How Big is the Republican Wave Going to Be?

The ground game in Nevada was extremely impressive and it was the Obama team that actually put Nevada in play during the 2008 election. An extremely smart and strategic move but with that said, I give just as much if not more credit to the voters of Nevada. Nevada is a small state and outside of Vegas is conservative as all get out. As quiet as it's kept, most Nevadans don't like Reid but they are not stupid. Reid brought [[and will continue to bring) jobs to the state. The voters didn't let emotion and politics get in the way of common sense. A lesson the rest of the conservative population in this country should heed but I doubt they will....and so it goes.

Doug, thinking more about your question, I can see Cantor being cocky enough to throw his hat in the ring and it's possible he could get the GOP [[at least in part) behind him but that would make for an interesting set of dynamics in the party. If you noticed, he started separating himself from "Boner" pretty early on. In terms of how voters look at things on a visceral level, he could appeal to women and younger Republicans. He's also a malleable puppet which would please many in the GOP but I remember how President Obama shot him down on numerous occasions during health reform. Each time it happened he had this really goofy [[I feel stupid) look on his face....that would not play well. :)

Again, I don't see a viable candidate and I think the GOP knows this. Their only hope is continuing to fool voters and pointing the finger at Dems for their[[Repubs) inability to lead. The messaging from the GOP is solid in terms of how they push it and but listening to the press conference today, the President has acknowledged the Dems have to step up their game. I think they will and it helps that the blue dogs [[or what I refer to as Dixiecrats) are gone so we shall see.

Oh dear, Doug I just did some research and another name jumps out but before I reveal it, let me set the stage.

There was once a young man who became very wealthy. He never wrote a book or did anything significant so his personal wealth didn't come that way and prior to becoming rich he was a failed, broke businessman. However, he did manage to get a loan, [[at 5%) buy into the Texas Rangers and become GM. Being GM put his face in the public eye, he became famous and well known in his state and was elected gov. After the election, that really sweet loan deal was forgiven and he went on to serve two terms as the POTUS. That young man was Bush Jr and there is now a another Texas governor who's financial beginnings is errily similar. ....RICK PERRY.

For now, Perry's problem is Palin since they are in cahoots but it may be just a matter of time before he finds a way to throw her under the bus while holding on to her supporters and there is no shame in my game when I say, THAT'S a scary proposition to ponder.

OH....and before I go back into semi hibernation, here is another interesting turn of events. Apparently the TP is already back peddling on all the rhetoric that got them votes. LOL...ya gotta love politics.....and note the reference to "40 year plan"

Quote:

---

The Tea Party Patriots, one of the the largest Tea Party umbrella organizations, with over 1,000 local chapters, hosted a press conference this morning to offer its reactions to last night’s elections and its vision going forward.
Co-founder Mark Meckler tried to pre-empt expectations among the faithful that Washington would shrink and the federal deficit would close overnight, instead alluding to a “forty-year plan” that the group was busy working out with its members. The plan, according to Meckler, was a highway with four lanes, only one of which was explicitly political. The other three were educational, judicial and cultural.
“All civilizations and empires have fallen because their cultures became decadent,” Meckler said. “We need to lift up conservative culture, family values and wholesome things by supporting conservative musicians, writers, artists and producers.”

---

link to article below.

http://washingtonindependent.com/102...ebates-to-come

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Morgan

A question for both Ms. M and Soulster [[or anyone else, for that matter).....

Do you think that the Republican party conservatives will be so full of themselves that the party runs the risk of running a "Goldwater" for President in 2012?

[[Not to pick on the Republicans, but the Dems had their share of "McGovern's" too.....)

---

I sure do! Worse, I think if the radical fringe prevails, Palin will be their choice. No way can she actually win...no...wait...

Well, I will hope for you guys that Sarah is the nominee; I'd assume Edith Bunker could win if Sarah does. But if the "ding dongs" in North Korea and Venezuela can "run" a country, maybe she can too. I think she needs to go over and spend a month with Fidel to get some brains.

and Stephen Harper is not that bad. I hear he makes good pancakes........hehehehehe!

Before anyone gets flips out or offended. I got that joke from Rick Mercer of the Mercer Report [[CBC).

If he'd just stick to making pancakes, we would be happy. And if he would listen to Barack, Joe, Bill, Hilary and take it to heart...................

rotflmao.....I could not pass this up and Marv, I tip my hat....I like the way you slid that in.:)

All jokes aside though, as a citizen of the USA I don't concern myself with the inner workings of Canadian politics but Harper should be taken seriously. He's a social conservative and unlike Palin he's intelligent. By most account,s he's also quite meticulous in his efforts to turn Canadian government far right. Some feel he's succeeding. If a Stephen Harper type character were to turn up here, the political landscape could be....uncomfortably interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ms_m

Doug, I personally don't think there is a viable candidate that could beat the President at this point, unless they have someone under wraps and if that's the case they need to reveal him/her soon.

Romney could probably give President Obama a tough run but the Repubs despise Romney. They [[Repubs) have dug themselves in a hole and it's going to be interesting and amusing watching them try to dig themselves out.

---

I hear that the party is considering New Jersey Governor Christie as a viable candidate.

He's more intelligent than Sarah Palin and not as far to the right as most of what's going on in the USA now.

But he is driven by ideology rather than common sense and does not hesitate to make a political point over the smallest matter; people see it for what it is and he is not well liked.

Again jobeterob, I don't get heavily involved in Canadian politics but I will admit this guy intrigues me since his "values" and I use that word loosely, parallels our TP folk. If he's not well liked, how did he get voted in? From what I've read, it's not as if Canadian voters didn't know who he was. He's been around for a long time and even started out as a liberal.

We have our troubles but a far right ideology in the White House is a long way off...too close for comfort maybe but still, a long way off.

nysister I guess she could appeal to many women voters [[and men:)) but her education policy or I should say, lack there of does not make her a viable candidate imo. A lack of interest in education is just one of many things that turned voters against Palin.

Oops sorry I didn't mean to post because I wanted to revise.

I don't know a lot about her but from what I gather she seems to be in slash and burn mode. It could help NJ in the short term but in the long term it could also come back to bite her and the citizens in the butt.

The GOP doesn't seem to have a lot of viable candidates so I guess they will have to take whatever they can get, but I don't see Christie appealing to moderates, Indies and the undecided. [[in any meaningful way) If you can't win those groups you can hang it up. It will be interesting to see who is in the running and who will finally receive the nomination on the GOP side.

BTW JBR, maybe you and I have different definition of far right but if a person calls themselves a social conservative, if they oppose not only same sex marriage, but benefits for same sex couples, if he speaks out against, the Canadian Human Rights commission, and against a Supreme court, that's too far to the right for my taste, but I guess our Constitution is different from the Canadian Constitution so it's understandable people here, would see him as the equivalent of a TP guy.

Those are too far right for me as well.

Harper, to be fair to him, is significantly left of the Tea Party. He would never say anything negative about Medicare because he knows he would get turfed immediately. But that is sacred in Canada.

The reason Harper subsists is that we had the Liberals in for 10 full years previously and most of the last 70 years. They began to think they were entitled to stay at the "trough" and became a little bit corrupt. [[At least you guys don't allow more than 8 years at the trough). After the Liberals got the boot, they have chosen a couple of leaders who are not very charismatic; they are no Barack or Bill or Hilary; maybe more "Quayle" like.

Ms. M.....
.....maybe we should take more interest in what happens in Canada. It is our largest trading partner, the country we share the longest border with and all of 150 miles north of where I live. Yet we as a country know more about Mexican politics than we do with the country closest to many of our major population centers.

Doug I guess I didn't explain myself clearly, sorry about that.

It's not that I don't take an interest, what has happened in Canada could play out here as well and that truly has me keeping my good eye on them, but I'm more concerned with here, this is where I live, this is where my energy and resources are placed to make a difference..

I guess what bothers me the most about the guy, he went from a Trudeau liberal to what he is now...every time his ideology changes it seems to go further to the right. If I were Canadian, that would make me extremely uncomfortable, especially since the time restraints are so different from here.

Unfortunately power can corrupt so I can understand people wanting something different but this guy wasn't only different but the exact opposite of what liberals stand for.

Oh and just as a side note, you would be hard pressed to find anyone here calling Quayle [[ or anyone Quayle - like) a leader but..... potato ....potatoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jobeterob

Well, I will hope for you guys that Sarah is the nominee; I'd assume Edith Bunker could win if Sarah does. But if the "ding dongs" in North Korea and Venezuela can "run" a country, maybe she can too. I think she needs to go over and spend a month with Fidel to get some brains.

---

J-rob,

You do know that you live a lot closer to Sarah Palin than most of the rest of us....She might even be able to see your house from hers!! Actually, I would prefer Edith Bunker as president to Sarah Palin...

I have never felt this way before, but right now, I am ashamed of the way our country and our govenrment has descended into such partisonship and ingorance....and that people like Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly can be seen as anything other than opportunistic racist homphobic Constitution moulders and shredders. Thank God that Christine O'Donnell & Sharon Angle [[from Nevada - who makes Sarah Palin seem more like Hilary Clinton) were defeated.

If Sarah Palin were to get some brains from Castro, I think we all know where in her he would have to insert them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ms_m

Doug, thinking more about your question, I can see Cantor being cocky enough to throw his hat in the ring and it's possible he could get the GOP [[at least in part) behind him but that would make for an interesting set of dynamics in the party. If you noticed, he started separating himself from "Boner" pretty early on. In terms of how voters look at things on a visceral level, he could appeal to women and younger Republicans. He's also a malleable puppet which would please many in the GOP but I remember how President Obama shot him down on numerous occasions during health reform. Each time it happened he had this really goofy [[I feel stupid) look on his face....that would not play well. :)

Again, I don't see a viable candidate and I think the GOP knows this. Their only hope is continuing to fool voters and pointing the finger at Dems for their[[Repubs) inability to lead. The messaging from the GOP is solid in terms of how they push it and but listening to the press conference today, the President has acknowledged the Dems have to step up their game. I think they will and it helps that the blue dogs [[or what I refer to as Dixiecrats) are gone so we shall see.

---

Ms_M, Eric Cantor is nothing more than a jealous punk! He has no substance, no backbone and no ideas! I've studied him, Bannher [[sp?) Palain, etc closely for the last two years and he is a follower, not a leader. His only motivation to do anything in the last 2 years was simply to trip up, stop Barack Obama! Chris Matthews of "Hard Ball" trips him up effortlessly by just asking him direct questions. Cantor is a disgusting individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ms_m

Oh and just as a side note, you would be hard pressed to find anyone here calling Quayle [[ or anyone Quayle - like) a leader but..... potato ....potatoe

---

Leader? A Quayle? They couldn't lead themselves from the bedroom to bathroom without a GPS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ms_m

rotflmao.....I could not pass this up and Marv, I tip my hat....I like the way you slid that in.:)

All jokes aside though, as a citizen of the USA I don't concern myself with the inner workings of Canadian politics but Harper should be taken seriously. He's a social conservative and unlike Palin he's intelligent. By most account,s he's also quite meticulous in his efforts to turn Canadian government far right. Some feel he's succeeding. If a Stephen Harper type character were to turn up here, the political landscape could be....uncomfortably interesting.

---

Ms_M, I'm just saying....... hehehehe
But seriously, I pay attention because I love Canada and you are right Harper is a social conservative. He is NOT very popular according to the folks I know up there. He is a very intelligent man that I believe helped set the pattern for Ford becoming elected the Mayor of Toronto last week. That's another subject altogether. Luckily Palin and her supporters are NOT very intelligent and would never think to look at Stephen Harper as any kind of as role model.

Quote:

---

He has no substance, no backbone and no ideas!

---

sounds perfect for the GOP....LOL

Who was the last GOP nominee with substance or backbone?...Eisenhower?

Nixon and his "southern strategy" changed the dynamics of the Republican party. Every election cycle after that, it went down hill to where we are now.

Where would they FINALLY find a viable candidate of any real substance? Colin Powell maybe, and he won't run, heck, many folks are still pissed about his Iraq decision and the Dems would bring it up at every turn. [[as it should be although I like Colin and forgive him for what he did)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ms_m

sounds perfect for the GOP....LOL

Who was the last GOP nominee with substance or backbone?...Eisenhower?

Yeah! Mamie Eisenhower! It kills me to see them all but Cantonize Ronald Reagan. The same Ronald Reagan that was President when I was in college in the 80's when we were going through another major recession!

Nixon and his "southern strategy" changed the dynamics of the Republican party. Every election cycle after that, it went down hill to where we are now.

Where would they FINALLY find a viable candidate of any real substance? Colin Powell maybe, and he won't run, heck, many folks are still pissed about his Iraq decision and the Dems would bring it up at every turn. [[as it should be although I like Colin and forgive him for what he did)

---

If you remember, Colin Powell endorsed Barak Obama and was taken to task by the Republicans for it! He did not make the decision to go to war with Iraq. He was suppose to be the salesman. I saw his "presentation" to the UN that morning in 2003 and it was rather poor.

From the fair.org web site:

Media Advisory
Media Misreading Midterms
As usual, press urge a move to the right

11/4/10

With the Democrats suffering substantial losses in Tuesday's midterms, many journalists and pundits were offering a familiar diagnosis [[Extra!, 7-8/06; FAIR Media Advisory, 2/3/09): The Democrats had misread their mandate and governed too far to the left. The solution, as always, is for Democrats to move to the right and reclaim "the center." But this conventional wisdom falls apart under scrutiny.

For months, the problem for Democrats was correctly identified as the "enthusiasm gap"--the idea that the progressive base of the party was not excited about voting. The exit polls from Tuesday's vote confirm that many Democratic-tending voters failed to show up. How, then, does one square this fact with the idea that Obama and Democrats were pushing policies that were considered too left-wing? If that were the case, then presumably more of those base voters would have voted to support that agenda. It is difficult to fathom how both things could be true.

But reporting and commentary preferred a narrative that declared that Obama's "days of muscling through an ambitious legislative agenda on [the] strength of Democratic votes [are] over" [[Washington Post, 11/3/10). "The verdict delivered by voters on Tuesday effectively put an end to his transformational ambitions," announced Peter Baker of the New York Times [[11/3/10).

Some thought Obama's post-election speech was still missing the point. As the Washington Post's Dan Balz put it [[11/4/10), Obama was "unwilling, it seemed, to consider whether he had moved too far to the left for many voters who thought he was a centrist when he ran in 2008." On CNN [[11/3/10), David Gergen said, "I don't think he made a sufficient pivot to the center today. He has to do that, I think, through policies and through personnel." Gergen went on to cite Social Security "reform" as an ideal way to demonstrate he was "taking on his base."

The Washington Post's David Broder [[11/4/10) advised Obama to



return to his original design for governing, which emphasized outreach to Republicans and subordination of party-oriented strategies. The voters have in effect liberated him from his confining alliances with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and put him in a position where he can and must negotiate with a much wider range of legislators, including Republicans. The president's worst mistake may have been avoiding even a single one-on-one meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell until he had been in office for a year and a half.

USA Today's Susan Page noted before the election [[10/29/10):


During his first two years in office, Obama often acted as if he didn't need a working relationship with congressional Republicans. With big Democratic majorities in Congress... he could court a few moderate Republicans such as Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe in hopes of peeling off a GOP vote or two to block a filibuster or give legislation a bipartisan patina.

This view of Obama's politics meshes poorly with reality. Much of the Democrats' maneuvering over the healthcare bill, for example, was devoted to trying to find any Republicans who might support it, stripping out elements of the bill--such as the public option--that were drawing more enthusiasm from the party base. [[A true single-payer plan was rejected from the beginning.) The dramatic escalation of the Afghan War was a major disappointment to the progressive base, along with Obama's embrace of nuclear power and offshore oil drilling. And critics on the left often expressed disappointment with the White House's timid approach to Wall Street reform and economic stimulus.

Yet after the election, it was difficult to find TV pundits who would argue against the media conventional wisdom about an agenda that was too left-wing. Instead pundits were offering plenty of suggestions for Obama to move even further to the right--Time's Joe Klein recommended building more nuclear power plants [[FAIR Blog, 10/29/10) and Washington Post columnist David Broder floated a war with Iran to boost the economy and promote bipartisanship [[FAIR Blog, 11/1/10).

Bill Clinton, whom media likewise counselled to move right after heavy midterm losses, was frequently held up as an exemplar: "If there is a model for the way forward in recent history, it's provided by President Bill Clinton, who established himself as more of a centrist by working with Republicans to pass welfare reform after Democrats lost their grip on Congress in 1994." [[Associated Press, 11/2/10). The advice to move to the "center" was accompanied by reporting and analysis that wondered if Obama was even capable of doing so. "Obama has not shown the same sort of centrist sensibilities that Mr. Clinton did," explained the New York Times [[11/3/10).

Of course, Clinton's first two years were centrist, and a disappointment to his base, seriously dampening Democratic turnout in the midterms [[Extra!, 1-2/95; FAIR Media Advisory, 11/7/08). And the "Clinton model" failed to build broad Democratic electoral success.

Meanwhile, the pundits had right in front of them, in the sweeping Republican victory, an example of how a political party can organize a comeback--not by moving to the center and alienating its base, but by "using guerrilla-style tactics to attack Democrats and play offense" [[New York Times, 11/4/10).


The Economy, Stupid

Much of the election analysis sought to ignore or downplay what was inarguably an election about unemployment and the state of the economy. Reporting that sought to elevate the federal budget deficit [[FAIR Action Alert, 6/24/10) as a primary issue of concern served as a diversion--and drove the election narrative into Republican territory, where rhetoric about "big government" and cutting federal spending were dominant themes. "If there is an overarching theme of election 2010, it is the question of how big the government should be and how far it should reach into people's lives," explained the lead of an October 10 Washington Post article. There was little in that article--or anywhere else--to support that contention.

With the economy the overwhelming issue for the public [[Washington Post, 11/3/10) the media should have led a serious discussion about what to do about it. Instead, there was a discussion that mostly adhered to a formula where the left-wing position was that nothing could be done to improve the economic situation [[when the actual progressive view was that a great deal more could have been done), while the right offered an attack on federal spending but was never required to offer a coherent explanation of how such spending eliminated jobs. As the New York Times' Baker [[11/3/10) framed it: "Was this the natural and unavoidable backlash in a time of historic economic distress, or was it a repudiation of a big-spending activist government?"

There were some exceptions--MSNBC interviews with top Republican officials on election night [[11/2/10), for instance, revealed that many could not offer a coherent plan for reducing spending or the budget deficit. This should have been a larger part of the media's coverage of the election.


Who Voted?

Some election reporting and commentary treated the results as if they represented a dramatic lurch to the right. As Alternet's Josh Holland noted [[11/3/10), reporting like a New York Times article that talked of "critical parts" of the 2008 Obama vote "switching their allegiance to the Republicans" distracted from the main lesson--that many Obama voters of two years ago did not participate in 2010. Republican-leaning voters, on the other hand, did. That fact, along with the disastrous state of the economy and the normal historical trends seen in midterm elections, would seem to provide most of the answers for why the election turned out the way it did.

But much of the media commentary wanted to turn the election into a national referendum on the new healthcare law or the size of government. The exit polls provide some clues about the sentiment of voters, but the lessons don't seem to fit neatly into those dominant media narratives. Asked who was to blame for the state of the economy, most picked Wall Street and George W. Bush [[USA Today, 11/3/10). As a New York Times editorial noted [[11/4/10), "While 48 percent of voters said they wanted to repeal the healthcare law, 47 percent said they wanted to keep it the way it is or expand it--hardly a roaring consensus."

Some attention was paid to the exit poll finding that 39 percent of voters support Congress focusing on deficit reduction--which would appear to lend some credence to the media message that voters cared deeply about deficits. But the same exit polling found 37 percent support for more government spending to create jobs. Given that polling of the general public shows stronger concern about jobs--the New York Times reported [[9/16/10) that "The economy and jobs are increasingly and overwhelmingly cited by Americans as the most important problems facing the country, while the deficit barely registers as a topic of concern when survey respondents were asked to volunteer their worries"--if anything, this finding serves to reinforce that citizens energized by Republican talking points were the ones who showed up to vote [[FAIR Blog, 10/18/10).

In the end, the elections were covered the way elections are often covered--poorly. As Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research put it [[Politico, 11/2/10), "Until we get better media, we will not get better politics."

I never said he [[Colin) made the decision Marv but that doesn't change how I felt about it at the time and for a long time afterward. I was for going into Afghanistan but when Jr. changed it up and went into Iraq I was totally opposed, and opposed anyone who supported him and that includes Dems. I also understood Powell was a career soldier, trained to follow orders but I still wasn't feeling him. It wasn't until a few years back I watched the PBS documentary that I looked at his role a lot differently. I even give Condi a little slack....but not a lot.....LOL

My point is, there isn't anyone of any substance but these days the Repubs don't care about substance, or quality or even principals [[although they pay lip service to the word)

Doug asked if he thought their ego would lead to a Goldwater and I maintain, there really isn't a viable candidate at this point that can beat Barack Obama. A Goldwater or otherwise.

Repubs are now trying to float the meme that Feingold and or Dean will mount a primary challenge against the President [[they will not...and any Dem knows it would be political suicide for the challenger and the Dem party....the exception to who would try, would possibly be Bayh and he's not a Dem in the real sense of the word, just an arrogant jerk)

They [[Repubs) only have lies and trickery, oh and a sht load of money and corporate donors at their ready, but no viable candidate. A lot can happen in two years but that's where we stand today. People need to understand, Tuesday didn't set any major precedent. In this economy it was to be expected the sitting Pres and his party would have to take their lumps...wish it could have been different but it is what it is. We still have the Senate, we still have veto power in the White House.....they will form some silly idiotic lie/lies to push to the uninformed and it will be annoying and distracting but I'm not ready to shout the sky is falling .

NYsister....I owe you an apology. For some idiotic reason I was thinking Christie was female, sorry about that.
Still don't think he's a viable candidate though.

Interesting article Timmy Funk. I've been reading various analysis for the last two days and everyone seems to think theirs is the definitive analysis. LOL

I watched MSNBC and I agree their coverage was good and I got a lot out of it. My only frustration with them, I kept asking myself, why didn't they ask these questions more often before the elections but then I remembered, a lot of it had to do with Repubs not wanting to spar with Rachel or Keith. As winners, the Repubs were willing to be interviewed so they could gloat. They dodged and deflected questions with the same, scripted sounding talking point, whatever the question, from Repub to Repub. The message is BS and totally void of substance but I give them props for not wavering from their message. That's how they get people to buy into their crap...they hammer folks with the same stuff relentlessly. shrugs

I'm not sure if the average person on the street will ever accept just how much they are being played by most of the media and not simply by Fox. Fox is in your face with their crap, and I suspect it's to deflect or make many of the other networks seem sane, even though many of these networks are pushing more BS. Ironically, to search for the truth only means a click or two...you can go straight to govt websites in many instances [[not a blog or another forum) to see the truth but they know most people will not do that. Although there are people that will say the govt sites are controlled and manipulated by the evil Liberals and clones and tigers and bears, oh my[[rolling eyes) Unless of course they find something on the same website to back up their beliefs, funny how that works , huh?

Here is another article worth reading. I wouldn't look for the media to change anytime soon.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...0fa_fact_mayer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ms_m

nysister I guess she could appeal to many women voters [[and men:)) but her education policy or I should say, lack there of does not make her a viable candidate imo. A lack of interest in education is just one of many things that turned voters against Palin.

Oops sorry I didn't mean to post because I wanted to revise.

I don't know a lot about her but from what I gather she seems to be in slash and burn mode. It could help NJ in the short term but in the long term it could also come back to bite her and the citizens in the butt.

The GOP doesn't seem to have a lot of viable candidates so I guess they will have to take whatever they can get, but I don't see Christie appealing to moderates, Indies and the undecided. [[in any meaningful way) If you can't win those groups you can hang it up. It will be interesting to see who is in the running and who will finally receive the nomination on the GOP side.

---

Oops, I should have mentioned that Christie is a man who is a lot like Gulliani, the former Mayor of New York.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nysister

Oops, I should have mentioned that Christie is a man who is a lot like Gulliani, the former Mayor of New York.

---

Yeah! Another asshole!

From the UK, the only thing I know about the Mad Hatters' Tea Party is from an hour long BBC documentary this week. Doesn't the fact that the highest profile female faction members, Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, failed to be elected to the Senate rule out Sarah Palin as a presidential candidate in 2012?

The House is about to be run, and the nation ruined by a bunch of greedy socialist-hating socialist racists.

Sarah Palin ruled herself out as a Presidential Candidate again by continuing to talk.

The Repubs won the House, whoop di do but any sky is falling talk they suddenly have some super powers to drive us in the ditch is hyperbole as well as inaccurate

Any House bill would have to go through the DEMOCRATIC controlled Senate, and any DEMOCRATIC controlled Senate that would commit political suicide and let some idiotic Repub House bill pass, would then have to go to the desk of a Democratic President who has veto power.

The House win means any bills that would continue to have improved the lives of Americans are stuck in the House...once the electorate FINALLY wakes up and realize the Rupub/Teabagger ideological rhetoric didn't get them a daym thing, Dems are back in control of both Houses as well as the WH in 2012

Yeah Teabaggers will still be around but even their leaders know it will be years [[30,40,50) before they can come close to have any real power.

One of the many things Dems, be they politician or WE THE PEOPLE can do is start controlling the message. READ, RESEARCH, FACT CHECK AND REPORT

The Repub Gov elect in Ohio ran on turning down stimulus money to fund high speed rail....oops, dumb move.... the Ohio electorate that voted him in JUST discovered thousands of jobs are about to be lost if he succeeds. Good news for NY though if this comes to pass, Cuomo has requested the funds be diverted to his State. If this plays out the Repub Gov elect will have a lot of "splannin" to do. READ RESEARCH, FACT CHECK AND REPORT

Think about the long term consequences of the things you are throwing out as news. you want back in, control the message and stop reporting doom and gloom.

CONTROLL THE MESSAGE

For every negative piece of crap the Repubs pull out of their arse counter with a positive one

Quote:

---

All told, my family has saved $15,000 in the past year and will continue to save over $3,500 per year as a result of President Obama's new policies... Thank you President Obama.

---

This isn't a campaign ad, it's a letter to the editor written by an average person stating how Dem policy has positively impacted his life

Quote:

---

Thank you President Obama for the following: 1. The tax cut 95 percent of working Americans received. Even though my tax reduction was only $30 per paycheck [[multiplied by 24 pay periods) $720 annually is nothing to sneeze at.
Next, the homebuyer tax credit that the candidates also forgot:
2. The $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit allowing my wife and I to buy our first home [[using a VA loan).

---

Quote:

---

3. The cash for clunkers program, along with the new car sales tax deduction, saved us over $5,500 on the purchase of a dependable, fuel-efficient, and safe automobile. I am now saving over $66 per month on fuel expenses. That's $792 annually no longer going to countries that want to kill Americans.

---

The letter in it's entirely can be read here

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs...D=201011040334

For every Jeff Riggins that writes a letter to the editor speaking about the positive experiences he's had, there are hundreds, thousands more with similar experiences but what do you hear reported....doom and gloom, lies and more lies. Anything that will deflect from the truth, anything that will keep us at each others throat, anything that will have us talking about idiotic females without brain cells.

Control the message from here until 2012, stay focused, stay engaged.

Control the message

the Repubs want to extend the Bush tax cuts to wealthy Americans....for those of you buying into the idea that's a good thing consider this. First and foremost, contrary to what you have been told, Americans making LESS THAN $250,000 PER YEAR have received A TAX CUT

The President wants to continue tax cuts for Americans that make less than 250,000K while increasing taxes on the wealthy....for those of you folk WHO DO NOT MAKE more than 250,000K a year and think that's a good idea, you truly amaze me but think about this, the USA has the lowest tax rate in the world...so if you really want Bill Gates, Oprah, Buffet and all people who make more than you, to pay LESS taxes, while you pay more to make up for the lost revenue...don't suggest they relocate to another country.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h7...ndtheworld.jpg

If you can find the time to post on threads that report doom and gloom, find the time to counter that doom and gloom with accurate messages.

I'm not trying to censor anyone, but keep it balanced, [[actually tip the scale in your favor if you TRULY are concerned about Repubs/Tp) but don't allow the Fox Noise MACHINE type reports to take up all the airwaves , forums, blogs..... SDF!