Jeb Bush, will he run?

[Sean]

trample any new re-growth of past notions of liberty .

Like Mitt Romney?

 

[mercury14]

i cannot quite find the handles on this eely response...
nor can i separate the wheat from the froth...

i get it. you hate bush. you hate republicans. you find villainy to manufacture where pure politics would alone suffice... 435 + 33 + 2 were available, not just 31 seats... and though many were virtually uncontested, the general make-up of the house/senate/and exec stayed within the norms of a coat-tail re-election...

redistricting had to do with the 2010 census and... yes... i know, the red devil stole this too....!

i do agree that the republican party is in a state of disrepair... i mentioned identity and message (and later, inclusiveness, amongst other salients)

you can ease up and take a breath or two...

i get it merc.

use the spittoon on your way out...
and a moist towlette.

*i know better*

and yes i do. i do know better.

I don't think you get it. The Republican Party's problem isn't in its messaging, it's in the message itself. And also perhaps its failure to properly conceal what it actually believes from the electorate. The 47% comment for instance is actually what Romney and much of his party truly believes. Then in damage control mode Mitt calls it a messaging problem while failing to say what different message he would like to convey. That tells us he got "caught" saying what he really believes and didn't like the consequences.

Not sure what you mean by an identity problem. Republicans seem to pretty much know who they are.

 

[unregistered]

 

[LadyVer]

You might as well be speaking Arapaho to a convention of tonsured Medieval Friars, my friend.

In a way it seems that you're both saying the GOP is the better party because it's only concerned with what's really important, that articulation skills aren't worth jack. That must be the reason behind Romney's 47% comment. That went over real well at the last election. While those on.the right keep talking about how conservatism is the only moral solution for the U.S. the majority of Americans realize that it's just an empty shell whose believers seems to think their way or the highway mentality is going to work. This kind of thinking didn't work during the MA. It's not working now. But if you want to hold onto to those beliefs while the GOP crashes and burns, go for it. BTW, if the GOP doesn't have moderate/sane candidates for 2016 and again goes with extremist RINOs, 2016 will be a repeat of 2012.

 

[CHNOPS]

I don't think you get it. The Republican Party's problem isn't in its messaging, it's in the message itself. And also perhaps its failure to properly conceal what it actually believes from the electorate. The 47% comment for instance is actually what Romney and much of his party truly believes. Then in damage control mode Mitt calls it a messaging problem while failing to say what different message he would like to convey. That tells us he got "caught" saying what he really believes and didn't like the consequences.

Not sure what you mean by an identity problem. Republicans seem to pretty much know who they are.

I don't see how you can say he doesn't get it. He was calling you a party-line hack whose contributions to conversations such as these are often factually compromised by blind partisanship.

 

[phrodeau]

You might as well be speaking Arapaho to a convention of tonsured Medieval Friars, my friend.

I see that you share the majority's opinion of AJ's posts.

 

[Wrong Element]

Regarding WE's Christie post...I think you're viewing him through the Democratic lens of, "does he represent our best visions for the party and the people?" That's the populist lens, not the strategic one. On the R side, the metric is almost always, "Can he win?" Look how quickly the party coalesced around a centrist governor of an eastern liberal state who implemented a massive socialist policy and prays to a Mormon God, when it became clear he was their best shot at the White House (where they disdained the centrist Congressman who implemented a massive socialist policy and prays to a Muslim God).

I see the parallels between Romney and Christie, but while Romney was happy to be regarded as a sort of nonideological technocrat within Massachusetts, the minute he left office and started running for president, he sprinted to the right as fast as he could. In 2008, he positioned himself to the right of McCain and Guiliani, if not Huckabee.

It's true that his "liberal" views on things like universal health care didn't help him in 2012, but what happened there is that the whole GOP electorate has just kept on moving right in the last several years, to the point where all the veterans in the race--Romney, Gingrich (who supported cap-and-trade not long ago), Santorum, even Perry (who had Dubya's position on immigration) had to try to explain away opinions and votes that hadn't been considered a problem just a few years before.

This isn't going to be the case in 2016; you're going to have one or more credible candidates without any dangerous "moderation" (i.e. basic mainstream Republican opinions prior to 2008) on their voting record. This is where I think Christie is going to have a problem. While in Massachusetts, I don't think Romney ever picked a major fight with the Bush administration. But Christie is associated in the public mind with praising Obama on the eve of an election, and savaging the House Republicans for holding up Sandy relief. These are sins that won't be forgotten, as the CPAC snub shows.

I agree that the usual thinking is to nominate someone who can win. But here's the thing: the Republican base is going around saying things like, "We've tried the 'electable moderate' these last 2 elections, and Obama cleaned our clock both times. It's time for a 'true conservative!'" Yeah, I know that part of their game is to redefine all losers as being not "true conservatives"--they've managed to do that to George W. Bush, who went totally uncriticized in conservative circles for 8 years--but I think the base might demand its own Goldwater before they have sense beat into them.

Look at it another away: as badly as the GOP has been doing lately, they have yet to lose any election as badly as, say, Dukakis--and Dukakis was actually the second-best Democratic candidate in the five-election stretch between 1972 and 1988. They haven't had the total humiliation that usually precedes a true change of heart and of strategy. Hell, Paul Ryan is still out there proposing an Obamacare repeal in his latest budget, as if last November never happened.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see. Establishment rinos are not the Republicans I place our future in. While junior conservatives were filibustering a threat to your freedom, they were breaking bread with a Marxist in order to figure out the best way to advance "his" agenda and still remain in office.

You and those who support his collective agenda will sell all of our freedom for your security, unless you're stopped.

President Obama is not a Marxist, no matter how often you call him one, you ignorant son of a bitch.

 

[LadyVer]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see. Establishment rinos are not the Republicans I place our future in. While junior conservatives were filibustering a threat to your freedom, they were breaking bread with a Marxist in order to figure out the best way to advance "his" agenda and still remain in office.

You and those who support his collective agenda will sell all of our freedom for your security, unless you're stopped.

Vette, I have no problem with exchanging comments with you, and we both exhange zingers, and for the most part we both mangage to keep it civil.

My previous points to you were not personal nor were they meant to he so. What is disturbing about your comment here is that it shows what I've been pointing out. It's the my way or highway mentality that leads many conservatives to think that if anyone doesn't think or believe as they do they they are basically a marxist and a traitor.

You're entitled of course to your own opinion, but your calling me a traitor and a marxist makes as much sense as me calling you a traitor and a fascist. Now go pedal your collectivist propoganda elsewhere. or ig me.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[LadyVer]

I see. So my saying that your comment was pure bs and you needed to get a grip of course meant I was saying you were a traitor and a fascist. Great conclusion, Vette. Now cut the crap. Your problem is you look for ways to play the victim.

 

[LadyVer]

I don't recall calling you a Marxist or a traitor, but it doesn't surprise me that you thought I did, as you seem to see every post as a personal attack amid a vast conspiracy against your person.

Neither am I surprised by your "my way or the highway" comment. It's almost laughable you don't see the very same behavior in your Prince, Obama.

Finally LadyVer, your skin is way too thin to post on the GB. Take my advice and migrate over to the playground where semi-moderated fluff rules.

Do be advised I will post whenever and wherever I damn well please. I will continue to attack any post in any fashion I wish, If this is objectionable to you, I suggest you put me on IGGY and save your mental health.

My skin is way too thin to post on the gb??? You can say whatever you want, Vette..Just don't comment with your collectivist propagana bs to me, which is what you did earlier.

Now if you can't handle my comments by all means ig me.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Disgustipated]

Believe me ladyV, I've had my ass ripped on Lit by experts many orders of magnitude more effective than you, all with no lasting effect on my resiliency to the adverse. There is nothing you can possibly dish out that I couldn't handle with a wry grin, half my brain tied behind my back, while cleaning out the garage.

Again, I will say whatever I damn well please, your BS notwithstanding. You'll either like it, or put me in IGGY.

Vettebirther is an LT alt?

 

[LadyVer]

Believe me ladyV, I've had my ass ripped on Lit by experts many orders of magnitude more effective than you, all with no lasting effect on my resiliency to the adverse. There is nothing you can possibly dish out that I couldn't handle with a wry grin, half my brain tied behind my back, while cleaning out the garage.

Again, I will say whatever I damn well please, your BS notwithstanding. You'll either like it, or put me in IGGY.

I know it's hard for you to understand, Vette, but I'm not competing with anyone to rip your ass, especially as I'm no expert in ass ripping. I am not telling you what to do or what to say in general whereas it seems to me you think that you can tell me where I belong on Lit because in your infinite wisdom you think you have to right to do so.

What I am telling you however is this. If you want to speak your collectivist and marxist propaganda bs don't do it in a comment to me, especially where you include me in the remark as a being a marxist and traitor.

Now, you can either understand what I'm saying and respect it. If you can't do that and make a comment again like the one I'm referring to, then I'll just ig you.

 

[unregistered]

 

[LadyVer]

The fact that you've hitched your wagon to a Marxist and then insist he isn't one, is your business. However, others like myself are free to interpret your affectation with his totalitarian ideas, his totalitarian solutions at re-distributing the wealth of the civil society, while attacking our Constitution and our freedom, any way we see fit. Now make the most of that and put me on Iggy.

You're free to think whatever you want, Vette. That isn't the issue.

 

[unregistered]

 

[LadyVer]

I don't think you remember what the issue is.

Really? You know what it is. I know you know. Don't make me hurt you.

 

[unregistered]

 

[LadyVer]

You seem to think I called you a Marxist and a traitor, and then you said I thought you called me a Marxist and a traitor, which is bullshit either way. So I suspect you still have no clue.

What I said was your saying I was a Marxist and a traitor made as much sense as me saying you were a fascist and a traitor. If you re-read your original comment you should be able to see where I get the idea that you were saying I was a marxist/traitor.

So what do you think of my new av? (Be nice).

 

[unregistered]