State of GOP presidential candidates

[Max R.]

Interesting review of the Republican field of Presidential candidates:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/21/kasich-republican-presidential-candidate-editorials-debates/30477787/
<culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Will Rogers" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Will Rogers</culink> was referring to the Democrats in 1935 when he famously wrote (http://www.bartleby.com/73/429.htm) that “I am not a member of any organized party.” But a modern humorist could only make the joke work if he or she were talking about Republicans.

The current GOP is the very epitome of disorganization. Its congressional leaders can’t keep their members in line. The national bosses can't nudge their candidates in the direction they think the party should go, particularly on immigration.
And, perhaps most strikingly, its slate of presidential hopefuls has grown close to unmanageable dimensions, with narcissists, extremists and the merely self-delusional all vying for attention with the more serious candidates.
With Ohio Gov. <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/John Kasich" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">John Kasich</culink>’s entry into the race Tuesday, the GOP has no fewer than 16 candidates. If former Virginia governor <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Jim Gilmore" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Jim Gilmore</culink> jumps in, as expected in early August, the number will rise to 17. To invoke the horse race cliché, the contest resembles one of those overcrowded <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Kentucky Derby" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Kentucky Derby</culink> fields with too many entrants, lots of long shots and no clear favorite. If there's an <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/American Pharoah" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">American Pharoah</culink> in this bunch, it's not immediately apparent.
A field this big, the largest in the modern era, will severely test the ability of Republican primary voters to cast informed decisions. Making matters worse, in recent weeks,<culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Donald Trump" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Donald Trump</culink>, the buffoonish celebrity billionaire, has glommed the spotlight and risen to the top of the polls.
All of this combines to tell us some things about the state of the GOP.
For starters, it shows that no one is afraid of, or deferential to, the candidate many in the establishment believe would be the most competitive in the general election: <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Jeb Bush" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Jeb Bush</culink>.
Along with his allies, the former Florida governor has raised an astounding $114 million (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/07/09/jeb-bush-collects-millions-for-white-house-bid/29919357/). Yet he has neither scared off the flood of new entrants, nor gained any real traction in the polls with an electorate wary of a third Bush presidency.
Another obvious conclusion is that some candidates are in the race as a career move. In 2008, <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Mike Huckabee" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Mike Huckabee</culink> showed how running for president could turn into a lucrative gig as a Fox News host. And now, looking at some of this year’s more improbable candidates, it’s hard not to see similar motives. For many, the Oval Office would be a real a stretch, but a TV gig or a job atop some political advocacy group might not be too much to ask for.
The most unavoidable conclusion, however, is that the Republicans brought this on themselves.
One reason that so many people are running is that they can, thanks to an era of unlimited money brought on by GOP officeholders and Republican-nominated judges. In 2012, former House speaker <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Newt Gingrich" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Newt Gingrich</culink> and former senator <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Rick Santorum" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Rick Santorum</culink> ran races that were largely sustained by the financial support of a single wealthy individual — casino magnate <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Sheldon Adelson" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Sheldon Adelson</culink> in Gingrich’s case and money manager <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Foster Friess" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important;">Foster Friess</culink> in Santorum’s.
While some of the major candidates this year hope to raise money far and wide, the lesser ones merely need to strike the fancy of a billionaire or two. By doing so, they reason, they can remain in the race while others are forced to drop out. The only flaw with this reasoning is that if enough of them find a funding source, there won’t be much of a winnowing.
The irony in all of this is that the GOP field this year is actually fairly strong. Kasich, for example, has impressive experience in both Congress and as governor of one of the most important swing states. What’s more, with a Democrat having occupied the White House for two terms, the voters could be in the mood for a change.
Even so, the Republican field is not making a good first impression. And if the party caucuses and primaries play out like a larger version of the 2012 race, with a string of unelectable candidates taking turns atop the polls, the eventual nominee could be at a disadvantage even before the general election contest begins.

[namvet]

their pissed off cause Trump won't share the oxygen

[Kathianne]

their pissed off cause Trump won't share the oxygen

You mean that the MSM and FOX are giving him the oxygen. Why would that be? Huh?

Lots of coverage on his giving out cell number of Graham on national TV. Yeah, a real grown-up. A serious guy.

[Gunny]

You mean that the MSM and FOX are giving him the oxygen. Why would that be? Huh?

Lots of coverage on his giving out cell number of Graham on national TV. Yeah, a real grown-up. A serious guy.

He's definitely doing more harm than good. And anyone who thinks the MSM isn't behind promoting the guy most likely to lose needs to look at the last 2 elections. At the same time, the GOP is doing to themselves.

Want to debate? Get Hillary at the podium instead of sniping at each other.

[namvet]

You mean that the MSM and FOX are giving him the oxygen. Why would that be? Huh?

Lots of coverage on his giving out cell number of Graham on national TV. Yeah, a real grown-up. A serious guy.

hey Kath call me an asshole in public ill gives your's out to the media to :laugh: if you had 9 trillion you could break me in half over your knee. so would I. the politicians on both sides can't buy buy him off and its burned their collective ass's. if he want's he can buy the WH just like the dems did.

[namvet]

I am NOT voting for this limp dick GOP. fuck em their all losers

[Gunny]

hey Kath call me an asshole in public ill gives your's out to the media to :laugh: if you had 9 trillion you could break me in half over your knee. so would I. the politicians on both sides can't buy buy him off and its burned their collective ass's. if he want's he can buy the WH just like the dems did.

I'll call you an asshole in public. And you can hand out my phone number. :laugh:

The point is, as I've posted somewhere around here previously, he doesn't know his audience and he's appealing only to a vast minority. In case no one's noticed, the right is more afraid of being called not politically correct than they are of having a moron for a President.

The crowd that Trump appeals to is the same crowd that didn't vote the last two elections. People listen to his bluster and chest thumping but not what he's not saying. He's attacked the right more than left. He's a rich man who made his money off the middle class. He can't do a damned thing he's claiming he can.

His John Wayne approach is catchy, but where the rubber meets the road, it just empty words.

[Drummond]

I am NOT voting for this limp dick GOP. fuck em their all losers

I can sympathise, to a point. But consider .. if the GOP continue to be losers, by default, that makes the Dems WINNERS. That is the electoral reality in your country.

Is that outcome to be preferred ? Yes or no ?

[Kathianne]

I am NOT voting for this limp dick GOP. fuck em their all losers

There's some very good people running on the GOP, problem is too many are currently running. Walker, Rubio, Kasich, are all good. Will you agree with any 100%, unlikely. Trump fits closer to those you don't agree with-you like his 'style.'

You would agree with any of them more than Hillary or Bernie.

[Gunny]

I can sympathise, to a point. But consider .. if the GOP continue to be losers, by default, that makes the Dems WINNERS. That is the electoral reality in your country.

Is that outcome to be preferred ? Yes or no ?

You're asking ME? The one who has bitched at everyone the last two elections who claimed they weren't voting because of whatever? You got the wrong guy, buddy.:laugh:

I had to hold my nose and vote for McCain but I DID vote against the Democrats. First, IMO, if you don't use your right to vote, you ain't got the privilege to bitch; which, a lot of people I've known over the years bitch incessantly, but were so busy "holding out on principle" they didn't vote.

I understand the argument from both sides. I also can do simple math. Do-nothing Republicants are better than the destruction crew Democrats. I'd rather the former do nothing than the latter continue to dismantle the Constitution.

[Gunny]

I am NOT voting for this limp dick GOP. fuck em their all losers

So you'd rather watch the Dems dismantle the country you served? Obama's done more damage in 2 weeks than the British did in the War of 1812.

[namvet]

I'll call you an asshole in public. And you can hand out my phone number. :laugh:

The point is, as I've posted somewhere around here previously, he doesn't know his audience and he's appealing only to a vast minority. In case no one's noticed, the right is more afraid of being called not politically correct than they are of having a moron for a President.

The crowd that Trump appeals to is the same crowd that didn't vote the last two elections. People listen to his bluster and chest thumping but not what he's not saying. He's attacked the right more than left. He's a rich man who made his money off the middle class. He can't do a damned thing he's claiming he can.

His John Wayne approach is catchy, but where the rubber meets the road, it just empty words.

there ya are. they are more worried about being PC. fearful of being criticized instead standing up for what's right. no not me. they can eat shit and die. and im not siding with Trump. its way to early. I do hope he gets a chance flog Hillary's ass with a bull whip. GOP. watch and learn

[Drummond]

You're asking ME? The one who has bitched at everyone the last two elections who claimed they weren't voting because of whatever? You got the wrong guy, buddy.:laugh:

I had to hold my nose and vote for McCain but I DID vote against the Democrats. First, IMO, if you don't use your right to vote, you ain't got the privilege to bitch; which, a lot of people I've known over the years bitch incessantly, but were so busy "holding out on principle" they didn't vote.

I understand the argument from both sides. I also can do simple math. Do-nothing Republicants are better than the destruction crew Democrats. I'd rather the former do nothing than the latter continue to dismantle the Constitution.

Thanks for your answer .. but if you check, you'll see that I put my question to Namvet.

And I agree with you. If you don't vote, you opt out of the chance to do good with your vote, and as the flipside of that coin, the chance to fight what's bad with the power of that vote. So, resentment at the outcome isn't consistent with your choice not to vote.

[namvet]

I can sympathise, to a point. But consider .. if the GOP continue to be losers, by default, that makes the Dems WINNERS. That is the electoral reality in your country.

Is that outcome to be preferred ? Yes or no ?

im just waiting for the GOP to grow a pair. do something. stand up against the terrorist dems. but i just don't see the fire there anymore

[namvet]

So you'd rather watch the Dems dismantle the country you served? Obama's done more damage in 2 weeks than the British did in the War of 1812.

god damned man its already been dismantled. can we put humpty dumpty together again?? its gonna take years to unravel this mess

[Gunny]

god damned man its already been dismantled. can we put humpty dumpty together again?? its gonna take years to unravel this mess

I agree. I doubt it will EVER get unraveled unless you got a fresh set of balls for the GOP leadership. I just don't want this country unraveled any more than it is and the Dems are worse than me on a demo team on a construction site with a hammer.

[Gunny]

Thanks for your answer .. but if you check, you'll see that I put my question to Namvet.

And I agree with you. If you don't vote, you opt out of the chance to do good with your vote, and as the flipside of that coin, the chance to fight what's bad with the power of that vote. So, resentment at the outcome isn't consistent with your choice not to vote.

Hell--oooo .... Marine here.

You expect me to read, type, respond and NOW you want to look at the damned names? :laugh:

My rifle has less moving parts than that. You should see it when I can't find my glasses. :)

[namvet]

There's some very good people running on the GOP, problem is too many are currently running. Walker, Rubio, Kasich, are all good. Will you agree with any 100%, unlikely. Trump fits closer to those you don't agree with-you like his 'style.'

You would agree with any of them more than Hillary or Bernie.

style's one thing. voting is something else and I don't anybody very much

[Drummond]

im just waiting for the GOP to grow a pair. do something. stand up against the terrorist dems. but i just don't see the fire there anymore

So does that mean the 'terrorist dems' deserve to gain further victories, even if it's 'only' by default ??

As the old saying goes: 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing'. When it comes to voting .. do you disagree ?

[Gunny]

style's one thing. voting is something else and I don't anybody very much

My opinion:

The best candidate overall for the job is Jeb Bush. I also believe he can't overcome his name. But, as usual, no one's listening to the facts.

Rick Perry was a good governor. He took us from a deficit to a surplus without killing the middle class. He put our own people on the border because Obama wouldn't. And he found away around the left's "no drilling for oil" BS. His biggest downfall is he thinks Texas is its own country. It pretty much is, but that doesn't sell outside Texas. His comment on secession a few years back is going to burn his ass.

Walker is okay, but he's a newbie. Not enough track record.

I like both Cruz and the guy with the "yacht" (spelled 35' fishing boat), but I don't think we need a senator. Governors have to run things. Senators just vote. Unless your name is Obama or Clinton who were absent for most of their time.

[Drummond]

Hell--oooo .... Marine here.

You expect me to read, type, respond and NOW you want to look at the damned names? :laugh:

My rifle has less moving parts than that. You should see it when I can't find my glasses. :):laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

I don't deny there are good points being made, though. The GOP needs overhauling quite badly, from what I've been seeing. It needs stronger leadership that's uncompromisingly hard-Conservative in all its directions.

Even so .... is the answer to act, so as to let the Dems back into power, even by default ? If they're so bad .. and I don't question the truth of what they are !! .. then Americans should be desperate to oust them. You could argue that even someone comatose (if that's reasonably applicable to the GOP as a fighting pro-Conservative force) is a better prospect than a highly active saboteur.

[Drummond]

As candidates go, who'd be the nearest to Sarah Palin ? I really liked her approach ...

[Gunny]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

I don't deny there are good points being made, though. The GOP needs overhauling quite badly, from what I've been seeing. It needs stronger leadership that's uncompromisingly hard-Conservative in all its directions.

Even so .... is the answer to act, so as to let the Dems back into power, even by default ? If they're so bad .. and I don't question the truth of what they are !! .. then Americans should be desperate to oust them. You could argue that even someone comatose (if that's reasonably applicable to the GOP as a fighting pro-Conservative force) is a better prospect than a highly active saboteur.

It's a lose-lose deal. You vote GOP, they think they got you in the bag. You don't vote, you get Obama with Hillary on deck.

One of the biggest problems I have discussing things with you is terminology. And I grew up reading English literature. Conservative and liberal don't mean the same things here, and they swap spots. Lincoln was the first Republican President and he was a bleeding heart liberal. Nixon was a socialist. Ronald Reagan was originally a Democrat. Lyndon Johnson was more conservative than any of them.

Every time the left moves further left in this country, the right has to play catch up to get the moderate vote because moderates and independents determine elections. The current split in the right is because you have hardliners that don't want to budge and moderates. It happened with the Dems in 1979-80. Jimmy Carter was too far left for Democrats and Reagan was the result. I was raised in a Democrat family and it's the only party I actually ever belonged to. I'm one of the rats that jumped ship after Carter.

The BIGGEST issue is BOTH parties are career politicians. All either does is maintain the status quo until you get some whackjob like Obama in office. They're more worried about catering to the financier of their next campaign. And that financier has "requests".

[Gunny]

As candidates go, who'd be the nearest to Sarah Palin ? I really liked her approach ...

You just like her boobs.:laugh:

[Drummond]

You just like her boobs.:laugh:

... since you mention it ... :hubba:

[Drummond]

It's a lose-lose deal. You vote GOP, they think they got you in the bag. You don't vote, you get Obama with Hillary on deck.

One of the biggest problems I have discussing things with you is terminology. And I grew up reading English literature. Conservative and liberal don't mean the same things here, and they swap spots. Lincoln was the first Republican President and he was a bleeding heart liberal. Nixon was a socialist. Ronald Reagan was originally a Democrat. Lyndon Johnson was more conservative than any of them.

Every time the left moves further left in this country, the right has to play catch up to get the moderate vote because moderates and independents determine elections. The current split in the right is because you have hardliners that don't want to budge and moderates. It happened with the Dems in 1979-80. Jimmy Carter was too far left for Democrats and Reagan was the result. I was raised in a Democrat family and it's the only party I actually ever belonged to. I'm one of the rats that jumped ship after Carter.

The BIGGEST issue is BOTH parties are career politicians. All either does is maintain the status quo until you get some whackjob like Obama in office. They're more worried about catering to the financier of their next campaign. And that financier has "requests".

Well, if I understand you correctly, maybe this whole 'catch up' approach is what's wrong ? I see it over here - Labour manage to instill some of their values over time on people, convincing them that they're fundamentally 'right' to believe in. All that follows, once that grafting process has made its mark, has to work WITH it, not AGAINST it.

There are various examples. Just to cite one, very few people here would argue against not only our NHS's existence, but its dominance. So, we have a Conservative PM who says he 'loves' our NHS. If he said he wanted to dismantle it, or even radically reform it, his position would become rapidly untenable.

What's necessary is for a properly Conservative voice to not only be heard, but to convince people that his or her values are right, and that even basic Left-wing ones are WRONG. Because otherwise, the 'catch up' process will continue to erode decent Conservative standards as ones deserving of merit .. as has already happened here.

It isn't even enough to oust the Democrats for a single term. It has to occur for a prolonged period, to reverse and discredit those 'standards' already believed in.

So - handing them (the Dems) power 'by default' is surely utterly unacceptable.

[namvet]

So does that mean the 'terrorist dems' deserve to gain further victories, even if it's 'only' by default ??

As the old saying goes: 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing'. When it comes to voting .. do you disagree ?

no of course not. im an American and I want to see my (our) side win. but the good men have to get off their dicks and and act like Americans to. and I just don't see it yet.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-21-at-12.43.53-PM.png

see that?? that bastard had no intention of lower it. but after we the people gave it to his darkie ass with the bark on, he was forced, by us to do it. think about that a min

[Gunny]

Well, if I understand you correctly, maybe this whole 'catch up' approach is what's wrong ? I see it over here - Labour manage to instill some of their values over time on people, convincing them that they're fundamentally 'right' to believe in. All that follows, once that grafting process has made its mark, has to work WITH it, not AGAINST it.

There are various examples. Just to cite one, very few people here would argue against not only our NHS's existence, but its dominance. So, we have a Conservative PM who says he 'loves' our NHS. If he said he wanted to dismantle it, or even radically reform it, his position would become rapidly untenable.

What's necessary is for a properly Conservative voice to not only be heard, but to convince people that his or her values are right, and that even basic Left-wing ones are WRONG. Because otherwise, the 'catch up' process will continue to erode decent Conservative standards as ones deserving of merit .. as has already happened here.

It isn't even enough to oust the Democrats for a single term. It has to occur for a prolonged period, to reverse and discredit those 'standards' already believed in.

So - handing them (the Dems) power 'by default' is surely utterly unacceptable.

It's been the same throughout history though. The Greeks and the Romans -- the strong -- the Spartans and Trojans -- form an empire. The weak come in, vote them out, take over, and make stupid-ass laws that cater to the weak. They reach the point where they get the strong so far under the shelf that when the Huns show up, nobody knows how to fight.

The US is the same. The strong and the brave built this place. Then somebody let a f-ing lawyer in. In fact, if you've lived as many places as I have, I've seen the same thing everywhere. LA and San Francisco control CA. Chicago controls IL. NYC control NY. All are places where cockroaches huddle together and are afraid to walk out the door. You think THEY built a country?

Every one of those states is mostly rural and full of rednecks who want to be left alone. But because of our voting laws, the rat-infested sewers in each state get more votes and some Dem promises them crap they can't and don't even bother trying to deliver and the sheep buy off on it. They've been promising blacks crap since 1865 they still don't have.

[Drummond]

no of course not. im an American and I want to see my (our) side win. but the good men have to get off their dicks and and act like Americans to. and I just don't see it yet.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-21-at-12.43.53-PM.png

see that?? that bastard had no intention of lower it. but after we the people gave it to his darkie ass with the bark on, he was forced, by us to do it. think about that a min:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Gunny]

no of course not. im an American and I want to see my (our) side win. but the good men have to get off their dicks and and act like Americans to. and I just don't see it yet.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-21-at-12.43.53-PM.png

see that?? that bastard had no intention of lower it. but after we the people gave it to his darkie ass with the bark on, he was forced, by us to do it. think about that a min


But he can turn the place rainbow in an hour.

I'm not sure I'd want that flag at half mast for me. Until you get an American in that house.

[Drummond]

It's been the same throughout history though. The Greeks and the Romans -- the strong -- the Spartans and Trojans -- form an empire. The weak come in, vote them out, take over, and make stupid-ass laws that cater to the weak. They reach the point where they get the strong so far under the shelf that when the Huns show up, nobody knows how to fight.

The US is the same. The strong and the brave built this place. Then somebody let a f-ing lawyer in. In fact, if you've lived as many places as I have, I've seen the same thing everywhere. LA and San Francisco control CA. Chicago controls IL. NYC control NY. All are places where cockroaches huddle together and are afraid to walk out the door. You think THEY built a country?

Every one of those states is mostly rural and full of rednecks who want to be left alone. But because of our voting laws, the rat-infested sewers in each state get more votes and some Dem promises them crap they can't and don't even bother trying to deliver and the sheep buy off on it. They've been promising blacks crap since 1865 they still don't have.

I really sympathise.

It's beginning to seem to me like you need some sort of revolution.

But still ... first, you need a strong leader who'll make the necessary impact with words and ideas. Getting maximum media coverage for that person might be a battle, but it's one I've no doubt CAN be won with the right effort.

See ....

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lisarichardsradio/2014/02/13/lisa-richards-rock-n-roll-politics-radio


We talk politics, culture, religion, liberty in America, communism in America, how progressives are taking our liberties away for control over the people by a few elites and how we Americans can "Change America back to America."
Live Call-In Show!

Warning: This is Not A Cruel-Free Zone!

I've known Lisa Richards for around a decade (though we're no longer in contact)... she's as hard-nosed a Conservative as I've ever dealt with, and she commands my respect. She's clawed her way, for a very long time, to a position where she now hosts her own radio show. Before that, she ran her own website and on occasions contributed as a guest thread maker on Human Events, with equal blogging capabilities there as Ann Coulter enjoys.

I'm not necessarily saying that Lisa is a leader in quite the same league as, say, Sarah Palin. BUT ... I'm offering her as an example of how far you can go with pure determination to be heard, and not a lot else. Where there's a will, there's a way.

[Gunny]

I really sympathise.

It's beginning to seem to me like you need some sort of revolution.

But still ... first, you need a strong leader who'll make the necessary impact with words and ideas. Getting maximum media coverage for that person might be a battle, but it's one I've no doubt CAN be won with the right effort.

See ....

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lisarichardsradio/2014/02/13/lisa-richards-rock-n-roll-politics-radio



I've known Lisa Richards for around a decade (though we're no longer in contact)... she's as hard-nosed a Conservative as I've ever dealt with, and she commands my respect. She's clawed her way, for a very long time, to a position where she now hosts her own radio show. Before that, she ran her own website and on occasions contributed as a guest thread maker on Human Events, with equal blogging capabilities there as Ann Coulter enjoys.

I'm not necessarily saying that Lisa is a leader in quite the same league as, say, Sarah Palin. BUT ... I'm offering her as an example of how far you can go with pure determination to be heard, and not a lot else. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Get off Sarah Palin's boobs, horn dog.:laugh:

There's a revolution coming. I don't know when, but it's coming. And guess what? It's going to be North vs South again only they've legislated themselves out of the industry that won them the last war. We got all the money, manpower and materiel. They can armchair quarterback getting their asses kicked.

I'm on the fence about Ann Coulter. She's too extreme for me at times. She's right about the left a lot. And she doesn't have any boobs.:laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

I can't imagine any way to hold my nose to vote into office a guy who is for private eminent domain.

But I will find a way if it turns out that he is the candidate going against Hillary, Bernie Sanders, etc. Until then, I am hoping someone else gains momentum

[Drummond]

Get off Sarah Palin's boobs, horn dog.:laugh:

There's a revolution coming. I don't know when, but it's coming. And guess what? It's going to be North vs South again only they've legislated themselves out of the industry that won them the last war. We got all the money, manpower and materiel. They can armchair quarterback getting their asses kicked.

I'm on the fence about Ann Coulter. She's too extreme for me at times. She's right about the left a lot. And she doesn't have any boobs.:laugh2:

I hope it's not North v South, unless you want to be two separate nations ? The flag issue aside, you SHOULD have too much in common to want to risk such enmity. No, you've a more fundamental issue in the nature of your country's future.

I'm NOT on the fence about Ann Coulter ... I think she's brilliant. A Leftie I used to work with cited her as his idea of Right-wing extremism taken to levels which firmly discredits it. Me .. I became intrigued, so bought her book 'How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must). I brought it into work and took great pleasure in offering to lend it out to the aforementioned Leftie .....

I took to her work as a duck takes to water, and I think she's brilliant. I've seen many interviews of hers, including one done by the BBC, with Jeremy Paxman as the interviewer. See >>


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWYerEn4tnQ

Unfortunately the intro trailer is missing in this version. Probably as well, as it was an attack on her and all she believes in.

-- And you're right. No boobs. I've tried using a magnifying glass, but .... :eek:

[Russ]

There are some Republican candidates I like a lot, and some I like a lesser amount, but I'd be happy with any of them really, as opposed to getting any of the Democrats. Even Trump would be fine with me, as long as it meant no Hillary. At least they wouldn't be a cancer on the country like Obama is.
With so many candidates in the field, though, there is a risk that all the attention will focus on one candidate that doesn't have wide appeal, but polls well because they are an outlier and the other candidates split the "standard" poll votes. Or that gets a temporary bump because of some spectacle. And this is what is happening with Donald Trump right now. It may also happen later with Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Rick Scott, or Mike Huckabee, or it just may keep happening with Trump.
I just hope that in the end, the selection is on someone who is a good leader, not just a speechmaker and a political gamesman (or gameswoman).

[Kathianne]

My opinion:

The best candidate overall for the job is Jeb Bush. I also believe he can't overcome his name. But, as usual, no one's listening to the facts.

Rick Perry was a good governor. He took us from a deficit to a surplus without killing the middle class. He put our own people on the border because Obama wouldn't. And he found away around the left's "no drilling for oil" BS. His biggest downfall is he thinks Texas is its own country. It pretty much is, but that doesn't sell outside Texas. His comment on secession a few years back is going to burn his ass.

Walker is okay, but he's a newbie. Not enough track record.

I like both Cruz and the guy with the "yacht" (spelled 35' fishing boat), but I don't think we need a senator. Governors have to run things. Senators just vote. Unless your name is Obama or Clinton who were absent for most of their time.

I don't know that Walker hasn't been 'tested' enough. Have you been reading the WSJ regarding what happened in WI? He not only had the Democratic prosecutor working illegally against him, it seems likely the DNC and DOJ were also involved. He still won the recall by more than his last election. He also got passed the legislation he wanted.

general google search:


Toe-Tagging John Doe - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/toe-tagging-john-doe-1426203842)

<cite class="_Rm" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-style: normal; font-size: 14px;">www.wsj (http://www.<strong>wsj</strong>).com/.../toe-tagging-john-doe-142620384...</cite>The Wall Street Journal


Mar 12, 2015 - Wisconsin's John Doe law was used to target conservative allies of Governor Scott Walker and helped Democratic prosecutors chill political ...


A Free Speech 'Scheme' - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-free-speech-scheme-1403308776)

<cite class="_Rm" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-style: normal; font-size: 14px;">www.wsj (http://www.<strong>wsj</strong>).com/.../a-free-speech-scheme-1403308...</cite>

The Wall Street Journal


Jun 20, 2014 - So the national press corps has finally decided to pay attention to theJohn Doe probe into the political allies of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.


Another John Doe Disclosure - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/another-john-doe-disclosure-1402265159)

<cite class="_Rm" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-style: normal; font-size: 14px;">www.wsj (http://www.<strong>wsj</strong>).com/.../another-john-doe-disclosure-14...</cite>

The Wall Street Journal


Jun 9, 2014 - Wisconsin prosecutors investigating allies of Governor Scott Walker must have ... We've been reporting on the state's John Doe probe, which hit ...


Scott Walker's Friends - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/scott-walkers-friends-1401233872)

<cite class="_Rm" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-style: normal; font-size: 14px;">www.wsj (http://www.<strong>wsj</strong>).com/.../scott-walkers-friends-14012338...</cite>

The Wall Street Journal


May 28, 2014 - The understandable concern among the direct targets of the John Doeis that Mr. Biskupic will cut a deal that would exonerate Mr. Walker while ...


Why Is the Wall Street Journal Livid that Scott Walker Wants ... (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12492/walker-negotiating-john-doe-settlement-and-wall-street-journal-terrified)

<cite class="_Rm" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-style: normal; font-size: 14px;">www.prwatch.org/.../ (http://www.prwatch.org/.../)walker-negotiatin...</cite>

Center for Media and Democracy


May 28, 2014 - Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's campaign is reportedly negotiating a settlement with prosecutors in the long-running "John Doe" criminal ...


Wall Street Journal hits Scott Walker again on Doe deal ... (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wall-street-journal-hits-walker-again-on-doe-deal-making-b99281779z1-261388641.html)

<cite class="_Rm bc" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-style: normal; font-size: 14px;">www.jsonline.com (http://www.jsonline.com) › News › Politics</cite>

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel


May 31, 2014 - The Wall Street Journal editorial page has once again spanked Gov. Scott Walker for allegedly contemplating a settlement deal with John Doe ...


Prosecutor alerts justices to secrecy violation in John Doe (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/prosecutors-alerts-justices-to-secrecy-violation-in-john-doe-b99466418z1-297078541.html)

<cite class="_Rm bc" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-style: normal; font-size: 14px;">www.jsonline.com (http://www.jsonline.com) › News › Politics</cite>

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel





Mar 20, 2015 - Scott Walker's campaign and conservative allies. ... Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial criticizing ... "This also fits the John Doe habit of selective leaks that assist prosecutors and smear their targets.

How serious was this? Big name, liberal lawyer joining in brief to SCOTUS:

http://watchdog.org/230184/erwin-chemerinsky-john-doe-kelly-rindfleisch/

Legal experts on right and left seek review of Rindfleisch John Doe conviction

By M.D. Kittle (http://watchdog.org/author/m-d-kittle/) / July 21, 2015


By M.D. Kittle | Wisconsin Watchdog

MADISON, Wis. — Kelly Rindfleisch (http://watchdog.org/230178/kelly-rindfleisch-john-doe-supreme-court/) is getting backup in her Fourth Amendment fight from some of the brightest constitutional minds in the country including one of the most high-profile liberals in the legal community.

Erwin Chemerinsky, (http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/chemerinsky/) founding dean and distinguished professor of First Amendment law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, (http://www.law.uci.edu/) is one of three constitutional law experts who have collectively filed a friend of the court brief (http://watchdog.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/07/law-professors-amicus-brief.pdf)asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Rindfleisch’s case.
Chemerinsky’s involvement should give pause to left-wing cheerleaders of the lengthy and very political John Doe probe (http://watchdog.org/series/wisconsins-secret-war/)that for more than three years targeted conservative activists and the campaign of Republican Gov. Scott Walker. (http://watchdog.org/series/wisconsins-secret-war/)


The eminent law professor has “for decades been a prominent liberal public intellectual and litigator, and he has written scores of opinion articles taking liberal positions,” according to a New York Times article in 2007. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/education/18professor.html?_r=0)

Chemerinsky adds his voice to a chorus of legal professionals, on the right and left, who have been critical of the tactics used by prosecutors of the secret probe.

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-2 ruling, ended the John Doe investigation (http://watchdog.org/229588/john-doe-shut-down/), with the majority opinion denouncing the probe of “citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing.”

Liberals complained (http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/critics-decry-partisanship-in-wisconsin-supreme-court-decision-ending-john/article_21f56214-8896-51ab-83af-f549b3d95d32.html)the ruling was the work of the court’s conservative majority, beholden to right-of-center activists in the state.

In a concurring opinion (http://wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144526), Justice David Prosser pointed to prosecutors’ use of sweeping warrants to root through millions of digital documents and other possessions of the probes’ targets.

“The issue before us is central to our time. How much information about our people is government entitled to obtain — without people’s consent and perhaps without their knowledge?” Prosser wrote. (http://wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144526)

Chemerinsky is joined in the brief before the U.S. Supreme Court by Glenn Harlan Reynolds (http://law.utk.edu/people/glenn-reynolds/), distinguished professor of law at the University of Tennessee College of Law (http://law.utk.edu/)and creator of weblog Instapundit (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/), and Stephen A. Salzburg, (http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=1761) professor of law and co-director of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Program (http://www.law.gwu.edu/Academics/FocusAreas/litigadr/Pages/overview.aspx) at George Washington University Law.

The legal experts say they merely want to bring to the court’s attention how sharply a Wisconsin appeals court ruling in the Rindfleisch case “departs from fundamental Fourth Amendment principles.”

...

[Russ]

I hope it's not North v South, unless you want to be two separate nations ?


I wonder what would happen if America split into two separate nations, with all the conservative on one side, and all the liberals on the other side.
My theory is that the conservative side would have a balanced budget, booming economy, and well defended borders. The liberal side would have great restaurants, well-produced movies and tv shows, and they wouldn't know who to tax to pay for all the social programs that would be conceived of on a daily basis. But that wouldn't end up being a problem because they would be conquered by some other country within two weeks.

[Kathianne]

I wonder what would happen if America split into two separate nations, with all the conservative on one side, and all the liberals on the other side.
My theory is that the conservative side would have a balanced budget, booming economy, and well defended borders. The liberal side would have great restaurants, well-produced movies and tv shows, and they wouldn't know who to tax to pay for all the social programs that would be conceived of on a daily basis. But that wouldn't end up being a problem because they would be conquered by some other country within two weeks.
:laugh2:

[Drummond]

I wonder what would happen if America split into two separate nations, with all the conservative on one side, and all the liberals on the other side.
My theory is that the conservative side would have a balanced budget, booming economy, and well defended borders. The liberal side would have great restaurants, well-produced movies and tv shows, and they wouldn't know who to tax to pay for all the social programs that would be conceived of on a daily basis. But that wouldn't end up being a problem because they would be conquered by some other country within two weeks.

... a good post ! I enjoyed it - thanks.:goodposting:

And you're right. The Conservative side definitely would concentrate on running their economy responsibly, while the liberal side (if not conquered in the meantime) would run their economy into the ground, impoverishing people with tax hikes all the while.

The liberals would have one thing going for them, though .. they'd most probably welcome their conquerers, and berate anyone not doing so as 'racists, bigots, anti-Progressive' ... so they'd probably not mind being conquered nearly as much as sane people would.

[Kathianne]

I can't imagine any way to hold my nose to vote into office a guy who is for private eminent domain.

But I will find a way if it turns out that he is the candidate going against Hillary, Bernie Sanders, etc. Until then, I am hoping someone else gains momentum

I think we're safe, he's not going to be GOP candidate, though I do think he'll do a third party spoiler.

[Max R.]

I think we're safe, he's not going to be GOP candidate, though I do think he'll do a third party spoiler.
Agreed. The bad news is he's not Ross Perot, just all mouth and ego. At least Perot had a plan.

[Abbey Marie]

I think we're safe, he's not going to be GOP candidate, though I do think he'll do a third party spoiler.

The worst possible scenario.

:(

[Gunny]

I don't know that Walker hasn't been 'tested' enough. Have you been reading the WSJ regarding what happened in WI? He not only had the Democratic prosecutor working illegally against him, it seems likely the DNC and DOJ were also involved. He still won the recall by more than his last election. He also got passed the legislation he wanted.

general google search:



How serious was this? Big name, liberal lawyer joining in brief to SCOTUS:

http://watchdog.org/230184/erwin-chemerinsky-john-doe-kelly-rindfleisch/

Legal experts on right and left seek review of Rindfleisch John Doe conviction

By M.D. Kittle (http://watchdog.org/author/m-d-kittle/) / July 21, 2015


By M.D. Kittle | Wisconsin Watchdog

MADISON, Wis. — Kelly Rindfleisch (http://watchdog.org/230178/kelly-rindfleisch-john-doe-supreme-court/) is getting backup in her Fourth Amendment fight from some of the brightest constitutional minds in the country including one of the most high-profile liberals in the legal community.

Erwin Chemerinsky, (http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/chemerinsky/) founding dean and distinguished professor of First Amendment law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, (http://www.law.uci.edu/) is one of three constitutional law experts who have collectively filed a friend of the court brief (http://watchdog.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/07/law-professors-amicus-brief.pdf)asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Rindfleisch’s case.
Chemerinsky’s involvement should give pause to left-wing cheerleaders of the lengthy and very political John Doe probe (http://watchdog.org/series/wisconsins-secret-war/)that for more than three years targeted conservative activists and the campaign of Republican Gov. Scott Walker. (http://watchdog.org/series/wisconsins-secret-war/)


The eminent law professor has “for decades been a prominent liberal public intellectual and litigator, and he has written scores of opinion articles taking liberal positions,” according to a New York Times article in 2007. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/education/18professor.html?_r=0)

Chemerinsky adds his voice to a chorus of legal professionals, on the right and left, who have been critical of the tactics used by prosecutors of the secret probe.

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-2 ruling, ended the John Doe investigation (http://watchdog.org/229588/john-doe-shut-down/), with the majority opinion denouncing the probe of “citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing.”

Liberals complained (http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/critics-decry-partisanship-in-wisconsin-supreme-court-decision-ending-john/article_21f56214-8896-51ab-83af-f549b3d95d32.html)the ruling was the work of the court’s conservative majority, beholden to right-of-center activists in the state.

In a concurring opinion (http://wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144526), Justice David Prosser pointed to prosecutors’ use of sweeping warrants to root through millions of digital documents and other possessions of the probes’ targets.

“The issue before us is central to our time. How much information about our people is government entitled to obtain — without people’s consent and perhaps without their knowledge?” Prosser wrote. (http://wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=144526)

Chemerinsky is joined in the brief before the U.S. Supreme Court by Glenn Harlan Reynolds (http://law.utk.edu/people/glenn-reynolds/), distinguished professor of law at the University of Tennessee College of Law (http://law.utk.edu/)and creator of weblog Instapundit (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/), and Stephen A. Salzburg, (http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=1761) professor of law and co-director of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Program (http://www.law.gwu.edu/Academics/FocusAreas/litigadr/Pages/overview.aspx) at George Washington University Law.

The legal experts say they merely want to bring to the court’s attention how sharply a Wisconsin appeals court ruling in the Rindfleisch case “departs from fundamental Fourth Amendment principles.”

...

I don't have a real problem with him. So far he's fared better than Tom Delay with that a-hole DA in TX that likes to go after Republicans.

I'm more waiting to see what he has to say, and if what he's done backs it up.

My big issue is the GOP doing its usual self-destruct act. As you said, Trump is a spoiler, nothing more.