Replies

Okay, then you believe that Cruz has the charisma, delivery, and ability to draw Reagan Democrats across party lines.

Those who have watched him debate at Princeton say he does.

Can he even draw big Republican numbers? Not to this point he hasn't.

Lack of oxygen.

Okay, but that isn't what you touched on, so I didn't know what you were addressing.

Yes it was, but you missed it.

GWB made a horrible mistake in selecting Cheney as VP, not in terms of ideology, but in terms of physical vigor. IOW even if Bush hadn't made a mess of things (because he wouldn't fight the Slave Party that took him down), Cheney was in no physical condition to run. I was dismayed with his selection in 2004.

I do note this observation with some humor, because Bush himself wasn't a Conservative. Why should we have expected him to hand off better?

He didn't even pick a capable RINO.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but people have already bought into the various candidates. Do you think the Fiorina Folks are going to let go? How about Huckabee followers? Name a one of the current candidates you think folks will forsake.

Graham, Perry, Jindal, Mitchell, Dummett, Ehrlich, Sherman, Hill, Russell, Pataki, Newland, Christensen, Christie, Martin, Bailey, Cavanaugh, Andrews, Petyo, Oliverez, Cullison, Hayden, Bowers, Sent, Fellure, Bickelmeyer, Sterling, Gilmore, and Everson. (list source

See? I do have a sense of humor!

Does it matter that he is pushing a private sector solution? Does it matter that he wants to drop state lines and allow insurance companies to compete nationwide? Does it matter that he has said he wants to see competition lower policy costs and broaden the numbers of different polices available? Evidently not, because I don't see any praise for the direction he sees the nation heading after Obamacare is dumped.

It doesn't matter if he doesn't mean a word of it, and I don't think he does. Anybody so delusional, poorly informed, or vacillating is unworthy of such the attribution of sincerity, much less integrity. If he has held such past positions, he never addresses why he changed his mind. That's a red flag in my book.

If he said right now that he wanted to see people covered like Canada or Scotland, would that mean that he doesn't really mean he wants a private sector solution? Would it mean he wants single-payer?

To me, it would mean that is what he though his audience wanted to hear. Sorry, I do think the man is that much of an opportunist.

Okay, then you believe that Cruz has the charisma, delivery, and ability to draw Reagan Democrats across party lines.
Those who have watched him debate at Princeton say he does.

Those who go to a debate are into the game. They understand the rules and know how to score. Thinking the general public will buy into that, is like thinking an avid baseball fan is going to be really in tune with what's going on at his second Hockey game.

I see holes in that theory.

Can he even draw big Republican numbers? Not to this point he hasn't.
Lack of oxygen.

Okay, but just a moment ago you were explaining to me what debate observers indicated to you. What did Cruz's numbers do after the last debate? I thought they went down or remained flat.

Okay, but that isn't what you touched on, so I didn't know what you were addressing.
Yes it was, but you missed it.

This is what you stated in the post I replied to. GWB made a horrible mistake in selecting Cheney as VP, not in terms of ideology, but in terms of physical vigor. My thought was that you didn't think Cheney was able to come up with the energy to make appearances and support Bush during the campaigns or terms in office. I don't believe I'm wrong in stating this didn't clearly explain to me what was on your mind.

GWB made a horrible mistake in selecting Cheney as VP, not in terms of ideology, but in terms of physical vigor. IOW even if Bush hadn't made a mess of things (because he wouldn't fight the Slave Party that took him down), Cheney was in no physical condition to run. I was dismayed with his selection in 2004.

I don't disagree with this. Once again, I think Bush was such a light-weight he didn't want to face four years without Cheney's insight. He was already on the team. Bush didn't have to break in a new guy, reveal his shortcomings to a new person. My thought is that whoever we put up against Obama, he would have had to carry the weight of the loan industry meltdown. With that meltdown going into the election, good luck to anyone with and (R) after their name trying to buck the tidal wave of blame, whether I think it was totally justified or not.

I do note this observation with some humor, because Bush himself wasn't a Conservative. Why should we have expected him to hand off better?
He didn't even pick a capable RINO.

With regard to carrying on into a next administration, I agree. Cheney was a capable man, but he wasn't a Conservative. His health was an issue. Bush basically got himself through and tough cookies for the nation.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but people have already bought into the various candidates. Do you think the Fiorina Folks are going to let go? How about Huckabee followers? Name a one of the current candidates you think folks will forsake.
Graham, Perry, Jindal, Mitchell, Dummett, Ehrlich, Sherman, Hill, Russell, Pataki, Newland, Christensen, Christie, Martin, Bailey, Cavanaugh, Andrews, Petyo, Oliverez, Cullison, Hayden, Bowers, Sent, Fellure, Bickelmeyer, Sterling, Gilmore, and Everson. (list source)
See? I do have a sense of humor!

Are you sure? = :^)

Does it matter that he is pushing a private sector solution? Does it matter that he wants to drop state lines and allow insurance companies to compete nationwide? Does it matter that he has said he wants to see competition lower policy costs and broaden the numbers of different polices available? Evidently not, because I don't see any praise for the direction he sees the nation heading after Obamacare is dumped.
It doesn't matter if he doesn't mean a word of it, and I don't think he does. Anybody so delusional, poorly informed, or vacillating is unworthy of such the attribution of sincerity, much less integrity. If he has held such past positions, he never addresses why he changed his mind. That's a red flag in my book.

Instead of me putting words in your mouth, why don't you explain what you envision his health care replacement to be.

If he said right now that he wanted to see people covered like Canada or Scotland, would that mean that he doesn't really mean he wants a private sector solution? Would it mean he wants single-payer?
To me, it would mean that is what he though his audience wanted to hear. Sorry, I do think the man is that much of an opportunist.

Okay, that's your opinion and you're obviously free to run with it. I do want to express the thought that folks are willing to make assessments of me based on my thinking here. I don't think I'm being out of line by stating that when you deny everything a man is saying can possibly be truth, you're setting a rather interesting standard. You can't really know that, anymore than I can say everything he says will come to pass exactly as he says. Both of these would be unrealistic.

For the record, that same dynamic applies to all the other candidates too.