Very OT: Election Cycle 2011-2012 in Classic Whitney Archive II Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Very OT: Election Cycle 2011-2012

Author	Comment
LoverForLife04		#361	[-]
Diamond Posts: 7718 Jan 29 12 12:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Nikray wrote: You won't hear some of those Obama critics discussing the various bank bail outs which started in the last months of Bush adminstration and Obama continued them for the first year also. Or how about the auto industry? How about the trillions of dollars we spent in Iraq? Oh I forgot Cheney said the oil revenues would pay that war...heck we don't even have a bounced check to show for that mess. Yeah the two wars that we financed on our national credit card fails to enter in to anyone's arguments. People have no issue with the country going into debt while killing people in other countries, but up in arms over trying to help people and save lives in our own country.
dluvswh		#362	[-]
Diamond Posts: 3041 Jan 29 12 12:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	RM0919 wrote: *"Nevertheless, I'm especially upset about the treatment Obama received, and continues to receive, as most of it was seemingly (and more than likely) fueled by racism... "* So when he was eleceted as a president, this was fueled by racism too? I was clearly talking about his opposition, so that was an epic fail, just like the rest of your "rebuttal"...
dluvswh		#363	[-]
Diamond Posts: 3041 Jan 29 12 12:55 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ronnoco Man wrote: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Just thought it was kinda interesting, especially for those who claim Mr. Obama hasn't done ANYTHING! +1 Thanks for posting Ronnoco Man!
Nikray		#364	[-]
Diamond Posts: 10468 Jan 29 12 12:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	LoverForLife04 wrote: Nikray wrote: You won't hear some of those Obama critics discussing the various bank bail outs which started in the last months of Bush adminstration and Obama continued them for the first year also. Or how about the auto industry? How about the trillions of dollars we spent in Iraq? Oh I forgot Cheney said the oil revenues would pay that war...heck we don't even have a bounced check to show for that mess. Yeah the two wars that we financed on our national credit card fails to enter in to anyone's arguments. People have no issue with the country going into debt while killing people in other countries, but up in arms over trying to help people and save lives in our own country. More than a decade of wars and massive amounts of money that the Bush adminstration did not even include in their budgets. And the do nothing Congress allowed this to go on because no one had the guts to say this was wrong...exception John McCain and few others!!
Ronnoco Man		#365	[-]
Diamond Posts: 4454 Feb 1 12 2:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Romney wins Florida primary prize, Gingrich pledges drawn-out battle Gingrich: GOP Race "Probably Six Months" From Ending Holy war over health care law? Obama angers Catholic leaders Gingrich camp raised $10 million in fourth quarter Obama campaign reports 4th quarter fundraising, bundlers
cmchs2003		#366	[-]
Diamond Posts: 3367 Feb 1 12 7:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts
BABYJAMES2002		#367	[-]
Diamond Posts: 3513 Feb 7 12 10:29 PM Gold Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	First Thoughts: A 'Super' reversal Team Obama’s Super PAC reversal and “Super” hypocrisy… Messina: “We can’t allow for two sets of rules whereby … Democrats unilaterally disarm”… And screwing up the fundraising vetting. Larry Downing / Reuters U.S. President Barack Obama talks about the economy at Fire Station Number Five in Arlington, Virginia February 3, 2012. By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro * A 'Super' reversal: Anyone who is surprised by the Obama campaign's announcement last night that it's encouraging Democratic donors to give money to the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action -- after previously criticizing this practice -- wasn't paying attention in 2008. Back then, remember, Obama reversed himself and opted out of public financing for the general election, enabling his campaign to raise some $750 million to win the presidency. That reversal then and this reversal now tell us two important things about Obama and modern presidential politics. One, it's a losing proposition to always put principle above winning. Indeed, the rise of these Super PACs (like Karl Rove's American Crossroads, the pro-Romney Restore Our Future, and the Sheldon Adelson-backed Winning Our Future) could very well wipe out any fundraising advantage the incumbent enjoys in 2012. And two, as the L.A. Times' Mark Barabak points out, voters rarely care about these kind of process stories. After all, did Obama lose a single vote in '08 due to his public-financing reversal? * And ‘Super’ hypocrisy: But make no mistake: The White House is going to receive plenty of heat -- from good-government groups, liberals, and the media -- for this reversal. Why? Because after all of its criticism of Citizens United and Super PACs, last night’s announcement looks hypocritical no matter how you try and rationalize it. Three additional things seem to be going on with this change in policy: 1) The Obama campaign appears to be spooked by the $30 million the pro-Romney Restore Our Future raised in 2011; 2) Democratic donors who wanted to start giving to Super PACs were complaining; and 3) The blessing from the Obama campaign opens the spigot for the Democratic House and Senate Super PACs who had been struggling to raise money since the titular head of the party spent the last year and half demonizing these groups. What’s more, his decision won’t just be a financial boon for the struggling Democratic Super PACs; it’s going to be a seal of approval for the Republican Super PACs. They now have been legitimized by the president and their effectiveness has been highlighted by the Obama campaign. The financial nuclear arms race is now afoot. * “We can’t allow for two sets of rules”: In a blog posting last night, Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina wrote that the president “opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections… And [he] favors action -- by constitutional amendment, if necessary -- to place reasonable limits on all such spending.” But Messina added, “With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.” He also announced in the blog posting that top campaign aides and Cabinet secretaries would speak at fundraising events for Priorities USA Action, though the president, vice president, and first lady wouldn’t. Three people, in particular, are singled out for this duty: David Plouffe, Valerie Jarrett, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (who formerly worked for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association and obviously has lots of connections with the big donor trial-lawyer community). By the way, the Obama campaign is holding a conference call on its announcement at 11:00 am ET. President Obama announced he's given the green light to super PACs for his own campaign, and frontrunner Mitt Romney is aiming new attacks at Rick Santorum. * Screwing up the vetting: The Obama campaign’s Super PAC reversal overshadowed a New York Times report that the family of a Mexican casino magnate, Juan Jose Rojas (Pepe) Cardona, who fled the U.S. on drug and fraud charges had been bundling money for the campaign. “When The New York Times asked the Obama campaign early Monday about the Cardonas, officials said they were unaware of the brother in Mexico. Later in the day, the campaign said it was refunding the money raised by the family, which totaled more than $200,000.” This kind of story hits at this truth: When campaigns are raising big bucks – whether they are Democratic or Republican – it is human nature that you sometimes screw up the vetting. Fundraisers get so excited about hitting the lottery with a big donor or big bundler that they, perhaps, vet with eye toward finding nothing.
FilmmakerLA		#368	[-]
Diamond Posts: 8690 Feb 7 12 11:06 PM Gold Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	YAY, Rick!! The longer they go, the more mucked up their side gets...
dluvswh		#369	[-]
Diamond Posts: 3041 Feb 7 12 11:09 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	FilmmakerLA wrote: YAY, Rick!! The longer they go, the more mucked up their side gets...
LoverForLife04		#370	[-]
Diamond Posts: 7718 Feb 7 12 11:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	His face literally makes me ill. You are correct, I hope their ankle biting continues for as long as possible. The more they discredit each other the easier it will be for President Obama.
FilmmakerLA		#371	[-]
Diamond Posts: 8690 Feb 7 12 11:15 PM Gold Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sad that their 'frontrunner' can't even close in a state he won 4 years ago (MN). Go, Rick! Go, Ron! Go, Newt!
Ronnoco Man		#372	[-]
Diamond Posts: 4454 Feb 7 12 11:17 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Huge Night For Santorum Obama campaign to support super PAC fundraising
FilmmakerLA		#373	[-]
Diamond Posts: 8690 Feb 7 12 11:20 PM Gold Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't blame Obama for reversing his decision on Superpacs. Arm yourself with as many weapons as possible against thine enemy. That's my motto.
cmchs2003		#374	[-]
Diamond Posts: 3367 Feb 7 12 11:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	FilmmakerLA wrote: I don't blame Obama for reversing his decision on Superpacs. Arm yourself with as many weapons as possible against thine enemy. That's my motto. I so agree with this.
DD		#375	[-]
Diamond Posts: 21462 Feb 8 12 12:22 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	LOL, loved seeing Santorum win Minnesota! This is a blue state but the conservatives here are bat shit Bachman's.
LA PRIMA DIVAS FAN		#376	[-]
Diamond Posts: 8334 Feb 8 12 8:52 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	FilmmakerLA wrote: Sad that their 'frontrunner' can't even close in a state he won 4 years ago (MN). Go, Rick! Go, Ron! Go, Newt! It's been clear for a while that Mitt has become his party's "hold your nose n vote" candidate. Everyone keeps going on about his moderate stance and how that will benefit him more than any of his peers during a general election contest against the President. That's assuming you have your base well in lock. Which he does not. And won't by November (not unless his Veep pick is Rubio, and even then, the conservative base may choose to remain apathetic to his candidacy). For all the hype and bluster you can expect the GOP establishment to give Romney's nomination @ the Convention, it won't convince those evangelical Christians to vote for him simply to remove Obama. Certainly didn't help McCain. And that's his problem. Truth is, if Santorum were in Mitt's position, he'd be a larger threat despite what the Beltway and MSM's "he'll alienate Independents". Because someone like Rick would likely fire up the very Conservative/Evangelical Christian block in way not seen in some time and with that, he wouldn't really need to rely on the "moderate" vote against an incumbent during the G.E. And for the GOP establishment that can't stand Newt, Rick is their alternative in galvanizing that "religious" base. That would be tremendous (-ly disastrous for someone like me). Mitt's nomination will prove will actually make it easier, not more challenging, for Obama's reelection, IMO.
Nikray		#377	[-]
Diamond Posts: 10468 Feb 8 12 9:08 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	LA PRIMA DIVAS FAN wrote: FilmmakerLA wrote: Sad that their 'frontrunner' can't even close in a state he won 4 years ago (MN). Go, Rick! Go, Ron! Go, Newt! It's been clear for a while that Mitt has become his party's "hold your nose n vote" candidate. Everyone keeps going on about his moderate stance and how that will benefit him more than any of his peers during a general election contest against the President. That's assuming you have your base well in lock. Which he does not. And won't by November (not unless his Veep pick is Rubio, and even then, the conservative base may choose to remain apathetic to his candidacy). For all the hype and bluster you can expect the GOP establishment to give Romney's nomination @ the Convention, it won't convince those evangelical Christians to vote for him simply to remove Obama. Certainly didn't help McCain. And that's his problem. Truth is, if Santorum were in Mitt's position, he'd be a larger threat despite what the Beltway and MSM's "he'll alienate Independents". Because someone like Rick would likely fire up the very Conservative/Evangelical Christian block in way not seen in some time and with that, he wouldn't really need to rely on the "moderate" vote against an incumbent during the G.E. And for the GOP establishment that can't stand Newt, Rick is their alternative in galvanizing that "religious" base. That would be tremendous (-ly disastrous for someone like me). Mitt's nomination will prove will actually make it easier, not more challenging, for Obama's reelection, IMO. Lee you are doing some preaching this morning totally with you and could not agree more at this point. I must add for anyone thinking that the last time the Obama-Clinton race would hurt the Obama's chances I did not believe it then in the least. I don't really believe this Republican fight will hurt Romney long term. The problem for Romney is he really lacks the appeal in my opinion to drag even indy voters to his side. I still believe that all Obama has to do is hold the base, and bring at least 5 percent of the total votes onto his side. Obama can win with 46 to 48 percent of the vote. I just don't see Romney getting more than 40 to 42 percent of the national vote. The swing states are still the same from 08' in my opinion that could be a little harder but not impossible. Romney's negatives are huge, lots larger than Obama's even at this point. It's really a strange dance.
Ronnoco Man		#378	[-]
Diamond Posts: 4454 Feb 9 12 11:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick Santorum Blasts Mitt Romney: He Offers No Vision, Is About 'Serially Tearing Down' Opponents Major Ron Paul Effort Paying Off 'Sh*t Mitt Says': Democratic Super PAC Highlights Romney Gaffes & Awkward Comments (VIDEO) Bold Obama Move Threatens To Divide Democrats Poll: Defying Bishops, Catholics Support Obama Birth Control Rules
FilmmakerLA		#379	[-]
Diamond Posts: 8690 Feb 10 12 12:37 AM Gold Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	LA PRIMA DIVAS FAN wrote: FilmmakerLA wrote: Sad that their 'frontrunner' can't even close in a state he won 4 years ago (MN). Go, Rick! Go, Ron! Go, Newt! It's been clear for a while that Mitt has become his party's "hold your nose n vote" candidate. Everyone keeps going on about his moderate stance and how that will benefit him more than any of his peers during a general election contest against the President. That's assuming you have your base well in lock. Which he does not. And won't by November (not unless his Veep pick is Rubio, and even then, the conservative base may choose to remain apathetic to his candidacy). For all the hype and bluster you can expect the GOP establishment to give Romney's nomination @ the Convention, it won't convince those evangelical Christians to vote for him simply to remove Obama. Certainly didn't help McCain. And that's his problem. Truth is, if Santorum were in Mitt's position, he'd be a larger threat despite what the Beltway and MSM's "he'll alienate Independents". Because someone like Rick would likely fire up the very Conservative/Evangelical Christian block in way not seen in some time and with that, he wouldn't really need to rely on the "moderate" vote against an incumbent during the G.E. And for the GOP establishment that can't stand Newt, Rick is their alternative in galvanizing that "religious" base. That would be tremendous (-ly disastrous for someone like me). Mitt's nomination will prove will actually make it easier, not more challenging, for Obama's reelection, IMO. After looking at some recent polls, I have to agree with you. Rick can fire of the Republican base in a way Mitt can only dream about. Santorum has been under the radar for so long that I don't know much about him. What are his vulnerable areas?
DD		#380	[-]
Diamond Posts: 21462 Feb 10 12 12:50 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	FilmmakerLA wrote: LA PRIMA DIVAS FAN wrote: FilmmakerLA wrote: Sad that their 'frontrunner' can't even close in a state he won 4 years ago (MN). Go, Rick! Go, Ron! Go, Newt! It's been clear for a while that Mitt has become his party's "hold your nose n vote" candidate. Everyone keeps going on about his moderate stance and how that will benefit him more than any of his peers during a general election contest against the President. That's assuming you have your base well in lock. Which he does not. And won't by November (not unless his Veep pick is Rubio, and even then, the conservative base may choose to remain apathetic to his candidacy). For all the hype and bluster you can expect the GOP establishment to give Romney's nomination @ the Convention, it won't convince those evangelical Christians to vote for him simply to remove Obama. Certainly didn't help McCain. And that's his problem. Truth is, if Santorum were in Mitt's position, he'd be a larger threat despite what the Beltway and MSM's "he'll alienate Independents". Because someone like Rick would likely fire up the very Conservative/Evangelical Christian block in way not seen in some time and with that, he wouldn't really need to rely on the "moderate" vote against an incumbent during the G.E. And for the GOP establishment that can't stand Newt, Rick is their alternative in galvanizing that "religious" base. That would be tremendous (-ly disastrous for someone like me). Mitt's nomination will prove will actually make it easier, not more challenging, for Obama's reelection, IMO. After looking at some recent polls, I have to agree with you. Rick can fire of the Republican base in a way Mitt can only dream about. Santorum has been under the radar for so long that I don't know much about him. What are his vulnerable areas? His most vulnerable area is his I.Q. The man is as dumb as a box of rocks and, in my opinion, is a horrible debater. Gingrich is the strongest debater but Romney is even better than Santorum. Santorum comes across as a whiney, creepy, brat. He is a right winged EXTREMIST and he might fire up some conservatives on the right but he'll also fire up some Democrats who want to ensure we don't backtrack civil rights in this country by 100 years. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks the Earth is flat.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Very OT: Election Cycle 2011-2012

Romney wins Florida primary prize, Gingrich pledges drawn-out battle