Brilliant response...that’s all you got for an argument.
WHY don’t you read conservative economists.
We WILL most likely get a credit downgrade ANYWAYS AND WE DESERVE IT!
Our only possibility is to WIN IN 2012 and turn this around when we have POLITICAL POWER!
We WILL most likely get a credit downgrade ANYWAYS AND WE DESERVE IT!
Our only possibility is to WIN IN 2012 and turn this around when we have POLITICAL POWER!’
How about a deal? You stop posting in all caps now, and I will consider doing the same.
Have a chill pill.
TWB
Even when I've stated that some candidates/possible candidates for president, or Senate, were unelectable because of the perception of extremism, or otherwise just being a poor candidate, I've been flamed, even though by being a poor candidate it doesn't mean I think that individual is a bad person, or otherwise not honest, conservative, inspiring, etc. Christine O'Donnell in 2010, Palin this year, for example.
I'm not picking on women, these are just two recent examples. Others could be Alan Keyes, or Gary Bauer, or Pat Buchanan, etc...O'Donnell's views issue by issue were not extreme in the sense of how she would vote on any given issue...her problem was that she had some weirdness in her past and didn't have the political experience and charisma to overcome it and appeal to the masses. She was unable to come across as someone who was grounded in reality and could work with others.
Palin has similar issues, as well as leaving her governorship - no matter how legit her reasons for doing so, it looks bad to independents. Acknowledging this does not mean I am a RINO, or that I have surrendered to the left, or anything like that. It doesn't even mean I think we should nominate moderates or liberal Republicans.
In fact, I do believe that a good conservative candidate is far better than a mushy moderate. The qualifier is you have to have a good candidate who is a good conservative, too often we have a bad candidate who is a good conservative, or a good candidate who is a bad conservative, neither of whom usually wins. Ronald Reagan was NOT a RINO, but he had an air of "reasonableness" about him. He came across as a guy that, although he was strong in his convictions, he knew how to present his ideas, how to get them done, and how to come across (honestly) as a guy who knew how to work with the other side. This doesn't mean pandering, but it means accepting reality.
Although it can be a fine line between the two, its not rocket science, and it annoys me that people fail to understand that.
Who among 2012 contenders can fit that bill?
It's too early to say, but here's my analysis:
Palin - good conservative, bad candidate, probably can't win
Cain - good conservative, good candidate so far, a wild card since he's never held office, but has that "x-factor" I think we need. IF he could get the nomination, he could win.
Romney - good candidate, BAD conservative - might win, wouldn't excite the base, would try SO hard to work with Dems he'd basically become one, but still, better than Obama in the same way a pile of dogsh&t would be better than Obama.
Bachmann - good conservative, surprisingly good candidate so far. Remains to be seen, but has that "unreasonable" quality about her. Still, doing better so far than I'd expect.
Perry - good candidate, appears to be good conservative - the best combination of conservative and electable of anyone if he decides to run (but I'll still vote for Cain in the primary)
The Rest - ?? Nothing exciting.
“WHY don’t you read conservative economists.”
—I wonder what ‘conservative economists’ would make of this bizarro argument about interest rates after the downgrade...
“To: RockinRight
I agree.
Even if we don’t get a “default” if we show we are at least GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION with cutting the debt, we will avert the bond Market crisis, rising interest rates and a great chance at getting the Independents on our side for 2012.
54 posted on July 27, 2011 5:59:23 PM CDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (where is the Great Santini when we need him??)”