»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Try as I Might.....
| The Alley |
|
Try as I Might..... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
....I simply cannot trust or get behind this man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9cn0M_AFWg&feature=share |
||
| © Copyright 2012 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Which one Mike, the guy who's taking marijuana and seems to be stalking Republican Presidential candidates or the guy who won't answer a simple question? Personally, I don't trust either of them. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree...it was surely a set-up but, in either case, Romney blew it. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The worst part is that arrogant smile on his face while he is walking away, as if he is too content with himself to consider being challenged or giving any substantial answer to the question. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Agreed. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I don't know if it's a set up or not a set up, Grinch, just as I don't know whether or not the young kids with the gay parents were actual set ups or not. It's certainly possible they may be now and may have been at the time. But what would have been set up would have to have been the photo op itself, and not the illustration of the actual conflict being illustrated, which is quite real in each case, and which leaves the candidates (Bachman in one instance and Romney in the other) in a very difficult situation to manage. When President Bush was campaigning, he managed the issue by trying to limit his audiences as much as possible to vetted groups of supporters. It seemed to work fairly well, but meant that the public was in for a series of highly divisive surprises later on because the actual issues hadn’t had a chance to be as fully aired as they seem to be, at least this far, in the current cycle. I think Mike has a solid point here, and one that many Republicans will have to do a lot of thinking about before they find the candidate they can support most solidly against President Obama. I may be misreading Mike here. I have been known to do that. But I think that he’s simply taking an honest and free look at what his party has available. I don’t understand his upset with Governor Romney to mean that he wouldn’t support the Governor wholeheartedly over President Obama if that’s what the race came down to, though I suspect he might rather some other candidate that seems a little more — perhaps straightforward would be a more neutral word than other possibilities that come immediately to mind. My own thinking is that there might be better Democrats than President Obama available and better Republicans — should the Republicans agree on one — than Governor Romney available. I happen to admire Richard Armitage in some ways, though I don’t know much about his economic and his social thinking and would like to know more, and I think that there are probably other decent people with Republican history who might be capable of sidestepping the religious and the banking/business influenced sides of the party while still being able to speak to them. To some extend, it’s not really my quarrel, but I do believe it would be putting the two parties back on more equal footing, and I’d really like to see the Republicans as a mainstream party once again. I must confess, it’s only my point of view that tends to see them as other than that right now, of course, and it could be an unfair call on my part. Comments from anybody would be appreciated. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It was definitely a set-up, in my opinion. I didn't really realize it until the fellow came up with the "Would you arrest me and my doctor?" comment, which was a ridiculous thing to say. Presidents don't arrest. The police would arrest and the jury system would try the case. If he had said "Would you change the laws to make medical marijuana legal?", it would have made sense but the way he said it exposes it for what it was. Would I vote for Romney over Obama? Of course, but I would vote for anybody over Obama. Another four years of him - and years as a lame duck - is scary thinking of the things he could come up with. There would be a lot of friends of his much richer by the time he left. At least in this first term, the thought of re-election may have held him back a little. With that off the table, the locks would fall of the doors of the candy store, IMO. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Your question isn't any better than the original Mike, unless the Constitution has been changed the President can't change the law. I don't think it matters much though, the original question was one of those hypothetical "if you could" type enquires, designed to get to the core belief of the person questioned. Was it a set up? Absolutely. The same guy has asked several people to answer the same question and each time there's a cameraman stood next to him recording the exchange. That doesn't just happen by accident. Whether it was set up or not though is irrelevant, it was a legitimate question and deserved an answer. Ironically, on this particular issue, not answering was the worst possible response because there are very logical and reasonable arguments to be made for either a yes or no answer which means there isn't really a wrong answer - apart from offering no answer at all. Ron Paul for instance answered the question with an emphatic 'no', I don't agree with his reasoning but appreciated his answer and the fact that he was willing to voice it - if I could vote I'd vote for him. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"not answering the worst possible responce" Exactly my point |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Anybody but Obama? Surely you might consider leaving out the dead, members of foreign royal families and the legally hampered in other senses, Mike? Painting in such a broad brush might even suggest you'd consider voting for folks censured by your own Party, such as Former Speaker of the House Gingrich. Part of the Problem here is that the Republicans has alienated themselves from what much of the rest of the country and much of what used to be The Republican Party used to consider mainstream American and the center of American life that by voting for what is now considered standard Republican point of View, they almost automatically alienate the rest of the population and leave the closest thing to a centrist Republican Candidate to be exactly the guy who most upsets you here. I agree with your upset, by the way, though because the man comes across as absolutely brutal, stupid and uncaring in this particular exchange, while he may not in fact actually be that way. He may merely be clueless about how to behave gracefully in a potentially humiliating situation, caught between the way he's got to act to please one set of backers, how to behave to push his electioneering position forward and trying to figure out what his own position may be personally and what place that may have in this whole mess. Very difficult business to handle smoothly, and I'm sure I would have looked worse, since my impulse would have been to say that I thought his position was tragic, but that you can't make good law on individual tragedy, which have no sense of what the public needs as a whole, only with what's gone wrong individually. And what a pitifully incomplete answer even that is, by the way. The whole election seems to feel like a bunch of people trying to extoll the merits of advertising slogans to me with very little contact with reality on either side. I'm almost sorry that the Republican Primary is getting so much coverage first. I can hardly wait to see what my folks are about to whip up. Although I must admit I was pleased to see the first appearance of The New Clean Coal of this election cycle on an ad last night, sort of seeing the first new Robin of spring a trifle premature of course and frozen to a puddle in New Hampshire, but a harbinger of things to come. Ah, elections! I do love the smell of burning values in the morning. Mussolini and Lucky Luciano will be pleased to know that your vote is available if none of the Other opposition party candidates are willing to make it back from the frozen nether reaches to be a viable candidate. They will count on you're willing support. If you remember your Dante, the bottom of that region that tends not to print on this family web site is, contrary to popular opinion, frozen over. From the very bottom, an enormous pair of shaggy legs stack out of the ice. It is by climbing the fur on these legs, hand over hand, that a candidate and his advisor are apparently to reach the gates of the White House, so, Friend, you've apparently got President Obama starting out in the right place. With campaign advisors like you, how could a guy go wrong. You've positioned him at exactly the right place at exactly the right time and given him exactly the right traction. The only problem now seems to be if the Republicans can catch up. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Mussolini wouldn't work. You have to be born in the U.S. to be.....oops...never mind.  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
There you go, Mike. "The New Clean Coal" and "Obama, The Negros Are Trying to Take over America but Nobody Will Believe Us," two leaders for the most astonishing Republican advertising slogans for the next election, seen together on the same ticket at the same time. Democratic nominees might be, "Obama-care, it really is the liberal health care you asked for," "Vote Democratic, we stood up to the Right" and "Trust us, your civil liberties are safe in our hands." There should be a medical care tent close by to administer first aide for those having asthma attacks, stokes, heart attacks and convulsions when the irony of any of the potential claims hits the fan. Mike, it's a pretty dismal field. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. George Will remarked that McCain’s problem was that to many voters he merely seemed an angry man. I think to many now Mitt Romney seems placid. He’s a doer, his record shows that, but he’s a business manager not a political leader. Newt for all his faults knows how to fire people up; Mitt Romney doesn’t, (which is something I think he doesn’t even really understand the need for). Mitt Romney is someone who in our current fiscal and economic situation we probably need but he doesn’t know how to make us want him. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I heard Roseanne Barr is going to be running for president. Maybe Obama won't be re-elected after all...  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, she would get my vote over him....of course, so would Peewee Herman.  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15vZyrfPoqY For VP at least . . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The Republican Party is painting itself into a corner. It could be trying to run on the economy, which is still fighting an uphill battle on recovery. I think that might be a decent Republican strategy and a possible election winner, though I think the Democrats could quite possibly still win even on that issue, depending on which Republican candidate the party might choose to push the economic message. Over this past weekend, the luminaries of the Republican Party apparently met and decided on a strategy of pushing the message of Jobs Jobs Jobs. This is according to Ms. Maddows, whose program I caught this morning. If she's correct, this would be a pretty good call. The Democrats are still weak on the area of the recovery, and if the Republicans push on the employment issue, the Democrats are vulnerable. As my Republican friends know, I believe there are reasons for the Democratic vulnerability, but for the purposes of the discussion here, I think it's not important to go into them: The Democrats are vulnerable. I am somewhat puzzled to report that the big Republican Push afterward was on birth control, where they are themselves on very shaky ground. The Republicans, in the frenzy to define themselves as the party against government intrusion, are pushing in Virginia and and Pennsylvania to pass legislation to force women to undergo unnecessary and intrusive medical procedures in order to qualify to qualify to have an abortion. The procedure is mandated even in cases where the woman's physician feels it is unnecessary and seems to exemplify the very sort of intrusive governmental activity that The Republicans say they are against. A radio talk show how asked the Governor of Virginia if he didn't feel that this was as unfunded a mandate as any that he'd criticized during his election campaign and the Governor changed the subject in a very skilled fashion. I am used to watching my own party do this sort of thing, the self-destructive routine, and I confess I am quite shocked to watch a bunch of reasonably predictable Republicans run such a Democratic number on themselves. I hardly know what to make of all this; it's as though the entire right wing had decided that they really wanted the Democrats to win big for a change, and had decided that they might as well hand them the election just to help the process along. What's going on here? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
