Archive

Republican candidates for 2012

  • coyotes22
    gut;855036 wrote:Because he's a politician, not a preacher, and most people don't want to mix the two. MSM will have a field day spinning him as some radical religious nut.

    I'm also a bit offended he pulled this stunt clearly for political gain.
    Im not arguing with you, but, it didnt hurt Obama when it was brought up, that he was tied to Rev. Wright's church.

    Or is that comparing Apples to Oranges?
  • coyotes22
    QuakerOats;855065 wrote:Because the solution to all our problems is more government, not prayer.

    Obviously.

    :D
  • Bigdogg
    I have been praying for writer ever since I read his first post on here.
  • fish82
    gut;855036 wrote:Because he's a politician, not a preacher, and most people don't want to mix the two. MSM will have a field day spinning him as some radical religious nut.

    I'm also a bit offended he pulled this stunt clearly for political gain.
    Wait, wat? A politician did something for political gain? The hell you say! ;)

    If Perry decides to run, prayerpalooza will be a distant memory.
  • majorspark
    gut;855036 wrote:Because he's a politician, not a preacher, and most people don't want to mix the two.


    Democrat candidates for president practically fall all over themselves to get behind a church pulpit while on the campaign trail. Not too many seem bothered by the mix.
    gut;855036 wrote:MSM will have a field day spinning him as some radical religious nut.
    True. But they will spin Perry as some sort of right wing, states rights, secessionist loon anyway. Religion will just be a part of it.
    gut;855036 wrote:I'm also a bit offended he pulled this stunt clearly for political gain.

    The event in an of itself does not bother me. Nor does it bother me that a political figure organizes such an event. If its motivation is primarily for political gain I'd be a bit offended as well.
  • jhay78
    gut;855036 wrote:Because he's a politician, not a preacher, and most people don't want to mix the two. MSM will have a field day spinning him as some radical religious nut.

    I'm also a bit offended he pulled this stunt clearly for political gain.
    Let me get this straight: the MSM and talking heads and Democrat opponents are going to do everything they can to portray Perry as a religious nut, yet he's stupid enough to think he can gain politically from organizing a prayer event? He either did the event with honest good intentions, or he's really really stupid.

    Doing something for political gain is Hillary Clinton attending a mostly black church during the 2008 campaign and suddenly developing an African-American urban accent. Rick Perry doesn't strike me as a slimy politician trying to score points with religious people. Plus he did it in his home state, where most everyone has a pretty good feel on who he is. It's not like he went up to New Hampshire or Iowa to try to trick people. Most thought he was taking a big risk by doing such an event so close to a possible campaign.
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;855138 wrote:Democrat candidates for president practically fall all over themselves to get behind a church pulpit while on the campaign trail. Not too many seem bothered by the mix.



    True. But they will spin Perry as some sort of right wing, states rights, secessionist loon anyway. Religion will just be a part of it.



    The event in an of itself does not bother me. Nor does it bother me that a political figure organizes such an event. If its motivation is primarily for political gain I'd be a bit offended as well.
    To be fair I think it's fucking insulting that any candidate thinks I give a fuck that they are or are not religious. Democrat or Republican.
  • believer
    QuakerOats;855065 wrote:Because the solution to all our problems is more government, not prayer.
    At least that's what the professional and objective journalists in our MSM would have us believe.
    majorspark;855138 wrote:Democrat candidates for president practically fall all over themselves to get behind a church pulpit while on the campaign trail. Not too many seem bothered by the mix.

    Carter, Gore, the Clinton's, etc. all did it.

    If a Repub candidate attends a prayer breakfast or speaks in front of a Sunday congregation they are political opportunists and/or bigoted right-wing religious nut jobs. If a Democrat does the same, they are simply reaching out to their constituents and demonstrating their moral convictions.

    See the difference?
  • I Wear Pants
    Oh please, you guys make fun of/criticize when Dems do it and Dems do the same to Republicans.

    I do it to everyone not because I think religion is stupid (I don't) but because I think it's dumb to care about other people's religion.
  • believer
    I Wear Pants;855300 wrote:Oh please, you guys make fun of/criticize when Dems do it and Dems do the same to Republicans.
    It's one thing for a bunch of OC armchair political hacks to make posts criticizing it. It's a whole different issue when America's allegedly objective 4th Estate with a responsibility to fairly inform the public at-large is clearly biased favorably towards one political party.
  • I Wear Pants
    believer;855304 wrote:It's one thing for a bunch of OC armchair political hacks to make posts criticizing it. It's a whole different issue when America's allegedly objective 4th Estate with a responsibility to fairly inform the public at-large is clearly biased favorably towards one political party.
    Since when are a bunch of corporations given some sort of moral responsibility?

    If you're a free market guy which I think you are you should realize that the news corporations have no motivation other than profit for stakeholders. At all.
  • believer
    I Wear Pants;855312 wrote:Since when are a bunch of corporations given some sort of moral responsibility?

    If you're a free market guy which I think you are you should realize that the news corporations have no motivation other than profit for stakeholders. At all.
    If that's the case then the morons are going after the wrong market.
  • I Wear Pants
    believer;855317 wrote:If that's the case then the morons are going after the wrong market.
    How so?
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;855300 wrote:Oh please, you guys make fun of/criticize when Dems do it and Dems do the same to Republicans.
    I only make fun/critisize when the candidate does something that makes fools out of themselves. Like mentioned above Hillary's attempt at a southern african american accent. A lame attempt to show she was one of them. The audience ate it up. The only thing funnier would be to see George W. Bush in a similar situation try to mimic a such an accent. The room would instantly fall silent. You could hear a pin drop.
  • Writerbuckeye
    I Wear Pants;855312 wrote:Since when are a bunch of corporations given some sort of moral responsibility?

    If you're a free market guy which I think you are you should realize that the news corporations have no motivation other than profit for stakeholders. At all.

    You'd have a valid point if the people in the board rooms were making the day to day editorial decisions on what to cover, how to cover it (from what angle), etc.

    They don't. They don't get involved at all, for the most part.

    That's left to editors and assignment editors (TV). Those are some of the most powerful folks in media. They can make or break you by deciding what to put on the front page, how big the type is going to be, and what is said. Same for assignment editors deciding which stories get aired, what order they go in, how much times is devoted to it, and the rest.

    Mix in the reporters, more than 90 percent of whom have the same political leanings as their bosses (the editors) and that is where the bias comes from -- not the corporations, which only care about what's aired IF it affects the bottom line. And it almost never does, one way or the other.
  • I Wear Pants
    Writerbuckeye;855376 wrote:You'd have a valid point if the people in the board rooms were making the day to day editorial decisions on what to cover, how to cover it (from what angle), etc.

    They don't. They don't get involved at all, for the most part.

    That's left to editors and assignment editors (TV). Those are some of the most powerful folks in media. They can make or break you by deciding what to put on the front page, how big the type is going to be, and what is said. Same for assignment editors deciding which stories get aired, what order they go in, how much times is devoted to it, and the rest.

    Mix in the reporters, more than 90 percent of whom have the same political leanings as their bosses (the editors) and that is where the bias comes from -- not the corporations, which only care about what's aired IF it affects the bottom line. And it almost never does, one way or the other.
    Which is probably because a lot of them start out as writers or journalists I would assume, who tend to be more left on the political spectrum as do most creative individuals (musicians, artists, actors, etc).
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;855370 wrote:I only make fun/critisize when the candidate does something that makes fools out of themselves. Like mentioned above Hillary's attempt at a southern african american accent. A lame attempt to show she was one of them. The audience ate it up. The only thing funnier would be to see George W. Bush in a similar situation try to mimic a such an accent. The room would instantly fall silent. You could hear a pin drop.

    So they obviously thought it wasn't such a lame attempt.

    Much like I imagine the audience at Perry's thing thought it was awesome and some others don't.

    I think both are dumb.
  • Belly35
    Where is that Ty guy..............here a pole for you to chew on

    Ouch!

    The survey of more than 90,000 respondents found that only 27 percent plan to vote to re-elect the president, while 69 percent will vote for another candidate.


    http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obama-Newsmax-poll-vote/2011/06/03/id/398796?utm_source=outbrain&utm_title=Obama-Faces-Tough-Fight-for-2012
  • Ty Webb
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

    This is how RCP sees the EC right now

    This is how I see the race shaking out with the remaining toss ups:

    President Obama wins:
    Colorado
    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    New Hampshire
    Florida
    Wisconsin

    For a total of 281 EC votes

    I see the only real toss-ups on Election Day being PA, Virginia and Ohio

    Even if the President loses PA, Virginia and Ohio he still wins the Election by a margin of 281-254

    I think he ends up winning PA to win by a margin of 299-236
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    Obama has as much chance of winning Virginia right now as I have a chance winning a Mr. Universe competition. He won in '08 due to record turnout in the urban areas, and that demographic has suffered as much in his term as anyone. They might not vote GOP, but they won't turn out and vote for him like they did previously.

    I also don't know how it is a given he wins Florida, the RE market there is beyond terrible.
  • Ty Webb
    Manhattan Buckeye;856777 wrote:Obama has as much chance of winning Virginia right now as I have a chance winning a Mr. Universe competition. He won in '08 due to record turnout in the urban areas, and that demographic has suffered as much in his term as anyone. They might not vote GOP, but they won't turn out and vote for him like they did previously.

    I also don't know how it is a given he wins Florida, the RE market there is beyond terrible.


    Notice how I don't have him winning Virginia

    I think he wins Florida because Gov.Scott and the Republicans are about as unpopular as you can be in Florida

    I also think there is a chance he wins Ohio....but most likely it ends up goins Red
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    You called it a toss-up, it isn't a toss-up, unless magically Fairfax Co., Arlington and Alexandria gain more voters it is a landslide GOP win regardless of who the candidate is.

    This is the state that initially gave the "bird" to the administration in '09 with electing McDonnell and Cuccinelli, it wasn't a shock that they won, it was a shock re the margin and the lack of turnout in the heavily populated areas. I had to wait in line nearly an hour to vote in '08, I walked up and voted immediately in '09. Again, these folks might not support the GOP candidate, but the Obama love is over. Too much unemployment, too much RE declines, too much misery.
  • Footwedge
    Ty Webb;856765 wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

    This is how RCP sees the EC right now

    This is how I see the race shaking out with the remaining toss ups:

    President Obama wins:
    Colorado
    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    New Hampshire
    Florida
    Wisconsin

    For a total of 281 EC votes

    I see the only real toss-ups on Election Day being PA, Virginia and Ohio

    Even if the President loses PA, Virginia and Ohio he still wins the Election by a margin of 281-254

    I think he ends up winning PA to win by a margin of 299-236
    Obama is still considered the favorite....but I think he has very little chance of being re-elected. I thought he would go down in history as the worst president in history...and that prediction was made the day he took office.

    I based that assessment on the economic conditions he inherited, and his ridiculous commitment to expand wars in Afghan/Pakistan. I pretty much knew that the economy was chronically ill....and there was nothing he could do to change it.

    I think Romney will win...and it won't be all that close.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "I based that assessment on the economic conditions he inherited,"

    Don't use the word inherit, that vexes me. Some things are inherited. I'm going to inherit my family's crappy farm in Appalachian Ohio, I inherit it because I'm their only kid that isn't in jail or otherwise worthless. It isn't a choice, I inherit it because of who I am.

    The office of POTUS isn't inherited, it is a choice and an election, and Obama asked for it. If he's not up for the game he can resign. I'm an American voter absolutely sick of the constant excuses from this sorry bunch.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    BTW a bit off-topic but has anyone else caught the AP story that the Fed is meeting for a retreat in Jackson Hole, WY shortly?

    WTF? We have the POTUS slamming Vegas (for no reason, it is actually a fairly cheap city for flights and hotels) conventions, yet taxpayer money is paying for a retreat for one of the most expensive places in the U.S.