Wow you don’t know Obama and his administration started attacking the Repulican candidates weeks ago, even when the line up isn’t certain yet. Obama said he would try to work more with Republicans and end bipartionship. Not happened. Show me once where a Republican candidate has attacked Obama the man, and not his policies?
I don’t know, if Bachmann were nominated Obama would have major problems, he has to defend unpopular policies, a falling economy, thousands of jobs lost, high gas prices etc.I’m hoping for Bachmann…she’s unelectable at a national level and would promise us democrats four more years.
Bachman would beat Obama In fact any of those under consideration for the Republican Party nomination would beat Obama The republican primary will determine who the president of the US will be. The only question is how big the margin of victory is. Bachman would win by a smaller margin than say Romney or Perry would.
Yes, indeed. Whoever would beat Obama would be Elmer Fudd.
Indeed, nothing at all. He’s not an anarcho-capitalist, which may be what RACJ was trying to say, but I think that is a good thing.
Right here is where you lost me, about as immdiately as when I hear someone say, “do you know what Charlie Sheen said about 9/11”…
To be honest I do not really mind who is the Republican candidate as long as they have the best chance of beating Obama and are pro life, pro traditional mariage. The people you have to win over, are the people in he middle, the independents and if Bachmann is a super conservative couldn’t that go against her, or can she reach out to those in the middle?
Whoever said that has a lot more faith in the American electorate than I do. There are far too many who have no idea what is going on in the world or what Obama stands for, but he is a skilled orator (provided he has a teleprompter) and he promises lots of goodies. And he is heavy into class warfare. Those things always buy votes.
Romney is simply one more pol who thinks that government is the solution to all our problems. When I see a smiling Ted Kennedy as Mitt signs Romneycare, it makes me sick. :blush: RobStraight from American Thinker, as balanced a blog as the Daily Worker. LOL!
A Bachmann nomination would alienate young voters, minorities, union members, and on the fence moderate voters. She’s simply far too conservative to appeal to the nation as a whole.
Wrong again. Romney thinks government intervention is necessasry for an effective to one significant problem. What is so wrong with that? Try using rational arguments instead of just this right-wing anarchist mantra that the govenment is the source of all evil at all times and everywhere. Who do you call when you get robbed or your house is on fire. Walmart? Exxon-Mobil?Romney is simply one more pol who thinks that government is the solution to all our problems. When I see a smiling Ted Kennedy as Mitt signs Romneycare, it makes me sick.Rob
What a narrow minded analogy. Dunno about any other conservatives, but our local police and fire protection isn’t a top concern when talking about national politics.
The point is that they are government employees who do their jobs. Some conservatives like to apply with utter indiscrimination their favorite Reagan quote “The government is always the problem, never the solution” and call anyone (here Mitt Romney) who finds exceptions a socialist. There are varying opinions on many sectors of the economy, like healthcare, about whether or to what extent government intervention is merited,
Yep. Not many people argue they don’t. It’s a lot like the private sector in that aspect. Some people do their jobs some don’t. The problem with the FEDERAL government, is there are a lot of people who have a job who shouldn’t. The constitution doesn’t allow it.
Reagan said “in this particular crisis government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem”. Meaning, we as a people, instead of screaming at the government to regulate something we do not like to pay for, maybe we should stand back and ask ourselves if we are just shooting ourselves in the foot by getting the government involved in the first place.
Yep. Some of them are just plain stupid and most of them are wrong.
What’s government gotten into that it improved, made more cost effective and turned it around to make it better for the people? There’s also the argument that governments restricted by the thing called the constitution for a reason, that we can find better solutions and government should always be the last resort due to it’s inherent nature to get it’s hands on something, screw it up and not let go. What logic!
So conservatives arguing against government intervention beyond it’s constitutional enumerated powers is promoting anarchy?
Well said. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the political support of Paul. That is the power of the Democrat party in a nutshell. Class warfare buys votes. The thing is, they can only go so far with that before it backfires - if the economy continues to lag, the unemployment rate stays high, and Obama continues to do nothing- then a Republican could indeed defeat him. But it would have to be a Republican who wouldn’t be an easy target for the mainstream, Obama-supporting press to smear - and that counts out Bachmann and Gingrich. It would need to be a Republican who can attract independent voters while still keeping conservative base and is a good communicator and preferably a governor. I thought Pawlenty fit that description but I am starting to have my doubts. Romney can communicate, but he might have difficulty exciting the right wing of the GOP, and his Mormonism might hurt him among evangelicals.