Tune In Tonight

icedancer2theend said:
You misunderstand the political climate- It's "anyone BUT Obama". The democratic primary of 2008 showed all the misadventures of democratic candidates. The difference between that primary and this one, was in a media acting like cheerleaders for Obama. That won't work this election cycle.
Click to expand...



You keep telling yourself that...

Another Tightie Rightie suffering from ODS!
 
icedancer2theend said:
None of them have the baggage of a failed presidency that Obama has.
Click to expand...

Nope...just the baggage that usually comes with your standard "Family Values" Rightie.

You know...cheating on your wife...groping your female empolyees...asking her if she'd go for a three way with you and your mistress.

And that you would allow your hate for President Obama to cause you to vote for one of those misogynists is even more telling!
 
cawacko said:
Is it really any different than the 'ABB' that was prevelent in 2004? I didn't follow politics in '96 so I don't know if 'ABC' was a common phrase.
Click to expand...


I think his point is that it isn't really any different and that the result of the 2012 election will be similar to that of 2004.
 
Onceler said:
Romney is sort of the classic "say anything to get elected" politician. He definitely has a few "voted for it before I voted against it"'s in him....
Click to expand...
That doesn't bother me to much. Romney is very competent and has a good moral compass. There's nothing wrong with his morals. My concern with Romney is that he's a blue blooded plutocrat. He seems to not be able to relate to us lesser beings and that makes me question his ability to govern in a manner that is in my best interest. Though not even remotely close being as inept as W was the last thing we need is another "What's good for us is good for the country, blue blood.".
 
Darla said:
I just think it's interesting that cons are saying this doesn't matter. But in fact, it just came out that Santorum actually won Iowa, not Romney. And S Carolina is neck and neck between Newt and Romney. How could this not matter? So are they saying that elections don't matter and the big boys have already tapped Romney? Which is what I have said all along, but do they agree? I don't know. It's weird.
Click to expand...
I don't think they believe that the election in Iowa (more correctly the caucus) doesn't count. I think they believe that it doesn't matter cause Santorum's going to lose anyways.
 
cawacko said:
Is it really any different than the 'ABB' that was prevelent in 2004? I didn't follow politics in '96 so I don't know if 'ABC' was a common phrase.
Click to expand...
No, it was a diffferent environment in 96. Northern moderates and liberals were SHOCKED at the virulence of the right wing antipathy towards Clinton in the south. We didn't really quite understand that he was viewed as an apostate by southern conservatives and that his very capable wife with her professional curriculum vitae and active partnership in his political career was viewed as a slap in the face for the traditional role of southern women in society. So though Clinton was remarkably popular in most of the nation those who hated him, particularly in the south, did so with an alarming virulence. The fact that Clinton has co-opted much of their agenda didn't help either. That hatred of Clinton and the distiancing of the mainstream Republicans from the ideological extreme caused a fracturous split in the Party when they went with the party's establishment leader, Dole. Perot and Buchannon split off substantial factions (libertarians and wingnuts) from the Republican party so there was less of a sense of "ABC" and more of a sense of "Rally around the leader or were going to lose." Which they did.
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
I just think it's interesting that cons are saying this doesn't matter. But in fact, it just came out that Santorum actually won Iowa, not Romney.
Click to expand...

now THERE is something that doesn't matter.....does anyone think he's less qualified to run now that they know he got 22 fewer votes?......
 
Darla said:
I just think it's interesting that cons are saying this doesn't matter. But in fact, it just came out that Santorum actually won Iowa, not Romney. And S Carolina is neck and neck between Newt and Romney. How could this not matter? So are they saying that elections don't matter and the big boys have already tapped Romney? Which is what I have said all along, but do they agree? I don't know. It's weird.
Click to expand...

Santorum has no chance to win the nomination that is why people are blowing off his Iowa victory. Look at his polling in the rest of the states. Look at his money. The guy is not electable in a national election.

And Newt may hang around but with his baggage and lack of principle and scorched earth policy is not going to win it either.

If you are a primary voter you really have two options. You can vote for someone on principle based on their stances/positions etc. or you can vote for someone who you believe is most likely to beat the incumbent in the office. Polling makes it pretty clear Romney has the best shot to beat Obama which is why many Republicans are voting for him even if they have some disagreements with him.
 
Onceler said:
I could care less about the personal stuff, but the smarmy personality is too much. Every time an opponent starts criticizing him in a debate, he goes to his fallback expression of a completely overdone smile - almost like a character from Soundgarden's "Black Hole Sun" video, if anyone remembers that.

He's as done as done. Conservatives will eventually have to start accepting that Romney, with all of his waffling & hypocritical baggage, will be their nominee.
Click to expand...

Thats funny........when I go vote, it has never entered my mind how the candidate smiles....I don't remember that EVER being a consideration when casting my to the guy with the best smile......

Well..............to each his own.....
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Do link us to where you are getting that information.
Click to expand...


Motts been suckin' up the stupid pills along with his koolade.....and his perception will never change.....stupidity must be hard to overcome.......

makes me pity him and apple....
 
bravo said:
Motts been suckin' up the stupid pills along with his koolade.....and his perception will never change.....stupidity must be hard to overcome.......

makes me pity him and apple....
Click to expand...

Mott is an order of magnitude smarter than you bravo, you old fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top