Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Oh clearly a Half-term Gov. is much better than a Sen with yrs. of service.

I always appreciate the "half-term" argument, or really anything that attacks Palin on the basis of experience.

How did that argument not apply to Obama in '08?

'12 is, of course, a different story, because the O will have nearly 4 years of experience in the office. Well, maybe 2 years, taking time off for vacations, golf, and the like.

Methinks you miss my point. I'm not attacking her over experience. Not at all. I'm attacking her over the fact she quit. I prefer my world leaders to stand a little stronger.
Do the time in a job, and see it through. And not so willing to follow the scent of her chance at personal wealth over doing what's right for the country (or state) she swore
to serve.

biccat wrote:
I always appreciate the "half-term" argument, or really anything that attacks Palin on the basis of experience.

While the "half-term" argument could, and has been, construed as one related to experience it mostly relates to being unable to manage staying in office in the thriving, metropolitan state of Alaska.

biccat wrote:
'12 is, of course, a different story, because the O will have nearly 4 years of experience in the office. Well, maybe 2 years, taking time off for vacations, golf, and the like.

I see we're scraping the bottom of the wit barrel.

Say what you like about Palin, at least she's hot. She can have my 'mandate' any day!

Mannahnin wrote:
Anyone got a primary source for Presidential vacation days? I'd like to get a total for Obama so far. And I'd like to get a more direct source than CBS for the 1020 days on vacation figure I'm getting for W.

Well, the thing is, Presidents don't really take vacations. Or, rather, they don't take them in any conventional sense. The total "vacation days" for any given President are essentially just "days spent away from Washington". Back in the day that used to mean something, but with modern telecom its just a talking point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Say what you like about Palin, at least she's hot.

That's news to me.

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:Say what you like about Palin, at least she's hot.

That's news to me.

I'd like to take her out for a nice chicken dinner. And then feth her.

dogma wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Anyone got a primary source for Presidential vacation days? I'd like to get a total for Obama so far. And I'd like to get a more direct source than CBS for the 1020 days on vacation figure I'm getting for W.

Well, the thing is, Presidents don't really take vacations. Or, rather, they don't take them in any conventional sense. The total "vacation days" for any given President are essentially just "days spent away from Washington". Back in the day that used to mean something, but with modern telecom its just a talking point.

True. Even when they're away, of course they're connected in and still getting briefings, etc. Presumably, however, when one is on the golf course or cutting brush, one is not putting in AS MUCH work as they do at the office.

Albatross wrote:

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:Say what you like about Palin, at least she's hot.

That's news to me.

I'd like to take her out for a nice chicken dinner. And then feth her.

Surely just for the sake of the story and who she is, though? Not for her looks.

CBS is about as reliable a source as you'll get, though as I'm not aware of any officially published count of days the President spends out of office.

Truthfully, news agencies are likely the best positioned groups to have access to such knowledge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I still don't quite grasp the denial of how Palin dashed McCain's chances, even in the face of all the evidence, both practical and anecdotal.

Its called naivete, if we're being flattering.

Huntsman all the way. Too bad he is too sane and intelligent for the Republican party's nomination. It really is baffling when a guy like him, with the long and successful history of public service he has is ignored almost completely. Not only was he a successful and well liked Governor in Utah, where he fixed the tax code, balanced budgets and created jobs. He also served as ambassador to China, you know a country who our relationship with is kind of important. His resume and record are above and beyond that of Obama and every other Republican in the race.

Simply Obama please. I really hope Trump runs (I think he has said he wont, but on the off chance) that will only secure Obama victory.

Ahtman wrote:I still don't quite grasp the denial of how Palin dashed McCain's chances, even in the face of all the evidence, both practical and anecdotal.

Oh I do.

They secretly love her. She may be an absolute total utter feth wit, but she proper loves her some Jesus, and that's enough.

Just look at biccat sticking up for her..

biccat wrote:

I don't think Palin doomed McCain very much. After all, Obama got away with Biden, a man legendary for his failures and gaffes.

She quite clearly and obviously did. It's an irrefutable fact. Look at all of the evidence!? Ask some Republicans?!

I saw literally tens of TV republicans (I was living in CA the months leading up the big O's election) coming on and saying "I have voted Republican my whole life, but I cant in good conscience do so now that Sarah Palin is one 72 year old man's heartbeat away from the most powerful seat in the country"

I don't find any US politician utterly vile other than that woman. She is an absolute joke, and I am stunned that anybody can be so partisan they wont admit it. I'm a true blue Tory and I can admit when I dislike one of their MP's. But who on earth can possibly hold a candle to her?!

I loathe Peter Mandleson, but I would rather give him the nuclear codes (and a reach around) than let Sarah Palin through fething customs!

alarmingrick wrote:Methinks you miss my point. I'm not attacking her over experience. Not at all. I'm attacking her over the fact she quit. I prefer my world leaders to stand a little stronger.
Do the time in a job, and see it through.

Is it acceptable then to quit a job in the Senate midway through?

mattyrm wrote: They secretly love her. She may be an absolute total utter feth wit, but she proper loves her some Jesus, and that's enough.

Just look at biccat sticking up for her..

People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life. Now he's dragging us down with him and even intelligent people continue to support him, simply because he's not a Republican.

Presumably you also have a problem with people supporting the "absolute total utter feth wit" currently occupying the White House.

And honestly, I don't like Palin because of her religious beliefs, her post-election activities have shown that she's a pretty smart and savvy woman. You may disagree, but then you're apparently predisposed to hate her. 'Cause she's a Republican ya know.

dogma wrote:

God. This movie. This movie was the greatest thing that will farrell ever did.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:Huntsman all the way. Too bad he is too sane and intelligent for the Republican party's nomination. It really is baffling when a guy like him, with the long and successful history of public service he has is ignored almost completely. Not only was he a successful and well liked Governor in Utah, where he fixed the tax code, balanced budgets and created jobs. He also served as ambassador to China, you know a country who our relationship with is kind of important. His resume and record are above and beyond that of Obama and every other Republican in the race.

I'm almost completely with you on this one. I've been puzzled at the complete lack of traction Huntsman has gotten in anything (based on his merits), and I was hopeful that the Iowa Caucaus would be his kingmaker moment.

Ron Paul is an unelectable, sour old man. He's a doom sayer, and if elected will be an octagenarian before his term is out. That's troubling to anyone.

Bachmann is Diet Palin; a GOP bumper sticker that simply spouts the "party line". I honestly don't think she's ever had an original idea. The only one I could argue was her brilliant plan to address the US debt crisis by prioritizing and paying off the interest on the "worst" debt first. May as well just throw a bucket of chum into a fish sanctuary for all the comfort that provides to the markets.

Gingrich I actually kinda like, in that visceral 'I know I shouldn't but that just makes me even more' kind of way. His baggage makes him a ticking timebomb however, and Obama's charisma is exactly the sort of trigger that can set it off. I think he could do quite well as President, but don't think he can get elected.

Santorum I despise. I could be persuaded to base judgment on merit, but I see nothing meritous to give him lift.

If I judge Perry by how well Texas has done in recent years, I like him, but I can't get over how badly he projects himself publicly. I don't think that such an imbecilic persona can beat Obama.

And Romney is Romney. He's a Massachusetts moderate, which means he's compromised a LOT in his past, and that compromise makes him vulnerable in an election. Honestly I don't have too much of an issue with that, but I think the tone is being set that Romney is the new Gore/Kerry; the guy you toss in because you don't have any better guys. Didn't work for Gore or Kerry, don't see why it suddenly turns now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life. Now he's dragging us down with him and even intelligent people continue to support him, simply because he's not a Republican.

Obama's foreign affairs record is actually pretty good, I think. Osama is boom-headshot, and I think... half a dozen other high-ranking al-Qaeda officers have also received the magic carpet ride to Allah. US response to Somalian hijacking was good, and I think we've extracted ourselves from the prolonged Middle East wars without losing face globally. If he could figure out how to negotiate with China instead of making demands and accusations, I'd call him a pretty good foreign relations kinda guy.

But on domestic policy, he'd be right at home with Maxine Waters in the EU. He simply "doesn't get" the economy.

biccat wrote:People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life.

He's been better for small businesses than Bush was. He's been the most friendly to homosexuals in the history of US presidential administrations. He's tried to help those with a Southern American interest, and has done a lot for Cuban Americans in particular. He's done a lot for womens' rights causes, and for students, for Americans with disabilities, for transparency, and he's done a fethton for credit cardholders, and put in regulations to ensure that all lenders must verify credit history/income/employment status so that the crash doesn't happen so easily again. He's appointed the first Chief Technology Officer, whose office oversees aspects of technology and science in various government organizations (and reforms them when they do not meet standards)-- much like a CTO in a business I should note, making it so that Obama's running his government more like a business than the average Republican would. He's put in necessary regulation to allow stockholders to vote on executive pay, and prevented banks from proprietary trading which often screws over the customer.

Really, Obama's done more to fulfill his campaign promises than the majority of politicians (rep OR dem) even bother TRYING to do.

Melissia wrote:He's been better for small businesses than Bush was.

Er, no. The changes to healthcare will definitely cost small businesses a lot of money. He's given a tax cut here and there, but nothing that will match this elephant in the corner. Regardless of ethics of healthcare provision, in isolation this will reduce the profits of small businesses. This is why there's been so much hullabaloo over Obamacare. The seeds have been planted that could yield cost savings over longer term (greater cooperation between doctors, technology, and a larger participant pool lowering premium costs) but over the short term costs will definitely go up.

He's appointed the first Chief Technology Officer, whose office oversees aspects of technology and science in various government organizations (and reforms them when they do not meet standards)-- much like a CTO in a business I should note, making it so that Obama's running his government more like a business than the average Republican would.

Obama most defniitely does not run the government like a business. This is actually one of the big criticisms of his administration--that he doesn't "get" business or the economy. His advisory panel has had very few people with practical experience in business. Most came from incredibly strong academic backgrounds which makes them strong on theory and macro-level policy, but he's done more to build an administrative ivory tower than a functioning back office.

sourclams wrote:Obama's foreign affairs record is actually pretty good, I think. Osama is boom-headshot, and I think... half a dozen other high-ranking al-Qaeda officers have also received the magic carpet ride to Allah. US response to Somalian hijacking was good, and I think we've extracted ourselves from the prolonged Middle East wars without losing face globally. If he could figure out how to negotiate with China instead of making demands and accusations, I'd call him a pretty good foreign relations kinda guy.

I don't dispute that he's had a few great moments in foreign policy. Osama, Al-Awlaki, Ghadaffi, he's hit the big headlines with those and it helps him greatly.

However, Libya and Egypt are yet to-be-determined and his inaction in Syria (which is forgivable only if you ignore the reasoning that led to intervention in Libya) is a problem. Further, his handling of Iran and Pakistan has been pretty damn poor. And his treatment of Europe hasn't been very good, particularly given his campaign rhetoric.

I figure he's around a C in terms of foreign policy. He's got a few successes, but his flubs more than make up for them. His biggest successes will be expansion of the air war into Pakistan and ousting Ghadaffi. His biggest failures are pissing off Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and Israel.

I think he's better than a C--I'd give him a B- at worst just because he has had so much success with the big headlines. The Middle Eastern shithole is still a Middle Eastern shithole and finally we're getting out. I don't see a way to meaningfully improve relations with Iran other than conceding every single time, and I think we're in a better position now to stand up to Iran in particular. The Keystone Pipeline could have been a meaningful statement that the US does not need what Iran is offering, but he did drop the ball on that one (this thing is being built to either us or China, and there's already 3 other pipelines that run through that aquifer in Nebraska).

mattyrm wrote:I loathe Peter Mandleson, but I would rather give him the nuclear codes (and a reach around) than let Sarah Palin through fething customs!

Hear that Sara Palin: He won't let you in his country but he came here to steal our women!

sourclams wrote:Er, no. The changes to healthcare will definitely cost small businesses a lot of money.

They were countered by tax credits and other benefits to small businesses, not merely a "tax cut here and there", although Republicans have done their part to try to minimize any benefit the small business has (as usual).

sourclams wrote:Obama most defniitely does not run the government like a business.

Neither does anyone else in politics, but he's still doing a better job than them.

Melissia wrote:

sourclams wrote:Er, no. The changes to healthcare will definitely cost small businesses a lot of money.

They were countered by tax credits and other benefits to small businesses, not merely a "tax cut here and there", although Republicans have done their part to try to minimize any benefit the small business has (as usual).

The costs are not offset by the tax breaks. That it costs small businesses in the short term isn't really arguable.

sourclams wrote:Neither does anyone else in politics, but he's still doing a better job than them.

In what way? Costs are up (greater spending), revenues are down (reduced tax receipts as a result of recession and contraction of the financial sector), and "consumer confidence" in government is at an all-time low (congressional deadlock, inability of Obama/Boehner/Tea Party to create consensus). I can't think of a single business-related metric that would have this administration looking good.

I agree that Obama's done some good things, but maintaining a balance sheet and fostering positive relationships with business are not among them.

mattyrm wrote: I don't find any US politician utterly vile other than that woman. She is an absolute joke, and I am stunned that anybody can be so partisan they wont admit it. I'm a true blue Tory and I can admit when I dislike one of their MP's. But who on earth can possibly hold a candle to her?!

I loathe Peter Mandleson, but I would rather give him the nuclear codes (and a reach around) than let Sarah Palin through fething customs!

I think you were supposed to pick a Tory you didn't like. Are you having problems distinguishing between New Laborites and Tories? It's a common problem.

So, the government of the USA is effectively in lockdown for most of 2012 due to the election and/or Obama and the Republicans unable to compromise.

Obama will win, not because he is any good, but because his opponents are a collection of crackpots and racists...
The state of the right-wing in America was pretty much summed up by that mad woman who said she wasn't a witch in a campaign video. Who was that again?
That was pretty surreal.

In the unlikely event of a Republican wing, what would people get? Tax breaks for billionaires and a section of society that claims to hate too much government happy to bend over for more blanket restrictions on liberty and defence spending in the name of national security.

4 more years of Obama is likely to see more of the same, with unemployment rising and a credit rating downgrade..

I wish I could sit here smugly in the UK, but our political class is just as shambolic and spineless as those in DC.

I'd give obama an A-, personally.

Not the "changeling" that he claimed to be, but I think he's done alright. Then again, my expectations were modest even when he was campaigning. Ending our Occupation is Iraq was a big step, and I think he did a good job.

Unemployment is a big issue that doesn't necessarily fix itself in a single presidential term, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect his administration to do anything but lay some pieces in the right places.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Unemployment is a big issue that doesn't necessarily fix itself in a single presidential term, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect his administration to do anything but lay some pieces in the right places.

This is largely what the business community takes issue with. When you look at the forward projections, the expectation into 2012 is for further tepid growth with relatively high unemployment.

Obama has done very little to assuage the business sector that it won't bear the brunt of the cost behind his social programs, has been very bad at creating bipartisan solutions with Tea Party Republicans, and has allowed the can on the US deficit to be continuously kicked indefinitely, with no certainty whatsoever that the US bond market isn't building up to one heckuva bubble-perhaps the biggest of all.

biccat wrote:
Presumably you also have a problem with people supporting the "absolute total utter feth wit" currently occupying the White House.

And honestly, I don't like Palin because of her religious beliefs, her post-election activities have shown that she's a pretty smart and savvy woman. You may disagree, but then you're apparently predisposed to hate her. 'Cause she's a Republican ya know.

Mate, you called me a socialist about 6 months back, now your saying I hate Republicans, do you only read what I type directly at you?!

I told you, I had my dem missus ready to vote for McCain! I wanted John to win hands down over Obama until he picked the moose machine gunner with cerebral palsy, and as my missus was a big fan of Hilary, she said she was happy to vote for my pal JM.

I absolutely don't dislike Republicans at all, and I'm more right leaning than left leaning. I am no big fan of Obama care, and I am more than happy to agree with Republicans when they make sense, I just really really really hate Religious numbskulls, and that one singular fact is driving me away from them. This article explains it perfectly. I wont ask you read it all, here is the meat.

Optimists will point out that the Republicans, no less than the Democrats, tend to flirt with extremes in the primaries, then select an electable moderate (with Mr Romney being the likely winner this time). Gone are the days when a smiling Reagan could be forgiven for raising taxes and ignoring abortion once in office. As the Republican base has become ever more detached from the mainstream, its list of unconditional demands has become ever more stringent.

Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases, that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it, that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.

These fatwas explain the rum list of candidates: you either have to be an unelectable extremist who genuinely believes all this, or a dissembler prepared to tie yourself in ever more elaborate knots (the flexible Mr Romney). Several promisingly pragmatic governors, including Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, never even sought the nomination. Jon Huntsman, the closest thing to a moderate in the race (who supports gay marriage and action to combat climate change), is polling in low single figures.

I liked RR, i liked George HW Bush, I actually kinda liked Nixon except for the whole ridiculous racism thing, and Bush Junior I even stuck up for, because I think the guy wasn't half as stupid, or as bad as people try to paint him as.. but seriously. I draw the line with fethers like Palin and Bachman, and dolts like them and the people that love them are the ones that Romney, Gingrich and Perry are bending over backwards for. I dont believe for a second that they think half of the gak that they say they do. But that's politics, Gingrich has backed away from climate change, Romney clearly agrees with abortion but swears he doesn't, and I very much doubt that anyone smart enough to get near the top of the tree is actually ignorant enough to think that the earth is 6000 years old, but they wont admit it because it annoys people at the fringe, and when they wont admit it, they lose people like me.

The fact that you think I (and presumably every other person that leans towards Republican but shy's away at the last and votes for an independent because they just wont lay off the Jesus juice) is "a democrat" just shows that you really can't see the forest for the trees. The problem isn't us, its them!

I really have no time for the Democrats. I'm centre right, but most definitely right. I like drinking with my buddies from Oklahoma, hunting, small governments, less social security, more "man the feth up and look after yourself!".

But seriously.. I really really really hate these "new" fatwa following Republicans. Its the republicans fault they arent getting votes! It's not because everyone is a closet democrat. I really really hate them. And thus, we arrive at the point. I lean Republican, but I hate the fringe that the candidates are bowing to more than I hate the democrats.

I hate them more than an entire elevator full of effete, hipsters who like to save the whales. Electric car driving, dont have the death penalty and send them to outreach camps, tofu and wheat-free cake eating pinko Democrats that I used to really really hate.

sourclams wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Unemployment is a big issue that doesn't necessarily fix itself in a single presidential term, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect his administration to do anything but lay some pieces in the right places.

This is largely what the business community takes issue with. When you look at the forward projections, the expectation into 2012 is for further tepid growth with relatively high unemployment.

Obama has done very little to assuage the business sector that it won't bear the brunt of the cost behind his social programs, has been very bad at creating bipartisan solutions with Tea Party Republicans, and has allowed the can on the US deficit to be continuously kicked indefinitely, with no certainty whatsoever that the US bond market isn't building up to one heckuva bubble-perhaps the biggest of all.

Every business owner with whom I've discussed healthcare costs realized they had been growing untenable for a couple of decades, and the Republicans were doing absolutely nothing about it, and that was the main reason some of them supported Obama. Health care reform is absolutely critical and central to the health of the economy, to reduce the massively-spiraling costs. IMO the primary failures of the enacted HCR are that it actually doesn't go far enough. Too much time was wasted and too many good ideas and important elements (like a public option) cut out in misguided attempts to compromise with deeply misguided Conservatives incapable of recognizing the problem and/or too partisan to contribute anything to the process other than attempts to tear the whole thing down.

We specifically elected Obama in part because he promised to bring us healthcare reform. That was one of his mandates. He repeatedly promised that (for example) a public option was part of that, and that's part of what helped win him the debates against McCain. The he compromised way too much out of what turned out to be a sadly too-optimistic belief in bipartisanship, and let it get watered down and weakened.

The toughest part of Obama's election is going to be trying to prove something that DIDN'T happen. When he took the wheel the country was speeding towards a cliff. Specifically in terms of unemployment and the economy. The fact that he and the Dems managed to steer us away from the cliff (a full-blown Depression) is an achievement. But it's hard to show to the average voter how it could have been much worse than it has been.

sourclams wrote:The costs are not offset by the tax breaks. That it costs small businesses in the short term isn't really arguable.

Yes, it costs them, with the costs largely offset by tax credits, exemptions, etc.

Hell, he even made it so that individual states decide on what must be covered, rather than the federal government, which was something the SBA was pushing for, and amusingly enough provides more for state rights than any Republican suggestion on the topic.

Obama's also pushed for tax breaks and credits and exemptions for small business (which was very strongly opposed by Republicans), and he's pushed for regulation changes that make it easier for small businesses to gain new capital (which was again opposed by Republicans and had to get some cuts), and he's been working with the SBA to fight the problem of unemployed combat veterans (which was meekly opposed by Republicans), and he supported "Small Business Saturday" (which was initialized by American Express, oddly enough, but both Obama and the SBA threw their support behind it). The SBA has supported Obama's American Jobs Act (which didn't make it through the senate), as well as throwing some support behind Obama's proposed law that would make it so business can't discriminate against those who are unemployed (as is currently the norm),

Really, Obama's done or at least tried to do more for small business in four years than the Republican party has done in the last decade. When Bush was in power, they almost ignored the SBA, and if the current budget for the SBA goes in place it'll be the highest budget it's ever gotten barring stimulus package money.

mattyrm wrote: Mate, you called me a socialist about 6 months back, now your saying I hate Republicans, do you only read what I type directly at you?!

No, I stand by my position that you like certain socialist policies. Because you do. I'm not sure why you keep trying to deny it.

Besides, as Time says, we're all socialists now.

mattyrm wrote: I told you, I had my dem missus ready to vote for McCain! I wanted John to win hands down over Obama until he picked the moose machine gunner with cerebral palsy, and as my missus was a big fan of Hilary, she said she was happy to vote for my pal JM.

And yet you were happy to have Obama win rather than have "the moose machine gunner with cerebral palsy" as vice president. A position that carries with it somewhere between 0 and lim 0 actual authority.

mattyrm wrote: I absolutely don't dislike Republicans at all, and I'm more right leaning than left leaning. I am no big fan of Obama care, and I am more than happy to agree with Republicans when they make sense, I just really really really hate Religious numbskulls, and that one singular fact is driving me away from them. This article explains it perfectly. I wont ask you read it all, here is the meat.

You're continuing to associate Republicans with "Religious numbskulls." You hate people who believe anything other than you, I get it. But I'm not sure why you continue to refuse to apply that standard to the left.

Well, no, that's not entirely true. I do know why you don't. It's because you're a liberal, and you support liberal politicians.

Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases, that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it, that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.

I'm not sure what's so objectionable about these positions. They're simply the opposite of left-wing positions. I could come up with a laundry list of must-haves for Democrat politicians, but, like this list, it wouldn't make the point the author wants to make.

Put simply: according to this author, liberals are moderates and the only way for a Republican to be a moderate is to accept the left-wing position on some issues.

Do Republican primary voters want the "perfect" candidate who can check off all the right boxes? Of course. So do Democrats. Look at the '08 election. Hillary's big problem was that she supported the war in Iraq. Liberal voters want a liberal candidate. Conservative voters want a conservative candidate.

mattyrm wrote: The fact that you think I (and presumably every other person that leans towards Republican but shy's away at the last and votes for an independent because they just wont lay off the Jesus juice) is "a democrat" just shows that you really can't see the forest for the trees. The problem isn't us, its them!

You're right, the problem is "them." The Republican party has been pretty solidly in the "right" for the last 30 years or so. They've made an overt play for religious people, but it's certainly not something new. In fact, I suspect you support the Democrats not because the Republicans have moved towards religion, but rather because the Democrats have moved away from it.

mattyrm wrote:I lean Republican, but I hate the fringe that the candidates are bowing to more than I hate the democrats.

So you're going to hate the Republican fringe, but continue to ignore the Democrat fringe? Honestly, if you find yourself more in agreement with the fringe of the DNC than the center of the RNC, you're not going to be missed.

I look at the political parties and realize that the Republicans represent freedom and the Democrats slavery (well, they always have). Even if I disagree with some aspects of the Republican party I'm still so far from the Democrats that they're simply not an option.

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:Methinks you miss my point. I'm not attacking her over experience. Not at all. I'm attacking her over the fact she quit. I prefer my world leaders to stand a little stronger.
Do the time in a job, and see it through.

Is it acceptable then to quit a job in the Senate midway through?

To become President? sure. To go do a reality show, and makes tons of money for herself, no. Not until the obligation you swore to is done.

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote: They secretly love her. She may be an absolute total utter feth wit, but she proper loves her some Jesus, and that's enough.

Just look at biccat sticking up for her..

People still support Obama, despite the fact that he's been a miserable failure at just about every aspect of his life.

That's what secretly makes me laugh about you folks so hard. He can't be a failure as President. It has to be every aspect of his life!