It is time for Republicans to start panicking?

[JoeB131]

I pretty much agree with everything you said, with the exception of Obama being an awful president. From a conservative standpoint, sure; but from a moderate or liberal standpoint, he hasn't been awful - good to mediocre maybe, but not awful.

He has managed to accomplish a lot - especially when you consider the obstructionism he faced from congressional Republicans. Sure, the first year or so of his term, he had a majority in both houses; but in the senate, it was a small majority (by senate standards), which meant that Democrats had to waterdown a lot of legislation to get enough moderate Republicans to vote with them.

Republicans have proven time and time again that they have no interest in working with this president - even on lehislation that was originally their idea. It's going to take a lot more than folding arms and stomping feet for Republicans to convince America that they deserve to run the country.

And on top of those legislative victories, he has a number of foreign policy achievements under his belt that will undoubtedly appeal to people of all political stripes; Bin Laden, Ghaddafi, and any one of the killed or captured AQ leaders could attest to that.

But here's the thing, he really couldn't get things accomplished when he controlled both houses of Congress by healthy margins. He let Pelosi and Reid take the lead, with the disasterous results that followed.

Of course, the opposition party is going to act like an opposition party. And a Smart President learns how to triangulate. (Sweet Evil Jesus, I'm citing Clinton as a good example?) If there's been too much foot stomping, there's been too much foot stomping on both sides.

Even when I agree with him on something, the way he handles things is awful. I think he's perfectly inthe right on his fight with the Catholic Church on Family Planning Coverage. And 75% of Catholics probalby agree with him. But the way he handled it, was simply awful, and he ended up looking like he was bowing to the Bishops instead of standing his ground. (Even though in reality, he gave very little ground on the issue.)

Now, for his foreign policy- yeah, it hasn't been that bad. But that was because he didn't listen to himself. He kept Bush's polcies and Bush's team, and Hillary has done a remarkable job as Secretary of State. The people he opposed saved him from himself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is time for Republicans to start panicing

‘Panic’ would imply some unforeseen catastrophic event manifesting itself suddenly – that’s not the case with our friends on the right. They knew going in the election was lost, their current crop of poor candidates is evidence of that.

 

[Valerie]

It is time for Republicans to start panicing

‘Panic’ would imply some unforeseen catastrophic event manifesting itself suddenly – that’s not the case with our friends on the right. They knew going in the election was lost, their current crop of poor candidates is evidence of that.

And just like when Mitt Romney stepped up in 1994 to run against an unopposed Ted Kennedy in the Massachusetts Senate, so too shall he stand up and fight a principled fight despite the odds being stacked against him. That's just the kind of stand up guy he is.

I'm rooting for him because I believe the country would do well under his leadership.

 

[JoeB131]

It is time for Republicans to start panicing

‘Panic’ would imply some unforeseen catastrophic event manifesting itself suddenly – that’s not the case with our friends on the right. They knew going in the election was lost, their current crop of poor candidates is evidence of that.

And just like when Mitt Romney stepped up in 1994 to run against an unopposed Ted Kennedy in the Massachusetts Senate, so too shall he stand up and fight a principled fight despite the odds being stacked against him. That's just the kind of stand up guy he is.

I'm rooting for him because I believe the country would do well under his leadership.

Please. I'm voting against him because I don't want the Mormon Cult running my country, thank you very much...

 

[California Girl]

It is time for Republicans to start panicing

‘Panic’ would imply some unforeseen catastrophic event manifesting itself suddenly – that’s not the case with our friends on the right. They knew going in the election was lost, their current crop of poor candidates is evidence of that.

And just like when Mitt Romney stepped up in 1994 to run against an unopposed Ted Kennedy in the Massachusetts Senate, so too shall he stand up and fight a principled fight despite the odds being stacked against him. That's just the kind of stand up guy he is.

I'm rooting for him because I believe the country would do well under his leadership.

I'm down with that. He's a strong candidate. Decent man, hard working, principled and smart... and he's best suited to provide the structure to support a strong economy.

 

[FuelRod]

If the Author could spell "panicking" that would be cause for alarm.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It is time to start panicking when supposedly erudite and computer literate folks can't spell a simple fourth grade word and can't use spell check effectively.

Common, folks. Spell check is basic courtesy.


Now as when it is time to panic, that will be November 5 if the republican nominee is not ahead of Obama in the polls by at least 10%. That will mean there are too many incredibly stupid voters for the safety of the Republic, given his actions since he took office.

 

[JoeB131]

It is time to start panicking when supposedly erudite and computer literate folks can't spell a simple fourth grade word and can't use spell check effectively.

Common, folks. Spell check is basic courtesy.

Now as when it is time to panic, that will be November 5 if the republican nominee is not ahead of Obama in the polls by at least 10%. That will mean there are too many incredibly stupid voters for the safety of the Republic, given his actions since he took office.

OR that the GOP didn't nominate anyone who was worth voting for.

If hatred of the guy holding the job was enough to get him out by itself, we'd be at the end of President Kerry's second term right now. It's not enough to just dislike Obama, you have to get someone people are FOR.

And that's not Mitt Romney. The more people find out about Mitt, the less they like him.

It could be Rick Santorum. I like Rick, but here's a guy who went from 4% in the polls in the end of December and now he's leading in one poll this morning.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

True that. You can't replace a something with a nothing. And that is the way the race boils down. Obama is a something and Romney is even more of an empty suit than Obama was four years ago.

 

[J.E.D]

But here's the thing, he really couldn't get things accomplished when he controlled both houses of Congress by healthy margins. He let Pelosi and Reid take the lead, with the disasterous results that followed.

Disaterous by who's standards? As a liberal, I'd say the results were okay; not great, but not bad. They actually managed to get a whole lot done. In fact, that was one of the most productive congresses in US history. I'm not just talking about volume here. There is a lot of substance to their actions. Health care reform and financial reform are two of the most sweeping pieces of legislation to come out of DC in quite a while. Sure, I wish they had done more with both; but they got done what they could.

Of course, the opposition party is going to act like an opposition party. And a Smart President learns how to triangulate. (Sweet Evil Jesus, I'm citing Clinton as a good example?) If there's been too much foot stomping, there's been too much foot stomping on both sides.

But this opposition party has been way more obstructionist than any congress in recent history. Every single thing that Obama supports, they oppose. They even oppose their own ideas (the individual mandate, cap and trade). He tried working with them. Their version of cooperation is for Democrats to bend and for Republicans to get pretty much everything they want. Mitch McConnell said that his single biggest priority is to make sure that Obama is a one-term president. Not to get our financial house in order; not to work together to fix our nation's problems; his main goal is to defeat Obama. Conservatives can argue that defeating Obama wil fix the country, because Obama IS the problem; but that's simply not true, and it's a childish answer to a much bigger problem. We have some major issues in this country. Both sides have contributed. Refusing to work with the other party is not going to solve anything.

Even when I agree with him on something, the way he handles things is awful. I think he's perfectly inthe right on his fight with the Catholic Church on Family Planning Coverage. And 75% of Catholics probalby agree with him. But the way he handled it, was simply awful, and he ended up looking like he was bowing to the Bishops instead of standing his ground. (Even though in reality, he gave very little ground on the issue.)

While I agree that it was bad timing, I don't think the original decision or the compromise are going to hurt him politically. The real problem here is for Republicans. This is 2012. If Republicans think this is a winning issue, they have a rude awakening coming (much like their positions on gay rights and immigrants). This may be good for pandering to their base, but it won't work in the general election. Even a majority of Catholics support Obama's position on this issue.

Now, for his foreign policy- yeah, it hasn't been that bad. But that was because he didn't listen to himself. He kept Bush's polcies and Bush's team, and Hillary has done a remarkable job as Secretary of State. The people he opposed saved him from himself.

I wouldn't put Obama's foreign policy on par with Bush's. Unlike Bush, Obama has made calculated decisions. He has relied more on diplomacy, and utilized special ops when necessary. In Lybia - the one major conflict he got us involved in - we didn't go in like cowboys; we got NATO and the Arab League involved, and as Obama puts it, we "lead from behind". We didn't put any boots on the ground and we still accomplished the goal - get rid of Ghaddafi.

 

[amrchaos]

Actually, such comparison polls tend not to reflect an accurate picture since some Republicans/conservatives are probably too emotionally invested in their candidates to report that they would support another GOP contender against Obama.

I have a feeling the numbers will shift dramatically after the GOP settle on one candidate. In fact, I consider it a 10 to 15% error due to the evenly divided nature of the GOP primaries.

 

[AmericanFirst]

They've been panicking since we found out there were no WMD's.

They are not panicking. I remember a report out of Iraq early in the war that soldiers had found empty shell casings that had at one time held mustard gas. And don't forget hussein proved he had it when he used it on the Iraqi Kurds. The left just denying it doesn't make them non existent.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is time for Republicans to start panicking?

Well....not the ones......​

.....SUPPORTING OBAMA!!!!!​

"A shocking poll recently released by a conservative publication found that a large number of Republicans and conservatives are likely to vote for President Barack Obama.

The survey, conducted by Wenzel Strategies for World Net Daily, showed that one in five Republicans are leaning towards or would “definitely” re-elect the current president."

LOL!!!!!!!!!

".....conducted for WorldNutzDaily!!!!!!"

.

.

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

How COMICAL to see this....​

....ON THEIR WEBSITE!!!!!​

"For critics of Barack Obama, 2012 has been portrayed as a do-or-die year for the country – an election that will determine whether America stays on the road to European-style socialism or veers right to reclaim its positions as the most vibrant economy in the world and the home of individual liberty.

But the 2012 election is looking more like a replay of 2008 than a do-over.

The latest WND/Wenzel Poll shows none of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates has solidified the base of the party, with one in five GOP voters leaning toward support of Obama in November."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp6VIJsF9co]steppenwolf - mover over - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Liability]

I wonder what an evenly divided set of contenders would yield at the RNC Convention?

I keep hearing these whispered rumors -- hints -- of a possibly brokered convention.

The rank and file would revolt, however, if the brokers tried to foist off Romney on them. That's my hunch.

If no more than maybe 33% can get comfortably behind Romney -- and assuming that Gingrich and Santorum split the majority of the rest of the GOP voters' allegiance (and discounting Ron Paul as nothing more than an eventual hindrance, but not a genuine contender), the Convention is going to be wild and wooly.

I frankly would NOT be terribly surprised to see some dark horse candidate emerge whom the rank and file COULD support.

The question then would be: WHO is that potential unifier?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I wonder what an evenly divided set of contenders would yield at the RNC Convention?

I keep hearing these whispered rumors -- hints -- of a possibly brokered convention.

The rank and file would revolt, however, if the brokers tried to foist off Romney on them. That's my hunch.

If no more than maybe 33% can get comfortably behind Romney -- and assuming that Gingrich and Santorum split the majority of the rest of the GOP voters' allegiance (and discounting Ron Paul as nothing more than an eventual hindrance, but not a genuine contender), the Convention is going to be wild and wooly.

I frankly would NOT be terribly surprised to see some dark horse candidate emerge whom the rank and file COULD support.

The question then would be: WHO is that potential unifier?

Hell......ask "Crazy" Joe Farah!!

He PAID TO FIND-OUT!!!!!

LOL!!!!!

.

.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No, but libs better stock up on Xanax 'cause November's gonna be a riot!

 

[Meister]

General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Poll Date Sample Obama (D) Romney (R) Spread
RCP Average 1/12 - 2/9 -- 48.4 43.6 Obama +4.8
Rasmussen Reports 2/7 - 2/9 1500 LV 50 40 Obama +10
FOX News 2/6 - 2/9 1110 RV 47 42 Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos 2/2 - 2/6 881 RV 48 42 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 2/1 - 2/4 879 RV 51 45 Obama +6
USA Today/Gallup 1/27 - 1/28 907 RV 48 48 Tie
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 1/22 - 1/24 RV 49 43 Obama +6
PPP (D) 1/13 - 1/16 700 RV 49 44 Obama +5
CBS News/NY Times 1/12 - 1/16 1021 RV 45 45 Tie

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

For your consideration, Chris:

There has been debate after debate with the republicans beating up on one another as Obama just stands in the background. It would stand to reason right now that the republicans would have lower numbers.
After the primaries Obama won't have that luxury of not getting in the fray. Then the hookin' and jabbin' really begins. This is where the numbers on Obama will start changing....maybe up, maybe down, but rest assured, he will come out bruised.

 

[JoeB131]

I wonder what an evenly divided set of contenders would yield at the RNC Convention?

I keep hearing these whispered rumors -- hints -- of a possibly brokered convention.

The rank and file would revolt, however, if the brokers tried to foist off Romney on them. That's my hunch.

If no more than maybe 33% can get comfortably behind Romney -- and assuming that Gingrich and Santorum split the majority of the rest of the GOP voters' allegiance (and discounting Ron Paul as nothing more than an eventual hindrance, but not a genuine contender), the Convention is going to be wild and wooly.

I frankly would NOT be terribly surprised to see some dark horse candidate emerge whom the rank and file COULD support.

The question then would be: WHO is that potential unifier?

I can't see a brokered convention happening. If there are delegates, they are going to be true believers.

More likely, the top two will just agree to be on the same ticket.

 

[Peach]

General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Poll Date Sample Obama (D) Romney (R) Spread
RCP Average 1/12 - 2/9 -- 48.4 43.6 Obama +4.8
Rasmussen Reports 2/7 - 2/9 1500 LV 50 40 Obama +10
FOX News 2/6 - 2/9 1110 RV 47 42 Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos 2/2 - 2/6 881 RV 48 42 Obama +6
ABC News/Wash Post 2/1 - 2/4 879 RV 51 45 Obama +6
USA Today/Gallup 1/27 - 1/28 907 RV 48 48 Tie
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 1/22 - 1/24 RV 49 43 Obama +6
PPP (D) 1/13 - 1/16 700 RV 49 44 Obama +5
CBS News/NY Times 1/12 - 1/16 1021 RV 45 45 Tie

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Not really.

I do think Romney is a sure fire loser, to be sure, and Obama will get a second term if they nominate him. But I thought that when the spread was only 1.2.

The thing about Romney is the more people get to know him, the less they like him.

However, end of the day, this thing is going to be decided on the economy. Right now, it seems to be improving. But there are whole lot of pitfalls between now and October.

Europe could collapse, setting off another world wide recession.

Israel could attack Iran, driving gasoline up over $5.00 a gallon.

The Chinese economy is much more tenuous than folks think it is.

The sad thing is, Obama doesn't really deserve a second term. He's been an awful president. But the GOP hasn't offered a better alternative- yet.

Huntsman was ok, so of course the Republicans ignored him.