Who will be the DNC's choice to run for Pres in 2012?

Listen to the loons above croak their litany of doom.

Let's unscramble their inanity with common sense.

A gridlock will occur if Obama and the Senate cannot reach agreement with a House dominated by a small majority of the radical right. So, no, the House cannot well represent the will of the people, only that of a fraction that stampeded some of the primaries.

Obama will be renominated, barring death or incapacity, regardless if the economy improves or not. If it does not, the Dems are going to campaign against the Bush policies until it does.

The American people will pay attention to a struggle between the President and the House. Newt tried that, and the American people kicked him in the ass and got rid of him. As a result of the impeachment, several GOP senators were defeated that fall. The radical right should be very cautious about walking that same trail.

The health care plan will not be repealed, replaced, or even really reformed. The majority of the people want some form of the bill; only a minority want it gone. If spoon believes differently, he is out of touch with how most Americans think.

The Dems led by BHO are eagerly waiting to have a House that does nothing so that the GOP can be blamed for everything.
You're right. Mst Americans hate their HMO/PPO and the health insurance industry as a whole. They want something to change. However as the surveys and yes those dopey polls have shown, the vast majority of Americans are absolutely opposed to any type of government insurance or socialized medicine.
Yeah....let's HEAR IT for the $TATU$ QUO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

277.gif
.
277.gif
.
277.gif


(...Mostly 'cause Teabaggers & Leviniacs are functionally-illiterate.
297.png
)​
 
Last edited:
Sarah Palin without a doubt is legitimate to the far right. She truly can reve that base up. However, she cannot take the center, moderates, or the independents. Thus, her % will be no more than 35 to 40 of the electorate. If she would accept a Romney or a Huckabee on the ticket, she could pick up another 5%. But that is as far as it could ever possibly go.
Moderates have no ruddder. They vote for whom they think will win. Moderates car not for issues unless one or more rolls up their driveway. Moderates are people who usually don't watch/listen to the news, or any other media.
They live in the burbs. They pay more attention to their kid's sports than anything else.
When they are not shuffling their little cupcakes to various structured activities, they close their garage doors, lower their window blinds and don't emerge from their homes until they go back to work. They are non-participants. In fact most who call themsleves moderate have the lowest registered voter turnout pct of any demographic.
Independents always tend to lean right. These are socially conscious fiscally conservative voters who pay very close attention to kitchen table issues. They most likely eschew GOP affiliation to distance themselves from hard right Christian groups. Independents will on occasion vote for socially moderate/ fiscally conservative democrats. Independents were the deciding vote that swept Heath Shuler( NC-11) into the House. Shuler is a conservative democrat. He has been a solid conservative voice on the Democrat side of the aisle.

That type of analysis demonstrates why you will always be in the small minority.

C'mon.. A one liner.
Give examples of how or why my analysis is incorrect.
Not your opinion. Examples.
The above is not my opinion. I keep my ear to the ground. I stay informed. I also live in the suburbs and pay attention to their conversations. I go to the town hall meetings here. I talk with people on the street. I know that they are thinking because I ask them. I look at the exit poll data.
 
I wouldn't. He's an Impeached
.....For SEX!!!

"Jan. 20 marked the fourth anniversary of the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's 20-year-old investment in rural Arkansas property and other subsequent matters now known as "Whitewater." After four years of intensive investigations by Starr and his predecessor, the office of the independent counsel had brought no charges of illegality against the president or first lady.

To date, Whitewater independent counsels have spent $40 million of taxpayers' money. The Republican House and Senate have each held two lengthy and expensive sets of Whitewater hearings, one deliberately extended into June 1996. Throughout that campaign year, news media in Washington and New York were abuzz with rumors that at the very least, Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted. For what? For something, was the vague answer. And still, Starr made no charges of wrongdoing by the president or first lady. Indeed, once Clinton was re-elected Starr waited three months, announced his resignation and tried to slip quietly out of town, heading for an academic post at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. "Hey, it was only politics," was the message. But he reversed himself days later when a media firestorm erupted.

Today we know that Starr became even more determined to dig something up on Clinton to justify his costly investigation. Now, as the possibility of a constitutional crisis looms, an examination of just how and where the charges against the Clintons began is imperative.

The evidence shows that Whitewater began with the Bush White House's attempt to use the federal bureaucracy against Clinton in the 1992 election, and included collusion with a Republican banking investigator at the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to oversee the liquidation of failed S&Ls, with a deep enmity toward Clinton.

The evidence shows further that, since his first days as Whitewater independent counsel in 1994, Starr has been using his position to cover up the improper and possibly illegal actions of high Bush White House officials and Bush's attorney general against then-Gov. Clinton in the final weeks of the 1992 presidential campaign. By virtue of his office, Starr has been able to continue that coverup while relentlessly pursuing President Clinton ever since."



He was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury....

....About SEX!!!!!!!!

:rolleyes:
 
Clinton embraced Republicans' agenda and reinvented himself.

Obama won't do anyting of the sort.

Clinton did no such thing.
How would you characterize Clinton'd decsions on leaving the economy to the epxerts and the free marketplace? Success or failure?
That's the way you heard it, huh?????

:rolleyes:

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

I'll bet you've been reading some o' those Texas-approved U.S. History Books, huh??
323.png
 
He was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury....

....About SEX!!!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

Doesn't matter what it's about, lying is a crime when under oath. That shouldn't be too hard to understand.
Being impeached, for not admitting to have gotten a blow-job, makes no sense....especially when George Bush gets a "pass" for starting a War...and, GETTING THOUSANDS OF U.S. SERVICEMEN KILLED....with known, bogus info.

bush_bizzaro_world.jpg
 
Moderates have no ruddder. They vote for whom they think will win. Moderates car not for issues unless one or more rolls up their driveway. Moderates are people who usually don't watch/listen to the news, or any other media.
They live in the burbs. They pay more attention to their kid's sports than anything else.
When they are not shuffling their little cupcakes to various structured activities, they close their garage doors, lower their window blinds and don't emerge from their homes until they go back to work. They are non-participants. In fact most who call themsleves moderate have the lowest registered voter turnout pct of any demographic.
Independents always tend to lean right. These are socially conscious fiscally conservative voters who pay very close attention to kitchen table issues. They most likely eschew GOP affiliation to distance themselves from hard right Christian groups. Independents will on occasion vote for socially moderate/ fiscally conservative democrats. Independents were the deciding vote that swept Heath Shuler( NC-11) into the House. Shuler is a conservative democrat. He has been a solid conservative voice on the Democrat side of the aisle.

That type of analysis demonstrates why you will always be in the small minority.

C'mon.. A one liner.
Give examples of how or why my analysis is incorrect.
Not your opinion. Examples.
The above is not my opinion. I keep my ear to the ground. I stay informed. I also live in the suburbs and pay attention to their conversations. I go to the town hall meetings here. I talk with people on the street. I know that they are thinking because I ask them. I look at the exit poll data.

A one liner that in facts accurately reflects the reality of your argument.
 
I wouldn't. He's an Impeached
.....For SEX!!!

"Jan. 20 marked the fourth anniversary of the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's 20-year-old investment in rural Arkansas property and other subsequent matters now known as "Whitewater." After four years of intensive investigations by Starr and his predecessor, the office of the independent counsel had brought no charges of illegality against the president or first lady.

To date, Whitewater independent counsels have spent $40 million of taxpayers' money. The Republican House and Senate have each held two lengthy and expensive sets of Whitewater hearings, one deliberately extended into June 1996. Throughout that campaign year, news media in Washington and New York were abuzz with rumors that at the very least, Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted. For what? For something, was the vague answer. And still, Starr made no charges of wrongdoing by the president or first lady. Indeed, once Clinton was re-elected Starr waited three months, announced his resignation and tried to slip quietly out of town, heading for an academic post at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. "Hey, it was only politics," was the message. But he reversed himself days later when a media firestorm erupted.

Today we know that Starr became even more determined to dig something up on Clinton to justify his costly investigation. Now, as the possibility of a constitutional crisis looms, an examination of just how and where the charges against the Clintons began is imperative.

The evidence shows that Whitewater began with the Bush White House's attempt to use the federal bureaucracy against Clinton in the 1992 election, and included collusion with a Republican banking investigator at the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to oversee the liquidation of failed S&Ls, with a deep enmity toward Clinton.

The evidence shows further that, since his first days as Whitewater independent counsel in 1994, Starr has been using his position to cover up the improper and possibly illegal actions of high Bush White House officials and Bush's attorney general against then-Gov. Clinton in the final weeks of the 1992 presidential campaign. By virtue of his office, Starr has been able to continue that coverup while relentlessly pursuing President Clinton ever since."

He was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury not for infidelity.

Yes, he was, and the real reason was that the GOP was trying to invalidate the will of the people. That is why some GOP members lost that fall, and others refused to vote for conviction, because they didn't want to lose.

In other words, the will of the people in the end was upheld.
 
Won't happen.
Another lib who thinks democrats will be in charge for eternity.
The Left's greed for political power is insufferable.

Either you deliberately misedited what I wrote, or you should be replying to Revere or Two Thumbs.

CORRECTION: I was wrong about this, and thereisnospoon is right. I did write "won't happen" in Post 25. My apology.

Just to make sure all are aware of this: I was wrong about the comment.
 
Gridlock doesn't go far enough. Gotta roll back everything Obama has done.

That's what the 2010 elections are for; gridlock

2012 is when we get to use the eraser.

But the GOP doesn't have an eraser. Their biggest problem is the Tea Baggers. Sarah will most certainly be a candidate in 2012, even if she has to run as a Bagger. The GOP is hopelessly tied to the Tea Party. THEY CANNOT SAY NO!
 
That type of analysis demonstrates why you will always be in the small minority.

C'mon.. A one liner.
Give examples of how or why my analysis is incorrect.
Not your opinion. Examples.
The above is not my opinion. I keep my ear to the ground. I stay informed. I also live in the suburbs and pay attention to their conversations. I go to the town hall meetings here. I talk with people on the street. I know that they are thinking because I ask them. I look at the exit poll data.

A one liner that in facts accurately reflects the reality of your argument.
It figures. When asked for substance a lib will always go to duck chuck and dive.
Ignore it long enough and it will go away ,right jakey?
You got shit. Nada, zip, zero, zilch.
Your ass is on the porch because you can't dance with the big dogs.
 
I am not a lib, and you are not a con, simply rather a reactionary. When you want to talk common sense, I am here.
 
The DNC likes Palin running as a third party candidate even better

Palin gets the nod in my worste nightmare.


But "if not" obama, who would you like to see run in 2012?
Mike Gravel.

Dennis Kucinich.

Alan Grayson.

Sheldon Whitehouse.

Anthony Weiner.


Grayson again. He seems more popular than the VP, Biden (That's funny on so many levels)

Isn't Grayson the douch that said the GOP health care plan for seniors was "Die early".
 
When was the last time a sitting president ran opposed by his party for his second term nomination?

Bush Sr was unofficially opposed. I new more than a couple of people that had photos of Reagan on the wall that were not voting for Bush Sr a 2nd time.

This is just hypothetical, I'm 100% certain obama will run, only 75% he will be "the pick".
 
Palin gets the nod in my worste nightmare.


But "if not" obama, who would you like to see run in 2012?
Mike Gravel.

Dennis Kucinich.

Alan Grayson.

Sheldon Whitehouse.

Anthony Weiner.


Grayson again. He seems more popular than the VP, Biden (That's funny on so many levels)

Isn't Grayson the douch that said the GOP health care plan for seniors was "Die early".

Yes, he's THAT douche. :lol:
 
Mike Gravel.

Dennis Kucinich.

Alan Grayson.

Sheldon Whitehouse.

Anthony Weiner.


Grayson again. He seems more popular than the VP, Biden (That's funny on so many levels)

Isn't Grayson the douch that said the GOP health care plan for seniors was "Die early".

Yes, he's THAT douche. :lol:

He's a chicken shit spineless jelly fish! Why would anyone support someone that talks shit but won't back it up? Seriously, the guys the biggest pussie to walk the halls, I mean, hide in his office, until hunger drove him to walk the halls, I have ever heard of.
 

Forum List

Back
Top