Negative Effects of the GOP Primaries

[Mac1958]

.

Hey, do what Rush is begging: Run a hardcore right-winger and you'll win.

That would be interesting, and instructive. It would make it easy for (1) Obama to run a bit to the center and look like the reasonable candidate, or (2) potentially open up the center for a non-psycho Independent to run. But if the hard right is so convinced that this would work, let's see how it goes, maybe you're right.

This country is rapidly reaching a point where we need to make (and adhere to) the fundamental role of government and our general direction. This mess is bringing us down.

.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Yes yes and yes, oh and if any asshat says the economy is getting better is only fooling themselves. They forget who gives the reports. I mean my god people with all the stimulus nothing changed the economy, and all of a sudden the economy is getting better? Wake the fuck up you fucking ding bats. And don't give me that crap form the BLS that's obama's propaganda machine, or for any sitting president, the president appoints the people in charge over the people who give the unemployment numbers.

Are you saying the stock market is being manipulated, too? It's been up, we haven't raised taxes on the rich and unemployment is going down. Weren't we told the job creators would do their thing, if we didn't raise taxes? You seem to be tripping over your own argument!!!

Are you saying the stock market is being manipulated, too?

OH I get it the stock market is only in play when it's favorable to obama but when it isn't it means nothing? HELL YES IT CAN BE MANIPULATED. Didn't obama bailout wall street a while back. Wall street is just returning the favor close to the election.

LMAO!! You're watching too much Faux News. Bush, Bernanke and Paulson bailed out the banks. $870 billion and didn't even specify how they were to use it. The banks never even missed a convention to luxorious resorts or a bonus to the first VP. Business as usual.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Hey, do what Rush is begging: Run a hardcore right-winger and you'll win.

That would be interesting, and instructive. It would make it easy for (1) Obama to run a bit to the center and look like the reasonable candidate, or (2) potentially open up the center for a non-psycho Independent to run. But if the hard right is so convinced that this would work, let's see how it goes, maybe you're right.

This country is rapidly reaching a point where we need to make (and adhere to) the fundamental role of government and our general direction. This mess is bringing us down.

.

Well, when the GOP does run hard core right wingers, we do win. It's when they try to run "moderates" that they lose. Or we find out the guy who told us he was a conservative turns out not to be. (Bush-41).

Of the four that are left, no one really fits the bill. And part of this problem is that really, the definition of "conservative" has become blurred in a world where Ann Coulter defends socialized medicine if it's done on the state level.

American political parties are coalitions of interest groups, and sometimes those interests don't mesh well. I think this is at least part of the problem the GOP has.

 

[Cammmpbell]

.

Hey, do what Rush is begging: Run a hardcore right-winger and you'll win.

That would be interesting, and instructive. It would make it easy for (1) Obama to run a bit to the center and look like the reasonable candidate, or (2) potentially open up the center for a non-psycho Independent to run. But if the hard right is so convinced that this would work, let's see how it goes, maybe you're right.

This country is rapidly reaching a point where we need to make (and adhere to) the fundamental role of government and our general direction. This mess is bringing us down.

.

Well, when the GOP does run hard core right wingers, we do win. It's when they try to run "moderates" that they lose. Or we find out the guy who told us he was a conservative turns out not to be. (Bush-41).

Of the four that are left, no one really fits the bill. And part of this problem is that really, the definition of "conservative" has become blurred in a world where Ann Coulter defends socialized medicine if it's done on the state level.

American political parties are coalitions of interest groups, and sometimes those interests don't mesh well. I think this is at least part of the problem the GOP has.

I agree with most of what you posted but Bush41 was much more of a conservative than the ex Democrat Ronald Reagan. Reagan never began to cover his more than doubling the national debt. Bush41 at least saw what was happening and raised taxes...not enough but some.

Republicans still haven't figured out that if you're going to take care of the national debt you have to either raise taxes, cut spending or some combination of the two. They have never cut spending a goddam dime and they have constantly cut taxes for the wealthy.

Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993-94 and worked with the new Republican majority from 1994-2000 and not only balanced the annual budget but bought back about $450 billion of real debt and had the thing on track to completely pay off the national debt by 2012. Then along came dumbass George W. Bush who cut taxes twice and proceeded to double the national debt again.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Hey, do what Rush is begging: Run a hardcore right-winger and you'll win.

That would be interesting, and instructive. It would make it easy for (1) Obama to run a bit to the center and look like the reasonable candidate, or (2) potentially open up the center for a non-psycho Independent to run. But if the hard right is so convinced that this would work, let's see how it goes, maybe you're right.

This country is rapidly reaching a point where we need to make (and adhere to) the fundamental role of government and our general direction. This mess is bringing us down.

.

Well, when the GOP does run hard core right wingers, we do win. It's when they try to run "moderates" that they lose. Or we find out the guy who told us he was a conservative turns out not to be. (Bush-41).

Of the four that are left, no one really fits the bill. And part of this problem is that really, the definition of "conservative" has become blurred in a world where Ann Coulter defends socialized medicine if it's done on the state level.

American political parties are coalitions of interest groups, and sometimes those interests don't mesh well. I think this is at least part of the problem the GOP has.

Yup. I'm beginning to think that the problem is in the messengers less than the original message, that they're straying from what works: A clear, unambiguous vision with some positive, hopeful, inspirational rhetoric. Hell, Reagan did some things that would not fit the conservative template, but he was such an inspirational figure that those things are pushed aside and/or forgiven.

Romney seems like a little puppy, wide-eyed and so freakin' eager to please but still not grown up yet; Santorum is like a dark cloud, seemingly unable to appear sincerely positive and hopeful; Newt just appears too cranky and wonkish. Holy crap, have NONE of these campaigns thought to invest a few bucks in public speaking coaches who can show them how to raise a crowd? Have NONE of these campaigns figured out how to write speeches that are positive, uni-directional and uplifting?

Whether we like it or not, image is critical. And this group just doesn't get it. Why in the world not?

.

 

[JoeB131]

To Cammmpell...

the Debt isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. Both of them raised the debt, and right now, Democrats have more of that debt than Republicans do.

The problem with debt is that it's the path of least resistance. Raising taxes is unpopular and so are cutting programs. So they won't do either of those. They'll just borrow.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OH I get it the stock market is only in play when it's favorable to obama but when it isn't it means nothing? HELL YES IT CAN BE MANIPULATED. Didn't obama bailout wall street a while back. Wall street is just returning the favor close to the election.

No, Fox News Viewer, that was George W. Bush that bailed out the banks.

I don't watch fox news. And yes the bailout's of wall street are obama's

Obama’s Wall Street bailout failure
Obama's Wall Street bailout failure - U.S. Economy - Salon.com

Obama pledges bigger Wall Street bailout
Obama pledges bigger Wall Street bailout

 

[Seawytch]

OH I get it the stock market is only in play when it's favorable to obama but when it isn't it means nothing? HELL YES IT CAN BE MANIPULATED. Didn't obama bailout wall street a while back. Wall street is just returning the favor close to the election.

No, Fox News Viewer, that was George W. Bush that bailed out the banks.

I don't watch fox news. And yes the bailout's of wall street are obama's

Obama’s Wall Street bailout failure
Obama's Wall Street bailout failure - U.S. Economy - Salon.com

Obama pledges bigger Wall Street bailout
Obama pledges bigger Wall Street bailout

Nope...

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.​

Troubled Asset Relief Program

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, Fox News Viewer, that was George W. Bush that bailed out the banks.

I don't watch fox news. And yes the bailout's of wall street are obama's

Obama’s Wall Street bailout failure
Obama's Wall Street bailout failure - U.S. Economy - Salon.com

Obama pledges bigger Wall Street bailout
Obama pledges bigger Wall Street bailout

Nope...

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.​

Troubled Asset Relief Program

nope

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3D_wjd12IA]Obama Still Begging Taxpayers To Support Wall Street Bailout Bill - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Seawytch]

LOL.. TARP was signed under Bush. How do you deny actual facts like that? It's truly amazing...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

LOL.. TARP was signed under Bush. How do you deny actual facts like that? It's truly amazing...

Was senator obama supportive of it?

 

[Seawytch]

LOL.. TARP was signed under Bush. How do you deny actual facts like that? It's truly amazing...

Was senator obama supportive of it?

Most of our legislators were. Bush wanted to hand over the money, no strings attached. Obama wanted strings...and lots more than he got too.

 

[Cammmpbell]

.

Hey, do what Rush is begging: Run a hardcore right-winger and you'll win.

That would be interesting, and instructive. It would make it easy for (1) Obama to run a bit to the center and look like the reasonable candidate, or (2) potentially open up the center for a non-psycho Independent to run. But if the hard right is so convinced that this would work, let's see how it goes, maybe you're right.

This country is rapidly reaching a point where we need to make (and adhere to) the fundamental role of government and our general direction. This mess is bringing us down.

.

Well, when the GOP does run hard core right wingers, we do win. It's when they try to run "moderates" that they lose. Or we find out the guy who told us he was a conservative turns out not to be. (Bush-41).

Of the four that are left, no one really fits the bill. And part of this problem is that really, the definition of "conservative" has become blurred in a world where Ann Coulter defends socialized medicine if it's done on the state level.

American political parties are coalitions of interest groups, and sometimes those interests don't mesh well. I think this is at least part of the problem the GOP has.

Yup. I'm beginning to think that the problem is in the messengers less than the original message, that they're straying from what works: A clear, unambiguous vision with some positive, hopeful, inspirational rhetoric. Hell, Reagan did some things that would not fit the conservative template, but he was such an inspirational figure that those things are pushed aside and/or forgiven.

Romney seems like a little puppy, wide-eyed and so freakin' eager to please but still not grown up yet; Santorum is like a dark cloud, seemingly unable to appear sincerely positive and hopeful; Newt just appears too cranky and wonkish. Holy crap, have NONE of these campaigns thought to invest a few bucks in public speaking coaches who can show them how to raise a crowd? Have NONE of these campaigns figured out how to write speeches that are positive, uni-directional and uplifting?

Whether we like it or not, image is critical. And this group just doesn't get it. Why in the world not?

.

Yeah...like running up the national debt and signing a bill in 1986 which granted amnesty to 2.5 million illegals which ultimately granted it to 6 million. About three for each of those and now there are nearly 20 million here for which Reagan is directly responsible.

 

[Full-Auto]

Well, when the GOP does run hard core right wingers, we do win. It's when they try to run "moderates" that they lose. Or we find out the guy who told us he was a conservative turns out not to be. (Bush-41).

Of the four that are left, no one really fits the bill. And part of this problem is that really, the definition of "conservative" has become blurred in a world where Ann Coulter defends socialized medicine if it's done on the state level.

American political parties are coalitions of interest groups, and sometimes those interests don't mesh well. I think this is at least part of the problem the GOP has.

Yup. I'm beginning to think that the problem is in the messengers less than the original message, that they're straying from what works: A clear, unambiguous vision with some positive, hopeful, inspirational rhetoric. Hell, Reagan did some things that would not fit the conservative template, but he was such an inspirational figure that those things are pushed aside and/or forgiven.

Romney seems like a little puppy, wide-eyed and so freakin' eager to please but still not grown up yet; Santorum is like a dark cloud, seemingly unable to appear sincerely positive and hopeful; Newt just appears too cranky and wonkish. Holy crap, have NONE of these campaigns thought to invest a few bucks in public speaking coaches who can show them how to raise a crowd? Have NONE of these campaigns figured out how to write speeches that are positive, uni-directional and uplifting?

Whether we like it or not, image is critical. And this group just doesn't get it. Why in the world not?

.

Yeah...like running up the national debt and signing a bill in 1986 which granted amnesty to 2.5 million illegals which ultimately granted it to 6 million. About three for each of those and now there are nearly 20 million here for which Reagan is directly responsible.

Once again you are a lying piece of shit.

However we currently have the finest catch and release program in the world we even smuggle drugs and guns for them.

 

[DaGoose]

The August GOP Convention in Tampa, Florida could be really interesting unless the candidates decide to put party ahead of personal interests before then. Meanwhile, the improving economy is helping Obama's ratings...

Obama Approval Ratings Rise Tracks Increasing Consumer Confidence

I want to vote against Obama but the GOP won't let me. They have no new ideas to deal with an economy where jobs are so easily outsourced. They support blatant giveaways to the rich like the carried interest exception. They don't care about the declining middle class even though it is a major destabalizing force. They support slashing the budget everywhere but defense even though it accounts for half of discretionary spending and 2 full birds I tales to in the airport said it should be cut.

While I don't like Obama, I like the GOP in congress less and will likely vote for Obama to keep them in check.

That is the most telling quote in this whole thread.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Yup. I'm beginning to think that the problem is in the messengers less than the original message, that they're straying from what works: A clear, unambiguous vision with some positive, hopeful, inspirational rhetoric. Hell, Reagan did some things that would not fit the conservative template, but he was such an inspirational figure that those things are pushed aside and/or forgiven.

Romney seems like a little puppy, wide-eyed and so freakin' eager to please but still not grown up yet; Santorum is like a dark cloud, seemingly unable to appear sincerely positive and hopeful; Newt just appears too cranky and wonkish. Holy crap, have NONE of these campaigns thought to invest a few bucks in public speaking coaches who can show them how to raise a crowd? Have NONE of these campaigns figured out how to write speeches that are positive, uni-directional and uplifting?

Whether we like it or not, image is critical. And this group just doesn't get it. Why in the world not?

.

Yeah...like running up the national debt and signing a bill in 1986 which granted amnesty to 2.5 million illegals which ultimately granted it to 6 million. About three for each of those and now there are nearly 20 million here for which Reagan is directly responsible.

Once again you are a lying piece of shit.

However we currently have the finest catch and release program in the world we even smuggle drugs and guns for them.

A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants : NPR


"As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty — a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism.

In his renewed push for an immigration overhaul this week, President Obama called for Republican support for a bill to address the growing population of illegal immigrants in the country. This time, however, Republicans know better than to tread near the politically toxic A-word.

Part of this aversion is due to what is widely seen as the failure of Reagan's 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. However, one of the lead authors of the bill says that unlike most immigration reform efforts of the past 20 years, amnesty wasn't the pitfall.

"We used the word 'legalization,' " former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson tells NPR's Guy Raz. "And everybody fell asleep lightly for a while, and we were able to do legalization."

The law granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, yet was largely considered unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

LOL.. TARP was signed under Bush. How do you deny actual facts like that? It's truly amazing...

Was senator obama supportive of it?

Most of our legislators were. Bush wanted to hand over the money, no strings attached. Obama wanted strings...and lots more than he got too.

And so did obama even after the election was handed to him he wanted to do it. So don't try and blow smoke up my ass and stay that I'm the one doing it.

 

[IndependntLogic]

And our recovery is happening on it's own, without stimulus, without government intervention, without anything coming down from Capitol Hill.

Yet, idiots see it as partisan. The American People control the market, not Congress and not the Preisdent not Dems and not Republicans. We will spend when it becomes necessary or feels safe, until then y'all continue to think your chosen Messiah is driving this.

I'm thinking all that obstructionism may be paying off.

The OP says the news is being manipulated. Thank you for coming down on the side of the recovery being real.

I did not say the news is being manipulated.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Yes yes and yes, oh and if any asshat says the economy is getting better is only fooling themselves. They forget who gives the reports. I mean my god people with all the stimulus nothing changed the economy, and all of a sudden the economy is getting better? Wake the fuck up you fucking ding bats. And don't give me that crap form the BLS that's obama's propaganda machine, or for any sitting president, the president appoints the people in charge over the people who give the unemployment numbers.

Are you saying the stock market is being manipulated, too? It's been up, we haven't raised taxes on the rich and unemployment is going down. Weren't we told the job creators would do their thing, if we didn't raise taxes? You seem to be tripping over your own argument!!!

Are you saying the stock market is being manipulated, too?

OH I get it the stock market is only in play when it's favorable to obama but when it isn't it means nothing? HELL YES IT CAN BE MANIPULATED. Didn't obama bailout wall street a while back. Wall street is just returning the favor close to the election.

Okay, seriously I try never to insult (at least unless it's in retaliation) so I'm going to be careful here.
Let me guess this straight: You think Wall Street is in favor of an Obama re-election and therefore, manipulating stock to help further that agenda?
Because um, Obama is just such a big fan of the rich and corporations?

Think about what you're suggesting for a moment.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Are you saying the stock market is being manipulated, too? It's been up, we haven't raised taxes on the rich and unemployment is going down. Weren't we told the job creators would do their thing, if we didn't raise taxes? You seem to be tripping over your own argument!!!

Are you saying the stock market is being manipulated, too?

OH I get it the stock market is only in play when it's favorable to obama but when it isn't it means nothing? HELL YES IT CAN BE MANIPULATED. Didn't obama bailout wall street a while back. Wall street is just returning the favor close to the election.

Okay, seriously I try never to insult (at least unless it's in retaliation) so I'm going to be careful here.
Let me guess this straight: You think Wall Street is in favor of an Obama re-election and therefore, manipulating stock to help further that agenda?
Because um, Obama is just such a big fan of the rich and corporations?

Think about what you're suggesting for a moment.

Republicans=Support of Corporations and the Wealthy
Democrats =Advocate for Civil Rights and Support of Working America