No. of Recommendations: 10
After railing for years about making tough choices with respect to Social Security and Medicare, he caved and went for the money.

Hey, why not. We live in an age of dumba$$ Obama voters who can't be bothered with small nuggets of knowledge like, say, who actually has control of Congress and when. So why shouldn't CC grab the money? He has an election for gov to win.

This to me is strike three. Strike 1 was the lame convention speech. Strike 2 was French kissing Obama over Sandy.

If he runs I'll happily not vote in 2016 and keep my money. Let Hillary! finish off the work that Obama started and preside over America's final decline.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If he runs I'll happily not vote in 2016 and keep my money. Let Hillary! finish off the work that Obama started and preside over America's final decline.
_____________________

Now I agree that Christie has been a non-Conservative, but I never thought he was.

As a governor, did he do what makes sense for NJ?

Well, if your analysis is that you are essentially facing a choice akin to
OK, you choose, I will give you ten bucks and then slap the heck out of you AND I will slap the heck out of you -- and you chose option 1 to give the money to your family -- is that a bad choice?

We can go back to many of Romney's choices. As a governor, he made choices that made sense for Massachusetts, but which would not be good as a President.

It is possible to make choices that make sense as a Governor that serve neither your nation nor your party. But you are dealing with someone else making rules you have to deal with. YOu can believe those rules suck and were put in place by a moron, but they are still something you must deal with.

Christie, I do not think is a good choice for Conservatives. He is a total east coast Republican, Romney without core conviction I would say
, but he is pragmatic and sane, which is so far superior to any Dem, I admit I would vote for him

I say that because I have seen Obama. I would vote for ANY Republican versus what the Dems are. I will not actively support him I will rail against him in the primaries, but I will 100 percent vote for him, as he is wrong on multiple issues, but I think they are issues he would not have made others deal with.

Frankly, I hope conservatives vote for anyone the Republicans run, no matter how noxious. Unless of course there is a real third party run by the Tea Party, in which case anyone voting Republican, no matter how bad the Tea Party candidate is(if they are bad).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm with you Dope. CC's all about himself, not conservative principles or doing the right thing. And he makes big theater and draws ooh's and aah's when he chooses to go into his "tough guy tell it like it is" schtick.

He's a liberal pretending to be a conservative. We've seen too many of these so called Mavericks end up screwing the republican party and conservatives.

But the LIV's love the drama and think his act makes him a viable candidate for president. LIV's tend to shy away from substance and swallow show whole, kind of like what they did in voting for 0bama, a hollow man, an empty suit.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Frankly, I hope conservatives vote for anyone the Republicans run, no matter how noxious.

This kind of thinking, which I at one time agreed with, only tends to make estabilshment republicans and RINO's think they have a chance to just serve up a better version of Romney, Dole, or McCain. In each case they lost. If conservatives refuse to vote for these imitations of the real thing, the margin of defeat will be much greater and the establishment types will have to look to other reasons for their losses and perhaps they won't villify and marginalize conservatives and Tea Partiers. It didn't take long for the establishment repubs to forget who it was that helped them gain back the House.

Just like LIV's need to feel the pain of liberal policies before they stop being stupid and vote democrat, the RINO's need to feel the pain of always serving up establishment types to run for Prez. Voting for a third party candidate should make that clear to them. Heck, McCain got more republican voters than did Romney. We are on the right track.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just like LIV's need to feel the pain of liberal policies before they stop being stupid and vote democrat, the RINO's need to feel the pain of always serving up establishment types to run for Prez. Voting for a third party candidate should make that clear to them. Heck, McCain got more republican voters than did Romney. We are on the right track.

In the meantime, while you keep holding out hope that your imaginary perfect candidate will materialize out of thin air, we keep getting stuck with the Obamas of the world.

That's the voting equivalent of penny wise, pound foolish.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's the voting equivalent of penny wise, pound foolish.

Continuing to lose (doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results) is wise?

We need to lose all of our pennies before we can start to restore the country. The current path is like a freight train which cannot be stopped. It must reach its destination before any real change can come about.

I'm with Jedi now. You keep voting for losers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What do you realistically expect him to do? He's the CEO of a deep blue state. Just like Scott Brown is as conservative as we can realistically expect out of MA, CC is just about as conservative as we can realistically expect out of NJ.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This kind of thinking, which I at one time agreed with, only tends to make estabilshment republicans and RINO's think they have a chance to just serve up a better version of Romney, Dole, or McCain. In each case they lost. If conservatives refuse to vote for these imitations of the real thing, the margin of defeat will be much greater and the establishment types will have to look to other reasons for their losses and perhaps they won't villify and marginalize conservatives and Tea Partiers. It didn't take long for the establishment repubs to forget who it was that helped them gain back the House.
____________________

To each their own of course.

I happen to still believe that Romney was the prefect person to be President at this point in time. Some time a transnational figure can be better than am ideologue,

Frankly, with the exception of Newt there was no one that got close to running, other than Romney, that I would have trusted to be even remotely near trusting.

Do I think a conservative would win? YEs I do, I am actually quite certain of it. Unless of course conservatives decide they are so large and in charge that they cheese of Republican moderates who stay home.

The party does lean conservative, and needs someone to take them there, have success and get them to lean further that way. A conservative Obama would be a terrible choice, and a conservative who is jst not up to leading or understanding the need for some degree of consensus would IMO also be a terrible choice.

Staying home? You are wrong, you could not be more wrong. Unless you agree with Jedi and Dope that we have to collapse. Frankly they may be right, but the belief there is a light at the end of the collapse? Maybe, maybe not, lots of times that light is the trains and after your butt is run over you do not recover, you are simply road kill
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Continuing to lose (doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results) is wise?
_____________________________

George Bush did not lose

Chris Christie did not lose

Rubio did not lose

Republican candidates all over the scale did not lose.

However, I can come up with a scenario where we can see Republicans lose a lot more, demand conformity to the ideology of any of them, and do not vote if they want consensus across groups.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I was referring to recent presidential candidates.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Anyone think trashing the Tea Party cost the Republicans big time in the last election?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I was referring to recent presidential candidates.
______________________

I understand, I just think it is important to note that all this Republicans are dead and can not compete etc is grossly overstated.

Republicans did a very bad job and fighting a media that does not call out your opponents when they lie and puts landmines in your way at eery turn is tough.

It is a lot easier to do that on the national than the local level, which is IMO one of the reasons that Dems do well in national elections.

But the Presidency is a whole bunch of state elections.

Republicans need to run the table in the Conservative places and win some of the not clearly one way or the other states.

A conservative IMO is a much better choice to do that. However, that conservative has to be a centrist, and does have to ensure all that the social issues may be important to him, but are not a focus and family issues etc are not really his job, and lay out what his/her job is and why what they will do is better than their opponent

Most importantly, the candidate has to both battle the media and be completely consistent. This is where a right leaning conservative will fail. He will get inconsistent in knowing he can not change what he would like quickly and will botch up explaining that, similarly it iw were a Christie/McCain/Romney will fall as he well as the longer term vision and quick change will be impossible to reconcile so anyone sane can be attacked as inconsistent.

We need someone who can pick out a message and stay on it, and lead all back to that message, A message of conservative economic policy, and a conservative belief in not interfering with people's lives, but also not imposing a rapid dis allocation of what is in place, with a constant focus on change and rather than on what the end position is which can be attacked, rather a focus on the action required for change how those actions will make people better. A conservative truth teller with a vision on a people level that Democrats have hurt old people, have hurt working people and are hurting children even worse than either of those two groups. Someone who understand a caring message and understand that there are a lot of policies with not way out of them in any meaningful way so who supports them and makes them better not just castigates them(and in so doing sound liberal)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Anyone think trashing the Tea Party cost the Republicans big time in the last election?
__________________________

Not as much as it will cost them if they chose to force the Tea Party to run a Presidential Candidate

To not be able to integrate the Tea Party into the Republican fold is a level of political incompetence of awesome scope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've got news for you. Christie will be the 2016 candidate if he doesn't have a heart attack or severe type II diabetes before then.

He'll run the early primary states, just like Romney and McCain, unless FL and TX get uppity and move their primaries back.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Anyone think trashing the Tea Party cost the Republicans big time in the last election?

Yep! The caving on the debt ceiling just after getting elected to the majority in the House - thanks to the Tea Party - to deal with the deficit and debt is what did them in. Repub establishment bit the hand that fed it. They are ashamed of Tea Party types, you know those awful extremists who think like the founding fathers.

Don't be surprised if Boehner caves again after talking tough and telling 0bama that he's already had his tax hikes and he will NOT raise taxes. Obama will play them like a fiddle AGAIN, just like in the past. He will use the bully pulpit and paint them in the corner as extremists until they once again cry uncle and surrender. This crop of republicans are wusses and will never regain the White House, the Senate, and are likely to lose the House in 2014 because they don't have any nads. We don't need perfect candidates, just ones with the intestinal fortitude to stand up uncompromisingly for their principles and who are not afraid to fight back in kind against the phony rhetoric offered up by the hollow man.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just like LIV's need to feel the pain of liberal policies before they stop being stupid and vote democrat, the RINO's need to feel the pain of always serving up establishment types to run for Prez. Voting for a third party candidate should make that clear to them. Heck, McCain got more republican voters than did Romney. We are on the right track.

In the meantime, while you keep holding out hope that your imaginary perfect candidate will materialize out of thin air, we keep getting stuck with the Obamas of the world.


The catch is...

Voting for the Obama-clone with the (R) after his name is not clearly better than voting for the Obama-clone with the (D) after his name.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What do you realistically expect him to do? He's the CEO of a deep blue state. Just like Scott Brown is as conservative as we can realistically expect out of MA, CC is just about as conservative as we can realistically expect out of NJ.


That doesn't excuse his awful speech at the Republican Convention. It was all about him when it should have been all about why he thought Mitt Romney would make a good president.
Talk about narcissism. You would have thought that Chris Christie was running for president at that convention.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That doesn't excuse his awful speech at the Republican Convention. It was all about him when it should have been all about why he thought Mitt Romney would make a good president.

Never saw the speech. I did hear him pleasuring Obama after Sandy, however.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What do you realistically expect him to do? He's the CEO of a deep blue state. Just like Scott Brown is as conservative as we can realistically expect out of MA, CC is just about as conservative as we can realistically expect out of NJ.

As I said, it's not just the one thing, it's a combo that's turning me off. One can certainly make the argument for doing the right thing by his state for the hurricane thing, gun control, etc. That's his prerogative. I see him as the kind of guy who will scold his way to the nomination. I've no desire to be lectured; we had enough of that with McCain in '08.

He has to do what he has to do to get reelected. Fine and dandy.

The other problem I have is that I don't see anybody beating Hillary! in '16 no matter what we run. We live in a day and age where the facts don't matter anymore. Think about this: Barack Obama. Heralder of the worst recovery in living memory. Every one of *his* policies has been a measurable disaster. A man described as having "marshmallows for b@lls" who can't make decisions.

And the voters turned out in droves to re-elect him. Bleech.

Now go ahead to 2016. Hillary! will run. What's her record? A divisive and unlikeable first lady. An inconsequential carpetbagged Senate seat. And a mediocre (that's being kind) run as SecState. Yet she's hailed as a great stateswoman and people want her to win...just because she's a woman.

The game in 2016 is rigged. So why play? I'd rather go down with my principles intact and my head held high this time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ditto!

Josh Randall, reincarnated after getting the death penalty recently.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Never saw the speech. I did hear him pleasuring Obama after Sandy, however.

Yes, and that was equally disgraceful.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The other problem I have is that I don't see anybody beating Hillary! in '16 no matter what we run.


I have to agree with you. If Hillary runs in 2016 she most likely will win.
If she sees a path to victory, she will take it. The polling already shows that she beats everyone no matter what party.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Christie, I do not think is a good choice for Conservatives. He is a total east coast Republican, Romney without core conviction I would say
, but he is pragmatic and sane, which is so far superior to any Dem, I admit I would vote for him

I say that because I have seen Obama. I would vote for ANY Republican versus what the Dems are. I will not actively support him I will rail against him in the primaries, but I will 100 percent vote for him, as he is wrong on multiple issues, but I think they are issues he would not have made others deal with.

Frankly, I hope conservatives vote for anyone the Republicans run, no matter how noxious. Unless of course there is a real third party run by the Tea Party, in which case anyone voting Republican, no matter how bad the Tea Party candidate is(if they are bad).


This makes sense. I'm just failing to see the point in it all. Our entire system is screwed up: we have a death march of a primary that does little but provide the democrats a chance to sharpen their attacks and do opposition research. 2016 won't be any different.

Here's the other problem. This sounds trivial but is more profound than that, I promise: The Republicans aren't cool or sane.

What does that mean?

It means there's a concerted effort by the democrats and the media to destroy every Republican who shows up. If a Republican says, "2+2=4" the media reports it as "Republican challenged by basic math". The democrats DOMINATE the discourse. Everything a Republican says is assumed to be crazy, racist or stupid. Outliers like Akin are held up as the norm for Republicans and EVERY Republican is responsible for Akin's statements.

The democrats have them, too. Anybody know who Mark Clayton is? He was their Senate candidate in TN up against Bob Corker. Clayton said things like the Transportation Security Administration “mandates [transsexuals] and homosexuals grabbing children in their stranger-danger zones.”. Are the dems flogged as being anti-this and anti-that? Hell no.

Why does this continue? Because as long as Obama and the media can sweep America's problems under the rug, it's like they don't exist. This allows for a narrative of "Everything's hunky-dory under the democrats, so why listen to CRS (crazy, racist and stupid)?".

The situation won't change until the rest of the country understands and feels the pain/problems being caused by Obama and left wing policies. Until they do, we live in Dreamland.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In the meantime, while you keep holding out hope that your imaginary perfect candidate will materialize out of thin air, we keep getting stuck with the Obamas of the world.

That's the voting equivalent of penny wise, pound foolish.


If the game were fair I'd agree with this point 100%. But the game isn't fair. So now what?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To each their own of course.

I happen to still believe that Romney was the prefect person to be President at this point in time. Some time a transnational figure can be better than am ideologue,


This was where I was. He was the perfect guy for the job. Turns out he ran a really bad campaign and probably measured the curtains in the office too soon.

Staying home? You are wrong, you could not be more wrong. Unless you agree with Jedi and Dope that we have to collapse. Frankly they may be right, but the belief there is a light at the end of the collapse? Maybe, maybe not, lots of times that light is the trains and after your butt is run over you do not recover, you are simply road kill

Sadly, all those Julias out there don't understand much and yes, we need to hit bottom before we can rebuild.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Josh Randall, reincarnated after getting the death penalty recently

Considering how savagely and bluntly I occasionally lay into libs, I am somewhat surprised that I am still around.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Anyone think trashing the Tea Party cost the Republicans big time in the last election?

Let's be fair on this one. There's a LOT of blame to go around on both sides. TEA originally stood for Taxed Enough Already and grew out of opposition to spending and Obamacare. But what happened?

A movement that big is bound to attract opportunists of all stripes. The Tea Party did just that. It also started to lose focus and control over its message as more people were incentivized to hop on board.

We also had the problem of a TON of people looking at the political landscape and jumping in, diluting the vote. Nevada: 2010. A BUNCH of people jumped in looking to de-throne Dingy Harry. That Senate Primary race had 2 viables out of larger field: Danny Tarkanian and Sue Lowden. They beat each up in the primary and split the vote, handing the slot to Sharron Angle. An utter moron and non-credible candidate. Reid + her own missteps destroyed her.

The democrats paid attention to all that and figured out how to take advantage by throwing in their slime machine: Case in point, Missouri. McCaskill looked at the field and concluded that she'd lose to everybody but 1 guy: Akin. So she got Reid's PAC to attack the other candidates and other folks to give Akin money and guess what? He won.

McCaskill was an Obamacare yay vote in a state that disapproves of O-care 3 or 4 to 1. The very definition of vulnerable incumbent. Yet, with some strategic forethought and clever maneuvering, picked the 1 guy out of the field that she could beat and let him self-destruct. Claire is a useless doorknob as a Senator but you have to give her team props for a brilliant strategic move.

Enter the media. It was very easy to paint every crazy candidate as the "Tea Party candidate" and turn the Tea Party into a dirty word. The dems exploited the split between the establishment GOP'ers and the TP and used it to drive a wedge. Again, give them credit for taking advantage of the situation: they took the Tea Party's strength - that it was/is a grassroots movement with no central leader - and turned it into a weakness: no leader meant there was no 1 person to blunt and refute the accusations of crazy, racist and stupid.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've got news for you. Christie will be the 2016 candidate if he doesn't have a heart attack or severe type II diabetes before then.

He'll run the early primary states, just like Romney and McCain, unless FL and TX get uppity and move their primaries back.


That's nice. And he'll get the McCain treatment from the media: he'll play up his blasting Republicans and repudiating conservative positions to the delight of the democrats. Then when he needs conservative support and triangulates, then he'll become crazy, racist and stupid too.

I've sat through this movie before and don't want to again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why'd they kill your other account?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Considering how savagely and bluntly I occasionally lay into libs, I am somewhat surprised that I am still around.

They deserve it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've sat through this movie before and don't want to again.


Me too!
I'm amazed at how short the memories are of so many republicans and some conservatives. I understand LIV airheads but expected much more from people who know and study the issues and who know how to think logically. That any serious conservative would be all gaga over CC is a mystery to me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why'd they kill your other account?

For stating my genuine views about liberals with sarcasm and humor and blunt truth. Too may crybabies FA's my posts. I could zing them pretty good and it is my calling to irritate libs and expose them for what they are. The relentless pounding I gave them was too much to bear. They can handle only so much truth about themselves.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The game in 2016 is rigged. So why play? I'd rather go down with my principles intact and my head held high this time.
_____________________

The game is rigged, but if, and that is extremely unlikely the Republicans run a candidate who is relentlessly an attack dog.

The Republicans need someone unrepentant. Now I do not like Christie at all, though I do defend him as not worthless and a valuable Republican -- he would do that.

Being a President and being a Governor are very different jobs and how you deal with other is very different. Now, I have ZERO idea where Christie actually stands on anything. SO far, I don't much care for him, but again he is getting done what he can get done in NJ, and it is working for the state and the voters like it.

I hope he is not the candidate, but he is not milquetoast like either Dole or McCain(my apologies to Dole for this comparison, as I like him politically, but no fire at all and a old club style Senator)

The Republicans can win, if they are actually relentless and willing to take the fire of going negative totally and inexcusably. Carry forward a positive message that you repeat until it is a comedy routine, and at every opportunity slam the living heck out of Dems, repeat the truth loud and apologetically, and when you are called on it, make damn sure you start with how they lied about things in Romney's campaign and called Romney a liar for mentioning proven Obama lies and say how they are doing it again, and again, say it often enough until it is a comedy routine.

To win the next election, Republicans need more balls than brains. The Dems flat out suck, stick to that and why as well as why you are better -- never ever deviate, when asked to deviate rinse and repeat.

Republicans have this asinine assumption the public wants nice guys. Obama is not a nice guy he is a complete an utter brick -- Hillary is easy to beat, heck Obama did it, the man who couldn't win a thing until Bill Clinton saved his bacon beat Hillary even though that same guy was on Hillary's side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Given that Christie is dead and is the mostly like 2016 nominee, does that mean he might be the first Zombie president? Now THAT would be something: the first woman candidate against the first Zombie candidate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The game is rigged, but if, and that is extremely unlikely the Republicans run a candidate who is relentlessly an attack dog.

The Republicans need someone unrepentant. Now I do not like Christie at all, though I do defend him as not worthless and a valuable Republican -- he would do that.



I didn't quote all of your post, but I agree with all of it. The media and the democrats all hate us and will do anything they can to invoke Crazy, Racist and Stupid. So why shouldn't we have a guy who comes out with both middle fingers extended, telling the voters what their future is under democrat rule?

If Christie turns into that guy and doesn't pull a McCain and bash his own party 99% of the time, I'll revisit my comments. But you're spot on. No more apologizing for every single Republican who screws up. No more letting the dems get away with lying and mischaracterizing what we say. Romney let Obama lie his a$$ off right in front him on stage and did nothing. So did, I'm sad to say, Paul Freaking Ryan with Biden. Nice guys finish last.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The media and the democrats all hate us and will do anything they can to invoke Crazy, Racist and Stupid. So why shouldn't we have a guy who comes out with both middle fingers extended, telling the voters what their future is under democrat rule?

Not sure I'm following your logic. Seems you're saying that since the Dem-media cabal is going to call any Republican candidate crazy anyway, racist and stupid, then the GOP ought to nominate someone who's unashamedly crazy, racist and stupid.

No more apologizing for every single Republican who screws up.

No more? Since when have you ever apologized for any Republican who screws up?

No more letting the dems get away with lying and mischaracterizing what we say.

And you've been doing that for how long now?

I really don't get this "we've got to stop apologizing and letting the Dems lie about us" thing. When have Republicans ever done that?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Here's the other problem. This sounds trivial but is more profound than that, I promise: The Republicans aren't cool or sane.

As usual, you blame the media for this, but honestly, which of the Republican candidates this go-around weren't either terribly uncool (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum...) or at least a little insane (Bachmann, Paul, Cain...) Perry was a special case of stupid. Why's it the media's fault that coolest and sanest candidate the party could muster was Mitt Romney? Heck, most Republicans didn't even like the guy until he became the nominee and the best-worst choice.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
After railing for years about making tough choices with respect to Social Security and Medicare, he caved and went for the money.

Hey, why not. We live in an age of dumba$$ Obama voters who can't be bothered with small nuggets of knowledge like, say, who actually has control of Congress and when. So why shouldn't CC grab the money? He has an election for gov to win.

This to me is strike three. Strike 1 was the lame convention speech. Strike 2 was French kissing Obama over Sandy.

If he runs I'll happily not vote in 2016 and keep my money. Let Hillary! finish off the work that Obama started and preside over America's final decline.
________________

There are too many R Governors taking the money now, hard to single out just one.

So who's left? Who might be a genuine Presidential-quality candidate that turns the country around and points the ship in the right direction? It's hard not to come up with negatives on anyone, so you'd have to pick the dirt that's unimportant to you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
There are too many R Governors taking the money now, hard to single out just one.

So who's left? Who might be a genuine Presidential-quality candidate that turns the country around and points the ship in the right direction? It's hard not to come up with negatives on anyone, so you'd have to pick the dirt that's unimportant to you.


I don't think the R's can win until the stupidity bubble the dems are living in has popped and the voters are exposed to the truth. Right now, whatever democrats say is held up as true even when you prove in 10 seconds that they're lying. Look at Obama. Or better yet, look at Clinton's dnc speech. I've never seen a pol lie and rewrite history that shamelessly in my lifetime.

We can't beat an opponent that isn't graded on the reality curve: they make up their own facts in a second. We take an hour to debunk it. They shrug it off, knowing that the voters believed the original lie, and move on to create the next one. Clinton's speech and Obama's debate performances around Benghazi were the ultimate examples of US politicians lying and getting away with it.

There's no defeating that, no way. Not until the rules of the game change. And by "Change", I mean until the voters REALLY feel the consequences of their collective decision to not hold the democrats accountable for anything. That means pain and lots of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't think the R's can win until the stupidity bubble the dems are living in has popped and the voters are exposed to the truth. Right now, whatever democrats say is held up as true even when you prove in 10 seconds that they're lying. Look at Obama. Or better yet, look at Clinton's dnc speech. I've never seen a pol lie and rewrite history that shamelessly in my lifetime.

We can't beat an opponent that isn't graded on the reality curve: they make up their own facts in a second. We take an hour to debunk it. They shrug it off, knowing that the voters believed the original lie, and move on to create the next one. Clinton's speech and Obama's debate performances around Benghazi were the ultimate examples of US politicians lying and getting away with it.

There's no defeating that, no way. Not until the rules of the game change. And by "Change", I mean until the voters REALLY feel the consequences of their collective decision to not hold the democrats accountable for anything. That means pain and lots of it.
_________________________

I was there the previous decade as well watching and listening ;)

I get it, and I understand your frustration. But I'm not supporting one lying candidate over another because of a label. Lots and lots of Republicans are so very guilty of not only believing the lie, but continuing to present it as fact after it's been thoroughly debunked. Over and over again. The Dems certainly haven't braved new territory there.

I'm so terribly sick of Republican candidates being thrown to the wolves because they've somehow upset the ideological bubble or false fantasy they live in. But this discussion does no good here. So Christie PO'd the ar$eholes. So friggin what?

If you're going to throw a sissy fit every time Jack the Ripper loses a bid to become President, you'll lose half of your own party support. I'll take Christie over any of last year's candidates except maybe Huntsman, who I doubt would be good enough either.

The Rules of the game haven't changed, only the party. We went though about 6 years of 8 where a certain W fella was given a total pass, except the behind the scenes laughing. Now it's the Dems turn to root for their loser.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you're going to throw a sissy fit every time Jack the Ripper loses a bid to become President, you'll lose half of your own party support. I'll take Christie over any of last year's candidates except maybe Huntsman, who I doubt would be good enough either.

______________________

Just curious, how is Christie superior to Romney? I also not you said at some point you would take Hillary over Romney. As someone who is not insane, I am curious why yu feel that way.

________________

The Rules of the game haven't changed, only the party. We went though about 6 years of 8 where a certain W fella was given a total pass, except the behind the scenes laughing. Now it's the Dems turn to root for their loser.

OK, again some curiosity here, just what was W given a pass on? Bush was critisized by Conservatives on a large number of issues, what was he given a pass on. Then while you are at making all things equal, what was Bush given a pass on in a general sense by the media public

I do 100 percent agree that Bush made mistakes, I also agree that Bush was backed on things after they had already failed in some instances. I just want to know where you get any of that was even close the the Obama situation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just curious, how is Christie superior to Romney? I also not you said at some point you would take Hillary over Romney. As someone who is not insane, I am curious why yu feel that way.
__________________

I think Christie's attitude was better for the time, I also think he would have looked and heard everything, then acted. Heck, I supported Romney over Obama, but I couldn't follow his plans from week to week without getting a bit dizzy. Heck, most R's here were too embarrassed to engage in tax discussions given previous statements.

I think Christie would have been a leader, something we lack now.
_______________________


OK, again some curiosity here, just what was W given a pass on? Bush was critisized by Conservatives on a large number of issues, what was he given a pass on. Then while you are at making all things equal, what was Bush given a pass on in a general sense by the media public

I do 100 percent agree that Bush made mistakes, I also agree that Bush was backed on things after they had already failed in some instances. I just want to know where you get any of that was even close the the Obama situation.

------------
Bush was criticized by Fiscal Conservatives, big difference. If you go back and read from 2001 through 2004, you'll get a hint at what I mean. Heck, Romney had things said about him by Republicans that I don't even think they've called Obama. But when nominated, all was fine.

Bush was widely derided by the MSM for the Iraq follies, and widely supported by the usual folks as well. Just as the MSM has supported Obama throughout this mess, although the sequestration has let them waiver a little.

There are different types of people that belong in certain time periods. Not one size President fits all time slots. Reagan first term, Clinton the second. I just think Christie was a better fit. The GOP is hell bent on making sure he never gets in. I would have vastly preferred McCain in 2000, but was less than lukewarm in 2008.

So if you're going to whine about who's side gives the other more of a pass, go right ahead. I tend not to waste my time on such nonsense, because I do see what both sides do. Yesterday's discussion about Woodward were particularly entertaining. For many political junkies, that's good enough.

The fact that posts like this get jumped on so quickly, and far, far more important discussions do not, is a great indication of the problems in Congress as well. Both sides have very childish attitudes that have little to do with success or problem-solving, and mostly to do with adolescent fantasies about ideology and team winning.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think Christie's attitude was better for the time, I also think he would have looked and heard everything, then acted. Heck, I supported Romney over Obama, but I couldn't follow his plans from week to week without getting a bit dizzy. Heck, most R's here were too embarrassed to engage in tax discussions given previous statements.

I think Christie would have been a leader, something we lack now.
___________________________

OK, just curious on that one. I agree Romney was very much reactive, and that was just dumb. In this media environment Republicans need to be simple and consistent and comically focused.

Romney and Ryan fell for the trap of responding to too wide an array of issues, and appeared as if they were not focused, I thought that was great work by the media and lousy work by Romney too\____________________________

As far as the Conservatives fell behind Romney although they did not agree with a lot. Yep, and if they are sane they will next time to. For someone who seems to want compromise you have an odd reaction to it. You do not attack your candidate during the general election, that is pretty obvious.

On the other hand as they did with Bush they would have assailed Romney when he went off course.

This is is direct contrast to what Dems do. When in office and doing a complete 180 on issue after issue, they not only do not criticize, but circle the wagons and defend as well as sending out scout parties to attack anything that moves to take the focus off the malfeasance.

These are not analogous behaviors of 2 dissimilar groups, IMO acting as if they are alike is huge diservice, they are not remotely alike
In fact IMO you are playing the game the Dems desire to and in fact do play --- sure something may be unimaginably bad, but look at the other guys they are not perfect.
Print the post Back To Top