Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme? (Read 1977 times)

    Forgive me if this has already been posted - I haven't had a chance to read all 7 pages yet. I saw this quote in an article on Yahoo today and thought y'all would enjoy (Well, at least some of y'all):  "Obama has done for the economy what pantyhose did for foreplay. I would support Charlie Sheen over Obama." - Kinky Friedman, TX

     

    I think this quote is awesome. Big grin

    I don't half-ass anything

     

    "I have several close friends who have run marathons, a word that is actually derived from two Swahili words: mara, which means 'to die a horrible death' and thon, which means 'for a stupid T-shirt.' Look it up." - Celia Rivenbark, You Can't Drink All Day if You Don't Start in the Morning

     


    A Dance with Monkeys

      Yeah.  But I don't get the quote.


      Feeling the growl again

        See, from where I sit, I don't see Obama as the one who is polarizing.  I see statements like, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" as being highly polarizing, while Obama's relatively Republican policies (that get shot down by the Republican Party) as being an attempt at compromise.  As Jeff and others have pointed out, in fact, they are maddeningly compromising...

         

        Polarizing pres?  Nope, I don't see it.  Polarized congress? Yep, that I see.

         

        They are both polarizing.  Although, Obama's policies are not relatively Republican.  Don't underestimate my cynicism with both parties.

        "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

         


        Feeling the growl again

          Still a charmer, I see.

           

          He absolutely did not write what you paraphrased: that the only reason to disagree was based on skin color.  He didn't write that.  Like, at all.

           

           

          All of the polarization talk was about policies.  Then LL drops the race bomb as "the most polarizing factor".  I am not an idiot, the insinuation was quite clear.  

           

          As Beef indicated those people are out there, but he got elected despite that.  So to blame racism as the most popular reason people dislike him is idiotic and insulting.

           

          MTA:  Scout, are you happy yet?

          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

           

            They all say dumb things.  Obama said his election would mark the moment when the oceans stopped rising.  How's that going? 

             

            In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

            http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

             

             

             


            A Dance with Monkeys

              They all say dumb things.  Obama said his election would mark the moment when the oceans stopped rising.  How's that going? 

               

              Quote?

               

              Perry introduced himself as a candidate, in part, on this platform: "I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we're seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They've been changing ever since the earth was formed. I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we're seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They've been changing ever since the earth was formed. But I do not buy into that a group of scientists who have in some cases been found to be manipulating the data and the cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions, if not trillions, of dollars at the end of the day. I don't think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question."

               

              A politician somehow knows more and different than the consensus of the world's scientists and politicians (following US political party lines from about 5-10 years ago, to boot). This is not just a dumb thing he said, it was central to him getting into the race.  Amusing (or tragic?) since his very state is currently suffering through an unprecedented and historic drought.

              C-R


                Quote?

                 

                Perry introduced himself as a candidate, in part, on this platform: "we're seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change".  A politician somehow knows more and different than the consensus of the world's scientists and politicians (following US political party lines from about 5-10 years ago, to boot). This is not just a dumb thing he said, it was central to him getting into the race.  Amusing (or tragic?) since his very state is currently suffering through an unprecedented and historic drought.

                 

                So your saying the TX drought is caused by AGW. Do you think the 30s dust bowl was also AGW? The major data for all the consensus has recently come under serious question based on fabrications or faulty work. So Perry is correct in saying there are viable doubts. People blindly following for whatever reasons is disingenuous. This is one of the larger failings of the Obama administration and liberal politicians in general. I would argue energy policy more but I'm about to pitch a major project to reduce energy consumption to a federal customer that is based on economics and not some "settled science".


                "He conquers who endures" - Persius
                "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel


                A Dance with Monkeys

                  So your saying the TX drought is caused by AGW.  .

                   

                  Nope.  At most, global climate change causes the conditions in which specific weather events can foment.

                   

                  Just pointing out the insensitivity and irony of the timing of his statement.

                   

                  And, really, no science is ever ever truly settled.  But that does not mean it is wrong or that we should ignore it, especially when there is a preponderance of evidence.

                    This is going well.

                     

                    I love being a bystander to others' "political" debates.


                    Closed for repairs

                      Quote?

                       

                       

                      No worries Trent, he was only going to slow the ocean's rise, not stop it.  Compromising, even then.

                       

                      Slowing the ocean's rise is sorta funny now that I am about to have oceanfront property.

                       


                      Prince of Fatness

                        See, from where I sit, I don't see Obama as the one who is polarizing.

                         

                        “Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out.  Now that progress has been made we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

                         

                        No, you're right.  That's not polarizing.

                         

                        But all of this talk about who is polarizing and who is not, etc., won't really matter if the unemployment numbers don't change.  If they are still high Obama is going to have a hard time being re-elected.  And it doesn't matter if it's Congress's fault, Bush's, or George Washington's for that matter.  Obama is our president now, so he will be blamed.

                         

                        We can go on pulling quotes all day and all night long, but it really doesn't matter.  What does matter is this.  Do I think that I am better off than I was in 2008?  No.  Am I just as worried now as I was in 2008 about the future of my children and hopefully grandchildren?  I sure am, probably more so.  Do I think that it is all Obama's fault?  Nope, but he is part of it.

                         

                        Honestly I fear the some real bad things are going to need to happen before these people on both sides of the fence in Washington snap out of it.

                        Semi-retired.

                          Quote?

                           

                          Perry introduced himself as a candidate, in part, on this platform: "I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we're seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They've been changing ever since the earth was formed. I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we're seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They've been changing ever since the earth was formed. But I do not buy into that a group of scientists who have in some cases been found to be manipulating the data and the cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions, if not trillions, of dollars at the end of the day. I don't think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question."

                           

                          A politician somehow knows more and different than the consensus of the world's scientists and politicians (following US political party lines from about 5-10 years ago, to boot). This is not just a dumb thing he said, it was central to him getting into the race.  Amusing (or tragic?) since his very state is currently suffering through an unprecedented and historic drought.

                           

                          Seems to me that the question is whether the US federal government should have to fund this type of research.  I think that Perry is questioning whether you, me, and the other millions of Americans should pay money to do this research.  That seems like a legitimate concern.

                           

                          (In addition to the research you reference, there are many other things that could be questioned as it relates to Federal Government spending).


                          Government is too big!

                          As others have said, it's not a Republican vs. Democrat issue.  It's a "politic" issue... and it appears as if politics is broken.

                          2014 Goals:

                          #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                          #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                           

                            How about being asked in a debate if "as President" would she be submissive to her husband? 

                             

                            No, then OMG she has migraines and shouldn't be President.  You would think she was FDR with real problems.

                             

                            No she just has religious values which  she is not ashamed to express, gave birth and parented 5 children and gave foster care to 23 more.  Were they just props too? 

                             

                            Much different than sitting in a pew for 20 years and not standing up for what was said from the pulpit.  "The Audacity of Hype". 

                            If someone asked any other female candidate about being submissive to her husband it would be ridiculously sexist (not vilifying though), but   Bachman has said publicly that a woman should be submissive to her husband and she has said publicly that she got her law degree "because her husband told her to" Not asked her to, or encouraged her to, but told her to.   For her asking if she would be submissive to her husband as president is a legit question b/c we need to know who is making the decisions. 

                             

                            The migraine issue was brought up by one of her fellow republican candidates, pawlenty I think, and I agree that he should not have done that as it doesn't matter (Lincoln reportedly had migraines too).   This still isn't vilifying though.  Vilifying would be portraying a person as evil or wanted to do harm to others (i.e. a villian). 

                             

                            Saying someone is a socialist who is bent on destroying the country, that is vilification.    

                             

                            Bachman has to my knowledge never trotted any of her children out on the campaign trail, she is not using them as props, and I never said she did, that was Palin.  I have respect for what she has done for those children, but as I said before being a good family person does not qualify a person for public office.

                             

                            To Jeff's original question the answer is simple, the reasonable, moderate republican candidates just are not getting any attention by the media or by the potential voters as measured via polling.  Huntsman seems to be a moderate republican, but is behind Bachman, Perry, Romney, and Ron Paul in the polls.  Even Donald Trump led in the polls for awhile back in the spring.  It will be interesting to see if whoever wins the republican nomination tries to shift toward the middle during the general election campaign, I think Romney will if he gets the nomination, but only b/c he has shown himself to say whatever he thinks people want to hear.  Perry I think will stick to his guns and lose in a landslide.  After all Obama already won an election by running against Bush once and if Perry is the opponent the argument will be framed as do we really want another anti-science Texas governor as president.  There may be a candidate who can beat Obama by being able to pull in big numbers of independant voters, but I don't know if a candidate like that can win the nomination this time out.  

                            "You NEED to do this" - Shara

                              A billionaire, a Tea party person and a liberal are confronted with a plate of 12 cookies. The billionaire takes 11 cookies and says to the Tea party person, "that leftie is trying to take your cookie."