WTF is Wrong with America???

[native]

I'd vote for anything but Obama at this point. Even Huckabee

[JohnStOnge]

I think the problem is with the People. And, with all due respect, I think the fact that you basically label everyone on the list of potential Republicans listed as "right wing nuts" illustrates the problem.

[native]

To answer your question succinctly: d1b, grizz-the-hallway, et al.

[Grizalltheway]

I think the problem is with the People. And, with all due respect, I think the fact that you basically label everyone on the list of potential Republicans listed as "right wing nuts" illustrates the problem.

And yet, to people on your side, anyone to the left of Reagan is a left wing nut.

[mrklean]

We need a Jack Kemp for the GOP. But anyway....FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Grizalltheway]

To answer your question succinctly: d1b, grizz-the-hallway, et al.

I'm flattered.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

We need a Jack Kemp for the GOP. But anyway....FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they've all been run out of the party... the best they've got now is Daniels in Indiana - and their talk-radio establishment has already savaged him to the point he won't get in...

the gop has been purging moderates for 15 years... there aren't more than a handful left.

[citdog]

We need a Jack Kemp for the GOP. But anyway....FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

let's all congragulate kleany for FINALLY bringing something intelligent to the debate. is this a sign that perhaps he has ended his search of every rock and tree for ku kluxxers and the above will be what we will come to expect from him? I sure hope so.

kleany I always liked Kemp. It is a shame his health was so poor.

[CID1990]

This is what happens when you have such a blatant amateur in the White House.

Every Tom, Dick and Sally thinks they can run and win.

[CID1990]

We need a Jack Kemp for the GOP. But anyway....FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they've all been run out of the party... the best they've got now is Daniels in Indiana - and their talk-radio establishment has already savaged him to the point he won't get in...

the gop has been purging moderates for 15 years... there aren't more than a handful left.

You could switch 'gop' in that statement and replace it with 'Democratic Party' and be just as accurate. There are nuts, idealogues and idiots steering both ships.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

they've all been run out of the party... the best they've got now is Daniels in Indiana - and their talk-radio establishment has already savaged him to the point he won't get in...

the gop has been purging moderates for 15 years... there aren't more than a handful left.

You could switch 'gop' in that statement and replace it with 'Democratic Party' and be just as accurate. There are nuts, idealogues and idiots steering both ships.

your ignorance is showing - the Blue Dog caucus is very strong. they won a lot of seats in 06&08 (and gave quite a lot back in 10...) they aren't the most popular with the base always... but guys like Colin Peterson still have a home with the Dems...

[Baldy]

The best the Conk party can do is a choice of the following:

Herman Cain, businessman and radio talk show host from Georgia
Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia
Fred Karger, political consultant and gay rights activist from California
Andy Martin, perennial candidate from Illinois
Jimmy McMillan, perennial candidate from New York
Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas
Tim Pawlenty, former Governor from Minnesota
Buddy Roemer, former Governor from Louisiana
Mitt Romney, former Governor from Massachusetts
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Ole Savior, perennial candidate from Minnesota

Add to THAT "who's who" of right-wing-nuts the following possible (probable) candidates:

Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman
Donald Trump
Mike Huckabee
Haley Barbour

So, setting aside the "perennial" candidates, at this point it appears we're going to get to choose between two psychotic bitches, one delusional 3xBK old man (Trump), a bible-thumping preacher (Huckabee), an absolutely unelectable Mormon (Romney), a cheating ex-Speaker of the House (Gingrich), a completely unelectable perennial candidate (Paul) and two retread governors who can't think of anything else to do (Barbour & Pawlenty).

And on the other side of the ballot we'll have a guy who is doing is absolute best to spend us into oblivion and wouldn't know an effective foreign policy if it walked up and kicked him in the nuts.

What happened to the good ol' days?

This election is going to be a fucking circus. And it's almost guaranteed that no matter WHO wins the Republican nomination, one or more of these wingnuts will run as an independent, diluting the vote like Perot did in 1992.

inmates run the asylum in conkistan... that's what happens when you let the nutters take control like the conks did with those tea-party shitbags...

they'll never give Daniels the fair shake he deserves... so they'll either go with their Howard Dean clone (Palin) or their John Kerry clone (Pawlenty or Romney)

Funny stuff.

I guess you're too blind from the shit filling up to your eyeballs. What's brewing for 2012 is the same things that happened in 1976 to 1980 and again in 2008. In 1976 the country was tired...tired of Nixon's shit, Watergate, the war that just ended, the scandals, you name it. It didn't matter who the Republican was in office, all the Donks had to do was name a 3 legged dog with the mange as the nominee, and you had a winner. The problem was they actually found a candidate worse than a 3 legged dog with the mange. Of course Carter won, but in 4 short years his absolute buffoonery and ineptness brought the country to its knees. Even the biggest critics of Carter had to feel embarrassed for the guy after seeing what Reagan did to the poor bastard on election night. Incumbents aren't supposed to lose, but the be completely wiped off the electoral map like that was earth shattering.

Fast forward to 2008, and it was very much the same. People were tired of Bush, the wars, the scandals, and the financial meltdown was the icing on the cake. Again, all the Donks had to do was pull a scarecrow out of a field in the middle of Iowa and name it as the Donk nominee. True to typical Donk form they name a nominee worse than a scarecrow from a corn field in the middle of Iowa. (:ohno:). And just like Carter, this poor fool is so fucking far in over his head that he doesn't know whether to scratch his watch or wind his ass. In the grand scheme of things Obama should have beaten a very flawed candidate like McCain much worse than he did.

Mark my words. If gas is anywhere near $4 a gallon, unemployment is anywhere near where it is now, and/or the economy is still barely treading water, the Republicans can draw a stick figure on a piece of paper name it the nominee and beat Obama by at least 8 points.

[DJH]

Nobody with a brain wants the job.

This is the problem. And who can blame them?

Part of the reason that the candidates suck now is because of the incredible media scrutiny that they have to go through in today's age of technology. Honestly, how can ANYONE look like a great candidate under the current climate where literally every single word uttered, and every single step you take is dissected and analyzed until your ears bleed? Candidates from 50 years ago did not have to deal with this.

[citdog]

JEWS FOR ROY MOORE!

Z you make his title sound GRAND indeed!

[AZGrizFan]

inmates run the asylum in conkistan... that's what happens when you let the nutters take control like the conks did with those tea-party shitbags...

they'll never give Daniels the fair shake he deserves... so they'll either go with their Howard Dean clone (Palin) or their John Kerry clone (Pawlenty or Romney)

Funny stuff.

I guess you're too blind from the shit filling up to your eyeballs. What's brewing for 2012 is the same things that happened in 1976 to 1980 and again in 2008. In 1976 the country was tired...tired of Nixon's shit, Watergate, the war that just ended, the scandals, you name it. It didn't matter who the Republican was in office, all the Donks had to do was name a 3 legged dog with the mange as the nominee, and you had a winner. The problem was they actually found a candidate worse than a 3 legged dog with the mange. Of course Carter won, but in 4 short years his absolute buffoonery and ineptness brought the country to its knees. Even the biggest critics of Carter had to feel embarrassed for the guy after seeing what Reagan did to the poor bastard on election night. Incumbents aren't supposed to lose, but the be completely wiped off the electoral map like that was earth shattering.

Fast forward to 2008, and it was very much the same. People were tired of Bush, the wars, the scandals, and the financial meltdown was the icing on the cake. Again, all the Donks had to do was pull a scarecrow out of a field in the middle of Iowa and name it as the Donk nominee. True to typical Donk form they name a nominee worse than a scarecrow from a corn field in the middle of Iowa. (:ohno:). And just like Carter, this poor fool is so fucking far in over his head that he doesn't know whether to scratch his watch or wind his ass. In the grand scheme of things Obama should have beaten a very flawed candidate like McCain much worse than he did.

Mark my words. If gas is anywhere near $4 a gallon, unemployment is anywhere near where it is now, and/or the economy is still barely treading water, the Republicans can draw a stick figure on a piece of paper name it the nominee and beat Obama by at least 8 points.

Baldy, that is POTY material right there.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

inmates run the asylum in conkistan... that's what happens when you let the nutters take control like the conks did with those tea-party shitbags...

they'll never give Daniels the fair shake he deserves... so they'll either go with their Howard Dean clone (Palin) or their John Kerry clone (Pawlenty or Romney)

Funny stuff.

I guess you're too blind from the shit filling up to your eyeballs. What's brewing for 2012 is the same things that happened in 1976 to 1980 and again in 2008. In 1976 the country was tired...tired of Nixon's shit, Watergate, the war that just ended, the scandals, you name it. It didn't matter who the Republican was in office, all the Donks had to do was name a 3 legged dog with the mange as the nominee, and you had a winner. The problem was they actually found a candidate worse than a 3 legged dog with the mange. Of course Carter won, but in 4 short years his absolute buffoonery and ineptness brought the country to its knees. Even the biggest critics of Carter had to feel embarrassed for the guy after seeing what Reagan did to the poor bastard on election night. Incumbents aren't supposed to lose, but the be completely wiped off the electoral map like that was earth shattering.

Fast forward to 2008, and it was very much the same. People were tired of Bush, the wars, the scandals, and the financial meltdown was the icing on the cake. Again, all the Donks had to do was pull a scarecrow out of a field in the middle of Iowa and name it as the Donk nominee. True to typical Donk form they name a nominee worse than a scarecrow from a corn field in the middle of Iowa. (:ohno:). And just like Carter, this poor fool is so fucking far in over his head that he doesn't know whether to scratch his watch or wind his ass. In the grand scheme of things Obama should have beaten a very flawed candidate like McCain much worse than he did.

Mark my words. If gas is anywhere near $4 a gallon, unemployment is anywhere near where it is now, and/or the economy is still barely treading water, the Republicans can draw a stick figure on a piece of paper name it the nominee and beat Obama by at least 8 points.

In that little list Z posted... do you see ANYONE who is HALF the candidate Reagan was? Setting his politics aside - Reagan was a hell of a candidate - formidable in so many ways... not a single member of Z's Mudville 9 could carry the guys saggy nutsack...

Obama is a much better politician/candidate than Carter ever was.

But I'll mark your words... I still don't see anyone coming down through the conk door who can win.

[AZGrizFan]

Funny stuff.

I guess you're too blind from the shit filling up to your eyeballs. What's brewing for 2012 is the same things that happened in 1976 to 1980 and again in 2008. In 1976 the country was tired...tired of Nixon's shit, Watergate, the war that just ended, the scandals, you name it. It didn't matter who the Republican was in office, all the Donks had to do was name a 3 legged dog with the mange as the nominee, and you had a winner. The problem was they actually found a candidate worse than a 3 legged dog with the mange. Of course Carter won, but in 4 short years his absolute buffoonery and ineptness brought the country to its knees. Even the biggest critics of Carter had to feel embarrassed for the guy after seeing what Reagan did to the poor bastard on election night. Incumbents aren't supposed to lose, but the be completely wiped off the electoral map like that was earth shattering.

Fast forward to 2008, and it was very much the same. People were tired of Bush, the wars, the scandals, and the financial meltdown was the icing on the cake. Again, all the Donks had to do was pull a scarecrow out of a field in the middle of Iowa and name it as the Donk nominee. True to typical Donk form they name a nominee worse than a scarecrow from a corn field in the middle of Iowa. (:ohno:). And just like Carter, this poor fool is so fucking far in over his head that he doesn't know whether to scratch his watch or wind his ass. In the grand scheme of things Obama should have beaten a very flawed candidate like McCain much worse than he did.

Mark my words. If gas is anywhere near $4 a gallon, unemployment is anywhere near where it is now, and/or the economy is still barely treading water, the Republicans can draw a stick figure on a piece of paper name it the nominee and beat Obama by at least 8 points.

In that little list Z posted... do you see ANYONE who is HALF the candidate Reagan was? Setting his politics aside - Reagan was a hell of a candidate - formidable in so many ways... not a single member of Z's Mudville 9 could carry the guys saggy nutsack...

Obama is a much better politician/candidate than Carter ever was.

But I'll mark your words... I still don't see anyone coming down through the conk door who can win.

I think what you may be missing is that you're looking at Reagan as a "candidate" through a 30-year-old prism of politics since he was elected. Remember this is the same guy who was defeated in 1968 primary and the 1976 primary before he was finally elected to the Presidency in 1980. What made Reagan look so good was the fact that Carter was so bad.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

In that little list Z posted... do you see ANYONE who is HALF the candidate Reagan was? Setting his politics aside - Reagan was a hell of a candidate - formidable in so many ways... not a single member of Z's Mudville 9 could carry the guys saggy nutsack...

Obama is a much better politician/candidate than Carter ever was.

But I'll mark your words... I still don't see anyone coming down through the conk door who can win.

I think what you may be missing is that you're looking at Reagan as a "candidate" through a 30-year-old prism of politics since he was elected. Remember this is the same guy who was defeated in 1968 primary and the 1976 primary before he was finally elected to the Presidency in 1980. What made Reagan look so good was the fact that Carter was so bad.

not really, no. my analysis of Reagan as a candidate in 80 is a result of his previous failures. he had grown as a candidate, become more than "an old b movie star" by 80 - he had built a very good message and image. he also caught one issue (the hostages) and rode it all the way home.

not to mention the very credible challenge from Ted Kennedy that weakened Carter (not that he needed it) - and Anderson acting as a parking place for voters who couldn't go to Reagan - but had abandoned Carter...

[Baldy]

Funny stuff.

I guess you're too blind from the shit filling up to your eyeballs. What's brewing for 2012 is the same things that happened in 1976 to 1980 and again in 2008. In 1976 the country was tired...tired of Nixon's shit, Watergate, the war that just ended, the scandals, you name it. It didn't matter who the Republican was in office, all the Donks had to do was name a 3 legged dog with the mange as the nominee, and you had a winner. The problem was they actually found a candidate worse than a 3 legged dog with the mange. Of course Carter won, but in 4 short years his absolute buffoonery and ineptness brought the country to its knees. Even the biggest critics of Carter had to feel embarrassed for the guy after seeing what Reagan did to the poor bastard on election night. Incumbents aren't supposed to lose, but the be completely wiped off the electoral map like that was earth shattering.

Fast forward to 2008, and it was very much the same. People were tired of Bush, the wars, the scandals, and the financial meltdown was the icing on the cake. Again, all the Donks had to do was pull a scarecrow out of a field in the middle of Iowa and name it as the Donk nominee. True to typical Donk form they name a nominee worse than a scarecrow from a corn field in the middle of Iowa. (:ohno:). And just like Carter, this poor fool is so fucking far in over his head that he doesn't know whether to scratch his watch or wind his ass. In the grand scheme of things Obama should have beaten a very flawed candidate like McCain much worse than he did.

Mark my words. If gas is anywhere near $4 a gallon, unemployment is anywhere near where it is now, and/or the economy is still barely treading water, the Republicans can draw a stick figure on a piece of paper name it the nominee and beat Obama by at least 8 points.

In that little list Z posted... do you see ANYONE who is HALF the candidate Reagan was? Setting his politics aside - Reagan was a hell of a candidate - formidable in so many ways... not a single member of Z's Mudville 9 could carry the guys saggy nutsack...

Obama is a much better politician/candidate than Carter ever was.

But I'll mark your words... I still don't see anyone coming down through the conk door who can win.

You're totally missing a couple of points.

1. Just like in 1976, 1980, and 2008, it doesn't matter who the candidate is. If the economy is still stuck in the mud, unemployment, and gas are sky high (and interest rates are starting to climb), the Republicans can nominate a freaking fire hydrant and beat Obama.

2. In 2012, Obama can't be just the "candidate". The people were so fed up that Obama got away with his paper thin resume in 2008. He won't have that luxury in 2012. Hopey Changey ain't gonna work this time. He will somehow have to find a way to run with and defend his record. Unless something drastic changes he'll be just like Carter in 1976, powerless to defend it.

[citdog]

I think what you may be missing is that you're looking at Reagan as a "candidate" through a 30-year-old prism of politics since he was elected. Remember this is the same guy who was defeated in 1968 primary and the 1976 primary before he was finally elected to the Presidency in 1980. What made Reagan look so good was the fact that Carter was so bad.

not really, no. my analysis of Reagan as a candidate in 80 is a result of his previous failures. he had grown as a candidate, become more than "an old b movie star" by 80 - he had built a very good message and image. he also caught one issue (the hostages) and rode it all the way home.

not to mention the very credible challenge from Ted Kennedy that weakened Carter (not that he needed it) - and Anderson acting as a parking place for voters who couldn't go to Reagan - but had abandoned Carter...

nothing ted kennedy ever did was credible. he was unelectable outside of the cesspool of inequity known as massachusetts

[CID1990]

You could switch 'gop' in that statement and replace it with 'Democratic Party' and be just as accurate. There are nuts, idealogues and idiots steering both ships.

your ignorance is showing - the Blue Dog caucus is very strong. they won a lot of seats in 06&08 (and gave quite a lot back in 10...) they aren't the most popular with the base always... but guys like Colin Peterson still have a home with the Dems...

Mm hmm.

I am not Mr. Operative like you, but I certainly see some of them quitting, like Webb. There are also plenty of moderate Republicans out there who are perfectly safe, like Graham (who also has a home with the Reps). They all take flack from the nuts on both sides.

[AZGrizFan]

I think what you may be missing is that you're looking at Reagan as a "candidate" through a 30-year-old prism of politics since he was elected. Remember this is the same guy who was defeated in 1968 primary and the 1976 primary before he was finally elected to the Presidency in 1980. What made Reagan look so good was the fact that Carter was so bad.

not really, no. my analysis of Reagan as a candidate in 80 is a result of his previous failures. he had grown as a candidate, become more than "an old b movie star" by 80 - he had built a very good message and image. he also caught one issue (the hostages) and rode it all the way home.

not to mention the very credible challenge from Ted Kennedy that weakened Carter (not that he needed it) - and Anderson acting as a parking place for voters who couldn't go to Reagan - but had abandoned Carter...

Interesting. We may have a candidate catch one issue (the deficit) and ride it all the way home. Obama may face a credible challenge from someone within his own party given their dissatisfaction with his performance, and I voted for John Anderson in 1980.

[Wedgebuster]

I'd vote for anything but Obama at this point. Even Hitler

[TwinTownBisonFan]

not really, no. my analysis of Reagan as a candidate in 80 is a result of his previous failures. he had grown as a candidate, become more than "an old b movie star" by 80 - he had built a very good message and image. he also caught one issue (the hostages) and rode it all the way home.

not to mention the very credible challenge from Ted Kennedy that weakened Carter (not that he needed it) - and Anderson acting as a parking place for voters who couldn't go to Reagan - but had abandoned Carter...

Interesting. We may have a candidate catch one issue (the deficit) and ride it all the way home. Obama may face a credible challenge from someone within his own party given their dissatisfaction with his performance, and I voted for John Anderson in 1980.

while the deficit will have salience with a pocket of voters... it will never be the defining issue of a Presidential campaign... rank-and-file voters just don't care enough... and it appears nothing can make them care.

the kinds of issues that become sweeping and national often come from places you don't expect and speak to voters fears (generally) about something. The hostages (loss of American prestige), 1968 in general (lack of "law and order"), etc

[AZGrizFan]

Interesting. We may have a candidate catch one issue (the deficit) and ride it all the way home. Obama may face a credible challenge from someone within his own party given their dissatisfaction with his performance, and I voted for John Anderson in 1980.

while the deficit will have salience with a pocket of voters... it will never be the defining issue of a Presidential campaign... rank-and-file voters just don't care enough... and it appears nothing can make them care.

the kinds of issues that become sweeping and national often come from places you don't expect and speak to voters fears (generally) about something. The hostages (loss of American prestige), 1968 in general (lack of "law and order"), etc

2012 (the collapse of our country).