Briefly explain why, and can this nominee knock off Obama in 2012 bearing in mind Obama will easily carry California, and the black and Hispanic vote, so he has a formidable lead already.
This is one of the few things I would agree with Priap and Willy on....
Republicans have a weak field so far.
Palin, NO WAY....
Newt, if I could just plop his ass in the Oval office, fine, but do not think he is electable.
Romney, maybe. Has the presence and can probably take some of the liberal NE states, but not sure if he is really conservative and just talks the politician's game
Huckabee. Like Newt, if you could just put him in office. I don't think he did himself any favors with his TV show and not sure if he could be a dynamic enough person to win.
Best bet for the Republicans is one of two items.
1) Obama continues to drive up the debt, continues to screw up foreign policy and continues to piss off his base (when M. Moore is preaching against you, you have lost the base), so it becomes an anybody but Obama and his base stays home
2) Some Republican Governor steps up and is dynamic, really conservative and can carry himself well.
Look at it this way (and no, I am not a big GWB fan), GWB sort of came out of nowhere and won the presidency aganin Gore, who was a formidable opponent.
I will start the "Dark Horse" list.
1. Born to Cuban immigrants, he is the American Dream, will carry the Hispanic
vote.
2. Yes a first year senator, but wait that is no longer a minus, it is a plus
3. Has kept a very low profile, claims he is there to do a job not promote self.
4. Dynamic speaker, out does "O".
why ? The predominant GOP demographic is white Christian conservatives. Think they'd ever elect a Latino for Prez ?!-----LMFAO !
GOP best shots would be Romney or Christie, w/ Rubio as VP to siphon off Latino vote from Dems. Perhaps in 2020, GOP would "mature" enough to vote for Rubio for POTUS.
He's the only person that has done anything.
I can't stand Jones either, and what he did was clearly provocative and destructive, but don't you think some of the blame goes to the Imams and their fanatics who actually did the killing? There's plenty of blame to go around. I wish we could arrange time travel so they all could be shipped back to the 13th century where they belong.
Well of course the Imams share the blame. It took two weeks for the news to even work its way over there, and the Imams had to tell their people about it before the expected rioting could occur.
However, we covered this topic right here on this board nearly a year ago. Obama said burning the Koran would endanger our troops. Petraeus said burning the Koran would endanger our troops. Gates even called Jones personally and said "don't do this, because people will die". Only an absolute fool could not have foreseen how this would play out.
There was an absolute 100% certainty that if Jones burned the Koran - or you or I for that matter - some innocent SOB would be killed for it. Yet, knowing that some other innocent person would pay the price for Jones's actions, he did it anyways. He showed absolute and total disregard for the reaction that he absolutely knew would happen. Now what is he going to do for the families of the 20 people who have been killed so far? Can he replace them?
What can he say to them? Is he going to say "Sorry! The entire world was already aware that Muslims are violent, worthless pieces of shit, but I just had to burn the Koran to provoke yet another outburst of violence just to prove what everyone already knew! Yes indeed, water is wet! So sorry it was your family who got killed to prove my point though. Really tough luck on your part I guess."
So, I'm just hoping that next time Jones needs to prove the obvious, he'll put his own life on the line rather than sit back and let someone else die for his cause.
This attractive duo ought to beat Obama and Biden!
Best insurance I can think of for an Obama second term. Palin and Bachmann are the political equivalent of the blind leading the clueless.
Much like the stock market going up, hiring practices of business and spending habits of workers,is influenced by an optimistic outlook.
Last election, contrary to most polls the year before, Boehner and the GOP took over the House and gained Senate seats.
Almost immediately, the private sector felt relief Pelosi and Reid could not tax them into oblivion, or take over their company.
The hiring of private employees started quickly.
Unemployment is dropping,thanks to Boehner and Obama working together.
In 2012 the GOP should easily take over the Senate.
Re elect Obama in 2012, avoid a monopoly by either party.
Remember the Clinton years.
Let the good times roll.
There will be no Republican President in 2012.
Near as I can tell it happened once; when the Bush tax cuts were renewed because Obama caved on low taxes for the top 2%. And that happened during the old Congress. Since then, nothing. So if you think the GOP gets any credit for the employment improvements you'll stand alone. Name one bill that's even been proposed by the GOP to directly address the jobs situation.
Chris Christie, though I'd rather see him run in 2016 when he has a better shot at winning. He's got balls and isn't afraid to tackle tough problems and make tough decisions, even if it means pissing off his own party.
read this.
Aha, the New York Times, the paragon of truth in reporting and factual research before printing any news......NOT. The NYT is plagiarism central, full of half truths, inuendo, even outright lies. And we're supposed to suck it all in? Bullshit. Christie's got my vote.
that you dismiss a report skmply because it comes from the Times but don't seem to know (or care) if what the article reports is true or not. These are simple, checkable statements Christie has made that are at variance from the facts. It's too bad you run from them and use the red herring of "the liberal NY Times" to dismiss them out of hand. Could it actually be that Christie himself lied and/or distorted? Perish the thought! Personally, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and thought of him as a straight-shooter. But I have never heard the facts of this story disputed. Since he's your Governor and you seem to care so much, why not actually check it out and see. Or do you fear your guy has feet of clay?
Wrongo, I do not dismiss the report because it comes from the "liberal NY Times". I dismiss it because it is inaccurate reporting. For example, the report criticized his statement about NJ teachers getting free healthcare, They did, until last year. Teacher contracts are local. My school district teachers STILL get free healthcare, for life.
I have no doubt that Christie has made inaccurate statements during his speeches. It is impossible to address the public as much as he has, and have 100% accuracy. But he is the first NJ governor in my time here that has stepped up to the plate and started swinging away at the bullshit that transpires in Trenton. The bullshit that comes from the heads of the public sector unions, the bullshit that both parties have been spouting for decades. His basic tenet is that he was elected to stop the spending spree that has put NJ into deep debt, and turn around the business climate in the state.
Those on the left don't like him, but Joe Citizen, the taxpayer, we like him, a lot. I say that even though my SO lost her job at a state funded non-profit agency, an agency that I never could figure out why it existed from the gitgo.
Really? Well, here's what you wrote: "Aha, the New York Times, the paragon of truth in reporting and factual research before printing any news......NOT. The NYT is plagiarism central, full of half truths, inuendo, even outright lies. And we're supposed to suck it all in? Bullshit."
OK, you didn't actually use the word "liberal" but you sure as heck dismissed it. Now, at least, you've responded in part to the content of the article. I'll accept the point about health care. But the rest of your point really is simply this: Christie may have/probably did make mis-statements in speeches but, hey, if you speak to people you'll distort things so it's OK. Sorry, JF, not good enough. What a politician says matters. If he mis-speaks/distorts he should be called to account. That's all the article did. If your only rebuttal is "the other side does it, too" that's a pretty weak defense. Remember, I wasn't anti-Christie and actually liked what he was saying and doing. So you can't accuse me of some knee-jerk liberal reaction to him. But I was disappointed in the article because I thought of him as a straight-shooter. Now I"m not so sure. Even the Times gets it right on occasion, as does Fox News.
PS: I'm not so thrilled with how my own Gov., Coumo, is handling the deficit cutting, either.
nor will I take the time to find out, not at least while he is simply governor of a state a long ways from me, but I will say the "article" reads a lot more like an op-ed piece than a genuine news article. That alone is enough reason for me to give the article little credence in my overall opinion making process regarding Gov Christie.
If he decided to run for national office, than and only then will I make the time to research every little attack that is made on his character to see how many of them actually have any basis in fact. So far I have to admit my initial opinion of "that fat fuck from Jersey" is pretty positive. I hope we see more of him.
I made no mention whatsoever of "the other side does it, so there". I detest liars of any shape, color, or political persuasion. Is there a difference between telling an outright lie or falsehood, and mispeaking? Remember the 57 states, the Austrian language, or the Iraqi WMD's? Lies...no. Mispoke...yes. I believe so. I stand by my beliefs that the NY Times cannot be trusted to report and print accurate articles which are unbiased and truthful. Everyone has an agenda, everyone. Cynical? Yep sure am.
Here's the statement I was responding to. "The bullshit that comes from the heads of the public sector unions, the bullshit that both parties have been spouting for decades." That seemed to be responding to the charge that Christie stretched the truth. If that's not the way you meant it, fine. But I think you can see how I interpreted it that way. As for the Times, I know they don't always get it right but, as a long-time reader, I think they get it right most of the time. Dare I suggest you're bringing your own prejudices to the question and just don't like reading stories that conflict with your strongly-held views? We all do it to some extent.
PS: THe most egregious time in my memory that Times got it wrong was in Judith Miller's series of stories about the claims of the Bush Administration there were WMDs in Iraq. I think the Times, and indeed most of the "liberal media" lay down and swallowed the WMD crap because they were afraid of being called unpatriotic. But skepticism is the press' job.