How stupid are we?

Joe wrote:

chickaree wrote: We've had two huge movements to attempt to wrest power out of the hands of the lobbyists. The liberals marginalize the tea party, the conservatives marginalize occupy Wall Street and meanwhile the party heads go on picking the candidates that please them most. We fall for the divide and conquer routine every time.

Powerless is a better word than stupid.

Nothing will change until there are major reforms in the FED, term limits, tax reform, and balanced budget rules. Printsmith is right, take away the regulatory and money power from the Federal government, and most lobbyist go away.

Watch for Obama to maneuver and support the populist occupy Wall street crowd, and at the same time collect campaign contributions from Wall street.

CriticalBill wrote:

chickaree wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote:

chickaree wrote: meanwhile the party heads go on picking the candidates that please them most.

How exactly do the party heads pick the candidates that please them the most?

I thought the people pick the candidates, even if it goes against the party.

Dan Maes comes to mind, as an example.

I'm just wondering about the mechanics of how you think this works.

Have you been reading lately about the big money in the GOP paying Christie to stay out of the race? Romney has been anointed.

Source please.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Meg Whitman, the newly named chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, held a fundraiser for Christie last week on the condition that he not run for president against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Whitman's preferred candidate.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10 ... ficial-we- “do-not-consider-perry-a-factor…-we-know-who-it-is-who-will-be-our-nominee”/

Following Governor Christie’s announcement on Tuesday top GOP official and bundler Gerogette Mosbacher told reporters, “We do not consider Perry a factor… We know who will be our nominee.”
Race for 2012 reported:

Those words were spoken today by Georgette Mosbacher, RNC Finance Co-Chair and huge GOP fundraiser, after Chris Christie’s announcement. The “we” is all the big bundlers, fundraisers, and money folks who have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the field to be set — and that quote represents the coalescing around Mitt Romney that is expected to happen rather quickly now. Mosbacher went on to say:

“I think tomorrow, we’ll be contacting one another and probably put something together with Romney… And I would say that the race is now Romney and Obama. Quite frankly, the enthusiasm wasn’t there at the outset. He’s less conservative than a lot of us would like. However, our first and foremost goal is to defeat Obama. And we do believe Romney, in terms of independents, will be a strong candidate. We will coalesce behind him now… the time has come to get behind him… Tomorrow I’ll be on the phone all day. Quite frankly, it’ll be easier, because now we know who it is who will be our nominee. So we will pull our Rolodexes out and get to work.”

Fellow bundler and sideline-sitter John Catsimatidis added, “I’m going to go with Mitt Romney. I don’t think Perry has it in him to do it. He’s a lot better than Sarah Palin, but not a lot lot better.”

chickaree wrote:

CriticalBill wrote:

chickaree wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote:

chickaree wrote: meanwhile the party heads go on picking the candidates that please them most.

How exactly do the party heads pick the candidates that please them the most?

I thought the people pick the candidates, even if it goes against the party.

Dan Maes comes to mind, as an example.

I'm just wondering about the mechanics of how you think this works.

Have you been reading lately about the big money in the GOP paying Christie to stay out of the race? Romney has been anointed.

Source please.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Meg Whitman, the newly named chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, held a fundraiser for Christie last week on the condition that he not run for president against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Whitman's preferred candidate.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10 ... ficial-we- “do-not-consider-perry-a-factor…-we-know-who-it-is-who-will-be-our-nominee”/

Following Governor Christie’s announcement on Tuesday top GOP official and bundler Gerogette Mosbacher told reporters, “We do not consider Perry a factor… We know who will be our nominee.”
Race for 2012 reported:

Those words were spoken today by Georgette Mosbacher, RNC Finance Co-Chair and huge GOP fundraiser, after Chris Christie’s announcement. The “we” is all the big bundlers, fundraisers, and money folks who have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the field to be set — and that quote represents the coalescing around Mitt Romney that is expected to happen rather quickly now. Mosbacher went on to say:

“I think tomorrow, we’ll be contacting one another and probably put something together with Romney… And I would say that the race is now Romney and Obama. Quite frankly, the enthusiasm wasn’t there at the outset. He’s less conservative than a lot of us would like. However, our first and foremost goal is to defeat Obama. And we do believe Romney, in terms of independents, will be a strong candidate. We will coalesce behind him now… the time has come to get behind him… Tomorrow I’ll be on the phone all day. Quite frankly, it’ll be easier, because now we know who it is who will be our nominee. So we will pull our Rolodexes out and get to work.”

Fellow bundler and sideline-sitter John Catsimatidis added, “I’m going to go with Mitt Romney. I don’t think Perry has it in him to do it. He’s a lot better than Sarah Palin, but not a lot lot better.”

You are making an assumption that Christie made his decision based on Meg Whitman's or other Repulican's "deal". You can form an opnion in your own mind, but that is not proof of anything. I think Christie is one of the few politicians who walks his own line. The way you said Christie is gatting "paid" to stay out of the race makes it sound like he would somehow benefit financially...not factual.

He did benefit financially. Yes, I drew a conclusion from that. A rather obvious one, but continue to shut your eyes to the corruption in our own party while delightedly pointing it out in the Democrats if it helps you to feel better. Just know that this only enables those who continue to walk our country down the wrong road.

chickaree wrote: He did benefit financially. Yes, I drew a conclusion from that. A rather obvious one, but continue to shut your eyes to the corruption in our own party while delightedly pointing it out in the Democrats if it helps you to feel better. Just know that this only enables those who continue to walk our country down the wrong road.

So you're saying that Christie got a personal payoff for not running? I don't think the Huffington Rag would even make that leap.

Are you honestly trying to claim that Christie got no benefit from this? Fine, if you want to believe that campaign dollars aren't powerful to a politician there is nothing I can say that will convince you. I would wager though that if it were a Democrat who took this deal to not run against Obama you would be howling with glee. It's the double standard that pi$$ing me off. No one is willing to admit to corruption in their guys but they love to point it out in the other guys. The fact is that we have more influence over the behavior of our own party then the behavior of the other.

Can we have a none of the above?

I do not believe I am stupid at all...maybe a little uninformed by my own choice or maybe gullible...but certainly not stupid.

As for the rest of the American (which I assume is the "we" you are referring to)...I decline to label them stupid because I do not know why they think or vote the way they do. Again...maybe gullible or uninformed are better terms to use than stupid.

Granted, there are stupid voters out there...

chickaree wrote: Are you honestly trying to claim that Christie got no benefit from this? Fine, if you want to believe that campaign dollars aren't powerful to a politician there is nothing I can say that will convince you. I would wager though that if it were a Democrat who took this deal to not run against Obama you would be howling with glee. It's the double standard that pi$$ing me off. No one is willing to admit to corruption in their guys but they love to point it out in the other guys. The fact is that we have more influence over the behavior of our own party then the behavior of the other.

Your original premise was that Christie's decision not to run is based on a payoff...your opinion only.

Obviously, but an opinion based on the evidence.

chickaree wrote: Obviously, but an opinion based on the evidence.

The only credible evidence would some recorded conversation, email, or to be able to read Christies mind and prove that.

I think Obama paid off Clinton to not challenge him in 2012 by making her Sec. of State. Evidence proves that right?