What Republican could possibly run for President next?

The GOP's attitude toward the TPs (Dixiecans) seems to be, "Can't live with them, can't live without them." They bring a fanatical fervour to party politics, but reasonable Americans are repulsed by the form it takes.

Turdblossom wages war against them, McConnell boasts, "I think we are going to crush them everywhere. I don't think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country!"
Until the Republican Party jettisons its pantload of extremists, it'll be unable to make the necessary strides to keep up with the American electorate.

The ACA is the law of the land, and most want it improved upon, not repealed. Gender discrimination in marriage law is dying, and its reality in state after state occasions all the cataclysmic horrors of a butterfly's arrival at the garden party. Bush's exorbitant Iraq fiasco has been an unmitigated disaster. Universal firearm purchase background checks are a common sense measure with near-universal approval. Spewing industrial gasses into the atmosphere affects the atmosphere. Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed.

Kvetching is no substitute for practical policy proposals. Sniveling is no way to go through life.

The nation needs political parties that embrace competent governance, not malcontents that fantasize about its eradication.

Cassandra says:

 

Sounds like you got a new supply of liberal Kool-Aid in to suck on!

It has been Obama's mess for years, a mess he has made much worse!

The economy was on a slide when Bush took office, and made worse by Clinton's ineptness as a CIC which set up the Iraq War. To deny this is idiotic!

 

Oh it is absolutely true and you can't deny it. The unsubstantiated charges, the misrepresentations, the phony depictions of a very honorable accomplished person were repeatedly portrayed in the MSM.

None of which was continually broadcast as fact or innuendo in the MSM or even the conservative media.

His supporters knew the lies concerning the above, the MSM knew they were phony stories yet were obsessed with them and all you have to do is search back to see how the left was obsessed with them here.

Which was taken out of context as if he didn't care about them or would do nothing as PRESIDENT, he was speaking as a CANDIDATE who knew he would never get that vote so it was a better plan to go after the middle, the independent moderates. Yet the MSM refuse to report it accurately using it as a hammer to nail him.

And the fact remains the race tightened at the end, with the help of the MSM and it's blatant bias and support for Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

What exactly is the "interest of the poor" the Republicans are not representing? What would it take for them to get that vote? And if Hillary and Bill aren't elitist I don't know who is. Same with Kerry, Pelosi, now even the Obama's.

 

Hmmm, Bush came in on an economic slowdown and recession and the dot.com bubble busting with tax revenue growth falling so how exactly did he "squander" the Gingrich/Kaish surplus. You do know Clinton opposed the measures that brought about the brief surpluses. And if you are claiming it was his tax rate reductions, well they didn't go into full effect until 2004 and revenues soared afterwards and he and the Republicans lower the deficit down to a paltry $161B. The FY2008 and FY2009 budgets and spending were DEMOCRAT budgets fully supported by Senator Obama with FY2009 delayed until after he won the election and written with his endorsement and signed into law by President Obama.

After 52 months of solid economic growth due to the strong recovery the Bush policies helped usher in including 52 months of full employment we were due for a recession. Unfortunately the Dem housing scheme collapse, after repeated warnings by Bush to do something to reign it in, which exacerbated the economic downturn but it was never a collapse. His TARP program prevented that. Had the Dems and Obama passed the correct measures the downturn would not have been as deep and the recovery would actually have happened instead of the 6 years of economic malaise we have been suffering.

Actually they were efforts to keep ourselves secure along with the rest of the world, the establishing of governments just a necessary result. You do know that had Bill Clinton succeeded in removing Saddam we would have faced the same problems of establishing a new government there and providing it the security it would need to survive.

Actually that was more apparent with the Bush haters.

 

So, the nation inherited the mess that Clinton left in 2000 (that earned him record high approval levels), and it was Obama that perpetuated the dismal Clinton legacy - after an inexplicable eight year gap. Rose Mary Woods has nothing on you in the convenient lacuna department!

Hilarious!



.

 

And those Bush good times were rolling when Americans elected Obama.

Got it.

 

Are you denying the economy was in a downward slide heading to a recession when Bush took office? Are you denying the dot.com bust? Are you denying the 911 attack?

 

Are you denying the economy was in a slowdown and heading towards a recession when Bush took office yes or no? And no we were due for a recession in 2008/2009 after a very long sustained period of economic prosperity brought about in part by the Bush economic policies. The difference is Bush knew how to handle the economic crisis he inherited and Obama and the Dems did not.

 

You can believe that if you want to. The President just gives you the heebie jeebies and that clearly distorts reality for you, but most Americans grasp it.

 

I'm asking you a direct question, please respond

Are you denying the economy was in a slowdown and heading towards a recession when Bush took office yes or no?

What don't you believe to be true here

And no we were due for a recession in 2008/2009 after a very long sustained period of economic prosperity brought about in part by the Bush economic policies. The difference is Bush knew how to handle the economic crisis he inherited and Obama and the Dems did not.

 

So, you voted for nothing.

 

Birddog is asking for you to prove a negative.

 

If there is, I'm not seeing him. Maybe some celeb will come to their rescue and set their hearts all a-twitter. Someone with the same gravitas as a Fred Thompson or Walker, Texas Ranger.

 

Shame on you for requiring Natty to be honest about his "facts!"

 

There is a whole stable of prospective Rep from governors to congressmen out there. What do the Dems have but one retired failed SecState. I think you better be worried in case she decides she can't make enough excuses to make her run and drops the whole thing, you guys then have nothing.

 

Some like to informally poll only themselves and bestow far more more unwarranted credence upon their exclusive finding than they do to scientific, public surveys that do not comport with their own. (It may be that "scientific" that gets them is such a tizzy. They are inclined to get flustered about science.)

Others benefit from an objective comparison of the public's assessment:

At this stage of his second term, Gallup had Clinton at 61% Approval, Disapproval: 34%

(He ended his two terms with 66% Approval, 31% Disapproval.)


Bush, at the same stage was at 40% Approval, 55% Disapproval

(He left office at 34% Approval, 51% Disapproval.)


Gallup' s current numbers for the President's are 45% Approval, 51% Disapproval.

(We won't know the American public's final marks for Obama for two-and-a-half years.)


When they contrive to rewrite the past, or cast themselves as maligners of the leader Americans have elected twice (or his likely successor) and indulge in their fantasies about a golden age under McCain or Romney, they wallow in avoidance of the thread's realistic necessity: Choosing a Republican candidate for 2016.

 

One worse than the other.

I'm banking on it.

 

I would LOVE to see either a Republican or Democrat President who chose their VP for the other party!!

AboveAlpha

 

as long as the party platforms are diametrically opposed, as they are now, you'd be asking the VP candidate to run on, and support a platform that he or she does not agree with. Such a candidate would be nothing more than a self proclaimed hypocrite.

 

I'm beginning to think you are a shill for the GOP.

 

I'll take this bet. Bush didn't experience a recession until post-9/11, and even that paled in comparison to the one he left us after eight years of his policies.

 

So you can't refute the facts. Gotcha.......!

 

The economic slowdown began in 3rd Quarter of 2000 and went into recession in March of 2001, weeks after he took office.

Early 2000s recession March 2001–Nov 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States


9/11 hit just as we were coming out of it.

And no the economic mess we entered into in 2008 was not a result of any of his policies but feel free to try and make that case. And the reason it was worse was due to the failed Democrat housing scheme, but then Bush had the HUGE dot.com bust, and then Obama's failed policies to deal with it.

 

I see. So Bush saved the country from a whopping 0.3% decline in GDP that transpired during 10 months of his first year in office, but his policies over the following eight years had nothing to do with the 4.3% GDP contraction that lasted his final 13 months in office.

Gee, how could I have thought you were a GOP shill?

 

Look up a movie called "My Fellow Americans"
funny stuff!

anyhow, my take on how to achieve REAL change
not the fake change that politicians keep babbling on
about, is to have ALL of the voters simply abandon
the whole Republican & Democrat bit and vote for
the other guys, how about an election were the
Republican & Democratic party(s) get no votes at all
and we elect a Peace & Freedom candidate?
or?