How the GOP Can Slaughter Obama

[JoeB131]

To the OP-

Yes, I've heard this before. We just need to be moderate. We need to pick someone from the middle.

No, what the GOP needs is a dynamic candidate, not the one who was focus grouped into place.

"Concensus" gets you John McCain.

To your first point, Romney is unelectable because of his religion, his sleazy business practices, and the fact he has all the resolve of a cooked pasta noodle. Whenever I see a "moderate" or "Liberal" telling us how great Romney is, I keep thinking of B'rer Rabbit not wanting to be thrown into the briar patch.

Point 2- Not another Affirmative Action Hire! Obama shows the foolishness of that. I have no problem nominating a woman for the second slot, but it should be one with actual accomplishments. Palin sounded great on paper, until we found out that she wasn't all that bright and had a family life that looked like it belonged on the Jerry Springer Show. More to the point, she undermined McCain's strongest argument against Obama- his lack of experience.

Point 3- Not seeing any of the major candidates really making a big deal about any of the social issues, but whoever wins can't be pro-gay, pro-abortion, etc. Because if you have a job, and that's what gets you out to the polls, you won't vote between two liberals on that issue.

Point 4- Blaming Bush is already running thin with people. No point in giving Obama a pass on his own ineptitude by conceding his excuses.

Point 5 - The main reason why I still support Republicans is because they are the only party that is strong on national defense. I'm too atheist to give a flip about the social issues, and I have no love for the Country Club Faction of the GOP who think I need to work harder so they can get another Polo Pony. If we get one that is going to throw up their hands on the war, for political reasons, I suspect I'd be done with them.

 

[auditor0007]

The number one reason why I am voting for Obama is because it looks like the GOP is going to take the Senate and keep the house. There's no way in hell I would give them or any party a controlled government ever again.

keep the house? interesting. it seems congress is polling lower than ever, no?

Voters are fickle, and there really is no telling which way they will move. We could see a Republican sweep or a Democratic sweep. More likely than not though, we'll see some type of split.

 

[Immanuel]

Obama is so vulnerable right now that 2012 is the GOP's race to win or lose. If they manage things even fairly well, they own him. All they have to do is coordinate a decent strategy and avoid some mistakes. Right now, they seem determined to f*ck this up but once they have their nominee that will hopefully change.

1. Realize who already has title on what real estate and go for the open land.

The GOP is going to get the Conservative vote no matter what. Even if the economy surges, all wars end, unemployment goes to zero and angels come down singing Obama's name, they will vote against him. This includes the vast majority of Tea Partiers and Libertarians.
Obama is going to get the TrueBlue Dems, Far Left Liberals, Union Workers, Gay and Black vote. Period.

That leaves Reagan Democrats, Moderates, Independents and maybe the Hispanic vote up for grabs.

So they can almost ignore their base and they should. Tea Partiers can claim they'll refuse to vote if the GOP goes with Romney (and several here have!) but come election day, are they going to give Obama another term out of spite? Doubtful.

They need to end this war that Conservatives have declared on all those Independents, Moderates etc... who are not "Conservative Enough" (i.e. agrees with them on absolutely everything) if they want to win. This means that Bachman can't be on the ticket. Paul is great. He's honest. And he's unelectable. Perry would be okay but he has some HUGE challenges that might drive away the very folks needed to win an election. The only people who don't / wouldn't see the Reincarnation of "W" in Perry, are people who would already vote GOP anyway.
Romney would be the smartest choice so far but of GEEZ wouldn't it be great if they could come up with a last minute entry that was better. Oh well.
For now, Romney would be the smartest choice.

2. Get Smart on VP. McCain actually had the right idea with Palin, he just had the wrong candidate. How many Dems, Libs, Mods & Indies think Bachmann or Palin are genuinely intelligent? None I know of. They're probably out there but they're the minority. The only people who love Palin or Bachmann are smart, are people whose vote is 100% guaranteed GOP anyway.
But look at Susana Martinez of NM. She actually is smart! She's strong, talented, was prosecutor of the year, so Conservative that the Tea Partiers would drink her like kool-aid and Hispanic. Okay, she's light on experience but that doesn't seem to be a big deal to Palin supporters and obviously wasn't to Obama supporters. Someone like Martinez would bring in women, Hispanics, Conservatives and a lot of Independents.

3. Gay marriage? Abortion? Gun laws? Who Cares! One of the biggest mistakes a couple of GOP candidates are making right now, is focusing on social issues. People who are out of work, could give a flying fartsicle about gay marriage. It's the economy stupid. They need to focus on that one thing like a laser.

4. Don't Excuse Bush. Right now, Obama is doing a great job of deflection. According to several polls, over 60% of the country still believes the Bush and the GOP are major contributing facotrs to the current situation. I'm surprised but oh well. So instead of blaming Obama, they would do better to flow with it. Something along the lines of:
"Well sure, President Obama was left a challenging situation. Obviously he wasn't the right guy to handle it because he's just made it worse. So as your next president, it will be my job to show you how we can turn things around."

5. Poach From His Previous Voters. One of the areas in which Obama is most vulnerable, is that he hasn't been Liberal enough. Now that OBL is out, why are we still in Afghanistan? I sure as hell don't support this. Or Iraq. Find the issues that even Conservatives could stomach and capitalize on them.
"I've supported our troops but now we've done what we need to do. We don't need to stay there and spend all that money, just to make an inexperienced president look more presidential.

If the GOP can avoid going with Bachmann or some other disaster candidate, pick a good VP, stop alienating everyone who isn't a Rush listener, avoid making this about social issues and focus on what people care about - the economy, then the WH should easily be theirs for the taking.

We'll see.

About the only part I disagree with is your somewhat naive assessment of Afghanistan. In that situation, we cannot just pull out. We must ensure that Afghanistan is stable before we leave, otherwise we are going to leave the place in a hugely vulnerable situation - ripe for yet another group of whackjobs to take over.

The GOP must put a smart ticket up to run against Obama, otherwise people us - the independents - will not vote for them. I didn't vote for McCain, and I will not vote for some idiot like Bachmann. I like Martinez, she's an intelligent, calm, rational woman. I like intelligent, calm rational women.

And I have to disagree with you. Either we plan on staying forever, or when we leave we will leave whack jobs governing there behind us. In twenty years or so we'll be at it again.

We may as well start that clock ticking now.

Immie

 

[Patrick2]

Facts for the reality-disconnected obamabots:

1. Americans have always voted first and foremost on economic issues.

2. The current president is held responsible for the economic conditions during his term.

3. The current economy is the worst since the Great Depression, 80 years ago.

Conclusion: obama goes

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama is so vulnerable right now that 2012 is the GOP's race to win or lose. If they manage things even fairly well, they own him. All they have to do is coordinate a decent strategy and avoid some mistakes. Right now, they seem determined to f*ck this up but once they have their nominee that will hopefully change.

1. Realize who already has title on what real estate and go for the open land.

The GOP is going to get the Conservative vote no matter what. Even if the economy surges, all wars end, unemployment goes to zero and angels come down singing Obama's name, they will vote against him. This includes the vast majority of Tea Partiers and Libertarians.
Obama is going to get the TrueBlue Dems, Far Left Liberals, Union Workers, Gay and Black vote. Period.

That leaves Reagan Democrats, Moderates, Independents and maybe the Hispanic vote up for grabs.

So they can almost ignore their base and they should. Tea Partiers can claim they'll refuse to vote if the GOP goes with Romney (and several here have!) but come election day, are they going to give Obama another term out of spite? Doubtful.

They need to end this war that Conservatives have declared on all those Independents, Moderates etc... who are not "Conservative Enough" (i.e. agrees with them on absolutely everything) if they want to win. This means that Bachman can't be on the ticket. Paul is great. He's honest. And he's unelectable. Perry would be okay but he has some HUGE challenges that might drive away the very folks needed to win an election. The only people who don't / wouldn't see the Reincarnation of "W" in Perry, are people who would already vote GOP anyway.
Romney would be the smartest choice so far but of GEEZ wouldn't it be great if they could come up with a last minute entry that was better. Oh well.
For now, Romney would be the smartest choice.

2. Get Smart on VP. McCain actually had the right idea with Palin, he just had the wrong candidate. How many Dems, Libs, Mods & Indies think Bachmann or Palin are genuinely intelligent? None I know of. They're probably out there but they're the minority. The only people who love Palin or Bachmann are smart, are people whose vote is 100% guaranteed GOP anyway.
But look at Susana Martinez of NM. She actually is smart! She's strong, talented, was prosecutor of the year, so Conservative that the Tea Partiers would drink her like kool-aid and Hispanic. Okay, she's light on experience but that doesn't seem to be a big deal to Palin supporters and obviously wasn't to Obama supporters. Someone like Martinez would bring in women, Hispanics, Conservatives and a lot of Independents.

3. Gay marriage? Abortion? Gun laws? Who Cares! One of the biggest mistakes a couple of GOP candidates are making right now, is focusing on social issues. People who are out of work, could give a flying fartsicle about gay marriage. It's the economy stupid. They need to focus on that one thing like a laser.

4. Don't Excuse Bush. Right now, Obama is doing a great job of deflection. According to several polls, over 60% of the country still believes the Bush and the GOP are major contributing facotrs to the current situation. I'm surprised but oh well. So instead of blaming Obama, they would do better to flow with it. Something along the lines of:
"Well sure, President Obama was left a challenging situation. Obviously he wasn't the right guy to handle it because he's just made it worse. So as your next president, it will be my job to show you how we can turn things around."

5. Poach From His Previous Voters. One of the areas in which Obama is most vulnerable, is that he hasn't been Liberal enough. Now that OBL is out, why are we still in Afghanistan? I sure as hell don't support this. Or Iraq. Find the issues that even Conservatives could stomach and capitalize on them.
"I've supported our troops but now we've done what we need to do. We don't need to stay there and spend all that money, just to make an inexperienced president look more presidential.

If the GOP can avoid going with Bachmann or some other disaster candidate, pick a good VP, stop alienating everyone who isn't a Rush listener, avoid making this about social issues and focus on what people care about - the economy, then the WH should easily be theirs for the taking.

We'll see.

You seem awfully confident, but I only see a few things I agree with.

1."The GOP is going to get the Conservative vote no matter what."
2."For now, Romney would be the smartest choice."

Why wouldn't Liberals get the Latino vote? The GOP declared war on the American workers, attacked the illegals in every conservative state, and your going to pay for that in the voting booth. The GOP also attacked the average workers payroll taxes that can cost the worker $1-2,000. a year, in favor of giving the rich more tax cuts.

Romney is a poster child for the Top 10%, which isn't going to bode well with moderate - poor voters.

You think people on social programs, government workers, seniors, disabled, medical needy, and women in general who Obama gave free health screenings to, are going to vote GOP? LMAO! Nah, that ain't happening. They know who the right really represents, and the cuts they have planned if they get the power.

Some social issues will be on the back burner, but National Health Care in these tuff times won't be one the items the GOP can hide from. Most people are smart enough to know it is the economy, and that medical insurance is eating them alive.

As for Obama making it worse? LMAO! I guarantee you these are among the sound bites the WH will remind voters about: "I don't care if workers lose their jobs." Boner. "Do Whatever it takes," "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," McConnell said,....... Internal RNC Memo: "Engage In Every Activity" To Slow Down Health Care Reform."

The GOP wanted to default on America and let go into the Abyss. Do you think the voters will forget the day the GOP turned their back on America?

So let me get this straight...Those sound bite's are the reason Barack Obama has failed? Even though the Democrats had super majorities in the House and Senate you're going to blame his inept leadership on the party that for two years were fighting that super majority? That's really quite amusing.

The fact is...this Administration is the victim of it's own success in 2008. Because they won by a landslide in that election, Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office totally in control. When he looked at Eric Cantor in that meeting held at the White House and told him "I won"? That was about as dismissive a statement as has ever been issued. Obama HAD won. He had super majorities and he was informing the opposition that he didn't really care what THEY thought...that it was he that was calling the shots. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi drew up progressive legislation behind closed doors and the Republicans cooled their heels out in the hall. And if the American people in poll after poll didn't really want Obama Care? Obama, Reid and Pelosi didn't care what THEY thought either. They won. So they called the shots.

Now you can TRY and portray what happened in a different light but that's reality. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party had their opportunity to run the country and they told everyone that THEY knew best. They called the shots...they are responsible for the results...or lack thereof. So please don't turn around now after almost three years of ineptitude and try and blame the people who were locked out while this was going on. This President has never taken responsibility. He takes credit...even when it isn't due but when it comes to taking responsibility, it's never his fault. It's Bush's, it's the Tea Party, it's earthquakes and other natural disasters, it's Wall Street, it's the Private Sector, it's ANYONE other than him.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Seriously, those of you who believe that any Republican candidate is going to win the election by a landslide is smokin sum reelly goood shite. The first thing that any Republican will need to overcome is a big discrepancy in money, as Obama is going to have at least 30% more to spend. Since he doesn't have to worry about any primary battle, he can do as much fundraising as possible during the primary season and just sock that money away for the general. On top of that, he has proven to be very good at raising money. The other problem the Republicans have is that no matter which of the wanna bees they nominate, none of them are strong candidates. Perry could be, but the whole Bush/Texas thing will keep him from being as strong as he could.

These are all valid points. Like my article on Perry, this one is not a commentary about Obama (although I personally think he sucks), so much as campaign strategy. Anyone counting out the sheer force of spendable dollars is a fool and Obama's war chest is already huge!
Which brings up another point that would be advisable to the GOP: Pick quickly. There are always whackjobs who are so moonfaced, they think that even when it comes to a presidential election, they don't have a fight on their hands
Those folks could turn the GOP in-fighting so vicious and garner so much resentment, that a lot of voters refuse to turn out. This was a real danger in for the Dems '08. There were a LOT of voters who were pissed that Hilary didn't get the nomination and weren't going to vote until she got on tv and pleaded on behalf of Obama and the party.
But I wouldn't call Romney or Perry "wannabes". These are life-long professional politicians and both can build huge war chests in short periods of time.

 

[IndependntLogic]

You missed the point sparky. Even "moderates" are losing their jobs, homes, and 401ks. They will put aside their usual flukey capricious behavior in favor of surviving.

Well, let's put that to the test. How many Independents & Moderates here would vote for Bachmann over Obama?

I prefer a scientific survery to your off-the-cuff brainfarts.

By november 2012, people in this country may be truly desperate, and it goes against all reason that EVEN the "moderates", admittedly the dumbest rank of the electorate, will be saying WHOOPEE - four more years!!

LOL. And you have WHAT "scientific survey" to provide? You're funny! Fail.

Also, love your label of millions of people (i.e. Moderates). You're just so obviously a Mensa member
I'm sorry, which chapter are you a member of? I look you up in our directory!

So as usual, when faced with facts or direct questions, you employ the whackjob techniques. This is predictible. Tell you what. I watched FOX today. I'll save you time. You just post the subject or issue and I'll tell you what your position on it is. That's always easy with mindless sheeple. Now, you just go listen to some Rush, watch a little Glenn and learn what to think next...

 

[Dot Com]

Did you cut and paste this?
How the GOP can Slaughter Obama in 2012

He's also perpetuating the over-the-top/violent language that Bible Spice (Payland) was using.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Obama is so vulnerable right now that 2012 is the GOP's race to win or lose. If they manage things even fairly well, they own him. All they have to do is coordinate a decent strategy and avoid some mistakes. Right now, they seem determined to f*ck this up but once they have their nominee that will hopefully change.

1. Realize who already has title on what real estate and go for the open land.

The GOP is going to get the Conservative vote no matter what. Even if the economy surges, all wars end, unemployment goes to zero and angels come down singing Obama's name, they will vote against him. This includes the vast majority of Tea Partiers and Libertarians.
Obama is going to get the TrueBlue Dems, Far Left Liberals, Union Workers, Gay and Black vote. Period.

That leaves Reagan Democrats, Moderates, Independents and maybe the Hispanic vote up for grabs.

So they can almost ignore their base and they should. Tea Partiers can claim they'll refuse to vote if the GOP goes with Romney (and several here have!) but come election day, are they going to give Obama another term out of spite? Doubtful.

They need to end this war that Conservatives have declared on all those Independents, Moderates etc... who are not "Conservative Enough" (i.e. agrees with them on absolutely everything) if they want to win. This means that Bachman can't be on the ticket. Paul is great. He's honest. And he's unelectable. Perry would be okay but he has some HUGE challenges that might drive away the very folks needed to win an election. The only people who don't / wouldn't see the Reincarnation of "W" in Perry, are people who would already vote GOP anyway.
Romney would be the smartest choice so far but of GEEZ wouldn't it be great if they could come up with a last minute entry that was better. Oh well.
For now, Romney would be the smartest choice.

2. Get Smart on VP. McCain actually had the right idea with Palin, he just had the wrong candidate. How many Dems, Libs, Mods & Indies think Bachmann or Palin are genuinely intelligent? None I know of. They're probably out there but they're the minority. The only people who love Palin or Bachmann are smart, are people whose vote is 100% guaranteed GOP anyway.
But look at Susana Martinez of NM. She actually is smart! She's strong, talented, was prosecutor of the year, so Conservative that the Tea Partiers would drink her like kool-aid and Hispanic. Okay, she's light on experience but that doesn't seem to be a big deal to Palin supporters and obviously wasn't to Obama supporters. Someone like Martinez would bring in women, Hispanics, Conservatives and a lot of Independents.

3. Gay marriage? Abortion? Gun laws? Who Cares! One of the biggest mistakes a couple of GOP candidates are making right now, is focusing on social issues. People who are out of work, could give a flying fartsicle about gay marriage. It's the economy stupid. They need to focus on that one thing like a laser.

4. Don't Excuse Bush. Right now, Obama is doing a great job of deflection. According to several polls, over 60% of the country still believes the Bush and the GOP are major contributing facotrs to the current situation. I'm surprised but oh well. So instead of blaming Obama, they would do better to flow with it. Something along the lines of:
"Well sure, President Obama was left a challenging situation. Obviously he wasn't the right guy to handle it because he's just made it worse. So as your next president, it will be my job to show you how we can turn things around."

5. Poach From His Previous Voters. One of the areas in which Obama is most vulnerable, is that he hasn't been Liberal enough. Now that OBL is out, why are we still in Afghanistan? I sure as hell don't support this. Or Iraq. Find the issues that even Conservatives could stomach and capitalize on them.
"I've supported our troops but now we've done what we need to do. We don't need to stay there and spend all that money, just to make an inexperienced president look more presidential.

If the GOP can avoid going with Bachmann or some other disaster candidate, pick a good VP, stop alienating everyone who isn't a Rush listener, avoid making this about social issues and focus on what people care about - the economy, then the WH should easily be theirs for the taking.

We'll see.

You seem awfully confident, but I only see a few things I agree with.

1."The GOP is going to get the Conservative vote no matter what."
2."For now, Romney would be the smartest choice."

Why wouldn't Liberals get the Latino vote? The GOP declared war on the American workers, attacked the illegals in every conservative state, and your going to pay for that in the voting booth. The GOP also attacked the average workers payroll taxes that can cost the worker $1-2,000. a year, in favor of giving the rich more tax cuts.

Romney is a poster child for the Top 10%, which isn't going to bode well with moderate - poor voters.

You think people on social programs, government workers, seniors, disabled, medical needy, and women in general who Obama gave free health screenings to, are going to vote GOP? LMAO! Nah, that ain't happening. They know who the right really represents, and the cuts they have planned if they get the power.

Some social issues will be on the back burner, but National Health Care in these tuff times won't be one the items the GOP can hide from. Most people are smart enough to know it is the economy, and that medical insurance is eating them alive.

As for Obama making it worse? LMAO! I guarantee you these are among the sound bites the WH will remind voters about: "I don't care if workers lose their jobs." Boner. "Do Whatever it takes," "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," McConnell said,....... Internal RNC Memo: "Engage In Every Activity" To Slow Down Health Care Reform."

The GOP wanted to default on America and let go into the Abyss. Do you think the voters will forget the day the GOP turned their back on America?

You seem to think I am a Republican or Conservative. Not the first time. Generally when I post something that isn't great for a particular side, they assume I am a member of the other.
I'm simply discussing political strategy.
Yes, the Hispanic vote is much more inclined to go with Obama. And if the GOP puts Paul or Whackmann on the ticket, they've just handed that voting block over, lock stock and barrel. Only a complete whackjob would think otherwise (see posts by Patrick2 for confirmation of this ). So you have a valid point there.

Romney is a top 10% but guess what? So is every candidate that had run or been elected for a hundred years. He's just a bit more obvious. I think he's got bigger problems than that.

As far as people on social programs, whether it's fair or not, I believe a lot of them will blame Obama for them being on those social programs in the first place (most obvious example: unemployment). Now I personally believe that Obama has absolutely ZERO to do with unemployment but I am a business owner and have run divisions of large companies. That does not describe the average FOX viewer.
I will agree that the GOP shot themselves in the foot with seniors, with The Ryan Plan but that has already been spun and the plan didn't pass anyway. They'll forget. Americans always do.

Again, whether or not Obama actually made things worse, is not my point. I'm only discussing strategy. Yes, the Dems will have LOTS of wonderful sound bites too. But there is no allegiance in my OP, simply observation and opinion on tactics that might be employed.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Obama is so vulnerable right now that 2012 is the GOP's race to win or lose. If they manage things even fairly well, they own him. All they have to do is coordinate a decent strategy and avoid some mistakes. Right now, they seem determined to f*ck this up but once they have their nominee that will hopefully change.

1. Realize who already has title on what real estate and go for the open land.

The GOP is going to get the Conservative vote no matter what. Even if the economy surges, all wars end, unemployment goes to zero and angels come down singing Obama's name, they will vote against him. This includes the vast majority of Tea Partiers and Libertarians.
Obama is going to get the TrueBlue Dems, Far Left Liberals, Union Workers, Gay and Black vote. Period.

That leaves Reagan Democrats, Moderates, Independents and maybe the Hispanic vote up for grabs.

So they can almost ignore their base and they should. Tea Partiers can claim they'll refuse to vote if the GOP goes with Romney (and several here have!) but come election day, are they going to give Obama another term out of spite? Doubtful.

They need to end this war that Conservatives have declared on all those Independents, Moderates etc... who are not "Conservative Enough" (i.e. agrees with them on absolutely everything) if they want to win. This means that Bachman can't be on the ticket. Paul is great. He's honest. And he's unelectable. Perry would be okay but he has some HUGE challenges that might drive away the very folks needed to win an election. The only people who don't / wouldn't see the Reincarnation of "W" in Perry, are people who would already vote GOP anyway.
Romney would be the smartest choice so far but of GEEZ wouldn't it be great if they could come up with a last minute entry that was better. Oh well.
For now, Romney would be the smartest choice.

2. Get Smart on VP. McCain actually had the right idea with Palin, he just had the wrong candidate. How many Dems, Libs, Mods & Indies think Bachmann or Palin are genuinely intelligent? None I know of. They're probably out there but they're the minority. The only people who love Palin or Bachmann are smart, are people whose vote is 100% guaranteed GOP anyway.
But look at Susana Martinez of NM. She actually is smart! She's strong, talented, was prosecutor of the year, so Conservative that the Tea Partiers would drink her like kool-aid and Hispanic. Okay, she's light on experience but that doesn't seem to be a big deal to Palin supporters and obviously wasn't to Obama supporters. Someone like Martinez would bring in women, Hispanics, Conservatives and a lot of Independents.

3. Gay marriage? Abortion? Gun laws? Who Cares! One of the biggest mistakes a couple of GOP candidates are making right now, is focusing on social issues. People who are out of work, could give a flying fartsicle about gay marriage. It's the economy stupid. They need to focus on that one thing like a laser.

4. Don't Excuse Bush. Right now, Obama is doing a great job of deflection. According to several polls, over 60% of the country still believes the Bush and the GOP are major contributing facotrs to the current situation. I'm surprised but oh well. So instead of blaming Obama, they would do better to flow with it. Something along the lines of:
"Well sure, President Obama was left a challenging situation. Obviously he wasn't the right guy to handle it because he's just made it worse. So as your next president, it will be my job to show you how we can turn things around."

5. Poach From His Previous Voters. One of the areas in which Obama is most vulnerable, is that he hasn't been Liberal enough. Now that OBL is out, why are we still in Afghanistan? I sure as hell don't support this. Or Iraq. Find the issues that even Conservatives could stomach and capitalize on them.
"I've supported our troops but now we've done what we need to do. We don't need to stay there and spend all that money, just to make an inexperienced president look more presidential.

If the GOP can avoid going with Bachmann or some other disaster candidate, pick a good VP, stop alienating everyone who isn't a Rush listener, avoid making this about social issues and focus on what people care about - the economy, then the WH should easily be theirs for the taking.

We'll see.

About the only part I disagree with is your somewhat naive assessment of Afghanistan. In that situation, we cannot just pull out. We must ensure that Afghanistan is stable before we leave, otherwise we are going to leave the place in a hugely vulnerable situation - ripe for yet another group of whackjobs to take over.

The GOP must put a smart ticket up to run against Obama, otherwise people us - the independents - will not vote for them. I didn't vote for McCain, and I will not vote for some idiot like Bachmann. I like Martinez, she's an intelligent, calm, rational woman. I like intelligent, calm rational women.

Well, when it comes to Afghanistan, I don't think we would have an ally if we stayed there for 100 years. I think that within 5 years after we left, they would be a bunch of tribal theocracies. But my comment about it was solely meant as an example of where the GOP could poach voters who were upset with Obama, while spinning it in such a way, that Conservs would be okay with it.
Good post though!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is baloney - the GOP doesn't need to go after the "moderates". People's lives are being destroyed in a way not seen for 80 years - voters will give obama and his leftwing entourage the boot just as a matter of survival.

Spoken like a true, well, never mind. Of course. You're absolutely right. Independents, Moderates etc... never decide elections. You betcha!

You missed the point sparky. Even "moderates" are losing their jobs, homes, and 401ks. They will put aside their usual flukey capricious behavior in favor of surviving.

With Romney, yes. With Perry, just perhaps. With anyone further right, no.

 

[JoeB131]

Spoken like a true, well, never mind. Of course. You're absolutely right. Independents, Moderates etc... never decide elections. You betcha!

You missed the point sparky. Even "moderates" are losing their jobs, homes, and 401ks. They will put aside their usual flukey capricious behavior in favor of surviving.

With Romney, yes. With Perry, just perhaps. With anyone further right, no.

Oh, Jake, quit trying to foist the Magic Underwear on us.

Romney sucked as a candidate in 2008, what has he done since then to get better?

he got beat by Huckabee. He got beat by McCain. He's gonna get beat by Perry.

Seriously, who would you rather have a beer with? Perry, who can talk about sports and red meat politics, or Romney talking about annuities and tax shelters?

All other things being equal, people vote for people they can connect with.

And the Android from Kolob's Programming hasn't been that neatly refined yet.

 

[elvis]

You missed the point sparky. Even "moderates" are losing their jobs, homes, and 401ks. They will put aside their usual flukey capricious behavior in favor of surviving.

With Romney, yes. With Perry, just perhaps. With anyone further right, no.

Oh, Jake, quit trying to foist the Magic Underwear on us.

Romney sucked as a candidate in 2008, what has he done since then to get better?

he got beat by Huckabee. He got beat by McCain. He's gonna get beat by Perry.

Seriously, who would you rather have a beer with? Perry, who can talk about sports and red meat politics, or Romney talking about annuities and tax shelters?

All other things being equal, people vote for people they can connect with.

And the Android from Kolob's Programming hasn't been that neatly refined yet.

Are all other things equal?

 

[nolebrakai]

thats a lot of hot air OP. in this current political environment, who knows what can happen.



and I have to sort of laugh as I admire your attempt to be reasonable from a right wing perspective. However, seems the right wing you have dreamed up in your OP is just a fantasy. this current crop wants blood and they want it now. hell, they were willing to default our nations debt to make a point. I don't see ho you can rationalize with this current GOP caucus.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, I've heard this before. We just need to be moderate. We need to pick someone from the middle.

No, what the GOP needs is a dynamic candidate, not the one who was focus grouped into place.

"Concensus" gets you John McCain.

To your first point, Romney is unelectable because of his religion, his sleazy business practices, and the fact he has all the resolve of a cooked pasta noodle. Whenever I see a "moderate" or "Liberal" telling us how great Romney is, I keep thinking of B'rer Rabbit not wanting to be thrown into the briar patch.
Point 3- Not seeing any of the major candidates really making a big deal about any of the social issues, but whoever wins can't be pro-gay, pro-abortion, etc. Because if you have a job, and that's what gets you out to the polls, you won't vote between two liberals on that issue.

Point 4- Blaming Bush is already running thin with people. No point in giving Obama a pass on his own ineptitude by conceding his excuses.

Point 5 - The main reason why I still support Republicans is because they are the only party that is strong on national defense. I'm too atheist to give a flip about the social issues, and I have no love for the Country Club Faction of the GOP who think I need to work harder so they can get another Polo Pony. If we get one that is going to throw up their hands on the war, for political reasons, I suspect I'd be done with them.

I did not see anything that suggests Republicans need a more moderate candidate. What I did see was that Republicans need a candidate that moderates will vote for and that is a fact. Some positions are simply not going to resonate with moderate voters and it is not possible to get elected without them. To that point, what the Republicans need is a real Republican that holds those core values but can make some concessions for the moderate voters.

To 3: The point in the OP ( as I see it at least) is that there are far more people that simply will not vote for you if you are trumpeting those social issues than will vote for you and I happen to agree with that assessment. They have not gone full bore on that subject yet because we are in the primaries where all the candidates completely agree on those topics (because disagreeing would be a sure looser in a republican primary). When we get to the real fight is when the republicans traditionally screw it up trying to pander to people that are going to vote for them anyway. They will do it then to highlight the difference between them and Obama but it will only sour the independent voters who, for the most part, disagree with the republican social agenda. The funny part is that, I believe, the vast majority of Americans actually are fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, there is no party that represents them...

To 5: You might but the majority of voters do not agree at this point. I do not want to cut and run BUT I don't want to be there forever either. We need real goals, something I feel we are short on over there.


@ IndependntLogic

What is your take on John Huntsman? I have not been paying much attention to him as I am less concerned with the primaries as I am with the actual election but I heard him speak today on POTUS and was impressed with his points and way of presenting them. Off the cuff, he is someone I could vote for. I would need to do more research before the final of course but I wanted to hear your take on him. He had some very good answers for callers and rebuffs for the points brought against him from the commenters.

 

[IndependntLogic]

thats a lot of hot air OP. in this current political environment, who knows what can happen.

and I have to sort of laugh as I admire your attempt to be reasonable from a right wing perspective. However, seems the right wing you have dreamed up in your OP is just a fantasy. this current crop wants blood and they want it now. hell, they were willing to default our nations debt to make a point. I don't see ho you can rationalize with this current GOP caucus.

Based on the statement in bold above, why assume a non-biased commentary on strategy is "hot air"?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Yes, I've heard this before. We just need to be moderate. We need to pick someone from the middle.

No, what the GOP needs is a dynamic candidate, not the one who was focus grouped into place.

"Concensus" gets you John McCain.

To your first point, Romney is unelectable because of his religion, his sleazy business practices, and the fact he has all the resolve of a cooked pasta noodle. Whenever I see a "moderate" or "Liberal" telling us how great Romney is, I keep thinking of B'rer Rabbit not wanting to be thrown into the briar patch.
Point 3- Not seeing any of the major candidates really making a big deal about any of the social issues, but whoever wins can't be pro-gay, pro-abortion, etc. Because if you have a job, and that's what gets you out to the polls, you won't vote between two liberals on that issue.

Point 4- Blaming Bush is already running thin with people. No point in giving Obama a pass on his own ineptitude by conceding his excuses.

Point 5 - The main reason why I still support Republicans is because they are the only party that is strong on national defense. I'm too atheist to give a flip about the social issues, and I have no love for the Country Club Faction of the GOP who think I need to work harder so they can get another Polo Pony. If we get one that is going to throw up their hands on the war, for political reasons, I suspect I'd be done with them.

I did not see anything that suggests Republicans need a more moderate candidate. What I did see was that Republicans need a candidate that moderates will vote for and that is a fact. Some positions are simply not going to resonate with moderate voters and it is not possible to get elected without them. To that point, what the Republicans need is a real Republican that holds those core values but can make some concessions for the moderate voters.

To 3: The point in the OP ( as I see it at least) is that there are far more people that simply will not vote for you if you are trumpeting those social issues than will vote for you and I happen to agree with that assessment. They have not gone full bore on that subject yet because we are in the primaries where all the candidates completely agree on those topics (because disagreeing would be a sure looser in a republican primary). When we get to the real fight is when the republicans traditionally screw it up trying to pander to people that are going to vote for them anyway. They will do it then to highlight the difference between them and Obama but it will only sour the independent voters who, for the most part, disagree with the republican social agenda. The funny part is that, I believe, the vast majority of Americans actually are fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, there is no party that represents them...

To 5: You might but the majority of voters do not agree at this point. I do not want to cut and run BUT I don't want to be there forever either. We need real goals, something I feel we are short on over there.


@ IndependntLogic

What is your take on John Huntsman? I have not been paying much attention to him as I am less concerned with the primaries as I am with the actual election but I heard him speak today on POTUS and was impressed with his points and way of presenting them. Off the cuff, he is someone I could vote for. I would need to do more research before the final of course but I wanted to hear your take on him. He had some very good answers for callers and rebuffs for the points brought against him from the commenters.

I do not see the GOP, Tea Party or Libertarians giving him even a remote chance at the nomination. Ask any GOP / Conservative poster here if they would support him as the nominee. We both know the answer.

 

[JoeB131]

Seriously, who would you rather have a beer with? Perry, who can talk about sports and red meat politics, or Romney talking about annuities and tax shelters?

All other things being equal, people vote for people they can connect with.

And the Android from Kolob's Programming hasn't been that neatly refined yet.

Are all other things equal?

In terms of the GOP nomination, they largely are. They both are largely singing from the same hymnbook on policy. They are both evenly matched on experience, ability to raise funds.

 

[JoeB131]

did not see anything that suggests Republicans need a more moderate candidate. What I did see was that Republicans need a candidate that moderates will vote for and that is a fact. Some positions are simply not going to resonate with moderate voters and it is not possible to get elected without them. To that point, what the Republicans need is a real Republican that holds those core values but can make some concessions for the moderate voters.

To 3: The point in the OP ( as I see it at least) is that there are far more people that simply will not vote for you if you are trumpeting those social issues than will vote for you and I happen to agree with that assessment. They have not gone full bore on that subject yet because we are in the primaries where all the candidates completely agree on those topics (because disagreeing would be a sure looser in a republican primary). When we get to the real fight is when the republicans traditionally screw it up trying to pander to people that are going to vote for them anyway. They will do it then to highlight the difference between them and Obama but it will only sour the independent voters who, for the most part, disagree with the republican social agenda. The funny part is that, I believe, the vast majority of Americans actually are fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, there is no party that represents them...
.

Now, I want to clarify, that I consider myself moderate on the "Social Issues". I think we need common sense gun laws, I think banning abortion is impractical and I think gays should be allowed to get married if they can win over a majority to agree to change the laws. As an agnostic and pragmatist, I am horrified that there is a section of the population that believes the reason there aren't any more dinosaurs is because Noah didn't have room for them on the ark.

That said, I just have to wonder, what supposed social issue stance do you refer to that really turns people off?

It's not the Republicans who have to hide what they believe on social issues, it's the Democrats. Every time gay marriage is put on the ballot, it loses. Even tragedies like Tuscon and Columbine can't change the gun laws. Nobody really thinks abortion is a wonderful thing, and most Americans really think God had something to do with the creation of the world. The Democrats can never win against the "bitter Clingers" at the ballot box on these issues, so they rely on judges (wink, wink) to find their way somewhere in the 14th Amednemnt.

This is why I think the Country Club Set was absolutely horrified by Mike Huckabee in 2008. He spoke to Social Issues without giving a flip if Daddy Warbucks has his third polo pony or not. And when Huck pointed out to the religious right that Mitt Romney was a Mormon, he sank faster than a rock. They finally settled on McCain, realizing he was a sure-fire loser.

I think the country clubbers would still prefer to have Romney, but they can probably live with Perry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You missed the point sparky. Even "moderates" are losing their jobs, homes, and 401ks. They will put aside their usual flukey capricious behavior in favor of surviving.

With Romney, yes. With Perry, just perhaps. With anyone further right, no.

Oh, Jake, quit trying to foist the Magic Underwear on us.

Romney sucked as a candidate in 2008, what has he done since then to get better?

he got beat by Huckabee. He got beat by McCain. He's gonna get beat by Perry.

Seriously, who would you rather have a beer with? Perry, who can talk about sports and red meat politics, or Romney talking about annuities and tax shelters?

All other things being equal, people vote for people they can connect with.

And the Android from Kolob's Programming hasn't been that neatly refined yet.

Quit whining. I am not LDS, I am pro-sanity GOP, and I can vote for Romney before Perry, but Perry before Obama.