As we continue to witness new depths of conservative ADD in their nomination process, I think it's important to note these words.
You have to feel in your heart and in your mind that you’re ready for the presidency. And there are lots of people who will run just because the opportunity presents itself.
That’s not a reason to be president of the United States. You have to believe in your heart and in your soul and in your mind that you are ready and I don’t believe that about myself right now. So that’s why I said I won’t run and I can’t imagine that changing.
That's current Belle of the Ball, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, from last February. I'd take him at his word. He's not qualified at all.
He has also stated many times that he is not running. Yet our country, according to a woman in the audience at Christie's Reagan library speech yesterday, "can't take four more years of this" so Christie must jump in and save us. Oh, Lawdy! Four more years of what, exactly? Our country being eroded due to Republican extremism? Oops! I forgot...#3 Projection/Flipping....it's all Obama's fault!
Even if Christie does get in the race, the base would tire of him just like they have with all the rest of the candidates. Why? Because they aren't capable of putting together coherent and detailed policy. All they really have is "We have a spending problem" combined with the relentless pursuit of proving Democrats wrong in the most childishly dishonest fashion. Once Christie talks of compromise (as he has already done), they'll hate him too and then it will be on to someone else.
The simple fact that the Republican Party is behaving this way should raise some serious red flags. What exactly is their agenda?
15 comments:
It's your policies and agenda that will be talked about in the upcoming election. That's the thing about being out of power in the white house - you don't have to have an agenda or deliver anything. All you have to do is criticize the guy who is in there. That's the way it works.
Considering that on this blog, you were blaming republicans for problems in the government even when democrats controlled the white house, the house of representatives and the senate, I can see how you want bad things pinned to the gop and good things credited to Obama. Nice work if you can split the blame/credit up as you see fit.
I guess our souls aren't healed quite yet.
even when democrats controlled the white house, the house of representatives and the senate,
Ah, yes...more childish dishonesty and redirect...
What you are saying is not really true and you know it. With the ridiculous rules in the Senate and a Democratic base that allows for a wide ideological spectrum (see: no Nazi-like purity tests), your vision of what could have happened is pure fantasy. And it's also #7 Bullying...with a dash of #8 Confusion thrown in for seasoning. blk already explained why your statement isn't reflective of reality. You didn't like it. Oh well.
As I said the other thread and as I have said all along on this blog, your side is the problem. When my side starts having guys like Dennis Kucinich and Buck Johnson running the party, then it will be our fault.
It's your policies and agenda that will be talked about in the upcoming election.
Well, let's see...we are still operating under the Bush Tax Cuts. The president had no choice but to extend them given the fact that the middle class was held hostage by the GOP. So, no, not his policies...Bush's assheaded policies on taxes.
blk acted like the 15 year old girl in our house does - he focused on one little detail (veto-proof in the senate) that I purposely excluded from my statement above. You had a democrat in the white house, a majority in the house and a majority in the senate and you were still on here blaming the right for the failures of the government they didn't control. Juris and I kept reminding you in 2009 that Pelosi didn't need 1 republican vote to get legislation passed through the house. I remember those discussions. It's not childish dishonesty, it is a fact to say that in 2009 and 2010, democrats had the white house, majority in the house and majority in the senate.
Yep, the other side is the problem and Bush is still to blame. Take that into next year. It worked so well for you in deep blue NYC a couple weeks ago, and that was with a 3-1 dem registration advantage in that district.
In this thread, Bush's tax policies are to blame for what we are dealing with. 2 weeks ago, you said Obama's policies pulled us back from the brink. Which is it? You really think people don't notice you switching back and forth the way you do when talking about the economy.
Last in line - getting back to markadelphias theme of qualifications, apparantly this is what is needed,
In the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives apparently ordered one of its own agents to purchase firearms with taxpayer money, and sell them directly to a Mexican drug cartel.
Our own government was selling guns to the bad guys? Why? Care to tell us if you support a special prosecutor?
Now there is a $737 million loan guarantee by the Department of Energy to a company connected to Nancy Pelosi's brother in law?
Your agenda is on full display - taking care of the big donors to the democratic party.
You want to talk about Red Flags markadelphia? There you go.
Last, apparently you have a comprehension problem so I guess I have to put this another way. The Democratic Party doesn't goose step in unison like the GOP does. I think you will agree that there is a fairly wide ideological difference between Sherrod Brown and the Nelsons Ben. In other words, members of the Democratic Caucus vote conservatively and that's just as much of a problem as when conservatives vote conservatively. Similarly, when Chris Dodd allows himself to be bought off by Country Wide like members of the GOP are bought off by the oil industry, that's also bad. We all know that most of the GOP is corporately sponsored. Some of the Democrats are as well. The trend towards making love to the private sector is more of right wing trait then a left wing trait and that's why I continue to say that it's the right's ideology that's the problem.
" It worked so well for you in deep blue NYC a couple weeks ago, "
So, does that mean the same rule applies to NYC-26? That's a deep red district and you guys lost that one last May. I still haven't heard a response nor an explanation from you on that one. If I were to embrace your childishly dishonest tactics, I'd say that NY-26 means that the Tea Party has been repudiated and everyone loves Obama which means "trouble" for the GOP in 2012.
Both elections had a sex scandal and that's why the the likely party lost. In the case of NY-26, the Tea Party also ran a candidate who was more conservative so the Dem won. That's another problem that's going to be very interesting to watch next year. Another point is that both were special elections with low voter turnout. That invariably spells trouble for the party whose candidate just resigned. None of this matters, of course, because it's all about winning and childish taunting, right?
RLD, sources?
I love how it is childish dishonesty to point out the majorities democrats had in 2009 and 2010.
Obama got an $830 billion stimulus package, billions in auto-bailouts, mortgage bailouts, cash for clunkers, his health care law, and Dodd-Frank passed. All of those are the law of the land now so who cares if some dems vote conservative once in a while - it didn't stop those items from becoming law did it? No it didn't. All that went through before the republicans took the house in 2010.
Also, if those items I just listed above isn't Obamas agenda, please let us know what is.
Don't bother responding with #42 or #9 or #7. Yawn.
I mentioned on this blog before that the tea party candidate in that race ran as a democrat in 04, 06 and 08. You can have this one election and say that everyone loves Obama. I'll take deep blue NYC as well as the 2010 election results (which were a landslide victory despite what blk claims).
You should know about childing taunting, there's lots of archives on here of you doing it..."Getting their shit smacked up" in 2006, etc.
Of course he needs sources rld - knowledge only exists on the internet. If it's not on the internet somewhere, it must not be true.
Bush is still to blame.
I forgot to respond to this part. Bush is still to blame because it's what happened...as in...reality. As I have said previously, I'm done with the Centrist Cop Out.
I love how it is childish dishonesty to point out the majorities democrats had in 2009 and 2010.
Because you aren't telling the entirety of the story. There are plenty of conservative Democrats and they are also part of the problem.
I'll take deep blue NYC as well as the 2010 election results
Does that include the Delaware, Colorado and Nevada Senate races as well? And does the GOP candidate win if there is no sex scandal?
It shall be repeated -
Obama got an $830 billion stimulus package, billions in auto-bailouts, mortgage bailouts, cash for clunkers, his health care law, and Dodd-Frank passed. All of those are the law of the land now so who cares if some dems vote conservative once in a while - it didn't stop those items from becoming law did it? No it didn't. All that went through before the republicans took the house in 2010.
Also, if those items I just listed above isn't Obamas agenda, please let us know what is.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares if some democrats voted conservatively - it didn't stop any of those items, so they weren't much of a problem during your glory years.
Yep, it does include those senate races. Can't win em all. Hell you told us a half dozen times on here you weren't worried about democrats losing the house leading up to that election.
as well as the 2010 election results (which were a landslide victory despite what blk claims)
Yep, it does include those senate races. Can't win em all.
Well, which is it? I'll grant you that the House was a landslide but not the Senate. The Tea Party fucked things up for you guys there.
With the approval rating of Congress at historic lows, the landslide in the House didn't seem to really shift things in a positive direction. I wouldn't be surprised if it flips back again. After all, the Tea Partiers themselves have said repeatedly that they don't care if they lose. They are going to continue with their agenda and beliefs because they (mistakenly) believe that they are helping our country.
Landslide doesn't mean 100% victory in every race.
Good thing you granted me that the house was a landslide. I see that you and blk disagree now. You guys should work out that difference amongst each other.
And for the record -
Obama got an $830 billion stimulus package, billions in auto-bailouts, mortgage bailouts, cash for clunkers, his health care law, and Dodd-Frank passed. All of those are the law of the land now so who cares if some dems vote conservative once in a while - it didn't stop those items from becoming law did it? No it didn't. All that went through before the republicans took the house in 2010.
Also, if those items I just listed above isn't Obamas agenda, then tell us what his agenda is.
I see that you and blk disagree now.
Actually, we really don't. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. I think you are mistaking anger at Congress for anger at Democrats. Yes, it helps your narrative but I'm not certain it's accurate. The polls say otherwise. People are fed up (again) with Congress and now that includes the Tea Party. What will you say if they vote them out of office? If this happens, I'm not certain it means support for Democratic policies. It may just mean that people are pissed and want to throw everyone out every two years.
Also, if those items I just listed above isn't Obamas agenda, then tell us what his agenda is.
I guess I'm not sure what your point is here. All of the bills you mention were filled with all sorts of compromises that were needed in order to get the bills passed. I wouldn't say they are all far left or even moderate left bills. The ACA, for example, is basically the GOP plan from the early 1990s.
My point is - the Bush tax cuts have been in effect since 2001 and 2003 and you are on here blaming 10 year old legislation for problems today. What is your statute of limitations? As long as you need them on the wall?
*You* wouldn't say they are far left bills. Ok, I guess that settles it then.
What will I say if they get voted out? I'll say "Oh well, life goes on".
ADD(led) Mark: The Democratic Party doesn't goose step in unison like the GOP does.
And yet just two posts ago you were bitching and moaning about how Republicans apparently can't make up their mind about who to nominate. As if you are completely amnesiac about all previous contested nomination contests of both parties. [facepalm]
And fuck you very much for the gratuitous association of Nazi imagery with Republicans. Yet again. Asshole.
is basically the GOP plan from the early 1990s
You mean a few Republicans suggested it - not that it was part of the party platform, right? That is what you mean, because anything else would be pretty blatantly dishonest, wouldn't it?
Mark be intellectually dishonest? Why, next thing you'll be claiming really crazy stuff, like that Republicans don't secretly goosestep around the house wearing SS uniforms under their Klan robes, swearing allegiance to the Koch brothers and their prophet, Rush Limbaugh.
Post a Comment