Caller to Limbaugh: Will you endorse someone in the Republican primary?

posted at 6:43 pm on March 25, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, a quote: “It is entirely possible a loser candidate will get the nomination… We may end up with milquetoast as a nominee.” I don’t get it. Who could he mean?

In possibly related news, Team Mitt is ready for a long, hard slog to the nomination:

Much will depend on the still-unsettled primary calendar and the eventual field of candidates. But the former Massachusetts governor’s aim, according to multiple aides and advisers, is to exceed expectations his team is working feverishly to lower in Iowa, to come back strong with a win in New Hampshire, to survive South Carolina in part by picking up an off-setting victory in Nevada and then to settle in for what many described as “a slog” that they’ll emerge from thanks to superior money and organization.

Should Florida come after the first four contests, Romney supporters are hopeful he could score an important win in what would be the first large primary state. Yet they aren’t envisioning a 2008-like scenario where John McCain effectively wrapped up the nomination by notching a Florida victory…

”This will be about who won the most delegates,” said Stuart Stevens, one of Romney’s top strategists, adding that the rules of presidential primaries are always being re-written. “After the campaign we’ll look back and think the path to victory was whatever the winner did.”…

”You can see a scenario where different guys win the first four or five states,” said one of Romney’s leading fundraisers.

Democrats did a good job of unifying the party after The One’s long hard slog to victory over Hillary in the primaries three years ago, but that was an easy task. Obama and Clinton were basically indistinguishable on policy (apart from his, er, opposition to a universal health-care mandate); there might have been a crisis among the anti-war base if Hillary, with her Iraq voting record, had beaten Obama for the nomination, but Dems ended up not having to face that scenario. What happens, though, if Romney and a tea-party favorite like Palin end up in a similar primary duel to the death all the way into the summer and he prevails? Will tea partiers be able to stomach voting for the man responsible for RomneyCare the way Hillary Democrats were able to stomach Obama, even after a long, bitter battle? Conversely, if Palin prevails, will establishment Republicans be able to stomach a grassroots favorite as nominee? I think there’s a higher risk of post-convention bitterness on our side this time than there was with Democrats if we end up with a long war between an establishment favorite and a tea party favorite. If the dynamics somehow end up differently — like, say, a Romney vs. Pawlenty death struggle or a contest between two tea-party types — then it’s less of an issue.

Note that Rush says several times here that the campaign next year has to be about Obama and his record. That’s the key to minimizing any weaknesses in the GOP candidate: Keep the spotlight on The One and flaws in the Republican will be overlooked in part. Later, though, he says:

Whoever in this field takes it to Obama the straightest and the hardest and the most direct, is who’s gonna win. They’re gonna have to take it to Obama. This isn’t a ‘pussy-foot around’ type of election. This is not, ‘Oh, we’ve got to worry about what they’re gonna say about us, we’ve got to worry about PR, about charges of racism.’ Somebody’s got to be willing to take it to Obama. It’s going to be about him and four more years of this stuff and we’ll see if there’s anybody in this field willing to do that.

How does that shake out in trying to decide between, say, Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann? Bachmann’s the fearless bombthrower who’ll take it to Obama, but she’s also much, much more easily kookified by the media. T-Paw, meanwhile, might not throw any roundhouses, but there won’t be much Democrats can do to make him seem unelectable. If you’re trying to make the election a referendum on Obama, which is the correct pick?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

You know, the one who despite the benefit of an undergraduate degree in communications, can’t quite manage to put a sentence together without tying herself into grammatical knots.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:27 AM

You anti-Palin folks are obsessed with her.

darwin on March 26, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Petunia says that the “Palin folks [...] have no argument for the facts. They just want to be mean for the sake of being mean. The kind of kids who beat up the fat kid at recess.”

I wonder what she would say about her fellow Palin trasher Marcus Junius Brutus, who uses jokes about the tsunami and threat of nuclear meltdown in Japan to trash Palin supporters and tells his fellow commenters to die, peppering all postings with a liberal helping of profanity. Do these things qualify as “arguments for the facts,” Petunia?

Remove the beam from your own side’s eye before you try to remove it from ours.

steebo77 on March 26, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Sweet……..Grassley says Palin is “lower middle class”…..making good money. (which might be true……but…..)

Wonderful.

I despise the “Leadership” of the GOP. They are so out of touch.

PappyD61 on March 26, 2011 at 10:40 AM

darwin on March 26, 2011 at 10:33 AM

I’ve had an epiphany. You see I haven’t really given a rip about her one way or the other. She has no chance so why worry? But I have wanted to give some back to her obnoxious Palian fan club. But now, I decided to make it my hobby to advertise just how unworthy she is of even contemplating a career in national politics.

Not by the foul means that I’ll be the first to agree were employed against her by the media. Instead, I’ll point to the truths about her lack of credentials, temperament, expertise, communications skills, tact, problem-solving ability and other relevant prerequisites for success.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:44 AM

You see I haven’t really given a rip about her one way or the other.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:44 AM

You lie.

steebo77 on March 26, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Not by the foul means that I’ll be the first to agree were employed against her by the media. Instead, I’ll point to the truths about her lack of credentials, temperament, expertise, communications skills, tact, problem-solving ability and other relevant prerequisites for success.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:44 AM

What you really mean is you’ll hold Palin to impossible standards that you’d never hold any other candidate to.

Have at it.

darwin on March 26, 2011 at 10:53 AM

What you really mean is you’ll hold Palin to impossible standards that you’d never hold any other candidate to.

Have at it.

darwin on March 26, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Careful. If you continue cutting through MJBrutus’s crap, you might receive a death wish of your own…

steebo77 on March 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM

steebo77 on March 26, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Now, now, you shot your credibility in the eyes of any reasonable reader with your lies about me just a few posts back. This new exercise in mind reading is even less believable than before. Anyway, it’s a moot point now. As I said, I’ve had an epiphany :-)

Oh and I’m looking forward to watching you Palin monkeys dancing for me as I expound on her qualifications!

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Mornin’, Bruti.

This one’s for you.

kingsjester on March 26, 2011 at 11:00 AM

kingsjester on March 26, 2011 at 11:00 AM

She’d be a great fit for Kate’s old job. The one in the AM I mean. She hasn’t got the gravitas to pull off the evening news :-)

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Now, now, you shot your credibility in the eyes of any reasonable reader with your lies about me just a few posts back.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:58 AM

What lies? Your the one who lied about your Japan tsunami/nuclear meltdown jokes.

And how can you claim that “mind reading” is a futile exercise, then presume to speak for “any reasonable reader” (which, of course, would not describe you)?

steebo77 on March 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM

No, she would have to be a mindless automaton, spewing the same Liberal Talking points over and over again. Hey, waitaminute. Are you free?

kingsjester on March 26, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 10:21 AM
Oh yes, of course. The Palians are such great intellects and especially judges of intellect. They’re the people who will tell you that George Will and Charles Krauthammer are idiots. And then let you know that their goddess is brilliant. You know, the one who despite the benefit of an undergraduate degree in communications, can’t quite manage to put a sentence together without tying herself into grammatical knots.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:27 AM

OMG! If you are going to refute my comments
could you do it in a way that doesn’t provide proof
of what I originally stated.

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 11:09 AM

You didn’t quote the bits taken from yours and Petunia’s prior messages. It was hard to decipher who to attribute which comment to. Sorry if I confused someone else’s remarks with yours.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:12 AM

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:12 AM

By quote, I mean blockquote.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Could any of our candidates develop some quick witted sarcasm? I am sure I am in the minority but I would love to see a person with committed conservative ideals just slice and dice the Left before they had even caught on. It’s an art form and even people who can do it in writing aren’t capable of it spontaneously. I value exquisite painful etiquette.

Cindy Munford on March 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Oh, you mean the one who had her own word entered into the dictionary? “Refudiate”?

Or do you mean your president who had Bill Ayers ghost-write his book?

lovingmyUSA on March 26, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Could any of our candidates develop some quick witted sarcasm? I am sure I am in the minority but I would love to see a person with committed conservative ideals just slice and dice the Left before they had even caught on. It’s an art form and even people who can do it in writing aren’t capable of it spontaneously. I value exquisite painful etiquette.

Cindy Munford on March 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Rush Limbaugh 2012?

steebo77 on March 26, 2011 at 11:18 AM

lovingmyUSA on March 26, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Our president and I’m no happier that he is than you are. Saying that SP is about on the same level or slightly better than PBHO is setting the bar pretty darned low. Talk about damning her with faint praise!

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:19 AM

steebo77 on March 26, 2011 at 11:18 AM

LOL! Just think about that media reaction. You should send the idea to Mark Steyn, I think it is the making of a best selling novel.

Cindy Munford on March 26, 2011 at 11:22 AM

You just frustrate some of us because of your lack of
intellect. Sorry, just calling it like I see it.

Amjean on March 25, 2011 at 11:47 PM
I realize how far above my IQ your IQ is… But gee golly, we all can’t be such subtle little name callers like you, now, can we?

This is what is wrong with Palin folks. They are just mean. It reflects on Sarah. You do her no favors and perpetuate stereotypes.

They have no argument for the facts. They just want to be mean for the sake of being mean. The kind of kids who beat up the fat kid at recess.

Why would anyone want to join you in anything?

Like I said before the far far righties are exactly the same as the lefties. They can not abide someone disagreeing with them, they must start name calling.

petunia on March 26, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Petunia, calling you a “dumb ass” was not subtle. Do I
apologize for it? “No”…and this is why. For months I
have read your postings bashing Palin without any substance or facts. I finally blew a gasket. Happens. Palin folks
as you call us are not “mean”. We are just tired of the
false rhetoric regarding Palin. We state facts and figures about Palin’s record; you just blather on and on about
nothing. As for wanting you to join us, come on already.
We would like you to research all the candidate’s records
and come to a conclusion based on your own beliefs and
principles. Somehow I think that the term “researching” by itself precludes your
“joining us”. You won’t do it because your agenda is to
go on threads and bash Palin. We are trying to tell you
that we “get it” and aren’t going to let you get away with it without harsh criticism.

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 11:24 AM

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Did you muss your hair when that went right over your head? There is no equating relative superiority of Palin, and Oclueless…even if you count his handicap of Affirmative Action…and are you really so clueless yourself? Didn’t think I needed to write a paragraph explaining the obvious…

Your level of trolldom sets the bar so low–the other trolls just have to step over…

lovingmyUSA on March 26, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Cindy Munford on March 26, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Speaking of Steyn, I quoted his article on Libya today in another thread. Brilliant!

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:34 AM

darwin on March 26, 2011 at 10:33 AM
I’ve had an epiphany. You see I haven’t really given a rip about her one way or the other. She has no chance so why worry? But I have wanted to give some back to her obnoxious Palian fan club. But now, I decided to make it my hobby to advertise just how unworthy she is of even contemplating a career in national politics.

Not by the foul means that I’ll be the first to agree were employed against her by the media. Instead, I’ll point to the truths about her lack of credentials, temperament, expertise, communications skills, tact, problem-solving ability and other relevant prerequisites for success.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Well, Palin has already had much success, so I dispute
that comment.

However, it would be refreshing to see facts, figures and
links to facts. And we ARE talking facts here, right?
A note of caution: Lies that Chris Matthews, etc. tell
are not qualified. Let’s see real facts about her record
as Mayor, Oil & Gas Commissioner, Governor. And links to
look up as proof. She had almost 20 years in political
service. I am sure she had some “failures”, if you will,
some things she would do differently now. And don’t bring
up the state trooper crapola, or any of the other ethics
violations that were already disproven, or that she charged
for rape kits or banned books. We will know you are not
serious if you pull that crap.

I am sure I speak for most that we are looking forward to
your new attitude and specific commentary.

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 11:41 AM

lovingmyUSA on March 26, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I didn’t know how to take your “refudiate” comment. Are we really citing malaprops as a sign of genius? You sound like a new parent swooning with pride over their child’s first poo.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:46 AM

But I have wanted to give some back to her obnoxious Palian fan club. But now, I decided to make it my hobby to advertise just how unworthy she is of even contemplating a career in national politics.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:44 AM

How convenient – MJBrutus has openly and honestly declared that he/she is nothing more than a troll who intends to contribute nothing of value other than offending other HA posters.

katiejane on March 26, 2011 at 12:06 PM

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:46 AM

You know exactly what she was alluding to.

Explain the word you labelled as a malapropism being named the word of the year by the New Oxford American Dictionary.

kingsjester on March 26, 2011 at 12:24 PM

kingsjester on March 26, 2011 at 12:24 PM

It is the same as “strategery.” A linguistic error, seized upon by the left to mock. I haven’t mocked her for it, but it is rather desperate or dumb to cite the elision of “repudiate” (which she meant) and “refute” as some kind of accomplishment.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 12:35 PM

If you’re trying to make the election a referendum on Obama, which is the correct pick?

The correct pick, Allahpundit, is obviously Palin.

theguardianii on March 26, 2011 at 12:38 PM

They’re gonna have to take it to Obama.

Couldn’t agree more. Trouble it, not many of us have the spine and/or intellectual clarity to be able to do that.

petefrt on March 26, 2011 at 1:09 PM

welll as the resident Hillary supporter who did NTO get on the Obama bandwagon I disagree with AP’s assessment of that.

If 8 million registered GOP voters had come out MAC wouod have won.

Also, Hillary campaigned her heart out for Teh One. I dont see ANY of the GOP lookers willing to do the number of appearances Hillary did to reunite the party.

And yeah, it was the anti GOP year. Sean Trende and Jay Cost have done work showing Hillary would have won with a higher % of the pop vote had she been the nominee.

This campaign should IMO be all about what Obama has done and failed to do.

EVERY ad should show the out of control SPENDING, the lack of leadership, the endless vacations and parties, every single ad.

I am hoping Romney gets the nom b/c I am confident he can win. As a recovering Dem and Tea Party Patriot I am confident feeling Romney can get the Tea Party, the disaffected fiscal conservative Dems.

Now all we need is the social cons who stay home and whine when they dont get their way to put their money where their mouth is and GET OUT AND VOTE FOR WHOMEVER THE NOMINEE IS!

And let the ad campaigns get us the Indies. JOBS JOBS JOBS.

ginaswo on March 26, 2011 at 1:09 PM

/sorry for typos, bad eye day today

ginaswo on March 26, 2011 at 1:10 PM

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/on-the-passing-of-geraldine-ferraro/10150120959438435

Geraldine Ferraro dead at 75 and the ever lovely and gracious Sarah pays tribute.

Sad that the Sarah haters and detractors have not a smidgen of the graciousness and wisdom of this lady!

She has every right to run and she will show you how she will win!

dhunter on March 26, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Here’s an appetizer. It was just a few days back that Palians were crowing about how weeks back SP said we should have begun our NFZ in Libya then. The fact is that the “rebels” are the same scum (including al Qaida) now as they were then and were just as unable to bring down Momo, NGZ or not. Sarah was wrong before it was cool to be wrong. She’ll be wrong when it isn’t cool any more too, but you won’t be crowing about that.

On Libya SP == FAIL

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM

You seem to have a deep seated hatred for Palin. I believe a visit to Dr. Freud is in order for you.

darwin on March 26, 2011 at 2:53 PM

On Libya SP == FAIL

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM

So Sarah is a failure for getting the timeline right while lil 0 gets a pass on his absent leadership on the WAR he just got the United States in to?

Western officials are increasingly turning to the same option that the U.S. employed in Afghanistan in the 1980s: arm the rebels. In the U.S., Senators John Kerry and John McCain, the leading Democratic and Republican foreign policy figures in the Senate, have both suggested that the U.S. should arm anti-Qaddafi rebels. So have Senators Joe Lieberman, Kent Conrad, and Mary Landrieu.

Now THAT is FAIL you can believe in! ;o)

DannoJyd on March 26, 2011 at 3:08 PM

there might have been a crisis among the anti-war base if Hillary, with her Iraq voting record, had beaten Obama for the nomination, but Dems ended up not having to face that scenario.

Hillary got more votes and she got more delegates. But the Dem rules committee gave some of Hillary’s delegates to Obama. That’s why there are so many ex-Dem Hillary supporters that are now independents. A lot of these people are new Palin supporters. I don’t know how many, but awakening people from the Dem lies is never a bad thing.

MrX on March 26, 2011 at 3:14 PM

DannoJyd on March 26, 2011 at 3:08 PM

No. They all fail, PBHO, Lieberman, Kerry, McCain, SP, all of them. Sarah was just ahead of the pack in the race to fail. She didn’t get the timeline right, there was no right time to do the wrong thing.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 11:41 AM
Here’s an appetizer. It was just a few days back that Palians were crowing about how weeks back SP said we should have begun our NFZ in Libya then. The fact is that the “rebels” are the same scum (including al Qaida) now as they were then and were just as unable to bring down Momo, NGZ or not. Sarah was wrong before it was cool to be wrong. She’ll be wrong when it isn’t cool any more too, but you won’t be crowing about that.

On Libya SP == FAIL

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM

You could be correct – and also could be wrong. I will
try and find the exact quote and post it later. Perhaps Unseen and/or Gary, etc. could help me out here. Gotta
run and chauffer some munchkins!

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Here is the Palin quote Brutus – You will notice that she
said “Nato and our allies should LOOK AT” establishing
a no fly zone to protect innocent civilians.

I am disappointed that you turned this into a “fail” for
Palin. You will have to dig a little deeper.

“It’s a little perplexing looking at the White House today. There was a statement on the horrible earthquake in New Zealand, and certainly our hearts go out to all those affected by this horrible natural disaster. But nothing on the slaughter in Libya? …

We should have no illusions. Gaddafi is a brutal killer and Libya – not to mention the world – would be better off if he were out of power. Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. Here’s to freedom from Gaddafi for the people of Libya.” – (Palin)

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM

and chauffer some munchkins

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Give my best to Dorothy, the Wizard and all :-)

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Ah, so she wasn’t advocating anything aside from “looking at” stuff.

Here’s Ed Morrissey’s take:

The entire interview is worth watching, as Palin says she would have supported a no-fly zone a month ago when the mission was defined as pushing Gaddafi out of power. Now, with an almost completely ambiguous mission and unclear objectives, Palin says we shouldn’t have bothered:

I’m sure that he was referencing a different statement by her.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM
Ah, so she wasn’t advocating anything aside from “looking at” stuff.

Here’s Ed Morrissey’s take:

The entire interview is worth watching, as Palin says she would have supported a no-fly zone a month ago when the mission was defined as pushing Gaddafi out of power. Now, with an almost completely ambiguous mission and unclear objectives, Palin says we shouldn’t have bothered:
I’m sure that he was referencing a different statement by her.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Are you dense? She was advocating Nato and allies taking
a look at a NFZ in Libya. Why is that so difficult for you
to understand? And what does Ed Morrissey’s take have
to do with the reality of what she said in what I posted?
She posted it on Feb. 23. She may have made other comments after that. Find it, post it and we can debate further.

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Brutus, now I know why Palin posts commentary on her
face book. So her intent can be proven when the trolls
try to misconstrue the content.

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 5:59 PM

The Palians

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Isn’t the name calling an Alinsky tactic?
So now if you like Sarah Palin, you’re an epithet?

Badger40 on March 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM

You seem to have a deep seated hatred for Palin.

darwin on March 26, 2011 at 2:53 PM

It sounds very deranged.

Badger40 on March 26, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 5:59 PM

I did post a link to the Greta interview where you can read what Ed said and watch for yourself. I did find it and post it, but instead of debating it, you go Palian. Fine, so you’re as insincere as all the other Palians about wanting an objective look. No surprise there.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 6:11 PM

It sounds very deranged.

Badger40 on March 26, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Very.

ladyingray on March 26, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Rush says several times here that the campaign next year has to be about Obama and his record.

I disagree with Rush.
Obama keeps reminding us that the recession started during his predecessor’s administration. And he’s right. Of course, Obama’s policies are prolonging the recession, but if he get’s away with “it’s the Republicans’ fault this mess started”, we’ve lost half the battle.
We need to resurrect the “L” word in our campaigns: liberalism.
Liberalism caused the recession.
Liberalism is prolonging it.
Liberalism is digging us into preposterous levels of debt.
Liberalism gave us a umpteen-thousand page tax code.
Liberalism prevents us from using our resources, keeping us dependent on our enemies.
Liberalism is allowing millions of illegals into our nation.
Liberalism is driving our wacky foreign policy.
I could go on & on.
Accept it or not, Obama is still very much a likable person to millions of voters.
We ought to campaign against liberalism.
Liberalism ought to be our villain.

itsnotaboutme on March 26, 2011 at 6:30 PM

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 3:23 PM

IMHO, your neglecting to point out the Biggest FAILure of all, namely BaLack Mohammad Hussein ,is most telling. In case you missed it, BaLack is the one who ordered our armed forces to get involved in this WAR.

Well, at least you must gain some solace from the fact that 0bama is assisting in arming Al Quaeda as he managed to arm the drug lords in Mexico.

Sarah remains the singular shining light in America today. ;o)

DannoJyd on March 26, 2011 at 6:53 PM

itsnotaboutme on March 26, 2011 at 6:30 PM

The fact remains that it is 0bama who is responsible for costing the democrats their positions across America in the HISTORIC 2010 elections. Why tamper with what works?

DannoJyd on March 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Sarah remains the singular shining light in America today. ;o)

DannoJyd on March 26, 2011 at 6:53 PM

No one but Sarah has any merit at all?
C’mon. There are several fine statesmen whom we should be honored to vote for Nov. 2012.

itsnotaboutme on March 26, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Why tamper with what works?

DannoJyd on March 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM

I gave you the reasons why.

Obama keeps reminding us that the recession started during his predecessor’s administration. And he’s right. Of course, Obama’s policies are prolonging the recession, but if he get’s away with “it’s the Republicans’ fault this mess started”, we’ve lost half the battle.
Accept it or not, Obama is still very much a likable person to millions of voters.

And we should have done much better in the last election.
If we campaign against liberalism, of course Obama’s record will pop up frequently.

itsnotaboutme on March 26, 2011 at 7:01 PM

C’mon. There are several fine statesmen whom we should be honored to vote for Nov. 2012.

itsnotaboutme on March 26, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Fair enough so I’ll play.

Please give me a reason to vote for anyone except for Sarah. Please share with us all the potential candidate who has done as much as Sarah did to create the HISTORIC 2012 election results, the politician who has successfully held 0bama to account as Sarah has, the person who has shared a true American vision for the future, and/or the one who has managed to remain as effective as Sarah has during a trial by fire from the 0bamaGanda media.

Let’s see the candidate who is more conservative, has as much gravitas, has the experience, and has the accomplishments in fighting the corrupt-o-crats from both partys that Sarah has. I really do hope you have someone in mind. ;o)

DannoJyd on March 26, 2011 at 7:07 PM

itsnotaboutme on March 26, 2011 at 7:01 PM

The ONLY WAY we could have done better is if we had better candidates to field in the last election cycle. Got a few you can spare in 2012?

I guess you have forgotten about how the GOP was declared a lost cause by EVERYONE back in 2009, yet ALL of those political pundits, republican and democrat, were HISTORICALLY WRONG.

Why did we win in 2010? Easy! The democrats refused to represent We The People, they spent an entire YEAR in getting 0bamaScare passed, and the economy is much worse off than it was in 2007-2008 when Democrats held the House but Bush was our POTUS.

Who gets the credit for the several TRILLION DOLLAR bill we will be forced at gun point to pay off? Don’t even try to blame that on Bush. What happened to the 0bama Wreckovery? ;o)

DannoJyd on March 26, 2011 at 7:18 PM

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:46 AM

“Poo”? You mean that $hit that comes out of your mouth? Naw, I was never impressed with anyone’s $hit–much less yours…

lovingmyUSA on March 26, 2011 at 8:47 PM

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Though I must admit–you think your’s doesn’t stink–a common troll attitude..

lovingmyUSA on March 26, 2011 at 8:48 PM

The conservative Republican checklist for informed voting in our primary: (repeating a post I made earlier in this thread to keep the topic germaine and reclaim this thread from the obvious paid media matters trolls)

What is Obama’s path to re-election?

Let’s look at his first term. We will stipulate that the media will be delivering him full monte bl*w j*bs daily, so that is also the environment in which this election will operate, which means they will go nuclear against ANY republican candidate in the general election.

1) Obama is losing a huge chunk of his voting base in 2008. Let’s look at the 2010 election:

Women: the majority voted for him in 2008. In 2010, a majority voted for the republicans, first time in several election cycles that the woman vote did not go on the Dem side

Whites: polls coming out recently show Obama only getting about 36-38% of the white vote. How can he possibly win losing this much of the largest demographic group in the country?

Energy: Obama didn’t have his dismal anti-energy record in 2008. We can hang this around his neck in 2012. The savvy Republican candidate will develop a platform on how energy development of “all of the above, but use the coal and oil for which we have our own abundant supply” is necessary for economic recovery AND national security. And the public will be very tired of $4/gallon gas in 2012. Remind the voters that he ignored a court order lifting his unnecessary drilling ban in the gulf, lost a lot of rigs to oversea oil fields, and at least 19,000 people lost their jobs because of this stupid agenda driven move taking advantage of the BP oil spill disaster.

3rd war: he ran an anti-war campaign (essentially) and promised to be out of Iraq and Afghanistan before his first term ends. Instead, he is dragging this country into a THIRD muslim country conflict, and this time after dithering for 4 weeks AND having a lousy strategy going in and NO discernible exit strategy or mission objective. Then we find out he wants to arm the rebels who appear to have connections to Al Queda. AND he wants to turn our troops over to an international committee to run the war.

Budget and Debt: 14 trillion of national debt is so high, even the public can’t ignore it anymore. This was not on the table in 2008, so Obama’s spending INCREASES have to be hammered home throughout this entire election cycle. Obama’s deficit per month is more than a lot of annual deficits of past administrations. And the whole, “I inherited this mess” doesn’t work after 4 years of your own policies in practice. We have to keep the 8 trillion in national debt, (the level it was when Pelosi/Reid took over control in 2007) as the baseline to prove reckless, out of control spending, which is mortgaging future generations to slavery to a bloated, intrusive government. We need a SERIOUS budget cutting candidate willing to completely restructure the federal government by eliminating ALL departments and programs that should never have been at the federal level in the first place. For the first time, start at zero for each cabinet level department and only fund the programs required in the constitution and drop everything else. This will create a huge uproar, we need a candidate that will head this up personally, rather than delegate it to some commission that will never see its report read, let alone, implemented.

Unemployment: He promised if we spent almost a trillion dollars in a huge slush fund for his favorite pals, our unemployment would not exceed 8%. Whoops, it was up almost at 10% for almost half of his term and over 8.5% for the rest of his term. Remind people that we used to have unemployment under 5% prior to Obama’s election.

Obamacare: More and more Americans are strongly hating this thing, and the 105 billion they hid in the bill that is being funded and spent now is no longer hidden. Also, the CBO and the policy makers of Obamacare had to testify in front of Congress that they double counted Medicare cuts, etc to keep the “cost” under a trillion $$. And people are losing their policies because of the mandatory changes in the bill that are in effect now, and when policies change, the “you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor” lie is evident because not every doctor accepts every insurance plan. Etc. Etc. Also, the case will more than likely gets its day in the Supreme Court prior to November 2012 and if indeed it is ruled unconstitutional, Obama will have wasted his first 2 years of his term and have nothing but huge spending and deficits to show for it. Remind the voters that if they want this bill repealed if it hasn’t been overturned yet by the supreme court (or if the court doesn’t overturn it), then the only way to get it repealed is to NOT vote for Obama in 2012.

SEIU/AFSCME/teacher unions: The whole WI temper tantrum by the public unions are going to bite him in the ass because until Walker had this blow up in WI, the average blower was not aware of the taxpayer money laundering and extortion schemes that the public unions and democrats had in place that fleeced the taxpayers. As attention turned in this area, the public is becoming aware that public employees are paid better with better benefits than equivalent job skills jobs in the private sector. Obama will not have gotten card check through because he blew his chances for this on the health care effort. So the “reagan democrats” won’t have this extra goody to keep them on the liberal reservation for this election cycle. Run continuous ads of the mobs out of control in the WI capitol, and then the clips of Obama telling SEIU that he will consult with them on everything (they exist), as well as the clips of Obama promising to walk the line with them. Point out that the unions have bought and paid for this guy. It will reach the 88% of the country not part of a union.

Local and state Budget Deficits: They can’t print money like the Feds can, and Obama didn’t get a 2nd slush fund stimulus to send to the cities and states to hide their budget deficits. So therefore, more hurt on the taxpayer as these deficits have to close, making the taxpayer more hostile to big government policies.

Immigration and border control: More people are pissed off about lack of action here, than Obama will be able to gain for pandering to the status quo.

Supreme Court Picks: This issue will be a draw for both parties. The educated voters for either party will have this in mind when they vote. The average dolt that votes don’t understand how this can impact their future life.

So, the only thing Obama has going for him is he can play the race card until the cows come home because that is what all the lefties use now for their fall back talking point because Obama’s performance has been indefensible.

So, does the Republican party have the guts to nominate a hard core ticket that will take the fight to Obama and his record, or will they stupidly try to nominate someone they think the press will like, thus ensure defeat in 2012 in spite of this rather attractive atmosphere to take out an incumbent president?

Remember, always keep in mind, the main stream press is going to viciously mis-characterize ANY republican opponent and continually malign, slam, and crucify 24/7. We have to have a nominee that can get through this. We can’t nominate someone who has yet to run through this gauntlet, as they will fold like a cheap suit after the convention and lose.

This guy has the perfect storm brewing to lose this election, we just have to not be afraid to nominate someone who can take the fight to him and not be afraid of being called a racist.

karenhasfreedom on March 27, 2011 at 1:54 AM

In this case Limbaugh is spot on – it MUST be about Obama, and reelection campaigns almost always are a referendum on the incumbent anyway. It’s been so in every single reelection campaign in the last century, except for three.

In 1912, the GOP split meant that even though GOP-based candidates won over 50% of the vote, the Democrat Wilson won with 42%. But it’s a weak example because the GOP split precisely because of dissatisfaction with Taft, so there is no guarantee he would have been reelected had TR just sat on his hands. (The same is true of 1992; GHWB had so squandered his 1991 approval rating of 90% that Perot cannot be blamed for his loss – without Bush’s failings there would have been no Perot).

That leaves two where the focus was on the challenger instead of the incumbent. Both represented the ideologically “pure” wing of their party: in 1964 LBJ made Goldwater the issue, and in 1972 Nixon did the same to McGovern.

Unfortunately the climate on our side now is such that many conservatives seem likely to desert the party if a “pure” candidate doesn’t win the bid. Even more than last time, even more than in 1996. Not that they would vote for Obama or some third-party loser, but they may stay home which amounts to the same thing in practical effect.

It is aggravating to see every 2012 thread to degenerate so quickly into spitting contests between Palin backers and anti-Palin people, or Romney fans and Romney haters.

Obama is the worst President EVER. About the only way we can lose is by alienating too many on our own side, forcing each other to draw lines in the sand that the candidates (or “potential candidates”) would never do on their own.

It’s total crap! Cut it out, please – the only one who benefits from our circular firing squad (aiming inward) is Obama.

Adjoran on March 27, 2011 at 2:11 AM

Fair enough so I’ll play.

Please give me a reason to vote for anyone except for Sarah.

DannoJyd on March 26, 2011 at 7:07 PM

One reason could be she doesn’t run. Is it your intent to write her in if that’s the case?

What if she does run but doesn’t win the nomination? Are you with Team America, or are you going to take your marbles and stay home, helping Obama?

Adjoran on March 27, 2011 at 2:14 AM

I did post a link to the Greta interview where you can read what Ed said and watch for yourself. I did find it and post it, but instead of debating it, you go Palian. Fine, so you’re as insincere as all the other Palians about wanting an objective look. No surprise there.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 6:11 PM

No. You wait till a thread has died down before becoming objective. Had I been around when you spouted your ‘objective’ nonsense, I’d point to the obvious fact that enforcing a NFZ at the time when QDaffy was actually killing innocent civilians to protect the civilians is not the same as endorsing airstrikes and arming the rebels a month later.

You’re either an intellectual lightweight, or a biased hack if you can’t figure out the difference or are willfully misrepresenting the facts. I’ll be curious to see how long your mission of presenting ‘objective facts’ deteriorates back into the baseless name calling that has been your MO. Idiot*.

*My use of the word ‘idiot’ to describe you is not the same baseless name calling the I’ve attributed to you. My tear down of your nonsense in this post alone is ample basis for thinking you an idiot.

miConsevative on March 27, 2011 at 4:21 AM

I’d point to the obvious fact that enforcing a NFZ at the time when QDaffy was actually killing innocent civilians to protect the civilians is not the same as endorsing airstrikes and arming the rebels a month later.

miConsevative on March 27, 2011 at 4:21 AM

The topic is how SP got this all wrong, not what you would have done, no one cares.

Now according to Amjean’s story (near as I can tell) in Feb Sarah just wanted us to “look at” a NFZ, not implement one. Which is just what PBHO did, “look at” one. In March using her hindsight SP said that we should have implemented one and not just “looked at” doing one back in Feb.

So here you come with your hindsight telling us how we should have implemented a NFZ in Feb. You’re in effect saying that Sarah was wrong in Feb but right in hindsight in Mar. Bully for you.

I am telling the lot of you that SP was wrong in Feb and wrong in Mar and is getting wronger with every statement she makes. There was no right time to do the wrong thing. An NFZ in Feb would not have done the rebels any more good than one in Mar. They are an uncoordinated mob, not a fighting army. Furthermore, they are chock full of terrorists. The type of people who have gone to Iraq to help AQ kill Americans. We don’t need to help them let alone turn the entire country over to them.

We had no national interest in an NFZ. If Momo survives we will have created a security interest in wanting him out that didn’t exist before. And if he “pines for the fjords” we will have created a brand new Jihadi Disney, just like Somalia, for AQ and others to train only with the benefit of the petrodollars from 1.5 million bbls/day of light sweet crude.

Our national interests would have been best served by leaving Momo to his murderous ways within his own reeking borders and just pretended to care.

On Libya SP == FAIL

MJBrutus on March 27, 2011 at 7:34 AM

Amjean on March 26, 2011 at 5:59 PM
I did post a link to the Greta interview where you can read what Ed said and watch for yourself. I did find it and post it, but instead of debating it, you go Palian. Fine, so you’re as insincere as all the other Palians about wanting an objective look. No surprise there.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Before I go off to Mass to pray for your soul and, yes,
also for your reasoning skills, I have a comment on your
last two postings.

What I posted was a copy/paste from Palin. On Feb. 23,
she said that her opinion was that Nato and Allies should
look into a NFZ. She said this in the context of saving
Libyan citizens lives.

Your buddy, Obama, did nothing. He couldn’t look – he was
occupied doing something fun, having parties, playing
basketball, showing up on tv with his March Madness picks,
going on vacation, going to Brazil to shore up our “investment” in loaning them $2 billion to drill for oil
while our oil drilling is basically shut down.

Now, you are mentioning what Palin said in March. Is your
reference a video of Palin on Greta? What date? I will
take a look at it and tell you if you are again wrong
about Palin, or if miraculously something you have state
has any truth. I need the date so I can look at the full
video, not a few snippets that may be misconstrued.

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 9:53 AM

What a great idea. If only I had provided a link to it on my original post so that you could both see the interview yourself and also refer to Ed’s full comments on it would have been so much easier. Oh, wait a second. I did, I did provide a link. How about that?

MJBrutus on March 27, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Brutus, forget about it! I just watched the entire
interview with Palin/Greta from Wednesday.

And to be fair, you initially did not say you posted
a video of Palin, you said “Ed’s comments” or something
like that. I had no reason to look at his comments which
are HIS – not hers.

Your point is not represented in that video.

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 12:03 PM

MJBrutus on March 27, 2011 at 7:34 AM

Seems Bolton agrees 100% with Gov Palin.

I’m sure you would have not taken hitler out if you had the chance to take him out because you worried be worried which nazi would rise to replace him….

Your foreign policy could be defined as the foreign policy of sheep.

unseen on March 27, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 12:03 PM
unseen on March 27, 2011 at 12:19 PM

If you believe Amjean, then Bolton did not agree with SP, because Amjean says Sarah nevah, evah said we should have a NFZ.

OTOH, if you listened to the interview and believed your own ears then yes, Bolton and Sarah are both wrong.

MJBrutus on March 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM

OTOH, if you listened to the interview and believed your own ears then yes, Bolton and Sarah are both wrong.

MJBrutus on March 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM

yeah I’m going with Bolton and Palin on this one. I think they are 100 times smarter than you as your comments continue to prove.

unseen on March 27, 2011 at 1:10 PM

unseen on March 27, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I like Bolton, but he’s human and in this case wrong. Even SecDef Gates says we had no interest there. All we’ve done is make a bad situ infinitely worse. You better hustle to catch the crowd, in that Gates thread, of people running away from their earlier support for this kinetic suchandsuch.

MJBrutus on March 27, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 12:03 PM
unseen on March 27, 2011 at 12:19 PM
If you believe Amjean, then Bolton did not agree with SP, because Amjean says Sarah nevah, evah said we should have a NFZ.

OTOH, if you listened to the interview and believed your own ears then yes, Bolton and Sarah are both wrong.

MJBrutus on March 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I never said Palin didn’t say we should have a NFZ.
I posted what she said on 2.23.11.

You then mentioned what Ed said about something or another
which I did not bother to look at. Then you mentioned Palin
on Greta, which I did take a second look at. She stated
that it looks like what we were doing was turning into more than a NFZ. She had questions: What is the mission? Are we turning over control of our troops to
the Arab League and France? Who is paying for this? She stated that Obama needs
to clarify to the people what the US’s mission is.
She said we should let the people of Libya choose their
government; no nation building by US. Congress and the American people should be told what is going on.
The NFZ by the UN was for humanitarian efforts. If we have an opportunity we should rid the world of Quadaffi.

Now we are bringing Bolton into the mix?

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Yes, she said, among other things, that we should rid the world of Q. That substantiates what I told you about her advocating our going to war with Libya.

As for Bolton, that was your unseen friend who brought him in to it and I wrote a combined reply to you both.

MJBrutus on March 27, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 2:40 PM
Yes, she said, among other things, that we should rid the world of Q. That substantiates what I told you about her advocating our going to war with Libya.

As for Bolton, that was your unseen friend who brought him in to it and I wrote a combined reply to you both.

MJBrutus on March 27, 2011 at 3:15 PM

You are too funny.

We have more than one special forces unit who could take
him out without going to war. Palin NEVER said we should
go to war in Libya. As long as we were
tossing some missiles an intended consequence could be the
“getting rid of Quadaffi”. You think you are a master at spinning words to make it appear that someone says what you
want to ridicule or call failure; its not working.

Hey, for fun do you want to argue about what Obama says
or doesn’t say?

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Brutus, by the way I will be off this site for the evening
and not checking this thread. I will catch you on the
next thread, whatever subject that may be, for I am sure
there will be Palin bashing!

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM

I dreamt last night that Sarah, with tears in her eyes, announced she was running. In my dream, I felt elated as I’m sure I will in real time when she makes the announcement.

SouthernGent on March 27, 2011 at 6:20 PM

I think Brutus’ shift has ended at whatever soros funded entity he works for.

karenhasfreedom on March 27, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Amjean on March 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM

“Taking out” Q with special forces is not an an act of war? You are desperate to salvage your position, aren’t you? You do know also, that we have a law against assassination, right (who knows if it’s constitutional, but do we need a constitutional crisis on top of the rest)? BTW, that would result in the kind of power vacuum that the terrorist “rebels” will just step in to, as I mentioned before. Sorry, that’s a desperate FAIL.

As far as “bashing” goes, telling the straight truth with supporting sources is not bashing.

MJBrutus on March 27, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Heaven help us!
I see a bunch of crippled and faulty candidates running against a crippled and faulty president.

shorebird on March 28, 2011 at 1:15 AM

What if she does run but doesn’t win the nomination? Are you with Team America, or are you going to take your marbles and stay home, helping Obama?

Adjoran on March 27, 2011 at 2:14 AM

I, the AWE inspiring DannoMan, has NOT missed ANY vote for at least 2 decades, so do not even try to count me amongst the cut-and-run Americans. Indeed, I’ve been working at the grass roots lever for over 10 years which makes me a Tea Party Patriot well before the bloody term was developed.

Now, can you give me a reason to vote for ANY ‘republican’ other than he/she isn’t 0bama? I did vote for McLame in 2008, but we all now know that a moderate will not beat the 0bamanation.

Are YOU ready to settle for second best? ;o)

DannoJyd on March 28, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Unfortunately the climate on our side now is such that many conservatives seem likely to desert the party if a “pure” candidate doesn’t win the bid. Even more than last time, even more than in 1996. Not that they would vote for Obama or some third-party loser, but they may stay home which amounts to the same thing in practical effect.

It is aggravating to see every 2012 thread to degenerate so quickly into spitting contests between Palin backers and anti-Palin people, or Romney fans and Romney haters.

Obama is the worst President EVER. About the only way we can lose is by alienating too many on our own side, forcing each other to draw lines in the sand that the candidates (or “potential candidates”) would never do on their own.

It’s total crap! Cut it out, please – the only one who benefits from our circular firing squad (aiming inward) is Obama.

Adjoran on March 27, 2011 at 2:11 AM

Excellent post!

Between now and the primaries, there should be a “debate of ideas” about which candidate can best represent the positions of conservatives and conservative-leaning independents against Obama, and there may be some disagreement early on as to whether Palin, Romney or SOME OTHER CANDIDATE can best unite a 50%-plus-one majority of voters against Obama. But conservatives shouldn’t be bashing either Palin or Romney or their supporters–once the nominee is selected, conservatives MUST rally around him/her with the ultimate objective of adding Barack Hussein Obama to the unemployment rolls.

Both Palin and Romney are flawed candidates–Palin because of her stumbles with MSM interviews early in the 2008 campaign, and Romney because of his support (as MA Governor) of something similar to ObamaCare, which is opposed by a majority of the voters. One of them may still get the nomination, if he/she can persuade voters to return despite previous failures.

IMHO, the 2012 GOP nominee will not be a FORMER Governor such as Palin, Romney, Huckabee, or even Pawlenty, but a CURRENT Governor who shows true leadership for his state in times of crisis, such as Mitch Daniels, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, or Chris Christie.

The Tea Party should be a force for positive ideas, not for division between themselves and “RINO” or “Establishment” Republicans. Let’s learn from the 2010 elections what works and what doesn’t. Marco Rubio won in Florida by delivering a conservative message with a positive, convincing, and articulate tone, while Sharron Angle lost in Nevada when she turned off “moderate” voters with positions they considered extreme. A Tea Party candidate will never win the Presidency by alienating centrist voters, but by convincing them that he/she will do better FOR THEM than Obama.

It’s also far too early for Rush Limbaugh, or other conservative talk-radio hosts, to endorse anyone. They need to find out who is running, interview all of them, and let the listeners decide.

Steve Z on March 28, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Will tea partiers be able to stomach voting for the man responsible for RomneyCare the way Hillary Democrats were able to stomach Obama, even after a long, bitter battle?

No.

Thing is, most of the Tea Party folks I know don’t consider themselves Republicans (I don’t either). I’m a conservative – not a Republican and – technically that makes me an INDEPENDENT and one of those who should be “most courted” by the RINO’s who insist we can only win with Independents. I suppose (no, rather – I KNOW) that “INDEPENDENT” to them actually means “LIBERAL”.

If it comes down to Mittens and Obama – I could vote for the guy who will sink this nation the fastest – or vote for the one who will drag the pain out – but inevitably cause the failure of this nation anyway. We either need to fix this nation or get on to the next thing people – seriously. I don’t feel that Romney carries the values of the founders in his heart – and that’s what it’s going to take to save the nation – someone who holds those values … SACRED. Someone who is willing to throw a middle finger to lobbyists and special interest groups and do what’s right for our nation.

If that candidate isn’t on the Republican ticket – then I will vote third party or vote for Obama.

HondaV65 on March 28, 2011 at 5:02 PM

The Tea Party should be a force for positive ideas, not for division between themselves and “RINO” or “Establishment” Republicans.

Steve Z on March 28, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Sorry – but most Tea Party folk I know aren’t Republicans (anymore – if they ever were in the first place). The tea party has no obligation to “unite” the GOP. If the GOP wants to “unite” – then the Establishment needs to embrace the unwashed of us out here in the grassroots. Plain and simple. We don’t owe a damn thing to the GOP – most of us paid high dollar last election to help get Republicans elected and what did we receive in return?

We got the same LOSING team for GOP leadership that sank the boat in 2008. And our most important lawmakers in the GOP? Why – those would be the folks like Scott Brown – because he’s so liberal he really determines what the GOP can and can’t support.

We’ve got Paul Ryan with at least a workable plan for entitlement reform – yet no GOP leader will endorse it save Sarah Palin.

We’ve got $1.6T deficit and we’ve the GOP dancing around “peanuts” and cutting 4-6B every few weeks just to keep the government running.

The way I look at it – we need to see some results from this “GOP clown car” and we’re not getting them. I’ll be damned if we throw good money after bad into the toilet hole known as the Republican party unless they get their act together and start producing results!

HondaV65 on March 28, 2011 at 5:09 PM

If that candidate isn’t on the Republican ticket – then I will vote third party or vote for Obama.

HondaV65 on March 28, 2011 at 5:02 PM

You were doing SO WELL until you made that comment.

Like it or not, the GOP is currently walking through a minefield in which the democrats are eagerly waiting for them to make any mistake they can capitalize on. Should they keep on doing what they have been doing then it will be the Democrats who are viewed as the extremists. If they allow themselves to be purveyed as being unwavering petulant bullies then we’ll see a gov. shutdown in which ONLY THEY will be blamed.

Let the democrats vote against all of the proposed cuts to the Democrat TRILLION DOLLARS Deficit. Then will be the time to act. :o)

DannoJyd on March 29, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5