Archive

Republican candidates for 2012

  • O-Trap
    stlouiedipalma;927399 wrote:The "Value voters straw poll"?? You mean to tell me that "Value voters" endorsed the guy who wants to legalize drugs? Obviously their values have changed!

    And by "legalize drugs," you mean "give each respective state the right to make its own drug laws."

    Allowing states their constitutionally sanctioned freedoms seems like a pretty good value to have.
  • Skyhook79
    stlouiedipalma;927399 wrote:The "Value voters straw poll"?? You mean to tell me that "Value voters" endorsed the guy who wants to legalize drugs? Obviously their values have changed!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20117696-503544.html
  • Skyhook79
    O-Trap;927423 wrote:And by "legalize drugs," you mean "give each respective state the right to make its own drug laws."

    Allowing states their constitutionally sanctioned freedoms seems like a pretty good value to have.

    California agrees.
  • believer
    Cleveland Buck;927371 wrote:Ron Paul wins the CPAC, California, this one, and ties for first in Iowa and can't get any positive coverage. It is just a shame is all.
    It may be a shame but don't get too excited. Cain, Bachmann, and a couple of others are relative newcomers to the "Wannabe POTUS Club". Paul has tried several times and keeps coming up waaaaaayyyyy short. My guess this is why he gets minimal coverage.

    Don't feel alone. No matter who the final Repub candidate is you can bet the MSM will crucify, skewer, disparage, denigrate, and falsify that person to ensure their Anointed One gets 4 more years to really screw things up.
    O-Trap;927423 wrote:And by "legalize drugs," you mean "give each respective state the right to make its own drug laws."

    Allowing states their constitutionally sanctioned freedoms seems like a pretty good value to have.
    It does to any student of the Constitution.
  • O-Trap
    Skyhook79;927528 wrote:California agrees.

    California must know the Constitution, then.
    believer;927543 wrote:It does to any student of the Constitution.
    Yes, but we've never let that silly document get in the way of being parented by the Fed before, so why would we now? ;)
  • ralphus33
    Cleveland Buck;927371 wrote:Herman Cain was a bottom feeder until he won a "meaningless straw poll", and after a week of nonstop positive media coverage he is rising in the polls. That straw poll and the ensuing coverage was the ONLY reason for his rise. Ron Paul wins the CPAC, California, this one, and ties for first in Iowa and can't get any positive coverage. It is just a shame is all.
    You are forgetting the debate that took place a couple days before the Florida Straw Poll. That is when Cain really started gaining momentum. There were a couple moments in that debate where I knew Cain would be picking up a lot more support. Before he got a bunch of media coverage following the straw poll win, he was already rising in the polls(Zogby had a poll with him leading all candidates). The Straw poll win was huge for Mr. Cain because there were plenty of people who liked him, but didn't call him their candidate because they didn't think he could win. That win made them think he did have a shot. The Florida straw poll got more coverage than many others because it was an official state straw poll and followed the Florida debate where all the candidates participated. Why doesn't Paul receive as much coverage? His rabid followers have allowed him to win several straw polls, but those straw polls are not perceived to be as important. He has run for president before and it could be some members of the media do not wish to deal with him. I know Neal Boortz tried to interview him in New Hampshire back in 2008 and Paul rudely declined. To get coverage, Paul needs to be willing to sit down with people he doesn't like and or agree with.
  • stlouiedipalma
    Do you think for one bleeding minute that Herman Cain is going to have enough support to get nominated? C'mon, we're talking about the Republicans here, where a black man's place is either writing a check or serving in the hospitality suite.

    And Ron Paul? Geez, you folks must have been using his drugs to think he could stand a chance.

    The Republican nominee is going to be Mitt, because it's his turn. That's how it works in the Republican Party. Mitt's been a good soldier, worked hard for 12 years and now he gets his reward, just like McCain got his chance 4 years ago and how Reagan got his chance in 1980. Some of these wannabees have a little flash, a little sizzle, but they haven't put in their time yet. The only exception to this was in 2000 with W., but he had a daddy who was President before him and that counted. Of course, it didn't hurt that he had promised all of the key positions in his administration to tried-and-true longtime foot soldiers.

    The Teabaggers can rant all they want, but in the end the old-school Republicans will have their way. It's Mitt.
  • Skyhook79
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2011/09/08/jesse-watters-confronts-ron-paul-about-avoiding-factor


    So Fox News is ignoring Paul???
  • I Wear Pants
    Pretending that O'Reilly is actually a journalist is ridiculous.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;927723 wrote:Pretending that O'Reilly is actually a journalist is ridiculous.
    So what? He would get a good audience to get some of his ideas there. Herman Cain was on Lawrence O'donnells Program on MSNBC. O'donnell asked Cain all sorts of ridiculous gotcha question. Cain made him look like a fool and was able to get some exposure to a small audience that may not otherwise get the chance to hear him. Plus O'donnell made such a complete ass of himself the interview got national attention.
  • Skyhook79
    I Wear Pants;927723 wrote:Pretending that O'Reilly is actually a journalist is ridiculous.
    Not wanting to go on the #1 rated Cable News show is ridiculous. Don't cry about not getting any coverage if your not willing to go on the #1 Show with the most viewers to get your message out. Herman Cain doesn't back down from anyone.
  • majorspark
    stlouiedipalma;927668 wrote:Do you think for one bleeding minute that Herman Cain is going to have enough support to get nominated? C'mon, we're talking about the Republicans here, where a black man's place is either writing a check or serving in the hospitality suite.
    Didn't Bill Clinton while lobbying Ted Kennedy to support Hillary during the democrat primary say "a few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee".
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/10/game-change-bill-clinton-_n_417546.html

    Again during the democrat primary Harry Reid referred to Obama as "as a light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect". At least he is not one of them dark skinned ones. I am sure Herman Cains skin is too dark for Reid and that negro dialect, Ugh.
    [LEFT]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/09/reid-once-called-obama-light-skinned-no-negro-dialect-media-mostly-mu#ixzz1aJYqqJ5p

    And of course Joe Biden during the democrat campaign. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". I know those dark skinned ones dey dumb as a box of rocks, dey dirty, and dey ugly. I don't think Cain's skin is light enough to get such nice words said by Biden about him.
    http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-31/politics/biden.obama_1_braun-and-al-sharpton-african-american-presidential-candidates-delaware-democrat?_s=PM:POLITICS
    [/LEFT]
  • I Wear Pants
    Lol "Negro dialect".
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;927754 wrote:So what? He would get a good audience to get some of his ideas there. Herman Cain was on Lawrence O'donnells Program on MSNBC. O'donnell asked Cain all sorts of ridiculous gotcha question. Cain made him look like a fool and was able to get some exposure to a small audience that may not otherwise get the chance to hear him. Plus O'donnell made such a complete ass of himself the interview got national attention.
    Skyhook79;927769 wrote:Not wanting to go on the #1 rated Cable News show is ridiculous. Don't cry about not getting any coverage if your not willing to go on the #1 Show with the most viewers to get your message out. Herman Cain doesn't back down from anyone.
    These are both my points. Paul got himself into that situation by complaining about lack of coverage and then not going on the show. But it wouldn't have helped him anyway because O'Reilly doesn't let anyone talk if what they're saying is something he disagrees with so he wouldn't have let Ron Paul talk much.
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;927983 wrote:But it wouldn't have helped him anyway because O'Reilly doesn't let anyone talk if what they're saying is something he disagrees with so he wouldn't have let Ron Paul talk much.
    Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

    Really not sure how it would have gotten him more media attention when this would have been the result.
  • Skyhook79
    O-Trap;928042 wrote:Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

    Really not sure how it would have gotten him more media attention when this would have been the result.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7ilqGVOh4Y

    O'Reilly didn't stop Cain from making his points. Ron Paul doesn't want to answer tough questions about his policies.
  • Skyhook79
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dq1kHXqHo8&feature=related

    Cain taking on the Clowns at MSNBC
  • majorspark
    O-Trap;928042 wrote:Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

    Really not sure how it would have gotten him more media attention when this would have been the result.
    I you want to be president and you can't handle O'reilly well then maybe you should not be president.
  • BGFalcons82
    majorspark;928125 wrote:I you want to be president and you can't handle O'reilly well then maybe you should not be president.
    :thumbup:
    Game.
    Set.
    Match.
  • majorspark
    Cain also took it to Bill Clinton back when he was president on the issue of his national health care plans impact on small business.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptrTa8C_Pl4&feature=related
  • Cleveland Buck
    What does turning down an interview with O' Reilly have to do with media coverage? The other candidates don't have to go on O' Reilly to get face time. He was in New Hampshire the day they invited him. O' Reilly doesn't let him talk anyway. He was on there during the last campaign and Obama got a much better interview from O' Reilly than Paul got with Bill shouting over everything he said. Why reschedule whatever he was doing to go on there and not get a word in?
  • Cleveland Buck
    Yeah, Cain is the man. Here he is smacking down free market capitalists while extolling the virtues of government owned banks.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/flashback-2008-herman-cain-praised-tarp-chided-free-market-purist
  • Cleveland Buck
    His economic knowledge is unparalleled. Here he is showing the Democrats how dumb they were for claiming the economy was in trouble in September of 2008.

    http://004eeb5.netsolhost.com/hc126.htm
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;927754 wrote:So what? He would get a good audience to get some of his ideas there. Herman Cain was on Lawrence O'donnells Program on MSNBC. O'donnell asked Cain all sorts of ridiculous gotcha question. Cain made him look like a fool and was able to get some exposure to a small audience that may not otherwise get the chance to hear him. Plus O'donnell made such a complete ass of himself the interview got national attention.
    Skyhook79;927769 wrote:Not wanting to go on the #1 rated Cable News show is ridiculous. Don't cry about not getting any coverage if your not willing to go on the #1 Show with the most viewers to get your message out. Herman Cain doesn't back down from anyone.
    Skyhook79;928110 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7ilqGVOh4Y

    O'Reilly didn't stop Cain from making his points. Ron Paul doesn't want to answer tough questions about his policies.
    O'Reilly doesn't disagree with pretty much everything Cain says either. He does with Paul.
  • O-Trap
    Skyhook79;928110 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7ilqGVOh4Y

    O'Reilly didn't stop Cain from making his points. Ron Paul doesn't want to answer tough questions about his policies.

    Umm ... he has. Do you know why you haven't seen it? Because it hasn't been well-covered by the media.

    Paul has been vetted over his positions practically ad nauseum, and if you'll notice, when he's asked a question, he can't STOP talking about his position and plan.
    majorspark;928125 wrote:I you want to be president and you can't handle O'reilly well then maybe you should not be president.

    Declines = can't handle? That's an Olympic long jump to conclusion there, given that Paul has been on O'Reilly SEVERAL times.

    Could it be that Paul was simply in a different state and had other engagements that were more important?
    BGFalcons82;928164 wrote::thumbup:
    Game.
    Set.
    Match.

    If it's based on fallacy, I'm not thinking so.
    Cleveland Buck;928224 wrote:What does turning down an interview with O' Reilly have to do with media coverage? The other candidates don't have to go on O' Reilly to get face time. He was in New Hampshire the day they invited him. O' Reilly doesn't let him talk anyway. He was on there during the last campaign and Obama got a much better interview from O' Reilly than Paul got with Bill shouting over everything he said. Why reschedule whatever he was doing to go on there and not get a word in?

    Exactly. Paul has engaged O'Reilly more than once, and was otherwise engaged.

    But no, if O'Reilly asks you onto his show, and you want any media attention, you damn well better drop everything you're doing and make a special trip! ;)
    I Wear Pants;928263 wrote:O'Reilly doesn't disagree with pretty much everything Cain says either. He does with Paul.
    Bingo. When you're pitching to your own team, you tend to lob them over the middle of the plate more often.