When Obama wins the 2012 election what message does that send to the GOP?

• stlouiedipalma

  Understood, but I was thinking about the Freudian slip. I respect your opinion, but I just don't see Mitt winning this thing.
  
  Now if he comes out with great detail about how he plans to do things differently he might have a chance, but the way he's going about it it reminds me of the old definition for "Trust Me".
  
  I could vote for the guy, I really could. I just don't know where he stands on any issue. He could do himself a favor by releasing details. It's like the old "Let's Make a Deal" show. I don't know what's behind door #2.
  
  And as far as the tax return issues, he's being "Swift-Boated". The longer this goes on the more it seems he has something to hide.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1242169 wrote:1. You never saw conservatives excited about government health care, even if a RINO originally had the idea.
  2. You can not be intellectually honest and say you don't understand why conservatives would be happy about tax cuts as stimulus but not happy with plain old borrow/print and spend stimulus. Now, a true conservative would have wanted spending reductions with the tax cuts, but that is another discussion totally. Sometimes I wonder if you are truly honest or just playing the liberal role. You KNOW EXACTLY why a conservative would be ok with tax cuts but not ok with more government spending. To equate the two is laughable, even if you call them 'equal' deficit wise.

  The Obama stimulus was more than half tax cuts...the point is that conservatives were ok with targeted tax relief when President Bush tried it...at least it wasn't the end of the world and yet called the Democrats' targeted tax relief "government spending," as you're doing right now...
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1242166 wrote:I agree 100%, most normal people would agree with this statement. However, you won't find hard core left leaners like BS agreeing with you. In his mind everything wrong is the Rs fault. He's as bad as Rush Limbaugh on the right side where everything is the Ds faults.

  Give me some clear examples. Harry Reid refusing to go along with the audit of the federal reserve hardly compares to entire republican party calling ideas they invented socialist and death panels. When democrats start calling student loans facist for going through private banks get back to me.
• I Wear Pants

  If Obama wins (which I believe he will) it sends the message that the GOP needs to stop letting the neocons and Christian right dictate their policies.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1242169 wrote:1. You never saw conservatives excited about government health care, even if a RINO originally had the idea.

  Conservatives every where were on board with it. It is only now that they are called "RINOS" because the mythical "true conservative" changes as surely as the tide. Bob Bennett was a true and reliable conservative from the most conservative state in the nation supporting the individual mandate up until 2009 but lost to Mike Lee because suddenly he was a RINO...despite being a reliable conservative his whole life and supporting an idea conservatives came up with.
  
  But you, and Jhay will claim "he was never a real conservative if he supported that" which is hilarious bullshit and proves the point I've been saying all along.
• BoatShoes

  I Wear Pants;1242294 wrote:If Obama wins (which I believe he will) it sends the message that the GOP needs to stop letting the neocons and Christian right dictate their policies.

  I disagree...this is not the message they'll receive. They'll say "we need to stop voting for RINO's like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney and nominate a "true conservative"
• BoatShoes

  ccrunner609;1242179 wrote:Boat do you agree about how the left who is in power now seem to just ignore federal laws to justify and implement their way of governing?

  No, I don't agree that "the left" is ignoring federal law and tyrannically imposing their will.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;1242244 wrote:You know, this is about the 100th time I've read this from you, and it hasn't gotten any truer since the first time you said it. For supporting an individual mandate (not a 2000-page takeover of the healthcare field), I count 1) Newt, who's been out of government for over a decade and repudiated it during his primary run for Prez, 2) the Heritage Foundation, who repudiated it about 5 minutes after the ink was dry, and 3) Mitt Romney at the state level in Mass.
  
  Actually Harry Truman invented it if you want to go way back. It has NEVER been a pillar of any conservative platform- if it were, GWB and a Republican Congress would've done it in the early 2000's
  
  
  Newt and the Republicans gained control of the House in '94 in part because of opposition to Hillarycare. If it really were a pillar and staple of Republican thought there were plenty of opportunities between now and then to get it done.
  
  
  2 words: Budget Reconciliation. Got Obamacare passed, gonna get it repealed.
  
  There's also the option of President Romney unconstitutionally refusing to enforce certain laws, or rewriting laws he doesn't like, or legislating via press conference, or dispatching thugs from the Justice Dept. to bully states into getting in line. But those tactics are for you guys.

  It was never proposed because Republicans have never thought millions of people without health insurance was a major national problem. It was first introduced as legislation by Republicans in 1993 in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, with Bob Dole as a co-sponsor. The entire washington conservative elite were behind the mandate as the method to achieve universal coverage...it was just never a priority. There was no need to talk about universal coverage with the democrats powerless. Conservatives were happy with the idea of a mandate of personal responsibility for universal coverage but they were even happier with millions of uninsured because it's just not a concern.
  
  That still doesn't mean that it wasn't their idea and that it was not, and is not, socialist...and that they should have embraced it when democrats agreed to accept it...even if they didn't think millions of uninsured was a major problem. Instead they retreat and demonize it.
  
  In the last decade it was more important to move to privatize medicare...which the MMA was the first step in that direction with medicare advantage and the city trials of privatized medicare...because the rest of our health insurance system beyond medicaid was already privatized. The entire first half of the last decade was spent arguing over the privatization of medicare and social security.
  
  This was perfectly accepted by reliable conservatives until one conservative declared it unconstitutional and then it spread like wildfire through the conservative echo-chamber and lands to Jhay's ears who reliably repeats that it was never a conservative idea like a good little soldier saying "us real conservatives in the rural heartland never supported the mandate."
• I Wear Pants

  BoatShoes;1242297 wrote:I disagree...this is not the message they'll receive. They'll say "we need to stop voting for RINO's like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney and nominate a "true conservative"

  I didn't say they'd understand it but rather that's what the message actually is.
  
  Which reminds me of the quote:
  "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;1242293 wrote:Give me some clear examples. Harry Reid refusing to go along with the audit of the federal reserve hardly compares to entire republican party calling ideas they invented socialist and death panels. When democrats start calling student loans facist for going through private banks get back to me.

  I don't recall hearing "the entire Republican Party" calling them death panels. I recall a couple nutjobs doing so.
  
  And like it or not, the ideas they came up with are certainly heavy on the big-government side, though not any more socialist than the Healthcare system already is.
  
  Just because someone didn't come up with something, though, doesn't make a seemingly unsubstantiated flip-flop any more justified than if they had come up with it.
  
  The majority of Republicans holding federal office have, particularly since the influence stemming from Pat Robertson's presidential bid, been no stranger to hypocrisy, and have been ANYTHING but holistically small-government. However, it seems like whenever they flip positions, the Democrats are right there with them, such that no matter what time period we're dealing with, Democrats are in disagreement with them.
  

  I Wear Pants;1242294 wrote:If Obama wins (which I believe he will) it sends the message that the GOP needs to stop letting the neocons and Christian right dictate their policies.

  Agreed. The Rick Santorums will never be a viable option. The man was practically a political reincarnation of Robertson, Catholicism notwithstanding.
  

  I Wear Pants;1242305 wrote:I didn't say they'd understand it but rather that's what the message actually is.
  
  Which reminds me of the quote:
  "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

  There's a joke in here about news outlets ...
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1242291 wrote:The Obama stimulus was more than half tax cuts...the point is that conservatives were ok with targeted tax relief when President Bush tried it...at least it wasn't the end of the world and yet called the Democrats' targeted tax relief "government spending," as you're doing right now...

  No, I'm calling the portion of stimulus that was government spending, government spending. You still haven't been honest when it comes to conservatives. If Obama came out tomorrow and said "keep all of the Bush tax cuts, maybe even cut some more" you won't find conservatives mad about it just because it is Obama, like you are insinuating. Conservatives hated the spending portions of Obama's stimulus and bailouts.
  
  Also, your "over half" estimate it a little off, it was less than 40% were tax cuts, which means over 60% was government spending.
  
  Written by a liberal back in 2010 who was partially correct in his criticism of a conservative Barnes
  
  http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/08/tax-cuts-and-the-stimulus-package.html
  
  However, even this liberal couldn't do the simple math correctly. He states that $237 billion of the stimulus was tax cuts. The stimulus was $825 billion. That is 29%, not "just under 40%" and no where near your "over 50%" claim.
  
  So yes, the stimulus was most definitely government spending considering 70%+ was spending.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1242294 wrote:If Obama wins (which I believe he will) it sends the message that the GOP needs to stop letting the neocons and Christian right dictate their policies.

  You really think Romney was the choice of the "neocons and Christian right"? Come on IWP, you are smarter than that. If the Rs had nominated Bachman, Palin, even Santorum and they lost, then you could make that argument.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1242295 wrote:Conservatives every where were on board with it. It is only now that they are called "RINOS" because the mythical "true conservative" changes as surely as the tide. Bob Bennett was a true and reliable conservative from the most conservative state in the nation supporting the individual mandate up until 2009 but lost to Mike Lee because suddenly he was a RINO...despite being a reliable conservative his whole life and supporting an idea conservatives came up with.
  
  But you, and Jhay will claim "he was never a real conservative if he supported that" which is hilarious bull**** and proves the point I've been saying all along.

  You are cherry picking single names, not conservatives as a whole. That's nearly as bad as anecdotal evidence.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1242299 wrote:No, I don't agree that "the left" is ignoring federal law and tyrannically imposing their will.

  Obama's justice department hasn't ignored federal laws and enforced things they like over what the law states?
  
  Even the most hard core lefty can't agree with that statement BS.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1242503 wrote:You really think Romney was the choice of the "neocons and Christian right"? Come on IWP, you are smarter than that. If the Rs had nominated Bachman, Palin, even Santorum and they lost, then you could make that argument.

  Actually, Romney fit the bill pretty close. While obviously not an Evangelical, he has traditionally supported the same civil liberties views as the "moral majority" from back in the Bush I and Clinton years. As for a "neocon," he fits the foreign policy bill and the (lack of) privacy policy bill as of late as well.
  
  From an issues standpoint, he actually seems closer to a neocon than even McCain was. Less than Santorum, but by no means cut very far from that cloth.
• jmog

  O-Trap;1242518 wrote:Actually, Romney fit the bill pretty close. While obviously not an Evangelical, he has traditionally supported the same civil liberties views as the "moral majority" from back in the Bush I and Clinton years. As for a "neocon," he fits the foreign policy bill and the (lack of) privacy policy bill as of late as well.
  
  From an issues standpoint, he actually seems closer to a neocon than even McCain was. Less than Santorum, but by no means cut very far from that cloth.

  From the neocon/Christian right side Santorum and to a much lesser degree Bachmann (only because even most of those can see she's somewhat crazy...though not as bad as Pelosi) was their choice, and Romney does venture much farther from their views than any of the other primary candidates did this year (except for possibly Newt). When looking at Romney as a whole that is, not focusing solely on what he has 'adapted' too recently to win the R primary.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1242501 wrote:No, I'm calling the portion of stimulus that was government spending, government spending. You still haven't been honest when it comes to conservatives. If Obama came out tomorrow and said "keep all of the Bush tax cuts, maybe even cut some more" you won't find conservatives mad about it just because it is Obama, like you are insinuating. Conservatives hated the spending portions of Obama's stimulus and bailouts.
  
  Also, your "over half" estimate it a little off, it was less than 40% were tax cuts, which means over 60% was government spending.
  
  Written by a liberal back in 2010 who was partially correct in his criticism of a conservative Barnes
  
  http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/08/tax-cuts-and-the-stimulus-package.html
  
  However, even this liberal couldn't do the simple math correctly. He states that $237 billion of the stimulus was tax cuts. The stimulus was $825 billion. That is 29%, not "just under 40%" and no where near your "over 50%" claim.
  
  So yes, the stimulus was most definitely government spending considering 70%+ was spending.

  I disagree that they wouldn't oppose it simply because of the source. If they did oppose it I would agree with them because it'd be a terrible fucking idea.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1242556 wrote:From the neocon/Christian right side Santorum and to a much lesser degree Bachmann (only because even most of those can see she's somewhat crazy...though not as bad as Pelosi) was their choice, and Romney does venture much farther from their views than any of the other primary candidates did this year (except for possibly Newt). When looking at Romney as a whole that is, not focusing solely on what he has 'adapted' too recently to win the R primary.

  The policies Romney has stated he would support in his presidency (and we can only go off what he says) make put him pretty damned close to the standard neocon line.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1242505 wrote:Obama's justice department hasn't ignored federal laws and enforced things they like over what the law states?
  
  Even the most hard core lefty can't agree with that statement BS.

  Um, which laws?
  
  Please, please mention DOMA.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1242581 wrote:The policies Romney has stated he would support in his presidency (and we can only go off what he says) make put him pretty damned close to the standard neocon line.

  Yep. From a public service standpoint in regards to what he said he'd support during his campaigning thus far, he's not TOO dissimilar to Ricky & Micky.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1242501 wrote:No, I'm calling the portion of stimulus that was government spending, government spending. You still haven't been honest when it comes to conservatives. If Obama came out tomorrow and said "keep all of the Bush tax cuts, maybe even cut some more" you won't find conservatives mad about it just because it is Obama, like you are insinuating. Conservatives hated the spending portions of Obama's stimulus and bailouts.
  
  Also, your "over half" estimate it a little off, it was less than 40% were tax cuts, which means over 60% was government spending.
  
  Written by a liberal back in 2010 who was partially correct in his criticism of a conservative Barnes
  
  http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/08/tax-cuts-and-the-stimulus-package.html
  
  However, even this liberal couldn't do the simple math correctly. He states that $237 billion of the stimulus was tax cuts. The stimulus was $825 billion. That is 29%, not "just under 40%" and no where near your "over 50%" claim.
  
  So yes, the stimulus was most definitely government spending considering 70%+ was spending.

  I should have said more than half tax cuts and aid to states. The other large majority of it was appropriations to state's to let them do what they please with it and mitigate the effects of the poor economy and also something that state's-rights republicans have supported in the past. There was a small amount of actual government spending comparatively in the stimulus. And, considering that you seem to be aware of it...it's disingenuous to refer to it as $800 billion in government spending. All in all you're getting your panties in a wad over $200 billion in appropriated government spending.
  
  So even considering that...we're talking about the types of government spending that conservatives supported...appropriations to states, targeted tax relief and infrastructure spending...all things conservatives have agreed to spend on in the very recent past.
  
  Additionally, President Obama has offered to extend all of the rate breaks except for one bracket and yet you're acting like Conservatives are being reasonable toward him in this regard has they call him a socialist/communist etc.
  
  Of course conservatives would accept more budget busting marginal rate decreases which they've accepted in the past but they also should accept other policies that they've accepted in the recent past.
  
  Now, instead of aid to states, infrastructure spending and tax cuts...they only support tax cuts...proving the point that they've moved farther and farther to the right.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1242504 wrote:You are cherry picking single names, not conservatives as a whole. That's nearly as bad as anecdotal evidence.

  No, no...this is really the best we can do because the mythical "conservatives" as whole change with the wind and ostracize people suddenly as "not true conservatives" despite being reliably conservative their whole life...proving the point that "conservatives as a whole" are moving, or have moved, farther to the right.
• jmog

  BS "aid to the states" is still government spending whether you like it or not.
• BoatShoes

  O-Trap;1242518 wrote:Actually, Romney fit the bill pretty close. While obviously not an Evangelical, he has traditionally supported the same civil liberties views as the "moral majority" from back in the Bush I and Clinton years. As for a "neocon," he fits the foreign policy bill and the (lack of) privacy policy bill as of late as well.
  
  From an issues standpoint, he actually seems closer to a neocon than even McCain was. Less than Santorum, but by no means cut very far from that cloth.

  I agree, it's hard to say with Romney. He was actually my favorite candidate for a lot of the 08' campaign but if you take him at his word, he has endorsed basically the agenda of the House GOP.
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;1242624 wrote:... if you take him at his word ...

  And that, itself, is quite a stretch, given that it seems like he's supported both sides of a lot of coins at one time or another, not unlike Mr. Reid.