Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He's a stinking RINO- Came out of the Bush Administration. NO THANKS. Don't we have enough talented people in this nation without having to recycle the same stinking losers over and over?? What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Will America ever learn?
He's a stinking RINO- Came out of the Bush Administration. NO THANKS. Don't we have enough talented people in this nation without having to recycle the same stinking losers over and over?? What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Will America ever learn?
Stow that shit. Daniels is a good, experienced politician with the right instincts. If Obama has taught us anything, experience counts. And he has it.
Sorry. Ron Paul is a loser and won't be running. Palin won't get close as the GOP needs a candidate, not a cheerleader.
Unless one has already put the kiss of death on him, Huckabee is likable though. He is convincing when he speaks. Probably his affiliation with Fox News is the scarlett letter so far as the Left is concerned. And I don't think Huckabee gets much Tea Party support with his liberally lenient views on illegal immigration, but he does have some solidly conservative views too. I like Huckabee very much, but like you I don't think he is 'the one' for 2012.
Watching several different boards, I'm thinking the smart money is starting to shift to Romney. I am uncomfortable with that mostly because Romney frankly just isn't as likable as some of the others. He comes across as too stiff, too slick, too chiseled or something. I don't know if his handlers can create a new image for him enough to reel in enough of the "I vote for him because I like him best' voters.
None of the governors are going to have stellar records on everything and the opposition will find something to use to demonize everybody. LGS for instance is adamently opposed to Daniels and sees him as a RINO. Somebody else will no doubt see him as a rabid fanatical evil conservative. Since I hadn't even really heard about him until his CPAC speech, I listened with no preconceived notions or prejudices and liked what I heard.
But then we all know that one good speech does not a good president make, yes? I point to the current occupant of the White House as proof of that.
So I'm still doing my homework and trying to figure out whose band wagon I'll jump on for 2012.
Unless one has already put the kiss of death on him, Huckabee is likable though. He is convincing when he speaks. Probably his affiliation with Fox News is the scarlett letter so far as the Left is concerned. And I don't think Huckabee gets much Tea Party support with his liberally lenient views on illegal immigration, but he does have some solidly conservative views too. I like Huckabee very much, but like you I don't think he is 'the one' for 2012.
Watching several different boards, I'm thinking the smart money is starting to shift to Romney. I am uncomfortable with that mostly because Romney frankly just isn't as likable as some of the others. He comes across as too stiff, too slick, too chiseled or something. I don't know if his handlers can create a new image for him enough to reel in enough of the "I vote for him because I like him best' voters.
None of the governors are going to have stellar records on everything and the opposition will find something to use to demonize everybody. LGS for instance is adamently opposed to Daniels and sees him as a RINO. Somebody else will no doubt see him as a rabid fanatical evil conservative. Since I hadn't even really heard about him until his CPAC speech, I listened with no preconceived notions or prejudices and liked what I heard.
But then we all know that one good speech does not a good president make, yes? I point to the current occupant of the White House as proof of that.
So I'm still doing my homework and trying to figure out whose band wagon I'll jump on for 2012.
Romney would be a formidable candidate because he has the most street cred on the economy, and the economy will be the number one issue in the next election. If the Republicans nominate someone who is weak on the economy - Huckabee, Palin - then it is going to be difficult for them.
It's a very winnable election for the GOP but social issues will not be the defining issue. I tend to think of the Republican party as generally smarter than the Democrat party, so I think they will pick either someone like Romney or a governor like Daniels.
--and who was only marginally more appealing than Dole who would have been a good President but had a terrible stage presence.Unless one has already put the kiss of death on him, Huckabee is likable though. He is convincing when he speaks. Probably his affiliation with Fox News is the scarlett letter so far as the Left is concerned. And I don't think Huckabee gets much Tea Party support with his liberally lenient views on illegal immigration, but he does have some solidly conservative views too. I like Huckabee very much, but like you I don't think he is 'the one' for 2012.
Watching several different boards, I'm thinking the smart money is starting to shift to Romney. I am uncomfortable with that mostly because Romney frankly just isn't as likable as some of the others. He comes across as too stiff, too slick, too chiseled or something. I don't know if his handlers can create a new image for him enough to reel in enough of the "I vote for him because I like him best' voters.
None of the governors are going to have stellar records on everything and the opposition will find something to use to demonize everybody. LGS for instance is adamently opposed to Daniels and sees him as a RINO. Somebody else will no doubt see him as a rabid fanatical evil conservative. Since I hadn't even really heard about him until his CPAC speech, I listened with no preconceived notions or prejudices and liked what I heard.
But then we all know that one good speech does not a good president make, yes? I point to the current occupant of the White House as proof of that.
So I'm still doing my homework and trying to figure out whose band wagon I'll jump on for 2012.
Romney would be a formidable candidate because he has the most street cred on the economy, and the economy will be the number one issue in the next election. If the Republicans nominate someone who is weak on the economy - Huckabee, Palin - then it is going to be difficult for them.
It's a very winnable election for the GOP but social issues will not be the defining issue. I tend to think of the Republican party as generally smarter than the Democrat party, so I think they will pick either someone like Romney or a governor like Daniels.
Unless one has already put the kiss of death on him, Huckabee is likable though. He is convincing when he speaks. Probably his affiliation with Fox News is the scarlett letter so far as the Left is concerned. And I don't think Huckabee gets much Tea Party support with his liberally lenient views on illegal immigration, but he does have some solidly conservative views too. I like Huckabee very much, but like you I don't think he is 'the one' for 2012.
Watching several different boards, I'm thinking the smart money is starting to shift to Romney. I am uncomfortable with that mostly because Romney frankly just isn't as likable as some of the others. He comes across as too stiff, too slick, too chiseled or something. I don't know if his handlers can create a new image for him enough to reel in enough of the "I vote for him because I like him best' voters.
None of the governors are going to have stellar records on everything and the opposition will find something to use to demonize everybody. LGS for instance is adamently opposed to Daniels and sees him as a RINO. Somebody else will no doubt see him as a rabid fanatical evil conservative. Since I hadn't even really heard about him until his CPAC speech, I listened with no preconceived notions or prejudices and liked what I heard.
But then we all know that one good speech does not a good president make, yes? I point to the current occupant of the White House as proof of that.
So I'm still doing my homework and trying to figure out whose band wagon I'll jump on for 2012.
Romney would be a formidable candidate because he has the most street cred on the economy, and the economy will be the number one issue in the next election. If the Republicans nominate someone who is weak on the economy - Huckabee, Palin - then it is going to be difficult for them.
It's a very winnable election for the GOP but social issues will not be the defining issue. I tend to think of the Republican party as generally smarter than the Democrat party, so I think they will pick either someone like Romney or a governor like Daniels.
Romney has no "street cred." He is not a Republican outside of Massachuessets and New York. He is the father of Obamacare, through Romneycare, a total clusterfuck. Hell, he lost to John McCain. It really doesn't get much worse than that.
Romney has no "street cred." He is not a Republican outside of Massachuessets and New York. He is the father of Obamacare, through Romneycare, a total clusterfuck. Hell, he lost to John McCain. It really doesn't get much worse than that.
I wish I could believe as you do that the Republican Party is smarter than the Democrats. They did run Bob Dole in 1996 though. A disaster. They ran George W. Bush in 2000 who eked out a win by the barest margin and was a disappointment to conservative Republicans.
And they ran John McCain in 2008 who was almost nobody's first choice--all the talk show hosts did their damndest to get somebody else on top
Conservatives are far more likely to get it right. But I'm not sure the Republican Party has been really good at that for some time now. The best we can say is they have gotten it more right than the Democrats usually do.
He's a stinking RINO- Came out of the Bush Administration. NO THANKS. Don't we have enough talented people in this nation without having to recycle the same stinking losers over and over?? What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Will America ever learn?
But if you write off everybody associated with the Bush administration as a RINO, you would be writing off a lot of very good people. Some of them absolutely were. He certainly got some very bad advice. Did he get bad advice from Daniels though.
Here is Bloomberg's Resume of Daniels in 1991
From Politico recently:
And from the same Hot Air piece that posted the above:
Undoubtedly, Republicans need to offer someone from outside of Washington in a season of discontent with Beltway business as usual. The strongest candidates will be former governors like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and perhaps Haley Barbour. Mitch Daniels may have the strongest resume from among them, as Martin details, and perhaps also the most unequivocally conservative track record as an executive.
Thats the good news. The bad news is that Daniels is the Un-Obama also in the charisma department. He has a strong grasp of policy, but as with most policy wonks, has trouble when it comes to electrifying the masses from the stump. That hasnt hindered him in Indiana, much like a similar problem didnt keep Tommy Thompson from multiple statewide wins in Wisconsin. However, on the national stage, it could prove to be an obstacle, as voters like to identify personally with presidential candidates.
He's a straight up RINO who has stated theres no room at the table for social conservatives. The conservative Platform makes abortion CENTRAL and separates us from the party of death. He will not have my support or any social conservative.
I wish I could believe as you do that the Republican Party is smarter than the Democrats. They did run Bob Dole in 1996 though. A disaster. They ran George W. Bush in 2000 who eked out a win by the barest margin and was a disappointment to conservative Republicans.
And they ran John McCain in 2008 who was almost nobody's first choice--all the talk show hosts did their damndest to get somebody else on top
Conservatives are far more likely to get it right. But I'm not sure the Republican Party has been really good at that for some time now. The best we can say is they have gotten it more right than the Democrats usually do.
Watching the Small Tent Republican conservatives trying to purge the "RINOs" from the party to purify it is one of the dumbest political moves in some time, so I wouldn't necessarily say that Republicans are "smart," just that they are generally smarter than the Democrats. Republicans tend to nominate candidates more with their head as opposed to Democrats, who tend to nominate candidates more with their heart.
Even with their supposed whiffs, the Republicans still picked the candidates most likely to win. Clinton was a steamroller. Bush, whatever one might think of him, beat the candidate most associated with one of the most popular Presidents at the end of their term in some time. (Clinton's polling numbers at the end of his term were better than Reagan's). No candidate was going to beat Obama, so the GOP picked the one candidate who could exploit his weakness of youth and inexperience.
Romney has no "street cred." He is not a Republican outside of Massachuessets and New York. He is the father of Obamacare, through Romneycare, a total clusterfuck. Hell, he lost to John McCain. It really doesn't get much worse than that.
Romney is the most credible candidate on the economy of all the Republicans thus far, and probably the Democrats too. The fact that he doesn't appeal to the far right of the Republican party doesn't obviate this.
I wish I could believe as you do that the Republican Party is smarter than the Democrats. They did run Bob Dole in 1996 though. A disaster. They ran George W. Bush in 2000 who eked out a win by the barest margin and was a disappointment to conservative Republicans.
And they ran John McCain in 2008 who was almost nobody's first choice--all the talk show hosts did their damndest to get somebody else on top
Conservatives are far more likely to get it right. But I'm not sure the Republican Party has been really good at that for some time now. The best we can say is they have gotten it more right than the Democrats usually do.
Watching the Small Tent Republican conservatives trying to purge the "RINOs" from the party to purify it is one of the dumbest political moves in some time, so I wouldn't necessarily say that Republicans are "smart," just that they are generally smarter than the Democrats. Republicans tend to nominate candidates more with their head as opposed to Democrats, who tend to nominate candidates more with their heart.
Even with their supposed whiffs, the Republicans still picked the candidates most likely to win. Clinton was a steamroller. Bush, whatever one might think of him, beat the candidate most associated with one of the most popular Presidents at the end of their term in some time. (Clinton's polling numbers at the end of his term were better than Reagan's). No candidate was going to beat Obama, so the GOP picked the one candidate who could exploit his weakness of youth and inexperience.
I wish I could believe as you do that the Republican Party is smarter than the Democrats. They did run Bob Dole in 1996 though. A disaster. They ran George W. Bush in 2000 who eked out a win by the barest margin and was a disappointment to conservative Republicans.
And they ran John McCain in 2008 who was almost nobody's first choice--all the talk show hosts did their damndest to get somebody else on top
Conservatives are far more likely to get it right. But I'm not sure the Republican Party has been really good at that for some time now. The best we can say is they have gotten it more right than the Democrats usually do.
Watching the Small Tent Republican conservatives trying to purge the "RINOs" from the party to purify it is one of the dumbest political moves in some time, so I wouldn't necessarily say that Republicans are "smart," just that they are generally smarter than the Democrats. Republicans tend to nominate candidates more with their head as opposed to Democrats, who tend to nominate candidates more with their heart.
Even with their supposed whiffs, the Republicans still picked the candidates most likely to win. Clinton was a steamroller. Bush, whatever one might think of him, beat the candidate most associated with one of the most popular Presidents at the end of their term in some time. (Clinton's polling numbers at the end of his term were better than Reagan's). No candidate was going to beat Obama, so the GOP picked the one candidate who could exploit his weakness of youth and inexperience.
that was kind of an anomaly, i think. gore should have attached himself to clinton's hip and basically run a campaign that said "if life is better for you these past 8 years, it was me and bubba". instead, he decided he was too moral to run on clinton's record.
Watching the Small Tent Republican conservatives trying to purge the "RINOs" from the party to purify it is one of the dumbest political moves in some time, so I wouldn't necessarily say that Republicans are "smart," just that they are generally smarter than the Democrats. Republicans tend to nominate candidates more with their head as opposed to Democrats, who tend to nominate candidates more with their heart.
Even with their supposed whiffs, the Republicans still picked the candidates most likely to win. Clinton was a steamroller. Bush, whatever one might think of him, beat the candidate most associated with one of the most popular Presidents at the end of their term in some time. (Clinton's polling numbers at the end of his term were better than Reagan's). No candidate was going to beat Obama, so the GOP picked the one candidate who could exploit his weakness of youth and inexperience.
that was kind of an anomaly, i think. gore should have attached himself to clinton's hip and basically run a campaign that said "if life is better for you these past 8 years, it was me and bubba". instead, he decided he was too moral to run on clinton's record.
That is also a perspective I haven't thought through. But I will.
Romney has no "street cred." He is not a Republican outside of Massachuessets and New York. He is the father of Obamacare, through Romneycare, a total clusterfuck. Hell, he lost to John McCain. It really doesn't get much worse than that.
Romney is the most credible candidate on the economy of all the Republicans thus far, and probably the Democrats too. The fact that he doesn't appeal to the far right of the Republican party doesn't obviate this.
Really? What has he been doing all this time since the election? Daniels has been dealing with the fall out from the recession and Obama's stupid policies. I think that puts him at least a leg up.
And ROmney cannot escape Obamacare, the most unpopular measure in history. What exactly makes him credible?
