"The GOP Deserves to Lose"

[Icarus27k]

So says conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens. All in all, it's a delicious column from a U.S. conservative coming to grips with the reality that Barack Obama is likely to be reelected this year. What about the Republican primaries, where the choice is now between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney? It's merely a choice between an interesting election (Gingrich vs. Obama) or a boring election (Romney vs. Obama), says Stephens. "A primary ballot for Mr. Gingrich is a vote for an entertaining election, not a Republican in the White House."

Stephens: The GOP Deserves to Lose - WSJ.com

 

[gopher]

I think our friend Walter the Obama hater will have a massive sh!t fit if this is true.

 

[damngrumpy]

Walter will go into hiding for weeks after this. I believe the contest is all but over as well.
I have seen a bumbling idiot in a public setting, but its unbelievable that the Republicans
chose a who room full of bumbling idiots, and they are the candidates. What rock
quarry did this bunch crawl out from, or were they secretly hatched into politicians in a
Tea Party political hatched?
Imagine, a political campaign that is more suited to Entertainment Tonight than CNN.

 

[Tonington]

Obama Promotes Breaks for Manufacturers Keeping Jobs in U.S. - Businessweek

And unemployment is falling, not so good if you're the party of No.

 

[Goober]

Obama Promotes Breaks for Manufacturers Keeping Jobs in U.S. - Businessweek
Looks like Newt aka the Toad will be well into Super Tuesday primaries.

And unemployment is falling, not so good if you're the party of No.

TIME/CNN Florida Poll: Romney and Gingrich in Virtual Tie | Swampland | TIME.com

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are locked in a virtual dead heat just days before Florida’s pivotal Jan. 31 primary, according to a new TIME/CNN/ORC poll.

Romney earns the backing of 36% of the state’s registered Republicans, a slight edge over the 34% who prefer Gingrich. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who was belatedly declared the winner of the Iowa caucus, came in third in the survey, notching support from 11% of respondents. Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who is skipping Florida to concentrate on smaller caucus states, trails with 9%.

After three states produced three different winners, Florida has emerged as a turning point in the turbulent GOP primary season. The winner-take-all tussle for 50 convention delegates will test whether Gingrich’s momentum can survive a collision with Romney’s fat wallet and organizational clout in a large, diverse swing state with numerous media markets. In the days following Gingrich’s commanding victory in South Carolina, Romney’s lieutenants have launched bruising attacks on the former Speaker, recasting him as an unreliable leader who used his Washington connections to cash in as a lobbyist.

Gingrich holds leads among men, Tea Party voters, self-identified conservatives—among whom he boasts a 10-point advantage—and born-again Christians. His fans also appear to be more committed than Romney’s. Four of five Gingrich backers say their minds are made up, compared to less than two thirds of the former Massachusetts governor’s supporters. Overall, 25% of respondents indicated they were liable to change their minds.

 

[Mowich]

Great article, Icarus.

 

[WLDB]

I'm starting to think Obama is going to win by default, like Bush did in '04.

 

[Serryah]

Is it possible that, if Obama does win, he could be more aggressive with policy during a second term? Without having to fear not being re-elected, could that be an excuse to flex more political muscle instead of being so "restrained"?

 

[WLDB]

Is it possible that, if Obama does win, he could be more aggressive with policy during a second term? Without having to fear not being re-elected, could that be an excuse to flex more political muscle instead of being so "restrained"?

Thats always been my thought. Then again, why not be aggressive and do it all in the first term. That way if he had lost, it'd be ok as he would have accomplished something. That job is pretty demanding and stressful, get it over with fast.

 

[Serryah]

Thats always been my thought. Then again, why not be aggressive and do it all in the first term. That way if he had lost, it'd be ok as he would have accomplished something. That job is pretty demanding and stressful, get it over with fast.

Maybe, but then maybe by not pushing for everything at once he kept not only the people from being overwhelmed, but kept the likely chance of things being overturned, and not re-elected, from happening. The whole "slow and steady" thing.

Another thought I had, and I could be wrong, but when it comes to the campaign trail, all politicians make promises they never keep. In terms of the President, could it be that when they get to the White House, the information they don't have while waiting to be elected changes their policies? I mean, makes sense, right? But as well, could it be the Democrats are more likely to change based on what they learn, and from the previous administration, than the Republicans? Just for example when Clinton left his people briefed Bush on Osama which it pretty much got ignored. When Bush and his team left, they briefed Obama and he took their suggestions as something real to sit up and listen to?

Not saying Obama is perfect, he's not and done a lot of stuff - and not done a lot of stuff - that's broken faith with a lot of people. But is it moreso because he was looking at the long term and with hopes of getting re-elected? To do the real tough stuff in his second term?

Just throwing that out there.

 

[EagleSmack]

Is it possible that, if Obama does win, he could be more aggressive with policy during a second term? Without having to fear not being re-elected, could that be an excuse to flex more political muscle instead of being so "restrained"?

This is a pretty good post. Basically what you are asking is will Obama try and do what he wants to do regardless of what the people want. More social spending, more taxes, more freebies.

The opportunity I think for that is gone. He had his chance to run amok the first two years of his Presidency. If you recall the Democrats had full control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The GOP had no way of stopping Obama and the Democrats until to 2010 mid-term election.

If the House of Representatives is still under GOP control after the November elections, Obama can flex and push all he wants but nothing will get passed without Congress.

I think he'll golf more if he gets a second term.

Just for example when Clinton left his people briefed Bush on Osama which it pretty much got ignored. When Bush and his team left, they briefed Obama and he took their suggestions as something real to sit up and listen to?
.

I think you've been drinking too much Kool-aid.

You think Obama needed to be briefed on the dangers of Osama and Al-Queda? You don't think the dangers were pretty clear and obvious by then?

And Clinton. Osama and Al-Queda had already bombed the Kobe Towers, two US Embassies, and the USS Cole. Do you think he should have done something about it?

Thanks for your transparency though.

 

[mentalfloss]

Jobs reports continue to bolster the new Obama - The Washington Post

 

[DaSleeper]

This is a pretty good post. Basically what you are asking is will Obama try and do what he wants to do regardless of what the people want. More social spending, more taxes, more freebies.

The opportunity I think for that is gone. He had his chance to run amok the first two years of his Presidency. If you recall the Democrats had full control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The GOP had no way of stopping Obama and the Democrats until to 2010 mid-term election.

If the House of Representatives is still under GOP control after the November elections, Obama can flex and push all he wants but nothing will get passed without Congress.

I think he'll golf more if he gets a second term.



I think you've been drinking too much Kool-aid.

You think Obama needed to be briefed on the dangers of Osama and Al-Queda? You don't think the dangers were pretty clear and obvious by then?

And Clinton. Osama and Al-Queda had already bombed the Kobe Towers, two US Embassies, and the USS Cole. Do you think he should have done something about it?

Thanks for your transparency though.

I also read an article somewhere that the transition team between Clinton and Bush wasn't all that forthcoming....but can't seem to find it.....

 

[WLDB]

This is a pretty good post. Basically what you are asking is will Obama try and do what he wants to do regardless of what the people want. More social spending, more taxes, more freebies.

The opportunity I think for that is gone. He had his chance to run amok the first two years of his Presidency. If you recall the Democrats had full control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The GOP had no way of stopping Obama and the Democrats until to 2010 mid-term election.

You think Obama needed to be briefed on the dangers of Osama and Al-Queda? You don't think the dangers were pretty clear and obvious by then?

And Clinton. Osama and Al-Queda had already bombed the Kobe Towers, two US Embassies, and the USS Cole. Do you think he should have done something about it?

First, Ted Kennedy got sick and died shortly after Obama became President which lost the "super majority" in the Senate for the Dems. Unfortunately Republicans like to filibuster and they did it as much as they can. Incredibly stupid rules.

Second, from what I've read Clinton did attempt to go after Bin Laden, failed, and warned Bush about it during the transition. It was in the 9/11 Report.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Is it possible that, if Obama does win, he could be more aggressive with policy during a second term? Without having to fear not being re-elected, could that be an excuse to flex more political muscle instead of being so "restrained"?

Possible but history will show that he will probably have a Republican house and senate for his second term. It will force him to the middle much like Clinton in his second term or Bush in his 2nd term.

 

[mentalfloss]

Just finished watching the state of the union address... pretty damn good speech.

Watch President Obama Deliver the State of the Union Address - YouTube

 

[EagleSmack]

First, Ted Kennedy got sick and died shortly after Obama became President which lost the "super majority" in the Senate for the Dems. Unfortunately Republicans like to filibuster and they did it as much as they can. Incredibly stupid rules.

Nope, you are misinformed and completely incorrect.

Yes Ted Kennedy did get sick and die shortly after Obama took office. However a liberal Democrat interim Senator was put in place by our liberal Democrat Governor here in Massachusetts. He even voted for the Health Care Plan.

Scott brown was not elected into office until 2010... the mid-term elections.

So... as I said... Obama and the Democrats had two years to do whatever they wished and squandered it.

As a side note. The Governor of Massachusetts always had the authority to appoint an interim Senator if the current US Senator could not perform his/her duties. When Ted Kennedy first got sick, our liberal Democrat super majority in the State Legislature took that power away because Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts at the time. When he left office and a good puppy dog liberal Democrat was in the Governors seat, the Democrat Legislature gave back the power to appoint a Senator. And as I said... he put a good obedient liberal in the late Senators seat.

Yes the Democrats thought the fillibuster was stupid... unless they were using it. Let's not be naive here.

Obama and the Democrats had TWO FULL YEARS to do as they pleased. They tripled the debt, passed a foolish Health Care Bill... and were promptly and rightfully tossed from the House of Representatives and denied the Super Majority in the Senate in 2010.

Second, from what I've read Clinton did attempt to go after Bin Laden, failed, and warned Bush about it during the transition. It was in the 9/11 Report.

Second... you're wrong. Yemen offered to hand over Bin Laden without a shot and Clinton refused. A couple of bombings later Clinton fired a few tomahawks into empty Al-Queda training camps. Hardly an effort.

But yes Bush was informed and he made errors as well our intelligence services.

Possible but history will show that he will probably have a Republican house and senate for his second term. It will force him to the middle much like Clinton in his second term or Bush in his 2nd term.

But Serryha would have been right. If he had a full Democrat Congress he would most likely rammed everything he wanted down our throats just like he did with Health Care.

 

[Cliffy]

It's not so much that the Rep deserve to lose as they want to lose. Just like they wanted to lose the last time. Who in their right mind would want to rule in this political climate. Obama came out of nowhere precisely because the controllers needed a fall guy to run the show who really has no stake in the outcome and is powerless to do anything about it. In the end, he is being highly paid to take the blame and, of course, everybody will be able to get behind the rallying call of "Blame the Black Guy!"

 

[Spade]

America, like Syria and Saudi Arabia, needs democracy.

 

[darkbeaver]

Nothing has discredited democratic rule more than the present crippled USA.