« The Pakistan Answer | Main | Running Against Congress »

December 01, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

KING not a Newt fan--- NY Republican Rep today announced he is hoping that Romney is the Republican Nominee. He recalled Newt's tenure as House Leader as rocky and unproductive ending in Republicans dumping him. Asked if others agreed with him he said those who served with Newt are not anxious to see him nominated. His view as he was quized is that Newt is all about Newt and continues to show the same tendencies as a candidate for President. He said Newt is extremely intelligent but lacks focus on seeing things through. He also compared him to Obama as an intelligent guy who will not listen to anyone else or compromise. So, is Newt charming the country with his intelligence just as Obama did? According to King he is and the country would be better served to have Romney a guy who listens, gets consensus and gets things done. Interesting comments.

You cannot lead by--

I just listened to the I man one more time. He knew this down vote was coming on the Consumer appointment. And, yet he never calls in the leadership of Congress and negotiates anything. He also know there will be an attempt to link the Keystone approval with the payroll tax extension. Instead of meeting to discuss alternatives he continues to "paint the GOP as the enemy of the middle class". Calling press conference after press conference to discuss his inability to get anything to happen. In a way he is just showing how inept he is at leadership. He really never tries. His strategy continues to be make the Republicans lok like they won't negotiate when he never even tries. It is not going to work.

To Al B. Please re-read my comments. I did not say that most conservatives believe so. What I did say was that a hand picked group of Reps at the "debate" apparently do. Whoever picked these folks did the Rep party a great disservice for allowing the whole Rep do be painted this way.

I do hope that all Reps (and all others) reflect on the values represented by this group and reflect on their own values. In my view those four attitudes are completely unAmerican and need to be exposed. Reps need to disavow not just the people in the room, but those who put them there.

Caught up in his ego----

For a while Donald Trump seemed to be making some good cases for US businesses and was a refreshing voice in the Republican party. But, now he seems to be trying to become the "King Maker". Somehow he has become a moderator for the candidates who show up and take part in what appears to be a game show program where the winner gets the prize of "Donald's endorsement"--that is if he is good enough. And, if he is not then, of course, come mid April when the Don becomes a free agent he will run as an independent assuring an Obama victory. I think the Don got one too many Greta interviews. Of course, this just happens to be at the same time his new book is released. I suppose if Romney doesn't appear and Newt does than the Don will bless Newt for paying his dues.

Well presented, Al.

Unfortunately Bill Bowen's analysis probably is correct--the choice will boil down to Gingrich or Romney. I think it makes a huge difference,however, as to which candidate the Republicans select.

I may be naive, but Gingrich appears to share a number of negative traits with Obama (albeit from opposite ends of the spectrum). Both are arrogant, contentious, and unable to compromise with anybody. Witness Barack's inability to press his agenda (other than Obamacare), or even present a budget, despite owning both houses of Congress for half of his Term. Witness Newt's banishment from the Speakership for arguable reasons, because he turned so many people into enemies. Do we want to subject our great country to another 4 years of deadlock bickering, which probably will be the case if either Obama or Gingrich is elected.

As Harry Cat points out, Newt carries a lot of baggage. MSM will love to slice into Newt. That already is happening. Obama must be hoping that the knives stay in their scabbards until Newt is nominated because Newt is his easier target by far. Most of the USA is somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum and many will remember Newt as a take-no-prisoner politician. Not a hopeful trait for those believing that compromise between the opposing political poles is necessary for the well being of the USA. [Obama has lost all credibility on that score. He won my vote last election because I believed his pitch that he would compromise and unite--That lie will not work with me again]

It really is hard to find fault with Romney. What can he be attacked for? Flip-flopping? As Governor of Massachusetts, he had the common sense to fashion a health care compromise that most of the Massachusetts citizens wanted. How can MSM or Obama attack that as a negative? States Rights conservatives should not find fault either. Obama certainly cannot run on "accomplishments", and Romney is a very difficult target to demonize with any credibility. [Not that MSM and Obama's campaign won't try]

PS--I am very puzzlede that Harry Cat believes that most conservatives are in favor of torturing, electrocuting would-be illegal immigrants,or denying health car3e to those in urgent need. Maybe Harry Cat should expand his group of acquantances? And, having attended "Occupy Charleston" rallies, I did not find any unifying "anger". Rather, I found a rather eclectic group of causes (most of which I agreed with), such as withdrawal from Iraq, making the Federal Reserve more transparent as it commits our money, etc. True-this was Charleston, where the citizenry frowns on pooping on police cars, smashing shop windows, and provoking police as a legitimate exercise of "free speach".

Harrycat: Let's take the points one at a time without the implication you are making the Bill is calling out.

1. Perry executes prisoners. Perry carries out the will of Texans who found them guilty and had reason to ask the state to execute them. There are plenty of people in both parties who believe in the death penatly.

2. The GOP favors torture. Many people favor the use of enhanced interogation methods in order to save massive loss of life. In both parties. It is not as if the GOP favors torture as an every day method of interogation. Water boarding with the ok of a judge and the President is ok with many people. We have addressed this one before.

3. Electrocuted at the fence is a distortion of the situation in which an electrified fence is used to inhibit intruders from climbing it. Low watt high voltage electricity is harmless but it does sting. I'm not in favor of it but it is not to imply the GOP is advocating electrocution as in death.

4.An uninsured injured person denied treatment at an emergency room is once again a situation that has a lot of variables. Near death? Contagious? Legal citizen or illegal immigrant? etc. In my view we treat em, ask em for their identification and if illegal send them home. If legal citizens we then figure out how to pay back the system.

Your 4 ways of making a general statement about GOP members is frankly dishonest. But, then the smoke and mirrors President we have is doing similar things every day as he tries to pit us against each other rather than negotiate bipartisan solutions to our problems. He is simply trying to hold his gains from the first 2 years by either holding the Senate or the White House. With little substance to lean on he has to resort to demeaning the opposition. I have lots of differences with GOP leaders but not as many as I have with Obama.

Harry: You miss the point. Your comment was "Does anybody wonder why I can't see any hope for the GOP base?" I am the GOP base. I do not want to be lumped together and vilified for the comments of a few (and they are a very few) any more than the Obama acolytes want to be lumped together with the Occupy folks pooping on cop cars. There was a hope to identify (nay, an effort to publicize) the Tea Party as a group of racist fanatics - a media effort which has turned out to be utterly false. Your effort is to vilify the Republican base as reflective of a few people who act out at debates. You may not like it, but the population identifiews itself as 40 % conservative; 40% neutral; and 20% liberal. There are a whole lot of people in that first 40%, and almost nobody in what you categorize as "the GOP base". Similarly there are a lot of people in the 20% who should not be categorized as Occupy crazies.

Sorry Bill B - bad analogy. The Occupy movement is not about politics. They have been quite clear that they are not part of some other group. They are upset with the system that has allowed the current mess to occur. They are mad at Reps and Dems or whoever has been in charge. They are not a political movement. Would they vote Dem? Probably, but that is not why they are camping out.

At the debate the crowd was explicitly Reps. No others were there. I don't think even journalists were allowed in. They were egging on politicians whom they assumed agreed with them. And no one told them just how out of bounds they were. All accepted the premise: execution, torture, electrocution of immigrants, no ER treatment. Except perhaps Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman.

It is incorrect to call the Occupy movement a Dem operation. If either party can figure out how to harness their energy that party would gain a great advantage. There may be only a few thousand Occupiers, but the anger is very wide and deep.

Hidden War?

Two big explosions in Iran could signal the beginning of the war with Iran. But, then who did them? Israel? The US drones? One took out a Uranium enrichment plant and the second took out a solid fuel Missile testing facility and several key missile technology experts as well as the leader of Iran's missile program. Prior to these explosions there have been a cyber attack on their software and several key assasinations of Nuclear technology experts.

On the Iranian side they have shot down a drone or two but then that happens without much fanfare in Pakistan and Afghanistan and probably Somalia, Yemen and Iraq as well. And, Iranians have identified and claimed to have captured several CIA agents. You may recall that after the failed raid in Iran by President Carter the Iranians wiped out our CIA friends as well.

So, where are we in the attempt to slow or stop Iran? Fighting behind their borders, supporting Israel efforts with intelligence, or watching the Israeli agents covertly conducting the war? No matter but for the liberal base of President Obama it must be worrisone that one attack too many could trigger a response we are not ready to respond to. Or are we? At this point the Iranian's are calling them military research accidents. And, the next question is what are we doing about the underground enrichment and warhead design sites that are sure to be hidden somewhere?

The comments to this entry are closed.