She will have a positive influence in 2014. Have at it!

[Oh Shoot]

...I think the non-votes hurt Romney more than anything else in the last election....

 

People say that a lot, but almost exactly the same % of eligible voters cast ballots in 2012 as in 2008. Hell, you have to go back to 1968 to find where even 60% voted.

 

No way to know, but I'd say that about the same number of disgruntled folks from each side didn't bother to hit the precincts.

 

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well I can't just give up. That's not why I served. Rand Paul is drawing large numbers of young people wherever he speaks. To me that's a bit encouraging. I am however a realist and as such I'm preparing for the worse case scenario but I still maintain hope. Oh and I'm not saying Paul is the end all and be all but he's better than the last few so called conservative nominees.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

We haven't really had a "conservative" to the right of Haslam in years. His name was on the tip of my tongue because

he is a progressive like McCain. The last conservative came from the Democrat Party, originally. Ronald Reagan. The

GOP branch of the Republican Party isn't really about conservatism. Never was, that I know of.

[robin48]

Well I can't just give up. That's not why I served. Rand Paul is drawing large numbers of young people wherever he speaks. To me that's a bit encouraging. I am however a realist and as such I'm preparing for the worse case scenario but I still maintain hope. Oh and I'm not saying Paul is the end all and be all but he's better than the last few so called conservative nominees.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
We haven't really had a "conservative" to the right of Haslam in years. His name was on the tip of my tongue because
he is a progressive like McCain. The last conservative came from the Democrat Party, originally. Ronald Reagan. The
GOP branch of the Republican Party isn't really about conservatism. Never was, that I know of.

I agree 100%



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest PapaB]

People say that a lot, but almost exactly the same % of eligible voters cast ballots in 2012 as in 2008. Hell, you have to go back to 1968 to find where even 60% voted.

 

No way to know, but I'd say that about the same number of disgruntled folks from each side didn't bother to hit the precincts.

 

- OS

 

They (the political pundits) say that because Obama's policies were expected to drive up the republican voters and that didn't happen. The percentages were expected to be higher for the repubs in 2012 but both sides failed to drive up the base.

 

BTW, all the sources I found said the 2012 turnout was 4.8 percent lower than 2008, not close to the same amount.

[Guest PapaB]

 
I'm about ready to not support anybody anymore.  With every day that passes I'm more convinced that it's too late to undo what the past 100 years have done to us and that there isn't enough left of the republic to save.
 
I hope I'm wrong but I don't think so. Even if I am wrong, we are so ripe for financial catastrophe that it will be our undoing before anybody has a chance to "fix" things.

 

That's a self fulfilling prophecy, I give up cause I don't think we can fix it. Oh look, we didn't fix it. I just knew it.

 

If you really want to know if you're right, keep fighting and don't give up. If you're right, it'll still get worse, if you're wrong it will improve. Giving up proves nothing, it simply creates failure.

 

Think of it like an addict where they often have to hit bottom before they realize there's a problem. Once they're on the bottom they start the climb back up. It's a long hard climb for them but they won't make it if they give up. This republic hasn't hit bottom yet and may not have to but if we give up, it will fail.

 

WWFFD. What would founding fathers do?

[1gewehr]

Presidential elections are won in the middle...go to the extremes either way and you loose. Also, not voting for a candidate because he/she isn't your perfect candidate is just giving a vote to the other side. I think the non-votes hurt Romney more than anything else in the last election. I'm not a fan of any of the possible candidates mentioned, but I'd likely still vote for them even though they aren't my perfect candidate (who is?) if they became the GOP nominee. I would say that I'd consider voting for a moderate/conservative democrat, but I think that is now an oxymoron...they don't really exist.    

 

That used to be true.  The game has changed.  There are at least three reasons for that.

1)  A huge number of folks will vote for 'free stuff'.  All they care about is that they continue to get their SS, MediCare, EBT cards, cell phones, or whatever else they are getting.  Depending on how you count them, that is somewhere between 35 and 48% of registered voters.  All the liberals have to do is make those people afraid that Conservatives will take away their free stuff, and they show up at the polls on command.

2)  The middle is now the realm of people who don't go to the polls.  These past two Presidential elections showed that the person who can get their own base energized and to the polls, wins.  Romney had no chance against Obama.  He couldn't even get the conservative base to vote for him.  If the same conservatives who held their noses and voted for McCain had also voted for Romney, then Romney would now be President.  Obama had trouble motivating his own base last year.  He got fewer votes this past election than McCain did last time.

3)  'The middle' is a shrinking number.  As the country gets more polarized between liberal and conservative, there are fewer folks in the middle each year.  At this point, it's not enough to swing a national election.

 

Conservatives actually have an advantage over liberals the more the country gets divided.  A huge number of liberal voters are inherently lazy.  Liberals have to bus them to the polls and hand them filled-out absentee ballots to get their votes.  This is why those 'Get Out the Vote' programs are so critical to liberal causes.

Conservatives will usually get themselves out to vote if they have a candidate they can agree with.

[Chucktshoes]

WWFFD. What would founding fathers do?

The Founding Fathers took up arms and shot people over an effective tax rate of around +/- 6%. You tell me what they would be doing today. 

[RichardR]

The Founding Fathers took up arms and shot people over an effective tax rate of around +/- 6%. You tell me what they would be doing today.

Sitting on their asses, in gov. Housing, eating cheetos bought with ebt cards, playing xbox call of duty all day?

[Chucktshoes]

Sitting on their asses, in gov. Housing, eating cheetos bought with ebt cards, playing xbox call of duty all day?

While many of the FF owned slaves, I don't remember reading that any of the FF were slaves.

[jtmaze]

All of this talk about Sarah has got me to thinking. Why can't we hold the media accountable for what they say. We need to push for laws to fine news outlets for slander and not make it a civil case. Hmmm would that fly. Everyone quit watching the major news outlets and they will get the picture. Make it a nationwide boycot until they agreed to just report the news with no agenda. That is all I want.


JTM
Sent from my hiding place in the woods

[Oh Shoot]

.....

BTW, all the sources I found said the 2012 turnout was 4.8 percent lower than 2008, not close to the same amount.

 

Total votes cast was indeed that much less in 2012, but % of eligible voters (old enough) who actually voted was the same. Apparently due to larger % of newly eligible voters not showing up, or even registering.

 

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's a self fulfilling prophecy, I give up cause I don't think we can fix it. Oh look, we didn't fix it. I just knew it.

 

If you really want to know if you're right, keep fighting and don't give up. If you're right, it'll still get worse, if you're wrong it will improve. Giving up proves nothing, it simply creates failure.

 

Think of it like an addict where they often have to hit bottom before they realize there's a problem. Once they're on the bottom they start the climb back up. It's a long hard climb for them but they won't make it if they give up. This republic hasn't hit bottom yet and may not have to but if we give up, it will fail.

 

WWFFD. What would founding fathers do?

That is what I'm afraid is going on due to malaise within the ranks of the right side of politics in our country. Too many

good and moral people are walking away, for their own reasons. They see failure and that the government is too big

to fight. They see their vote as meaningless. Maybe so, but when you don't engage in the process you allow the

problem to get worse. Self fulfilling prophecy is accurate.

 

I was at the Nashville Tea Party meeting last night, and those people are engaged. I come back around here and kinda

get the gloom and doom feeling from some who I think have given up. Man, that just bothers me. These people in the

meeting, last night, were good loyal, patriotic Americans trying to do what a lot more of us used to do and they are the

glue that keeps this union together. I think the glue is starting to get stretched to the brink. I am completely a Tea

Partier now. I know we are heading down the wrong path. Been knowing it for years, like so many of us around here. I

think instead of plain old criticism, engaging is the answer. Finding common ground and sticking together for solutions

and setting aside ancillary arguments would do us a lot of good on the pathway back to a constitutional based

America. The Republican Party needs to be rid of the Roves, Haslams and Alexander types, but it still needs to be a

functioning political organization. It is the base that needs to be kept and built back, correctly. If another party rises out

of it's ashes, that's fine with me, but until then, we need to get core beliefs back and work from there. I've said I am

through with them, but until that time, they are going to have to do. We just have our work cut out for us.

 

Giving up on a political party is one thing, but giving up on this country doesn't cut it for me. Waiting for the demise

of America doesn't mean you need to disengage from the political process. If anything, it means you should be fighting

harder for the things you believe in.  Just the fact that Hillary could be President next time, or someone worse, is

reason enough for me to want to fight to preserve what's left of this country so my kids, and yours, have something

to live for, not a communist stronghold.

 

Even if we do go through a scenario like Bracken and others write about, and I don't doubt their scenarios, it doesn't

mean we should allow the other side to continue on. All it will do is make the pain much worse for everyone.

 

People like Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and others can be torn apart like anyone else in society, and if that

makes anyone feel better to do that, so be it. They are the potential future of our country and I believe they have their

hearts and minds in the right direction. Trash them all you wish, but showing me the alternative doesn't change my mind,

just makes it stronger for them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good points, but her aides had self-vested interest in getting her elected, and no incentive to undermine the effort.

 

Just watching her public side-stepping of questions about which she was obviously clueless, and the way they were blindsided by the dirt came up after having been hastily vetted by Culvahouse all lend credence to the overall portrayal. And some of the script was verbatim according to A.B. also.

 

As he said, she was "high risk, high reward". And there was less there than initially believed, only her incredible stage presence and charisma kept the choice from becoming a total debacle.

 

So, as I said, I give the movie the odds on being at least half way accurate.

 

- OS

I wouldn't give Hollywood and the Democrats 10% of what you think may be half way accurate the credibility of knowing

what the truth is, in the first place. If you dig deeper you will probably find more dirt on the process than the candidate.

Mac, I would be mad as Hell if I was told campaigning in a certain place wouldn't do much for the election. If I thought

there was one more vote to get, I would go after it. That's what creates value to the individual voter:knowing that a

candidate gives a damn.

She busted her ass on the campaign trail. That's the kind of person I want. Not some mealy-mouthed political class

progressive.

 

To believe a source that is so in the tank for a communist is just about obscene. He said, she said is no good source

for anything, other than gossip.

[S&WForty]

All of this talk about Sarah has got me to thinking. Why can't we hold the media accountable for what they say. We need to push for laws to fine news outlets for slander and not make it a civil case. Hmmm would that fly. Everyone quit watching the major news outlets and they will get the picture. Make it a nationwide boycot until they agreed to just report the news with no agenda. That is all I want.


JTM
Sent from my hiding place in the woods

If we could snap our fingers and the media instantly be replaced with unbiased reporting robots, we could turn the country around. 100% truth being reported would wake up those with their heads in the sand and open the eyes of those brainwashed into being 47 Percenters. The libs and RINOs would be voted out in record numbers. The Occupy movement freaks and similar progressive protester types would see how outnumbered they are and crawl back into their holes.

As a whole, people like us are the Silenced Majority. The media gives the other side a free pass and serves to be their megaphone while trying to shame us into thinking our beliefs are outdated or insensitive/etc.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The "news" has never been about reporting truth, or the news. It has always had a narrative by a political bent.

Go look at the history of the news media some time. We have been assuming for far too long about this. The

problem with the "news" is that it has and always will be about sending a particular political message. It has also

been used, and still is solely for the left's political narrative. Sound like propaganda? That's what it is, and they

know a large percentage of the viewers will actually fall for it and believe it.

 

What conservatives need is for a new media to come up and counter it. The internet places are attempting to do

this even though a bunch like to lump one or two questionable ones into the whole and then trash all of them.

 

You folks who actually like and believe CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the standards of CBS, NBC and ABC, keep on believing

them if you like. If you don't have a finely tuned BS detector or just want to hear and believe what someone tells you,

it's your life. Enjoy :D

[Guest HvyMtl]

Um.  No.  She is a rehash.   She lost already.  Why keep bringing up the same old politicians, who lose?   If anything, the GOP needs an enema, so their collective heads can be found.  Hopefully before the next Presidential Election.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, Reagan lost before he won, also. Nixon did, too. A lot of folks have lost before they won.

 

I agree about the GOP needing an enema, though. :D That beast needs to be flushed of progressives.

[Guest HvyMtl]

So far, I have not been happy with the possible candidates.   Rubio?  Really?   No.  I do like some aspects of the Governor of NJ, but, I think he has been wise not seeking the office.

[RichardR]

Um. No. She is a rehash. She lost already. Why keep bringing up the same old politicians, who lose? If anything, the GOP needs an enema, so their collective heads can be found. Hopefully before the next Presidential Election.

Eh? That's exactly what "the left" wants, they want our side to continue to canibalize ourselves, while they circle their wagons, dig in & fully support each other no matter what.

The only thing Palin is guilty of is being mocked on SNL ...

We really need to start hanging together, instead of constantly nit-picking ourselves into political obscurity.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, that says a lot. You like that progressive? He's about as liberal a Republican as you could find. He'd

also take your guns almost like this current occupier we have.

[Guest HvyMtl]

I said some aspects.  Allow me to clarify.  I like how he handles the media.  I like how he shoots his mouth off, and speaks frankly.  Quite refreshing.  I do not like his 2nd A stance.  I do not think he would make a great President.  I do think he makes a decent Governor.  For New Jersey.  He would not do well here.

 

GOP keep forgetting something: To win the Presidential Election, you have to have a candidate who will entice the Democrat to vote for them.   Get elected first, then change things.  Do not go after the same old, and weakening political bases (Religious Right, Old White Male, etc.) and expect to get elected.   You have to at least be interesting to the opposing voters, or you don't get elected.

 

Sadly, I wish there was a 3rd (and 4th, and 5th, and 6th) party(ies) so the U.S. could get the BEST candidate, not just Dumb or Dumber.

[RobertNashville]

That's a self fulfilling prophecy, I give up cause I don't think we can fix it. Oh look, we didn't fix it. I just knew it.

 

If you really want to know if you're right, keep fighting and don't give up. If you're right, it'll still get worse, if you're wrong it will improve. Giving up proves nothing, it simply creates failure.

 

Think of it like an addict where they often have to hit bottom before they realize there's a problem. Once they're on the bottom they start the climb back up. It's a long hard climb for them but they won't make it if they give up. This republic hasn't hit bottom yet and may not have to but if we give up, it will fail.

 

WWFFD. What would founding fathers do?

I think the founding fathers would recognize that the emperor has no cloths; as to what they would do?  Well, they've already tried to give us a republic and we've screwed it up...I think they would just let us wallow in our own mess.

Admittedly; I've been more than a bit pessimistic of late but I think I've had sufficient reason to be.

Our country's march toward socialism began in the early 1900's and has made pretty steady progress since then.  It was pretty slow at first but as they say, it takes a while to turn a big ship but those who want this country to look like a European style democracy (or an outright communist one) have been patient and unrelenting and have continued to make progress for all those decades. With VERY few exceptions, all I've seen Republicans and self-proclaimed conservative succeed in doing is in slowing the progress but so what?  The destination remains unchanged; only the arrival time changes.

I'll continue to vote...hell, in 40 years I've never missed a general election and have only missed two primary elections. However, do I think anything will change? No; I don't - what happened last November convinces me it won't.

 

Even ignoring everything else we know or suspect about Obama; given the state of the economy the Republicans should have been able to elect anyone they ran against him yet the socialist is still in office. Everybody has their opinions about "why" but the mere fact that he is tells me we are too late...that we finally have more people who care about what the government will give them than they care about their country.  If that is true then who runs next time or the next next time or the next next next time is immaterial, even if they win.

Even ignoring all the above...I can add and subtract and I know what's coming; I just don't know how soon.  I refer to a complete economic collapse.

 

I've spent the better part of my working life in finance in one way or another...I have, as the saying goes, more degrees than a thermometer. But, don't need to have even graduated from high school to know that you can't continue to spend 145% of every dollar you take in and never even get close to a balanced budget forever. IT WILL CATCH UP TO US.  It may even come simply by our interest rates rising to where they actually should be...it may be the world deciding not to value oil in U.S. dollars...it could be many different things that collapse the house of cards but it WILL collapse.

I'll keep voting and I'll keep looking for someone who can make me believe I'm wrong but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I said some aspects.  Allow me to clarify.  I like how he handles the media.  I like how he shoots his mouth off, and speaks frankly.  Quite refreshing.  I do not like his 2nd A stance.  I do not think he would make a great President.  I do think he makes a decent Governor.  For New Jersey.  He would not do well here.

 

GOP keep forgetting something: To win the Presidential Election, you have to have a candidate who will entice the Democrat to vote for them.   Get elected first, then change things.  Do not go after the same old, and weakening political bases (Religious Right, Old White Male, etc.) and expect to get elected.   You have to at least be interesting to the opposing voters, or you don't get elected.

 

Sadly, I wish there was a 3rd (and 4th, and 5th, and 6th) party(ies) so the U.S. could get the BEST candidate, not just Dumb or Dumber.

For the GOP/Republican Party to be successful, they will have to get people like Karl Rove out of the party

apparatchik and start nominating true conservatives, which is exactly the opposite of who they have been

nominating for a long time. There are conservative Democrats. You have to have a clear alternative to the

communists. The Republicans swing to the left in order to perpetuate that myth you think is correct and it

has shown to be wrong for a long time, now.

 

It depends on how you mean to use the word "interesting". Like as in a museum, a statue of Mussolini might

be considered interesting, but I sure as Hell wouldn't want him as President. We've gone through that. His

initials were FDR.

[LowBb]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/29/palin-pac-spends-heavily-on-consultants-little-on-candidates/

So, the maverick is taking donor money meant for republican politicians and giving it to consultants, which is what her "loaded for bear" tour is sort of about. She will never win a public office.

Sarah Palin attempted to relaunch her political career and her political action committee, SarahPAC, on Thursday with a Web video called “Loaded for Bear,” which presented the former Alaska governor as the new kingmaker for conservative populists in the GOP.

The video riffed off her speech at CPAC, in which Palin railed against “the big consultants, the big money men, and the big bad media.” But there’s an irony alert ahead: the current stated purpose of SarahPAC is to raise money ahead of the 2014 election—most of which will be spent on conservative consultants.

Don't believe me? Well, this is a perfect time to page through SarahPAC’s Federal Election Commission filings, which—helpfully enough—were just released yesterday.

Seen through the lens of the invaluable Center for Responsive Politics, Palin’s PAC spent $5.1 million in the last election cycle (more than it raised in that time period, raising some questions about Palin’s claims of fiscal responsibility).


SarahPAC recently released a new promotional video, titled "Loaded for Bear."
But the real news comes when you look at how donors’ money was actually doled out: just $298,500 to candidates. The bulk of the rest of it, more than $4.8 million, went to—you guessed it—consultants.

That’s some seriously hypocritical overhead.

Edited March 31, 2013 by LowBb

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I got a real kick out of that Center for Responsive Politics. You're pretty gullible if that's what your information

is based on. Do you see phrases like "non-profit" and "non-partisan" and actually believe them? How about

Center for American Progress and mediamatters.org? They're in the same category, but have at it. :D

 

You could do better at MSNBC. Try there.