Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by 377OHMS, Nov 14, 2011.

  1. 377OHMS


    Newt is in the lead?

    I like what he says about the first hours after inauguration which is that he'll spend at least the first day in office just signing executive orders reversing/overturning/killing scores of Obama initiatives. I just like the sound of that.

    One good thing about having alot of candidates is that the leftist media has to play whack-a-mole trying to smear each new "frontrunner" in turn. If they aren't careful they're going to leave Newt in a position to run against Obama and that is bad news for the liberals.
  2. pspr


    LOL. Poor Mitt gets no love. It seems to keep swinging to ABR (Anybody but Romney).

    The only thing I have against Newt is that he can be arrogant. He's going to put Democrats in their place if he is President. That's if there are any Democrats left after the next election.

    One thing is certain. In a debate Newt will blow Obama right out of the water.
  3. Ricter


    So why did the "left wing" media allow Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I & II?
  4. Lucrum


    So why are you on a trading web site when you don't trade?
  5. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    The media was no where near as biased as they are now, back then. No where near it. And don't try to pretend otherwise. Hell, the country wasn't polarized like it is today, either.
  6. I'll answer this once.

    They all ran against extremely weak democrat candidates. Nixon and Reagan(in 1980) had the benefit of running against very unpopular administrations. In Nixon's case, it was Hubert Humphrey carrying the weight of an unpopular LBJ and the vietnam war. Reagan ran against the Obama of his day, Jimmy Carter.

    Bush 41 by contrast coasted into office on Reagan's coattails. He lost when matched against a halfway decent opponent, Clinton. By then, he had heeded the media's demands that he compromise and agree to raise taxes, thereby infuriating conservatives and violating his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. The media spent most of that campaign covering up the corruption and sexual misconduct of the Clintons in Arkansas.

    Bush 43 ran against nutcase liberals and was able to define them. His first opponent, Al Gore, suffered from public fatigue with the nonstop scandals of the Clinton years. His second opponent, John Kerry, failed miserably to connect with voters.

    Don't forget the media absolutely despised Richard Nixon his entire career. They blamed him for defeating a commie sympathizer in his first congressional race. They hated him when he opposed JFK. They were finally able to manufacture a scandal out of a minor campaign glitch and lynch him.

    They tried to do the same with Reagan but failed. They never missed the opportunity however to mock Reagan and his wife. They similarly mocked both Bushes relentlessly.

    Make no mistake. Obama is president for two reasons, his race and the breathless, unquestioning support and adoration of the mainstream media. Just as with Clinton, they covered up serial scandals in his past, ranging from a long association with dirtbag terrorist Bill Ayers to a long association with mobster Tony Rezko to a long association with hate Amerikkka preacher Jeremiah Wright to a series of campaign dirty tricks that landed him in the Senate over far more qualified opponents.
  7. Because the alternative was a total imbecile. This time it's easy to see who the total imbecile is, right? [​IMG]
  8. JamesL


  9. Ricter


    Excellent answer, thank you. In many ways reps are no doubt fighting an "uphill battle".
  10. JamesL


    You're forgeting the effects of the 3rd party candidate: in 92, Perot garnered 18% of the vote, mostly from the right which, added to the "it's the economy stupid" rallying cry, did in Bush.

    In '00, while his effect was much smaller, Ralph Nader's 2.5% would have made the difference in the Florida count. Like they said on Family Guy, we could have had flying cars, no pollution and the end to hunger and wars!
    #10     Nov 14, 2011