I know most of you are conservatives and/or Republicans. Who are you planning on voting for at this point in the GOP presidential primary?
Posted on 11/11 3:34 PM | IP: Logged
I would not call myself conservative or republican, and I think the current GOP crop is potentially doomed. Just a borderline crazy bunch, IMO, which is to be taken here with a grain of salt.
I would vote for John Huntsman if he got the nomination. But that will not happen.
Posted on 11/11 4:07 PM | IP: Logged
I will vote for someone in the primary who I will then vote against in the general, but I don't know who yet.
I don't know the GOP field well at all, but when Jindal and Christie opted not to run, it told me they knew this was not going to be a good cycle to run against an incumbent. I've been disappointed in Obama like many -- and I do not include those who have been rooting for him to fail all along and have been willing to hurt the country in order to sabotage his Presidency -- but every indication is that he has been a victim of circumstance and that everyone else is pretty unpopular right now, too.
Posted on 11/11 6:12 PM | IP: Logged
I am a registered Republican and consider myself to be a moderate. On some major issues, however, I agree with President Obama.
I would like to see a qualified, viable Republican candidate to oppose Obama in the general election. At this point, I don't see that candidate. I do not trust Romney to keep his word on anything. I think Gingrich is the smartest man in the field, but sometimes he doesn't know when to stop talking. Absent a last minute addition to the field like Daniels, Christie, or Jeb Bush, I may stay home.
Posted on 11/11 9:10 PM | IP: Logged
Anybody but Obama. And if this isn't the cycle to run against an incumbent when and where would that be? I know everything is not Obama's fault but his policies are making the job creators sit on money and not hiring. Too many regulations etc. No confidence in the private sector and if that doesn't improve the jobs will be very slow to come back.
Posted on 11/12 9:58 AM | IP: Logged
on a side note on this subjct, I was watching the UNC/MSU game last night and the Pres and first lady walked onto the ship/floor. My granddaughter said "look. There's Michelle Obama and Obama"!!!
Posted on 11/12 10:01 AM | IP: Logged
I like Herman Cain's no-wavering conservative stance. I'm waiting to see how things go with the scandal before I go further. I also like Perry and Santorum. I'm afraid Romney would compromise his conservatism. And Huntsman should be a Democrat.
Outside of Romney & Huntsman, every GOP nominee will be extremely scrutinized and dealt with heavily by the overall mainstream media.
Also look for many "gotcha" questions in the near future. Unlike the softball questions given to Obama during his campaign.
Perry made one mistake and nearly every news organization pounced on him. However, they didn't pounce on Obama when he stated he visited 57 states during his campaign. Instead, excuses were made or they remained silent. "He was tired." - Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC)
I also don't recall the media pouncing on Clinton about his numerous alleged affairs as they are with Cain either. "Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park and you'll never know what you'll find." - James Carville, Dem pundit, after Paula Jones made allegations against Clinton.
The double standards of the overall mainstream media are so overwhelmingly biased that it's sickening.
Posted on 11/12 11:36 AM | IP: Logged
The double standards of the overall mainstream media are so overwhelmingly biased that it's sickening.
Smartest thing said so far. We cannot allow four more years of Obama. 57 states from the president, just not acceptable.
Posted on 11/12 12:09 PM | IP: Logged
Heyman, if my memory serves me correctly, Obama actually said he'd been to 57 states, one more to go because his campaign didn't want him to go to Alaska and Hawaii....that would be 60 states....but as you said he constantly gets a pass from media when he says something stupid. At the time, the press said he was tired from all the campaigning. I think my 3 year old grandson knows there are 50 states and he's never even been to Kenya!!!
Posted on 11/12 1:56 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by txheel: Heyman, if my memory serves me correctly, Obama actually said he'd been to 57 states, one more to go because his campaign didn't want him to go to Alaska and Hawaii....that would be 60 states....but as you said he constantly gets a pass from media when he says something stupid. At the time, the press said he was tired from all the campaigning. I think my 3 year old grandson knows there are 50 states and he's never even been to Kenya!!!
Amen txheel. That is almost as bad as saying UNC has 6 national championships.....had to say it!
Posted on 11/12 3:38 PM | IP: Logged
Is Fox News not part of the mainstream media? Someone enlighten me as to how they're not.
I love how you guys are saying "gotcha" questions. That is without a doubt the funniest characterization ever. Sarah Palin really started something nice there.
Posted on 11/13 12:27 AM | IP: Logged
I think the "mainstream media" tag was given to the ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times etc type of media. Back in the old days that's all you had and it was "gospel" so to speak. That is why I don't think many, especailly on the right, consider FOX mainstream. But they are #1
Posted on 11/13 10:23 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by SFols: Is Fox News not part of the mainstream media? Someone enlighten me as to how they're not.
Even if you do want to observe Foxnews as msm then fine. One news network compared to all the others won't convince me about the obvious double standards.
Am I lying about the obvious difference the way the msm handled Obama's mistake of 57 states compared to Perry's mistake of forgetting the Cabinet he would eliminate?
Am I lying about the difference the way the msm handled Clinton's numerous allegations of affairs compared to Cain's?
If you think I am then prove me wrong.
Posted on 11/13 3:52 PM | IP: Logged
Ever who is running against Obama!
Posted on 11/13 5:31 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by crossoveryp:
Originally posted by SFols: Is Fox News not part of the mainstream media? Someone enlighten me as to how they're not.
Even if you do want to observe Foxnews as msm then fine. One news network compared to all the others won't convince me about the obvious double standards.
Am I lying about the obvious difference the way the msm handled Obama's mistake of 57 states compared to Perry's mistake of forgetting the Cabinet he would eliminate?
Am I lying about the difference the way the msm handled Clinton's numerous allegations of affairs compared to Cain's?
If you think I am then prove me wrong.
You just compared a minor misspeak from Obama to a major gaffe from Perry, who could not remember his OWN plan. It's so easy to quickly say 57 instead of 50; Perry stood on stage for nearly a minute unable to remember the 3rd agency he wants to cut. That's just sad performance. Plus, it has been a recurring theme with Perry.
You also compared a consentual affair (I'm not condoning it) with allegations of sexual ASSAULT.
Well done.
Blaming everything on the media in politics is the same thing as blaming everything on the refs in sports. It's a pathetic attempt to excuse a defeat of some kind. You ought to know that as Duke fans; we hear it all the time.
Posted on 11/13 8:13 PM | IP: Logged
In only your eyes would stating we have 57 states instead of 50 be a minor issue from front running candidate of the US of America. I'm sure Obama numerously calling our Peace Corps the Peace CORPSE was minor too. And that was as President. That's minor from our Commander-in-Chief? Really? This is the mindset of our wonderful young liberals today.
I don't blame the msm. I blame YOU (not sure if you're even old enough yet) and those like you for voting him in. What's worse is that I blame YOU for thinking things are better when they are clearly worse under Obama. And I'll bet the farm you still blame Bush for Obama's failed policies.
This post was edited on 11/14 10:40 AM by crossoveryp
Posted on 11/14 10:23 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by SFols:
You also compared a consentual affair (I'm not condoning it) with allegations of sexual ASSAULT.
No. I'm comparing the way the overall msm and people like you treat a Dem compared to a Rep in similar circumstances. I completely understand that you refuse to see it.
Posted on 11/14 11:08 AM | IP: Logged
On a funny note... the older Newt Gingrich gets, the more he looks like Elton John to me.
Posted on 11/14 4:06 PM | IP: Logged
^
He does look like him.
Posted on 11/14 4:15 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by crossoveryp:
Originally posted by SFols:
You also compared a consentual affair (I'm not condoning it) with allegations of sexual ASSAULT.
No. I'm comparing the way the overall msm and people like you treat a Dem compared to a Rep in similar circumstances. I completely understand that you refuse to see it.
Apparently, you do not understand the difference in the severity of the transgressions--if proven in Cain's case.
I blame YOU for electing the current Republican legislators and voting to make Sarah Palin vice president last time around. And I blame YOU for supporting disgraces like Herman Cain for the highest office in the land, and the world for that matter. Two can play that game.
Posted on 11/14 6:55 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by SFols:
And I blame YOU for supporting disgraces like Herman Cain for the highest office in the land...
You just don't want to see a 100% black man become President. You will only vote for one who is only half black. Racist. Remember that game you libs like to play?
This post was edited on 11/14 7:03 PM by crossoveryp
Posted on 11/14 7:02 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by txheel: Anybody but Obama. And if this isn't the cycle to run against an incumbent when and where would that be? I know everything is not Obama's fault but his policies are making the job creators sit on money and not hiring. Too many regulations etc. No confidence in the private sector and if that doesn't improve the jobs will be very slow to come back.
Anybody but Obama? Did you adopt that line before or after you even knew who he was? His policies have been compromised by people who have no other intention but to bring him down. They don't even show any sign of listening. If it's Obama, they oppose it. Period. That's pretty much what it sounds like when you say, "Anybody but Obama." Really? Anybody? Joe Sandusky? A reanimated Joe Stalin? Anybody?
Posted on 11/14 7:26 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by SFols:
I blame YOU for electing the current Republican legislators
I'll gladly take that blame, because if it wasn't for the Republicans making an historical election in 2010, we would be continuing in an even steeper landslide than we did from 2008 to 2010. The Dems and Obama did some serious damage in those 2 years. And the people took notice of the failed policies that got young people such as yourself in a debt we may never to be able to payoff. Obama is sinking because of his failed policies. And the Republicans are doing all they can to keep him from going any further in those failed policies. So again, I'll be more than happy to take the full blame for that.
Posted on 11/14 9:37 PM | IP: Logged
I know literally nothing about politics (wish I did, but it all just seems so overwhelming) but even I am tired of the Obama love. It's all I freaking hear when I'm over at the in-laws.
Posted on 11/14 10:07 PM | IP: Logged
^ Yeah.. the honeymoon has far been over for the majority of the people.
Posted on 11/14 10:10 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Dattier:
Originally posted by txheel: Anybody but Obama. And if this isn't the cycle to run against an incumbent when and where would that be? I know everything is not Obama's fault but his policies are making the job creators sit on money and not hiring. Too many regulations etc. No confidence in the private sector and if that doesn't improve the jobs will be very slow to come back.
Anybody but Obama? Did you adopt that line before or after you even knew who he was? His policies have been compromised by people who have no other intention but to bring him down. They don't even show any sign of listening. If it's Obama, they oppose it. Period. That's pretty much what it sounds like when you say, "Anybody but Obama." Really? Anybody? Joe Sandusky? A reanimated Joe Stalin? Anybody?
I adopted it NOW. And for his policies being compromised, what ahppened to the first two years when he had complete control of Congress. Are you saying the mid-terms were an affirmation of all good things Obama? and how the hell Sandusky got in this conversation is beyond me
Posted on 11/14 11:47 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Mpm277: I know literally nothing about politics (wish I did, but it all just seems so overwhelming) but even I am tired of the Obama love. It's all I freaking hear when I'm over at the in-laws.
I think the unreasonable Obama love is easily dwarfed by the unreasonable Obama hate.
Posted on 11/15 8:20 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Dattier:
Originally posted by Mpm277: I know literally nothing about politics (wish I did, but it all just seems so overwhelming) but even I am tired of the Obama love. It's all I freaking hear when I'm over at the in-laws.
I think the unreasonable Obama love is easily dwarfed by the unreasonable Obama hate.
I agree. People need to form their own opinions for themselves.
Posted on 11/15 4:40 PM | IP: Logged
^ Yeah.. but most Dems believe forming your own opinion of criticism towards Obama equates hatred.
Posted on 11/15 5:56 PM | IP: Logged
I, for one, do not hate President Obama. It is that his ideas and mine do not match up. I actually wish he would do well, but I do not see it.
Posted on 11/15 10:45 PM | IP: Logged
that's the way I feel. I am not vested in his failure. I want him to succeed. I want our economy to bust open and thrive. I just don't think Obama's policies and vision are going to get that done.
Posted on 11/16 9:06 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by txheel: that's the way I feel. I am not vested in his failure. I want him to succeed. I want our economy to bust open and thrive. I just don't think Obama's policies and vision are going to get that done.
Thanks for clarifying. That's fine. There are Republicans in Congress, though, who seem like they want gridlock solely to embarrass the President. They want our economy to thrive... but not until it costs Obama the '12 election.
Posted on 11/16 11:02 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by txheel: I want him to succeed.
That's the problem. He did succeed with his policies from 2008 to 2010. That's why we're in a deeper mess than prior to 2008. The Reps are trying everything they can to keep it from getting worse. So I'm glad to be considered the party of NO right now.
The Reps know Obama is going to veto anything they bring to his desk unless it lines up with his failed policies... unlike Bush did with the Dems in his last 6-12 months in office. That still ticks me off at him, but I didn't hate him for it and neither do I hate Obama. But I most certainly hate those kind of policies though. (bailouts, porkulus packages, etc)
Originally posted by txheel: I want our economy to bust open and thrive. I just don't think Obama's policies and vision are going to get that done.
Amen and Amen.
Posted on 11/16 11:40 AM | IP: Logged
why is this term "job creators" still used? i guess you're only considering the jobs they create in china?
how much money do they have to hoard until they start actually "creating jobs"? especially considering they've done better while the banks all screwed us.
Posted on 11/16 12:08 PM | IP: Logged
^ Job creation to most of the Dems means Union labor jobs. Very rarely do you hear them speak of private sector jobs.
Posted on 11/16 12:36 PM | IP: Logged
It's funny to me how the two people who are the smartest and seem to have an idea of what the hell is going on - Gingrich and Paul [a Duke med school graduate, if you didn't know] - are deemed "unelectable" for some odd reason. Not so much deemed unelectable by us though, but by corporations who spend millions buying our government. Or in the case of Fox News, bought by the largest disinformation campaign since the Third Reich. "Unelectable" is just code for "He would challenge the powers that be so we don't want him"
I will likely vote for Romney. He's going to win the GOP nomination. Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman and Perry are just absolute clowns and I can't take them seriously. And I decided I wasn't voting for Perry well before his gaffe at the most recent debate in Michigan. Going braindead for a few seconds isn't a big deal at all. Perry knows what sectors he wants to cut, he just went blank. These are presidential candidates, but they aren't robots, they're people. But of course the media blew Perry's miscue out of proportion, just like they sensationalize everything to fit whatever their agenda may be
And I'm not even really a Republican, per se. I just want what I think is best for our country at the time. This divide of liberal/conservative, democrat/republican is way overblown. I don't get why people are so obsessed with parties and liberal/conservative agendas. This divide is largely facilitated by, again, the media. And hell, I voted for McCain last time around. McCain vs. Obama was just choosing the lesser of two evils. The thought of having Sarah Palin potentially leading our country, should McCain have won the election and his old ass croaked in office, almost scared me into not voting at all. No way was I voting for Obama. The dude was essentially propagandized into the White House. This is a pretty scary time for our country and hopefully we can start to right the ship come 2012
This post was edited on 11/18 2:03 PM by jwill22duke
Posted on 11/18 9:55 AM | IP: Logged
^ I think the majority of the people are conservative by nature (monetary speaking). But there are quite a few people, although a minority, that enjoy spending tax payer money to the point of bankrupting the nation, and most of those people are in congress. Their great solution is to raise taxes on the rich, as if that is going to take us out of the massive debt we're in.
In saying that, there really is a battle between those two difference of beliefs.
I don't trust Romney or Huntsman. They are part of those minorities in congress that will continue bankrupting our nation, imo. That's why the msm like them so much. Those two aren't going to do anything to jeopardize the billions of dollars in wasteful social programs (not all) and other federal frivolous programs.
Ron Paul, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum... none of them are clowns. They are serious about getting America out of debt. They don't necessarily fit the mold of a US President. But come on, neither did Obama, yet the msm loved him anyway. He's the most inexperienced President ever elected and they joyfully helped him get there. Fitting the mold of a US President is clearly a smoke screen for the msm, it's about policies and most of them love Obama's policies. Bigger govt, class warfare, govt is good, millionaires are evil, etc. For the most part, they abhor the policies of fiscal conservatives. Therefore, they'll do whatever they can to knock them down.
Since FoxNews' talkshows expose this, they're considered the Third Reich of disinformation. God forbid there be another voice other than those from the left.
Posted on 11/18 1:39 PM | IP: Logged
It's not class warfare. Also, government can be a source of good, which Republicans hate to acknowledge and then seek to lead.
You're right, it is about policies. And most of the policies offered by the Republican candidates either suck or have no substance (e.g., Cain's 9-9-9 plan and Perry's plan to cut three government agencies).
Posted on 11/18 3:54 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by SFols: It's not class warfare. Also, government can be a source of good, which Republicans hate to acknowledge and then seek to lead.
Yes it has become class warfare. Pen the poor and middle class against the rich. Raise their taxes and redistribute it to those without.
Govt can be a source of good, but when it becomes as monstrous as it has become, the private sector growth stifles and the govt slowly becomes tyrannical. It's not a source of good when it becomes more like the European style socialists. That's why our founding fathers desired a limited govt. But our govt has become just the opposite of limited.
Originally posted by SFols: And most of the policies offered by the Republican candidates either suck or have no substance (e.g., Cain's 9-9-9 plan and Perry's plan to cut three government agencies).
Do you think Obama's policies ARE working (for the good)? We MUST cut frivolous spending, but the Dems and some Republicans won't no part of cutting govt. One day (and I don't think its far off) we will be forced to make cuts or (A) become a slave to China to maintain a big govt, or (B) a civil war will break out once the masses of people can no longer receive free handouts from the govt paid in full by taxpayers... simply because we're broke. When that happens, we all eventually become broke because the cost of living remains sky high while wages drastically drop.
This post was edited on 11/18 4:34 PM by crossoveryp
Posted on 11/18 4:30 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by crossoveryp:
Originally posted by SFols: It's not class warfare. Also, government can be a source of good, which Republicans hate to acknowledge and then seek to lead.
Yes it has become class warfare. Pen the poor and middle class against the rich. Raise their taxes and redistribute it to those without.
Govt can be a source of good, but when it becomes as monstrous as it has become, the private sector growth stifles and the govt slowly becomes tyrannical. It's not a source of good when it becomes more like the European style socialists. That's why our founding fathers desired a limited govt. But our govt has become just the opposite of limited.
Originally posted by SFols: And most of the policies offered by the Republican candidates either suck or have no substance (e.g., Cain's 9-9-9 plan and Perry's plan to cut three government agencies).
Do you think Obama's policies ARE working (for the good)? We MUST cut frivolous spending, but the Dems and some Republicans won't no part of cutting govt. One day (and I don't think its far off) we will be forced to make cuts or (A) become a slave to China to maintain a big govt, or (B) a civil war will break out once the masses of people can no longer receive free handouts from the govt paid in full by taxpayers... simply because we're broke. When that happens, we all eventually become broke because the cost of living remains sky high while wages drastically drop.
This post was edited on 11/18 4:34 PM by crossoveryp
The Bush tax cuts were the driving force in our current state of debt, and they unfairly have favored the rich. Their ownership of the wealth in this country and their wages have significantly risen, whereas the middle class has been deteriorating and more are falling into poverty. We cannot continue to give the wealthy tax cuts because of absurd theories of "trickle-down" economics. They can afford the increases, and many of them support them, including Warren Buffet. We have a huge debt crisis, and that would go a long way in cutting it down. I agree, as do most Democrats, that we must also cut spending significantly. The Democrats see that we must both cut spending and increase taxes on those who can afford it. The Republicans absolutely refuse to increase taxes on the wealthy; rather, they want to cut governments that mostly affect the poor and middle class. If anyone is playing class warfare, it's the Republicans. Republicans have this terrifying view that the rich are the end-all and be-all of this country and its economy. If we touch them or their taxes, our whole economy will shatter. That's BS. This country has always been strong because of its middle class. For the last few years, it has taken some serious hits, and the Republicans have provided no ideas on how to change that except to cut programs for the neediest Americans and to cut taxes for the wealthiest individuals and corporations. Clinton had a thriving economy, and taxes were much higher on the rich than they are now. It did not hinder job creation. Reagan even raised taxes 11 times.
Yes, I do believe Obama has done a lot of good. He hasn't done a great job, but he has had an incredible amount of problems to deal with during his presidency. I understand that is only an excuse for so long, but I think he has done a solid job of handling most of the issues in a good way. I do not see any Republican candidates who would do a better job. The only one I believe would do a decent job would be Mitt Romney, whom Republicans dislike because he's too liberal. He is the only serious candidate in the field right now in terms of electability and policies.
Posted on 11/18 6:03 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by SFols:
The Bush tax cuts were the driving force in our current state of debt, and they unfairly have favored the rich.
You honestly believe this? If that's soooo true, then why did OBAMA and the DEMS allow the tax cuts to go on? They had the perfect opportunity to raise the tax rate of millionaires, but they didn't. They allowed the Bush tax cuts to stay as is. You know why? Because they knew if they did, it would have sunk our economy faster than it already is sinking. THEY didn't want to take that blame. One would have to be willfully blind or ignorant not to see this.
Yes, I do believe Obama has done a lot of good.
Other than getting UBL, I don't see any good you are speaking of. Have you checked all the numbers lately? It's really really bad.
He hasn't done a great job, but he has had an incredible amount of problems to deal with during his presidency.
I agree with this to a certain extent because some of the problems were caused by his peers. But where was this sympathy from the left when Bush was President? He had to face the worst attack on American soil, Hurricane Katrina, and 422 other major disasters during his tenure, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac housing collapse that he TRIED to regulate but the dems didn't want to hear it (it was spearheaded by D-Chris Dodd & D-Barney Frank)... furthermore, he still faces daily blame for Obama's failed policies.
Posted on 11/19 10:59 AM | IP: Logged
Thank god for Dodd-Frank that's all I can say. About damn time...
Posted on 11/19 11:08 AM | IP: Logged
I kind of wish Bloomberg would actually run for president. If he did this time around, I think he could win as an independent.
^ That's all we need now is someone like Bloomberg to control our lives. He is the Ban King and a control freak. He has banned or supports to ban sugary soda and cell phones in public schools, trans fat, use of salt in restaurants in NYC, all religion and rescue workers from 9/11 ceremonies, smoking in parks and beaches, the use of food stamps to purchase sodas.
He supports ridiculously strict gun control laws (“I don’t know why people carry guns, guns kill people” - STUPID!), changed the term limit law for NYC mayor, created the NYPD Intelligence Division and installed 3000 surveillance cameras to keep a close watch on the people...
He owns 88% of Bloomberg L.P., which owns Bloomberg TV and WBBR. These stations are completely biased in favor of his policies. Control is his thing.
He is obviously against our 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment Rights, yet you support him? Yyou must support totalitarianism because he fits the profile with near perfection.
Posted on 11/23 12:11 AM | IP: Logged
what wouldthe left be saying if Bush or some Repub mayor put 3000 cameras up? I think we all know the answer. Bloom likes control but has no guts. Just look at how he curried to the OWS thugs
Posted on 11/23 9:17 AM | IP: Logged
As far as the super committee not getting anything done. Bloomberg shouldn't blame Obama. This is exactly how Obama wants it. When he goes into campaign mode, he will then be able to turn the blame from himself and point all the blame to the Republican congress, who had NOTHING to do with his failed policies that were put into place from 2008-2010.
I can hear the excuses now: "The Republicans didn't want to compromise so that America can get back on the right path."... "I was willing to meet them in the middle, but they want to make the rich richer and don't care about the middle class."... "They want me to fail because of their political games and partisanship."... "It's time for Congress to stop these silly games, and be serious so I can play more golf and take a few more lavish vacations before I'm done."
35-40% of ignorant or willfully blind Americans will fall for it, but those who have been around longer and/or have been following his Salinsky-style tactics will not believe the tripe.
This post was edited on 11/23 4:32 PM by crossoveryp
Posted on 11/23 4:29 PM | IP: Logged
I am NOT going to get in the middle of the crossoveryp/SFols debate.
I will observe, however, that IMO it is going to be very difficult politically for the Republicans to justify supporting Social Security and Medicare cuts while they also support maintaining tax breaks for the richest 5% of Americans. In that area, at least, I think that Obama has cast the Republican Congress in a very bad light.
Now to the Republicans. In re-reading this thread, I was reminded of my earlier comment that while Gingrich is the smartest man in the field, sometimes he doesn't know when to stop talking. Hence, I was not surprised by his comments about supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants or about wanting to extend and STRENGTHEN the "Patriot Act" (and thereby turn the USA into even more of a police state than it already is). IMO, Gingrich will be just as "dead" politically as Perry is in a month, maybe less.
Romney will be the Republican nominee, and many of us will have to decide whether we can vote for a man who we can't trust to do what he says, or just sit home and watch the country re-elect the weakest, most misguided President since Jimmy Carter. UGH!
Posted on 11/24 2:28 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by jaxdevil: Romney will be the Republican nominee, and many of us will have to decide whether we can vote for a man who we can't trust to do what he says, or just sit home and watch the country re-elect the weakest, most misguided President since Jimmy Carter. UGH!
You're dead on jaxdevil... that's why most of the msm do little to attack Romney. He gives Obama the best chance to get re-elected.
Posted on 11/24 7:53 PM | IP: Logged
Even the NYPost calls Mayor Bloomberg, "Nanny Bloomberg". The man is out of control.
Originally posted by jaxdevil: Romney will be the Republican nominee, and many of us will have to decide whether we can vote for a man who we can't trust to do what he says, or just sit home and watch the country re-elect the weakest, most misguided President since Jimmy Carter. UGH!
You're dead on jaxdevil... that's why most of the msm do little to attack Romney. He gives Obama the best chance to get re-elected.
They do attack Romney. He's just the only smart, sane person in the field. Herman Cain or Rick Perry would be Obama's best chance to get re-elected. Romney would easily be his toughest competition. And that's hilarious to say Obama is the most misguided president since Jimmy Carter.
Yahoo! Sports
