ross Perot these days??

Isn't it funny the way our media decides who the candidates should be?

I think it's hilarious.....

 

[rightwinger]

Yes....Boooooooosh.

But, your first black president fragged the intelligence to where the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. CIA and the FBI were not communicating because of Clinton.....at least admit that.

Yes George W Bush was President during the worst terrorist attack in history

George W Bush had no concerns with the threat of terrorism and had yet to meet with his top advisors on the subject

You say he had no concerns......you and I know that was BS. Clinton knew there was an issue....what did he do??????????
Without the dots being connected......just what was Boooooosh supposed to do?
Close the airports? Create Homeland Security before 9/11? Profile the muslims?

Give me a break with your finger pointing.....nothing but partisan politics.

Interviews - Richard Clarke | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS

That spring period of '01, there is that meeting where everybody's talking about Iraq, and my memory of things as I've read it is at this meeting, Wolfowitz talks about Laurie Mylroie, [author of Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein's War Against America].

That's right. By the time we'd eventually had a meeting on terrorism, in the late February, early March timeframe -- I don't think the vice president was at it, but Paul Wolfowitz was representing the Defense Department, and Wolfowitz started saying, "Well, if you want to talk about terrorism, fine; let's talk about Iraq, not Al Qaeda," to which my reaction was, "Why Iraq?" Iraq, as far as we know, has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism directed against the United States, and hasn't since late 1992, early 1993.

This is the time when Wolfowitz spouted that "All of what you say is Al Qaeda must actually be state-sponsored, because no terrorist organization could do that without a nation helping them. And the nation must be Iraq, and we know this from reading the writings of this woman, Laurie Mylroie," whom we had known about and checked out several times. She kept writing things that essentially said Iraq was behind the 1993 attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. Despite all of the facts being the opposite, she continued to say this.

Here was the number two person in the Pentagon saying that he agreed with her and disagreed with CIA, with FBI, disagreed with all the massive evidence that Al Qaeda had attacked the World Trade Center in '93, not Iraq. Why anybody as sophisticated as a Wolfowitz or the others would attach themselves to that sort of stuff, I didn't know.

 

[rightwinger]

At what moment do you know that the war on terror is about to take a turn to Baghdad?I think we knew prior to 9/11 that there was serious interest in having something happen with Iraq. People would joke around the water cooler in the West Wing Situation Room, that "We're flying all these planes over Iraq every day, blowing up their radar sites. Maybe ... they'll shoot one down, and that will give us the provocation we need to do war."

Beginning on the night of 9/11, we have the secretary of defense and others talking about going to war with Iraq. I think we knew pretty much that week that the probability of finding a justification for going to war with Iraq was high on their agenda.

The president, in fact, talks to you about it.

Well, the president wandered into the Situation Room, totally unscheduled, just to say, "Hi. Keep it up! Good work!"-- raise everybody's morale. [He] saw me and dragged me and a few others into the conference room and started talking about Iraq, and having me go through all the evidence that we had piled up from the weeks and months before to see if there was a connection between what had happened on 9/11 and Iraq.

And he said: "Saddam! Saddam! See if there's a connection to Saddam!" And this wasn't "See if there's a connection with Iran, and while you're at it, do Iraq, and while you're at it, do the Palestinian Islamic group." It wasn't "Do due diligence." It wasn't "Have an exhaustive review." It was "Saddam, Saddam." I read that pretty clearly, that that was the answer he wanted.

I said to him, "We have already done that research prior to the attack" -- in fact, we'd done it a couple of times -- "and there's nothing there." And the facial expression back was, "That wasn't the right answer."

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes George W Bush was President during the worst terrorist attack in history

George W Bush had no concerns with the threat of terrorism and had yet to meet with his top advisors on the subject

You say he had no concerns......you and I know that was BS. Clinton knew there was an issue....what did he do??????????
Without the dots being connected......just what was Boooooosh supposed to do?
Close the airports? Create Homeland Security before 9/11? Profile the muslims?

Give me a break with your finger pointing.....nothing but partisan politics.

Interviews - Richard Clarke | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS

That spring period of '01, there is that meeting where everybody's talking about Iraq, and my memory of things as I've read it is at this meeting, Wolfowitz talks about Laurie Mylroie, [author of Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein's War Against America].

That's right. By the time we'd eventually had a meeting on terrorism, in the late February, early March timeframe -- I don't think the vice president was at it, but Paul Wolfowitz was representing the Defense Department, and Wolfowitz started saying, "Well, if you want to talk about terrorism, fine; let's talk about Iraq, not Al Qaeda," to which my reaction was, "Why Iraq?" Iraq, as far as we know, has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism directed against the United States, and hasn't since late 1992, early 1993.

This is the time when Wolfowitz spouted that "All of what you say is Al Qaeda must actually be state-sponsored, because no terrorist organization could do that without a nation helping them. And the nation must be Iraq, and we know this from reading the writings of this woman, Laurie Mylroie," whom we had known about and checked out several times. She kept writing things that essentially said Iraq was behind the 1993 attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. Despite all of the facts being the opposite, she continued to say this.

Here was the number two person in the Pentagon saying that he agreed with her and disagreed with CIA, with FBI, disagreed with all the massive evidence that Al Qaeda had attacked the World Trade Center in '93, not Iraq. Why anybody as sophisticated as a Wolfowitz or the others would attach themselves to that sort of stuff, I didn't know.

Richard Clarke was selling a book.

His story was given credence by CBS.

It's nothing but a hit-piece intended to turn public opinion against Bush.

Nothing in the Clarke report prepared us for an attack like 911.

 

[birddog]

I don't see your answer other than Republicans exploiting a terrorist attack for politcal gain

You see things as Ds good Rs bad. As such, anything a D does is okay...hence nothing to see with Benghazi.

We all know if Benghazi happened under an R POTUS, you and the MSM would be screaming IMPEACH NOW!

Your hypocrisy is truly amazing. How can one be so slanted?

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush gave up the worst terrorist attak in the history of the US and Democrats AND the media supported him. I can assure you that Obama would not have been provided the same courtesy

I guess I have to remind you that the cause of the 3,000 lost lives should be primarily laid at the feet of B. Clinton! He refused Bin Laden when offered to him numerous times. Clinton was a weak CIC, and made our country vulnerable.

There has been more of our military's lives lost under Obama then there was under Bush in Afghanistan.