[sandorski]

Teikiatsu wrote:

sandorski wrote:

The Republicans will simply Oppose anything Obama does.Whether they agree with the Policy or not. The HC Reform debate is the perfect example of this. The Bill is practically a carbon copy of previous Republican proposals and still there was complete Republican opposition, even from those Republicans who made the previous proposals the Bill implemented.

Republican proposals were 130 pages long. The Democrat's bill (now law, ugh) is 2400+. That is not a carbon copy. The claims that the proposals are from the Heritage Foundation are false and they have responded.
http://www.youtube.com/user/HeritageFou ... 6yZnmxpY9w

Claiming that the Republicans had no problem with the Romney plan in Massachussets are also wrong, as the states can implement plans like mandated health insurance but the federal government cannot.

It is not correct to say that Republicans (and conservatives like me) simply oppose Obama because he is Obama. We oppose his ideas, as well as Pelosi's and Reid's, because they are far too leftist. The proposals of the HRC were a massive swing to the left, over-regulating, massive tax hikes, massive intrusion into privacy, and basically the wet dream of the left. There wasn't even an attempt to compromise as they had the votes in both Houses when the bills were up for vote in 2009. You think we wouldn't oppose that?

There has been no swing to the Left. Just a swing away from Republicans.

[commanderkai]

sandorski wrote:

There has been no swing to the Left. Just a swing away from Republicans.

FINALLY I find something we can agree on (as of late). The United States didn't swing left in 2008, much like it didn't after the Carter election. It was punishment against the Republicans by their actions (Nixon for Watergate, and Bush for the Iraq War and the decline of the economy, even if Presidents rarely have any impact on this).

[Psudo]

commanderkai, I hope your metaphor continues to apply for a few more years. After the public elected Carter to punish Republicans for Nixon, they elected Reagan to punish Democrats for Carter.

I've been noting a parallel between Obama and Carter for a while, and it makes me very optimistic for 2012.

[sandorski]

Psudo wrote:

commanderkai, I hope your metaphor continues to apply for a few more years. After the public elected Carter to punish Republicans for Nixon, they elected Reagan to punish Democrats for Carter.

I've been noting a parallel between Obama and Carter for a while, and it makes me very optimistic for 2012.

The Republicans haven't learned a thing from what I see. Obama will be re-elected, maybe after Obama's second term, but the way they're going I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[Kjorteo]

Teikiatsu wrote:

It is not correct to say that Republicans (and conservatives like me) simply oppose Obama because he is Obama. We oppose his ideas, as well as Pelosi's and Reid's, because they are far too leftist. The proposals of the HRC were a massive swing to the left, over-regulating, massive tax hikes, massive intrusion into privacy, and basically the wet dream of the left. There wasn't even an attempt to compromise as they had the votes in both Houses when the bills were up for vote in 2009. You think we wouldn't oppose that?

No attempt at compromise? Is that why they spent as much time as they did watering the thing down as much as they could just to get Olympia Snowe (who ended up not even playing along after all that anyway?) Really, they were going out of their way to do it as meekly as possible until Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, which appears to be the catalyst that finally made them snap and say "screw it, we're passing the damned thing our way."

sandorski wrote:

Psudo wrote:

commanderkai, I hope your metaphor continues to apply for a few more years. After the public elected Carter to punish Republicans for Nixon, they elected Reagan to punish Democrats for Carter.

I've been noting a parallel between Obama and Carter for a while, and it makes me very optimistic for 2012.

The Republicans haven't learned a thing from what I see. Obama will be re-elected, maybe after Obama's second term, but the way they're going I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

To have a chance at taking down Obama, they need to unite and they need some sort of candidate. Right now, the upper-crust establishment types seem to want Mitt Romney and the Tea Partiers still want Sarah Palin, and there doesn't appear to be any hope for compromise. (Not that either of them would really be able to defeat Obama anyway, I don't think, at least not as it stands right now.) I, too, am optimistic for 2012, but for opposite reasons.

[Guy_Fawkes]

I would love to see Palin as the prime candidate for 2012. Only if she keeps that sexy leather jacket, the one with the nipple zippers, on though.

[Mr_Canada]

Psudo wrote:

commanderkai, I hope your metaphor continues to apply for a few more years. After the public elected Carter to punish Republicans for Nixon, they elected Reagan to punish Democrats for Carter.

I've been noting a parallel between Obama and Carter for a while, and it makes me very optimistic for 2012.

I think I'm going to puke.

[Psudo]

I don't think Sarah Palin wants to see Sarah Palin run for President in 2012.

I'm OK with Mitt Romney, but I'd rather see a new candidate with broader appeal. I can't believe the south will vote for a Mormon.

[KyleEverett]

The Republicans right now remind me of a bully who was finally stood up to and is now throwing a hissy fit of national proportions. "But but Mooooom! The people didn't listen to our mu mu money!!!!"

The Republicans though have at least gotten the base riled up after they were fairly apathetic in 2008 with McCain. I don't know who they can run that'll keep an active base and woo enough centrists. The party seems fairly split and I wonder if the tea partiers will just run a third candidate if they feel the national party nominates someone to moderate.

I see Obama as trying to compromise and reach out, but if the Republicans keep attacking him for it, what type of image is that going to show to independents and centrists.

[Psudo]

Republicans do not wield more money than Democrats.

The party does seem very polarized, which irritates me since I'm not really a part of either faction. But I don't think the difference between the Tea Partiers and the party insider faction is radicalism vs. moderation. I think the difference is standing for principles while ignoring understanding vs. trying to show understanding by compromising all their principles. No one is actually championing Republican principles by arguing well on their behalf (at least not on a national scale). Persuasion is not a weapon in Sarah Palin's arsenal; she preaches to the choir. And one thing McCain is not is principled, especially on the economic issues that matter most right now.

If someone would champion conservative principles by persuasive, logical oration, that someone would be the next President of the United States. They would unite the party and the country, just like Reagan did 30 years ago.

[BRAH]

Guy_Fawkes wrote:

No matter what Obama does he will never please the likes of Sarah Palin and her ilk. They are far too deep in the party coolaid bowl to see anything through with reason. The same can be said for the hard leftists and econuts who will cry for the rape of mother earth.

It's a damned if you do damned is you don't situation with no winners..

[SparcVark]

I think Paul Ryan of Wisconsin (his district is just down the road) has a chance, but he's ruled out a run for 2012, though he hasn't ruled out being a VP candidate. Right now I think the best bet for a Republican candidate would be one of the governors in the Midwest, Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota or Mitch Daniels from Indiana.

Of course, I also thought Rudy Giuliani was a shoo-in for 2008, so weight my predictions accordingly.