Michele Bachmann Expected to Form GOP Exploratory Committee

[bbarrick8383]

Beau Ouiville 1836:

Ouch.

 

[iamrefreshed]

No, it doesn’t. I’m only explaining why a politician shouldn’t push Christian dogma when that politician represents multiple faiths, or lack thereof, in his/her district.

You don’t have to subscribe to Christianity to oppose slaughtering babies.

 

[lynx]

Beau Ouiville 1836:

You’re trying to compare 19th century morals with 21st century morals and it doesn’t work like that. During that time period, such a statement would have been viewed as moderate. An act is generally only as immoral as society sees it, which is why slavery is abominable now but not so much in the 19th century. When you can get most of society to see that abortions are on par to slavery then you have a point.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If I was a republican i’d be crying right now. Palin, Trump, Newt, and Bachmann…it’s like really bad political fan fiction.

Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest and innovative thinkers in all of politics. Obama is a mental midget compared to him. I look forward to an unscripted debate between the two.

 

[lynx]

Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest and innovative thinkers in all of politics. Obama is a mental midget compared to him. I look forward to an unscripted debate between the two.

politico.com/news/stories/0311/52023.html

“I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9,” Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

I don’t think it’s in the GOPs best interest to have this man speak as a presidential candidate.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

politico.com/news/stories/0311/52023.html

I don’t think it’s in the GOPs best interest to have this man speak as a presidential candidate.

Nice opinion. Care to back it up with anything of relevance? I am not looking to elect the next Pope (with regard to his previous marital affairs), I want a President who really understand the long term ramifications of his domestic and foreign policy decisions. I also want to see someone who is public about his faith and makes no bones about the mistakes of his past. Apparently Obama never has made a mistake, because there is zero public information about it…which makes one wonder.

 

[lynx]

Nice opinion. Care to back it up with anything of relevance? I am not looking to elect the next Pope (with regard to his previous marital affairs), I want a President who really understand the long term ramifications of his domestic and foreign policy decision.

You don’t think that huge unfounded biased contradiction is enough? He’ll appeal to the far right, but he’d already get the far right. You need someone to appeal to moderates.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You don’t think that huge unfounded biased contradiction is enough? He’ll appeal to the far right, but he’d already get the far right. You need someone to appeal to moderates.

The time for squishy moderatism (whatever that means) is over. The GOP picked John McCain last election cycle specifically to appeal to moderates and look where that got them. Reagan was nothing of the sort and he rolled Carter and then Mondale up and smoked them, winning in landslide elections both times. People want a leader who can clearly articulate his position, takes strong positions on policies, and has a track record to back them up…which apparently makes the Obama presidency an enigma in American history. I don’t think Americans are dumb enough to get fleeced two cycles in a row.

 

[lynx]

The time for squishy moderatism (whatever that means) is over. The GOP picked John McCain last election cycle specifically to appeal to moderates and look where that got them.

McCain was fine, it was Palin that caused the gap in voters. Other than the farthest right she didn’t win over any other demographic, at least no other demographic McCain didn’t already have. If there were anyone other than Palin I doubt Obama would have been elected. Squishy moderate views are a big part of winning presidential elections.

Reagan was nothing of the sort and he rolled Carter and then Mondale up and smoked them, winning in landslide elections both times. People want a leader who can clearly articulate his position, takes strong positions on policies, and has a track record to back them up…which apparently makes the Obama presidency an enigma in American history.

You almost always know what Obama is going to do. How can you not? It’s simple, he will spend, tax, expand government, go to war, continue patriot act activities, and golf. If ever you have a question about what he’s going to do then look here, it’s mostly on par with Bush.

I don’t think Americans are dumb enough to get fleeced two cycles in a row.

I wouldn’t bet on that.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I wouldn’t bet on that.

I think this year’s Tea Party movement speaks for itself.

 

[bbarrick8383]

McCain was fine, it was Palin that caused the gap in voters. Other than the farthest right she didn’t win over any other demographic, at least no other demographic McCain didn’t already have. If there were anyone other than Palin I doubt Obama would have been elected. Squishy moderate views are a big part of winning presidential elections.

Obama had a pretty good gap in the polls, McCain picked Palin, the gap closed tremendously and many people were predicting them to win until I believe it was the economy that turned the tide in Obama’s favor.

You almost always know what Obama is going to do. How can you not? It’s simple, he will spend, tax, expand government, go to war, continue patriot act activities, and golf. If ever you have a question about what he’s going to do then look here, it’s mostly on par with Bush.

Must hurt to say that.

I wouldn’t bet on that.

I would.

 

[Personanongrata]

Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest and innovative thinkers in all of politics. Obama is a mental midget compared to him. I look forward to an unscripted debate between the two.

To continue off topic -

Hmmm… Newt cheated on 2 of his 3 wives. Women will NOT make him their President. I doubt that he will ever get a chance to debate anyone. He can’t be trusted. Period. I’m going with the mental midget.

 

[Personanongrata]

Folks are going to have to let me speak for myself. I’m against abortion but I know what the law is. That means I am not in favor of trying to make laws which conflict with the current status – that is a publicity stunt doomed to fail.

Politicians who understand that abortion is legal are not complicit in any evil. They should try to reduce the incidence of abortion, a practice which has been with us since before recorded history.

What we need to do is shun those demagogues who use the issue as a red herring. This means also eschewing such pejoratives as ‘pro-abort’, ‘the party of death’ or ‘politicians guilty of infanticide’. Such terms are inaccurate and uncharitable.

 

[lynx]

I think this year’s Tea Party movement speaks for itself.

And this new House has done what to create more jobs? My impressions of the Tea Party is that they’re feeling a little demoralized. I certainly haven’t seen any meaningful results from this new House, which switches almost every 2 years anyways.

 

[lynx]

Must hurt to say that.

You say it as if i’m part of the Pro-Obama party

 

[TMC]

You don’t think that huge unfounded biased contradiction is enough? He’ll appeal to the far right, but he’d already get the far right. You need someone to appeal to moderates.

The time for squishy moderatism (whatever that means) is over. The GOP picked John McCain last election cycle specifically to appeal to moderates and look where that got them. Reagan was nothing of the sort and he rolled Carter and then Mondale up and smoked them, winning in landslide elections both times. People want a leader who can clearly articulate his position, takes strong positions on policies, and has a track record to back them up…which apparently makes the Obama presidency an enigma in American history. I don’t think Americans are dumb enough to get fleeced two cycles in a row.

Gingrich’s unfavorable rating is over twice his favorables and falling. The electorate simply doesn’t like him. He is way right of Reagan, as is almost every likely Republican candidate. Moreover, Reagan’s version of conservatism was a kind and optimistic conservatism. He didn’t deal with his opponents by questioning their patriotism, their religion or their citizenship. If the Republicans don’t stop their continued lurch to the right (and their continuing slide into hate-driven politics) they will never regain the WH, and are unlikely to hold on to the House for more than one or maybe two more cycles.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Gingrich’s unfavorable rating is over twice his favorables and falling. The electorate simply doesn’t like him. He is way right of Reagan, as is almost every likely Republican candidate. Moreover, Reagan’s version of conservatism was a kind and optimistic conservatism. He didn’t deal with his opponents by questioning their patriotism, their religion or their citizenship. If the Republicans don’t stop their continued lurch to the right (and their continuing slide into hate-driven politics) they will never regain the WH, and are unlikely to hold on to the House for more than one or maybe two more cycles.

You just keep convincing yourself of that. Obama tried to make American lurch to the left, and he lost Congress and almost lost the Senate. McCain was slipping in the polls and Palin (although I don’t like her very much as a national politician) reinvigorated his campaign. America is at a crossroads. Do we continue sliding down the path of National Socialism, or, do we reinvest in liberty and freedom. There is no place in the middle anymore.

 

[SamH]

And this new House has done what to create more jobs? My impressions of the Tea Party is that they’re feeling a little demoralized. I certainly haven’t seen any meaningful results from this new House, which switches almost every 2 years anyways.

They attempted to roll back Obamacare - that alone is worth 800,000 jobs according to the CBO.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The time for squishy moderatism (whatever that means) is over. The GOP picked John McCain last election cycle specifically to appeal to moderates and look where that got them. Reagan was nothing of the sort and he rolled Carter and then Mondale up and smoked them, winning in landslide elections both times. People want a leader who can clearly articulate his position, takes strong positions on policies, and has a track record to back them up…which apparently makes the Obama presidency an enigma in American history. I don’t think Americans are dumb enough to get fleeced two cycles in a row.

The GOP picked John McCain because Democrats voted in open primaries for the weakest possible GOP candidate.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

To continue off topic -

Hmmm… Newt cheated on 2 of his 3 wives. Women will NOT make him their President. I doubt that he will ever get a chance to debate anyone. He can’t be trusted. Period. I’m going with the mental midget.

None of the above slowed down Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns.