What you would have wanted..

[Article 15]

Herman Cain lol

That clown would have gaffed his way to a double digit pop/400 ev loss.

 

[asterism]

until America forgets about Bush II, the GOP is stuck in neutral.


You cant claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and moral perfection if guys like Bush II win office.

But Bush hasn't been in office for 4 years. So why do those on the left keep bringing him up?

 

[Article 15]

until America forgets about Bush II, the GOP is stuck in neutral.


You cant claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and moral perfection if guys like Bush II win office.

But Bush hasn't been in office for 4 years. So why do those on the left keep bringing him up?

Because the right consistenly makes disingenuous and intellectually dishonest attacks against the president in which removing Bush from the context of the conversation is required to execute.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Newt Gingrich
-Pro Science
-Would of limited welfare

Very intelligent.

 

[ScienceRocks]

until America forgets about Bush II, the GOP is stuck in neutral.


You cant claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and moral perfection if guys like Bush II win office.

But Bush hasn't been in office for 4 years. So why do those on the left keep bringing him up?

Funny thing is Obama is 10 times the spender Bush was...So how the fuck can they hate Bush and love Obama?

 

[Nole]

Rather, until the Dems get over losing to GWB, the Dems will continue to look like miserable and bitter folks.

mean while, actions speak louder than words. The Dems are pushing their agenda and the GOPers are stuck looking like complete fools (just look at the current polls). Point being, bitter or not, the Democrats are winning elections.

But Bush hasn't been in office for 4 years. So why do those on the left keep bringing him up?

Will you not continue to bring up Obama once he leaves office? Of course you will. Its called politics. The job of the Democrats is to have the average American enter the voting establishment and rethink whats been going down in DC over the past decade. Luckily, Bush II was such a compete disaster that the Democrats just have to randomly drop his name, a few numbers IE the 800k job losses prior to Obama taking office and POOF. A run away Democrat presidential election, even knowing the jobless rate is 8% or higher.

But keep digging Republicans, im quite enjoying your fall.

 

[asterism]

Rather, until the Dems get over losing to GWB, the Dems will continue to look like miserable and bitter folks.

mean while, actions speak louder than words. The Dems are pushing their agenda and the GOPers are stuck looking like complete fools (just look at the current polls). Point being, bitter or not, the Democrats are winning elections.

But Bush hasn't been in office for 4 years. So why do those on the left keep bringing him up?

Will you not continue to bring up Obama once he leaves office? Of course you will. Its called politics. The job of the Democrats is to have the average American enter the voting establishment and rethink whats been going down in DC over the past decade. Luckily, Bush II was such a compete disaster that the Democrats just have to randomly drop his name, a few numbers IE the 800k job losses prior to Obama taking office and POOF. A run away Democrat presidential election, even knowing the jobless rate is 8% or higher.

But keep digging Republicans, im quite enjoying your fall.

The predictive powers of partisans have not faired well ever.

BTW, I'm not a Republican.

 

[OKTexas]

Somebody beat me to Jon Huntsman, but not with Rubio. That's just scary. They couldn't be more opposite.

Huntsman seems intelligent, congenial and free of the polarization/eliminationism game that grows on the Party like a cancer (exactly why I don't want Rubio on the ticket)

... like this attitude right here:

Huntsman would have had the same problem Romney did because of his dad, he would have been painted out of touch and all that crap, plus he came from Maobamas administration.

-- this is completely tone deaf. Huntsman worked for Reagan and Bush, yet somehow "he came from Maobamas [sic] administration". That's pathetic denialism right there, as if "he touched a black man" is some kind of disease. Not to mention trying to equate Hunstman Senior with George Romney... bizarre. Unlike Romney, Huntsman doesn't "act" rich.

This kind of extremism is what's killing the Party and keeping good people like Jon Huntsman from having a chance to compete.

When I first read the thread title I thought it was going to say "what would you have wanted if Obama really was giving stuff away"

Your the one that's delusional if you think reality has any bearing on politics, just the fact that Huntsman grew up in a wealthy family is enough for the Dems to paint him as privileged and out of touch with ordinary people, the class warfare machine is what it is. Then the fact that he worked in Dem and Rep admins would be used to paint him as a moderate that wouldn't appeal to the Rep base, so many would just stay home like they did this election. As for you petty insinuation of racism your way off, I dislike Maobama because at best he's a socialist and at worse a marxist, and his first 4 years has done nothing to change my opinion, give me a president that take his constitutional responsibilities seriously and I'll be happy to support them.

 

[jwoodie]

The GOP faces a challenge every election in trying to sell rational ideas to an irrational electorate. The high point of the last two election cycles was Sarah Palin's VP acceptance speech wherein she stated that she wasn't seeking the approval of the mainstream press (which always opposes the GOP candidate). Unfortunately, McCain's advisers turned her into an approval-seeking punching bag for Katie Couric et al.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan was brilliant but too radical for entrenched interests of both parties. Not willing to yield its hegemony among black voters, the Democratic party orchestrated another "high tech lynching" of this outstanding Black American. What a difference party affiliation makes.

Unless the GOP is willing to declare war on the mainstream press, its only hope in the future is demographic politics, i.e., going after the Hispanic vote with Hispanic candidates and comprehensive immigration reform which addresses the status of 20 million illegal immigrants. Otherwise, it will become a regional party with diminishing national relevance.

 

[YoungRepublican]

If you were responsible for choosining the Republican nominee for the 2012 election who would you have picked? Provide reasons.

Herman Cain, hands down. Second, Rudy. I don't give a shit about their personal lives....it's fucking DC, more decadent than Vegas, so that's a given. Plus, that's their personal business.

They seemed to be the limited government type, fiscally conservative, national security oriented, think legislating morality is for pussies, and common sense candidates.

While you may not care about their personal lives, every other person does, so that line of thinking doesnt really work. Also, If you think Herman Cain is/was/ever would be, a viable candidate for President I can only ask if you have ever heard him speak. He sounded like a small town mayor of some Oklahoma town. Anyone who thinks that something so simple as 9 9 9 is an appropriate tax code has no clue on how the economy works, its a tad more complex than that.

 

[Immanuel]

If you were responsible for choosining the Republican nominee for the 2012 election who would you have picked? Provide reasons.

I don't have a name because I do not think there is a soul in politics that fits this criteria, but what I would have wanted is someone not beholden to the corporate masters of both parties. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone who is at the national level is not beholden to those who put him or her into that position.

Immie

 

[YoungRepublican]

Somebody beat me to Jon Huntsman, but not with Rubio. That's just scary. They couldn't be more opposite.

Huntsman seems intelligent, congenial and free of the polarization/eliminationism game that grows on the Party like a cancer (exactly why I don't want Rubio on the ticket)

... like this attitude right here:

Huntsman would have had the same problem Romney did because of his dad, he would have been painted out of touch and all that crap, plus he came from Maobamas administration.

-- this is completely tone deaf. Huntsman worked for Reagan and Bush, yet somehow "he came from Maobamas [sic] administration". That's pathetic denialism right there, as if "he touched a black man" is some kind of disease. Not to mention trying to equate Hunstman Senior with George Romney... bizarre. Unlike Romney, Huntsman doesn't "act" rich.

This kind of extremism is what's killing the Party and keeping good people like Jon Huntsman from having a chance to compete.

When I first read the thread title I thought it was going to say "what would you have wanted if Obama really was giving stuff away"

I threw Rubio up there because unlike the far right, I dont have a problem with coming to a middle ground. I dont think Rubio would have been the best veep, but we need someone to "represent" their values, ideas, etc. otherwise they would be crying about how our ticket is to moderate

 

[Londoner]

John Huntsman.

He is too moderate for the voting coalition that Movement Conservatism created to lock-down 45% of the nation.

His impossibility as a candidate highlights a problem within the GOP going forward. The party is shrinking around a minority of white revanchists who are manipulated to believe that their country has been stolen by gays, blacks, feminists, mexicans, baby killers, muslims, marxists, fascists, socialists, relativists, multiculturalists, secularists, atheists, and fill-in-the-demon. This is the consequence of the GOPs fateful decision to enact the Southern Strategy which finally paid off with Reagan, who successfully flipped the Solid South. By appealing to the worst in people, they created a home for bigotry and fear. They defined themselves by the groups they hated, including Liberals.

The GOP has done this to themselves.

It's very hard for a political party to appeal to changing demographics by manipulating the fears of an under-educated white minority to be suspicious of those very demographics.

You end up with terrible rats for candidates, like Romney who was forced to change his stripes to get the blessing of the far right.

Jim Huntsman is a centrist like Eisenhower and Nixon - two great presidents who honored and preserved the consensus for the New Deal. Rather than manipulating the stupid with exaggerated demons, these presidents acted like Burkean Conservatives by accepting what the majority of Americans wanted. They didn't need FOX News to distort reality in order to lure the stupid; they gave Americans what they wanted. They appealed to the center rather than manipulating the country to move Right.

John Huntsman didn't play ball with the machine. He refused to become a puppet of the big money that runs the tea party.

He would have made a good president.

 

[Glensather]

Newt Gingrich
-Pro Science
-Would of limited welfare

Very intelligent.

Newt's problem is that he steps on sensitivity like a boss. I don't have a problem with that, but more easily offended people see him as a bully.

He's also willing to compromise in some regards. Like the thing on gay marriage - while personally he disagrees with it, he's willing to look at the writing on the wall and move on.

If it were possible, you would slide Newt into the VP slot, where he could still have considerable power, and have someone really damn good at speaking running for POTUS. He would have to be someone willing to run as a moderate Republican (it would help if the person himself was moderate) in order to win votes.

I'm not a member of the GOP so I have no idea who that would be.

 

[YoungRepublican]

John Huntsman.

He is too moderate for the voting coalition that Movement Conservatism created to lock-down 45% of the nation.

His impossibility as a candidate highlights a problem within the GOP going forward. The party is shrinking around a minority of white revanchists who are manipulated to believe that their country has been stolen by gays, blacks, feminists, mexicans, baby killers, muslims, marxists, fascists, socialists, relativists, multiculturalists, secularists, atheists, and fill-in-the-demon. This is the consequence of the GOPs fateful decision to enact the Southern Strategy which finally paid off with Reagan, who successfully flipped the Solid South. By appealing to the worst in people, they created a home for bigotry and fear. They defined themselves by the groups they hated, including Liberals.

The GOP has done this to themselves.

It's very hard for a political party to appeal to changing demographics by manipulating the fears of an under-educated white minority to be suspicious of those very demographics.

You end up with terrible rats for candidates, like Romney who was forced to change his stripes to get the blessing of the far right.

Jim Huntsman is a centrist like Eisenhower and Nixon - two great presidents who honored and preserved the consensus for the New Deal. Rather than manipulating the stupid with exaggerated demons, these presidents acted like Burkean Conservatives by accepting what the majority of Americans wanted. They didn't need FOX News to distort reality in order to lure the stupid; they gave Americans what they wanted. They appealed to the center rather than manipulating the country to move Right.

John Huntsman didn't play ball with the machine. He refused to become a puppet of the big money that runs the tea party.

He would have made a good president.

Well your history is a little off; Reagan did not find the Southern Strategy that was a Nixon/Goldwater endeavor. While you are correct that the GOP has been slightly overrun by people who are on the wrong side of social issues, you aren’t looking at the bigger picture. Democrats are pretty solid as far as their platform in all age brackets; this is not the case for the GOP. We have two groups, those of older age who are trying to put social issues on the front page of the "I'macrazyperson Herald" and refuse to budge. Then there are those of a younger age, who are so shitsipping scarred that they won’t have a job, pension, SS, 401 (K) etc. that we don’t care about the aforementioned social issues.
Soon enough you will start to see a slow shift in the paradigm of Republican policies that mirror the incoming generation’s views (just look at the CRNC of any school). As the radicals begin to die out the party will be reclaimed to its rightful order of fiscal discipline. The Dems should be afraid of young GOPers we're reasonable, intelligent and willing to put in work. Values those on the left and sometimes the current state of the far, far right just don’t possess.

 

[Glensather]

Dude.
PARAGRAPHS. They are amazing.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Dude.
PARAGRAPHS. They are amazing.

I used paragraphs but whenever my posts go up they are never placed that way. Its kind of annoying, but not as annoying as a person who can clearly read what I wrote, had no input, and decided to just remark on grammar instead.

 

[Pogo]

While you may not care about their personal lives, every other person does

Whoa -- speak for yourself.

 

[Pogo]

Somebody beat me to Jon Huntsman, but not with Rubio. That's just scary. They couldn't be more opposite.

Huntsman seems intelligent, congenial and free of the polarization/eliminationism game that grows on the Party like a cancer (exactly why I don't want Rubio on the ticket)

... like this attitude right here:

Huntsman would have had the same problem Romney did because of his dad, he would have been painted out of touch and all that crap, plus he came from Maobamas administration.

-- this is completely tone deaf. Huntsman worked for Reagan and Bush, yet somehow "he came from Maobamas [sic] administration". That's pathetic denialism right there, as if "he touched a black man" is some kind of disease. Not to mention trying to equate Hunstman Senior with George Romney... bizarre. Unlike Romney, Huntsman doesn't "act" rich.

This kind of extremism is what's killing the Party and keeping good people like Jon Huntsman from having a chance to compete.

When I first read the thread title I thought it was going to say "what would you have wanted if Obama really was giving stuff away"

Your the one that's delusional if you think reality has any bearing on politics, just the fact that Huntsman grew up in a wealthy family is enough for the Dems to paint him as privileged and out of touch with ordinary people, the class warfare machine is what it is. Then the fact that he worked in Dem and Rep admins would be used to paint him as a moderate that wouldn't appeal to the Rep base, so many would just stay home like they did this election. As for you petty insinuation of racism your way off, I dislike Maobama because at best he's a socialist and at worse a marxist, and his first 4 years has done nothing to change my opinion, give me a president that take his constitutional responsibilities seriously and I'll be happy to support them.

So reality has no bearing on politics???

I don't care who grew up in a wealthy family or who the Dems or Reps paint as which. The question was who we would have wanted. My approval of Huntsman is largely based exactly on his not being enslaved, at least in my perception, to the politics of monologue where it's "my way or the highway" and anybody who doesn't fully agree with me is some kind of ogre to be despised and destroyed. That kind of thinking is what's fucking up politics in general as well as its discourse. Give me a POTUS who knows how to listen, first and foremost. And a close second, one who will think for himself rather than just bend over for the extremists that want to drive the party into the ditch.

I like Chris Christie too for those reasons, but he wasn't ready yet. He will be though.

 

[YoungRepublican]

While you may not care about their personal lives, every other person does

Whoa -- speak for yourself.

Really? If I cheated on my wife, didnt care for my kids, got multiple DUI's you would still vote for me?