Obama over Perry by 11 points.

The obvious answer for the GOP is to find some other empty suit and have him/her file a legal name change to "The Generic Republican", because that guy is still leading in every poll against Obama.

Sort of The Unkown Comic - he/she could wear a brown bag to conceal their actual identity.... Barbara Bush!
 
corbin said:
Not even his platform is largely different from the Republican platform.

Both favor imperialism and nation building, the expanse of federal government authority at the expense of the states, continuation of mass surveillance and Patriot Act type measures, Keynesian economic policy, a mass of economic regulations that result in general job loss and perks for large corporations, wrongheaded public spending programs, disregard for civil liberties, deficit spending, inflationary monetary policy, militarization of the police, total disregard for the Constitution, etc.

In the real, substantive issues dealing with the functions and scope of government they are identical. They differ only in a few, heavily publicized issues that are disagreed upon as a matter of political theater - like gay marriage, or which country to foist our imperialism upon, or which group of society we should steal from. The question is never raised that maybe we shouldn't be imperialistic or thieves at all. Partisan politics is a great big false dichotomy with one brand of centralized government at one side and another brand of centralized government at the other. It is a sham.
Click to expand...

Sad but true. The plutocracy which disguises itself as democracy is utterly unlikely to yield to either side of its power base. The Ralph Naders; the Michelle Bachmans...

One thing is certain: No one will be elected that doesn't have 'presidential hair'. Romney has it. So does Perry, but he has the disadvantage of being insane. For sure, insanity is no deal breaker. He is, after all, a white male.
Yet, he lost the symbolic privilege of executing another prisoner recently.

I'd say that was his kiss of death moment.
 
Brainster said:
1. War hero: Legitimate issue, arguably balanced by successful businessman, especially in the current economy.
2. Former GOP candidate. Wash; Romney is a former GOP candidate.
3. Hayworth resigned in disgrace. Um, what? Hayworth got beaten in the great Democratic tide of 2006; he did not resign.

Your other points are reasonable. But I think Perry has vaulted into the lead because of a general GOP dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates, not on his own particular merits.
Click to expand...

I meant McCain was the GOP nominee. That carries more weight than just a declared candidate. But you are right about Hayworth and Abramoff. He didn't resign, but he did have the stench of scandal about him. I'd forgotten some of the details, so I apologize for getting that wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_Indian_lobbying_scandal#Allegation_of_double_dealing

Some of those who received money from Abramoff or his clients have either returned the money or donated it. For example, months after the investigations began, on December 14, 2005, the Washington Post reported that Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), the vice-chairman for the US Senate Indian Affairs Committee, had announced he would return $67,000 in contributions from Indian tribes represented by Abramoff.[25] Others, such as Representative John Doolittle (R-CA), have refused.[26] Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), the largest single recipient of Abramoff related money and co-chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus, received more than $150,000 from Indian tribes once represented by Abramoff. These donations Hayworth said he will keep because they were given independently of Abramoff's influence. He donated to charity $2,250 he got directly from Abramoff.
Click to expand...

I think this stuff helped McCain quite a bit.
 
Unabogie said:
I meant McCain was the GOP nominee. That carries more weight than just a declared candidate. But you are right about Hayworth and Abramoff. He didn't resign, but he did have the stench of scandal about him. I'd forgotten some of the details, so I apologize for getting that wrong.
Click to expand...

Hayworth had a stench about him, period.

I see Romney and Perry appealing to completely different personality types. The Tea Party will never back him. That might be a plus.
 
The Tea Party is the KKK-light.
less calories; less filling than straight up white racism; same pathetic lack of sophistication or education; love of Jesus's hate for the environment and darkies; let's pretend we care about anything other than our own aggrandizement and practice looking sincere in the mirror, with our good hair; like the pop-stars of country music and Nascar.

Well forget it. Even the passionate right-wingers must know that this crap ain't gonna ride in the U.S.

So?

What's the next most hideous shtick that might engage the moral majority of uneducated, superstitious dolts that are even remotely likely to vote?

At this point, a computer program could design the perfect candidate for President of the United States of America.

A bit of graying at the temples; male, white, presidential hair.

Try to remember...

The U.S. did not elect a black president. We pat ourselves on the back for an accomplishment that never happened. His birth certificate was a distraction from the fact that he is white.

Obama is another white male president.

Why am i wrong in saying this?

Why is it OK to call him black?

We are pathetically ate up with innate racism, even as we applaud ourselves for being over it. I have black friends.

Obama is clearly a white man.

(Hey, good news for the white team's pride.)


ugh.
 
SezMe said:
So, quarky, how purely "black" does a person have to be in your world in order to be correctly called "black"?
Click to expand...

How purely white does a person have to be in your world to be correctly called "white"?

hopefully, you see my point.

If not, I'm willing to drive it home.

i don't care about race. I'm trying to call our collective bluff; expose this underlying bent of liberal white fantasy.

We have not elected a black president, nor would we.
We elected another white president.

Its cool, I guess.

Personally, I'm ready for a black female lesbian president...whatever.

i'm ready for honesty.
 
He's both. The one-drop rule isn't good no matter which direction it goes in.
 
Minoosh said:
Hayworth had a stench about him, period.

I see Romney and Perry appealing to completely different personality types. The Tea Party will never back him. That might be a plus.
Click to expand...

Not in the GOP primaries. At this point I will be pretty amazed to see Romney win the Republican nomination. To say the least, it is going to be a big uphill slog for him.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Not in the GOP primaries. At this point I will be pretty amazed to see Romney win the Republican nomination. To say the least, it is going to be a big uphill slog for him.
Click to expand...

Though, the fact he's the only chance that Republicans have in the general might be enough to get him a win. Historically speaking, that's helped Republican candidates before.

Honestly, the most hilarious thing about it all, to me, is that I am not sure anyone really has any idea what Romney would do if elected. I don't think one can really trust what he says, and he might end up being more "liberal" than what he claims right now. Then again, he might not. Who knows? Seems less crazy than any of the other republicans who could feasible win though. (For what it is worth, I intend on voting for Obama).
 
Drachasor said:
Though, the fact he's the only chance that Republicans have in the general might be enough to get him a win. Historically speaking, that's helped Republican candidates before.

Honestly, the most hilarious thing about it all, to me, is that I am not sure anyone really has any idea what Romney would do if elected. I don't think one can really trust what he says, and he might end up being more "liberal" than what he claims right now. Then again, he might not. Who knows? Seems less crazy than any of the other republicans who could feasible win though. (For what it is worth, I intend on voting for Obama).
Click to expand...

Actually, we were having a discussion at work the other day and all pretty much agreed that (one of) Obama's best strategies against Romney would be to point out just how similar their policies are.
 
Drachasor said:
Though, the fact he's the only chance that Republicans have in the general might be enough to get him a win. Historically speaking, that's helped Republican candidates before.

Honestly, the most hilarious thing about it all, to me, is that I am not sure anyone really has any idea what Romney would do if elected. I don't think one can really trust what he says, and he might end up being more "liberal" than what he claims right now. Then again, he might not. Who knows? Seems less crazy than any of the other republicans who could feasible win though. (For what it is worth, I intend on voting for Obama).
Click to expand...

And that is why he won't win the GOP nomination, because the Tea Party wants assurances of their candidate's conservative inclinations.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Actually, we were having a discussion at work the other day and all pretty much agreed that (one of) Obama's best strategies against Romney would be to point out just how similar their policies are.
Click to expand...

That and the silver spoon sitting in Romney's mouth since birth.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Not in the GOP primaries. At this point I will be pretty amazed to see Romney win the Republican nomination. To say the least, it is going to be a big uphill slog for him.
Click to expand...

I was surprised McCain ended up being the nominee in 2008 though some people thought he was too "liberal" (i.e., moderate). I wouldn't be surprised to see Romney win. It's early yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom