What you would have wanted..

[Pogo]

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?

If you were doing a good job in office, sure. What do they have to do with each other?

I've got no tolerance for this "holier than thou" bullshit. That's hypocrisy. As I kept saying during the Clinton/Lewinsky daze when the entire world was laughing at us... if Ralph Kramden is boinking his neighbor Trixie, am I going to refuse to ride the bus he drives? Of course not. I've got no time for that phony morals crapola. We're all flawed. I don't hire a POTUS or a governor or a legislator to be a goddam priest. And I've got even less time for this voyeur society where we have to know who's marrying/divorcing who and what celebrity got busted and what the hell Michael Freaking Jackson was doing before he snuffed it. Who the hell cares.

 

[YoungRepublican]

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?

If you were doing a good job in office, sure. What do they have to do with each other?

I've got no tolerance for this "holier than thou" bullshit. That's hypocrisy. As I kept saying during the Clinton/Lewinsky daze when the entire world was laughing at us... if Ralph Kramden is boinking his neighbor Trixie, am I going to refuse to ride the bus he drives? Of course not. I've got no time for that phony morals crapola. We're all flawed. I don't hire a POTUS or a governor or a legislator to be a goddam priest. And I've got even less time for this voyeur society where we have to know who's marrying/divorcing who and what celebrity got busted and what the hell Michael Freaking Jackson was doing before he snuffed it. Who the hell cares.

I gotta say.. Good stuff, can't argue your point at all

 

[blackhawk]

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

It was just a weak field of candidates this year I can't see anyone who would have done much better.The possible 2016 field has some strong contenders with Chris Chrstie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Nikki Haley to name a few.

 

[Pogo]

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

It was just a weak field of candidates this year I can't see anyone who would have done much better.The possible 2016 field has some strong contenders with Chris Chrstie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Nikki Haley to name a few.

Scott Walker at this point is toxic and heavily baggaged. He's done. Rubio and Haley -- that's an awfully quick rush to the top, isn't it?

 

[YoungRepublican]

Rubi and Haley are going to be too extreme within the next 4 years. Maybe there is someone out there with sane conservative ideas that we can unite behind.. Wishful thinking I guess.

 

[nodoginnafight]

At this point in time, I can't think of anyone. With the advantage of hind sight I'm not sure anyone could have defeated the Maobama gift machine. The only thing the GOP can do is spend the next 4 years developing a marketing machine that can perform similar to the Dems. 2008 and 2012 proved elections are not about policies anymore, they're about effective marketing.

The problems of the GOP are not "marketing" problems or cosmetic problems. The GOP will not rebound until they realize that their biggest problem is that the GOP platform doesn't reflect the values of most Americans.

If they can 1) embrace fiscal responsibility 2) lose the moralizing, and 3) actually LISTEN to people who are not old, white, Christian men, they can take a leadership position. If they can't, then they will be relegated to keep being the cranky opposition indefinitely.

Just MHO.

 

[g5000]

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

I was rooting for Huntsman. He would be an excellent candidate.

The problem with Huntsman is that he took time to explain his positions, and this caused a glazing over of the eyes of the millions of retards who currently swing the party. They have the intellectual capacity of bumper stickers and so they could not comprehend him. They don't want white papers. They want "Maobama", "Barry Soetero" , "food stamp President" and other puerile short attention span witticisms which make them giggle. They want simple things for their simple minds.

Huntsman disappointed me when he succumbed to some populism when his numbers started slipping. He also kind of flamed out in the end after he dropped out of the race and then began excoriating the party for coddling retards.

He was correct in that assessment, but the way he went about it came across as so many sour grapes.

I'm afraid we've seen the last of him.


.

 

[g5000]

At this point in time, I can't think of anyone. With the advantage of hind sight I'm not sure anyone could have defeated the Maobama gift machine. The only thing the GOP can do is spend the next 4 years developing a marketing machine that can perform similar to the Dems. 2008 and 2012 proved elections are not about policies anymore, they're about effective marketing.

This delusion of yours is precisely why the GOP lost.

People like yourself created a straw man out of Obama. A ghost of your imagination. And then you spent the entire campaign attacking and shredding your own inventions.

This is why so many of you were deluded into believing Obama was going to lose in a landslide. Because you had so devastatingly destroyed your own props.

Meanwhile, the real Obama slipped across the finish line while your brains were so profoundly asleep, dreaming away in la-la land trouncing hallucinations. And now you continue in your slumber, still conjuring up false illusions for the reason why you lost.

When will you idiots figure out the only people drinking your piss are yourselves?

 

[nodoginnafight]

At this point in time, I can't think of anyone. With the advantage of hind sight I'm not sure anyone could have defeated the Maobama gift machine. The only thing the GOP can do is spend the next 4 years developing a marketing machine that can perform similar to the Dems. 2008 and 2012 proved elections are not about policies anymore, they're about effective marketing.

This delusion of yours is precisely why the GOP lost.

People like yourself created a straw man out of Obama. A ghost of your imagination. And then you spent the entire campaign attacking and shredding your own inventions.

This is why so many of you were deluded into believing Obama was going to lose in a landslide. Because you had so devastatingly destroyed your own props.

Meanwhile, the real Obama slipped across the finish line while your brains were so profoundly asleep in la-la land trouncing hallucinations. And now in your dazed and confused state, you are still conjuring up false illusions for the reason why you lost.

I suspect you and I may disagree on many topics. When that happens, I'm going to try to remember this post and remember to give you the respect you deserve. Not a bad assessment at all imho.

 

[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:



-- 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.

My point is Huntsman would have been just so much red meat for the commiecrat machine of personal destruction, he had nothing that would have made him immune any more than Romney did. You can also bet the commies are running the numbers who the likely candidates for 16 will be and are building data bases of information they can spin to attempt to destroy them. If nothing else this election proved that a good record, sound moral character and the ability to do the job is not enough to win a presidential election any more, so yes reality has nothing to do with politics any more, it's about marketing and Maobama proved it doesn't have to be honest marketing.

 

[eots]

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

Kid Rock...he is way cool, supports gunfights and drug legalization...and hearing people say" president Rock announced today "would sound cool as well

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

My point is Huntsman would have been just so much red meat for the commiecrat machine of personal destruction, he had nothing that would have made him immune any more than Romney did. You can also bet the commies are running the numbers who the likely candidates for 16 will be and are building data bases of information they can spin to attempt to destroy them. If nothing else this election proved that a good record, sound moral character and the ability to do the job is not enough to win a presidential election any more, so yes reality has nothing to do with politics any more, it's about marketing and Maobama proved it doesn't have to be honest marketing.

I see way too many Republicans refusing to accept responsibility for their mistakes. It's just "marketing."

If you don't admit your mistakes, you can't correct them.

It makes me sad. I would LOVE to see a viable Republican Party because the idea of Democrats controling the House, the Senate and in the White House is not an appealing thought to me. But by trying to scapegoat or ignore their mistakes, this is exactly where the GOP is taking us.

 

[jillian]

At this point in time, I can't think of anyone. With the advantage of hind sight I'm not sure anyone could have defeated the Maobama gift machine. The only thing the GOP can do is spend the next 4 years developing a marketing machine that can perform similar to the Dems. 2008 and 2012 proved elections are not about policies anymore, they're about effective marketing.

gift machine?

THAT is why you lose. you have no sense of how the radical right appears to everyone else.

just saying.

 

[Pogo]

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.

My point is Huntsman would have been just so much red meat for the commiecrat machine of personal destruction, he had nothing that would have made him immune any more than Romney did. You can also bet the commies are running the numbers who the likely candidates for 16 will be and are building data bases of information they can spin to attempt to destroy them. If nothing else this election proved that a good record, sound moral character and the ability to do the job is not enough to win a presidential election any more, so yes reality has nothing to do with politics any more, it's about marketing and Maobama proved it doesn't have to be honest marketing.

What I get from most of this, the mindless "Maobama" bit excepted, is you're describing the failings of having political parties at all. If so I agree with it. Parties should be abolished.

On a lesser scale I'm concerned that debates, which used to be run by the nonpartisan and independent League of Women Voters, is now a collusion between these "two" parties, who set the rules on who gets to be there and who doesn't, and what topics are addressed and which are not. Given those rules we have a monopoly.

We don't have two parties; we have one party with two flavors. A polyarchy in appearance; an oligarchy in practice.

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ... and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently ... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." -- Gore Vidal

 

[blackhawk]

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

It was just a weak field of candidates this year I can't see anyone who would have done much better.The possible 2016 field has some strong contenders with Chris Chrstie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Nikki Haley to name a few.

Scott Walker at this point is toxic and heavily baggaged. He's done. Rubio and Haley -- that's an awfully quick rush to the top, isn't it?

Walker survived a recall in a pretty heavy union state after taking them on so I wonder how toxic and bagged he really is Rubio and Haley were elected in 2010 if both are still in office in 2016 that's six years Obama only served two years in the Senate before running for President so that may not be as quick a rush to the top as it used to be.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I don't understand why the Republicans didn't use their smartest, Sarah Palin, she even wrote a book all by herself, "Going Rouge by Lynn Vincent".

Palin would have mopped the floor with obamaturd. You idiots are not very smart, you prove it all the time.

 

[Pogo]

It was just a weak field of candidates this year I can't see anyone who would have done much better.The possible 2016 field has some strong contenders with Chris Chrstie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Nikki Haley to name a few.

Scott Walker at this point is toxic and heavily baggaged. He's done. Rubio and Haley -- that's an awfully quick rush to the top, isn't it?

Walker survived a recall in a pretty heavy union state after taking them on so I wonder how toxic and bagged he really is Rubio and Haley were elected in 2010 if both are still in office in 2016 that's six years Obama only served two years in the Senate before running for President so that may not be as quick a rush to the top as it used to be.

I agree that that's the trend (and I think you meant it's "not as long a rush"?), but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. Haley's been a governor and Rubio a senator for less than two years (from the Obama reference I take it we're not counting state-level government). It's not much of a basis.

Of course Romney came to candidacy with aught but four years as a governor himself, which assuming Haley and Rubio stay where they are, is even less. During campaign season I was making the observation that all the wags who whined about Obama's alleged dearth of experience said nothing about Romney's even-less experience, so depending on whether it's my guy or your guy the value of experience seems somewhat flexible.

But I still think imagining candidates who have all of two years under their belts, as candidates for POTUS, is setting the bar rather low.

To be fair, Chris Christie has only a year more than Rubio/Haley, and I like him, but that's because he's shown me some tools, where Haley and Rubio have not.

 

[Pogo]

Speaking of setting the bar low, right on cue:

I don't understand why the Republicans didn't use their smartest, Sarah Palin, she even wrote a book all by herself, "Going Rouge by Lynn Vincent".

Palin would have mopped the floor with obamaturd. You idiots are not very smart, you prove it all the time.

So you use a fallacy of fantasy speculation and want to call others idiots. This is great stuff.

 

[blackhawk]

Scott Walker at this point is toxic and heavily baggaged. He's done. Rubio and Haley -- that's an awfully quick rush to the top, isn't it?

Walker survived a recall in a pretty heavy union state after taking them on so I wonder how toxic and bagged he really is Rubio and Haley were elected in 2010 if both are still in office in 2016 that's six years Obama only served two years in the Senate before running for President so that may not be as quick a rush to the top as it used to be.

I agree that that's the trend (and I think you meant it's "not as long a rush"?), but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. Haley's been a governor and Rubio a senator for less than two years (from the Obama reference I take it we're not counting state-level government). It's not much of a basis.

Of course Romney came to candidacy with aught but four years as a governor himself, which assuming Haley and Rubio stay where they are, is even less. During campaign season I was making the observation that all the wags who whined about Obama's alleged dearth of experience said nothing about Romney's even-less experience, so depending on whether it's my guy or your guy the value of experience seems somewhat flexible.

But I still think imagining candidates who have all of two years under their belts, as candidates for POTUS, is setting the bar rather low.

To be fair, Chris Christie has only a year more than Rubio/Haley, and I like him, but that's because he's shown me some tools, where Haley and Rubio have not.

If were adding state level government as you did with Obama Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2000-2009 and Nikki Haley was a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives from 2005-2010.

 

[Pogo]

Walker survived a recall in a pretty heavy union state after taking them on so I wonder how toxic and bagged he really is Rubio and Haley were elected in 2010 if both are still in office in 2016 that's six years Obama only served two years in the Senate before running for President so that may not be as quick a rush to the top as it used to be.

I agree that that's the trend (and I think you meant it's "not as long a rush"?), but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. Haley's been a governor and Rubio a senator for less than two years (from the Obama reference I take it we're not counting state-level government). It's not much of a basis.

Of course Romney came to candidacy with aught but four years as a governor himself, which assuming Haley and Rubio stay where they are, is even less. During campaign season I was making the observation that all the wags who whined about Obama's alleged dearth of experience said nothing about Romney's even-less experience, so depending on whether it's my guy or your guy the value of experience seems somewhat flexible.

But I still think imagining candidates who have all of two years under their belts, as candidates for POTUS, is setting the bar rather low.

To be fair, Chris Christie has only a year more than Rubio/Haley, and I like him, but that's because he's shown me some tools, where Haley and Rubio have not.

If were adding state level government as you did with Obama Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2000-2009 and Nikki Haley was a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives from 2005-2010.

Of course, and you've got Christie's time as US Attorney too. But if you include that for them, then you have to include it for Obama, and the poster didn't want that comparison. So I did apples to apples.

Just to clean up an unfinished point on Scott Walker: the acrimony that earned him that recall election is an albatross around his neck and it's not going away, plus he was totally owned by that blogger who called him and posed as David Koch. That's what I mean by "baggage". Those are heavy bags. He's toast.