Haley Barbour Opts Out

252 replies [Last post]
JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006

With Haley Barbour out, the possible list of Republican Presidential candidates got even weaker if that's possible.

Michele Bachmann - She couldn't get a leadership in the TEA Congress and they know her best. No reason to think the broader Republican Party will consider her a serious contender and she won't be.

Haley Barbour - Out.

Herman Cain - Please let him run on the FairTax!

Mitch Daniels - Possible contender if he can get any press. The religious right doesn't like him.

Newt Gingrich - He had extramarital affairs because he loved his country so much? The Dems are probably okay with running against that.

Mike Huckabee - Nice guy but the election is not going to be about abortion and gay marriages.

Jon M. Huntsman - He and Romney are the only ones really qualified. He and Newt are the only two who have a clue about foreign policy (which will not matter in the Republican primaries). Too bad he worked for Obama and is therefore unelectable in the primaries.

Sarah Palin - She quit the governorship of Alaska to chase the money and she's making tons of it now. She is not going to run. Besides, how many people voted for Obama because they were horrified by the thought of Palin as VP? She may have elected Obama last time. If she runs and wins the nomination, she'll elect him twice.

Ron Paul - Didn't he run last time and get 2%?

Tim Pawlenty - Possible contender in the minds of the TEA Party people. Kinda dull with a squeaky voice and less than 300 people attended his Tax Day Rally in Boston while over 3000 showed up for Palin last year. Like Daniels, his only hope is to attack Trump and try to get some press and recognition.

Mitt Romney - Next in line and the probable nominee.

Rick Santorum - Already peaked at 4%.

Donald J. Trump - You've got to love this guy if you're a Democrat! Watching him suck up all the newsprint with his clown act of birther nonsense and "I'm way richer than Mitt" spiel is a delight. Wouldn't it be funny if he actually ran?!

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
And for OOU

Alan West - The Republicans are not going to nominate a black guy. No chance as the nominee but maybe a slim chance at the VP spot.

The bottom line is that most of the serious contenders look at the race and see Obama winning and are deciding to wait for 2016.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Huck's out and The Donald fired himself

Huckabee has decided not to run. Trump peremptorily fired himself, depriving the American people of that pleasure. Now we'll never get to see Obama's college transcripts.

The Wall Street Journal is claiming that Mitt Romney should run as Obama's Vice President. Ouch!

And what's up with Hugh Hewitt calling for the RNC to take over the operation of the debates and exile Cain, Johnson, and Paul because they are not serious candidates? Aren't all of the Republican candidates vetted by FOX beforehand? Did Hugh not get the long form of the memo?

Newt endorsed the individual mandate for healthcare last week and what about the love-seat ad with Nancy Pelosi about climate change? Newt has been influenced by the scientific evidence on climate change which pretty much prevents him from being nominated.

Rick Santorum? Have you ever Googled "santorum"?

John Huntsman served his country as an ambassador during the Obama administration, thus disqualifying himself.

Mitch Daniels called for a truce on social issues and lost half of the primaries before he's even announced.

It's looking like the only two possibly acceptable candidates are Pawlenty and Bachmann. Since the Republican primaries are winner take all, it's going to be extremely difficult for any late entries after the Republicans wake up and the panic sets in.

Well, what is there to say but "thanks, we appreciate it!"

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Jeff C & JON Huntsman, Jr.

Should he decide to run, I think he will be a formidable oponnent for anyone.

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

Huntsman.

Why did he serve under President Obama as the Chinese Ambassador? The man he now wants to apparently run against. Is he confused or am I?

Huntsman has also proven as Governor of Utah that he has no taste for controlling spending, but he does cut taxes. Sounds a lot like President G.W. Bush, another good Republican.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
PTC-O & Question about Huntsman

First, he knew he was eminently qualified and next, one rarely says "NO" when asked by the POTUS to serve, regardless of party. I do blv that when he was Gov, Utah was named as one of the most efficiently run states. We'll see--he just may not be willing to commit. Got big family to consider.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Well PTCO

That's only a problem because of the hyper-partisanship now prevalent in politics. Think of it as Huntsman having served his country while Obama was President.

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

My problem with Huntsman is that he was positioning for a run while he was working for the President. Am I the only one that see a problem in a person that was (is) disloyal to the President and by extension the country? You can't serve and run against the person you are serving, it is dishonest at best.

Now if he had resigned and then started his positioning for a run, I would have thought better of him.

This is not my only problem with him, he also increased spending in Utah 10% per year while he was Governor of Utah. Not a very appealing record for me to vote for in the next election.

Alas, I don't think there will be much for me in the next Presidential election. At least I am not seeing it now.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
PTC-O & Huntsman

Don't recall him doing any "positioning" prior to his resignation. And yes, lhe did increase spending when he was Gov--but some would applaud some of it, like the 18% icrease in Education in 2007. Of course, like all possible candidates, past performance is no guarantee of the future, only a record of the past, usually without attendant circumstances.

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

been running for President since he took the job in China. Even Obama knew this and tried to take him out of the 2012 election cycle. Did it work? Time will tell.

See Page 2

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/11/15/mr-huntsman-goes-to-beijing.html

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Pawlenty's in PTCO

He's blown Iowa though, coming out against ethanol subsidies. On the other hand, coming out against ethanol subsidies gives him an excuse for doing poorly there.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Pawlenty's peculiar idiosyncrasy

TPow has a very peculiar idiosyncrasy that I suspect makes the writers at Saturday Night Live drool in anticipation should he get the Rethuglican nomination:

He attempts to mimic local dialects.

In Pennsylvania, he puts a German/Amish pronounciation on his words. In the south, he speaks "fluent Magnolia". His advisors told him to knock it off, but he can't seem to help it.

So now the Repub field is set:

Gingrich
Pawlenty
Romney
Huntsman

A four horse race.

Should be fun.

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

Does he have more money than Mr. Obama's campaign?

If not his entry is meaningless.

Remember the one with the most money wins it all!!

It's not like it was when your dad ran for President, back then it was all about poltical connections and back room deals.

Now it's all about money to gain TV exposure, hire campaign workers, and grooming the image through use of candidate control (teleprompters, staging, grandstanding for commerical content, etc.) All this costs a lot of money.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Huntsmania!!

Well, Jon Huntsman made his first political appearance in New Hampshire today. He got tons of fawning positive press from the lamestream media, and he's evidently the flavor of the month with the beltway insiders. Lots of gush: "look how civil he is!" "How articulate!" "A foreign policy breath of fresh air" etc etc etc.

The one skunk at this garden party: Fox News. "He SERVED Obama!" "Many Obama supporters say they might vote for him...that's ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW!"

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jon Huntsman and Nikki Haley

A pair that will be hard to beat.

Looks like he is exploring it and just met with Haley.

Could be the democrats worse nightmare and the Republicans only chance.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Huntsman and Haley

That would be an interesting combination, but I'm not so sure once Huntsman is better known that he'll have as much support as some might think. He's as much a moderate as Romney but without some of the flip-flops, but also without anywhere close to the money or campaign organization that Romney already has in place and the boots on the ground. His moderate views and basically non-practicing Mormonism would have some appeal with independent voters, as would his willingness to work across party lines. Not a bad candidate at all.

Haley would run into the "Christianity" question that she did when she ran for Gov since she attends both Christian and Sikh church services. That wasn't a stumbling block in very conservative SC, but I can see it being an issue nationally, along with the couple of Repub kooks who claim they had affairs with her providing plent of distracting fodder for the media to droll over. Like Marco Rubio, she probably needs the experience in office instead of bigger plans at this moment since just being elected last November.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Nuk: Huntsman and Haley

Agree with your cmts about both.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Wrong about the nightmare OOU

Either the D or the R nominee is going to be President. The D's worst nightmare would be some of the other Rs like Bachmann or Palin, which would be catastrophic for the country.

Huntsman isn't an extremist.

Which probably means he can't get the nomination.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Huntsman & Haley (she's HOT)...

until we find out the rumors of her shagging that guy in SC are true. Gee, another "family VALUES" Repug bites the dust. Sound familiar? See where the Repug money people are looking for a savior? The Teabaggers are PO'd the money people are not rallying around Christine O'Donnell, I meant Michelle Bachmann. Daddy Bush is banging his head and crying...Why 1994. Why 1994? At least Herman Cain is all IN.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Ok Jeff, let's go with P&B. No it is not a sandwich

Pawlenty and Bachman would make a good pair, although the same state thing could be a problem. I think Pawlenty promises Bachman Secretary of State if she backs off (sound familiar?) and then goes with Cain as his running mate. Good old Herman is wonderful, but not electable as a President, so why not get him in the back door, so to speak. Sound plausible?

More to the point - does it sound electable?

Even more to the point, why do these Republcans keep shooting themselves in the foot?

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Same State Prez & VP

Isn't that a problem? Didn't Changy have to move outta TX & back to WYO because he & Duby couldn't be from the same state? .

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Same state least of the Republican problems

Time to start concentrating on taking over the Senate because Prezbo is going to get reelected if the Republicans keep acting like a disorganized bunch of fools. Trump, Huckabee, no problem with them dropping out, but Gingrich dissing Ryan (clearly the smartest one in the room) won't help him. Bachman really is nuts and the further she goes, the Dems have something to ridicule the Tea Party with. There is really no one inspiring in the whole bunch except Cain and he's not getting farther than VP.

If they do the expected and nominate the next old white guy in line, it will be Romney. He can spice it up a little by selecting Cain as VP, but he'll look to the next young white guy in line - Pawlenty. No way that beats Prezbo. I still look to him ditching Biden and getting Clinton as VP.

Don't see much hope for Obama's ouster - so richly deserved - in 2012.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Morgan: Bad guesses!

Ryan proposed a known failure as a budget balance! Dumb and impossible stuff.

Bachman is typical TEA philosophy and a nit! Agreed. Why hasn't she been told to sit down?

Romney won't even totally disavow his state' health plan---a pure necessity to be nominated. I can't imagine him being nominated at convention with all his screwey ideas, and he looks like a fake when speaking!

I domn't know what a Pawlenty Is. I know what Santorum is.

Why did you leave out Paul, or Paul Jr.? Good as the rest.

Do you really think President Obama would dump VP Biden and ask Secretary Clinton to run as VP? If Clinton runs it will be for President, but she can't get that nomination this time.

Why does President Obama "so richly deserved" ouster seem like something that should happen? Other than your prejudice of course.

There are people in the Republican Party who could make a decent showing at the election.
I don't know why none have stepped forward unless not getting defeated is more important to them than helping the party!

Too bad Aurrnold or Sarah burned their bridges, huh?

Haley Barbor might have gotten 20% of the vote (from a cluster of states on the red-nek riviera)

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
roundabouta$

Doesn't matter if Aurrnold burned his bridges or not, he can't be President.

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

Well if a Kenyan or an Asian born person can make it, why not old muscles?

We just want the best! (many of those dudes who wrote the Constitution weren't born American citizens.) Seems like just something to keep the blacks and the British out, to me.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
roundabouta$

You tell me, which Asian and Kenyan were Presidents?

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

I thought you were demading Obama's BC before! (he is both) Some said Kenya---some said somewhere in Asia! Was it Indonesia?. (If I am mistaken about you wanting another BC, I apologize.

Haven't heard that complaint now for awhile!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
roundabouta$

Well ain't you just a lying SOB, first off I wasn't "demading" anything, but you go ahead and show where I said that, otherwise, I have no choice but to call you a liar, of course it's not the first time you've lied.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
RomneyCare is not a disqualification

The other Tea Party candidates rip Romney but split the vote. The Republican primaries are winner take all this time. We'll know in March.

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

It would baffle me if the republicans suddenly said Romney care was OK, but Obamacare is the end of the world a we know it!

The TEAS are insignificant to Obama. They will nearly all vote republican in either case.

By the way, there i no way to pay any of the debt right now from a budget.
We won't even be able to pay for the budget his time, much less some on the debt! The debt limit will be raised---the final argument may be on the amount only.

The only people of significance who will be hurt some by not extending Bush's corporate and high income temporary tax cut are mostly businesses under 200 employees--maybe 3-400.
Even that is no where near enough to make the budget, much less pay on the debt.

My suggestion for them in congress is to book it as the wars have been booked---off the books until we find some income.

It may be time for a tariff war, or another large real war----off the books. Frankly, I think we could fight the whole middle-east about as cheaply as the 2-3 we now have, plus supporting others.

Let' sell Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, California, and the two Dakotas and Minnesota?

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Problem w/ Repugs

The Repugs have doomed themselves by becoming a 1 issue party. Lee Atwater from the grave has written their obit. I can name 100 good past Republicans that could not secure their party's nomination. I can start w/ Nixon, who for all his exposed faults, was the most qualified & should have had a very successful term. Not able to secure the nomination today even though he created the 'Southern Strategy' I am guessing only a Goldwater and of course sAIN'T RAYguns. That's it. Not Mitt, or his Daddy, or a Rockyfeller, a Lindsey or a McCain. Not a Daddy Bush or his daddy Prescott who helped Planned Parenthood. Even RAYgun understood about having a big tent. It is very crowded in that pup tent the Teabaggars have pitched & we ain't even got to that religious right that didn't go "pooph" today.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Yep the ECONOMY is now so passe

Don't worry about it blad it don't mean nutin.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Morgan and P&B

I think the B part is too much of a loose cannon for the P to swallow. Now I do like Herman a lot.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Bachmann has no qualifications

If Bachmann is selected, the Dems will do to her what they did to Palin and for the same reason. She has no qualifications.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
She has more than Obama did jeff

and he got elected.

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
More qualifications than obama had?

A plastic plant had more qualifications than him.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well Ok that's true Max

At least a potted plant doesn't cost you $4 Trillion dollars to maintain it.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, actually the country

OofU, actually the country got off cheap. It only cost 4 trillion dollars to keep the US economy from completely imploding under the negligent stewardship of the Republican administration that preceded this one.

Next time the Republicans get into White House, it will probably cost two or three times more than that.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Huh? you really believe that?

That opinion is not consistent with the facts. The White House does not initiate spending - that would be Congress which was controlled by Dems (both houses) during the time the money was spent/wasted. You really need to read more.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Morgan, I know what I saw

Morgan, I know what I saw with my own eyes. When the sub-prime bubble burst it was President Bush that initiated the meetings between the House and Senate that led to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

The sub-prime bubble had to be created before it could burst and that bubble was created when the Republicans had the White House, a solid majority in the House, and majority control of the Senate during most of that time.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort you need some glasses

to see with your own eyes. The sub-prime bubble burst because Barney Franks and Chris Dodd scared, threatened and coerced banks into making risky loans and then told the banks don't worry the Gov will back them.

Get the facts gort.

Democrat fingerprints are all over the financial crisis
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic...

"What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the world's banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers. Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush – and other Republicans – to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd"

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, I’ll put on my glasses,

OofU, I’ll put on my glasses, 8 - ) , if you take off your blindfold, | - )

The decline started in Oct 2007 and hit bottom in Feb 2009. The market hit the canvas long before “Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” became law in 2010.

When the law was being debated the banking lobby pressured the political process to water down the legislation so badly, what is left doesn’t even come close to the safeguards provided by “Taft-Hartley.”

As a practical matter, the markets have been climbing higher and higher since “Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” became law in 2010. I’m not saying it’s the cause but it does demonstrate that the economy is not suffering because of it.

It does prove that the “Banksters” are not afraid of it, the casinos are still open, and the reason they want to kill what little legislation that is left is because they can never quite satisfy their lust for money.

The economy is vulnerable. Not from too much legislation, but from too little. And “That is a fact!”

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Really? Carter, Clinton, Schumer, Dodd, Frank are Republicans?

Really? Methinks you need to start with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (let's see, who was President then?) and see how that was tweaked and by whom - especially in the 1990's and as recently as 2005 tweaking during which Barney Frank assured us Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac were in great shape.

Correct you are - before the bubble can burst, the bubble had to be created. And this one created out of a sense of "fairness" not any pressing need other that to prevent banks from protecting their loan portfolio by redlining (meaning not lending in) neighborhoods that had a poor payback history. The Jesse Jackson's of the world made that seem racist and the always eager to pander Democrats came to the rescue and created the bubble. And yes it burst in 2007 when a Republican was President and the leading legislators were Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Morgan, really, go back to

Morgan, really, go back to 1977? Why?

Is their something in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that said it was okay to make loans to people that couldn’t afford them, sell those suspect loans as “good loans” to some other outfit that bundles them into a package, pays a rating agency to give them a good rating, allowing them to be sold to investors all over the world as a premium asset? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

If you're telling me someone lied to Barney Frank about the financial position of Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac then I would tend to agree with you. Who do you think lied to him? The management of Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac. Perhaps the independent auditors? Or maybe in 2005 nobody knew how far up shits creek we were yet.

The decline started in Oct 2007 and didn’t hit bottom in Feb 2009.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Well now Trog, you have a backwards way of looking at things

Ok, I mean Gort. Yes, little man. there was plenty in the CRA of 1977 and all the revisions that led to exactly the horrible results to which you are alluding. Nobody had to lie to Barney Frank, unless someone did lay/lied/laid with Barney Frank, possibly his gay lover who worked for Fannie Mae during the time in question.

Think you have a history impairment and I wish you the best, but my God how on God's green earth do you think this stuff happens without enabalers in Congress over a very long period of time.

Do you really think this just happened one day in 2007 without any warning or without any buildup? Huh?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Morgan, you asked me a few

Morgan, you asked me a few questions and I gave you a few answers. If you don’t agree with my answers, that’s fine with me but why the name calling? If you think I’m “backwards looking,” with a, “history impairment,” then don’t ask me any questions and you won’t be disappointed. Besides, “backwards looking,?” You’re the guy that wants to go all the way back to 1977.

Now, moving right along, the enablers of the sub-prime mortgages crisis were all the people involved in the loan process from Main Street to Wall Street! Starting with the loan application all the way to the selling of bundled assets, they failed to properly perform "due diligence.” We lived in an era when professional bankers conveniently forgot how to make a mortgage loan. The big quarterly bonuses were good while the euphoria lasted and like all “Ponzi schemes,” if you could get out early you don’t get hurt.

I’m not quite sure what to make of your “Barney Frank gay lover rant” from your last post but I’ll offer you this advice. If you’re harboring a deep emotional resentment toward Barney Frank’s gay lover, I recommend you two get together and resolve the problem between yourselves in private.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
No Gort you are incorrect- let's talk debt.

The $4 Trillion was just bailing out the water. The ship is still sinking.
Once the pumps run out of power(money)we will still sink. It is however much more than the $4 Trillion it is actually closer to $14 trillion with an additional $10 Trillion of deficit spending for the next 10 years.

Raising our Debt to GDP closer to 90% by 2020. Bush didn't just spend more than Washington to Reagan combined Gort that was Obama.

Here are some facts you need to know:

"When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion."
"Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush."npr.org

Now that includes spending AFTER 9-11, two WARS and a RECESSION.

1. Bush doubled the National debt in 8 years. An increase of $5.768 TRILLION over 8 years.

2. Obama has increased the National debt by $3.445 Trillion plus an additional $265 Billion in Stimulus funds spent in 09. Bringing his total up to just under $4 Trillion in just 2 years and 5 months.

Not to mention that his budget forecast Trillion dollar deficits for the next 10 years.

So let's recap. Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Obama spent and still spending like Nancy Pelosi at a Plastic Surgeons office.

So all in all Obama the Saviour of the Universe reminds me more of George of Jungle.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Both enabled by Democrat co-conspirators in Congress

Obama, I can easily understand. He's a tax and spender all the way. But Bush? Why in the world he didn't veto some of those spending bills or at the very least have his minority leadership exert some influence over the irresponsible and out of control spending proposed by the Dems. Don't know why, but the fact remains - he did not. Makes him as bad as Obama, although Obama certainly has secured first place by any measure.

Now we have to wait for President Bachmann or President Daniels to undo 12 years of irresponsible spending. Not sure either is up to the task. This going to be a little like asking a heroin addict to just cut his consumption in half for the good of the county. At least he or she will have a majority in both the House and Senate.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Sending a fruitcake to Santa Claus!

Dreamer, dreamer keep it up!

I'm sure Bachman-Newt, or Daniels-Palin could balance the budget and pay off the debt in four years! Just take 30% sales taxes from middle income and poor people. Palin's stupid "books" could fund the rich people OK.

T-Man
T-Man's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/16/2006
OOU while blaming this and that

What was the cost to save this country from total financial meltdown in the last 2 years?

The cost for health Care?

We can blame Dem's and who ever we want but the fact still remains, divided we fall. Picking a Rep or a Dem does not solve our problems. We need to pick the best person for the job.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Tman delaying tactics does not change the future

no matter how much money you want to throw at it, the problem is spending. That hasn't changed one bit. The $4 trillion we just wasted is just that wasted and yet the problem still exist doesn't?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
The problem Oou

Is a concerted effort to make sure this president is not elected for a second term - and this effort has been an obstacle to the recovery from a failed previous administration. No matter how Oou and co horts try to paint Obama as incompetent, weak, unqualified , - the American people, regardless of their ideologies are seeing through this 'smokescreen'. Now the American people want their leadership to work together for a recovery.

By the way Oou, I want to see a leader in the White House who works for all Americans. Under our present form of government I have the right to cast a secret ballot to indicate my preference. In past elections, the Communist Party had a candidate on the ballot. That person was not my preference, nor the preference of the American people.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Another Kumbayah moment brought to you by Dmom

Yes we need to all get along, go along, work together yada, yada, yada.

All well and fine unless the view and course a certain group of people is to establish a Socialist form of Government by re-distribution of wealth and Government taking over businesses then quiet frankly working towards that goal is not in my future.

To be able to work together we must have a common goal, a common purpose. We do not.

You are right the American people are seeing through that smokescreen:
"Gallup poll shows Obama's post-Bin Laden numbers fading"

"The rosy glow that helped boost President Obama's approval ratings after terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was killed in a U.S. raid in Pakistan has already faded, according to the Gallup Daily tracking poll.

As of May 13, Obama's approval rating was at 46%, the same number he had in the three days before the raid on Bin Laden's hideaway at the beginning of the month. The president had received a six-point bump as measured in the Gallup poll after the death of Bin Laden."

Fastest bump drop ever. Yep the American people are smarter then you realize.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Bump drop? Methinks another is coming real soon

After yesterday's disaster of a speech which probably drove away all 5 million Jewish voters (yes they vote mostly Democrat for some reason) and some Gentiles who were clinging to the possibility that the President knew what he was doing - lot's of voters getting off the bandwagon. Even heard a rumor that Davids Mom is calling a press conference today to come out for the Mormon.

It is very complicated, but Glenn Beck, of all people, explained the situation with his charts and maps better than anyone else (including every President back to Nixon and Carter) ever has. Love him or hate him, Beck has a better staff than the President. And on his good days a better presentation. Odd that an ex-alcoholic, ex-CNN newsreader, talk radio host makes more sense than our President - and the Republican wannabe's.

What I still don't understand is why the urgency to pander to the Palestinians? I mean usually you just follow the money (or the votes) but that doesn't seem to lead anywhere. I understand Hispandering for hispanic votes in the US, but the Palestinians? Doesn't make sense.

Angry Taxpayer
Angry Taxpayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/05/2008
RWM - Still, Follow the Money

You're right to wonder about following the money. The Hispandering for votes is obvious, but I wonder if the "Palestpandering" has anything to do with the rumors in 2008 about the multitude of small dollar credit card contributions Obama received that traced back to Saudi Arabia.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Makes sense, Angry. Then you have to wonder why

the Saudis would want to help elect Obama. Oh yea, they don't like Israel either. Manchurian Candidate time.

Does he not have any advisors around him that know any history or anything?
I think the guy is totally out of control and acting like the Dems did last year when they knew they were losing power in the House and tried to cram every silly socialist wet dream into law before they were tossed aside. I really hope some of the Republican candidates grow a pair and take on Prezbo directly for his Palestpandering. Awkward word, that.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Republicans

Where is non- cooperation getting you? What have you accomplished by allowing an extremist group dictate your vision of America? Why can't you get credible people to run for president in 2012? What is wrong with seeking 'peace' ? The platform of eradicating all entitlements; no immigrant work program; eliminating choice for women's control of their reproductive organs; returning to 2008; etc., etc., etc. I realize that this is not what all Republicans stand for, but the unreasonable, uncooperative section of your party has a louder voice. We Americans had better wake up and come to some Kumbaya moments soon. The only 'poll' that counts is the 'vote' in 2012, and many in your party have conceded that Obama will be re-elected. Now we're watching Ryan squirm at Townhall meetings as members of your party feel his 'budget ' plan stinks. There is room for compromise - and the American people at the grassroots level are not seeing a public' attempt at compromise. Politics as usual is a loser for some Republicans - there were / are many solid concerns of the Tea Party - but the extremists picked up the ball and ran with it. The American people are hurting across the board, but they're not stupid. Old stereotypes and predjudices used as vote getters and distractions are dead. Dems and Repubs better look for some Kumbaya/compromise moments - or they will be unemployed after the 2012 election. We don't have to take to the streets - the ballot box will do.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, yikes! 14 trillion

OofU, yikes! 14 trillion dollars! It’s worst than I thought but for the sake of harmony; I will use your number and revise my statement:

Quote:

Revised just for OofU,

... actually the country got off cheap. It only cost 14 trillion dollars to keep the US economy from completely imploding under the negligent stewardship of the Republican administration that preceded this one.
Next time the Republicans get into White House, it will probably cost two or three times more than that.

You feel better now? I hope so.

BTW, cool little avatar you got there, it looks like President Obama holding an assault rifle. Do you sell those at Teaparty events? That’s cool with me. Do you import them from China or did the Huntsman plastic people have them made up for you? Or both?

BTW 2, Did you like that ass whipping President Obama gave Donald Trump? Old Donald got a taste of what it’s like to be the apprentice, eh? Anyway, I know I enjoyed it.

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

trillion here a trillion there, pretty soon your talking real money!

Thanks to the late Senator Everet Dirkson for this one, but he was talking billions.

Gort, the problem with the massive debt is that we could see an a collapes anyway and likely it will be a sudden drop in the value of the US currency, no slippery slope this time. More like a jump from a cliff.

Unless and until we begin to control our spending habits, I am afraid we are all in for a very, very bad time here in the US. The rest of the world is simply waiting for us to fall flat on our faces and they are all talking about selling dollars in favor of other assets, like gold, etc.

The world economy is very sick, very sick indeed.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I understand what a

PTC_0, I understand what a “trillion” dollars is, I understand what 14 trillion dollars is over 10 years, and I also understand how and who got us into debt.

Your side says the government got plenty of money to give to millionaires and we can give the millionaires even more if we reduce services to its citizens.

Just this week your side demonstrated this when they voted to continue tax subsidies to the most profitable business industry in the US, (BTW, adding even more to the debt.)

We all know something has to be done about the debt. All we are doing in the political process is fighting over who is going to pay for it.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - My side?

What side is that Gort?

Please, please, please don't call me a conservative Republican.

On getting things in balance, I would propose for every $4 dollars in spending cuts, we have a $1 dollar tax increase.

BTW, there are enough millionaires to help us balance the budget and/or reduce the debt.

So, as a Radical I can tell you I would simply dismantle the government department by department. However, I realize that this may not be a very popular process with the public sector crowd.

I am glad you can understand a trillon but I can't conceive it myself. I do understand who got us there.....the US Congress and the President of thre United States.

Brace yourself for the fall Gort.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, for some reason I

PTC_0, for some reason I thought you were an advocate of the “Paul Ryan” budget plan that passed the Republican House. If I’m in error, please accept my apology. On the other hand, if you do support it, to me, you’re just another “pesky conservative Republican,” with an asterisk next to your name for your particular nuance on the subject. 8 - )

I’ll accept your,

Quote:

“… proposal for “every $4 dollars in spending cuts, we have a $1 dollar tax increase.

But only if you accept my terms, okay! 8 - D

I would certainly like to eliminate waste and duplication in all levels of government but to just systematically ‘dismantle all government departments,’ just the sake of it sounds more like ‘wholesale negligence’ rather than a “radical solution” to me.

Besides we already tried “wholesale negligence” in the eight years of the Bush administration. One would think people would have had a belly full of that by now.

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

I am certainly not a Republican, although they talk a good game on fiscal issues they have never actually done much of what they preach. They continue to spend us into a very deep hole. As for the Democrats they are certainly right on some social issues but then they take the idea of government off the scale and want it to run our lives, make every decision, and steal our freedoms. The Republicans being cowards simply perpetuate what the Democrats create. Both parties are conservative in that they don't want anything to change, let's just keep everything pretty much the way it is.

As to wholesale negligence both parties are guilty of this. All of our elected representatives are guilty of keeping things just the way they are and it's a disaster. We are in for a very big fall because of these people.

Yes, I would dismantle the government department by department. I think we can all agree that we need government. I just don't happen to believe we need the type of government we have today. We need a small government that is empowered to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. Any department that provides this service has a "right" to exist. Otherwise we should get rid of it, wholesale.

I am not a fan of Bush the I, Bush the II, Clinton, Carter, Obama, or Reagan. But I am really not a fan of the US Congress and its spending habits, its corruption, its let's get re-elected at any cost philosophy.

As for Paul Ryan, I don't know much about his budget proposal, but in my world it likely doesn't go far enough. It is likely just a game to get more Republicans elected so they can do nothing at all when in power.

I think Edward R. Murrow said it best:

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, well that’s the rub

PTC_0, well that’s the rub buddy. Politics is a form of war, (at least the way we do it in “The Citizen.”) You got to choose a side. If you think the “Republican’s talk a good game,” that makes you a sympathizer. Sorry, I got to put you in the column with the other “pesky conservative Republicans.”

Like I told you before, I will put an asterisk next to your name. Next to the asterisk I’ll write, “Total non-conformist with a libertarian bent, possibly the only right wing beatnik walking the planet.” 8 - )

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort what subsidies?

You mean the same TAX BREAKS EVERY CORPORATION GETS?

What we just saw was political theater. By law those tax breaks could not be removed. Why? You can not give tax credits/breaks to one group i.e. ETHANOL and then say the Oil industry can not have the same breaks. It's illegal and would have been overturned in court.

Addendum: btw- Ethanol gets real subsidies from the taxpayers pocket Gort. Ethanol actually gets taxpayer funds to stay in business. Oil does not. Ethanol subsidies far surpass any supposed oil subsidies as well. So let's remove all subsidies Gort. If ethanol can't stay in business to bad so sad.

The dems know that so it was just a show for people like you to swallow and keep voting for them.

I am going to disagree with PTCO on the Millionaire issue. You can confiscate 100% of all wealth over $250,000 in this Country and it would only cover about 20% of the National debt. Those same Millionaires however pay the most taxes and hire the most people. We have a spending problem in DC not a Revenue problem.

This explains it well:

"Using the latest statistics from the IRS, in 2004 there were 2.7 million adults with a net worth above $1.5 million. If the government were to seize all the wealth above the $1.5 million threshold, Washington would realize a one-time windfall of $4.0 Trillion -- and no one would again attempt to accumulate wealth. Assuming it was applied to the national debt (unlikely with the Left in charge as they would spend it) the national debt would only be reduced from$14.5 Trillion to $10.0 Trillion.

Assuming Michael Moore & Company decide that $200,000.00 per year is sufficient for any household, then in 2008 (the latest IRS statistics) the 6.9 million filers that had adjusted gross income above $200,000.00 would have forfeited all their income above that ceiling to the government. The one-time gain to Washington D.C.: $221.0 Billion; but in the future no one would work long enough to earn more than $200,000.00 per year. Tax revenues in subsequent years would never increase unless tax rates are raised which are self-defeating and historically results in even lower tax receipts" Americanthinker.com

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, maybe it was, maybe it

OofU, maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, just political theater but that doesn’t negate my point that the wealthiest business industry in the county is receiving tax breaks, it adds to the debt, and the Republican Party, once again, came to the defense of crony capitalism.

You said:

Quote:

You can not give tax credits/breaks to one group i.e. ETHANOL and then say the Oil industry can not have the same breaks. It's illegal and would have been overturned in court.

If that was true, then tell me why the tax code has 12K pages in it? It happens all the time, OofU so stop playing pretend.

You are free to agree or disagree with PTC_0 as you please. But you’ll have to excuse me; I just didn’t know there was a proposal to seize all wealth above 1.5 million until you told me about it. Did Barney Frank do that too? I wonder why I didn’t read about it in the newspapers. Your not drifting into the “twilight zone” again, are you?

And last but not least, your favorite boogey man, Michael Moore. I would think you would be more sympathetic to a fellow, entrepreneur and small businessman. Did you know small business creates most of the jobs in the economy?

The US has to figure out how to pay for the activities it’s been putting on the credit card.

War in Afghanistan
War in Iraq
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
And finally, the sub-prime mortgage debacle

Like I said before, the damage is done, all we are doing now is fighting over who is going to pay for it.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort let's talk about what in in store for us

First no politics. No ideology. Just plain facts. All verified and verifiable.

1. We are in debt:
a).We are in debt to the tune of $14,385,853 TRILLION and climbing at a rate of $168 Million PER HOUR $4 BILLION PER DAY.

2. We are in debt:
a).The total unfunded liabilities $113,881,502,000,000.00 TRILLION and rising by the second.

3. We are in debt:
a).Each and every Man, Women and Child owes right now $1,022,230 MILLION EACH.

4. We are in debt:
a).Government has spent almost $4 Trillion dollars in the last two years.
b).Government has proposed $1.4 Trillion dollar deficits each year for the next 10 years.

5. We are in debt:
a).Government has spent over $10 Trillion over the last 10 years. All deficit spending.

6. We are in debt:
a).Social Security is now in deficit spending a full 3 years before it was projected. The very definition of debt.

7. We are in debt:
a).Billions are being lost in corrupt programs and redundant programs in Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs are going broke.

8. We are in debt:
a).Today there are only 2.8 workers for every retiree and that number is going to decrease by half in just a few more years.

9. We are in debt:
a).Government spending has exponentially increased by a factor of 100 while revenue has decreased by a factor of 50.

10. We are in debt:
a). Spending as a percent of GDP rose 3 percent each year from 1790 and 1930. Worse: It rose to 24% in 2010 and expected to rise to 90% by 2040.

11. We are in debt:
a). Entitlements and interest alone will exceed total revenue by 2025.

These are the facts gort. No spin, no ideology just cold hard facts.

Gort we are broke. Now I know there are many that say we are not. How can that be? Oh we can print more money. We can mortgage our future maybe a little more but we can not pay our bills. If that is not broke I don't know what broke is.

We are in serious trouble and no amount of posturing by either party is going to change that very simple fact.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
A nice summary chart

Here is a nice summary chart explaining in simple graphic form how much of the deficit each president is responsible for.
LINK

Observerofu no doubt wishes this chart would go away.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
CPB, good chart but I think

CPB, good chart but I think OofU would be happier if we went away!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
All that needs to be said

Bush's 8 years vs. Obama's 2 years:

"When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

"To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion."
"Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush."npr.org

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, why are you restating

OofU, why are you restating the issue? All the grownups in the room know we have to pay down the debt. In my last post I concluded with the following.

Quote:

The US has to figure out how to pay for the activities it’s been putting on the credit card.

War in Afghanistan
War in Iraq
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
And finally, the sub-prime mortgage debacle

Like I said before, the damage is done, all we are doing now is fighting over who is going to pay for it.

I don’t see how I could have made it any clearer than that.

Now, the Republican House voted for the “Ryan Plan” as the roadmap to the debt crisis. Is that the plan you support?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Ryan talks like Obama on Israel!

Totally stupid and foolish!

You said the debt had to be paid down. It does not have to be!

We may simply devalue the dollar, thereby issuing ten times as much as owed and pay off the loaners with that! Some to China, some to Europe, Some to Japan, and a lot to owners of treasury notes!

When I get my treasury note pay off with the devalued dollars, I then can buy a $10,000 dollar item for $100,000!

Debt suddenly gone. Loaners teed off! No problem.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
We are not broke
Observerofu wrote:

Gort we are broke.

No we're not.

We are not broke nor will we be

Get over it.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
$14 Trillion in debt and another $14 Trillion spent

and we are not broke? Well now interesting choice of words Lawrence Mishel used. I noticed however the briefing paper was full of future maybes and what ifs. A majority of his theory that we are not broke is that the industrial sector has recovered from the Recession and thus all is well. Really?

Where is that growth? Certainly not in any sector I see.

We are going into debt at a rate of $5 billion dollars A DAY and we are facing $1 trillion-plus annual deficits for the next decade.

If that's not broke what is your definition?

Social Security is in deficit spending Medicare/Medicaid going belly up.
Yeah go to the bank with a debt ratio like this and see if you could borrow money own it.

But that's all right bacon you keep on pushing for more spending. America needs to know where the fault lies.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, BTW, cool little avatar

OofU, BTW, cool little avatar you got there, it looks like President Obama holding an assault rifle. Do you sell those at Teaparty events? That’s cool with me. Do you import them from China or did the Huntsman plastic people have them made up for you? Or both?

I’ll tell you what, if you get rid of the assault rifle, put a net sack in his hand with a little ‘bin Laden’s head in it, and stencil the words on his shirt, “Another Campaign Promise Kept,” I just might buy a dozen. How much are they?

BTW 2, Did you like that ass whipping President Obama gave Donald Trump? Old Donald got a taste of what it’s like to be the apprentice, eh? Anyway, I know I enjoyed it.

BTW 3, How did you like the ass whipping Newt Gingrich gave himself on Meet the Press Sunday?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort

#4 How did you like the ass whipping Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave President Obama today?

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
"Ass whipping" Observerofu? Really?

Are we seeking help from Israel, Oofu, or are they consistently seeking our aid? Explain this "ass whipping" if you might.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Let's see Obama said move the borders to 1967

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said nope not gonna happen and then schooled him in Foreign policy.

Yep a public flogging if I ever saw one.

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

It was a good ol' fashioned butt whoopin if I ever saw one. It's nice to see someone with cajones put Obama in his place.

How is Israel supposed to WTF (win the future) if Obama keeps looking to the past? Aren't these progressives supposed to be all for moving forward?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
OOU & Kawfi

If there is anyone who knows less about American Foreign Policy than does Netanyahu, I don'tknow them! He only knows Israeli policy---"never again."

The USA has a few more AXES to grind than that! Maybe he doesn't need our billions every year now?
Can you picture Bibby as a relative of Christ?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, I seen the televised

OofU, I seen the televised press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama if that is what you’re talking about. Didn’t see no “ass whipping,” just the usual “good cop, bad cop” routine. Nothing new there, I’ve seen it before.

Now, about that “Paul Ryan” roadmap to the debt crisis plan passed the Republican House. How about it, is that the plan you support?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Qualifications

Bachmann: Masters of Law degree

Obama: Juris Doctor Law Degree (Harvard) Magna cum laude (JD, PhD)

Bachmann: Legistlative experience - Minnesota

Obama: Legislative experience - Illinois/Washington

Obama: Work experience - Constitutional Law Professor/Community Organizer

Bachmann: Taxes. legislator

I have admittedly shortchanged the experience and work experience of Bachmann - but come on people, to compare her accomplishments with Obama and say she is more qualified is just rubbish. In the past crisis situations that this country has faced since 2008, I would rather have Obama in the seat than Bachmann, or Palin, or McCain, or Trump, or Cain, or etc., etc., etc. Just sharing an old ladies opinion.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
You just said it yourself
Davids mom wrote:

I have admittedly shortchanged the experience and work experience of Bachmann

You had to delete her experience and redefine her work experience in your own words. Just to get it to match up to Obama.

Wow I smell the Hypocrisy coming from all the way across the river.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Oou

I wonder how many of our service men would want Bachmann as Commander In Chief? Please share with us her honest accomplishments and words of wisdom. Citizens need to know.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well DMom you are the one that had to cut short

her qualifications just so President Obama would look a little better.

I suspect our troops would serve under her just like they have under Obama. Superbly.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Oou

Do you even know the difference between a Masters of Law and a JD,PhD? You know, I'm waiting for your list of her accomplishments; her words of wisdom; and what she would do to confront the many crisis that we have had for the past four years. Now everyone knows that you can't stand me, so don't waste your time on trying to insult me - just share your knowledge with us. Thanks.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - More qualified?

I think JeffC said she had NO qualifications.

Now I agree she doesn't have the same qualifications as Mr. Obama, she was never a community organizer. But she did run her own business, does that balance it out?

It's all a mute point, she will run, she will lose, and Mr. Obama will be our next President. That's a fact.

You can't beat a billion dollar campagin war chest, but if you can you too can buy the Presidency.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Not being bought!

He has already won and hasn't spent a dime so far! No competition.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC Observer/Elections

Thanks! I wondered how 'W' was 'elected'!! I always thought it was because of the cunning of Karl Rove. I guess when one is in politics, and doesn't want to be controlled by the 'oil' guys, one has to raise A LOT of money!
'

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Karl Rove?

Karl Rove writes books and talks a lot but I wouldn't call him "cunning"

No you see George was elected by having more money than Mr. Gore. Not much more, that's why the election was so close.

However, Mr. Obama will out shine everyone this election cycle with his special interests campaign chest of 1 billion or more, likely more. The one running against him could maybe on a good year raise only $500 million, it's not enough to beat Mr. Obama.

Look DM, I am not a Republican so don't expect me to defend the likes of Mr. G.W. Bush. Both parties are worthless and are in the game together working for the same thing, POWER, they just have different special interests that's all.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC Observer/Elections

I respect your point of view. Just remember, Obama's support is also coming from those families who are donating 20=50 dollars a month so support his campaign. Not all of his funds come from 'corporate'. The Republicans also have 'grass roots' support. Obama's campaign structure has been in operation for some time - and is very efficient at this point. The main issue here is that there is a very weak field of Republican candidates - so far.

Recent Comments