What is U.S. foreign policy anyway?

Cal Thomas's picture

If there were an award for stating the obvious when it comes to the Middle East it would go to The New York Times. On its front page last Friday, the newspaper ran a story headlined, “Muslim Group is Rising Force in New Egypt.”

What group would that be? Why, the Muslim Brotherhood, of course. We have been repeatedly assured by certain pundits and members of the Obama administration that the Brotherhood are a small minority with no major influence in Egypt and that those Cairo protesters clamoring for “democracy” that led to the downfall of President Hosni Mubarak would be the ones to chart the country’s future. Each time another myth is busted, the deniers of what is happening throughout the region simply create a new myth, one they desperately cling to against all evidence to the contrary.

It would be well for the willfully blind to memorize the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood: “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Got that?

The London Daily Telegraph interviewed Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, leader of the rebellion in Libya. He admitted some of the rebels have ties to al-Qaeda, but not to worry. Hasidi claimed that even members of al-Qaeda “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists.” Sure they are. We should take them at their word, even though they have been known to lie. At what point do we begin to wake up to this nonsense? Is anyone at the State Department paying attention? How about the White House?

President Obama has been forced by growing criticism to better explain his non-policy in Libya and his reasoning behind bombing the country without deposing Moammar Gadhafi. The president went to the United Nations Security Council for a resolution, not Congress, for constitutional approval to launch air strikes on Libya. Perhaps this is an extension of his stated belief that America is no more exceptional than any other country. “While regime change in Libya is the U.S. policy,” reports ABC News, “Gadhafi’s removal is not the goal of the operation.” No, President Obama tells us the U.S. is in Libya “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.” Huh?

What about Syria where security forces are shooting civilians in the streets on the apparent orders of President Bashar al-Assad? Under the new “humanitarian” rules of engagement, shouldn’t president Obama send bombers to Syria? Will the U.S. seek authorization from the U.N. for military air strikes there? And then there is Bahrain where thousands of protesters spilled into the streets last week after Friday prayers and were confronted by security forces firing tear gas and pellets. Can live ammunition be far behind?

If humanitarianism is the new standard for U.S. military intervention, what about bombing North Korea, liberating Tibet, strafing The Congo, Darfur and scores of other countries where authoritarian regimes deny basic human rights to their people?

In last Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) wrote that what is taking place in the Middle East “could be the most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall.” That’s the wrong analogy. When the Berlin Wall fell, people were liberated. What is happening in the Middle East could be the most important geostrategic shift since communists came to power in Russia and China, oppressing and killing millions.

This is just the beginning. Saudi Arabia is next and already the fault lines in that creaking monarchy are visible. The hand of Iran is behind much of this turmoil and behind Iran is al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s vision for the toppling of every regime in the region, each to be replaced by the most religiously fundamentalist and politically repressive of leaders.

While President Obama fiddles, the Middle East burns.

At a private dinner last week in Washington, attended by a group of conservative journalists, someone said if a Democrat must be president, he would rather it be Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. There was general head nodding. Mine was among them.

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. He is the author of more than 10 books and is a FOX News political contributor since 1997. Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.] ©2011 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Cal Thomas: No plan?

Do you really think that we are bombing Libya's army in order to leave KADHAFI in charge eventually?

You know better, but are just ticked that the President didn't tell you the plan so that you could further criticize it!

What would you have done; invade with the Marines immediately and start looking for Gadhafi in a spider hole? Macho, yes, but stupid.

We of course will see that the man is deposed and allow the UN and NATO to rebuild Libya!

You do know that Europe gets more Libyian oil than we do? It is about oil again except not for us! Islam is NOT INVOLVED! Gadhafi is a Saint all by himself.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Kaddafi ....Bad,

The one that replaces him,... Bad,....endless spending to nation-build there,.... Priceless! Let me get this straight, we are not going to nation-build (again), but this time the UN will handle it? What could possibly be wrong with that? Where will that money come from? You've got to be kidding me. Get out of the UN AND Libya and bring our troops home. -GP

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Yes GP

This time we are going to turn it over to the UN. They have a surprisingly good record in peace keeping. They are also bloated, inefficient, corrupt and pursue an agenda slightly at odds with the US.

I urge you to support them.

Because when the US gets involved, we suddenly become responsible for everything. Therefore, we cannot leave because the poor country we were involved with is still poor and we can't guarantee a Jeffersonian democracy. Congress and the President are paralyzed, neither wanting to be known for losing Libya or Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or the next one if they turn out bad.

Then there's the UN option. Turn it over to them and it's their long term responsibility and fault. You'll still pay for most of it, sure. You'll do that either way. But we'll be buffered. The UN is the exit strategy.

Let's give them Afghanistan too. We went after Al-Qaeda and they've moved to Pakistan. Why are we staying to fight the Taliban? Because there is no way to leave if we are then responsible for whatever Afghanistan turns in to. Give them to the UN.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Gee Jeff, you are so right about that.

We as compassionate some times bleeding heart Americans are never satisfied until we fix and rebuild everything, be sure the hospitals are fully staffed, lot's of electricity and hot water and of course free elections - especially if they vote for "our guy" - realistically, how could any rational person expect that to work out and be an exit strategy?

I agree the UN is a buffer, not perfect, but going down that road probably saves American lives.
Maybe China can start picking up a fair share of the UN's bill.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
JeffC/UN

Jeff, is this the same UN that accuses the United States of human rights violations yet remains silent while 13 million unborn are MURDERED EVERY YEAR in China by state ordered abortions? Or the UN that stood idly by while 800,000 were murdered in Rwanda? http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/134peac2.htm is that part of the "surprisingly good record" you are referring to? Is this the same UN that only 31% of americans view favorably http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/current_events/other_curr... yet we continue to fund with billions of hard working american's tax dollars? I think George Washington said it best in 1797 in his fairwell speech, quote: "The United States should steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion the foreign world". The UN is a dismal failure, time to get out. -GP

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Same UN GP

Yes, all those things and more but I specifically said they had a surprisingly good record in peace keeping; and they do.

I've been hearing "get out" since the late 50s. It isn't going to happen.

Use what they can do. What's the downside of turning Afghanistan over to the UN? If we're going to stay there until we're sure they are not going to turn out to be an Islamic state, we'll be there forever and ever.

It's time to leave them to their fate.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Agreed Jeff

I say get out NOW but the way you phrased the premise I would pick the best of the 2 bad choices. Downside? If it gets really screwed up, what nation do you think they(UN) will turn to to bail them out? Worse case, we leave, UN screws up, resistance much stronger when we return and more american lives lost. We should have learned about Afganistan from the Soviets. -GP

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
GP/UN
Quote:

I think George Washington said it best in 1797 in his fairwell speech, quote: "The United States should steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion the foreign world". The UN is a dismal failure, time to get out. -GP

The world has changed since 1797. The foreign world is as close as one's IPAD. I think George would have a different view of the 'world' and what is necessary for safety and survival in 2011. Military power and superiority were quite different. Diplomacy/talking to your neighbor - important. Our 'power' makes us the big kid on the block when it comes to world 'policing'. This needs to change - but it means allowing others some military superiority. The trust isn't there yet. As in democracy - the UN has its successes and its failures. Some tragedies have been averted. Some countries are more 'equal' than others. At least there is a world forum, where diplomacy can be attempted.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Bonker$

Did a week in the pokey further enhance your delusion? Who exactly is the power behind NATO?
"Gadhafi is a Saint all by himself." Only you could come up with that.

Go get your meds!

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Jailbreak

While it's great to see you and Spyglass and a couple of others back from detention and GITMO (Greater Interrogation Techniques More Options), you seemed to have let one escape with you that should have made stay behind :)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
NUK_1 Question

Who was thrown off the board? I must have missed it. What was their transgression?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
PTC-Ob: A few

Looks like Mike King, GaLant, Spyglass, and a couple of others had a week off due to whatever. I know there were a couple of comments that had profanity in them in the "Mrs. Haddix" discussion that got them a timeout but don't know why on the others,

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Thanks and some comments on our Mayor

Nuk_1

I didn't know this happened.

I really don't think that Mayor Haddix need generate that much controversy and passion. He, through his own actions, becomes smaller each day. It is true that his megalomania may embarrass us, but his significance in making a negative impact will be muted by the other council members. After all they see his faults even if he refuses to see them himself.

The Mayor should read Shakespeare

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves...."

Julius Caesar (Act I, Scene ii)

Let him do his best.....this will make him unelectable.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
I learned something from my dog that pertains to Mayor Haddix

Well actually it is hubby's dog, I'm more of a cat person - anyhow, see if this works for you when thinking of our mayor

"If you can't eat it or play with it - pee on it and ignore it"

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Poor Cal Thomas

Cal is so desperate to undermine Obama that he’s siding with Qaddafi. It’s predictable, but sad to see. Perhaps his thoughts on Middle East politics would be more persuasive if he knew the difference between Sunni al-Qaeda and Shia Iran.

No. Probably not.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Jeff

It does seem that Cal Thomas eats from the same bowl as does Gingrich, Palin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Boortz, and a half dozen falsely educated women I don't care to mention.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Poor United States

We seem to have a real talent in this country of interfering with other country's problems and backing precisely the wrong side. Then we wind up looking down the barrels of weapons we gave our former allies - now enemies 10 or 15 years later. This is not a Democrat or Republican thing - they all do it. I'll bet every President since Roosevelt can be tagged with a similar stupid decision. Obama is not a good leader, but he is just continuing a long tradition of US meddling.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Meddling - RWM

Mr. Morgan, I agree with you, meddling in other countries affairs has been a hallmark of the USA going way, way back, but it was not always so.

Here’s a very, very short list:

Argentina 1890, troops to Buenos Aires
Chilie 1891, Marines clash against nationalist rebels
Haiti 1891, Troops to put down black revolt on Navassa defeated.
Nicaragua 1894, Troops to Bluefields for a month
China 1894-95, Naval and troops land in Sino-Japanese War
Korea 1884-96, US troops kept in Seoul during the Sino-Japanese War

And the list goes on and one and on…… in the Mid-East we are living up to our tradition Mr. Morgan.

"Walk softly but carry a big stick" - T. Roosevelt
"Manifest Destiny' – J.K. Polk

An earlier voice of reason:

“So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. ………

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible….” G. Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796.

President Washington was our greatest President, our last great President.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Poor Obama

He can't help it if he is nothing but a pustule that doesn't have a clue as to how to lead a country. He's just Jimmy Carter II - completely worthless and will definitely be a one termer. The Republican party could nominate a tree to run against Obama and it would win.

Poll: Obama's approval hits new low

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
You're probably right Joe

Unfortunately, the Republicans can't nominate a tree. They seem to be stuck with a prospective lineup of political dwarfs.

Maybe someone new will turn up.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Joe, Obama apologized to Bush. Good letter.

Larry Elder on Townhall today helped Obama with his apology letter - may have even ghostwritten it, but it is perfect. It shows what a classy guy Obama is and how he is willing to admit his mistakes and get the country back on track.
Wow, first Obama sees the light, can Haddix be far behind?

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Joe. u poll studier. Why didn't u mention the Tea Party's poll?

Guess downward trends are a wee bit contagious aren't they. The Tea Party has lost 20 percentage points in recent polling and now are more unfavorable to independents than favorable. Why didn't you mention that? And just one serious question:

Which republican is the "tree" that will unseat President Obama? Give us a name. And you probably don't want to say "Herman Cain" :-O

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
kevink

You ask why I didn't mention the Tea Party's poll?

Because I was talking about the Republican party, you insignificant dimwit!

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Joe, focus for me. Don't dodge the question mi amigo.

WHO is going to unseat President Obama, Joe?

And what is the difference between the Tea Party and the Republican party? Does the Tea Party support Democratic candidates now? I'll answer for you since you are a bit of a "Dodger" as usual. The Tea Party and The Republican party are peas in the same pod..... a pod who's polls are going down the tubes just like our President's... a pod who has NO VIABLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE in 2012. And you know it which explains why you don't want to answer the question.

Why so angry, Joe? It's just politics

justwondering
justwondering's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2006
unseat Obama

Hillary Clinton ?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Oh kevin, kevin, kevin

I did answer the question - you just didn't like the answer.

Your boy Obama will definitely be a one termer

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
What Republican candidate will beat Obama in 2012 Joe?

You brought it up, mate. Is it that hard to be a man and answer a question for which you yourself provided the text? Who is your "tree" Joe?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Kevink

You’re not arguing with the most astute political analyst although it’s easy to see why he comes to his conclusions. It seems like over half of his information comes from dubious sites catering to the gullible. Couple massive misinformation with the inability to rationally analyze data and his prediction makes perfect sense. He can’t explain his thinking for obvious reasons.

Look at the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls, Obama beats a generic Republican by 2.8%. Obama beats Huckabee by 5%, Obama beats Romney by 4.7%. Obama beats Palin by 16.3%. Obama beats Gingrich by 14.6%. Obama beats Pawlenty by 15.5%. They didn’t include the clowns like Bachman and Cain who just jumped on the clown wagon with The Donald and his silly birther nonsense.

They're going to have to work for it and what they've got now looks like a field of losers.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - This is America

Obama will win..... not because of anything he has done or not done. He will win because he will be able to muster more special interest groups against a divided and self-destructive Republican Party.

Either way it doesn't matter one wit who wins the next Presidential election. This is about the Congress and what majority has control of it and to what degree. It is Congress that got us into this mess and it must be Congress that gets us out of it. Presidential vetoes can be overcome it there is a willingness on the part of the Congress to do it.

Sadly, the Congressional elections are just as ripe with corruption as Presidential elections. Unless we wake up very soon, we as a country are toast.

We have your party and the Republican Party to thank for it

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
PTCO Is Right!

Everything about the US is bad. We have to restart at Year Zero just like the Khmer Rouge! Clear the cities--make way for Utopia!

I think Ludwig von Mises said it best when he said

"The closed-door policy is one of the root causes of our wars."

Swift Death To Closed-Door Policy!

Go Braves!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
-

duplication

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Master Ninja

Putting words in my mouth?

Your quote is a nonsequitur and so is your thinking.

Swift death to nonsequiturs.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Yes, I Am Putting

words in your mouth. I have to jazz them up to make them more interesting!

Swift Death to Uninteresting Posts!

I think Ludwig von Mises said it best when he said

'There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor.'

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Quotes - Ludwig von Mises

BTW

LvM is correct on both points.

Go Braves!

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
PTCO Drops His Pants

and embraces free immigration! So, you are for no walls on our Mexican and Canadian borders, mines off our Atlantic and Pacific shores, and SAM installations to protect our skies from unlimited numbers of people from all over the globe seeking safety and a better way of life here in GPAT's reat US of A?

I think Ludwig von Mises said it best when he said

"It may be that the immigrants come in such masses or possess such superiority through their physical, moral, or intellectual constitution that they either entirely displace the original inhabitants, as the Indians of the prairies were displaced by the palefaces and were driven to destruction, or that they at least achieve domination in their new home, as would perhaps have been the case with the Chinese in the western states of the Union if legislation had not restricted their immigration in time or as could be the case in the future with the European immigrants into North America and Australia."

Swift Death to Borders (not the bookstore)!

Go Braves

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja - shows

his intellect.

Free immigration, for the most part, made the country.

Now I suppose you would somehow limit superior physical, moral, or other intellectual constitutions from immigrating here?

You're not anti-intellectual are you Ninja?

Death to all anti-intellectual thought.

Go Braves!

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
PTCO I Am the Leader

in anti-anti-intellectual thought! That is my raison d'être (that is French for our blogger friends residing in Coweta County and the Inman Community).

Sure, a new constitution is fine by me. How bout you GPAT? PTCO says our 200-year-plus-old piece of rag needs to go and be re-done by the Asians and Mexicans that flood the US when we embrace free immigration. You up for that? We could name the new country Misesland!

Go Braves!

Swift Death to the Nationals!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Reason for Existence? – Ninja

I have no idea what your reasoning is Ninja, reason is not one of your strong suits.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Reasoning is Most Certainly

one of my strong suits. It's just that it is often so deep that you can't follow it or don't get the humor. As a matter of fact, when I speak, people always say 'It's getting really deep in here.'

You should get out more often--take up break-dancing or something. Live a little! Give my regards to the others in the assisted-living facility!

Just like Charlie Sheen, Braves Winning! (10-1 top of the 8th).

I think Ludwig von Mises said it best when he said

'Go Braves!'

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
PTCO absolutely correct

Obama will win a second term. Again as you stated not for doing a good job or that he deserves it. It will be because of the Special interest groups like the Unions, students and entitlement recipient class and the fact that the Republican party can't get out of their own way.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
kevink

You're not very bright are you, Kevin......

You completely missed the point. The point was, that Obama has proved to be such a corrupt, radical, incompetent 'leader' that anyone running against him would win. Why, I wouldn't put it past the racist liberals in the DNC to throw Obama under the bus and run Hillary in 2012.

The point is, anyone that the Republicans or Tea Party run could beat Obama. Got it now, you insipid, insignificant jagoff?

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Newt?

He's poised to run and I think he's our best shot so far.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
BHH & Newt

I believe Newt is brilliant but his personality won't get him even nominated. He's just not likeable.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Newt, Herman Cain, Romney, Michelle Bachman, all good choices

All much better Presidents than Prezbo. All would mesh well with a Republican-controlled House and Senate. All would make a real effort to kill Obamacare and end the crazy socialist spending and getting rid of the whacko liberal czars who help Prezbo come up with his crazier ideas.

But we will never know because none of those are electable and as long as the young and stupid and non-productive are allowed to vote - so get used to 4 more years of Mr. Hope and Change.

Better to concentrate on House and Senate where a Republican majority can muzzle the big dog until 2016. That's when Christie and Jindal get elected just before the country is bankrupt.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
RMorgan

Watch for Tim Pawlenty after April 15, he will be headlining the Boston Tax Day Tea Party Rally that day and his campaign should grow legs from there. I think a Pawlenty/Christie or Pawlenty/Rubio ticket would really work well. We should have some great debates starting this fall. One thing for certain, this next election may be one of the most important in the entire history of our great nation. -GP

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Forgot about Rubio

He would be a good VP candidate and may prove to be more than just a token minority. Carrying Florida is pretty darn important in 2012. Still a stretch for Republicans, but maybe Obama will do something really dangerous or stupid right before the election.

In fact the dumbest thing Obama could do is get into a live unscripted debate with Newt or really any leading Republican. He'll trot out the "I'm to busy running the country" excuse.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Robert

What we need is um, uh, um, a debate without a teleprompter. O is pretty slick with one but without he says some pretty dumb things, like when addressing Joe the plumber. But then again the corrupt lame street media would probably just cut to commercial/power failure/ or anything else they can think of the cover for him. Watch out next fall for a convenient war or possibly a false flag operation, I don't put anything past this bunch. -GP

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Even better a VP debate

Biden vs. Rubio. I believe I would pay money to see that one. Old Uncle Joe against a real live 39 year old up and comer. Classic.

It is hard to believe, but Biden was also one of the youngest Senators when he was first elected 100 years ago.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Debate

I remember when Biden was elected, he and I both had hair back then! A Biden/Rubio matchup would be great. That debate really would be a Big F-ing Deal! Biden reminds me of a cocker spaniel running around the house with a shoe in it's mouth, totally clueless. Sad to think this bunch is in charge. -GP

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Thanks.

For your optimism. Little as it is.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Got to be realistic, dude

In fact it would help if the Republican Party were realistic as well. It is as much their fault for the mess we are in as the mindless libs trying to transform America. Nominating McCain because he is the next old white man in line and then attaching Palin as the Hillary antidote - and expecting to win? Are you kidding me?

And they will probably do it again. Newt being the logical next old white man and Michelle Bachman as the token minority and a nod to the Tea Party. Great. Another loss.

And you need to remember, McCain lost rather than Obama winning. He lost the old-fashioned way - failure to impress the centrists - meaning financially conservative, socially liberal voters. Newt and Michelle can do that as well. Somebody in the Republican Party needs to realize the centrists outnumber the Bible and gun crowd (the bitter clingers as Prezbo likes to call them) at least 5 to 1.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Newt isn't next in line

Mitt is the next old white guy in line for the Republican nomination. And Michelle Bachmann is a nut case. How about Palin/Bachmann? Dumb and dumber.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Bachmann Nut Case?

Care to explain your comment or is this just an exercise in name calling? -GP

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Bachmann

I'm sure JeffC has his own list, but here's mine on why I think Bachmann is a horrible candidate:

-Wants "intelligent design" taught in public schools and discounts evolution as just a theory
-Said Obama was "anti-American" and "holds anti-American views." Then, she apologized for saying that as misspeaking, only to a few weeks later say it again.
-believes the whole "death panel/forced euthanasia" BS that Palin trumpeted during the health care debate
-wants not only a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, but also even "civil unions" or any other legal equivalent
-said that gays target children specifically to recruit and to molest
-is heavily backed by Focus on the Family, a hard-right fundie organization that is 100% about social issues and could care less about conservatism unless it's their own brand
-wanted a constitutional amendment to ban the US from replacing the dollar with a foreign currency....I mean, what the hell? Its already the law that no foreign currency can be recognized
-tried to organize a national boycott of the Census until talked out of it later by Lynn Westmoreland of all people.
-said that Obama's Asia trip would cost over 200million a DAY and that 30+ warships were going with him. Bizarre and totally false
-said she thought Americorp would lead to mandatory servitude to the govt. Her son is a teacher in that program now
-showed she has no clue on American history by stating that John Adams the founding father was totally opposed to slavery when it was actually John Quincy Adams. Thinks Lexington and Concord are in New Hampshire instead of Massachusetts
-has so many similar public "misstatements" that even once-benefactor Palin wouldn't endorse and tout her for a leadership position in the Repub Party.

While Bachmann has some views shared by old-school conservatives and even libertarians, her seeming lack of intellect, bomb-throwing gaffes and fringe thinking along with a hard right-wing fundie stance on social issues makes her very unelectable.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bachman would be just fine Nuk
NUK_1 wrote:

I'm sure JeffC has his own list, but here's mine on why I think Bachmann is a horrible candidate:

-Wants "intelligent design" taught in public schools and discounts evolution as just a theory

Why is teaching both Theory's wrong? Let the parents and students decide which they believe not some educator with an agenda. Do you believe the NEA has no agenda? Really?

NUK_1 wrote:

-Said Obama was "anti-American" and "holds anti-American views." Then, she apologized for saying that as misspeaking, only to a few weeks later say it again.

Obama is Anti-American or at least Anti-Capitalist and hate us as a Colonialist Nation. This is why he has almost broke ties with England.

NUK_1 wrote:

-believes the whole "death panel/forced euthanasia" BS that Palin trumpeted during the health care debate

The "death Panels" have been proven Nuk it is called the "End of Life" counseling not to mention that if Government funds it and the funds are short someone is not going to get that expensive care that "might" prolong their lives.
Remember the Granny speech from Robert Reich? "And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."

NUK_1 wrote:

-wants not only a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, but also even "civil unions" or any other legal equivalent

Most in America feel this way Nuk. America is not a Center Left Country that you think we are. We are a Center Right and most Americans do not want Government to destroy our traditions. If you want true freedom get the Federal Government out of the Marriage business and send it back to the States.

NUK_1 wrote:

-said that gays target children specifically to recruit and to molest

Uhh they don't? Ever heard of MAMBLA?

NUK_1 wrote:

-is heavily backed by Focus on the Family, a hard-right fundie organization that is 100% about social issues and could care less about conservatism unless it's their own brand

I guess being funded by the Open Society groups and Unions are ok?
So a Conservative politician can't have standards or principles they have to be totally free of any group that has a agenda? Does your standard apply to the left as well?

NUK_1 wrote:

-wanted a constitutional amendment to ban the US from replacing the dollar with a foreign currency....I mean, what the hell? Its already the law that no foreign currency can be recognized

So what is your problem with an amendment? George Soros wants the dollar to be replaced with a, as yet un-named,
"Global currency". This administration is tied at the hip with Soros. So her suggestion is merely prudent to head off allowing it. Most of the World are now making such noises. Do want to carry a dollar or an euro?

UN wants new global currency to replace dollar

NUK_1 wrote:

-tried to organize a national boycott of the Census until talked out of it later by Lynn Westmoreland of all people.

Many people had issues with the Census being moved under the purview of the Whitehouse Nuk. A move by the way that was never explained.

NUK_1 wrote:

-said that Obama's Asia trip would cost over 200million a DAY and that 30+ warships were going with him. Bizarre and totally false

The report that she quoted was the same report that the AP picked up and reported. This was her actual Statement: "“We have never seen this sort of an entourage going with the president before,” Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in an interview that aired on Wednesday.

“And I think this is an example of the massive overspending that we’ve seen, not only just in the last two years, really in the last four.”

Note she was commenting on the report from the Britain’s Daily Mail when she was asked to comment. They reported it Nuk not Bachman.

NUK_1 wrote:

-said she thought Americorp would lead to mandatory servitude to the govt. Her son is a teacher in that program now

How old is her son Nuk? Do you have kids? Are they old enough to make up their own minds? Do they always follow your suggestions?

Americorp IS a gateway to Government service. Obama said it was himself. There are now more Union members in Government then all other industries combined.

NUK_1 wrote:

-showed she has no clue on American history by stating that John Adams the founding father was totally opposed to slavery when it was actually John Quincy Adams. Thinks Lexington and Concord are in New Hampshire instead of Massachusetts

I guess Obama's 57 states qualifies him to teach history?

NUK_1 wrote:

-has so many similar public "misstatements" that even once-benefactor Palin wouldn't endorse and tout her for a leadership position in the Repub Party.

Have you ever listened to Joe Biden Nuk?

NUK_1 wrote:

While Bachmann has some views shared by old-school conservatives and even libertarians, her seeming lack of intellect, bomb-throwing gaffes and fringe thinking along with a hard right-wing fundie stance on social issues makes her very unelectable.

Nuk just who in your world would make a good candidate?

I mean just from your little rant here it would have to be:

1. Someone with no ties personal or professional with any group that might be considered even part of any religious entity.

2. So scared of making any statements that might be construed as "unintelligent" as to not be able to speak at all.

3. Have no opinions other that what everyone agrees to. See #2

4. Be a scholar in all subjects and a master of human dialog.

5. Be a man because you do seem to have a problem with just the women of the party.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Why I am not a conservative

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

Recall that this was written in 1960, the slow erosion of individual freedom has continued, the conservative movement has been a big part of its demise.

As I have said before, the dawn of personal freedom and a representative government in the 18th century was without parallel in human history, it is we that have given it up for something much more tyrannical. The tyranny of law itself has become our master and not the protector of our freedoms.

There is little difference in conservatism and socialism; they both stand for principles that erode personal freedom, one by its nature of incrementalism the other by its expressed philosophy.

While conservatives pretend to believe in individual freedom their actions do not match there words, they too would like to change laws to make us slaves.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
PTCOB
PTC Observer wrote:

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

Recall that this was written in 1960, the slow erosion of individual freedom has continued, the conservative movement has been a big part of its demise.

As I have said before, the dawn of personal freedom and a representative government in the 18th century was without parallel in human history, it is we that have given it up for something much more tyrannical. The tyranny of law itself has become our master and not the protector of our freedoms.

There is little difference in conservatism and socialism; they both stand for principles that erode personal freedom, one by its nature of incrementalism the other by its expressed philosophy.

While conservatives pretend to believe in individual freedom their actions do not match there words, they too would like to change laws to make us slaves.

Very interesting. So ....with "little difference between conservatism and socialism" I am guessing you don't vote? FWIW, I am a Libertarian in 99% of my views, but usually I must make a choice between the lesser of two evils. To not vote is a vote for the greater evil, IMO. Curious what your answer is. -GP

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
GP - If

If I find a candidate that I can vote FOR I vote for them. I think I have voted in every election.....sometimes I write in a candidate.

As you know, if you have followed my postings, I am not big on democracy as a form of governance. However, it doesn't mean I don't vote.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
GP: Lee Wrights

For 2012, the Libertarian Party has a very good candidate for Prezbo(unlike last time with Bob Barr...PUKE!)in Lee Wrights, and if you don't like what you see on the Repub side in 2012, I don't think a vote for Wrights is a "wasted" vote at all.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Nuk & Lee Wrights

So how did he get back in the good graces of the LP when he was unceremoniously dismissed in 2009?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Wrights/LP

The LP National Committee reinstated him on appeal 12-0 two months after he was suspended, probably due to the outcry within the LP of how dumb the committee was being as Wrights been a major part of the LP for years. Why did they get mad at him? No one really knows but he's not been hesitant to point out the shortcomings of the LP National Committee in his writings and is believed to have ripped the LP a new one for nominating screwball Bob Barr in 2008.

I think the official reason was he may or may not paid his dues late or something else trivial. Considering his a prolific and articulate voice for the LP and 100% a "true believer," it sure made the LP committee look rather dumb for a few months.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Vey true, PTC Ob

That's also a pretty interesting and persuasive article in your link.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Bachmann's exact quote on Anderson Cooper

"is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day. He's taking two thousand people with him. He'll be renting out over 870 rooms in India. And these are 5-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending, it's a very small example, Anderson."

That has nothing to do with The Daily Mail or any other nonsense excuse.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Bachmann's politics are Center Right?

I don't think so, but I am not surprised that a psuedo-conservative like yourself would embrace them. Any candidate with a heavy fundie background is NOT going to get elected because contrary to what you state, America is NOT a Center Right country and hasn't been for quite a while. People may be sick of the progressive overload right now, but they have been sick of the fundies for even longer.

Do I think the NEA has an agenda? EVERYONE has an agenda! The intelligent design agenda has zero scientific basis and is a farce. There's plenty of evidence of evolution from the very beginning of recorded history. It's not some whack-job opinion with no evidence. America needs to teach faith at home and places of worship, not the public school system.

As far as you stating that the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage/gay civil unions, you're wrong. Poll after poll for a while now has shown the majority in fact does favor either gay marriage or the legal equivalent of gay marriage.

It's already THE LAW that the dollar is the ONLY recognized currency in the USA. The only reason for a redundant constitutional amendment is POLITICS and GRANDSTANDING. I thought conservatives viewed the Constitution as an almost sacred document, not something you add to just for the sake of making your base all happy.

I haven't heard of MAMBLA but have NAMBLA. Considering that the overwhelmingly vast majority of children molested are done by heterosexuals and not homosexuals, further demonization of gays seems to serve only one purpose: firing up the knuckle-dragging fundies and trying to scare their feeble minds some more. NAMBLA might have had a few dozen members at one time that law enforcement constantly hounded not for their actions but for their opinion. I think they are disgusting freaks myself, however, they have a right under the constitution to advocate for changing the law on the age of consent just like anyone else does.

As far as your utter nonsense about me only having a problem with dumb women, maybe you missed the part about TP candidate Joe Miller that I called a bozo? Maybe you missed me calling Haley Barbour terrible? Newt nothing more than a neo-con? Maybe you.....didn't read anything and saw my criticism shared by quite a lot of people on how awful O'Donnell, Palin, Bachmann and Angle are and some how extrapolated it into "he has a problem with women." Talk about being very lazy intellectually and I'd expect that from some "progressive" not someone who claims to be a libertarian yet espouses the same BS as the social conservatives who are the opposite of libertarian thought.

I guess if I state that I cannot stand the policies of Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, and other female progressives that means I hate women?

I don't really care about all the gaffes of Bachmann except it does show her fringe thinking at times. It's her stands on the issues that I have a real problem with, especially the big fundie background that is opposite of what libertarians like myself believe.

I voted for Romney in the Repub primary so any of your goofy assumptions that I some how want a candidate with no religion or religious affiliation is another issue you're totally wrong about. I wonder about your level of reading comprehension and the absurd conclusions you reach based on apparently whatever pre-conceived idea you have. If you don't understand that a group like Focus on the Family is fundie bunch that goes against most of the tenets of libertarianism, you're not paying attention. If you can grasp that the whole Tea Party concept took off because the TP wanted to concentrate on fiscal and NOT social issues whatsoever, you can understand why it became a "force" and can understand how people like Bachmann are seeking to coattail ride on it and who don't share that same opinion at all.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
On this we disagree

You see some nefarious leanings she might have. I see someone who is trying to swim with sharks and not get eaten. I am however curious still who your ideal candidate would be.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
OofU: Ideal candidate

Are you talking about a set of criteria of what would make the most desirable candidate or an actual living person right now? The ideal candidate is unfortunately likely to be way too smart to ever want the job:)

As far as actual human beings, on the R side, the best guy they have is one who will likely never run due to family legacy and that's Jeb Bush. I think he's the best Bush of the family but the US likely has a Bush hangover at this point. He's a leader and a guy who knows how to build a consensus and govern. About the only issue I have disagreed with him on is the Schiavo unpleasantness. He's also a guy that could definitely help the R's with the very growing population of Hispanic voters.

I like Lee Wrights of the LP a lot and have been reading his articles/columns for a long time and he's the real deal.

The 1990's version of Dick Cheney was really good IMO, but then he got some what delusional and caught up 100% in neoconservative philosophy. For a very intelligent man, that still surprises me. I voted for him over W in the Repub primaries.

For the future, Marco Rubio looks like a real star and a guy who could make a serious run. I think it's too early right now for him but he's a real bright sport for the Repubs. Gov. Nikki Haley of SC is another one. If Rand Paul takes some public speaking training, he might be too. Right now, his ideas are solid but he doesn't get them across too effectively and kind of drifts right into his Dad's territory of Zzzzzz if he's not careful. I watched the pretty electrifying victory speech of Rubio that was then followed by Paul's and it was the difference of night and day. A Prezbo or impact politician definitely has to get sometimes complex ideas across very effectively and be a great salesman for his or her agenda. You have to sometimes channel Reagan or at least Bill Clinton.

In GA, I supported Karen Handel's run for Gov and think she has a future. I agree a lot with Lynn Westmoreland on fiscal issues and then he kind of loses me on anything else. Jack Kingston is one of the very few Repubs who tries to strike a healthy balance between big business and the environment and isn't as unyielding or myopic as diehard partisans.

Of the current crop of contenders for the Repub throne, I'm not sure that anyone of them can win but I think if he did win, Romney would be an effective President. Probably more moderate than some would like, but he has the real world experience that would be a refreshing change from an Obama and knows hot to accomplish what he wants. He's also not so partisan that he couldn't get buy-in from non-Repubs and he's certainly not going to embarrass himself or the US with any personal issues or saying something incredibly dumb off the cuff.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Nuk not bad

I still disagree with Bachman only because the Rs are going to run some old blue blood because it's their turn.

We need someone the exact opposite of big O. Smaller Government, fiscally responsible type that will secure our borders and stop nation building.

The ability to not make gaffs is not required by me.

btw- Isn't it great to have a civil disagreement and then discussion without having someone step in and start trying to insult someone?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
OofU

What would be even better is if our discussion wasn't now a one word per column post that's unreadable:)

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Nuk agreed again

This
is
not
really
helpful
at
all

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
NUK

She certainly has had quite a few gaffs but so has Obama(57 states/etc, I can maker a lengthy list if you want). Michelle Bachmann still has a LOT of support in the conservative movement and many share her beliefs. Time will tell if the liberal attack machine can damage her enough to make here unelectable. -GP

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
No GP

She's already unelectable. The liberal machine will not have to attack her. If she runs, she will self destruct like Palin did because she's to lazy to study the issues, just like Palin. Her Republican opponents will finish her off before the Democrats get a chance. Then the FOX viewers will have to endure her incessant whining about how everybody attacks her because she's a woman and not because of her frightening ignorance. Again, just like Palin.

Here's some of what Mike Murphy, Republican political advisor to Mitt Romney, John McCain, Jeb Bush, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Spencer Abraham, Christie Whitman, Lamar Alexander, and Arnold Schwarzenegger said about her in Time magazine last month:

"Michele Bachmann is now threatening us with the idea of exploring a Presidential race..."

"The press will be delighted, with a new gaff-prone carnival candidacy to snicker at."

"...the vital swing voters who will decide the 2012 election will look at Michele Bachmann on the campaign trail and howl like villagers getting their first torch-lit glimpse of Frankenstein's monster. They will stampede quickly in the opposite direction, away from the GOP."

"...the election will not in any way be about the tiny sliver of voters that a Bachmann for President campaign would appeal to."

"Michele Bachmann makes Sarah Palin look like Count Metternich."

If she ever looks up the reference to see who Count Metternich was, she's going to feel she was insulted. And it wasn't by a liberal.

Go ahead and nominate her.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff you are correct the old blue blood party

will slit her wrist and bleed her if she gets in.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Bachmann

It's a long way from the primary, not sure who I will get behind. Whoever it is I am sure they can do no worse than the current organizer in chief http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administra... -GP

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
GP

Libya will be small change. The biggest ever October Surprise is coming in September. The UN is scheduled to recognize Palestine as a state. Obama better buy some more tap shoes for that.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Dancing to

he jumped so high, he jumped so high, ...then he lightly touched down....Mr. O-jangles, ...daanncce. You are correct Jeff. Israel's only friend in the world won't return calls, remember the Bibi snub? Remember O's Cairo speech, the one calling Islam "a religion of peace"? Well, as some down through history have learned, apologizing is seen as weakness. All of the Arab world is emboldened by the apologizer in chief and the united nations is preparing to sell out Israel,.... where is that valley of Armagedon located? -GP

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Patriot

Since there seems to be no republican candidate worth voting for, why don't you work for one of the good democrat candidates against the President?

That way you wouldn't look like a "yellow Dog" republican working and votng for Palin or Bachmann or Paul or Huckleberry!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Hey roundabout

In celebration of your return to the boards, I made ribs, and covered them with a sauce, and drank beer while making them. I figure if I can harden enough arteries, we might have a meeting of the minds...... Naw, even senile I couldn't agree with you.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
hutch

What do you mean, "return to the boards?"

I took off a few days and discovered that I never missed anything on here!
Is that what you mean?

I saw while I was gone that some women were recognized by their picture in the paper for good works! It is a good thing because I can't remember anyone on here who should be recognized.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Hutch

I'm very ford of ribs, sauce, and that other stuff you mentioned. And I'm an interesting dinner guest...

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Didn't say

there wasn't one worth voting for, just said I wasn't going to tell you. Sorta like not grinning when you hit that inside straight. -GP

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Nuk_1 - Bachmann

Thanks for the short list, now that's an analysis. I don't know if it is all true, but even if one or two are that's enough.

Let's be honest here, the Republicans have no candidate to field in the next election. That's why we have so many running (or not running, running). Stick a fork in them, they are done in 2012 for President, they are in a self-destruct mode.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Mitt, Newt, whatever. Same result

Ok, so make the next old white guy in line Mitt Romney. He'll get about the same number of votes as Gingrich would - 40% at most and Prezbo starts working on his next 4 years of really screwing things up. These clowns all get emboldened in their second term. Yes, that includes Bush and Reagan.

I don't think Romney would even win in Massachusetts.

I think the Republicans should shy away from women candidates like Bachman and Palin and concentrate on the new minorities - maybe Rubio or Jindal. And by that I mean for 2016.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
RMorgan

Bobby Jindal has great ideas but has the stage presence of a turnip. Marco Rubio and Chris Cristie can speak and chew bubblegum at the same time. The left-wing media is chomping at the bit to attack the republican nominee, let them demonize Newt and Mitt, we need to be patient and let this thing sort out. The nominee most likely will not be part of the old guard. -GP

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
I get it - let them attack the Mormon and the adulterer all year

then at the last minute Christie emerges and says - Gee whiz, the country is bankrupt thanks to Obama and his socialists, so me and my token VP will ride to the rescue. This of course happens after he saves New Jersey, where all the lower-rung NY media people live, so they can't attack him over that. Can they?

Like that?

In 2012? Might work. He'd carry New Jersey, maybe New York, certainly Florida. Maybe even California will wise up to the liberals that busted them and vote for a Christie fix.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Like Dropping Chaff

at least that's what I think the fly boys called it, not sure, I was a ground pounder. Whoever to R nominee is better don his flak jacket and cast iron underwear, you know the left wing media will be in full attack mode. -GP

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Jeff

Gingrich is as close to being next in line as the chance any of the 'probables' of the GOP have to winning in 2012 against an individual who has done more to unite his party since Reagan. The problem is that there is not one individual other than perhaps Hillary who can unseat him despite all the issues that can be used against him.

I wonder if Secretary Clinton runs, would Hannity restart the "Defeat Hillary Express"? An unlikely scenario, but interesting.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mike K.

Mr. Gingrich will not be selected or elected.

For one simple reason, money.

He doesn't have enough and can't raise it.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Newt

Besides money, he also has consistently high negative polling from independents and of course is despised by the left and would certainly energize even some of the lazier Dems to maybe show up on election day. His "I committed adultery out of the love of his country" nonsense certainly isn't going to help and the fact that over time he went from being an intelligent conservative into another frothing at the mouth neo-con sure doesn't either. He's totally on the wrong side of the Libya attack, but neo-cons love sending troops all over and regime change.

The one guy the Repubs have that can raise money and has a lot himself is Romney, but he's been really "flexible" on every major issue he's ever faced and that can be perceived as a lack of principles. Since he's a Mormon, part of the Repub base that are intolerant fundies(the faction that hates gays and worships Huckabe) would never think of voting for him.

Huckabee? Can't raise money and isn't electable at all with his neo-theocracy BS. Doubt he runs.
Palin? Beyond damaged goods and simply kind of dumb. Doubt she runs.
Bachman? Will be the same as Palin once people start paying attention to what she says. A real glory-hound too. Definitely running.
Ron Paul? It will never happen for a guy who comes across as the grumpiest and angriest dude out there, no matter what his ideas are.
Trump? Joke.
Pawlenty? He might get some momentum going and seize the opportunity.
Guiliani? Needs to forget it.
Barbour? Please, NO. Terrible. All kinds of skeletons related to racial issues in his closet to go along with the fact that there's no way in hell a Gov from Mississippi is going to win the highest office in the land.

Not a real inspiring field and the idea from some that "anyone can beat Obama" is a new standard in total ignorance and separation from reality.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Nuk_1 You've

summed it up very well.....get ready for 4 more years of Mr. Obama and his socialist agenda.

Now, speaking of Congress......

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - I expected

I expected better from you than this.....I suspect you didn't learn this from your father.

We shall wait for the return of our rights and the demise of the poltical parties, Mr. Carter. The only hope for mankind.....freedom.

Recent Comments