2012 Republican Presidential candidates

[coracle]

Gaffes? Gaffes are when you misspeak. Michele Bachmann is a woman who ran for school board on an anti-abortion platform. She's batshit insane.

I'm not a Michele Bachmann supporter but I do think running for a school board on an anti-abortion platform makes for common sense so [[adopting your beautiful usage of the English language) I think you must be dogshit stupid. [[I love your terminology - thank you).
Real gaffes are not when you misspeak; they're made when you misread a teleprompter.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm not a Michele Bachmann supporter but I do think running for a school board on an anti-abortion platform makes for common sense...

Yes, because the biggest problem with our educational system is adult women choosing to receive perfectly legal medical services. Remind me what one's personal moral crusades and religious beliefs have to do with approving the purchase of Second Grade textbooks.

Something tells me that Michele Bachmann would run for County Drain Commissioner on an anti-abortion platform.

Real gaffes are not when you misspeak; they're made when you misread a teleprompter.

I've been waiting for someone to make a snarky teleprompter comment. Maybe you should watch Rick Perry's stellar performance from last night and come back with more harty-har-har teleprompter jokes, you Great Orator, you.

[rb336]

That isn't a very good rationalization.

not a rationalization, facts.

I WILL PROMISE YOU THIS, THAT IF WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN OUR TROOPS OUT BY THE TIME I AM PRESIDENT, IT IS THE FIRST THING I WILL DO, I WILL GET OUR TROOPS HOME, WE WILL BRING AN END TO THIS WAR, YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK."
watch him say it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn134-KLL7Y

gee, a 15 minute sound bite OUT OF CONTEXT. If you don't recall, he DID start the wheels on ending the war very shortly after innauguration day. I don't think anyone is daft enough to think he said he'd just yank them all out on Jan 21, and in the rest of THAT speach he laid out what he saw as the process. A process he DID start Jan 21.

Your ability passively accept things you claim not to believe in is amazing. re the 16 year old: rb, Maybe we could put a happy face on the killing of the 16 year old US citizen if we categorized him as collateral damage.16-Year-Old US Citizen, Friends Were Eating Dinner When Missile Landed

Guess what? you said ASSASSINATION. Did they target the kid? there is no evidence for it. In other words, you just made crap up. not from scratch, but by using words that have a specific meaning to describe what WAS collateral damage, then yes, you made crap up. Anytime Obama does something you disagree with, you torture the language or the constitution to portray it your way. that is thoroughly dishonest. pity is, everyone else can see right through it and your dishonesty is only affecting you

[oladub]

rb336:not a rationalization, facts.

Truman: The buck stops here
Obama: It's the Republicans' fault

gee, a 15 minute sound bite OUT OF CONTEXT. If you don't recall, he DID start the wheels on ending the war very shortly after innauguration day. I don't think anyone is daft enough to think he said he'd just yank them all out on Jan 21, and in the rest of THAT speach he laid out what he saw as the process. A process he DID start Jan 21.

Obama promise: I WILL PROMISE YOU THIS, THAT IF WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN OUR TROOPS OUT BY THE TIME I AM PRESIDENT, IT IS THE FIRST THING I WILL DO, I WILL GET OUR TROOPS HOME, WE WILL BRING AN END TO THIS WAR, YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK."
watch him say it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn134-KLL7Y

That seems pretty straight forward.It wasn't the first thing he did. The troops are still there and he intends to keep them there as the Iraqi Parliament allows him to. Keeping them there three years after he emptied the bank, our troops will still be there. It seems like 6 months would have sufficed. Even Salon magazine ridiculed his disingenuousness. About that Iraq withdrawal

Guess what? you said ASSASSINATION. Did they target the kid? there is no evidence for it. In other words, you just made crap up. not from scratch, but by using words that have a specific meaning to describe what WAS collateral damage, then yes, you made crap up. Anytime Obama does something you disagree with, you torture the language or the constitution to portray it your way. that is thoroughly dishonest. pity is, everyone else can see right through it and your dishonesty is only affecting you.

You're right. The 16 year old American kid is just dead. Collateral damage is ok isn't it? When Pakistani wedding parties are disturbed by incoming drone missiles, that's ok too. It ruffles some feathers but those folks know it wasn't directed at them. Which is worse; referring to killing a sixteen year old being killed as an assassination or actually killing the kid?

[rb336]

Obama promise: I WILL PROMISE YOU THIS, THAT IF WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN OUR TROOPS OUT BY THE TIME I AM PRESIDENT, IT IS THE FIRST THING I WILL DO, I WILL GET OUR TROOPS HOME, WE WILL BRING AN END TO THIS WAR, YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK."
watch him say it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn134-KLL7Y

That seems pretty straight forward.It wasn't the first thing he did. The troops are still there and he intends to keep them there as the Iraqi Parliament allows him to. Keeping them there three years after he emptied the bank, our troops will still be there. It seems like 6 months would have sufficed. Even Salon magazine ridiculed his disingenuousness. About that Iraq withdrawal

Obama emptied the bank? 15 minutes out of context is straightforward? yet again you are being disingenuos -- the author of that piece is a Cato Institute guy, yet you are portraying him as obviously a liberal obama supporter because he published opinion pieces in Salon

[oladub]

Obama emptied the bank? 15 minutes out of context is straightforward? yet again you are being disingenuos -- the author of that piece is a Cato Institute guy, yet you are portraying him as obviously a liberal obama supporter because he published opinion pieces in Salon

Emptied the US Treasury: a play on Obama's quote about taking his promise to the bank.

I encourage everyone to read the Solon article. It points out that the Iraqi agreement for the US to get out by the end of this December was made with the Bush administration and that Obama negotiated to keep our troops in longer. To Obama's credit, he didn't accept the Iraqi conditions for doing so. There, i said something sort of nice about Obama. Usually rb, you try to attack the messenger service.100% of everything Fox says is wrong type of thing. Now, we can't even trust Solon or Dennis Kucinich. Are Nancy Pelosi and obama.com still acceptable news sources? When arguments fail, it sometimes helps to shoot the messenger.

[vetalalumni]

vetalalumni, Gingrich might also be formidable as a vp. He has not alienated anyone and has been climbing in the polls. His baggage has much to do with how he dumped his wife but running with a so far morally pure Romney would diffuse Gingrich's cloud.Gingrich is smart and would eat Biden alive in a debate. I have an issue with Gingrich but admire his intelligence like I did Clinton's. I agree that Christie would also be formidable. Any Republican who wins in New Jersey can bring in some Democrat and independent voters. Romney winning Massachusetts fits the same profile of occupying the center.

Will Ron Paul supporters retain a distaste for Gingrich based on his various improprieties? Gingrich resigning from Congress was something.

I'm not certain moral Mitt can carry Gingrich.

Dr. Gingrich is a well educated and experienced wonk to be sure. Gingrich wants the current primary debates conducted as he sees fit. He wants to debate President Obama Lincoln-Douglas style [[a series of seven, three-hour debates). Well, the best way to earn that privilege would be to win the primary election.

Too clever by half is how many view Gingrich.

[Jimaz]

In sincere sympathy for those few of our Republican friends who have genuinely earned the respect of the electorate:

Attachment 11175
Peggy Lee - ♫ Is That All There Is? ♫

[maxx]

The Repub establishment will need to make a decision. In order to defeat Obama which the Repubs claim they want to do they are going to need to embrace a center-right candidate like Huntsman or Romney. Its seems like the Repubs want to defeat Obama but they want to do it with a right-wing neocon.

.

They want to win with whatever candidate, no matter how stupid or nutty, they think can garner the most votes. The powers behind the Rep. party would prefer someone like W who had few thoughts of his own and who could eventually read what they told him to read. They want a stooge or as someone in the press said of Reagan, "a likable dunce". If s/he is a pathological liar, so much the better.

[coracle]

maxx
I'm not going to criticize your post for being the most absurd rhetoric published on this subject; because it did provide me with a good derisory laugh; but please show the sources for your statements.

[Big Dog]

Sources and examples are Bachmann, Perry, Cain, IMO.

[oladub]

Will Ron Paul supporters retain a distaste for Gingrich based on his various improprieties? Gingrich resigning from Congress was something.

I'm not certain moral Mitt can carry Gingrich.

Dr. Gingrich is a well educated and experienced wonk to be sure. Gingrich wants the current primary debates conducted as he sees fit. He wants to debate President Obama Lincoln-Douglas style [[a series of seven, three-hour debates). Well, the best way to earn that privilege would be to win the primary election.

Too clever by half is how many view Gingrich.

There is a move afoot to protray Gingrich as a Tea party guy. Of course that's nuts but maybe he can fill the vacuum left by Bachman, Perry, and Cain to be Romney's VP. The powers that be would like Romney better if he had a Cheney like friendly in the wings.

I doubt that Gingrich's improprieties would be nearly as much of a factor to RP supporters as his history of supporting neocon foreign policy and corporatist interests. Stuff like this: Gingrich campaign insists no lobbying on behalf of Freddie Mac after Freddie Mac lined his pockets with $300,000.

[vetalalumni]

There is a move afoot to protray Gingrich as a Tea party guy. Of course that's nuts but maybe he can fill the vacuum left by Bachman, Perry, and Cain to be Romney's VP. The powers that be would like Romney better if he had a Cheney like friendly in the wings.
...

The underlined statement above is interesting and left me with two questions:

1) Cheney has a variety of characteristics, if you will. Which of these in particular are appealing to potential Romney voters or to the powers that be?

2) The powers that be need a context in order to understand the statement. Which group comprises the afore mentioned powers that be? Voters? Corporations? Other politicians?

...
I doubt that Gingrich's improprieties would be nearly as much of a factor to RP supporters as his history of supporting neocon foreign policy and corporatist interests. Stuff like this: Gingrich campaign insists no lobbying on behalf of Freddie Mac after Freddie Mac lined his pockets with $300,000.

Is there at all any type of credibilty issue regarding Gingrich?

[vetalalumni]

They want to win with whatever candidate, no matter how stupid or nutty, they think can garner the most votes. The powers behind the Rep. party would prefer someone like W who had few thoughts of his own and who could eventually read what they told him to read. They want a stooge or as someone in the press said of Reagan, "a likable dunce". If s/he is a pathological liar, so much the better.

Ron Paul seems the least likely to be a stooge or likable dunce who would simply "read what they told him to read". He is relatively consistent, for whatever that is worth in modern society. Consistency is not a synonym for wisdom, honesty, or even accuracy in our changing world.

For sure, campaigning and governing are parallactic views and are primary factors as to why campaign promises are not kept at a 100% rate during a presidency.

[oladub]

The underlined statement above is interesting and left me with two questions:

1) Cheney has a variety of characteristics, if you will. Which of these in particular are appealing to potential Romney voters or to the powers that be?

2) The powers that be need a context in order to understand the statement. Which group comprises the afore mentioned powers that be? Voters? Corporations? Other politicians?

Is there at all any type of credibilty issue regarding Gingrich?

In the 2008 campaign, Romney was way ahead until the press built Huckabee up never saying a bad word about Huckabee. Huckabee won South Carolina and Romney dropped out. Then the press did a 180 on Huckabee and pumped up McCain. I never figured out why the press performed it's act of pumping Huckabee up until Romney dropped out. For some reason, the press was tasked with taking out Romney. I know that I sound like the Minister Farrakan but he came independently to the same conclusions about the relationship of the press to the powers that be. This time around, we've had a series of would be Tea-party candidates self destruct. Gingrich, at least, has a brain and is often eloquent and is starting to get some attention.

Beyond brains and being regarded an ideas guy, Gingrich is very comfortable within government and the corporate world. He is an insider. If, for whatever reason, Wall Street is ambivalent about Romney, Gingrich can be counted on.

"The same people who own the banks control the media." -Minister Farrakan

Ron Paul articles-

Will the Republican party support Ron Paul?

Foreign Policy Dossier: Ron Paul

[vetalalumni]

Some believe tonight's debate was relatively inconsequential. Not so.

Candidates spent time discussing U.S. foreign policy and details emerged for all the world to see [[ I watched on-line). Impromptu delineation of differing candidate policies are now on wider record.

Less of tonight's important debate time was spent redundantly deriding the current administration. There will be ample time for that in the coming months. And by now anyone paying attention knows full well that each candidate claims to be anti Obama. No news there.

[oladub]

Of the one hour of tonight's CBS debate that was televised, Ron Paul only got 89 seconds of time. He compared the media build up before the Iraq war with the propaganda now with regards to Iran. Also, Paul came out squarely against torture. Even Santorum got a lot more time. Like I was saying, the media does the bidding of it's owners.

Tonight: Perry - 5 questions, 2 follow ups Newt - 5 questions, 1 follow up Cain - 5 questions, 1 follow up Romney - 4 questions, 1 follow up Santorum - 3 questions, 2 follow ups Bachman - 3 questions Huntsman - 2 questions, 1 follow up Paul - 1 question, 1 follow up.

[Jimaz]

Obama - zero questions, zero follow up.

Media bias there? Hell no! The media's only biased against weirdos. LOL!

[vetalalumni]

Of the one hour of tonight's CBS debate that was televised, Ron Paul only got 89 seconds of time. He compared the media build up before the Iraq war with the propaganda now with regards to Iran. Also, Paul came out squarely against torture. Even Santorum got a lot more time. Like I was saying, the media does the bidding of it's owners. Tonight: Perry - 5 questions, 2 follow ups Newt - 5 questions, 1 follow up Cain - 5 questions, 1 follow up Romney - 4 questions, 1 follow up Santorum - 3 questions, 2 follow ups Bachman - 3 questions Huntsman - 2 questions, 1 follow up Paul - 1 question, 1 follow up.

The National Journal website provided a [[latent) live stream of the entire debate. Ron Paul indeed was forgotten. One can understand his demonstrable exasperation. Due to his age, time is not on his side either. To his credit he has endured where others might have surrendered in futility.

[vetalalumni]

The entire 90 minute debate in seven successive parts. The last half-hour not shown on CBS is part 6 and 7.

PART 1


PART 2


PART 3


PART 4


PART 5


PART 6


PART 7

[oladub]

Obama - zero questions, zero follow up.

Media bias there? Hell no! The media's only biased against weirdos. LOL!

Actually, President Obama was on TV this morning promoting more "free trade" with Asia. Maybe more competition with Asian labor will somehow tone up unemployed US workers. The press reported Presiident Obama's latest corporatist scheme with, as you say, "zero questions, zero follow up". Maybe that's where the nickname 'President Zero' comes from. I guess that the only candidate on stage who came out against endless wars, war with Iran, and torture would sound like a wierdo to Perry, Cain, Santorum, or for that matter, Obama supporters.

[vetalalumni]

...
the only candidate on stage who came out against endless wars, war with Iran, and torture would sound like a wierdo to Perry, Cain, Santorum, or for that matter, Obama supporters.

As president, how would Ron Paul lead us into making "friends" with Iran?

[vetalalumni]

Of the one hour of tonight's CBS debate that was televised, Ron Paul only got 89 seconds of time. He compared the media build up before the Iraq war with the propaganda now with regards to Iran. Also, Paul came out squarely against torture. Even Santorum got a lot more time. Like I was saying, the media does the bidding of it's owners.

Tonight: Perry - 5 questions, 2 follow ups Newt - 5 questions, 1 follow up Cain - 5 questions, 1 follow up Romney - 4 questions, 1 follow up Santorum - 3 questions, 2 follow ups Bachman - 3 questions Huntsman - 2 questions, 1 follow up Paul - 1 question, 1 follow up.

Bachmann and her campaign director call foul as well.

Aides to Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann say that an email received from a CBS News’ contributor offers “concrete evidence” of media bias against the Republican presidential candidate.
...
Keith Nahigian, Bachmann’s campaign director, posted Dickerson’s email with a message from the campaign accusing CBS of bias.

“While Michele has been onstage at tonight’s debate demonstrating strong leadership on foreign policy and national security, we received concrete evidence confirming what every conservative already knows — the liberal mainstream media elites are manipulating the Republican debates by purposely suppressing our conservative message and limiting Michele’s questions,” the message stated. Nahigian then asked supporters “to show the liberal media elite that we won’t stand for this outrageous manipulation” by forwarding the post to friends.
...

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/12/bachmann-campaign-says-cbs-email-is-concrete-evidence-of-liberal-media-bias

[rb336]

Actually, President Obama was on TV this morning promoting more "free trade" with Asia. Maybe more competition with Asian labor will somehow tone up unemployed US workers.

yep, another in a long line of corporatist presidents. So how would your hero deal with corporations? How would liberterians deal with corporate excess? They have NO answer for that

[oladub]

yep, another in a long line of corporatist presidents. So how would your hero deal with corporations? How would liberterians deal with corporate excess? They have NO answer for that

My response was in reply to poor President Obama not getting any free publicity as were Republican candidates. I pointed out that President Obama was on TV effectively promoting the transfer of more US jobs to Asia. Back to your question: Libertarianism can range all the way to anarchy so I will just settle on positions offered by Ron Paul who tempers his libertarianism with constitutionalism. Ron Paul votes to limit the federal government from giving bankers' bailouts, fighting resource wars, giving corporate subsidies, by not using government agencies to make regulations favoring the interests of big corporations, and otherwise giving away taxpayer money to give advantages to corporations. He differentiates capitalism from crony capitialism; the latter being corporatism and cites Obamacare as an example of crony capitalism by forcing individuals to purchase corporate products.