diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Feb 11, 2012 20:28:44 GMT -5
>>Oh my... I mean, i'd love if Santorum got the nomination, but you don't actually think he'll win the election do you ....<<< oped: I do think it's possible as he is the anti-Romney. Ron Paul is good on the economy, but other than that he is too extreme for me. He wouldn't have a chance against Obama. I doubt, and it frightens me that it will be almost impossible to be an incumbent, although the people have yet to speak. I do believe it is all the same rhetoric with Obama and nothing will really change if he gets in again. Dam, I'm still having computer problems. Will try Spybot for a clean up.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Feb 11, 2012 20:56:11 GMT -5
CPAC just endorsed Romney.
The Tea Party has been fading since The Nov 2010 election.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 11, 2012 21:05:44 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 21:18:21 GMT -5
They keep trying. In all the analysis of the NV primary, there was certainly a lot of gloating that Romney got the conservative, and TEA Party voters so that was supposed to be the end of that discussion. All the talk of conservatives looking for an alternative to Romney was supposed to have been relegated to mythology. Romney polled almost identically in 2008 (when the TP didn't exist) to this year. the TP was not a factor in NV.As it turns out, that wasn't necessarily the case. The ascendant conservative movement is a deeply rooted revival of fundamental Americanism. It's doctrines are found in the founding documents of The United States itself. And as a result, if there's ever a serious debate- not whether or not to, but how to return to our founding princples, then the TEA Party quite literally cannot lose. If instead, we fall victim to revisionist history, bogus arguments, and emotional appeals- then we will abandon the American ideal for tyranny. And it's really not far fetched to think we'll lose this war in the long run. After all, despotism is the historical norm. A few hundred year long spasm of liberty and natural rights aren't likely to change the entire course of human history without a vigilant, well-educated, ferocious minority willing to stand guard night and day against tyranny for all time. If we falter, it will not surprise me. you are such a drama queen, Paul. seriously. the world will not end if Gingrich is not elected. the Tea Party is not permanent. and both liberals AND conservatives have guarded against tyranny. nobody owns that. The world will not end if Obama is re-elected. And that appears to be what we can expect in 2012. You asked mainly about beyond 2012- and I have given you my perspective. The TP is a very large, growing in numbers and political might kind of movement fueled by a cultural conservative ascendancy. That's my take. A single election will not make or break the TP, or the larger conservative movement. The story line-- either way-- will be that the TP is over. That'll be the propaganda. Romney is nominated- the TP is over. Romney wins the Presidency- the TP is over / irrelevant / doesn't matter. Obama wins, the TP is dead. I fully expect to hear all the TP is dead propaganda-- the point I am making is that nothing could be further from the truth.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 21:26:46 GMT -5
you are such a drama queen, Paul. seriously. the world will not end if Gingrich is not elected. the Tea Party is not permanent. and both liberals AND conservatives have guarded against tyranny. nobody owns that. The world will not end if Obama is re-elected. And that appears to be what we can expect in 2012. You asked mainly about beyond 2012- and I have given you my perspective. The TP is a very large, growing in numbers and political might kind of movement fueled by a cultural conservative ascendancy. That's my take. A single election will not make or break the TP, or the larger conservative movement. The story line-- either way-- will be that the TP is over. That'll be the propaganda. Romney is nominated- the TP is over. Romney wins the Presidency- the TP is over / irrelevant / doesn't matter. Obama wins, the TP is dead. I fully expect to hear all the TP is dead propaganda-- the point I am making is that nothing could be further from the truth. ok, Paul, fine. this doesn't sound like "all will fall to future fascists", now. you are a man of faith. it relieves me to see that you have some faith in the republic. for the record, i would die before i see our liberties taken away. and i am hardly alone, i am guessing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 21:30:59 GMT -5
Oh my...Oped - have not seen you in so long!! Hope you're doing well and good to see you here. As for Santorum - he sucks. I'm a Ron Paul follower. fep- you have been taking your blunt pills today.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 21:34:03 GMT -5
And obvously, no matter what happens, Paul will say that it is evidence that the TP is alive and well...
(But Paul, I did think a few months ago you were convinced that anyone could beat Obama... you seem to have changed his mind about that...?)
I like blunt. I usually go with Santorum is a moron...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 21:34:09 GMT -5
I think probably the most offensive suggestion that I keep hearing since the 2010 absolute wipeout is that conservatives won't compromise. Of course not. Winners don't compromise. They win. Then the losers get to compromise. Isn't that what we were told by Obama when he smugly announced, "I won, you lost" in 2008? But in all seriousness, it's just reality. 2010 wasn't about electing Republicans, it was about rejecting liberalism. It wasn't about party identification, it was about ideology, and it was a total blowout. Make no mistake about it, it wasn't about inching slightly towards the center, it was about conservatism vs. liberalism and conservatives won in a landslide.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 21:36:45 GMT -5
Which they promptly squandered in a flurry of anti-abortion, anti labor, anti gay and hissy fit action...
2010 was about the economy... about a worry over jobs... and it only took a little bit to show that the current republican field is worse on those than what we have now....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 21:38:41 GMT -5
i am really excited about 2012. but i do think that, realistically, the GOP will have trouble outdoing 2010. i think going forward things will look much like today.
i disagree with Tex, tho. i think there is a very real chance that the GOP will take the Senate. the Democrats have far more seats to defend, and far more vacancies.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Feb 11, 2012 21:42:32 GMT -5
Which they promptly squandered in a flurry of anti-abortion, anti labor, anti gay and hissy fit action... 2010 was about the economy... about a worry over jobs... and it only took a little bit to show that the current republican field is worse on those than what we have now.... What's Obama's slogan this time, ""A New Hope and Change"? or "I can Spend Faster than a Drunken Sailor"? ;D
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 21:47:06 GMT -5
Which they promptly squandered in a flurry of anti-abortion, anti labor, anti gay and hissy fit action... 2010 was about the economy... about a worry over jobs... and it only took a little bit to show that the current republican field is worse on those than what we have now.... What's Obama's slogan this time, ""A New Hope and Change"? or "I can Spend Faster than a Drunken Sailor"? ;D did you read what Rasmussen said at CPAC last night about that slogan? the GOP would be very wise to listen to it. don't mock Hope and Change. people need it now, more than over- and the GOP should offer it. edit: here it is (emphasis mine): “How many of you,” Scott Rasmussen asked the crowd at this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, “have ever mocked or made fun of the president’s call for hope and change? Raise your hands.” Most people in the Marriott Wardman Park hotel ballroom raised their hands. There were cheers and whoops. “With all due respect,” the conservative pollster and commentator told them, “I’d like to say that’s really stupid.”This time, there was uncomfortable laughter. “Voters are looking for hope and change as much today as they were in 2008,” Rasmussen explained, and “you ought to be encouraging Republican candidates, people you support, to offer that positive step forward.” Rasmussen had put his finger on a major problem for Republicans in 2012, and conservatives in particular: At a time when the national mood has begun to improve, they remain nattering nabobs of negativism. At CPAC, any hint of a “positive step” was buried in vitriol. This worked well for Republicans in 2010, because it matched the sour mood of the electorate. But now, with optimism and confidence finally on the rise, Republicans are left with an anger management problem. They risk leaving the impression that they are rooting against an economic recovery.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 11, 2012 21:48:11 GMT -5
It is interesting that there is a difference between the "Tea Party" and the Republican Party at times while at other times they are the same.
I would like to see Santorum gain the Republican nomination. (Gingrich has too much "built-in excuse" for not winning.) Santorum would give Americans the opportunity to prove Paul's theory correct.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 21:49:09 GMT -5
It is interesting that there is a difference between the "Tea Party" and the Republican Party at times while at other times they are the same. I would like to see Santorum gain the Republican nomination. (Gingrich has too much "built-in excuse" for not winning.) Santorum would give Americans the opportunity to prove Paul's theory correct. precisely. Santorum would end the debate.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 11, 2012 21:50:29 GMT -5
... Santorum would end the debate. You are an optimist.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 21:52:59 GMT -5
... Santorum would end the debate. You are an optimist. you just discovered that? ;D
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Feb 11, 2012 22:15:46 GMT -5
Personally I think the tea party will have more of an impact on congressional elections. They seem to be focusing on local elections more than the national one.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Feb 11, 2012 22:46:27 GMT -5
>>>Which they promptly squandered in a flurry of anti-abortion,>>> Yep, I had to walk out of the room as Obama was speaking and Katherine Sebilius standing next to him. You know the one, who sent how many patients to Dr. Tiller, the baby killer for a kickback... talk about hypocrisy?
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Feb 11, 2012 22:51:21 GMT -5
>>>But now, with optimism and confidence finally on the rise, Republicans are left with an anger management problem. They risk leaving the impression that they are rooting against an economic recovery.>>> Of course we have anger, as there may be a slight recovery now, but will it continue or is it just for votes? I think by now we know who the real Barry is. He has not shown transparency or leadership, but he as a person is transparent.
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Feb 11, 2012 23:11:31 GMT -5
I know a historical person with Tea Party sympathies:
Here's a hint: "Sic semper tyrannis!"
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 23:29:52 GMT -5
The reason I think the GOP faces a very possible defeat in the Presidential race in 2012 is that you listen to all the great speeches at CPAC- Marco Rubio's was by far one of the best, you hear Allen West, you hear from people like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich- who btw simply has to be acknowledged as THE Republican with the most specific, item by item, list of policy changes of any politician from either side of the aisle-- maybe ever, but certainly recently; and then you get an endorsement of Mitt Romney who wasn't even there- but sent his girlfriend, Ann Coulter; who gave a speech that, because she couldn't tout Mitt Romney's record, spent all of her time trashing Newt- who wasn't the guy that just whipped her cabana boy in three states. It makes no sense. The ONLY quality, if Mitt has any real "qualities" at all, is supposedly that he is "electable". A dubious claim to start with, but it is made even more dubious by the fact that we don't "apportion" electors, and he has lost Iowa, South Carolina, Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota while winning only Florida, New Hampshire, and Nevada. He's down 5 to 3, and he has spent six years and tens of millions of dollars trying to garner this nomination and he just. can't. win. it. So, why is CPAC blowing their credibility? Why does the establishment think that they can polish this turd?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 23:31:59 GMT -5
Message deleted by PalmBeachPaul. Duplicate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 23:32:38 GMT -5
I'm guessing because in the last year, the only person who has polled close to Obama is Romney... however, that is changing... as now no one is polling all that close to Obama... ? ... I honestly don't know. I liked Huntsman more than the rest. Can't say i'd have voted for him, as i didn't hear enough, but i would certainly liked to have heard more...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 23:32:57 GMT -5
I know a historical person with Tea Party sympathies: Here's a hint: " Sic semper tyrannis!" Congratulations! I thought we'd make it the entire thread without a mention of the supposed 'violent tendencies' or even 'terrorist' qualities of members of the TEA Party. I was worried TEA Party opposition might have wised up and would gain more credibility. Thanks for trashing your side of the argument. It's so much easier when the opposition simply collapses into a ball of spitting, writhing and muttering. And here you probably thought you were so clever. Here's a hint for you: it's why you lost in 2010, and it's why 2010 was just a warm up.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 23:41:37 GMT -5
I'm guessing because in the last year, the only person who has polled close to Obama is Romney... however, that is changing... as now no one is polling all that close to Obama... ? ... I honestly don't know. I liked Huntsman more than the rest. Can't say i'd have voted for him, as i didn't hear enough, but i would certainly liked to have heard more... You know every time I hear a "moderate" say they "could see voting for fill-in-the-blank Republican" I get a chuckle out of it. I see all of this "Republicans need to be more moderate" or "ease up on 'social issues' (roll over on abortion and gay marriage)" I see it for what it is: the opposition trying to pick our candidates. Pick your own candidates and butt out is how I feel about that. But you won't because you want us to nominate losers. I can't challenge you personally, because I don't know you or have any idea how you have voted in the past, but I have asked moderate Democrats before when was the last time you voted Republican? And you know the answer: never. So, the reality is-- and maybe you're different-- but none of these Democrats I hear and read saying, "I could see myself voting for Jon Huntsman" are ever going to vote Republican. Ever. The GOP could nominate Obama and Democrats would find some reason to say he's a far right maniac and oppose him. Let the GOP nominate their own candidates and let's have a head to head election. You want to stop complaining about never having a "choice" and only 40% of eligible voters voting? Get out of the way and let's have a contest. Make it a three way- hell make it five. Or seven. Let's have a Libertarian, a Constitution Party, a Green Party, a smattering of "Independents" and let's have a real conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat and let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 11, 2012 23:49:21 GMT -5
Personally I think the tea party will have more of an impact on congressional elections. They seem to be focusing on local elections more than the national one. Yes, we are. 2010 saw HUGE changes at all levels-- it was a MUCH bigger "wave election" than anyone anticipated: www.mikeswashingtonwatch.com/archives/2010/12/the_2010_election_and_then_som.shtmlThe 2010 Election and then Some Republicans picked up 6 U.S. Senate seats 63 U.S. House seats 5 Governors 695 state legislators 13 state assemblies 6 state senates 11 additional states in which they control both legislative bodies 10 additional states in which they control governorship and both legislative bodies U.S. Senate Republicans picked up 6 Senate seats. Before the election – 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents After the election - 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, 2 Independents 2 Democratic senators who stood for re-election lost 0 Republican senators who stood for re-election lost U.S. House Republicans picked up 63 House seats Before the election – 256 Democrats, 179 Republicans After the election - 193 Democrats, 242 Republicans Of the Democratic House seats that flipped, 37 were won by John McCain in 2008 63 Democratic House members who stood for re-election lost 2 Republican House members who stood for re-election lost This is the largest number of seats to move from one Party to the other since the Democrats picked up 75 seats in 1948. Notably, the Republicans had picked up 55 seats in 1946. There were only 4 elections before 1948 in which a greater number of seats changed political hands than changed hands in 2010. 1938 Republicans picked up 81 seats 1932 Democrats picked up 97 seats 1922 Democrats picked up 76 seats 1894 Republicans picked up 130 seats in a Congress of 357 seats Using "The Cook Political Report’s" Partisan Voting Index (PVI) as the comparison device, 50 of the seats lost by the Democrats had a Republican PVI; 2 were rated as even; and 11 were rated Democratic. The 3 Republican-held seats that flipped had a Democratic PVI. Looking back at the last 50 years, including 2011-12, this is the largest margin that Republicans have enjoyed in the House during the 7 cycles (of 27 cycles during the period) in which they have had control. Governors Republicans picked up 5 Governorships An Independent picked up 1 Governorship Before the election – 26 Democrats, 24 Republicans After the election - 20 Democrats, 29 Republicans, 1 Independent State Legislatures (Nebraska legislature is unicameral and non-partisan and therefore is not included below) Republicans picked up 695 state legislators Before the election – 4,037Democrats, 3238Republicans, 70 other After the election – 3360Democrats, 3933Republicans , 73 others [Note: 16 races undecided] Republicans picked up control of 13 State Houses Before the election – 32 under Democratic control, 16 under Republican control, 1 Split After the election – 19 under Democratic control, 29 under Republican control, 1 Split Republicans picked up control of 6 State Senates Before the election – 28 under Democratic control, 20 under Republican control, 1 Split After the election – 22 under Democratic control, 26 under Republican control, 1 Split Republicans picked up control of 19 legislative bodies (total 99) Before the election – 60 under Democratic control, 36 under Republican control, 1 Split After the election – 41 under Democratic control, 55 under Republican control, 1 Split Control of both Houses of a State legislature in 11 additional States Before the election – Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures, Republicans controlled 14 state legislatures, 8 Split After the election – Democrats control 16 state legislatures, Republicans control 25 state legislatures, 7 Split (NY Senate pending) Control of both houses of a State legislature and the Governorship of that State in an additional 10 States Before the election Democrats controlled the legislature and Governor in 15 States Republicans controlled the legislature and Governor in 8 States After the election Democrats controlled the legislature and Governor in 11 States Republicans controlled the legislature and Governor in 18 States
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 23:52:00 GMT -5
The reason I think the GOP faces a very possible defeat in the Presidential race in 2012 is that you listen to all the great speeches at CPAC- Marco Rubio's was by far one of the best, you hear Allen West, you hear from people like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich- who btw simply has to be acknowledged as THE Republican with the most specific, item by item, list of policy changes of any politician from either side of the aisle-- maybe ever, but certainly recently; and then you get an endorsement of Mitt Romney who wasn't even there- but sent his girlfriend, Ann Coulter; who gave a speech that, because she couldn't tout Mitt Romney's record, spent all of her time trashing Newt- who wasn't the guy that just whipped her cabana boy in three states. It makes no sense. The ONLY quality, if Mitt has any real "qualities" at all, is supposedly that he is "electable". A dubious claim to start with, but it is made even more dubious by the fact that we don't "apportion" electors, and he has lost Iowa, South Carolina, Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota while winning only Florida, New Hampshire, and Nevada. He's down 5 to 3, and he has spent six years and tens of millions of dollars trying to garner this nomination and he just. can't. win. it. So, why is CPAC blowing their credibility? Why does the establishment think that they can polish this turd? they are reading the polls, Paul. but what is odd is that in just the last week, Romney fell out of contention in those polls for the first time in over half a year. the only problem is that the polls ALSO show that nobody else has a better chance. so, you either believe the polls (which CPAC clearly does) or you have a "leap of faith" and back one of the others. i will go for the latter, personally.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 11, 2012 23:53:39 GMT -5
I'm guessing because in the last year, the only person who has polled close to Obama is Romney... however, that is changing... as now no one is polling all that close to Obama... ? ... that is mostly a good guess. Romney is polling -5, Paul -7.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 23:53:50 GMT -5
Do you mean republican for president? Because i voted local R as close as the last (maybe last two) elections. I have only been a registered Dem since 2008... and don't generally vote a straight ticket... (Although the more socially conserviative Rs get, the more likely i am to do so...) But you are right in that i haven't voted republican in a presidential. The first election i was old enough to vote was Clinton's first, and i didn't vote in that one, the next one I did vote for Clinton, and I never liked Bush Jr... so, that about wraps that up...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 23:55:20 GMT -5
In PA the GOP does nominate their own, we don't have open primaries... until i finally registered Dem, i couldn't vote in a primary, as i was independent...
|
|