jf1acai wrote: Nice deflection. How about coming up with some reasons why we should vote for Obama again?
Since the topic under discussion is "Christie Not Running" I don't want to hijack the thread.
I'll let the candidates explain why you should vote for them, as the campaign progresses. I'm sure the president will present his case when he debates the Republican nominee.
You can't say why to vote for Obama anymore. Hope and Change is no longer. His gun is empty, and he has nothing else to offer our economy. The only thing democrats can say now is what is wrong with the rep candidate.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
I, personally, am highly entertained watching the Democrats dance on the end of the string. It's amazing how willing the party of Democrats are to help their opposition find the candidate most likely to beat their incumbent, isn't it?
I'm not getting your "dance on the end of a string" analogy, unless you are trying to say they're puppets.
Personally, I'm looking for the best qualified candidate. I still haven't found them yet, although I like Huntsman.
It is entertaining to watch Conservatives (I'm not sure what $5 word you use to describe them) run from conservative candidate to candidate, only to abandon them for a "better" candidate.
It's like the 2 a.m. rush at the bar to find someone to go home with when they turn on the lights.
It was Romney, then Bachman, then it was Perry, now it's Cain. Christie and Palin left early.
RenegadeCJ wrote: You can't say why to vote for Obama anymore. Hope and Change is no longer. His gun is empty, and he has nothing else to offer our economy. The only thing democrats can say now is what is wrong with the rep candidate.
I did hear one reason to vote for Obama today on Mike Rosen's show from Darth Vader himself, Dick Cheney, who applauded Obama for continuing Bush's War on Terror.
Think Obama will put the Cheney endorsement on any of his TV ads?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
We're looking for the candidate with the best chance of beating a sitting president. What better way to do so than to push each of them to the top of the polls for a moment in the sun and the crosshairs of the opposition party?
PrintSmith wrote: We're looking for the candidate with the best chance of beating a sitting president. What better way to do so than to push each of them to the top of the polls for a moment in the sun and the crosshairs of the opposition party?
I'm not sure I believe that PR....it seems to me like they are looking for the farthest right candidate they can get, and then hope he/she can beat Obama. Looking at it from the left, it seems the candidates most likely to attract disenchanted Democrats, and appeal to independents, are the same candidates the Tea Party Republicans dismiss as too moderate. I'm not even sure a far right candidate can win the nomination much less the general election....meanwhile the Republicans are developing a lot of talking points against the more moderate candidates which you know will be used by the Democrats in the general election.
PrintSmith wrote: We're looking for the candidate with the best chance of beating a sitting president. What better way to do so than to push each of them to the top of the polls for a moment in the sun and the crosshairs of the opposition party?
I'm not sure I believe that PR....it seems to me like they are looking for the farthest right candidate they can get, and then hope he/she can beat Obama. Looking at it from the left, it seems the candidates most likely to attract disenchanted Democrats, and appeal to independents, are the same candidates the Tea Party Republicans dismiss as too moderate. I'm not even sure a far right candidate can win the nomination much less the general election....meanwhile the Republicans are developing a lot of talking points against the more moderate candidates which you know will be used by the Democrats in the general election.
That is the Dem talking point, but who are the leading nominees? Romney, who passed proto-Obama care, and was the Governor of the most liberal state in the union, Perry, who talks a good game, but spent more than he took in as Texas governor and supports giving the children of illegals in-state tuition rates, and Cain, who supports affirmative action.
The hard right people on this board were appalled that McCain won the nomination, quite possibly the most liberal choice in the field excepting Guiliani.
Right now I would guess Romney wins and he is the most liberal on record, although he is tacking to the right to win the nomination.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I think you are right (no pun intended) in thinking that Romney will eventually get the nomination........and he will have a broader appeal than Perry or Cain, but what I see here, and read on-line is that a Perry or a Cain would appeal more to that faction of the Republican party that pulled off the 2010 election for the Republicans. The difference, as I see it, is that voters perceive the presidential race as more important to the nation's direction than the senate and house races. Personally I think that is wrong, but that's what I see.
Think Obama will put the Cheney endorsement on any of his TV ads?
