I pretty much agree. She will get chewed up and spit out by the media. It is already happening.Dave2 wrote: I haven't really begun following the candidates yet, but from the little I've seen of Michelle Bachman, she seems like another Sarah Palin -- not wrong per se, but she comes off as unintelligent when she tries to articulate her views.
Yeah, that's the issue. The Republicans in congress aren't much more popular than Obama right now.Dave2 wrote: Eh, it depends on how many independents are thinking, "Geez, even Bush was better than this!" (Probably not enough of them, though)
I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that a moderate was what the country needed. I said it is what the Republican party needs to beat Obama. You see the difference? It is a matter of picking bad over worse at this point because it doesn't seem like good is an option that is going to be on the ballot.Dave2 wrote:And to a point, I disagree with your assertion that a moderate (of either type) is what we need. Our country was setup to be a collection of States ruled by a lean, mean, Democratic Republic governing machine, and for its economy to operate under Free-Market Capitalism. Doesn't it stand to reason that if you want things to run smoothly, you should stay within that framework? The current moderates are pulling us away from those original "ideals" towards some bizarre system half way between that and the Socialism/Communism that the left wants. It can't possibly work. You've got two of the three branches of the federal government pushing for a bigger government with more power, but they can't come up with the votes to raise taxes enough to fund everything. We only have two plausible choices that I can see: go back to having a small federal government with highly limited powers; or just embrace the left's ideals, scrap the constitution, and start over. Moderates (on both sides) want to continue trying to build a skyscraper on the foundation of a single-family home.
I grew up in Iowa, so I can honestly say that I don't believe that Iowans are a good predictor of the national stage. That state is too podunk, too insular and frankly too full of itself around caucus time.Dave2 wrote: IMHO, it's probably because as we learn more about the candidates and see how the act over the course of their campaigns, our opinions of them change; not some deep disconnect between Iowa and the rest of the country. What's your take on it?