Please, Let THIS Happen!

 Post Reply    Back to Forums
1–25 out of 26 messages
Author Message

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 8/16/2013 3:04:46 PM | show profile | flag this post

""Republican insiders say the next presidential campaign season may see some star power from the hard-core conservative crowd, via debates moderated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/15/limbaugh-hannity-levin-mulled-2016-moderators/





con Posted - 8/16/2013 4:14:01 PM | show profile | flag this post

or we can continue to have our debates moderated by liberals. we have seen from previous debates liberals are not above helping the home team out...



con Posted - 8/16/2013 4:14:01 PM | show profile | flag this post

or we can continue to have our debates moderated by liberals. we have seen from previous debates liberals are not above helping the home team out...



orthicon Posted - 8/16/2013 7:15:37 PM | show profile | flag this post

most people prefer to have debates moderated by people..

whose IQ quotients are at least in triple figures..

which lets out the three mentioned above..

mpdodgson Posted - 8/16/2013 8:36:42 PM | show profile | flag this post

See? That's why

Preibus himself called the GOP Debates the last time around "a 23-debate traveling circus". It must have been the moderators fault.

They forced Bachmann to say "China's economy was growing because of its lack of a social safety net, saying "If you look at China, they don't have food stamps. They don't have the modern welfare state, and China's growing"

Or Rick Perry's brain fart. Atl-Const blogger jay bookman noted:
"
looking back, it's tempting to have some initial sympathy for Priebus' argument. For example, one media questioner asked Bachmann in a primary debate whether, as president, she would be submissive to her husband. In another instance, when a moderator pointed out that Gingrich had criticized President Obama for not intervening in Libya, and then criticized Obama when he did intervene, Newt turned the tables, accusing the journalist of attacking him with a "gotcha" question.

And when Preibus complained this week that debate moderators "pushed these candidates into positions in ridiculous hypotheticals that are never going to be reality," he probably had in mind that iconic moment when all the GOP candidates were asked about a hypothetical budget deal offering $10 in budget cuts for every dollar in tax increases. As you no doubt recall, every single one raised his or her hand in opposition, producing a picture that came to symbolize GOP intransigence.

But here's one major problem with the Priebus analysis: That sterling question about wifely submission came from arch-conservative columnist and author Byron York. The question about Libya that Newt found so offensive was posed by Bret Baier, an anchor at Fox News. And that picture of all the GOP candidates pledging to oppose a 10-1 budget deal?

Yup. That too occurred on a Fox News debate.

Liberal moderators, in other words, did not make the GOP debate season a circus. It was a circus because when you have a cast made up largely of clowns, you ain't doing Shakespeare baby"


etaoin shrdlu Posted - 8/17/2013 11:54:08 AM | show profile | flag this post

The three stooges...

moderating the GOP debates would pretty much kill any "outreach" program the Republicans have.

And it would leave even a strong moderate like Christie or Kasich so tainted by the right wing extremism oozed in the debates that they'd be unable to win over many independents in the general election. It could be the final straw that permanently labels the GOP an extremist minority faction in American politics for years to come.

Seriously, if you Republicans go with this plan, you might as well quit practicing saying, "President Hillary Clinton," and start practicing, "President Chelsea Clinton...the THIRD."

cruiser Posted - 8/17/2013 12:18:32 PM | show profile | flag this post

The leftist radicals on here

are scared sh*tless that their hatchet men/women won't get a chance to go after GOP candidates in the run-up to 2016 like they did last year.

That's why they're trying so hard to trash them right now...partly sour grapes and partly a hope against hope that they can diminish Republicans in the eyes of the electorate.

cruster Posted - 8/17/2013 12:55:42 PM | show profile | flag this post

diminish Republicans in the eyes of the electorate?

I thought that was John Boehner's job.

Because he's good at it.

You're not so bad yourself noozevet. I mean cruiser



mpdodgson Posted - 8/17/2013 1:41:04 PM | show profile | flag this post

For a scientist and legal expert

You constantly prve you just have a problem with the English language.
Why do you suppose etaoin said "Please, Let THIS Happen!"???

(cruise) "The leftist radicals on here are scared sh*tless that their hatchet men/women won't get a chance to go after GOP candidates..."

Didn't you read what I wrote? Two (of the dozens) terribly embarassing moments for the GOP candidates were during FOX Debates. Let FOX do all of them!! And bring on the wingnut moderators!!

I'm not "scared" of that--I'm praying for it. For one thing, it's preaching to the choir. The people who are already Rush or Hannity fans are propably Rand Paul fans too. That wouldn't be 'reaching out' to new voters at all--and considering how the Repubs blew the last two presidentials Preibus should be fired at this point for boycotting anyone.

Besides that...when voters watch winguts ask questions and get wingnut answers if they were 'undecided' at that point, that might put them over the edge for Clinton. If I were Christie, I'd stay away from all these clown-fests and watch him shoot up in the polls.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 8/19/2013 8:43:40 AM | show profile | flag this post

No one can wield a hatchet...

on the GOP candidates more effectively than Rush, Sean and Levin.

Can you just see the GOP implosion when Rush asks the candidates, "Which Democratic, femi-nazi activist do you consider to be the biggest slut?"

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 8/19/2013 9:27:37 AM | show profile | flag this post

And another point to consider is...

the fact that the Democratic nominee in 2016 will go into the general election with 246 electoral votes pretty much locked up. Needing only 24 to win.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/18/can-a-republican-win-270-electoral-votes-in-2016-or-ever.html

The Daily Caller poses the question I'd like to see cruzo or con answer -- how does someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz get 270 electoral votes?



cruiser Posted - 8/19/2013 5:13:23 PM | show profile | flag this post

Yeah, RIGHT!

Carter thought he had all those electoral votes locked up, too. His pollster, Pat Caddell, knew what was about to happen but didn't have the heart to tell Carter.

And even if a Democrat would have a plurality now, it's a L-O-N-G time until 2016.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 8/19/2013 8:27:52 PM | show profile | flag this post

But it's a shorter time to 2016 for Republicans. Let the celebrations commence!

orthicon Posted - 8/19/2013 8:28:45 PM | show profile | flag this post

not as long a time as you think, cruiztwit..

come 2016, republicans will be out of power virtually everywhere..2014 is going to ruin whatever hopes you may have had for control..

by 2016, you'll be.. irrelevant..much like you are in California already..

mpdodgson Posted - 8/20/2013 6:05:15 AM | show profile | flag this post

"it's a L-O-N-G time until 2016."

No...it's not. The Repubs are campaigning now (witness Iowa). And Priebus deciding to shoot his foot off happened this month.

If you constantly have to point to 1980 as an example of Dems becoming too comfortable, there's something wrong with your last two candidates....or the party in general. Starting a presidential campaign when you're already over 240 electoral votes behind is not a good sign.

I know it's annoying as hell, but, again, 'How's that Romney landslide workin out for ya?'

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 8/20/2013 9:49:32 AM | show profile | flag this post

Yeah, Carter never believed that...

and this ain't 1980. It was you and Romney who believed there'd be a GOP landslide in 2012, though.

You obviously didn't read the article, cruzo -- and you certainly don't follow politics -- just talking points.

The fact is, while the country has become more polarized, voters by state are gelling into highly predictable voting blocs.

Remember, there were only seven swing states in 2012. The rest were written in stone long before the campaign began.

The extreme right swing of the GOP, pandering to the TEA Party, obstruction of any legislation, obsession with Obamacare, ignoring the economy, focus on tax cuts over all else, opposition to marriage equality, voter suppression crackdowns on minorities, the elderly and young, opposition to immigration reform, constantly insulting women and minorities -- these are things that are driving a wedge between the Republican Party and the American people.

The GOP IS in worse shape today than election day in 2012.

Start practicing now, cruzo: "President Hillary Clinton."

cruiser Posted - 8/20/2013 11:55:10 AM | show profile | flag this post

NOTHING you posted immediately above

has ANY basis in fact. It's all radical left talking points.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 8/20/2013 2:24:59 PM | show profile | flag this post

Now THERE'S a useful post!

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 8/20/2013 3:07:21 PM | show profile | flag this post

Cruzo is too cowardly...

to back up his baseless claim: "NOTHING you posted immediately above has ANY basis in fact. It's all radical left talking points."

Otherwise, he'd have presented a link to the math that backs up HIS argument.

I posted the facts behind my claim. He's just blowing hot air because he can't do a simple Google search and his daily FOX fax doesn't give him any ammo to support his unsupportable arguments.

BTW, cruzo. The original source of my link was from the right-wing blog Red State: http://www.redstate.com/6755mm/2013/08/10/can-any-republican-win-270-electoral-votes-in-2016-or-ever-again/

The Daily Beast just reprinted it.

When you have REPUBLICANS saying Democrats start with a 246 electoral vote advantage, and doubting the GOP can keep them from picking up the remaining 24 needed, then you have to admit your party has problems.

So far, you've been unable to do the math to show how the GOP overcomes that problem.

cruiser Posted - 8/20/2013 6:05:52 PM | show profile | flag this post

Keep counting you chickens

but don't be surprised when you end up with zero.

it's just tv folks Posted - 8/20/2013 6:39:55 PM | show profile | flag this post

2oldcruztwit

Please provide an article, book, video clip, website, something tangible to support the line: " ... Carter thought he was a shoo-in for re-election."

I find this claim interesting and I'd like to learn more.

I did find that line here:

http://articles.mcall.com/1998-08-23/news/3211572_1_silenced-ronald-reagan-vote

It does not refer to President Carter's view of who would win the election.

mpdodgson Posted - 8/20/2013 10:17:27 PM | show profile | flag this post

How's that Romney landslide

workin out for ya?

Nuff said.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 8/21/2013 8:45:09 AM | show profile | flag this post

Cruzo...

why don't you show us proof of a GOP outreach to the center?

You'd think that after losing in 2012 because centrists and independents moved to the left, the GOP would try some legitimate outreach to the center.

How's that going for ya?

That may be a bit easier than you having to show how the GOP plans a route to 270 in 2016 -- something you're not equipped to calculate.

cruiser Posted - 8/21/2013 9:12:09 AM | show profile | flag this post

twinkie, you have no idea in hell

what I'm "equipped" to do. If you had 1/20th the information you think you have, you might begin to realize how deficient you are.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 8/21/2013 1:00:06 PM | show profile | flag this post

Show, don't tell.


1–25 out of 26 messages

 Post Reply    Back to Forums