Mission code name "Enduring Nuts"
Primary goal...drive members bananas.....
Success estimates of goal....99%
Hedging their bets
- Thread starter layoutshooter
- Start date
Mission code name "Enduring Nuts"
Primary goal...drive members bananas.....
Success estimates of goal....99%
greg334
Veteran Expediter
If the economy tanks, we get attacked by Canada, Martians land in Central Park and they stop producing electricity - Obama will lose.
The problem I see and a lot of others for that matter is the republican party is a big frickn' joke this time around. They have been told that unless they get behind one person and only one person NOW with the intent to get them to run against Obama, Obama won.
The 'possibles' are running around screaming about Obama and all that crap but NOT one of them has presented a plan to fix anything or stood fast on one issue. Romney is a retread and so is most of the field with a couple exceptions and almost all of them are professional politicians who are used to pandering with their integrity. Not one of them can be called a conservative in the true sense nor not one of them have actually called for a true budget reduction or a reduction in the size of the government. A few keep saying they are for this or that to appease one or another conservative groups but ignore the independents who will make or break the election.
The ReBumLiCans ARE a joke. That is why I am looking to a total independent to run. Some one who is not only not a career politician but some one who has never held and elected office and NOT a ReBumLiCan OR a Dumb-O-Crat. I am NOT looking for a candidate from EITHER party.
I thought I have made that quite clear over the years.
Mission code name "Enduring Nuts"
Primary goal...drive members bananas.....
Success estimates of goal....99%
Everyone should have a "mission" in life and what better than to be successful at it?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Of course you have but others? They seem to jump on the conservative bandwagon and seem to forget these guys are all the same.
OUTSIDE of Ron Paul's idea of getting our troops out of everywhere, as he seems to be the only one who has had somewhat of a consistent message and ideas, what do YOU see the positives and negatives with him?
This is admittedly repeating myself, but I'll say it again anyway - it's still VERY early in the GOP primary process, and the voters have yet to determine the frontrunner or bring the platform into focus. By the time the primaries are over the GOP nominee will have a clearer message and more momentum with which to go into the election. The mainstream media which is heavily jaded toward Obama is promoting the idea of all the Republican candidates being ineffective, unattractive with no clear ideas - NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
ANYONE WHO VOTES FOR ANY CANDIDATE IN 2012 OTHER THAN THE REPUBLICAN IS VOTING FOR FOUR MORE YEARS OF OBAMA.
- Romney has a record as an executive in business and politics that puts Obama to shame.
- Pawlenty has a successful record as governor of MN with executive accomplishments that Obama can only dream about
- Cain has a record as a business executive that far surpasses anything Obama has ever done - plus, he's not a professional politician
- Even Gingrich, with all his recent tribulations established a record as Speaker that completely overshadows Obama's pitiful record as a member of congress.
- Even Sarah Palin - who probably won't run anyway - has a resume superior to Obama's.
ANYONE WHO VOTES FOR ANY CANDIDATE IN 2012 OTHER THAN THE REPUBLICAN IS VOTING FOR FOUR MORE YEARS OF OBAMA.
Positive is that it seems, on the surface anyway, that he believes in the Constitution.
Negatives, a career politician. I don't believe he would make a good commander in chief. I don't believe he has enough experience, if any, running large work forces, handling big budgets etc. I don't think he would be able to command the respect that a president should when working with other countries.
Those are my feelings.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I would normally agree but the problem is the republicans are going to lag in both exposure and money, with Obama announcing his run for reelection, he already has a number of months behind him and a somewhat coherent message. The republicans lag in both money and in any message outside of the beating up of Obama.
BUT the patients of those who matter - the independent voter - will wane more than what the rnc will expect. I feel from all the appearances by the rnc, they expect to have some what of a catch up moment that they did with Palin entering the 2008 race (AND FAILED TO USE IT by allowing McCain to torpedo Palin ever chance he got) and that the independents will flock to them because of their "message" of hope and change.
Actually it isn't the media but a number of REPUBLICAN strategist who are clear, along with a number of democratic advisors that the republicans can not depend on the conservative media - Rush, Hannity, etc. ... - to help out and that they are dragging their feet with solutions TYING it together with the slow ineffectiveness of the republican house players who are not doing anything EXCEPT compromise to keep government moving or to make political gains via McCain politics. The one thing that many miss is the idea that the tea party and independents who put those in office to fix things are ignoring the issues they are passionate about and letting things happen to vote in 2012 - a typical dumb attitude the rnc seems to have.
The one thing that many seem to miss is that we can't wait for the primaries and those advisors and stratigist all said that the RNC needs to find someone and get right behind them with the confidence that will make people notice - there is no confidence in the primary process and adding to the ambiguity that we already have, many are just plain too tired to deal with what's next situation in politics.
Romney has yet to present anything to the public in a way of fixing the economy. His record as governor is going to be the focus, and his past experience in business means nothing. He is a retread from the last election with a name people don't care about.
BUT what is the plan man?
He has commented on different things like reducing co2 emissions and extend tax incentives for energy efficiency and energy R&D - can you say CFL
That may be a negitive, outsiders don't make it. He has a lot of good ideas but what can he do if he is faced with a congress that won't work with him? Just because he was an executive means little because they are not always team players.
Gingrich is part of the problem, the old guard and his ideas are either copies of others, parroting of good ones or just too old to work.
Well IF Palin wants to actually do something other than be on TV - take control of the RNC and FIX it.
See the problem is that people will vote for who ever they like and don't see the difference. The lines are blurred and no one has yet made a distinct difference in their rhetoric in the republican camp.
You should search a bit more to see what some of his ideas are.
Well career politician, who isn't?
Commander in Chief, I think FDR was a bad one and so was Carter, Hoover and even Kennedy/Johnson.
Running large workforces? Seriously, not one president even had that experience except Eisenhower. AND that didn't equate to a great president (who by the way wasn't all that great).
BIG budgets? Well tell me who was the MBA grad we had?
You don't command respect from other countries unless you ***** *** up the building of respect. I mean seriously I don't think he will be handing out speeches of himself to heads of state nor will I think he will allow his SoS to hand a red button to the leader of another large country.
Our last two presidents didn't do too well in the respect end of the business but than again we haven't had a president since Reagan who said screw you.
Ron Paul is a retread from the last election the same as Romney. He is too old. He has no "fire" to inspire. He has zero experience other than medical.
Again, I am NOT looking to politicians for the answer. I am looking for a NON-politician. Someone who has never held office. Who has run a large work force. Someone who has overseen mega-budgets. Someone who has "REAL" experience in both the public and private sector. Someone who is respected by both their enemies and friends. Someone who commands respect, not by bulling but buy the simple fact of "been there, done that and did it well" .
That person DOES exist and I believe that he will run starting sometime in July. He is of such stature and experience that I believe he will be able to overcome the ReBumLiCan party and LEAD them out of the hole they find themselves in. I also believe that he will bring out the "bucks" needed to defeat Obama.
He is also something that Obama will never be, A MAN!
Again, I am NOT looking to politicians for the answer. I am looking for a NON-politician. Someone who has never held office. Who has run a large work force. Someone who has overseen mega-budgets. Someone who has "REAL" experience in both the public and private sector. Someone who is respected by both their enemies and friends. Someone who commands respect, not by bulling but buy the simple fact of "been there, done that and did it well" .
That person DOES exist and I believe that he will run starting sometime in July. He is of such stature and experience that I believe he will be able to overcome the ReBumLiCan party and LEAD them out of the hole they find themselves in. I also believe that he will bring out the "bucks" needed to defeat Obama.
He is also something that Obama will never be, A MAN!
I beg to differ; the money will come to the GOP once the candidate is selected - IT'S STILL EARLY. Yes, BHO has a head start and although his message is really not that clear his intent is well known. He wants to take the US into European socialism and tear down our capitalist free market economy. Calling him on his miserable record as president the last three years is NOT beating him up - it's making an issue of his lack of accomplishments. And anyone who thinks there's no difference in either party isn't paying attention. It's clear the GOP will stand for certain principles regardless of who the nominee turns out to be, some of which are:
- Repeal Obamacare and replace it with a sensible alternative which will not be socialized medicine
- Lower taxes and govt. regulation (as was done in the Reagan years) to give private businesses a chance to recover and expand
- Recover our natural resources and harvest our own oil and natural gas. Think what effect just drilling in ANWR and taking advantage of our existing offshore wells would have on energy prices and jobs
- Last but not least - cancel the Obama spending spree and get control of the disastrous deficits this administration has created
Actually, we can and will wait for the primaries just like we always have. Agreed, people get tired of politics and the vast majority of Americans tune the whole thing out until about Aug or Sept of an election year - then they start to pay attention, which coincidentally is right about convention time.
Actually, he's been talking about nothing but the economy. He's been doing it mostly on a local basis, and therefore not a lot of press coverage. He summed up his thoughts pretty well in the debate.
Yes, his record as governor will be the focus and his experience as a business executive will mean a LOT. He has experience making economic decisions that have consequences, and his results have been positive. Regarding the "retread" comment, I'll bet there were some people that said the same thing about Reagan and Nixon. They both made comebacks and got elected.
The state of California has a pretty decent sized workforce - so does NY, TX, NJ among others; their former governors were elected in large part due to their records running those states.
The current occupant of the White House had NO executive experience, and we see what kind of job he's doing
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Sorry I'm with the people who are warning the republicans to get serious with the election this time. All too often they wait and not come up with anything that is substantial or worth in the way of an opponent to run against a democrat. Think back to Clinton to his second term and how he kept right on going even with the same issues popping up over and over.
I said that when they announced Palin as a running mate to McCain, they could have leverages that into a winning campaign but instead purposely derailed her and her political capital she held with the people. They tried to leverage against Obama on his record in the senate and state but didn't talk about the issues with the same attention they gave not to defend Palin. Instead McCain forced his attitude of not attacking his opponent while his opponent attacked him and Palin.
I would think that the rnc already knew what Obama was like and going to be like in the WH but didn't care to actually fight as the dems have fought during the election. They may have had lessons learned sessions after the election but they didn't learn a thing.
The money isn't there going to be there to challenge obama, they will need to ignore the senate and house races to put their money into the presidential race and they have lagged behind the dems in fund raising by a good percentage.
To a great many who see the mess congress is causing, they don't care that the repubs will repeat Obama's record or use it as a foundation to win because it isn't the real issue for many. The record of Obama's is well known and can be spun into something good for many who are on the fence. The republicans in congress are the problem at this point and the people know it, they keep preaching about the record of the administration but compromised when it came to reaching the budget agreement and now with the spending issues. ONe example is the people wanted those like Boehner to fight the administration and let the government "shut down" but Boehner and others were insistent that it can't happen and told the tea party people to shut up. This may not matter to those who are blinded by their hatred for Obama but it matter for those who are living without consistent employment.
Obama care repeal will not happen unless there is a strong majority in the senate and house. THIS is a real issue for the now, not 2013 when a possible new president come into office. Regardless, ignoring the fact that if there isn't a majority in the senate, there is no use in talking about a repeal in the primaries. The more important question is what are they going to replace it with and how are they going to justify the changes again which will cause more problems for the economy?
Seriously Reagan didn't do all that deregulation as many think. He compromised with some regulations while letting others in place. IF anyone is serious, they need to talk about removing whole departments and not just regulations. Lower taxes are meaningless when people in business keep telling those in power all of this has zero to do with taxes and everything to do with the ambiguity of the country as a whole. No matter how you cut it, the money is there in the business sector, the companies are not coming off of it because they have no clue what to expect and with congress dragging their a** on key important issues, they are unlikely to make any move this year or even next to let loose the money. ANY republican candidate can talk all about taxes, but so far with the posturing for the primaries, the business community, like many independent voters are waiting to see what happens next.
Energy has been a talking point for the last two decades and the republicans have a great track record of doing nothing so I can't see much happening now. They have control of the house, which means they can do some good but what good have they done so far on the energy front?
So expecting the same people who started the spending spree to stop it? Seriously? RIGHT now is the time to be tough on it but Boehner and the house is doing ... nothing other than speaking about cutting. They come up with projected plans for 10 years out but nothing concrete and this seems to be a reflection of the party and the history of republicans in congress.
It may be clear to you but to many who the republicans need to sway into voting for them, it is clear as mud as what they stand for.
See here is the problem, there is a lack of confidence with politicians right now. The republicans can, if they take their own advisor's advice, beat both the dems in congress and Obama but it isn't with a process that they insist on following to 'select' the best that people think will make it against Obama. By thinking that the majority of Americans are tuning things out until Auigust or September, it seems the same thinking is going on at the top of the party as they ignore the warning of not ignoring the signs of defeat in the 2008 election or the fact people are listening more now than ever before because they are hurting.
BUT debates mean crap, he has not presented a concise plan to get people back to work nor has he talked about specifics of why it could work.
Well his record of health care will be the problem when he is talking about repealing something that is modeled after his own creation. His business executive experience means little because it isn't the same thing. The country isn't a corporation and we shouldn't even consider running it as one.
Two different people, two completely different times. Nixon would not have won against Johnson, Reagan would not have won if it wasn't for the dems trampling over Carter.
California, New York, Texas and New Jersey are not the country. The idea that works in Texas may not work in Indiana or Michigan.
The current occupant of the White House had NO executive experience, and we see what kind of job he's doing
The problem is that his job isn't to make laws or spend money, he has a limited amount of power and as I said before it seems that people mistake the idea that he is all powerful and all inclusive king when the senate and house are more important to the people and country. He can only dictate policy, he could not pass his health care law nor allocate funding for his programs but request all of it and hope they give it to him. THIS is one of the issues with thinking about his executive experience and how it matters because in the real world, an executive of a corporation doesn't ask or compromise his wants but rather dictates them, and it has been proven that we don't take too kindly to being dictated to.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Preach it brother Greg, Preach it!
I don't agree with everything you said, but you have your finger on the pulse of the political atmosphere right now in my opinion, and articulated your position nicely.
Most importantly, not one Obumma, Hussein, ReBumLiCan, Dumb-O-crat, socialist, marxist, commie statement in your response.
I don't agree with everything you said, but you have your finger on the pulse of the political atmosphere right now in my opinion, and articulated your position nicely.
Most importantly, not one Obumma, Hussein, ReBumLiCan, Dumb-O-crat, socialist, marxist, commie statement in your response.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Thank you.
Curious of what you don't agree with, you don't have to tell me ... thanks for the compliment.
Well I have grown tired of the BS rhetoric of trying to put down people, especially those Cloughlins among us in the entertainment world
I heard something on Levin's show a few weeks back and thought that here is a guy who is rather intelligent, passionate about what he sees as being wrong with the country but failed to be an adult when talking about the people behind the issues by using terms and improper names. Don't care what kind of stuff he brings or how he makes people think, I think it is childish that he doesn't respect himself enough to actually make an effort to rise above those who is his opposition. THIS goes for Hannity, Rush and others too - not just on the conservative side of things either, Rhodes and others on the other side do the same thing.
As for political ideology, I will continue to tag people as I see it, which is not in the negitive by the way. Many Marxist/socialists/communist/conservative I know from that U of the M are actually nice people and believe it or not charitable.
Think back to Clinton's opponent in that election - Bob Dole. He ran one of the most ineffective campaigns in history. Also, remember it was "the economy, stupid" that made the difference. It will be the economy again in 2012.
Wrong - there will be adequate money. You may think you have an effective crystal ball, but I seriously doubt it.
That's the most absurd statement I've seen lately. How many people are out of work or underemployed?? How many baby boomers are about to go on social security and medicare?? How many people have kids that have just graduated from high school or college and can't find a job so they're still living at home?? Obama's failures affect almost every member of American society except the extremely wealthy who don't care who's president.
The only fence-sitters that would fall for that spin would have to be functionally illiterate and ignorant of current events in general.
Not true. The GOP will probably capture the Senate, but all spending starts in the House. Obama care can be de-funded. However, more than likely it will have been declared unconstitutional by Nov 2012.
Here again we'll have to agree to disagree. I remember the Viet Nam era like it was yesterday. Nixon would have crushed Johnson; even Harold Stassen would have crushed Johnson. The reason Johnson didn't run was because he and his party realized he was toast because of his mismanagement of the Viet Nam war, regardless of his extremely liberal social experiments.
That's like saying the Bruins wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup if only Vancouver's goalie could have stopped all the points.
The reason the dems and everyone else trampled over Carter was because he was a miserable failure as president, as is the current occupant of the White House. Reagan on the other hand was a far superior candidate and the results of his presidency proved that.
That's your opinion - actually when you throw in AR and GA you've got a pretty good cross-section of the country - all gave the country former governors that became presidents. The point was that these governors DID have experience managing large workforces. CA and MI are fine examples of how NOT to manage an economy - there's no doubt they would do well to copy some of the things going on in TX.
Not true - CEOs make decisions, but only with a lot of input from other corp officers and the oversight of their boards of directors, and there's a lot of politics involved in that. But you're right about being dictated to - the American people don't like it, and that's one of the reasons Obama will be defeated on 2012, in spite of the best efforts of the mainstream media.
Finally, think about that last point for a minute - if something happens like a further recessionary dip or a blowup in the middle east because of Obama's dithering with Egypt or Libya, the press will turn against him just like they did Carter. If the MSM would only start reporting objectively about the Obama regime and their performance, BHO is done.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Dole is a good example of a repeat this time around. He did run a very ineffective campaign but so did the party. It is pretty much the same situation in 2008, no incumbent running and McCain being the 'selected' candidate to run against Obama, which causes a lot of people to be less confident in what the republicans can put up.
So let me think about this, the republicans have a billion to put into the presidential campaign at the same time funding house and senate elections? Really? The lead time matters, according to a bunch of republicans who are rather ****ed off with the RNC for not starting earlier. I don't have a crystal anything, but I do listen to those who have been advising the rnc for a while and their equals on the opposite of the fence, AMAZINGLY they are saying the same exact thing - get moving of lose the election.
What's absured?
That there is a repeating of the same old crap and people are tired of hearing what Obama has done - we already know. TELL US WTF are you going to do for us is going to be the message that they will have to face and HAVE been getting for the last year. Don't tell us about repealing Obama care, DO IT. Don't tell us about how the economy is in the crapper and Obama put us there, do something about it other than compromising to keep spending.
This is the message people don't seem to get, the failures of this administration are the same failures of the last administration and both parties are to blame. The tea party, all but forgotten ran on a completely different platform - they were tired of the same old crap and they pushed hard to get people into congress who they beleived would push hard to change and what happened? They were told to shut up and sit down WHILE the Republican Party marginalized the tea party movement.
DO you honestly think that people will forget any of that?
I don't think so and many of those in the tea party movement are not conservative but rather libertarian leaning voters who can sway an election.
BUT it is true. Even if they capture the senate by one seat, they have to have a veto proof majority and they will not have it. Defunding matters less because it isn't the funding that matters but the regulation and ancillary policies that are becoming in view due to how the law was written - with purposeful ambiguity. IF the congress now doesn't take action, the damage will be too far gone in 2012 even if and that is a BIG IF it is declared unconstitutional.
Johnson would have had a close race but he would have won on his civil rights record BUT the DNC and others thought he would have run. He made the decision not because he would have lost but because he was tired of all of it. Even though '68 was a volatility year, it was also a year that where there were clashes between the young and stupid and the old and dumb. The problem is the amendment to change the voting age was not going to happen for a few more years so the 18-20 year old votes didn't happen. NOT only that, but the public at large didn't view Vietnam as the issue they needed to be concerned about. The empathy that followed in the later years were forming but most people like now were concern with the economy.
Well I do agree with the failure part but the difference is this, the DNC is backing Obama 100%. Carter faced an upheaval in the party because he isolated a lot of people which is opposite of what Obama has done. Reagan wasn't the only one but at the time the right guy and did a fair to good job.
Actually it isn't my opinion but a number of republicans who seem to think that the former governors of a couple of those states were not the best they could have been. Governors don't manage large workforces and much as the president doesn't direct traffic. They manage the state, set policies and so on but not manage workforce.
Texas ideas would not work here, or in Indiana or Ohio, there are different cultures and ideals that prevent it.
I worked with a CEO and a CC of a major corporation and met a couple since, these are GE types and got to tell you that you would be really surprised at how they reach a decision or who actually makes the decision for them. They dictate, their staff dictates and so on.
I don't really think so, the test has been the economy and they have been luke warm but still defending him and his policies. Nothing will turn that unless we are attacked by Libya in the next 14 months. Carter turned the country on its head and ... well you know what I mean. He was no freind to anyone and that is why he was treated badly. On top of that, the media - including fox - has been on Obama's side because they won't really challenge the administration like say a Murrow or a Brinkly would.