Democrats getting obtuse

[Bob Riebe]

Herr Axelrod was interviewed by Bob Schieffer, who is as liberal as they come (except for nut-job Olberman), but when Axelrod told Schieffer that Republicans were getting illegal money from foreign concerns, Schieffer asked Axel if he had any proof.
Axelrod's response was-- do you have any proof they are not.

The inmates are running the asylum.

[ICWS]

I have a question for you, Bob, and for other conservatives/Republicans on this message board: who would you like to see as the Republican nominee in the 2012 presidential election. Please don't say Sarah Palin as I think Obama, regardless of how he's doing now, would destory her in the election. How about Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, etc.?

Whenever the president (regardless if they're a Republican or a Democrat) or congress (regardless if the Democrats or Republicans have majority control) is receiving criticism of this nature, you would be wise to expect members of the party, like David Axelrod, in control to become obtuse.

[chuck34]

I have a question for you, Bob, and for other conservatives/Republicans on this message board: who would you like to see as the Republican nominee in the 2012 presidential election. Please don't say Sarah Palin as I think Obama, regardless of how he's doing now, would destory her in the election. How about Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, etc.?

None of the above. Newt's got too much baggage to get elected. He had his turn, let someone else have a go. I don't totally agree with Ron Paul on foreign affairs type issues. He's too isolationist for the realities of the world. I honestly don't know much about Jindal to make any pronouncements, although he looks fairly good. Huckabee, no way. He just leaves me flat.

Being from Indiana perhaps I'm biased, but I think we have two pretty good guys right here. Mitch Daniels and Mike Pence. Neither of them are absolutely perfect, but who is? I'm pretty sure that Pence won't run as I think he's trying for the Speakership, maybe not this time around but in the future. There's also rumors he may run for governer in '12. I don't think Mitch will run either, but he's denying it in such a way as to leave the door open, so who knows. He is tied to Bush, so that'll hurt him in the long run. But if you get past that and look at how our state is doing (especially compared to our neighbors), you'll see a very effective chief executive.


Whenever the president (regardless if they're a Republican or a Democrat) or congress (regardless if the Democrats or Republicans have majority control) is receiving criticism of this nature, you would be wise to expect members of the party, like David Axelrod, in control to become obtuse.

Unfortunatly that's true. However, it would be nice to strive for people in positions of power to "rise above". But in this day and age, I suppose that's too much to ask for.

[Bob Riebe]

I have a question for you, Bob, and for other conservatives/Republicans on this message board: who would you like to see as the Republican nominee in the 2012 presidential election. Please don't say Sarah Palin as I think Obama, regardless of how he's doing now, would destory her in the election. How about Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, etc.?

Whenever the president (regardless if they're a Republican or a Democrat) or congress (regardless if the Democrats or Republicans have majority control) is receiving criticism of this nature, you would be wise to expect members of the party, like David Axelrod, in control to become obtuse.

Jindal would be the only of of that group that is possibly OK.
Paul is isolationist, and of the other two one is a belt-way politician (i.e. he is only vaguely aware of what happens outside the belt-way,) and the other is a Rino.
Palin could take Obama apart, but she is best as a message spreader, speaker.

You are rationalizing with Axelrod, and the other politicians that got elected verbalizing how they would be different, there is no/they excuse for what he is doing/did now, especially as that goes directly against what Obama supposedly said he would do when he campaigned, although Pres. Obama has been a hypocrite since he won the election.

Obama came from Chicago dirty politics, and it seems he knows no other way.

[Bob Riebe]

However, it would be nice to strive for people in positions of power to "rise above". But in this day and age, I suppose that's too much to ask for.
NO, it should be expected, or there will be hell to pay.
What you said is again, a rationalizationl which is one reason voters get screwed because they do not expect any better.

[ICWS]

Jindal would be the only of of that group that is possibly OK.
Paul is isolationist, and of the other two one is a belt-way politician (i.e. he is only vaguely aware of what happens outside the belt-way,) and the other is a Rino.
Palin could take Obama apart, but she is best as a message spreader, speaker.

You are rationalizing with Axelrod, and the other politicians that got elected verbalizing how they would be different, there is no/they excuse for what he is doing/did now, especially as that goes directly against what Obama supposedly said he would do when he campaigned, although Pres. Obama has been a hypocrite since he won the election.

Obama came from Chicago dirty politics, and it seems he knows no other way.

When I say Obama can beat Palin in debates, I mean that no matter what she says, the press will spin in a way to make it seem as if Obama destroyed her. I wouldn't be suprised if many of the questions at the debates are slanted towards Obama's way so that he can answer them in a pre-rehearsed manner whreas Palin would have difficulty answering them in a comparable way in-line with Obama.

[chuck34]

NO, it should be expected, or there will be hell to pay.
What you said is again, a rationalizationl which is one reason voters get screwed because they do not expect any better.

I think what I said was worded a bit clumsily. I expect more. However, the general public and especially the media don't seem to hold these people's feet to the fire. So until the general populace wakes up and stops accepting the crap these people try to feed them, why would they change?

[ICWS]

[quote="chuck34"]Being from Indiana perhaps I'm biased, but I think we have two pretty good guys right here. Mitch Daniels and Mike Pence. Neither of them are absolutely perfect, but who is? I'm pretty sure that Pence won't run as I think he's trying for the Speakership, maybe not this time around but in the future. There's also rumors he may run for governer in '12. I don't think Mitch will run either, but he's denying it in such a way as to leave the door open, so who knows. He is tied to Bush, so that'll hurt him in the long run. But if you get past that and look at how our state is doing (especially compared to our neighbors), you'll see a very effective chief executive.quote]

Actually, Mitch Daniels could be a strong candidate if he points out his job rating (70% approval) and how he turned a $600 million deficit into a $300 million surplus. I've heard, though, that he seems relecutant to run for president and, at a superficial level, he would be considered too old (he would be 63 years old by the time of the 2012 election), he's missing too much hair on his scalp, and he isn't tall enough to look like a president. I'm serious about those things because a lot of American voters (young and old) are unfortunately fooled by the physical appearance of a politician regardless of their stances/policies (if you don't believe me, just ask Mr. Kucinich).

[chuck34]

Actually, Mitch Daniels could be a strong candidate if he points out his job rating (70% approval) and how he turned a $600 million deficit into a $300 million surplus. I've heard, though, that he seems relecutant to run for president and, at a superficial level, he would be considered too old (he would be 63 years old by the time of the 2012 election), he's missing too much hair on his scalp, and he isn't tall enough to look like a president. I'm serious about those things because a lot of American voters (young and old) are unfortunately fooled by the physical appearance of a politician regardless of their stances/policies (if you don't believe me, just ask Mr. Kucinich).

Mitch definitely does not fit the "Presidential Look" mold.