Here is what Democrats want us to think: Republican candidates are going to take away your contraceptive pills; they are going to go on some jihad against you in the bedroom, and the only salvation is reelecting Barack Obama.
First of all, Obama cannot run on his record. The last thing that he wants you to think about is what he has done while in office. He does not want you to think about Obamacare, because it has continued to remain unpopular, even to today. Now, they will continue to try to sell Obamacare is becoming more popular, but Democrats do not want to carry this flag into the main election.
Whereas Newt Gingrich is going to tell you over and over again that he is the only person on the ticket to ever balance the budget in our lifetimes, Democrats are not going to tout the passage of Obamacare as a great reason to vote for them.
What else have they done? They passed the Stimulus package, which was supposed to reverse the recession. More people believe that Elvis is alive than believe that the Stimulus package worked. Democrat Evan Bayh, when retiring said that if he created one job when he entered into the private sector that would be more than Congress has created in the previous six months.
Are Democrats going to run on the various omnibus bills that they have passed? Yes, at $1.1 trillion for one 2010 bill alone that was 2000 pages long, Dems do not want you to think about that.
Can Obama run on ending the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq? These wars have degenerated into chaos under his watch.
Most people who pay some attention to politics know the numbers:
| 2009 | 2012 | |
| UNEMPLOYMENT | 12M | 13.1M |
| GAS PRICES | $1.85 | $3.59 |
| FED DEFICIT | 10.6T | 15.2T |
| FOOD STAMP RECIPIENTS | 32M | 46M |
It doesn’t matter if Obama is at fault here or not; under his watch, things have gotten worse, not better, and he has spent huge sums of money from many generations to come in order to “fix” the U.S. economy.
Both the media and the Obama administration have tried to paint the economy as improving, but a lot of Americans aren’t buying it.
So, what remains are wedge issues and personal attacks. The media managed to drive Herman Cain out of the Republican race and Sarah Palin out of elective office and apparently, out of elective office aspirations.
What the democratic party knows is, there are a lot of voters out there who barely pay attention. Huge numbers of people voted for Obama, and yet had no clue about him or the other candidates. Some young people simply voted for Obama because he was cool and McCain was this doddering old man.
So Obama needs to capture these votes and to do it with manufactured controversies.
The controversy of the last month has been contraception.
Although Republicans are continually blamed for raising this issue, it actually first occurred in a Republican debate, brought up by George Stephanopoulos on January 7th, a former Clinton aide.
He said the question was a joke. He and Diane Sawyer had a bet that Stephanopoulos could make Romney say, “Contraceptives are working just fine.” A few days earlier, ABC’s Jake Tapper asked Rick Santorum questions about state regulation of birth control.
And then, seemingly out of nowhere, President Obama made to sovereign decision that some Catholic institutions must pay for forms of birth control including the morning after pill. When this became plainly unpopular, the President proposed a compromise, which did not come from any sort of discussion with the Catholic entities about a compromise.
The compromise is, insurance companies will now give out free contraception, which is essentially free to the insurance companies, even though it costs a huge amount of money to individuals (which stories generally ignore that contraceptive pills from WalMart can cost as little as $5–$15/month). And, to liberals, this makes complete sense. If the government requires it to be paid, then it’s free; if a person pays for it individually, the costs are beyond that person’s ability to pay.
Then there is the liberal operative at the Georgetown School of Law, Sandra Fluke [pronounced flook]. There are all kinds of law schools out there and there are a number of different medical plans, yet this woman chose to go to Georgetown, where there are some limits on contraceptive coverage. She said she is attending Jesuit Law School in her testimony. She is concerned that she and others who have spoken to her must come up with $3000 for contraception (which appears to be over the period of time that she is enrolled in school). She claims that contraception is not easily available elsewhere, that they are under crushing demand.
Fluke is a reasonable speaker, but her examples were weird. One woman, after being raped, did not go to her medical provider because she figured they would not help her. Another example was a woman who used birth control for other reasons, and received the birth control, even though maybe it might be denied.
Her primary point was, she should be able to get the coverage that she wants—including free birth control—at a Catholic University, no matter what.
I am certainly not an expert in the female reproductive system. However, it would make sense that, if a woman needed birth control pills for a reason other than birth control, that would be easily verifiable. It appears as though that was not really an issue, even though many people are arguing that is the main issue, where one person actually argued that more people took birth control to prevent ovarian cancer than took it for birth control.
What we have here is a typical Democratic issue. “I am a victim; my friends are victims. This is what we want; we should get it without any hassle or any extra cost.” And Democrats come to her aid, thankful to talk about anything other than the debt, the deficit and unemployment.
As a side note, Rush Limbaugh made light of this, which he often does, illustrating absurdity by being absurd (Rush has since formally apologized for his language and characterization of Fluke). However, in between the absurdity, Rush also throws in some actual information.
Now, it is doubtful that the Democrats can run with this for the next 10 months. However, expect there to be victim after victim, wedge issue after wedge issue, with a little class warfare thrown in. But do not expect Democrats to tout what Obama has accomplished (and he has accomplished a lot) and do not expect them to talk about Obama’s actual record.
As Rush Limbaugh said 2 weeks ago: “The Democrats don’t have one thing they can run on. There’s not one aspect of Obama’s first term that they can say, ‘If you want four more years of this, vote for us.’ They have to create fear, hatred, loathing, impugn the character, all that, of Republicans — and that’s what they do.”
This will be in Conservative Review #218
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
It is a phony controversy.
So, we have to ask …. why?
Is all this simply diversion on Obama’s part again?
He’s used people, only to throw them under the bus later, many times before.
So….what’s been happening under the radar while we’ve all been focused on the slut?
One thing made the news without even waiting for a Friday Night Document Dump:
Obama is seeking to defund the Embryo Adoption Awareness Campaign in his fiscal 2013 budget.
This fund keeps 50,000 fertilized embryos alive on ice so they might be implanted one day then adopted.
There are 600,000 fertilized embryos on ice, but the majority are spoken for.
Of course, the fact is, Obama’s budgets are all DOA and his Dem-controlled Senate NEVER has put even one budget up for a vote.
So, maybe we are just seeing the lack of morality of Obama playing out on an ever-widening stage.
You nailed it.
The moderate people decided the last election. They didn’t vote for Obama because he was cool and McCain was an old man. They voted for him because of the failures of the Bush Presidency. They will decide this election as well. They may not want to vote for him because of his failures, but given the choice between him and Romny or Santorum it could be very close.
Another angle
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/05/kirsten-powers-on-rush-and-sandra-fluke-wheres-the-outrage-at-misogynistic-liberal-men/
And RINO, not even close as to who “decided” the last election. With a name like RINO I’m not surprised you got it wrong.
“expect there to be victim after victim, wedge issue after wedge issue, with a little class warfare thrown in”
Change ‘little’ to ‘lot’ and you have it exactly right.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
You’re right: it shouldn’t be a controversy. It is a controversy, because the social conservatives rail against birth control at every opportunity, some even wanting to view the pill as a form of abortion, because the authoritarian right wants justices who would repeal Griswold, and because most libertarians can’t stand up to defend personal liberty on sexual and procreative issues without apologizing first. You can’t blame the liberals for any of that.
Wow… serious leap into hyperbole there.
First of all, if you want “libertarians” to stand up to defend personal liberty, there is no reasonable way you can disagree with the arguments that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to dictate mandates against religious conscience nationally. I will also add that it is a state’s right, not federal, and they – as central government – have no right to dictate national minimum coverage to any of us… religious or not.
That takes care of the liberty and Constitutional argument.
Secondly, if you want to address the economics of out of control health insurance premiums, demands that policies cover this stuff that is best left to HSAs, and should be paid out of pocket, does nothing but exacerbate the premium costs. Policies should not be mandated to items as common as mosquito bites on the posterior.
So yes, I most certainly can blame the liberals for framing health insurance coverage for contraceptives as a “right”, for infringing not only on the 1st Amendment but the 10th as well, and for further driving up the costs of health care. And it has nothing to do with any conspiracy to overturn Griswold or ban contraceptives at state, or national levels.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/will-obama-super-pac-return-misogynist-bill-mahers-million-dollar-donation_633200.html
@Russell:
I have never seen a single conservative bring this up as an issue to the media or at some townhall. Do you live in a parallel universe?
The morning after pill is a form of abortion.
@Nan G, I’m a bit confused as to why… if you are… upset that Obama would be defunding the “Snowflake babies”. I don’t see any more justification in absconding taxpayers’ dollars to fund storage of what is virtually left over petri dish babies, held on ice, any more than I do mandating coverage for birth control to prevent births. I’m consistent… none of it is in the authority of the federal government, and they have no right to demand funds of the nation are used for either of these purposes.
If there is a market for snowflake babies, it needs to be self sustained in the private sector. Not kept afloat financially by the US taxpayer.
Personally, the whole snowflake baby bit – especially that they are “leftover” from the original in vitro fertilization process – leaves me with the very uncomfortable vision of hopeful parents, walking up and down the frozen food section of the grocery, looking for the right entree for the evening dinner.
Thanks for the link, Flopping Aces! I remember you guys from in 2008, when we were both backing Fred Thompson. Who do you guys like now? I know there are several authors here.
If only someone had handed out lots of free contraceptives to Mama and Papa Obama we wouldn’t be in this mess!
The GOP was the party who turned this into sex with Rush’s ‘slut’ and those defending of his hate speak. Like you all here. And they they lied and spoke of this as something we all would pay for as taxpayers when it was all about PRIVATE insurance. Rick Santorum wants to ban contraception, all contraception. He even want to get rid of life saving procedures like amniocentesis!
I live in the universe where Jill Stanek is one of the leaders of the pro-life movement. And here are her views on the pill (not the morning-after pill):
http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/06/the-pill-pregnancy-and-the-davinci-code/
It is never, ever necessary to make up extreme views for social conservatives. They do that quite well themselves.
@libdud, I know that with your Stepford mentality, you are inclined to view people in classes, and think everyone is a cookie cutter clone. But Rush is one man. He’s not the “the GOP”. He doesn’t represent my conservative views. Nor has “all of us here” defended what he said.
Personally, I find the idiocy of turning Limbaugh in to the “national crises of the week” an insulting distraction to the importance of the election cycle. So I’ve pretty much tried to steer clear of most of this deviation down the wrong rabbit hole. I frankly don’t give a damn because there’s more pressing issues than this BS.
But let me say this… even tho I don’t like the discussion in general, I don’t like how Rush framed the issue any more than I like the way *you* framed the issue. This, of course, places you eye to eye with Limbaugh in your self perceived gutter.
Naw… let’s correct that. You’re even lower than Limbaugh in that gutter. I would say that publicly wishing for someone’s death or harm is a character trait deserving of more venom than calling someone a practitioner of the oldest profession in the world.
As for Rush, he is getting his discipline. The free market is at work. Rush has lost some big time advertisers, and a couple of syndicated stations over this. With his popularity, that’s only a shot over his professional bow. But that’s a discipline I respect.
Your pious fingerwagging? Mostly especially in light of your dialogue documented here? Sorry, mental dud… you rate zero on the scale of respect or credibility.
Considering @your hyperbole above,what I would consider a perfect example of the very “extreme views” you rail against now, that is one amusing comment.
@liberalmann: stop lying, not a single GOP candidate has authored, sponsored, supported or in anyway said they would support any ban on contraception
get your head out of Obama’s ASS
@Russell: and no where in that article did she call for a ban on contraceptives
@Russell: I will admit to not hearing about Jill Stanek before.
So, you honestly and truly believe that Rick Santorum is out to ban oral contraceptives?
I would not be shocked if he would ban the morning after pill, btw.
I’m not going to defend Rush. I would never call a woman a name like that. No matter where my momma is, I know she would reach out and slap me.
That being said, yeah Maher and Fat Ed have made some pretty nasty comments. But everyone, and I mean everyone has forgot about one thing that no one else has mentioned. I did a few Google checks just to see, and nowhere did I find outrage on the left, especially from DWS about Guy Cimbalo article. Surely everyone remembers that one. Top 10 Conservative Women We’d Like to Hate F**k
~Snip
I say we give the left another chance on this one. Let the outrage begin
I’ll hold my breath
This is meant to distract from the real issues and drum up support for dems while hurting the GOP.
We all know the vile things the left has said about Conservative women with no outcry or backlash from others on the left. They are hypocrites and even they know it, but don’t care since power is all they care about.
@liberalmann: News Flash idiot, Rush apologized for acting like you. He should have also.
Whatever Rush Limbaugh may be projecting over his ‘golden microphone’ is mostly misinformation. What you call “making light” of something, or “apologizing” for something (especially when pressed by losing sponsors), suggests the conservative ethos—which can be seen by their resorting to name-calling, instead of reasoning, as displayed on many websites.
You’re right, you’re no expert about the female reproductive system: 14% of the female population uses oral contraceptives for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy—and Fluke’s comments were principally directed at only 40% of the users of birth control (which possibly includes this population, as well as others who cannot use generics offered at Wal-Mart and Target for $9).
Regarding Obama’s policies, maybe you better refer to the following list of his achievements:
http://www.democratichub.com/obama-administration-accomplishments.aspx
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Be careful what you state, Lib1. By your comment, you suggest that liberal/progressives do not engage in such actions on their related websites. Funny thing about the net. Most everything that anyone has published can be found on it, and considering the articles I’ve seen by liberals, the list of them doing exactly as you claim as a “conservative ethos” would be quite lengthy. Your comment is the equivalent of the pot calling the kettle black.
Quite a list, even to the point of “touting” Obama’s tax increases. And this from a man who stated he hasn’t raised taxes once in his presidency. For the record, here is his list of tax increases he has denied doing;
All that and he hasn’t even gotten to his tax increase on the “wealthy” yet.
@johngalt:
Re this:
The making of paper from wood pulp naturally created ”black liquor.”
So, turning around and using that clean biofuel in manufacturing the paper products always made sense.
Until Obama hiked the tax on it.
Now the last few paper manufacturers in the USA have a razor-thin profit margin.
Paper is heavy and requires lots of fuel to move to market.
The recent gasoline/diesel price hikes is making paper an EX-American product.
Asian papers wrinkle and wad up in modern machinery causing lots more waste.
But they are ending up the only game in town.
Thanks Obama …..for destroying the printing industry in America along with the paper manufacturing industry.
(Been in the printing industry since 1970.)
One notes in Ms. Fluke’s odd, mathematics-failed testimony that her form of contraception is NOT condoms. Only a few years ago, from the gay community struck by the devastation of HIV to the condom programs of various NGOs and the free condoms available to university students in many places, the real issue was “unsafe sex” versus “safe sex.” If we are to conclude that Ms. Fluke’s testimony was correct, she is advocating unsafe sex. With the rise in STDs and HIV infection rates according to the CDC, this political theater on both sides ignores the large question in the room — safe sex versus unsafe sex. It was Ms. Fluke whose testimony precludes inexpensive condoms who is as guilty in this regard. For this, I count the entire rhetorical flap from Limbaugh’s “slut” remark to the Left’s “slut walk” in various cities to Maher’s “c-nt” remarks as off the mark. The focus is on the Left’s hidden justification for promiscuity, plain and simple. Many political types on the right play this dangerous, destructive game too, but the poster child for “unsafe sex” has just become a 30-year “advocate” for women to be sexually active without the defense of a physical barrier to infection. What a shame and what a travesty. Previous sex scandals in the US as in Europe have all been about some form of plain promiscuity. So who is arguing for it? Many, it seems. One supposes this has become the moral LOW ground of the day.
Let me add this addendum to this story:
The statement read by Sandra Fluke was (1) brilliant; (2) dishonest and (3) classically liberal. Liberals cannot come out and unabashedly tell you what it is that they want. This woman wants free contraception from this Catholic University, in part, to tweak Catholics and, in part, because she is a liberal activist. And, in what Rush Limbaugh did on Thursday and Friday of 1.5 weeks ago, was exactly right. She wanted sex without any consequences. She did not want to pay for it; she did not want to have any responsibilities whatsoever. But, nobody is going to buy into that. If she came out and said any of this, she would get no media and, those who heard her would oppose her 80–20. So, she has to come out and talk about a non-contraceptive use for contraceptives, which apparently, such an application exists. Now, from what I could pick up, with proper documentation, a woman could get contraceptives under these circumstances at Georgetown (although Fluke was intentionally vague here). So, she takes the exception to the rule and puts that out there like that is what this is all about. The same is done with food stamps, housing, breakfast and lunch for the poor school kids, abortion and medical marijuana in California. Let me explain what abortion people want: abortions at any time for any woman who wants it, no matter what. However, whenever you argue this with them, they will always talk about rape and incest, which make up 1–3% of abortions. Medical marijuana: there are apparently some instances when medical marijuana is a reasonable medical help for some ailments. However, as everyone in California knows, it is all about getting dope legally. Probably not 1% of those with a marijuana prescription actually really need it, medically speaking. The other 99% just want to get high. So that is what Fluke’s statement was all about; the fact that liberal politicians were able to turn this into a Republican “war on women” was an added benefit.
@Gary Kukis:
In every example given in your comment, there is one defining idea that ties them all together. In fact, every liberal “want” can be labeled with one simple phrase. That is, they want “liberation” from personal responsibility. Whether that personal responsibility has to do with one’s own economics, or the label attached to a behaviour or action, or having to make the hard choice, removal of that personal responsibility is their goal. And the liberal politicians are their enablers, relieving them of that responsibility, making them dependents to government.
GARY K. It’s O.k. for a woman to take an oral contraceptive or a man to use a condom but a morning after pill is “a form of abortion” That interpretation if adhered to by the Repub. nom will bring defeat.
Gingrich needs to drop out NOW.
No, rich wheeler. None of the candidates need to follow your dictates, as it relates to their campaign endeavors. You’re not a Republican or conservative, nor will you be voting for any GOP candidate. We already know you will be pulling the lever for Obama.
You know, I find it kind of interesting that the lib/progs, the media and even conservatives call for Newt to drop out, but not Ron Paul. He’s lower in the delegate count than Newt, and isn’t likely to pick up much more in the next run of states. Why is that, you think?
Speaking of the next round of states, Texas’ massive delegate will feature mightily. That’s a state where home boys Perry and Chuck Norris endorsed Newt, and Ted Nugent endorsed Romney. Palin revealed she voted for Newt in the Alaska caucus. Whether endorsements will have much influence, we can only wait and see. I’m not sure how the ads in Texas are going right now… perhaps our Texas commenters will keep us up to day. Right now the polls in Texas aren’t on the radar, and events change daily. Santorum seems to be steadily declining in his leads, and again the campaign can be upturned in another direction. So who knows what can happen. I, frankly, like the process played out.
But thanks for caring, rich… not.
Mata You’re welcome.—- Mighty big of Sarah to get off her— and vote for Newt.
Newt says “At least I’m ahead of Ron. We’re #3 We’re #3!!”
” Who knows what can happen?” Cubs could win World Series and Fighting Irish could win National Championship. Dreams are great Mata.
BTW Texas delegates will be split proportionately–no harm no foul.
California and N.J WINNER TAKE ALL now we’re talkin.
I see it just takes the merely appearance of the letter “P-a-l-i-n” to veer you off into “snidely rich” territory, rich. Palin has a right to cast her vote. Van Sustern asked if she’d reveal who she voted for, and she did. However Alaska is a caucus and they don’t have the primary until August.
The mention of Texas was merely to point out that several large Texas denizens have endorsed Newt, as well as Palin. And whether that would give Gingrich a larger portion of the share. However both California and Texas are open primaries, and thereby also open to mischief by Dems who may want to pick who they believe is the biggest loser to run against Obama.
So my point is, no one knows what can transpire between now and the Tampa convention. Being as I have a vested interest in this process since I certainly don’t follow you into Obama’s fantasy land, I’m quite content to watch the process play out all the way until then with all four, if they choose to do so.
My other point is, I don’t care what you think. Frankly, your advice is, to me, unwelcomed meddling in something that is none of your affair.
Mata “Unwelcome meddling” You give me way too much credit.I’m merely stating an opinion like any other blogger on here.
If Palin, a person revered by the right, truly supports your guy shouldn’t she do more? You’ll agree he needs help.
The open primary didn’t help Santorum in Mich.. and it won’t mean squat in Texas or Cal. Dems are most concerned about facing a Romney/Rubio ticket, as well they should be.
As you can imagine they’d be estatic to face Santorum knowing they’d secure 60%+ of the female vote.Newt or Ron would be decided underdogs against BHO.
If you choose to be “quite content” watching Romney methodically secure the nom so be it.
“Concerned” about facing Romney? LOL Rich, it’s what they live for. The perfect foil for their evil rich, heartless capitalist pig who doesn’t pay taxes, and doesn’t want to pay more taxes, campaign. It’s all about saving the middle class, remember? Romney doesn’t know what middle class is.
They love that they won’t have to defend O’healthcare since Romney’s the godfather of the same. They don’t have to argue about AGW, because Romney is a member of that religion too. They’ll love watching Romney squirm when he talks about alternative energy and coal plants, then gleefully dredge up his protests at the MA coal plants and his thwarting of the Cape Wind project to protect bud Kennedy’s land value. Hang, Obama may even pull his EPA lady – Gina “I kill coal plants for a living” McCarthy out to campaign for him, and she can explain how she was also Romney’s appointed enviro adviser. They’ll be utterly delighted when Romney attacks Obama for his lack of transparency, then point out he wiped the government computers clean when he left the Gov’s mansion.
So much for fearing a Romney opponent.
And yes, I’m quite content to see the process run. I want all the states… including mine… to have their say. There’s no guarantee where Newt’s supporters will go. Considering he, like Ron Paul, gets the youth support over Santorum and Romney, those may move to Paul’s camp. For others, if they feel that Santorum is too rooted in the abortion/religious/social issues, they’d go to Romney. Santorum’s two legislative accomplishments in his career are a ban against partial birth abortion, and fetus farming. This frames him as an activist on those issues, which may make more than a few uncomfortable as to what he would do to repeal Roe v Wade. Then, of course, they watch him dog the contraceptive issue over and over, and ignore his falling poll numbers while doing so. He blew double digit leads over Romney in two states during that debate focus.
Nope… leave them all in. Paul and Newt have valuable platform points that need to be driven home, and that are virtually ignored in import by the two current front runners. Let all the states have their say, and the chips fall where they may. But perhaps allowing everyone to have their say is too lofty a cause for you?
As far as Palin and her own lack of activism. Can’t say as I blame her. If she’s going to be a FOX media consultant, then it’s not wise to be out there campaigning for a candidate, is it? Or perhaps you think Soledud O’bimbo and other commentators and consultants shouldn’t even attempt a facade of “unbiased journalism”, and should flat out hit the campaign trail for the POTUS?
Mata, do you actually think they aren’t already on the re-elect Obama team?
because i do believe they have been for 4 years
and i knew this as soon as he got elected last time and the proof is his poll numbers never once dropped below 40% approval
while with much better numbers for the economy under bush, his poll numbers went totally into the tank
Mata says ” Let them all have there say.” Simply put means, let Romney win but beat him up so he’ll be stronger against BHO. A good strategy?
BHO folks should be glad FOX has bought out Palin and Huck, keeping them off the stump.
If Conservatives,like yourself, cannot get behind the inevitable Romney/Rubio ticket, you will ensure 4 more years of BHO/Biden.
What is it with you that you insist on rewording, or speaking for others, rich? There are no hidden meanings in what I said, nor does it need your substandard translation services. I am quite capable of speaking my own opinions without you coming in behind, thinking you need to clarify things.
So now I’m really going to raise the dander of my conservative peers.
The next four years is what it is. I believe this nation, if dedicated to founding principles, will live thru an Obama 2nd term. Will it be harder to reverse things? Hang yeah… but it’s no cakewalk even now and the largest damage is done with Dodd-Frank and O’healthcare. It’s likely Obama will need the three four just to hold on to that roller coaster of trying to implement it, what with lawsuits abounding and popularity low. Yes, there is life for the USA after Barack Obama. Those who think there isn’t may be suffering from staring at too many of those conservative pundit cute photos with the halos around Obama’s head. One POTUS is not more powerful than our nation and it’s founding principles… most especially this POTUS.
Undoing SS and Medicare as we know it, backing out of that entitlement minefield as carefully as possibly, is a challenge that Congress has been running from for a decade or so, when the problems with it’s ponzi’esque funding became apparent.
Our largest long term problem lies not with Obama, but how much of our youth has been indoctrinated into wanting “a fundamental change” to our nation, making it a Euro-socialist welfare state. That is what needs to be reversed… the dumbing down of the voter, and filling them with dreams of free ice cream cones and lollipops by the government. That is something that can be done, and should be done, regardless of who occupies the WH. Since it’s hard to pry the rigor mortis grip off the public school curriculum that Wm Ayers has influenced for decades, it will have to come from public figures who can communicate principles to the young from the political pulpit… people like Rubio, Jindal Ryan, West etc. Why do you think people like Ron Paul and Newt have the support of the young? They stay on message, and communicate it in terms they can understand… over and over.
As for this primary, from the beginning it’s been run by establishment beltway insiders as a Romney guarantee, *unless* someone else can beat him. What is taking place is a resistance by voters, despite Romney’s money and nod of approval by those – including you – whose opinions we don’t care about. The Republican Party already tried the blind faith devotion to a RINO nominee, sanctioned by the party and your ilk, rich. This election is showing there are less willing to blindly follow the sheep butt in front of him.
Simply put, conservatives do not want their strongest conservative candidate in the #2 slot. Not at this stage of the game.
So yes, indeed, I want to hear from all 50 states. This isn’t only about a nominee. It’s also about whether there is anything redeemable in the Republican Party with the leadership it has now. It is the members that should guide the party and platform, not the other way around. And right now, those members and conservative independent supporters need to express an opinion. If Romney wins the nomination, I’d be interested in knowing if it was because they actually like his policies and record, or if it was resignation that the pretty face, with lots of money, of the group was the only valid anti-Obama.
Sorry, but for most of us, superficial politics just to change Oval Office decor isn’t enough.
Will Romney be “stronger”, if he emerges the winner? Dumb question and observation. He was never strong to begin with… which is why all you lib/progs play the interference game by pushing Romney. But since he seems to be clueless as to how to fight the inevitable charges, this might give him some practice on his verbal gaffes in the interim. Maybe he can come up with new and original material that is, at least, entertaining.
Frankly Santorum has emerged as the last anti-Romney candidate of choice… mostly by dumb luck. No one cared enough about him to attack him earlier in the season. Unlike Bachmann, who tanked herself and quickly, I’m watching Santorum, busy making multiple pin pricks in his helium balloon. His demise will be more moderate, slow and steady. His timing is off… the nation doesn’t need, nor want, a social conservative. It needs a fiscal conservative who isn’t afraid to experience displeasure by tackling the hard stuff and really making “fundamental changes” in the size, scope and power of central government.
Since Santorum’s on the decline, voices like you and your liberal media, as well as Romney or Santorum supporters, want others to get out of the way – each believing the Paul and Newt base voters will facilitate their favored candidate.
I’m more interested in facilitating the voice of conservatives and Republicans, who they like out of the four (or not), and why.
Right now, I’d say that an Obama reelection is more than a good chance. In my opinion, neither Santorum or Romney will be able to stand up to the nasty picture that will be painted by your party and POTUS. Romney will be the evil capitalist, heartless pig who wants to destroy the middle class, and Santorum will be the guy who wants to repeal Roe v Wade and send women back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. With the media’s help, plus using both of these gentlemen’s own personal records, they will succeed in making that paint stick. Can’t get any more overt and simple than that.
You and your party’s political tactics are very predictable, rich. It was obvious from the beginning what would happen to the contraceptive mandate debate, and how it would be framed. It’s obvious how both Romney and Santorum will be portrayed by Axelrod and his band of Chicago political mafia. It’s just too bad that most of the conservatives around the nation cannot stay focused, and still follow those frisbees thrown off the beaten bath.
What conservatives better put into place is Plan B… activism at the local levels (tea party style) for Congressional members. Holding the House with a good majority, and gaining even a slim majority in the Senate would be marvelous and a much more do’able plan. Because in reality – at the end of this political season – Obama will *not* have won. Instead, the GOP will have defeated themselves with mixed and diluted messages that run contrary to the the grain of their base, and to our nation’s needs at this moment in time.
People please it doesnt matter if we all think one person is right, or if we all agree with someone different. Th government runs everything in this situation even if the US doesn’t see it or refuses to look.
Mata Believe me I am ALL IN on all the candidates having their say. By the time they are finished shooting themselves in the feet,they’ll be unable to stand against any attack from Obama. As you say they will have beaten themselves.
With the Tea Party’s record of supporting Senatorial losers they’d best get out of the way if Repubs. want to take the Senate in 2012. Good news .You’ll hold the House.
My ” ilk”, the majority of the American electorate, would love to send Santorum and his ilk back to the Stone Age from whence he came.
rich, you still miss it…. I’m “all in”, as you say, for the VOTERS to have their say. Not just half the states.
None of the candidates weaknesses manifested themselves at the onset of the primary. Santorum and Romney’s records have been in place for over a decade. They are the wrong candidates for the conservatives focus at this moment in time. That’s it in a nutshell. None of their “shooting themselves in the feet” is new. It’s just the predictable result from their own past performance as leaders. It was all public record prior to their rise to national attention, and the Dems have no more difficulty seeing it than I do. Ergo, they aren’t feeding Axelrod’s campaign mafia anything that wasn’t already prominently available.
And you’re speaking out your azzzz with the TP success in choosing Congressional leaders, as 2010 midterms proved. Hopefully, they are still busy at the ground level, as most of them here have noted.
@MataHarley:
Not all of us, Mata. There are quite a few of us, who, given the “choices” put upon us for the GOP nominee, are pretty much resigned to a probable Obama win. Even in my post on the Breitbart video topic, I stated pretty much this. The real hope for true conservatives is, as you said, a hold in the House and a gain in the Senate.
Rich thinking Obama and his campaign team would be scared of Romney is kinda funny. Romney cannot argue the major economic issues against Obama, either because of his record(Romneycare), or because he has shot himself in the foot(on the oil issue), or because he was, once, a “successful” businessman who will be tarred and feathered by the OWS/Obama supporters as that “Evil 1%er”. Romney cannot win. I’d even go so far as to say that Romney couldn’t win even if Obama was seen beating their dog on the WH lawn, Michelle was seen in public with two black eyes, and Obama was photographed peeing on the actual Constitution.
@MataHarley:
We actually agree on one thing?
I just don’t see a path for Newt to be elected. I wish I was wrong on this.
LOL! Gary, we probably agree on more than “one thing”… just those subjects haven’t been broached in the FA threads. As for Cain, I may have disagreed with his 999 plan, but I still would have supported him, and hoped to impress upon him that adding what constituted a VAT tax in implementation wasn’t the way to go. But Cain was a damn sight better than what’s sitting in the #1 and #2 slots these days. So in that we were in, at least, partial agreement. And, as I’m sure you notice, Cain endorsed Newt ultimately. What doesn’t seem to be apparent is that his supporters have followed his endorsement. At least at this point.
Yet it’s ironic that the thrust of the POTUS campaign has been aimed primarily at Newt’s policy suggestions. The other candidates really need to get a clue…. and develop something more substantial than lip services of Keystone and drilling. I prefer detailed plans and projections, other than just the hotlink keywords.
Not even going to predict the future of this primary’s results, what with it’s past changes. I don’t really look at a single candidate’s numbers, but a combination of more than one together. Who nose who will take the next nose dive for campaign rhetoric. But ultimately, I’m braced for the wrong candidate – since that’s what’s leading the pack these days – yet again, and the GOP begging for blind support. So I will be far more interested in Congressional races this round, and then seeing what will be happening to the Independent voter registration numbers following 2012.
Mata You tend to put words in my mouth. re T.P. I spoke only of the Senate ( Angle and O’Donnell come to mind)
J.G. I spoke of a very possible Romney/Rubio win ONLY if the Mata/J.G. “ilk” can hold their noses and vote. Mata can’t. Folks like Nan and Dr.J. can. How bout you?
Good news—Less than 6 months to kick off. Are you a college B-BALL fan?
Of course you “spoke only of the Senate”…. because you’d rather focus on what didn’t work than what did. But, with the exception of Nevada.. where Reid is as firmly entrenched as Kennedy was in MA… the Senate losses for TP candidates was expected because they were, for the majority, blue states traditionally any way (i.e. New England areas) There is no value in replacing a Dem with a RINO… which is the entire point of the TP to begin with.
It seems those most fixated on a Romney-Rubio ticket is your party, and a few pie in the sky conservatives, hoping that Rubio erases Romney. Unfortunately, VPs don’t do that. And I will again repeat that Rubio has spent the past nine months saying he does not want the Veep spot. He’s planning on staying put, gathering a record and experience, and perhaps a 2016 run. On the other hand, Romney is beholding to Christie… who I also have no interest in. But I’m sure that’s a ticket that will feel the love from Ann Coulter. (as if I care…)
Haven’t followed b-ball for years. Just don’t have the time to invest in a seasons worth of TV watching various teams. But I prefer it to football for the speed. The whole scrimmage, pile up thing starts getting on my nerves. My ideal football game is highlights of all the air plays.
Mata I gotta be honest.I really started following your posts when you disowned pretty boy Sean Hannity. To dislike Ann Coulter adds to your allure. Trifecta on Dick Morris?
Not sure Christie could bring N.J. but Rubio definately brings Fla. which is huge.
B-BALL question directed at J.G. but appreciate your input.
Still detest Hannity with a passion. Can’t abide O’Reilly either. Always disliked Ann Coulter. Tho really funny and quick witted, never took her seriously. She was a “shock jock” columnist who, apparently, never was really a conservative but a GOP’bot. I just viewed her as a political comedienne who like to use inflammation for self promotion.
Dick Morris? I find him entertaining. I think he knows his pollster data, definitely has great Clinton stories and a past history of working for politicians of both parties. He’s no “architect”, or a phrase creator like Carville. He’s no rock stage design specialist and sleaze ball like Axelrod. Basically, Morris is entertainment… nothing more. No opinions either way, and could take him or leave him on the political landscape.
@MataHarley:
Back when Cain was still in the race, Cain and Gingrich had a “debate” in the Woodlands (which is near Houston). It was one of the most genial debates on record; and I recall once when I think Cain was stumped on a question, so he said, “Do you want to catch this one, Newt?” or words to that effect.
Even though they are both from Georgia, I would have loved to see them both on the ticket together.
There is also a shared commonality between Paul and Gingrich as well, Gary. What proves to be somewhat head spinning is that both of their supporters (altho Paul is still a candidate) don’t necessary race to Newt as the “other” candidate. So what I’m most interested in seeing, at the end of the day and at the Tampa Convention, is the shared delegate count for Paul and Newt.
I think every one has “dream tickets”… I’ve even carried mine further, picking EPA, CIA, FBI, SOS, Treas Sec’y, Defense Secy, and Fed Chair in my mind. LOL Absolutely pipedreams all the way. My only criteria was that, for my “dream team”, I had to use one of the four existing candidates as POTUS. Otherwise the sky was the limit.
Often pondered, just to see where everyone’s heads were at, putting up a post asking “What’s your Dream Team”… starting with one of the four candidates as POTUS. Be an interesting potpourri of answers, I wager.
@MataHarley:
You don’t buy into the Romney/Rand Paul ticket? It explains why Ron Paul has said nearly nothing negative about Romney. On the 2nd ballot, Ron Paul throws all of his support to Romney, with his son guaranteed the Veep slot.
Gary, if you do your homework on Rubio, you will know he is in no position to be taking a Veep position at this time. Not unless, like Palin, you want to put in another conservative VP that’s having to juggle both ethics complaints about campaign funds, plus an IRS tax investigation.
Rubio knows what he’s doing. He needs the time to not only learn his chops and get a record, he has to go thru the hoops and get these Palin’esque type events behind him. Not drag them into the 2012 POTUS arena.
While there is nothing sure in life, I’d be highly surprised to see Rubio as the Veep… unless his request for the complaints to be dismissed actually happen prior to the convention. Been a few years now. Even then I’d be surprised.
As for Rand Paul? Doesn’t surprise me in the least that he’d want it. And nope… don’t buy that ticket either. I also don’t buy that being the reason for Paul’s attacks on Santorum, and not Romney or the others. Fact is, Paul just doesn’t like Santorum, and never has. That’s personal.
@MataHarley:
Either I thought of doing this as well, or there was a break out from some thread at some time. I did have a list as well, but nowhere near extravagant as yours. Palin for Energy secretary.
@MataHarley: Romney will get a strong conservative, I believe, in the veep slot, to pander to the conservatives in the Republican party that he does not quite understand. Maybe Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary or head of the fed?
Maybe I am being to conspiratorial, but it really seems like there is a Romney-Paul connection, as if Ron Paul was doing some of Romney’s slashing and bashing for him (like a veep would do).
As for Rand Paul, I think he would take the long view that, maybe Romney will kick the debt can down the road, even with Rand as veep, but that he would be at the end of that road.
With Rubio, despite his lack of experience, he does at least speak and understand conservatism (like Allen West).
Liberals have been quite successful at getting groups to function as a group (Blacks and Hispanics). We have to have a considerable piece of one of those groups in order to be viable 10-20 years hence. 90+% of blacks voting for one party is insane. In fact, that was one of the reasons I wanted Cain to win; if there was a debate between Cain and Obama, blacks would watch and be forced to think about issues that they have not thought about before). I think dems understood this as well and had to take Cain out, just as they took out Palin (and Cain was much easier to take out than Palin was).
AMERICA WON’T REELECT OBAMA, and more of is that he will be prosecute by the future PRESIDENT TEAM,for having done many decisions to prevent the AMERICANS to live their dreams of success,
bye imposing and blocking with obstacles the lives of AMERICANS, and many other un-american actions to use their money unwisely to help foreign causes he favored over
THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY HE WAS SUPPOSE TO PROTECT, that is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
and circumvent the laws of the land to achieve his goal of declaring war to another SOVEREIGN COUNTRY
ecetera
they just will have to pick which one first to choose out of many,
@Richard Wheeler:
I just now got back online, but yes, I am a fan of college bball. Watched UM win in overtime tonite. On to the semi’s, probably against Ohio State. UM should be a strong #3 seed right now, even if they lose the next game.
J.G. Every Repubs. favorite pollster Rasmussen has Romney +5 over BHO today. Santorum+1 Paul-4 and Gingrich-8. All trail BHO on RCP average.
Looking to future primaries it would appear Romney secures nom. with winner take all 172 N.Y and 50 N.J. on 5 June. If just short he’ll surely secure by winner take all 40 in Utah the final primary. Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings? Hail To The Chief.
Looking at E.C. map shows wins in Fla N.C and Va. secured by Rubio as Veep brings Romney very close to being POTUS. A win in Ohio or Pa. gives it to Them.
Congrats to UM. Kentucky coached by Calipari looks strong.Louisville and mentor Pitino my longshot.
What part of Rubio will not be Veep escapes you, richard?
Mata No Rubio no win. I believe he’ll accept if asked. Romney is beholden to Christie. Longshots–Santorum and Rand Paul.
There will be no Rubio, and I don’t believe he would accept for fear of long term damage, just as Palin has suffered. In case you’re behind the time, Obama’s Media Matters run SuperPAC – American Bridge to the 21 Century – has already been proactive in destroying Rubio. He would be a fool to carry his ethics charges and recent IRS investigation into this election. And Rubio is no fool. Thus the reason he says no Veep slot for him, and will wait until 2016.
Those, like you, who suggest this is the path to go are either deliberately, or out of ignorance, setting up another unwanted RINO (McCain/Romney) with a pairing of a media vulnerable Veep (Palin/Rubio). I’m sure you’d love nothing more than to repeat 2008 with the same scenario.
Rand Paul? I doubt it. Just as I doubt Santorum. While Rand may add some economic/fiscal credibility to Romney’s ticket, he doesn’t feel he’s deficient in that with his own skillset. Santorum? Another highly doubtful moment. Santorum’s social conservative record, and it’s possible negative impact on women who fear his views on contraception and abortion – way outside the mainstream – is more a detriment than an aid.
Last October, Romney’s short list included Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Governor Christie of New Jersey and Marco Rubio of Florida. With Rubio out for inconvenient timing, that leaves McDonnell and Christie. As of Oct 2011, Christie was still there. Later reports show that Nikki Haley may have made a more current short list. That goes a long way in explaining why she turned her back on the TP supporters to endorse Obama’lite Romney. Others of that same cloth might include New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte and South Dakota Sen. John Thune… also endorsers.
Romney is not likely worried about carrying the south, if the choice is between him and Obama. What he is more likely to view is IL, IN, OH and PA. But considering he took OH, he may not be too concerned about that area. And in that area, he has Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, Kasich and Mitch Daniels… the latter floated as an anti-Romney alternative to be drafted. (ick..) But then, it’s hard to say if Daniels would even go there. Kasich has some troublesome approval numbers that may deter Romney, which may not put him at the top of the list. But none of them – Corbett, Daniels or Kasich, all midwest powers, have Santorum’s religious/abortion/contraceptive baggage.
There is also a possibility that he turns his attention to Congress members, such as Cantor. But I don’t think that will happen because it interferes with his self-presentation of an “outsider” administration.
Bottom line, at this moment in time, I’d say that Christie or McDonnell are the two most likely culprits. There will be no West, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, Rubio, Cain or others who he will find more “extreme” right than him, and risk his moderate appeal creds.
@Richard Wheeler: actually wouldn’t the NM Governor(Susana Martinez) be a better pick than Rubio(given his MANY statements of not wishing to be picked for VP)
@DiveCon, so sorry for the delayed response to your observation:
I don’t have any argument that the majority of the MSM are blatant apologists for Obama, DiveCon. My point was few… outside of Media Matters’ David Brock… will abandon the “appearance” of being neutral (yeah, I know… it’s laughable), and trading it for outright campaigning for him.
It is for this reason that I think that Palin, still salaried as a FOX contributor to my knowledge, doesn’t step into active campaigning/endorsing mode. But then, you can say the same about Palin as you can about Soledud O’bimbo… that it’s quite clear she is biased in her beliefs when acting as a commentator/contributor as well.