The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
RiverCity.45 wrote:I see Bachmann as the GOP equivalent of O'Bama: no experience and lots of ideology. I hope the Republicans don't choose to repeat history by replacing one inexperienced ideologue with another.
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.softwarejanitor wrote:Nominating Michelle Bachman would be a huge mistake for the Republicans because she has no chance to win the general election. I think even as a VP candidate she'd sink the ticket. The media has been way too successful at branding her as a extremist kook to the important moderate swing voters and independants.
Eh, it depends on how many independents are thinking, "Geez, even Bush was better than this!" (Probably not enough of them, though)softwarejanitor wrote:Ron Paul also couldn't win the general election unless Obama had a total meltdown, which is unlikely. If the Republican party wants their best chance to win the white house they need to have a moderate candidate like Rick Perry and a slightly more conservative (but not someone branded as a fringer) VP candidate, ideally a woman other than Bachmann or Palin. Kay Bailey isn't an option for VP either because an "all Texas" ticket probably wouldn't fly nationally.
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?softwarejanitor wrote:Anyway, by once again picking candidates who probably won't make it through to the convention as contenders, Iowa continues to show why they are NOT a good reflection of general America and why they don't deserve the "first in the nation" position they've anointed themselves with.
I think it gives the rest of us a peek at a lot of candidates. And the winner of the Iowa cuacuses only earns a small number of electoral votes in the nomination process. It's early enough such that if a kook wins the state, they don't have a huge pot of votes to carry toward the convention. Iowa and New Hampshire together don't add up to a whole lot in the entire process. So let those small states winnow out some of the candidates (like Pawlenty, bye bye) without them collecting enough clout to be a big issue come convention time. Think of it as a low cost test drive.softwarejanitor wrote:Anyway, by once again picking candidates who probably won't make it through to the convention as contenders, Iowa continues to show why they are NOT a good reflection of general America and why they don't deserve the "first in the nation" position they've anointed themselves with.
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?
You want four more years of Eric Holder? That's reason enough to dump the Big O.v-rog wrote:I feel a little out of place...Is it too soon to cast my vote for Obama?
I think that's what's wrong with the GOP today, too much playing to the middle. Neither hot nor cold, lukewarm makes me spew just like the Bible says.softwarejanitor wrote:I didn't say that a moderate was what the country needed. I said it is what the Republican party needs to beat Obama.
SQLGeek wrote:You want four more years of Eric Holder? That's reason enough to dump the Big O.v-rog wrote:I feel a little out of place...Is it too soon to cast my vote for Obama?
Where are you imagining we're going to be deploying these troops? Not to mention where we are going to get them from. Military is stretched thin enough as it is.v-rog wrote:Let me see...Vote Obama and keep Mr Holder or potentially get a Bachmann (or) Perry type candidate...and enter another war and commit another 100K of troops- I guess Iran would be next
74novaman wrote:Where are you imagining we're going to be deploying these troops? Not to mention where we are going to get them from. Military is stretched thin enough as it is.v-rog wrote:Let me see...Vote Obama and keep Mr Holder or potentially get a Bachmann (or) Perry type candidate...and enter another war and commit another 100K of troops- I guess Iran would be next
But, if you want health care run like the DMV, unemployment to continue to rise, and a slow steady decline into economic irrelevancy for the USA, by all means vote Obama.