2012 - Here we come!

[Barbbtx]

I would agree with much of your analysis about Romney. And since he would be the most electable GOP candidate to the general voting population, that spells trouble for the Republican Party. Based on what we just witnessed in the 2010 GOP primary battles, there is little reason not to believe it will be a battle for the teaparty/right wing base vote and the candidate who captures that will be the nominee.

I agree. Romney won't be able to spark the enthusiasm needed for the tea party support.

 

[Barbbtx]

Great idea on the third party. I want the tea party to actually truly become The Tea Party. Then Sarah can get the nomination and be off to the races.

I'm sure you would. What's the matter? Do you think Obama loses unless the Republican party gets split in half? You have that little faith in him?

 

[haymarket]

I'm sure you would. What's the matter? Do you think Obama loses unless the Republican party gets split in half? You have that little faith in him?

I am a very old fashioned person who believes in upping the odds in my favor as much as is possible. Divide and conquer is not exactly a new concept and I endorse it will all my body and soul.

 

[Grant]

Yeh. And think about how things change in just TWO YEARS. Republicans now have to rule. That's a lot harder than just screaming NO! at everything.

Things have become worse in the last two years and, as BHO had the majority in both houses, whatever the Republicans said didn't matter, whether it was yes or no. The fact the BHO couldn't govern even when he had a majority says more about his inability rather than a reflection of a party on the sidelines. In fact, in order to pass Obamacare, he even had to change the accepted custom from 60-40 to 50-50. And of course there was also Democrats in that dissent.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Things have become worse in the last two years and, as BHO had the majority in both houses, whatever the Republicans said didn't matter, whether it was yes or no. The fact the BHO couldn't govern even when he had a majority says more about his inability rather than a reflection of a party on the sidelines. In fact, in order to pass Obamacare, he even had to change the accepted custom from 60-40 to 50-50. And of course there was also Democrats in that dissent.

Uh...things are worse now than they were in November, 2008 when the economy was still in free-fall?

November, 2008 - net loss of 533,000 jobs.

October, 2010 - net gain of 150,000 jobs.

Hrmm...which looks "better" to you?

GDP growth, 3rd Quarter 2008 - -.03%
GDP growth, 3rd Quater 2010 - +2.0%

Which looks better to you?

Now - we're not out of the mess and everyone knows that. But to claim we're worse off now than we were two years ago is utterly inaccurate and false.

 

[the makeout hobo]

None of that matters if he keeps pissing off the liberals by heading rightward on so many issues.

I think once it's a presidential elections and the liberals are given the choice between a president Obama and a president Huckabee/Palin/Gingrich, the dems will be more enthusiastic. Plus, Obama wasn't on the ballot in 10, we don't know how he'll really do.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Things have become worse in the last two years and, as BHO had the majority in both houses, whatever the Republicans said didn't matter, whether it was yes or no. The fact the BHO couldn't govern even when he had a majority says more about his inability rather than a reflection of a party on the sidelines. In fact, in order to pass Obamacare, he even had to change the accepted custom from 60-40 to 50-50. And of course there was also Democrats in that dissent.

The "60-40" accepted custom only started recently, especially after the GOP started a blanket policy of filibustering everything. It's not some sacred "accepted custom". I agree Obama should have been more forceful governing, and ignored the GOP whining "he's not listening to us, he's not being nice to us, waaaa", when they didn't once actually try to collaborate with him, and opposed him on just about everything, even when they agreed or didn't have an issue (just look at how many nominations were filibustered without any actual problems with the nominee).

 

[the makeout hobo]

Uh...things are worse now than they were in November, 2008 when the economy was still in free-fall?

November, 2008 - net loss of 533,000 jobs.

October, 2010 - net gain of 150,000 jobs.

Hrmm...which looks "better" to you?

GDP growth, 3rd Quarter 2008 - -.03%
GDP growth, 3rd Quater 2010 - +2.0%

Which looks better to you?

Now - we're not out of the mess and everyone knows that. But to claim we're worse off now than we were two years ago is utterly inaccurate and false.

A large portion of the GOP has long divorced themselves from facts. This should not surprise you. This is the same movement that complains about Obama raising taxes when they're at a near record low.

 

[Barbbtx]

I think once it's a presidential elections and the liberals are given the choice between a president Obama and a president Huckabee/Palin/Gingrich, the dems will be more enthusiastic. Plus, Obama wasn't on the ballot in 10, we don't know how he'll really do.

A large part of the election was a referendum on Obama's policies and over spending. He's got to the right, not left, or he won't stand a chance in 2012.
There aren't enough liberals to pull him across the line. He needs to win back the independents and the dems who abandoned him.

 

[the makeout hobo]

A large part of the election was a referendum on Obama's policies and over spending. He's got to the right, not left, or he won't stand a chance in 2012.
There aren't enough liberals to pull him across the line. He needs to win back the independents and the dems who abandoned him.

I have a question. Why is it that anytime a republican loses, the chorus is "he needs to move to the right to appeal to the base", and everytime a democrat loses its "he needs to move to the right, away from the base"

 

[Barbbtx]

I have a question. Why is it that anytime a republican loses, the chorus is "he needs to move to the right to appeal to the base", and everytime a democrat loses its "he needs to move to the right, away from the base"

Because it's always the right thing to do.:mrgreen:

CBS Poll: Majority of Likely Voters Say Their House Vote is a Referendum on Barack Obama … More Voting Against Obama Than For The One | Scared Monkeys
A majority of likely voters say their House vote is a referendum on President Obama, and more are voting against the president than for him. Thirty-two percent are casting a vote against Mr. Obama, while 22 percent are casting their vote to support him. Forty-two percent say their vote is about something else.

 

[Grant]

Uh...things are worse now than they were in November, 2008 when the economy was still in free-fall?

November, 2008 - net loss of 533,000 jobs.

October, 2010 - net gain of 150,000 jobs.

Hrmm...which looks "better" to you?

GDP growth, 3rd Quarter 2008 - -.03%
GDP growth, 3rd Quater 2010 - +2.0%

Which looks better to you?

Now - we're not out of the mess and everyone knows that. But to claim we're worse off now than we were two years ago is utterly inaccurate and false.

Perhaps it will improve somewhat but I'm a skeptic. Unemployment rates and the debt are too high, leadership is weak and uncertain, and investment is going elsewhere.

But I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Because it's always the right thing to do.:mrgreen:

CBS Poll: Majority of Likely Voters Say Their House Vote is a Referendum on Barack Obama … More Voting Against Obama Than For The One | Scared Monkeys
A majority of likely voters say their House vote is a referendum on President Obama, and more are voting against the president than for him. Thirty-two percent are casting a vote against Mr. Obama, while 22 percent are casting their vote to support him. Forty-two percent say their vote is about something else.

This is somewhat disingenous. 42% weren't about Obmaa, and 32% were anti-Obama, and 22% were pro-Obama. so only 32% of people voted anti-Obama. I'm wiling to bet the vast majority of those people didn't vote for him in 08

 

[Grant]

The "60-40" accepted custom only started recently, especially after the GOP started a blanket policy of filibustering everything.

They weren't filibustering everything".

I agree Obama should have been more forceful governing, and ignored the GOP whining "he's not listening to us, he's not being nice to us, waaaa",

Changing from the traditional 50/50 to 60/40 was pretty forceful and, actually, the majority of the American people were against Obamacare also. I don't believe, apart from the Left, that the majority of Americans are "whiners".

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Perhaps it will improve somewhat but I'm a sceptic. Employment and the debt is too high, leadership is weak and uncertain, and investment is going elsewhere.

But I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

Your right but for the wrong reasons¨

The economy has improved, because of the massive amount of debt taken on during the last couple of years. This debt of course is unsustainable, and will result in the government having to cut back. When combined with the personal spending cutbacks, and as a result corporate spending cutbacks things will get worse. To have prevented it or limiting it would have required taking actions in 2004-5, 2007 was too late, 2008 far too late

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

They weren't filibustering everything".


Changing from the traditional 50/50 to 60/40 was pretty forceful and, actually, the majority of the American people were against Obamacare also. I don't believe, apart from the Left, that the majority of Americans are "whiners".

How many people opposed to Obamacare are on medicare, from what I can recall a fair number of people, medicare is just a limited from of obamacare, and some advertised that obama care was going to negatively effect their medicare. That does not make them against government health care, it just makes them against the possibility of having to share

 

[Barbbtx]

This is somewhat disingenous. 42% weren't about Obmaa, and 32% were anti-Obama, and 22% were pro-Obama. so only 32% of people voted anti-Obama. I'm wiling to bet the vast majority of those people didn't vote for him in 08

The point is, this was mid-term elections and 32% were voting as a referendum against the President.
They sure weren't voting because they loved the Republicans. They were sending a message that they don't like Obama's policies.
Of course he's too stupid (along with Pelosi and Reid) to see that.
Let them stay way left then. They'll be sent another message in 2012 if they do.

 

[Grant]

How many people opposed to Obamacare are on medicare, from what I can recall a fair number of people, medicare is just a limited from of obamacare, and some advertised that obama care was going to negatively effect their medicare. That does not make them against government health care, it just makes them against the possibility of having to share

Of course, if people can get something from the government they will take it. And they'll get used to it, then claim it is a "right" and when the money is no longer there, and that day will soon come, there'll be riots in the States as there is in Western Europe.

Medicare was intended to be a minor program but it ballooned out of all proportion from its original intentions. Obamacare is intended to be a big program and it will dominate economies and political life in the United States until the country collapses. The US will have changed from a free and independent people to one dependent on government handouts.

The riots will continue in Europe as the population ages and the economies wither. That should have sent a signal to Obama but his head, from what he was taught by his mentors, is still in the 1960's. There is no turning back.

 

[Barbbtx]

How many people opposed to Obamacare are on medicare, from what I can recall a fair number of people, medicare is just a limited from of obamacare, and some advertised that obama care was going to negatively effect their medicare. That does not make them against government health care, it just makes them against the possibility of having to share

Obamacare takes 500B out of Medicare. So whether you are for or against Medicare, Obamacare sucks.
Most people want to save medicare and medicaid if possible, although they need reformed. That doesn't mean they want the entire HC system taken over by the govt.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Obamacare takes 500B out of Medicare. So whether you are for or against Medicare, Obamacare sucks.
Most people want to save medicare and medicaid if possible, although they need reformed. That doesn't mean they want the entire HC system taken over by the govt.

They were concerned about themselves receiving less government provided health care, while others received some. They were being selfish leeches, opposing other people recieving the same sort of care they did

 

[Grant]

They were concerned about themselves receiving less government provided health care, while others received some. They were being selfish leeches, opposing other people recieving the same sort of care they did

You'll find that when it comes to government handouts, everyone becomes selfish leeches. That's just the nature of the beast and you shouldn't be surprised.

Everybody wants someone else to pay, and if they don't now they will when they become dependent later.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

You'll find that when it comes to government handouts, everyone becomes selfish leeches. That's just the nature of the beast and you shouldn't be surprised.

Everybody wants someone else to pay, and if they don't now they will when they become dependent later.

No not everyone

Most people will use health care only when they need it, most people will only use unemployement insurance when they need it, most people would prefer not to be on unemployement

The goal should be to provide the above services to those people when they need it, and diligently look for and stop those that abuse those services. The vast majority of Canadian have access to health care, (taxpayer funded) yet most Canadians do not abuse the health care system. Going to the hospital is rather a hassle, getting unneeded medical care like a colonoscopy rather not enjoyable, but sometimes needed, by the rich or the poor

 

[ptif219]

Yeh. And think about how things change in just TWO YEARS.

Republicans now have to rule. That's a lot harder than just screaming NO! at everything. And Republicans should know that since they made the 2000s the worst economic decade in Post WW2 American history.

You can pretend that everyone loves you, but if you all don't get things done (and you won't), they'll turn on you very quickly.

Personally, the best thing that could happen is if Bloomberg (or someone) would run as an independent and a new third party could form around him. We desperately need to bring an end to this duopoly.

Wrong the dems still have the senate and the presidency so we will see them be the obstructionist or should I say the party of NO

 

[ptif219]

Uh...things are worse now than they were in November, 2008 when the economy was still in free-fall?

November, 2008 - net loss of 533,000 jobs.

October, 2010 - net gain of 150,000 jobs.

Hrmm...which looks "better" to you?

GDP growth, 3rd Quarter 2008 - -.03%
GDP growth, 3rd Quater 2010 - +2.0%

Which looks better to you?

Now - we're not out of the mess and everyone knows that. But to claim we're worse off now than we were two years ago is utterly inaccurate and false.

Funny how you forget about all the millions of job losses since Obama took office

 

[Barbbtx]

Wooohooooo!
I had to bump this up.
I just heard Steve King say he might run. He had a twinkle in his eye that said YES it's almost for sure.:2party:
He is super conservative and a tea party supporter.
Now if we could get him and Herman Cain on a ticket, I'd be in heaven.
Of course I don't want to leave Sarah Palin in the cold. She can be our energy czar.