There is no way we are going to get a Republican President any time soon.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Duke41

Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin. Too much us against those liberal idiots stuff. Too much hatred, racism, fear mongering. We need a moderate Republican president and we are not going to get one. Romney may be too weird, Santorum too weird and Gingrich too weird. We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? This just sucks. Wait till the Bush tax cuts end next year. Ouch! The dems aren't going away anytime soon and the Big O has done a pretty fair job as president, so let the republicans continue to polarize the country and they can sit and bitch and bitch and bitch for another 4 years.

"Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin."

IMHO, there are far more nutbags on the other side (Anthony Weiner, Deb Washerman-Shultz, Barney Frank, Obama for that matter...and if you don't like Rush (and I'm no fan) take a look at the prime time line up at MSNBC.

Don't give up hope. A Romney-Rubio ticket will be quite formidable. Romney, once he's officially the candidate, will have broad appeal. It will likely come down to the economy. If unemployment keeps improving, and the stock market is up, Obama will be tough. If the market tanks, if gas prices hit $5 a gallon, Obama is very vulnerable.

"We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? "

We tried that in 2008 with McCain, didn't we? And again, why don't you consider Romney a moderate? He's a hell of a lot more moderate than Obama, who is probably the most ideologically extreme president we've ever had...

"the Big O has done a pretty fair job as president"

His approval ratings are below 50%. And wait till gas hits $5 a gallon...he's way more vulnerable than you seem to think...I give him an A- on killing terrorists, a resounding F on the economy (at this point, if a president doesn't at least TRY to do anything to address social security and medicare, they get an F).

"The dems aren't going away anytime soon"

Did you forget 2010 already? The GOP absolutely took the Dems out to the woodshed in 2010, and all the polls say that the GOP is only going to pick up more house and Senate seats this year (in 2010, the Dems were lucky in that very few Democratic senators were up for re-election, not so this year). However, the presidential contest will be tight, I think...

"let the republicans continue to polarize the country "

Our country is more divided now than any time since the Civil War, and that all starts with Obama IMHO. He's very, very divisive...When he says that people like me cling to our guns and religion because we are bitter and racist, when he says conservatives have to sit in the back of the bus, when he blames wealthy folks for everything except the Lindburgh baby kidnapping, nothing is more divisive than that. What has Romney said that's as polarizing as those things?

This presidential election, like most, will come down to two things.

(1) who gets the majority of independent voters in the 8 (or so) swing states. Obama is losing independents in droves, particularly in the states that matter (FL, NC, VA, PA, OH, CO, MN, WI). If Rubio is the VP, FL is no longer a swing state, and that's huge.

(2) which side has the more passionate turnout - the youth and black vote was very high in 2008 because of the Obama "cool" factor. Let's see if he can duplicate that. The Tea Party is still a major force in American politics. The Occupy anarchists have all moved back into their parents' basements.

Way too early to call, as it will all depend on the economy. I see this as the most important presidential election in our lifetime. Although if he gets re-elected,. the GOP will control the house and very likely the Senate, so he won't be able to do much.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Way to many nut bags in the house. Rush, Gingrich, Palin."

IMHO, there are far more nutbags on the other side (Anthony Weiner, Deb Washerman-Shultz, Barney Frank, Obama for that matter...and if you don't like Rush (and I'm no fan) take a look at the prime time line up at MSNBC.

And the proverbial "my side isn't as bad as that other group" defense. I appreciate the timing.

"We can't just come up with some normal moderate. why not? "

We tried that in 2008 with McCain, didn't we? And again, why don't you consider Romney a moderate? He's a hell of a lot more moderate than Obama, who is probably the most ideologically extreme president we've ever had...

Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. Palin is anything but a moderate. And with regards to Romney, he's so spineless that no one knows where he is any more. He's as moderate or conservative as the group he is pandering to. I've said this before, Romney is the guy in the room that yells "Hey, I can be Conservative too. Let me show you."

"let the republicans continue to polarize the country "

Our country is more divided now than any time since the Civil War, and that all starts with Obama IMHO. He's very, very divisive...When he says that people like me cling to our guns and religion because we are bitter and racist, when he says conservatives have to sit in the back of the bus, when he blames wealthy folks for everything except the Lindburgh baby kidnapping, nothing is more divisive than that. What has Romney said that's as polarizing as those things?

I don't think the polarization all starts with Obama. I think his stance against the Republicans is a product of a polarizing buildup that has been happening since the latter part of Clinton. While their has been some slight decrease lately, there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House. At the same time, Obama has been just as unwilling to bend as the Republicans have been.

This presidential election, like most, will come down to two things.

(1) who gets the majority of independent voters in the 8 (or so) swing states. Obama is losing independents in droves, particularly in the states that matter (FL, NC, VA, PA, OH, CO, MN, WI). If Rubio is the VP, FL is no longer a swing state, and that's huge.

While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes.

Way too early to call, as it will all depend on the economy. I see this as the most important presidential election in our lifetime. Although if he gets re-elected,. the GOP will control the house and very likely the Senate, so he won't be able to do much.

At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

And the proverbial "my side isn't as bad as that other group" defense. I appreciate the timing.


Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. Palin is anything but a moderate. And with regards to Romney, he's so spineless that no one knows where he is any more. He's as moderate or conservative as the group he is pandering to. I've said this before, Romney is the guy in the room that yells "Hey, I can be Conservative too. Let me show you."


I don't think the polarization all starts with Obama. I think his stance against the Republicans is a product of a polarizing buildup that has been happening since the latter part of Clinton. While their has been some slight decrease lately, there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House. At the same time, Obama has been just as unwilling to bend as the Republicans have been.


While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes.


At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue.

"Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. "

Johnny, I hear this all the time. All the time. And it's demonstrably false. After McCain picked Palin, he surged ahead of Obama in the polls, and he stayed right there until the economy tanked.

I'm not saying I think Palin was qualified, or even that she was a good candidate (in my opinion). I'm saying that the economy, not her selection, doomed McCain. The polls at that time validate my theory, and dispute yours.

"there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House."

Agreed. That's also what heppend when there's a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

"While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes."

You might be right. Maybe the independents aren't enthralled with Romney. But as they flee Obama, there's only one other realistic place to go. If "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" it what it takes to get this Mao-ist out of the Oval Office, I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a GOP candidate that actually energizes folks. But winning this election is what's important, not how you play.

"At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue."

I don't subtly admit, I'll say it explicitly. And furthermore, I say "thank God" for their obstructionism. If one believes in a radically conservative idea (oh, for example, that $60 trillion in debt is a bad thing), is such a person supposed to capitulate to Obama and give him a blank check?

When the Democrats resisted Bush, I kept hearing that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism". Now that Obama wears the crown, those same folks claim that dissent is the lowest form of racism.

My solution is to throw all the bums out (both parties), and elect normal people who actually know how to do things, with very strict term limits. We need true civilian legislators, not career politicians who want to stay in DC their whole lives to show what a big lasagna they are.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. "

Johnny, I hear this all the time. All the time. And it's demonstrably false. After McCain picked Palin, he surged ahead of Obama in the polls, and he stayed right there until the economy tanked.

I'm not saying I think Palin was qualified, or even that she was a good candidate (in my opinion). I'm saying that the economy, not her selection, doomed McCain. The polls at that time validate my theory, and dispute yours.

"there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House."

Agreed. That's also what heppend when there's a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

"While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes."

You might be right. Maybe the independents aren't enthralled with Romney. But as they flee Obama, there's only one other realistic place to go. If "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" it what it takes to get this Mao-ist out of the Oval Office, I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a GOP candidate that actually energizes folks. But winning this election is what's important, not how you play.

"At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue."

I don't subtly admit, I'll say it explicitly. And furthermore, I say "thank God" for their obstructionism. If one believes in a radically conservative idea (oh, for example, that $60 trillion in debt is a bad thing), is such a person supposed to capitulate to Obama and give him a blank check?

When the Democrats resisted Bush, I kept hearing that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism". Now that Obama wears the crown, those same folks claim that dissent is the lowest form of racism.

It almost pains me to say this, but I don't think we're all that far off from each other. It's pretty much a wait-and-see situation right now. The only thing I don't agree with you on is how much the price of gas will affect Obama. Once he was elected (so, putting aside the hollow campaign promises), Obama has been pretty consistent. Included in that consistency is his drive towards Clean Energy. He took a lot of heat with Solyndra (sp?), but at the same time, he has continually pressed that we need to stop s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g oil from Middle East nipples. With that in mind, I think he will be able to *leverage* the high fuel prices and (as I stated in another thread) displace blame for high fuel costs onto the Republicans refusing to vote on energy reform.

My solution is to throw all the bums out (both parties), and elect normal people who actually know how to do things, with very strict term limits. We need true civilian legislators, not career politicians who want to stay in DC their whole lives to show what a big lasagna they are.

Couldn't agree with you more on this one.