1billsfan Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 These two guys are obviously going to run for the presidency. Could you not have a better time time run? Obama has fubarred everything he's touched...foreign policy, sending in his thugs in support of the hugely unpopular public union and their temper tantrums, gas prices are already sky high and going higher under an idiot president who tamps down domestic drilling efforts. Seriously, what the hell are these two goofballs waiting for? I saw that Pawlenty's doing the rounds of TV interviews for a book tour, I'd ask him, "Do you not read the news, or are you just a dumb jackass with no sense of timing and a lame book?" For the record I don't like either of these card board cut outs, I'm for Christie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Once somebody declares their candidacy, it's open season on them from the White House, Media Matters, Huffington Post, MSNBC, and the DNC. Would you want to be the first to stick your neck out? Sit back, bide your time, and let Sarah Palin take all the slings and arrows for you. I suspect this campaign season will be considerably shorter than 2008. Less time for the Obama political machine to tear into them (and less time for them to tear each other apart). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 Once somebody declares their candidacy, it's open season on them from the White House, Media Matters, Huffington Post, MSNBC, and the DNC. Would you want to be the first to stick your neck out? Sit back, bide your time, and let Sarah Palin take all the slings and arrows for you. I suspect this campaign season will be considerably shorter than 2008. Less time for the Obama political machine to tear into them (and less time for them to tear each other apart). That's an interesting take. I'd be afraid of that as much as I'd be afraid of the Jimmy Carter defenders (were there any?). If you can't retort against the hot mess that this country is in then who in their right mind would donate any money? Taking on the democrats should be like shooting fish in a barrel nowadays. What you're taking about is defense, I'm taking about going on offense with the daily "Are you freaking kidding me?" take on what Obama's doing and telling America what a smart and sensible person would do instead. It's time to take the non-stop "Jimmy Carter 2.0" sledge hammer out of the bag and let the liberals have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I suspect at least part of it has to do with Sales 101: in a room full of sales pitches, always try to be the last to pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Romney has been on the talk circuit and plainly stated that he started way too early in his last outing that all enthusiasm had died down when it came time for the real campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Once somebody declares their candidacy, it's open season on them from the White House, Media Matters, Huffington Post, MSNBC, and the DNC. Would you want to be the first to stick your neck out? Sit back, bide your time, and let Sarah Palin take all the slings and arrows for you. I suspect this campaign season will be considerably shorter than 2008. Less time for the Obama political machine to tear into them (and less time for them to tear each other apart). Not to mention that the primary dates have been moved back to where they were before the '08 election. Everyone was in such a mad rush to declare early and (and there were plenty, no doubt, who were seeking to marginalize Dubya) what did it do? Created an artificially long election season that tired everyone out, and drained a lot of resources. Pawlenty might declare in the next month. Word has it that Romney is probably going to wait until April (some are saying, 15 April itself --- tax filing day) to declare. Starting a campaign means spending a lot of money on staff and offices, and spending that money this far out probably doesn't help. What they're doing currently --- writing op-eds, book tours, building up their "war chests" and the like --- is the natural course of it these days. Huckabee is rumored to be on the fence still, but more likely to run if Romney runs. Huckabee just seems to have a sore spot there. Personally, I thought Huckabee would have the decency to stay out since a string of convicted rapists/murderers that he gave FULL PARDONS to (on the advice of his preacher friends who said these inmates had 'found Jesus') as governor were released and went on to .... surprise, surprise.... rape and murder again. Including one guy who killed 4 Arkansas police officers last year. Just on this alone, I don't want Huckabee anywhere NEAR the presidency. If Willie Horton was reason enough not to elect Michael Dukakis, then Maurice Clemmons should keep Huckabee out of the White House. Edited February 24, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 These two guys are obviously going to run for the presidency. Could you not have a better time time run? Obama has fubarred everything he's touched...foreign policy, sending in his thugs in support of the hugely unpopular public union and their temper tantrums, gas prices are already sky high and going higher under an idiot president who tamps down domestic drilling efforts. Seriously, what the hell are these two goofballs waiting for? I saw that Pawlenty's doing the rounds of TV interviews for a book tour, I'd ask him, "Do you not read the news, or are you just a dumb jackass with no sense of timing and a lame book?" For the record I don't like either of these card board cut outs, I'm for Christie. Lol, put the Fox 'news' Rush limbo down man! Obama fubarred GM? You are stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Lol, put the Fox 'news' Rush limbo down man! Obama fubarred GM? You are stupid Uh...yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 Lol, put the Fox 'news' Rush limbo down man! Obama fubarred GM? You are stupid Oh please, GM would have been better off if they had just gone into bankruptcy and got out from under the ridiculous union contracts. By the way, that's it? GM? That's all you got? That's pretty pathetic for a man in which unhinged liberal American's passed out over only two short years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Romney is waiting for magical golden tablets to tell him the optimal time to declare his candidacy. Oh please, GM would have been better off if they had just gone into bankruptcy and got out from under the ridiculous union contracts. By the way, that's it? GM? That's all you got? That's pretty pathetic for a man in which unhinged liberal American's passed out over only two short years ago. The bar has been set pretty low. Not invading any new countries gets a pat on the back these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The bar has been set pretty low. Not invading any new countries gets a pat on the back these days. Obama's the first president since Ford to be able to claim that particular achievement. Of course, his presidency's not over yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Obama's the first president since Ford to be able to claim that particular achievement. Of course, his presidency's not over yet... What about Haiti? 'Course, it happened during humanitarian/crisis relief but with some of the stuff that went on, it had a few of the hallmarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Obama's the first president since Ford to be able to claim that particular achievement. Of course, his presidency's not over yet... I didn't realize that. Perhaps not starting nearly decade-long wars in multiple counties should be the new low-bar standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I didn't realize that. Perhaps not starting nearly decade-long wars in multiple counties should be the new low-bar standard. I didn't realize it either, until you mentioned it. Then I started thinking about it - and even Carter ordered an invasion of Iran (admittedly, it was only the op to rescue the hostages, and the invasion consisted mainly of creating an ill-advised ad-hoc airstrip in Iran...but that's still an invasion.) Personally, I think the low-bar standard should simply be starting a war on completely incoherent justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I didn't realize it either, until you mentioned it. Then I started thinking about it - and even Carter ordered an invasion of Iran (admittedly, it was only the op to rescue the hostages, and the invasion consisted mainly of creating an ill-advised ad-hoc airstrip in Iran...but that's still an invasion.) Personally, I think the low-bar standard should simply be starting a war on completely incoherent justification. With a bar so low, there exist many humble non-actions that can make one easily outshine one's predecessor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 What about Haiti? 'Course, it happened during humanitarian/crisis relief but with some of the stuff that went on, it had a few of the hallmarks. Ambiguous. The hallmarks it had could easily be blamed on the incompetent nature of the effort. I vote no. With a bar so low, there exist many humble non-actions that can make one easily outshine one's predecessor. Though I do wish Obama would find the resolve to bomb the living !@#$ out of Qadaffi Duck already. I'd prefer snipers...but given the situation on the ground, that's probably not practical. But last I heard, he's actively involved in pursuing a UN resolution condemning Qadaffi for the violence in Libya, and may go as far as actual sanctions. Yeah, that'll fix things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Though I do wish Obama would find the resolve to bomb the living !@#$ out of Qadaffi Duck already. I'd prefer snipers...but given the situation on the ground, that's probably not practical. But last I heard, he's actively involved in pursuing a UN resolution condemning Qadaffi for the violence in Libya, and may go as far as actual sanctions. Yeah, that'll fix things... Here's one of the many things I don't understand: you're all about small government and people being responsible for themselves. So why don't you apply this same philosophy to Libia? I mean, I get why we'd want to take out Qadaffi, but shouldn't that responsibility fall on the Libian people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Here's one of the many things I don't understand: you're all about small government and people being responsible for themselves. So why don't you apply this same philosophy to Libia? I mean, I get why we'd want to take out Qadaffi, but shouldn't that responsibility fall on the Libian people? I'm also about avoiding nation-building, and thinking that "Exporting Democracy" is an asinine policy, and helping people who genuinely need help. But I'm also against murderous, genocidal dictators. I believe that Saddam Hussein should simply have been killed, and then the Iraqi people left to solve their own problems their own way rather than be patronized under the "You're just misguided Americans that need to be shown the way" policy. I also felt that one of Clinton's biggest failings was not sending troops into Kigali - or even bombing the Hutu Power radio transmitter, as was requested multiple times by multiple Tutsi leaders - to at least mitigate the genocide. I feel the same about Qadaffi Duck. The Libyan people aren't going to manage a hell of a lot of change while they're being bombed, shelled, machine gunned, and summarily executed. Plus, I had a classmate on Pan Am 103. So it's not impersonal, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I'm also about avoiding nation-building, and thinking that "Exporting Democracy" is an asinine policy, and helping people who genuinely need help. But I'm also against murderous, genocidal dictators. I believe that Saddam Hussein should simply have been killed, and then the Iraqi people left to solve their own problems their own way rather than be patronized under the "You're just misguided Americans that need to be shown the way" policy. I also felt that one of Clinton's biggest failings was not sending troops into Kigali - or even bombing the Hutu Power radio transmitter, as was requested multiple times by multiple Tutsi leaders - to at least mitigate the genocide. I feel the same about Qadaffi Duck. The Libyan people aren't going to manage a hell of a lot of change while they're being bombed, shelled, machine gunned, and summarily executed. Plus, I had a classmate on Pan Am 103. So it's not impersonal, either. The Pan Am 103 point is well taken. I don't have a strong opinion about this either way. It just seems somewhat of a contradiction. Qadaffi should be taken out, no doubt, but I'd expect that a Libertarian such as yourself would put it on the Libian people to take him out. Freedom ain't free! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The Pan Am 103 point is well taken. I don't have a strong opinion about this either way. It just seems somewhat of a contradiction. Qadaffi should be taken out, no doubt, but I'd expect that a Libertarian such as yourself would put it on the Libian people to take him out. Freedom ain't free! Freedom ain't free, but there's also the basic human nature of helping people as they walk into a slaughterhouse to gain their freedom. Rwanda is a perfect example. Did the genocide really aid the freedom movement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts