Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Let's just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.

It doesn't matter that Mr. Obama can't get the economy out of second gear. It doesn't matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn't matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn't matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn't matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn't matter that the result of his "reset" with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn't matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn't matter that his wife thinks America doesn't deserve him. It doesn't matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn't going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

As for the current GOP field, it's like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't disagree with that. This must be how the Dems felt in 2004. "How could we lose to that?"

Bret Stephens -- a regular WSJ columnist --is a smart guy, and many people agree with him. Certainly the best GOP candidates stayed out this year, for whatever reason. I'm cynical enough to think that, had this been 2016, all of those guys Stephens mentions would have been in, and none of the current crop would still be around.

Good article, but he failed to mention one phrase - Conk obstructionism. From before he was inaugurated, Conks have been trying hard, and succeeding, in undermining the president. I still say it's because he is black.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Good article, but he failed to mention one phrase - Conk obstructionism. From before he was inaugurated, Conks have been trying hard, and succeeding, in undermining the president. I still say it's because he is black.

I say they haven't been trying hard enough, and it's because he's an arrogant, power-hungry azzhole.

Ivytalk wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Good article, but he failed to mention one phrase - Conk obstructionism. From before he was inaugurated, Conks have been trying hard, and succeeding, in undermining the president. I still say it's because he is black.

I say they haven't been trying hard enough, and it's because he's an arrogant, power-hungry azzhole.

He is neither. He's black. Conks hate it.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
I say they haven't been trying hard enough, and it's because he's an arrogant, power-hungry azzhole.

He is neither. He's black. Conks hate it.

dbackjon wrote:Let's just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.

It doesn't matter that Mr. Obama can't get the economy out of second gear. It doesn't matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn't matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn't matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn't matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn't matter that the result of his "reset" with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn't matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn't matter that his wife thinks America doesn't deserve him. It doesn't matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn't going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

As for the current GOP field, it's like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet in spite of all this, the unemployment needle barely moving, failed stimulus plans, Solyndra, Gitmo still open, a half-baked Healthcare plan, etc. you'll still vote for him?

Read that one when it came out, it has way too much truth in it. Yuck

Cap'n Cat wrote:Good article, but he failed to mention one phrase - Conk obstructionism. From before he was inaugurated, Conks have been trying hard, and succeeding, in undermining the president. I still say it's because he is black.

How did the GOP block things when the Dems had the supermajority in Congress for a year? Hard to say there was any obstruction then - just wasn't procedurally possible.

The GOP will lose for other reasons - being obstructionists, however, just isn't going to be it.

Oh I think that whole temper tantrum over the debit ceiling pretty much put a grenade into the GOPs upcoming election prognosis, that is amongst the undecided voters of course. 89er, T-Man, AZ Grizfaux, Ivy, Bronco, Wild Kyle, Big Sky Bores, BDKU, and Super Hornet vote for Republicans, no matter who they are, who they are running against, or what they have done/not done in the past.

The whole debt ceiling debacle was obstructionist, and incredibly shallow. I would bet the Presidential election will not be the only race that will be affected by all that ignorant grandstanding.

GannonFan wrote:the Dems had the supermajority in Congress for a year

wrong.

Democrats didn't have a supermajority for a year. They had a supermajority for less than two months. Al Franken wasn't sworn in and couldn't vote until July 7th... due to the recount in Minnesota. Democrats had a supermajority from July 7 until Ted Kennedy died in late August. About a month and a half or so?

Most of their "supermajority" was during the Summer recess. So, effectively they had a handful of days with supermajority while Congress was in session. And, I'm not even sure how many of those days Kennedy was actually able to vote.

Just wanted to clarify a rampant myth.



That said, blaming the other side for obstructionism isn't a winning strategy....... which is why obstructionism is itself such a good strategy... and I wish Democrats did a whole lot more of it in the early 2000's. Blaming the other side for not supporting your bills isn't good enough. Introduce more bills that will gain more bipartisan support and it wouldn't be a problem.

Skelly's right. Again.

Conks have fvcked up their party for the next 30 years. Virtually all indicators are pointing in the right direction. Progress is slow, but their is progress.

The reason some of the "better" Conks did not run and are not running is that they know they did not have the answers for the multiple crises and they weren't going to bet any of their political capital on the possibility of becoming another Harding.....or W. Obama has the one thing these Conks do not - courage.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Obama has the one thing these Conks do not - courage.

mainejeff wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Obama has the one thing these Conks do not - courage.

Christie dodges, Daniels dodges, Trump dodges. Hell, they said it wasn't "the right time". Shit, yeah, it wasn't! No balls. Just like Cheney saying he had better things to do in the 60's than go to Vietnam....

to be fair, at least for Christie, I agree that he should complete his first term as governor of NJ.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
I say they haven't been trying hard enough, and it's because he's an arrogant, power-hungry azzhole.

He is neither. He's black. Conks hate it.

And he's white.

BDKJMU wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

He is neither. He's black. Conks hate it.

And he's white.

Makes it even worse in many of their minds.

Seahawks08 wrote:to be fair, at least for Christie, I agree that he should complete his first term as governor of NJ.

Yeah, you are right, HawkEye.

mainejeff wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Obama has the one thing these Conks do not - courage.

Cue the Cowardly Lion.

Ivytalk wrote:

mainejeff wrote:

Cue the Cowardly Lion.

You're buying the Conk excuses for not running, IT? They're nothing but cowards.

You are officially invited to my RV party at the Obama Rushmore dedication there in Keystone, SD.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Good article, but he failed to mention one phrase - Conk obstructionism. From before he was inaugurated, Conks have been trying hard, and succeeding, in undermining the president.

Sounds suspicously like the last two years of Bush's 2nd term, hmmm?

Cap'n Cat wrote:Skelly's right. Again.

Even a broke clock is right twice a day. Analjelly is living proof of that.

The to hell in a hand basket thread