|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I didn't want to start another political thread ..... so I am going to post a few thoughts on the debate here. *Edit* I did not get to watch the entire debate from the beginning, so there is probably some stuff I missed. Watching the debate tonight, Michelle Bachmann should just drop this stupid HPV thing. Perry ... who is not my favorite candidate ...... but regardless, he said that it was a mistake, and that he shouldn't have done it, and he wouldn't do it today. Bachmann is starting to look like a one trick pony. Concentrating on all of these idiotic trivial stuff really plays into the Obama re-election campaign's hands ..... because it distracts from the number one and only issue ...... "It's the economy, stupid". The candidates should remember that. I was most impressed with Romney, Cain, and Huntsman. I loved the line by Governor Johnson about his neighbor's dog creating more shovel ready jobs on his front lawn than Obama has in 3 years.  I do not understand why Gingrich is even running right now. He's like the "elder statesman", peacemaker among the candidates, and I don't see any strong "vote for me because ..." out of him. He's a very, very smart man .... and has great experience .... but I don't understand his campaign at all. Rick Santorum is .... to quote Pat Shurmur ... steady. He doesn't jump out ..... he doesn't have huge home runs ... he's just steady. I don't know if that wins a Presidential nomination, especially when people want a real leader after the current occupant of the White House. I like some of Ron Paul's ideas, but he's way too far out there on defense and other issues. I agree with his budget cutting. I think it was Gary Johnson who said we should balance the budget in year 1. I don't know if that can happen, but I like the idea. In the end, I do think that the 3 winners were Romney, Cain, and Huntsman. I think that Perry was a big loser tonight. He struggled with some questions, and the pressure of front runner status could be wearing on him ... especially responding to the same things over and over and over again. Unfortunately, this is what a campaign is about.
Last edited by YTownBrownsFan; 09/22/11 11:44 PM.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Perry must have felt like a piniata last night, and his stammering, incoherent performance near the end of the debate was not impressive. If you want to be the big dog, you have to do better than that. I read that Perry had back surgery in July, which is causing pain and loss of stamina at the end of the debates, and it is true that he has faltered pretty badly in the later part of the last two debates. Still, he must improve or the race is going to Romney - which is fine with me. Either Perry or Romney, and several others on the stage last night, would be major upgrades in the Oval Office, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
I suppose I'm just waiting for the field to get whittled down a bit before I'm going to put a lot of value on these debates. There are too many people in the field and it's narrowing the opportunities to hear what the candidates think on the various issues. I agree that Perry did himself no favors with his stammering but Romney isn't exactly inspiring that, "this is the candidate" feeling for me. I'm impressed with Newt's intellect and certainly no one is more polished on that stage but like a few women I've known, that baggage is steamer trunk sized. Cain, I really like this guy but his lack of foreign policy experience is going to be a hindrance to his electability. Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum and Johnson could all go the way of Pawlenty and I wouldn't shed a tear and this probably needs to happen sooner rather than later. Then you have crazy Uncle Ron... What can you say, he's just too "out there" to get elected. Today, a Cain/Gingrich ticket would be the most appealing to me. I like the 9/9/9 concept and Newt could shore up the lack of foreign policy experience and in Washington that Cain doesn't have. Tomorrow, meh, who knows. I just can't get my head around Perry or Romney right now, they just look like puppets to me. And  don't let Palin get into this race.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
Then you have crazy Uncle Ron... What can you say, he's just too "out there" to get elected.
"Out there" is what this country needs.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,517
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,517 |
Quote:
Quote:
common sense is what created this country in the first place. overthinking and overanalyzing is what created the mess we are in now.
Common sense to who? You? Me? I'm pretty sure you have different ideas than I do. Common sense depends on the context, knowledge and experience of the observer.
I disagree that this country wasn't founded on overthinking and analyzing, only common sense. My reasoning is that Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4,1776, but the US constitution wasn't ratified until June 21, 1788 (created a year earlier though). That 12 year period was filled with arguments, debate, and most important, thinking. Lots and lots of it. One could even make the argument that the "common sense" decision was the articles of confederation that were implemented a year after the Declaration was signed. It looked good at the time, yet in practice it wasn't that good.
you did not pick up on my pun....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Right now, the only folks I give any credence to is Huntsman and Romney.
Huntsman I like.. I think unless some news surfaces that he's a child rapist or something equally horrific, I'd vote for him over anyone.
Romney is my second choice but a DISTANT second.
Paul always has good ideas then he goes loopy and it unravels. I still like him...But he doesn't have a chance..
You have no idea how much I want the Republican party to put a REAL horse in the race..
Right now, my horse is Huntsman,, and I fear he doesn't have a chance.
I'm not sure about this, but it's almost as if he's not conservative enough for the Tea Party folks. And that will kill his chances.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
I do not understand why Gingrich is even running right now. He's like the "elder statesman", peacemaker among the candidates, and I don't see any strong "vote for me because ..." out of him. He's a very, very smart man .... and has great experience .... but I don't understand his campaign at all.
to me, he's running for VP. he's showing that he knows what he is talking about, but he's not going to go and shovel dirt on anybody.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Either Perry or Romney, and several others on the stage last night, would be major upgrades in the Oval Office, imo.
Except for that whole non-rational thought process and go-with-the-gut instead of fact, thing. I mean we don't need our highest office to be able to think critically right? I'm not saying Obama is any better, but don't think Perry or Romney will be an upgrade. Huntsman I like though, I could see myself voting for him. I think i need to see more of him though.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
Either Perry or Romney, and several others on the stage last night, would be major upgrades in the Oval Office, imo.
Except for that whole non-rational thought process and go-with-the-gut instead of fact, thing. I mean we don't need our highest office to be able to think critically right? I'm not saying Obama is any better, but don't think Perry or Romney will be an upgrade. Huntsman I like though, I could see myself voting for him. I think i need to see more of him though.
Changing from Obama to the republican equal won't solve our problems. It will only make them lean a different way. I want more than that, we need more than that.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Perry is an idiot! Huntsman isn't too bad, The GOP is in big trouble with any of these ppl.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,870
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,870 |
Quote:
Perry is an idiot! Huntsman isn't too bad, The GOP is in big trouble with any of these ppl.
Chris Christie Reconsidering 2012 Run, Will Decide in Days
Friday, 23 Sep 2011 05:10 PM
By Jim Meyers
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is reconsidering his decision not to enter the 2012 presidential race — and he says he will let top Republican donors know within days about his plans, Newsmax has learned.
During the past few weeks, several leading Republican donors and fundraisers have been urging the popular Republican governor to reconsider his decision not to run and to enter the GOP primary.
These Christie supporters note that significant GOP support has remained on the sidelines of the primary fight. Many leading fundraisers have yet to commit to any current primary contender, including frontrunners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
Newsmax has learned that the effort to draft Christie culminated in a hush-hush powwow held in the past week with Christie and several notable Republican billionaires.
A source familiar with the meeting suggested that Christie seemed inclined to enter the race but said he needed more time.
Christie promised to make a final decision "within two weeks," the source said.
Another source involved in GOP fundraising tells Newsmax that that uncommitted fundraisers and donors have been receiving phone calls from top political aides to Christie, seeking their feedback about his possible entry into the race.
Earlier this week Christie hinted at the effort to draft him when he spoke at a special forum that included Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels.
Christie suggested to an audience at New Jersey's Rider University that the current GOP candidates are not answering the public's appetite for real leadership.
"I think what the country is thirsting for, more than anything else right now, is someone of stature and credibility to tell them that and say, 'Here's where I want us to go to deal with this crisis,'" Christie said.
Christie continued: "The fact that nobody yet who's running for president, in my view, has done that effectively is why you continue to hear people ask Daniels if he'll reconsider and ask me if I'll reconsider."
Christie has consistently and categorically stated that he would not run for president in 2012, noting he had significant work still to accomplish in New Jersey.
But New Jersey and New York Republican donors and bundlers who have backed Christie also have been courted in the past several months by Texas Gov. Perry's campaign.
Senior aides to Christie have been quietly urging his supporters not to commit to Perry, indicating Christie was still mulling a bid and would make a final decision after New Jersey's legislative races are completed in November.
But the rapidly changing primary landscape may be changing that timetable.
Perry's quick rise in the polls and indications he may be fading — coupled with nagging questions about Romney's ability to lead the party after backing a Massachusetts healthcare law ominously similar to President Barack Obama's own Obamacare program — may have created a window of opportunity for Christie.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Chris Christie Reconsidering 2012 Run, Will Decide in Days
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
web page
You know my love will Not Fade Away.........
#gmSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 194
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 194 |
Quote:
Quote:
Then you have crazy Uncle Ron... What can you say, he's just too "out there" to get elected.
"Out there" is what this country needs.
Truer words have never been spoken! Ron Paul for prez. No more status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I don't agree with Christie on every issue, but I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
I love his "tell it like it is" style, and I think he would obliterate Obama in a debate. He is the candidate I see as strongest as far as ensuring that the disaster known as the Obama Administration ends on Jan 20, 2013. ("only" 486 days away)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Christie would have a very hard time ... his weight being a chief issue.
In American politics, what you look like often matters far more than what you have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I think that he has enough "it factor" to overcome his weight.
He has a presence about him ........ an aura of no nonsense leadership ....... that I think would overcome anything else.
The only thing is that I don't know where he stands on some issues ....... but he definitely has a sense of "get it done now" around him.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
YTOWN... don't mistake my comments for agreement with Obama's governance. i agree wholeheartedly that over-regulation is a major economic problem. however, i feel sometimes people assume the other end of the pendulum swing is without problems. Quote:
There are some sensible regulations, but adding and adding and changing them constantly makes no sense. Unless it is an absolute emergency ... or a blatant attempt at a monopoly, the government should butt out.
as far as we can agree that we need SOME sensible regulations...a total lack of oversight is inviting corporate corruption, just as too much oversight invites government corruption. one thing i will say is that constant changes need not be bad. our society, technology, and economy are changing at a very rapid pace, and regulations must be just as dynamic. they need not just be additions, though.
in fact, i would prefer more monitoring, and less regulations. we need to look out for injustice being done, but not choke off innovation in the process. as an example, by monitoring fracking instead of regulating it ahead of time, we can allow responsible companies to do their thing. if monitoring shows that they cause a massive environmental probem, then they should be punishable at that point. it puts more risk on the companies, but all succcessful businesses already assess and manage their risks. why should this be any diffferent?
Quote:
When business is given some degree of freedom to invest, innovate, and grow, it will do so. Look at how business and industries are expanding around the world. There should be some degree of oversight. However, we strangle our businesses with regulations galore, that take an MBA to figure out. This also impacts small business, who must now have some legal representation instead of just running their business.
i agree. but with freedom comes responsibility. and those indulging in irresponsible business practices need to be accountable for their actions. that's all i'm about. as for your last sentence there, just another way that lawyers have exacerbated the problem. i have good friends that are attourneys, and they are valuable in theory, but i find almost no redeeming value in their profession, as it is practiced.
i won't argue that corporate taxes must be higher, but with lower rates, again, i think you need to have accountability. just giving big business freedom has revealed them to be hoarders, rather than re-investors. i mean, despite working after WWII, i'm not a big believer in stimulus as a modern economic policy...but i think trickle-down has proven equally fruitless in recent years. i don't have the answer, but i'm pretty sure it isn't one of these options.
what do you think about Herman Cain's 999 plan? i don't know how the balances would work out, but i like the idea of supplanting a portion of income tax with national sales tax. i guess i might worry that it puts a disproportionate burden on the poorer folks, as they are spending a larger % of their income on necessities than are more wealthy.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
BUCKEYE11...
hmmm, that sounds dramatic. what sources are you citing? are the cost differences based directly on these things, and these things alone, or perhaps is the situation more complicated? i'd like to know what the data say.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I LOVE Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
It would allow corporations to repatriate their overseas funds at a reasonable level of taxation, would free up capital to help get this economy going again, and would give business and industry the certainty they need to make both short term, and long term growth projections and plans.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I think that he has enough "it factor" to overcome his weight.
He has a presence about him ........ an aura of no nonsense leadership ....... that I think would overcome anything else.
The only thing is that I don't know where he stands on some issues ....... but he definitely has a sense of "get it done now" around him.
Again, I don't think any of that matters. A great deal of the voting population will look at him and think - consciously or unconsciously - 'fat'.
Which I think is a shame, but the way it goes. I would say that his weight prevents him from even sniffing the nomination.
If I had to wager money, I would guess Mitt Romney gets the nod. He's the GOP's best bet, and I think come crunch time he will be the nominee.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Quote:
Christie would have a very hard time ... his weight being a chief issue.
How's 'skinny' working out for us?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Christie would have a very hard time ... his weight being a chief issue.
How's 'skinny' working out for us?
It's a matter of electability, which in our country has little to do with logic.
Obama, as abysmal as his record is, is still an electable candidate. But if he suddenly gained a ton of weight or became unsightly in regards to physical traits?
That would have far more negative impact on his electability than disastrous performance in office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
As shallow minded as phil thinks the electorate is, if Christie has a message that resonates with the people, they aren't going to care a bit how over weight he is and since we are, generally speaking, an over weight society, he just might be seen as the every-mans candidate. Since no one else in the field has stepped up with a solid message, the door is wide open for Christie.
If he has the message, he'll be able to spin his weight to a positive and answer the old question, "where's the beef, here's the beef".
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
I think Christie has the charisma, force of personality, quick wit, and performance record to overcome the shallow tendencies of some American voters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
He should just say what I say ... "I got big bones." ... make it a laugh line. People relate better to flawed physiques because most of us, more than likely, have one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
while appearance may be overcome by someone with a lot of charisma, an argument in favor of PHIL's point is the current crop of candidates. Johnson, Paul, Cain, and Huntsman have a lot more substance and legitimacy to them, yet who are the ones that've gotten the most play? the two good looking guys and the "attractive" woman. is that pure coincidence?
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Quote:
Johnson, Paul, Cain, and Huntsman have a lot more substance and legitimacy to them ...
This is purely subjective on your part. Johnson is new to the race, Cain - as much as I like him - has never held elective office, Paul is the crazy uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table yelling "pass the squirrels", and Huntsman is the same guy as Romney, only more of a country club RINO. Also, I don't know anyone that takes Bachman seriously; she recently fell behind Gingrich in a Republican poll. Perry and Romney are both telegenic, but they also have track records at the executive level to recommend them. Whether you take those records as actual recommendations is a different discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,577
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,577 |
Quote:
Again, I don't think any of that matters. A great deal of the voting population will look at him and think - consciously or unconsciously - 'fat'.
Which I think is a shame, but the way it goes. I would say that his weight prevents him from even sniffing the nomination.
I don't claim to be "Dale Politics" or anything, but isn't the President black and even a few handfuls of years ago a black President would have been thought of as outlandish by a great portion of the country? Isn't one GOP candidate a woman - and Palin a woman - and Hillary Clinton a woman? I think those three are taken pretty seriously by the voting public.
I'm 31, I'm unemployed, I'm a Democrat - I don't care if a guy weighs 400 pounds... or a man is black... or a woman is the nominee; if that candidate - regardless of party - is who I think is the best candidate and can lead to a better future for me, my family and my country I'm voting for them. I think most of the country feels that way and if they don't they're absurd.
"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college"
GO ROCKETS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I think Christie has the charisma, force of personality, quick wit, and performance record to overcome the shallow tendencies of some American voters.
Perhaps ... to be honest, I know little of Christie.
However, it's still a steep hill to climb. I think folks are giving the American voters a little too much credit. I mean, folks continue to talk about having a strong message and whatnot, but when was the last time that having a strong message mattered in a presidential election?
Go down the line by president, and to a man they were elected on very superficial messages that were all style and no substance.
Style > Substance
And, hey, maybe Christie is this charismatic guy who can get past the issue by self-deprecation. Like I said, I haven't seen or heard much of the guy. But he would have to pretty much be Sinatra.
Come November '12, despite an abysmal record that will likely have worsened by that point, Obama will still come across as cool, hip, articulate, etc. Now, I know that comment probably angers a lot of people who hate the guy ... but take off the tinted glasses, because it's true. Especially if he's lined up across the fat guy at the debates (which, again, are all predicated on style over substance).
Looking good and sounding good matter far more than anything else. Appeal trumps performance or good ideas just about every time.
bigdatut:
Quote:
isn't the President black and even a few handfuls of years ago a black President would have been thought of as outlandish by a great portion of the country?
Fair point.
I would argue, however, that a) he had all of the elements of style to make up for that (i.e. good looking, articulate, cool, etc.) and b) being black probably actually helped him instead of hurt him.
For all intents and purposes, Hillary Clinton was by far the stronger candidates for the Democrats. Better record, more experience, more clearly thought out ideas, a stronger message ... and Obama beat her out on a two-word campaign message.
He won on style. And you mentioned Bachmann and Palin as well -- two women whose only electable trait is style appeal. Sarah Palin is about the dumbest candidate to come down the pike on either side of the aisle in ages ... if she was not a pretty lady, she would have zero chance. Her charisma is certainly a large factor, but if she was a homely or heavyset lady, she'd never have had a chance to display said charisma.
And Hillary, I think, is unelectable, and, I think her physical appearance has a great deal to do with it.
In short, I'd argue that race and gender -while certainly factors, fall behind style and appeal.
Quote:
I'm 31, I'm unemployed, I'm a Democrat - I don't care if a guy weighs 400 pounds... or a man is black... or a woman is the nominee; if that candidate - regardless of party - is who I think is the best candidate and can lead to a better future for me, my family and my country I'm voting for them. I think most of the country feels that way and if they don't they're absurd.
I would argue that most of the country thinks they think that way, but don't. Like I said, I think a lot of this happens on an unconscious level.
There are a great deal of trivial things that take a much higher precedence over good ideas or being the best candidate ... being able to raise money, being married, having a belief in God, being physically attractive, having charisma ... all of those things are far more important regard to electability than being qualified or having a sound plan.
In short, the nod will either go to Romney or Perry, and it will be due overwhelmingly in part to superficial reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Some good points in your post. However, I don't think it's Hillary's appearance that lost her the race. It was simply because she is a woman.
There is far more prejudice against a woman for president than there is for race. Anybody who watched what happened to Hillary against Obama, or any woman candidate for president can see that, if they can't, they aren't being honest.
People cry about the race factor....and still do, even with the election of this president. Very few people publicly recognize the difference in how women candidates are treated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I don't even think that it was that she was a woman. I honestly think that people thought that Obama was the "cooler" choice.
He was new, fresh, articulate, and had an aura about him. He was a child of destiny, destined to change forever the nature of the Presidency. He got the kids fired up, obviously got almost 100% of the "Black vote", (the effect of which is amplified in Democrat primaries) along with large blocks of minority voters.
I don't think that anyone was going to stand up to that.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Some good points in your post. However, I don't think it's Hillary's appearance that lost her the race. It was simply because she is a woman.
There was a whole lotta this. There was also "it's been 20 years since someone not named Bush or Clinton was president."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Some good points in your post. However, I don't think it's Hillary's appearance that lost her the race. It was simply because she is a woman.
I think it was likely a combination of Obama being perceived as 'cooler', her being a woman, and her being an unattractive woman.
I agree with you that gender is a huge barrier ... when and if a woman gets the nod as a party's candidate, you will hear ridiculous things about irrationality to due menstrual cycles and all sorts of nonsense that will make it seem as if we haven't progressed past the 1920's.
But ... what if Clinton were an attractive woman? Does that change things at all?
I do think, if the circumstances were right, that an attractive female candidate could have a legitimate shot at the White House. She could very well lose due to gender, of course ... but I think the possibility is there. Whereas a physically unattractive woman? No chance.
For the record ... I don't like referring to Clinton as unattractive, or Christie as fat ... but as it pertains to American political elections, I think those things matter far more than any ideas or messages or convictions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
j/c
General reply to the direction the thread has taken . . .
The whole primary thing is to appeal to the base. Unfortunately the base is being shifted underneath the GOP establishment. They don't have that candidate anymore. They went out and grabbed Perry but now it seems they have buyers' remorse. So they are going to go grab Christie?
The only one I like is Ron Paul--crazy uncle or not--at least he is honest, sticks to his principles and tells you what he feels you need to hear.
Take Santorum as an exact opposite. His answers are so canned and GOP-tested that I can't begin to take the man as honest. Gingrich has ZERO general election electability. Cain is smart and that means they won't nominate him. Bachman is a loon. Huntsman is Romney, and dare I say that Perry is not presidential material.
A very lackluster crop. The only one that I think can appeal to the masses to beat Obama is Romney and the GOP, I think, sees him as McCain part two.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
DAVE... Quote:
This is purely subjective on your part. Johnson is new to the race, Cain - as much as I like him - has never held elective office, Paul is the crazy uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table yelling "pass the squirrels", and Huntsman is the same guy as Romney, only more of a country club RINO. Also, I don't know anyone that takes Bachman seriously; she recently fell behind Gingrich in a Republican poll. Perry and Romney are both telegenic, but they also have track records at the executive level to recommend them. Whether you take those records as actual recommendations is a different discussion.
ok, it may not be pure black and white, but i'm not being entirely subjective. i haven't followed the candidates very closely, but i've heard ideas from Cain, Huntsman, and Paul. i'll give you that i haven't heard first-hand from Johnson. the only of the 3 "telegenic" candidates, as you put it, that have offered ideas instead of rhetoric is Bachmann, and she is so far out there, it comes off less as substance, more as storytelling. and you many not know Bachmann supporters, but how do you explain Iowa? they are out there, aquaintances to you or not...
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
If Perry continues his nose-dive, I think Cain could emerge as the alternative to Romney. He just got a huge win in the Florida straw poll.
I really like his 999 plan, and haven't seen any major negatives with him as a candidate. He's been successful running several businesses.
If you haven't heard it, it's 9% flat personal tax, 9% corporate tax, 9% sales tax, no deductions.
He is not a politician, far from being a weakness that may be his biggest plus. It's not like the current President had a tremendous amount of political experience.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
If you haven't heard it, it's 9% flat personal tax, 9% corporate tax, 9% sales tax, no deductions.
How does the 9% sales tax work in conjunction with city and state taxes?
It is added? What I mean is ... where I live, sales tax is 9.75%. Under Cain's plans, would I then be paying 18.75% sales tax, on top of what would become higher priced items?
I've spent the last twenty minutes or so perusing write ups on the plan, and at first glance it doesn't seem very well thought out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
It doesn't have to be well thought out, it's just a campaign promise. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Very true.
Either way, I see Romney getting the nod. He's the GOP's best bet.
That could change, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I agree, I see Perry doing/saying something stupid and derailing his campaign and I just don't think any of the others are going to be able to gain any traction, primarily because the media appears to not want them to... the media decided who they want contending for this race the day Perry entered.. Perry and Romney.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
primarily because the media appears to not want them to... the media decided who they want contending for this race the day Perry entered.. Perry and Romney.
Precisely.
Perry is a liability candidate, and it's not because he's an idiot who says stupid things (hell, the last two GOP's wins in the White House came from an idiot who said stupid things).
His liability is that the single most important thing for Obama's re-election hopes is an energized voting base.
And, oh, Lord, would Rick Perry energize that base. Far more than Romney.
Perry is the very model of George W. Bush on paper, and that would drive Obama's base to the polls in droves.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum New Rick Perry Ad
|
|
