See, here's the reason I tend to disagree. Republicans handle a majority much better than Democrats. It's just a fact. Look at what's happened in a lot of states in just the past 14 months with laws against collective bargaining, forced ultrasounds, billions of dollars of education cuts in the states. I'm sure the Dems in the U.S. Senate would try to filbuster tons of bills.

However, the Republicans aren't stupid. They'd pass whatever radical bill in the House, and then would water it down in the Senate to try and get a few Conservadems to go along with them. While many are retiring (Nelson, Lieberman), there are still a few out there.

These Conservadems were the ones responsible for a watered down healthcare bill, as well as the inability to even put a single substantial energy bill on the table despite the Democrats controlling all branches of government.

For our sake I hope you are right that the Tea Party movement hast lost steam. It sure hasn't in state government. If anything it's picking up. Would you have believed that four years ago, that our arguments in states and nationally would be focusing on forced vaginal ultrasound probes and a woman's ability to get birth control? Maybe they've lost steam but you have to ask yourself, considering the narrative of the election right now if they've already won.

The tea party fracture was more of something that occurs in the DNC which is far more dynamic then the RNC is. The DNC very rarely can coalesce around a topic. Look at the healthcare bill. By contrast the RNC has traditionally get their orders from their leadership and fall in line. In that way they are a far more effective party at pushing policy.

The Tea Party was an insurgent movement that suddenly appeared affected the RNC more because I don't think as a party they were accustomed to elements of their party not coalescing around something for the greater good. The tea-party came to Washington with a single mandate, "no..." And that completely paralyzed any semblance of latitude for coalition building and cross aisle conversation. They are one of the most major reasons that the congress has reached such pathetic levels of ineffectiveness.

The thing is, the Tea Party members are smelling blood in the water with the prospect of a majority and they just can't help themselves right now.

From Santorum saying a JFK speech makes him puke, to these extreme state level bills in women's rights, education, oil drilling, the elimination of renewable energy departments, to people like Billy Graham's son basically saying Obama is a Muslim, they just can't help but spill the beans a bit when they usually try to spout out founding father rhetoric.

And they're painting a picture of what types of legislation they'd push on a federal level. The question is, are voters smart enough to see it. Are true Republicans going to go to the booth for it? Stay home? Cross a party line? Or are people just going to blindly follow TV ads put up by Super Pac's?

I know several Republican friends now who are very well considering a move to Democrat because in their eyes, the party has left them. Seeing as Dwight Eisenhower would likely be labeled a Communist today, this isn't your father's Republicans. However, they won in 2010, so no matter how crazy they sound, people need to realize they could still win in 2012, especially if gas tops $5 or we see an altercation in Iran.

Here is a perfect example of Conservadems.

Bob Casey, a Democrat in Pennsylvania voted to support the Blunt Amendment today. It's a bill that would "let any employer deny coverage of any health care based on 'moral convictions'.”

If the Republicans took the 51-49 majority, you'd have Senators like Casey there to possibly be an additional vote depending on the bill.

It always makes me laugh how they misrepresent and revise historical documents to fit their narrative. Santorum standing there holding the Declaration of independence and declaring it the document that tells Americans that they have rights given to them by their CREATOR. Well, he is wrong about it. It was a Declaration, not to tell us that the creator gave us rights. We actually already knew that. It was sent to the monarchy declaring the colonies independence. It was stating that our rights are not a gift of the monarchy but a gift of the creator.

Its this completely warped ideal of what America is that kills me. From Sarah Palin's Paul Revere missteps to the revision of the legacy of Ronald Reagan. They always say that history distorts facts, but what is accepted as distorted facts are now glossed over and rewritten to fit their "New American History 2.0."

I liken it to taking a work of Shakespeare, like Romeo & Juliet where Romeo wasn't a hopeless romantic but a bad ass Navy SEAL who rappels into Juliet's bedroom, and battles off her family and she is mortally wounded in a helicopter, dies in his arms, and he throws himself out the back of the helicopter with heartbreak and grief. Its insane. Santorum thinks women were in on ratifying the constitution. Glen Beck talks about how Washington worked tirelessly to end slavery. The colonies succeeded because they didn't WANT to be British. When discussing the constitution they gravitate immediately to the amendments and I would be willing to bet that they wouldn't know what any of the Articles are. Because those aren't important. Its about God and guns.

Its such a strange world nowadays. Often when people rail me on Obamacare they tell me its unconstitutional. But when I ask them why? Most can't give a cogent answer. And I always point out that something that is unconstitutional needs to be found unconstitutional. That is why we have courts. You know? SCOTUS?

They are creating a false America. And I don't get it. I think the worts and ugliness of some of Americas past is a shining example of how a civilization can evolve given the right environment.

Sadly, a simple statement uttered by Christine Whitman tonight is true. Washington tonight is all about politics...not policy.

What you say Ebase is almost all true. You hear all these things about these great founding fathers, the ones that gave little to no rights to women, and absolutely none to slaves. They were important but far from perfect people.

I am objective enough to know that there are Democratic politicians that will greatly stretch truths in order to curry support from voters. But in almost every case, those stretches aren't dangerous.

--Bold faced lying about how women's birth control somehow relates to religious liberty and mask it all under a bill that would give companies the right to frankly deny any type of healthcare coverage for their employer? THAT is dangerous. It's amazing how all of a sudden birth control is a violation of religious freedom no?

The Amendment defeated today in the Senate had NOTHING to do with women and contraceptives. Don't be fooled. The Tea Party sensed an opportunity to go with that momentum and try to pass a bill that if passed would have allowed a company to deny coverage of ANY type if they deemed it was against their morals.

--Bold faced lying about a President's religion and radicalism is dangerous. Of course, it shouldn't matter what religion he is. For an extreme radical group that continues to talk about the Constitution and our First Amendment rights, they sure seem to have a problem with the President's religion, even though one of the very first phrases in their precious Constitution is "Freedom Of Religion."


We live in a political world today where the word compromise is a dirty word that shows weakness. Less than 6 years ago, it was cool to compromise. Today? It means you're going to have a person challenge you in a primary (Arlen Specter/Pat Toomey) You might as well say we're in a political Cold War. No weapons will be fired (we hope) between the two sides, but we're being taught by 24/7 media, blogs and the politicians themselves that the other side is the enemy.

"War on Religion" "War on women's rights" "War on the rich" "War on the poor" "class warfare" war, war, war, war.....

And we don't even need to get into social legislation The fact is, we have passed a lot of good social policies, some of which championed by Republicans. But when you can't even say the word compromise, you better be careful when you mention the fact that Medicare is a social program.

Romney's new tax proposal -- Lowers taxes for the rich, raises it on the poor and decreases revenues for 2015 by 24%

But remember guys, the deficit is the most important crisis in our nation's history.

Edit: Link:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03...?ref=fpnewsfeed

I think one of the things that is interesting is how the sheer number of debates (which I think are VERY positive for an election process) is surfacing the RW social agenda. How a portion of this country can look at some of these core principles is a good thing is mystifying to me. It makes me wonder if any of these people have spent a single day outside the US ever?

I am not worried about Romney's tax system, Gingrich's $2.00 a gallon declaration, 999, or whatever else. I am not naive enough to stick my head in the sand and not be able to call bullshit.

Today, on conservative talk radio there were renewed calls for Jeb Bush to run. To me??? If America has sunk so low that they want to follow up the last Bush with yet another? Then I will come back to the US in 5 years when Hillary Clinton takes over.

If the GOP really cared about the deficit they'd disband the party since they tend to cause a good chunk of it.

don't make sense...

Yeah.

Click to view attachment

Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush saw deficits skyrocket while President Clinton lowered it. A fair amount of research will show you this.

Democrats are not totally innocent. The Dems overwhelmingly supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars even though there were really no ways offered of how to offset the costs. Now we can debate if they had all the right info, but at the least, they were also gung ho on Afghanistan.

The Bush tax cuts have added hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit. Why? Again, they had no way to pay for it. This is why Tea Party people today would almost label Bush and the Bush era Republicans liberals because you didn't hear anything about cutting programs.

Somehow in the Republican mindset, we could bring in less money to the government, yet spend the same amount. If you did that owning a business, you'd go bankrupt. Instead, we started to borrow trillions of dollars from countries all over the world.

The idea is to go deficit neutral at best, although without touching defense, social security and medicare is impossible. The math still doesn't work for curing the deficit. If they were serious about that taxes would have go up while spending decreases. The Democrats were also weak in that they didn't even try to oppose anything even if they lacked control of any house or the presidency. Too much loyal and not enough opposition in loyal opposition.

The Obama train would just compare this to Bush over and over and over again....because he would be doing the same thing as bush did....how did that turn out?

A Pathetic panderer . It's amazing the fond memories he has of every state he visits, always reminding him of when he was a boy. What a fucking idiot!

Are the trees the right height?

Watch and cringe as Mitt Romney attempts yet again to ingratiate himself to the hyu-mon peoples of Earth in his bid to become their leader. I SHALL NOW RECITE ONE OF YOUR EARTH SONGS REFERENCING THIS GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION. DAVEY DAVEY CROCKET.

This is why Romney comes across as unlikeable...

He is so freaking fake.

http://news.yahoo.com/ann-romney-talking-a...-225101365.html


Man, $250 million sure can be here today, gone tomorrow!




Still not as dumb as out of touch as half the shit Santorum says.

Hearing him criticize the leaders of Iran for being "fundamentalist theocrats" was interesting.

I'm willing to give Ann Romney the benefit of the doubt more than her husband. She's not the one running for President so I'm going to be a little more forgiving on the gaffes she might make because she's not the one trying to be leader of the free world.

Ann Romney has gone through a lot in her life. I know I know, she's not been in a position seeing children go hungry when mom and dad can't afford it. But she's had breast cancer, and MS and she's still out there trying to support her husband. As much as I may not like Romney, I do respect her for that much.

As a total aside, one of the things that made me lose the last bits of respect I had for Romney is he blindly followed the Tea Party's attack on Planned Parenthood. He and his wife had the money to go to a doctor to get screenings for breast cancer, which his wife had. Many American's don't have that luxury (literally), instead having to rely on Planned Parenthood. Yet, despite his wife's cancer, there's good 'ole Mitt Romney standing with the Tea Party railing against an organization that tries to save women's lives by finding potential tumors before it's too late.

Back to Ann, to me, she seemed to be in a no win scenario. People are jumping on her for saying "I'm not wealthy" but what would people be saying if she'd go on television proudly proclaiming about the wealth they have? That may in fact be the lesser of two evils because at least their honest, but...It'd still end up going viral.

"I'm fortunate that I've got a great deal of wealth, but that doesn't change our commitment to improving the lives of all Americans and the condition of America as a whole. We understand that not everyone has the wealth we do, and that our troubles seem great to us but don't compare to the difficulty many have in just putting food on the table. It's them that we hope to help the most."

Bam, you've not apologized for your wealth yet not made yourself seem wholly out of touch. "I don't even think I'm wealthy, it could be here-today-gone-tomorrow." You have $250 million in the bank. There are entire counties in certain states that can't make that claim combined.

Look, I'm not saying what she said wasn't an error. I'm just not one to hold her as accountable for her gaffes. While I fully understand first ladies have a role in elections (how long until we have a first lady debate?), I think the stuff Mitt Romney says almost every single day is a whole lot worse.

By the way, I found this poll VERY surprising.

Mitt Romney is now up 39% to 33% over Santorum when it comes to Catholic voters in Ohio. It tells you something that with Santorum's opinions about contraceptives and the Catholic church he has actually LOST some of those voters.

Santorum has been willing to stand on these values and instead of looking like a true believer he has lost step with the anonymous faith based community. I think that a lot of Catholics are starting to see him as a loon. And couple this with the electorate is now coalescing around the inevitable candidate: Romney. The feeling that voting for Santorum is just a waste of time since Romney is going to be the nominee. At least that is how I see it.

What is more concerning for the RNC is the low voter turnout. The turnout in Florida for the RNC nomination dropped -14.2% and in Nevada it dropped -25.8% (CNN.) Romney won. The largest enthusiastic turnout change was South Carolina +35%. And in that state Romney finished a distant second. So in other words, "ouch."

If Ohio gets a low voter turnout, the conventional belief is that all Obama has to do is to inspire his folks to get out and vote in Ohio and Florida and he gets re-elected. In other words, right now the election is Obama's to lose. And so keep all eyes on Ohio. Its about the voter turnout. And even worse is if Santorum or another wins. Then the situation takes a turn for the worse.

Its all in the numbers. And of course, people can spin these numbers. As I see it though, the RNC and Romney in particular have to start generating some kind of enthusiasm. But every poll suggests that they simply don't want Romney. He doesn't connect with the Reagan Democrats. He doesn't connect with the more Conservative Republican base. He is a victim of his own lack of conviction.

I don't think Obama's team is going to take anything for granted being how organized, well funded, and capable as they are and they would be wise to do so. The President is still very unpopular in a lot of states that he won last time around. This election is not won by any stretch and I believe that a lot of right wing folks will run into the booth and pull for Romney basically because of their utter hatred of Obama. I also think Obama's people are going to aggressively try to gain enthusiasm by the minority vote (latino especially.) And in that arena they are likely to be very successful given the stance on immigration that the right has taken.

A lot still to happen and Romney still can win. But at some point he is going to have to give people a reason other then to run on a platform of: Do you want Obama gone?

Well, the race didn't really get cleared up today.


Shrug.

The numbers of people that came to the polls today were extremely low. Considering the weather was as nice as it was by itself could be considered an anomaly. Taken with Florida and Nevada thats a trend. There is simply no other way to interpret this other then to chock this to lack of enthusiasm. The RNC base isn't enthusiastic and are not happy with their candidates.

Something will need to change for them. Right now? They have to be concerned.

That's not entirely true and it does not mean that Republicans will not care about voting to boot out Obama. The fact that a GOP candidate for nomination, who is not yet nominated, is in a tight race when matched up against Obama in the polls should actually concern Obama when his ratings suck.

According to Real Clear Politics:

2012 Ohio: 1,165,883 total popular vote.
2008 Ohio: 1,095,917

12 Michigan: 968,148
08 Michigan: 847424


You also had more candidates still in the race last time around this period. This is a stupid downplay notion from the left.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...roval-1044.html

That is certainly not sucking, especially considering the fact that with the primaries, the Republicans are on a SPREE of blaming him for literally everything wrong with the world.

He goes down to the lower 40s then upper 40s and up and down. Not necessarily secure. I think the Dems blamed Bush for a rainy day.

Anyway, i'll leave this party bash thread to you guys now.

Thanks

The left has stupid ideas!

Also, stop bashing other parties!

Funny thing is even with Obama's bad ratings, which have been improving for a few months now he still beats Romney or Santorum pretty handily.

Hey guys, Palin wants to make sure you're still talking about her and remember who she is.

Not if this Iran situation, and the resulting gas price hikes, gets bad over the summer.

If Israel moves on Iran, and we back them up or join a war, Obama loses a bunch of factions . . . Moderates who are concerned about the economy and how gas prices inflate and slow any recovery . . . liberals who oppose any military action . . . etc.

(Not saying they vote Rebublican, just refrain from voting and giving support and rallying communities, etc.)

Meanwhile, GOP will latch onto both issues and stir up the party and the moderates leaning right.


As has been said, with the candidates presented by the GOP, only world/economic affairs can unseat Obama.

But that is what the nominees are calling for...unwavering support of Israel..so how are they any better?

If I was a voter and that happen right around election time, I would want the guy who has been involved the whole time to handle the situation.
Especially when it is not a war our own president started, unlike the Iraq and Aghan Wars.

But never underestimate the value of a false narrative that the RNC has created around Obama and is believed by minions who hate Obama simply because he is Obama.

Obama is weak militarily speaking. It isn't even remotely true but Obama is weak.

Obama doesn't have any international clout. He bows in submission to other nations.

Obama is a communist

Obama is not an American

ya... ya... ya...

And while I do think that this is Obama's election to lose that doesn't guarantee anything. Obama has to find a way to engage his base. And all he really needs Ohio and Florida and he is reelected. Obama has still guided the country through a difficult time and while things are marginally improving the wheels just aren't moving fast enough for many Americans.

I am really upset though with the RNC. The country is not stronger for having such deplorable candidates. Romney who I am now calling the nominee is just a total ass-hat. But an ass-hat who we may see being sworn in come January.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/03/...on-ticket-works

How cute...NG still thinks he has a chance.

Good. Need him to peel off votes from Santorum.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/201...rnSwing_312.pdf

Alabama

Q22 Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a
Muslim, or are you not sure?
Christian.......................................................... 14%
Muslim ............................................................ 45%
Not sure .......................................................... 41%

Mississippi

Q22 Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a
Muslim, or are you not sure?

Christian.......................................................... 12%
Muslim ............................................................ 52%
Not sure .......................................................... 36%

I need a time machine to go back to 1861 just to tell Abe, let em' walk.

With slavery still intact?

It wouldn't make a difference either way. The Mason Dixon Line would still exist.

And of course we are living in a post racial country?

In my reality sometimes I think that their should be a minimum basic skills test in order to vote.

The mere thought that people like these have as much a say in the direction of the country as I do really just sucks ass.

I realize the negatives of all of this and I don't want to go down this street but when some people talk about the two Americas....

You know that cuts another way. There are Americans who shape their views based on ideologies and such. But then there is those who are minimally intelligent and beyond vs. those who clearly would have been weeded out in the process of natural selection had we been more savage.

They have been an anchor on my view of America's progression. And in my view i have a spot at the table for political and even some superstitious ideologies. BUT what I don't have room for at my table is these people. Utter unrepentant ignoramuses.

I just don't think there are enough alligators to feed these people to...

As awful as the "Obama is a Muslim" stats are, I wanted to try and say something, because the kind of "feed 'em to alligators" and "don't let them vote" type things Ebase said make me squeamish, as they're basically a reverse of the current nonsense about "voting fraud" photo id requirements.


But then...


ALABAMA

Q24 Do you think that interracial marriage should be
legal or illegal?
Legal: 67%
Illegal: 21%
Not sure 12%



MISSISSIPPI

Q24 Do you think that interracial marriage should be
legal or illegal?
Legal: 54%
Illegal: 29%
Not sure 17%




Freedom indeed! Ignorant pieces of shit.

Fixed.




There's always pigs.

And according to their crosstabs, it's the "very liberal" people in MS who are most against it? What.

Not surprising since this aligns with people who said they are evangelicals as well...but...



ALABAMA

Q23 Do you believe in evolution, or not?

Believe in evolution......................................... 26%
Do not ............................................................. 60%
Not sure .......................................................... 13%



MISSISSIPPI

Q23 Do you believe in evolution, or not?

Believe in evolution......................................... 22%
Do not ............................................................. 66%
Not sure .......................................................... 11%

Just to clarify now that I am on a laptop, I stated I realize the negatives of all of this and I don't want to go down this street...

I would not advocate this whatsoever.

One of the things that always annoys me is that we do live in a country where there are people who now more than ever embrace anti-intellectualism as something positive.

So there are times where the emotional side of my mind believes that there should be a minimum basic skills test for voting. Obviously, that is problematic.

As for feeding rednecks to the alligators? That I wouldn't mind whatsoever but for a host of other reasons.



..and this just makes me seethe since I am interracially married and thus my offspring are what exactly in their eyes? Besides, infinitely more intelligent, dedicated to their studies, and everything that I was not in so many ways? (Its a product of their mothers genes.) We evolved. They took my creative side, merged it with my wife's drive and tenacity and ta-da. Now its too early to tell but given where they are, I have high expectations for them. Their mother has higher aspirations.

They always argue that evolution is false. Well, lets be honest here... They are modern troglodytes. As a species we assumed that we would grow in certain ways that embraced the desirable traits that WE thought would be preferred. Physical and mental superiority. Each generation stronger and smarter. Until??? How arrogant and naive many of us can be. Once again nature had its own plans.

And those plans are how we ended up with is Mississippi.

What I'd like to hear is a cogent argument as to why they feel that way. Actually, since that's not possible I will re-phrase that.

What I'd like to hear these in-bred, narrow-minded*, cretins attempt to duct-tape together a cogent argument as to why they feel that way. What's the over-and-under that they would somehow attribute this belief to the Bible? What's the over-and-under that they would not be able to actually produce any such biblical reference?


* yes, yes, I know they would need to have a mind in order to be narrow-minded but just go with it.