Republicans are now rated higher than Democrats on handling the economy and foreign policy, and the GOP's lead has strengthened on several other issues, including dealing with the federal deficit and ensuring a strong national defense.
१३ सप्टेंबर, २०१३
"The Republican Party is gaining a public-opinion edge on several key issues ahead of the 2014 elections..."
"... a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
Great, I'm now mentally bracing for a year of "those eeeee-vil Rethuglicans and their raaaaacist war against women, people of color, and puppies !!1!!!eleventy!!!"
Hopefully, fourteen months from now the NY Times will be in favor of the filibuster again.
Give 'em time. They'll figure out a way to muck it up.
The rubes are finally starting to self-identify after all.
Republicans are using the anti war card, but are then going to give up their role as the party of defense. Its a horrible miscalculation and will give them a short term gain but long term will make them into hypocrites.
Because they're going to then have to deal with Syria and Iran and will have to make the argument that in fact it is in our national interest to deal with them forcibly, or they will be the ones that kowtowed to the regime and allowed it to pull one over on the US.
And they are the ones that allowed Iran to get nukes and defy the world under their watch. Which caused Israelto act and which led to war anyway.
Id like to see Armand Paul become president and then make his asinine arguments as president. When he as president had to make a line in the sand would he argue that the countries credibility doesn't rely on one man. Would he make the argument that we can get Russia to play ball with us and look past their national interests in growing their influence in the ME by trade? It will be a testable theory.
If we let Iran get their way and Russia again plays us, we could ask Rand "so how's that trading thing working out, Rand?" Is that that smart diplomacy you were talking about Rand you ignoramus? What d&d you suggest we could eve trade them that was more important than carrying out their policy goals? There is nothing, so its stupid to argue that its realistic.
He would be revealed to be as naive as senator Obama.
And he would either pivot like Obama did or maintain his ridiculous beliefs despite current events proving him to e an idiot. And if he then pivoted, all the libertarians who beleive the same idiocy will call him a sellout rather than question the idea that they are believing in a world that doesn't work the way they think it does.
Just like,the anti war crowd is now accusing Obama of wanting to start wars for natural gas.
Think about how effective force is, versus diplomacy.
Syria revealed it had a chemical program because we threatened force. And prior to this it was the anti war crowd calling the neo cons warmongers for telling the truth about Syria.
What changed? Te threat of force. And not even the threat of overwhelming force or regime change. An ineffectual use of force described as small. With no boots on the ground even.
And THAT was enough to get Syria to admit that yes it had chemical weapons all along and that they want to work with the international community to avoid a bombing.
Of course, they are merely stalling and so are offering preconditions that make no sense and cant be met, except by a really weak president.
Imagine though if the threat of force was overwhelming. Imagine if England and France and the Us said not only will the bombings be overwhelming but your regime WILL be gone tat the end of it, and there will e boots on the ground.
It would be the credible threat of force,backed up irresolutely threatening it that would get Syria to back down without preconditions. Ad you could probably even avoid the war itself.
Its the peacemakers trying to neuter the threat of force that always makes war inevitable. Because those who are being threatened then have the idea that the threat isn't serious and they can have thus get away with their action.
It was France and Russia who made the war in Iraq inevitable beause after unanimously signing 1441 rather than ack up their threat they then tried to undermine it. Making Iraq think we weren't serious.
Whatever. It's September... 2013.
Well they haven't blown up the economy yet. Give them another couple months and they will be in the toilet again.
As for foreign policy, the Republicans are all over the place on Syria. Anyone, no matter what they think we should do in Syria, can find a Republican they agree with.
Natural push-and-pull of the political cycle. That's why the GOP nomination in 2016 will be fiercely contested.
They will however, find a way to squander that advantage.
It's Obamas fault.
< threadjack >
Kenosha Teachers' Union votes to decertify
Kenosha teachers decertify 63% to 37%.
I think it's not the Republican party per se, but just the other party. That is, the people are dissatisfied with Democrats. And the only alternative is Republicans.
So the Republicans get voted in, and the voters are reminded via performance that (R)s are no better than (D)s.
And so it goes.
Republicans are now rated higher than Democrats on handling the economy and foreign policy, and the GOP's lead has strengthened on several other issues, including dealing with the federal deficit and ensuring a strong national defense."
Well after nearly five years the public is starting to get it that Democrats are usually never good for economic growth, are weak on national defense and bad on foreign policy? A lot of slow learners in this country. I suppose it takes thirty years for the public to forget what a disaster Democrats are when allowed to go pretty left. And think there is still a little over three years to go.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Just imagine how destroyed the country was by the anti-Bush forces.
Democratics said horrible things about W. and refused to support his policies and hence Obama didn't inherent power to act like jr thought. Democratics spoke ill of W. overseas. Hell, Teddy Kennedy was negotiating our surrender to the Soviets during Reagan's terms and that killed America before later Democratics did so again today's GOP cannot kill America more dead than its dead ass is already.
What Republicans do now matters naught as they have no country to affect that can affect as it has been destroyed by Democratics playing politics.
I cannot believe thus auto correct shit. Apple sucks. Doesn't play video worth a damn. Lots of websites have content I can't play (like the Second City WW3 parody) and then changing words around instead of a nice little red line hinting you misspelled something and may want to double-check it.
Inherit.
"Anyone, no matter what they think we should do in Syria, can find a Republican to agree with."
The very definition of a winning electoral strategy.
"Anyone, no matter what they think we should do in Syria, can find a Republican to agree with."
Just like they can come up with a definition of "hope" or "change" they agree with. It was a lot easier throwing eggs from the gallery than it is being in the arena, wasn't it?
"Better than Democrats" is a pretty low hurdle to clear at this point. I think that any sentient being with an IQ over room temperature would be hard-pressed to find anyone or anything worse than the current batch of Democrats at any of those endeavors, up to and including Vladimir Putin, who is obviously smarter than they are.
I'm hoping more Republicans join me in convincing our "no abortion at any time for any reason" colleagues that they're no better than "abortion at any time for any reason or no reason at all" Democrats.
I think that the proper issue is competent government, and on that issue I argue that the Bush response to Katrina, given the near total incompetence of the Democrat leadership in the City of New Orleans and state of Louisiana, was superior to the performance of the Obama administration, given the more competent leadership of Christie and weak but still not totally abysmal leadership of Bloomberg.
Clyde wrote:
"Better than Democrats" is a pretty low hurdle to clear at this point. I think that any sentient being with an IQ over room temperature would be hard-pressed to find anyone or anything worse than the current batch of Democrats at any of those endeavors, up to and including Vladimir Putin, who is obviously smarter than they are.
Have you heard Michelle bachkman, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Stevens of late? their flip flops and calls for American weakness don't exactly inspire confidence that they wont be WORSE than Obama.
Republican Hypocricy on Syria;
Republicans brazen hypocricy on Syria
Yes, its pretty brazen. IN particular Ted Stevens, who Im now convinced will say ANYTHING to get elected. He is no conservative of principle but the worst form of opportunist we can imagine. Rand Paul I think is a naive fool, almost stupider than Obama even (though who speaks better) but at least he's consistent.
Ted Stevens said: “We need to develop a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out.” in June. Three months later:
"Syria is a distraction from,Benghazi. week: “We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight. We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as al Qaeda’s air force.”
Explain that turnaround in three months. HOw do you say we need to do a regime change then say we dont a havea dog in the fight.
Such flip flopping in the span of a few months is reprehensible.
and Mark Rubio said "“the time for passive engagement in this conflict must come to an end. It is in the vital national security interest of our nation to see Assad’s removal.”. So not just a bombing but outright regime change. And now he's not on board. (though in fairness perhaps he's saying he's not on board because i'ts not regime change).
I don't see how republicans shoudl get the credit from the american electorate for doing a better job on foreign policy since they seem to be so flip floppy on it. Maybe the issue is the populace keeps falling for opportunists who tell them what they want to hear as opposed to what they believe. But we shoudlnt' be surprised if those politicians go on to be terrible leaders. That's exactly what happened with Barack Obama.
If Romney were to have won the white House how would HE have dealt with Syria? Would ha have said Syria needs to be dealth with even prior to them using chemical weapons (Though not necessarily through war) and what would he have said about Russia.
Well we have ample clues as to how it would have gone down.
Romney said that Putin and Russia are our number one geo politcal foe.
And Obama turned around and snarked ""You don't call Russia our No. 1 enemy -- not al Qaeda, Russia -- unless you're still stuck in a Cold War mind warp,"
Yet Romney was proven right.
Then BIden and Obama accuse Romney of wanting to go to war with Iran:
"On September 2, 2012, Vice President Joe Biden was attacking Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney with the most horrendous of accusations – that Romney was “ready to go to war in Syria and Iran.”
Biden assessed that Romney would take the country backward rather than forward by increasing military spending and hurting the middle class.
“He said it was a mistake to end the war in Iraq and bring all of our warriors home,” Biden said of Romney. “He said it was a mistake to set an end date for our warriors in Afghanistan and bring them home. He implies by the speech that he’s ready to go to war in Syria and Iran.”
Romney didn't exactly say he was ready to go to war with them, but he did say we needed to deal with them. But note how Romney is right here, and Biden is wrong. HE's also right on the issue of militarly spending. BIden makes it seem like Romney is sinful to say we need to spend more money on the military. And why would we, since there would be no reason to go to war with Syria or Iran and we're getting out of IRaq etc. But now if you listen to gheneral on tv, a lot are opopsed to the action beause OBama SO gutted the militayr that we are incapable of carrying out a strike the way we need to. So Romney was right there too.
And what did Romney say would cause him to go to war with Syria?
"Romney has said he would consider military action in Syria if the war-torn country’s chemical weapons were at risk of falling into the wrong hands. Obama, who has opposed military action in Syria, has made similar remarks, calling it a “red line” for the U.S. if Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime were to use chemical or biological weapons."
In other words the exact same thing that Obama said. So for republicans who supported Romney, would you really be talking like Rand Paul's retarded cousin if Romney won, or would you take the quite reasonable position that we would act if Syria's chemical weapons had the potential of getting into Al Qaeda's hands.
So, would Ted Cruz and Maro Rubio act like Rand Paul and Code Pink if it were Romney? Would htey tell him that the integrity of the country doesn't rely on one man if he said he needed to back up his words with action.
Would Eric Bolling (one of the hosts on the Five) dip his hand in ketchup a la Code Pink and say that the war has nothing to do with the war on terror and is none of our business.
Hypocrites all.
I guess the air conditioning is on at jr565's house.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा