From the democrat’s post-election roundtable “We have a problem”, how can Mrs. Clinton run away from Pres. Obama’s policies while trying to attract his voters and big donors?”
Any liberals have an answer to the Democratic Party’s question?
Apparently pretty easily and evidently the GOP is worried about it.
"Clinton Inc. is going to be the most formidable fundraising operation for the Democrats in the history of the country. Period. Exclamation point," said Rick Hohlt, a lobbyist and fundraiser for Republican Party presidential candidates. "It sure causes concern."
And they are already building and infrastructure for her campaign as I type this so I would not worry too much about Hilliary getting money to fund her campaign.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-24/getting-ready-for-hillary-clinton-in-2016-costly-deal.html
You really should learn to use Google and do your research before you throw sh*t against the wall mule trying to make Democrats look bad as it makes you look so "low info". 😛
[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]
___________________
"Apparently pretty easily and evidently the GOP is worried about it."
Then why is the democratic party and so many of their mouthpieces so worried?
The GOP isn't worried but apparently the liberals are...
Well if you read the article I quoted you would see that evidently a GOP fund raiser says they should be worried as the Clinton's are already lining up big money supporters but nice try.
From the democrat’s post-election roundtable “We have a problem”, how can Mrs. Clinton run away from Pres. Obama’s policies while trying to attract his voters and big donors?”
Any liberals have an answer to the Democratic Party’s question?
Apparently pretty easily and evidently the GOP is worried about it.
"Clinton Inc. is going to be the most formidable fundraising operation for the Democrats in the history of the country. Period. Exclamation point," said Rick Hohlt, a lobbyist and fundraiser for Republican Party presidential candidates. "It sure causes concern."
And they are already building and infrastructure for her campaign as I type this so I would not worry too much about Hilliary getting money to fund her campaign.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-24/getting-ready-for-hillary-clinton-in-2016-costly-deal.html
You really should learn to use Google and do your research before you throw sh*t against the wall mule trying to make Democrats look bad as it makes you look so "low info". 😛
[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]
___________________
"Apparently pretty easily and evidently the GOP is worried about it."
Then why is the democratic party and so many of their mouthpieces so worried?
The GOP isn't worried but apparently the liberals are...
Well if you read the article I quoted you would see that evidently a GOP fund raiser says they should be worried as the Clinton's are already lining up big money supporters but nice try.
_________________________________________
You obviously don't understand how hype and OMG is used in fund raising.
A good example would be the democrats using "threats of lynchings", "don't let Ferguson happen again" and "Remember Treyvon" in their race hustling fund raising.
From the democrat’s post-election roundtable “We have a problem”, how can Mrs. Clinton run away from Pres. Obama’s policies while trying to attract his voters and big donors?”
Any liberals have an answer to the Democratic Party’s question?
Apparently pretty easily and evidently the GOP is worried about it.
"Clinton Inc. is going to be the most formidable fundraising operation for the Democrats in the history of the country. Period. Exclamation point," said Rick Hohlt, a lobbyist and fundraiser for Republican Party presidential candidates. "It sure causes concern."
And they are already building and infrastructure for her campaign as I type this so I would not worry too much about Hilliary getting money to fund her campaign.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-24/getting-ready-for-hillary-clinton-in-2016-costly-deal.html
You really should learn to use Google and do your research before you throw sh*t against the wall mule trying to make Democrats look bad as it makes you look so "low info". 😛
[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 11/12/2014 by Bill_Graham]
___________________
"Apparently pretty easily and evidently the GOP is worried about it."
Then why is the democratic party and so many of their mouthpieces so worried?
The GOP isn't worried but apparently the liberals are...
Well if you read the article I quoted you would see that evidently a GOP fund raiser says they should be worried as the Clinton's are already lining up big money supporters but nice try.
_________________________________________
You obviously don't understand how hype and OMG is used in fund raising.
A good example would be the democrats using "threats of lynchings", "don't let Ferguson happen again" and "Remember Treyvon" in their race hustling fund raising.
So basically you are saying you don't believe a Republican fund raiser who is an insider to the process when he states the Clinton's are fund raising machines? Or believe the proof on the internet which describes the infrastructure already being built for their campaign and all the big donors and fund raising groups who have already signed up to support them?
Shouldn't surprise me coming from someone who only gets his news from Fox and other Right Wing websites. Enjoy living in your bubble mule as I am really looking forward to your whining when Hillary gets elected.
Come on Alloak you seem like a reasonably logical thinking Conservative so you don't think the candidate the GOP runs against Hillary will have no bearing on the results?
I'm not talking about the results. I'm talking about what bearing that has on the selection of
your candidate.There is no bearing so not sure where you are going? Based on the polls most Liberals think Hillary is the best choice. You hoping she will not run is not going to make it a reality and if that is your plan on winning in 2016 it just shows your lack of confidence in the GOP candidates.
I agree there is no bearing, but was just wondering why it keeps getting put into the equation.
Honestly, I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic about either side's chances at this point. It's early yet, and so much can happen. However, I do wonder why the Democrats make it seem a foregone conclusion and wish to hand Hillary the nomination unopposed.
I realize she's popular with Liberals and far be it from me to understand her appeal.
You don't understand her appeal because your perceptions are based upon conservative values, mindset, & thought process. Just to clarify - this is not a criticism. It is based upon the hundreds of posts you have made and your point of view presented in these posts.
Point taken, but let's examine the difference between Hillary and her husband (IMO.) I liked Bill right off the bat. I thought he was a great speaker, charismatic, seemed very intelligent, was LIKABLE with a good sense of humor. The exact opposite of Hillary in all those attributes. Compared to him, Hillary is about as exciting as a tin plate, and the gaffes....
I felt that Bill presented the right image for an American President and I voted for him. (Plus, being a Southerner didn't hurt.) I thought he turned out to be a pretty good President.
It's funny how so many of us far right lunatics supported Clinton back int he 90's. Could it be the Democratic party has changed since then?
{quote}Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Come on Alloak you seem like a reasonably logical thinking Conservative so you don't think the candidate the GOP runs against Hillary will have no bearing on the results?
I'm not talking about the results. I'm talking about what bearing that has on the selection of
your candidate.There is no bearing so not sure where you are going? Based on the polls most Liberals think Hillary is the best choice. You hoping she will not run is not going to make it a reality and if that is your plan on winning in 2016 it just shows your lack of confidence in the GOP candidates.
I agree there is no bearing, but was just wondering why it keeps getting put into the equation.
Honestly, I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic about either side's chances at this point. It's early yet, and so much can happen. However, I do wonder why the Democrats make it seem a foregone conclusion and wish to hand Hillary the nomination unopposed.
I realize she's popular with Liberals and far be it from me to understand her appeal.
You don't understand her appeal because your perceptions are based upon conservative values, mindset, & thought process. Just to clarify - this is not a criticism. It is based upon the hundreds of posts you have made and your point of view presented in these posts.
Point taken, but let's examine the difference between Hillary and her husband (IMO.) I liked Bill right off the bat. I thought he was a great speaker, charismatic, seemed very intelligent, was LIKABLE with a good sense of humor. The exact opposite of Hillary in all those attributes. Compared to him, Hillary is about as exciting as a tin plate, and the gaffes....
I felt that Bill presented the right image for an American President and I voted for him. (Plus, being a Southerner didn't hurt.) I thought he turned out to be a pretty good President.
It's funny how so many of us far right lunatics supported Clinton back int he 90's. Could it be the Democratic party has changed since then?
Or could it be that times have changed and the political parties have very little common ground today?
I find the confidence of the liberals here that Hillary Clinton will easily become president astounding. It's as if no one accepts that there are cycles and external factors that affect these races. It's as if they believe that it is the natural inclination of the country to elect liberals. Obama was an aberration. The times were correct for him in 2008. Just as the times were correct for Roosevelt in 1932 and Johnson in 1964 and of course Reagan in 1980. I was in 9th grade but I remember oh so well how the Carter people WANTED to run against Reagan and hoped he would be nominated. They just figured he was too right wing and...let's face it... nutty to be elected. In retrospect it seems insane to believe that the country would re-elect Carter because of fear of Reagan. And so it goes. Ultimately, the U.S. electorate will elect the candidate they trust more, the candidate they believe will make their lives better. When the economy sputters for this amount of time and the U.S. is the laughing stock of the world and people realize it, it just seems to me that regardless of the "Red-Blue" map, it's the Republican race to lose. It can be lost of course but rather than thinking its Hillary's race to lose, I think its the other way around.
As for the map, I remember quite well when the GOP had a virtual lock on California and also frequently won quite a few north eastern states. Things change and can change again.
The only real question is whether the Democrats can fool people into supporting a not particularly likeable septargenarian who has been around for 25 years because they believe the Republican will make a "war on women and minorities." They tried it this year. It didn't work. Is it more likely to work in a presidential year? Yes. Will it? I sure hope not. Campaigns should be run on the issues that really matter.
Sixty-eight's advice. Run as a phony to attract voters who won't vote for you anyway, while pissing off your slam dunk voters at the very same time.
Uh, no thanks.
Have you ever even read a single post I have posted here??? Or are you just brain dead??? That was never, ever my advice. In fact my advice has always been the exact opposite. Don't run as a phony the way they have the last two Presidential elections.
[Edited on 11/12/2014 by sixty8]I've read you have to say, but you seem to have flip-flopped with regard to Carson, implying that he'd have to abandon principals he believes in order to garner votes from certain groups.
I never said Carson should flip his views to appease anyone. I think all candidates should run as themselves. What I said is that Carson with his far right views wouldn't stand a chance in a general election. If you do then go ahead and nominate him and see what happens. He would get trounced!!!
I find the confidence of the liberals here that Hillary Clinton will easily become president astounding. It's as if no one accepts that there are cycles and external factors that affect these races. It's as if they believe that it is the natural inclination of the country to elect liberals. Obama was an aberration. The times were correct for him in 2008. Just as the times were correct for Roosevelt in 1932 and Johnson in 1964 and of course Reagan in 1980. I was in 9th grade but I remember oh so well how the Carter people WANTED to run against Reagan and hoped he would be nominated. They just figured he was too right wing and...let's face it... nutty to be elected. In retrospect it seems insane to believe that the country would re-elect Carter because of fear of Reagan. And so it goes. Ultimately, the U.S. electorate will elect the candidate they trust more, the candidate they believe will make their lives better. When the economy sputters for this amount of time and the U.S. is the laughing stock of the world and people realize it, it just seems to me that regardless of the "Red-Blue" map, it's the Republican race to lose. It can be lost of course but rather than thinking its Hillary's race to lose, I think its the other way around.
As for the map, I remember quite well when the GOP had a virtual lock on California and also frequently won quite a few north eastern states. Things change and can change again.
The only real question is whether the Democrats can fool people into supporting a not particularly likeable septargenarian who has been around for 25 years because they believe the Republican will make a "war on women and minorities." They tried it this year. It didn't work. Is it more likely to work in a presidential year? Yes. Will it? I sure hope not. Campaigns should be run on the issues that really matter.
Come on Doug you seem like a pretty smart person you know as well as anyone that campaigns are rarely rum based on issues anymore. In fact most candidates avoid giving their views on controversial issues for fear of alienating voters. IMHO campaigning these days are usually based on fear and throwing mud. The candidates push an agenda that plays to the voters fears, like immigration and terrorism, and then spend the rest of their time picking at the supposed flaws of their opposition. Sadly this seems to be the norm these days.
You and the other conservatives keep ignoring the question of who in the GOP has the charisma to beat her? Sure the election is 2 years off but based on current polls there are multiple mediocre GOP candidates who are about equal in poll appeal. Who is your next "Great White Hope"?
{quote}Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't true Doug?????????? He flipped on just about every major issue, made public statements caught on tape that 47% of Americans are moochers that don't matter, raged against Obamacare after implementing Obamacare or Romneycare in Massechusetts and stating on video that it was the perfect model the whole country should use. He is the one who a dozen years ago described himself as being a moderate Republican only to flip that completely and not just describe himself as a conservative at the CPAC meeting but as an ultra conservative. I could go on and on and on about all of his flip flopping as well as his history of encouraging big profitable American companies and corporations to outsource jobs to make further profit at the expense of middle class American workers.
NONE of what I have posted above isn't lock stock fact and Romney did it all and brought it on himself. I don't really blame him because the GOP wouldn't allow him to run as himself jst as with McCain before him. This is why any real moderate Republicans, the ones who would probably make great Presidents don't even bother to throw their names into the hat. Just not worth the huge expense to them when their party ignore them and give them no chance at being nominated unless they flip all of their views to the far right. If you can't see this you aren't paying attention.
Nobody told Romney he had to flip all of his views but he knew if he didn't he had no chance to get nominated. Just like McCain before him.
[Edited on 11/13/2014 by sixty8]
Come on Alloak you seem like a reasonably logical thinking Conservative so you don't think the candidate the GOP runs against Hillary will have no bearing on the results?
I'm not talking about the results. I'm talking about what bearing that has on the selection of
your candidate.
There is no bearing so not sure where you are going? Based on the polls most Liberals think Hillary is the best choice. You hoping she will not run is not going to make it a reality and if that is your plan on winning in 2016 it just shows your lack of confidence in the GOP candidates.
I agree there is no bearing, but was just wondering why it keeps getting put into the equation.
Honestly, I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic about either side's chances at this point. It's early yet, and so much can happen. However, I do wonder why the Democrats make it seem a foregone conclusion and wish to hand Hillary the nomination unopposed.
I realize she's popular with Liberals and far be it from me to understand her appeal.
You don't understand her appeal because your perceptions are based upon conservative values, mindset, & thought process. Just to clarify - this is not a criticism. It is based upon the hundreds of posts you have made and your point of view presented in these posts.
Point taken, but let's examine the difference between Hillary and her husband (IMO.) I liked Bill right off the bat. I thought he was a great speaker, charismatic, seemed very intelligent, was LIKABLE with a good sense of humor. The exact opposite of Hillary in all those attributes. Compared to him, Hillary is about as exciting as a tin plate, and the gaffes....
I felt that Bill presented the right image for an American President and I voted for him. (Plus, being a Southerner didn't hurt.) I thought he turned out to be a pretty good President.
It's funny how so many of us far right lunatics supported Clinton back int he 90's. Could it be the Democratic party has changed since then?
That's when things changed politically for me, I can tell you that. When the Gingrich wave took over the Democrats went apesh*t. I was watching a lot of C Span at the time and couldn't believe what I was seeing. The Republicans were measured, unified, and level-headed. The Democrats looked like spoiled adolescents having a temper tantrum by comparison.
The Democrat's reaction to the CWA did more to push me to the Right than anything else I can think of and you can thank people like Dick Gephardt, Patsy Schroeder, Joe Kennedy, Tom Daschle for it.
Come on Alloak you seem like a reasonably logical thinking Conservative so you don't think the candidate the GOP runs against Hillary will have no bearing on the results?
I'm not talking about the results. I'm talking about what bearing that has on the selection of
your candidate.There is no bearing so not sure where you are going? Based on the polls most Liberals think Hillary is the best choice. You hoping she will not run is not going to make it a reality and if that is your plan on winning in 2016 it just shows your lack of confidence in the GOP candidates.
I agree there is no bearing, but was just wondering why it keeps getting put into the equation.
Honestly, I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic about either side's chances at this point. It's early yet, and so much can happen. However, I do wonder why the Democrats make it seem a foregone conclusion and wish to hand Hillary the nomination unopposed.
I realize she's popular with Liberals and far be it from me to understand her appeal.
You don't understand her appeal because your perceptions are based upon conservative values, mindset, & thought process. Just to clarify - this is not a criticism. It is based upon the hundreds of posts you have made and your point of view presented in these posts.
Point taken, but let's examine the difference between Hillary and her husband (IMO.) I liked Bill right off the bat. I thought he was a great speaker, charismatic, seemed very intelligent, was LIKABLE with a good sense of humor. The exact opposite of Hillary in all those attributes. Compared to him, Hillary is about as exciting as a tin plate, and the gaffes....
I felt that Bill presented the right image for an American President and I voted for him. (Plus, being a Southerner didn't hurt.) I thought he turned out to be a pretty good President.
It's funny how so many of us far right lunatics supported Clinton back int he 90's. Could it be the Democratic party has changed since then?
Or could it be that times have changed and the political parties have very little common ground today?
Or could it be that the party hasn't changed, but the individuals that voted one way back then have changed? Don't guess that's a possibility?
I find the confidence of the liberals here that Hillary Clinton will easily become president astounding. It's as if no one accepts that there are cycles and external factors that affect these races. It's as if they believe that it is the natural inclination of the country to elect liberals. Obama was an aberration. The times were correct for him in 2008. Just as the times were correct for Roosevelt in 1932 and Johnson in 1964 and of course Reagan in 1980. I was in 9th grade but I remember oh so well how the Carter people WANTED to run against Reagan and hoped he would be nominated. They just figured he was too right wing and...let's face it... nutty to be elected. In retrospect it seems insane to believe that the country would re-elect Carter because of fear of Reagan. And so it goes. Ultimately, the U.S. electorate will elect the candidate they trust more, the candidate they believe will make their lives better. When the economy sputters for this amount of time and the U.S. is the laughing stock of the world and people realize it, it just seems to me that regardless of the "Red-Blue" map, it's the Republican race to lose. It can be lost of course but rather than thinking its Hillary's race to lose, I think its the other way around.
As for the map, I remember quite well when the GOP had a virtual lock on California and also frequently won quite a few north eastern states. Things change and can change again.
The only real question is whether the Democrats can fool people into supporting a not particularly likeable septargenarian who has been around for 25 years because they believe the Republican will make a "war on women and minorities." They tried it this year. It didn't work. Is it more likely to work in a presidential year? Yes. Will it? I sure hope not. Campaigns should be run on the issues that really matter.
Problem is they don't have anyone remotely like Reagan unless they are hiding them or unless they won't get involved because all of their views don't coinside with those on the far right which would make them have to flip some of their core views to get the GOP nomination.
So issues like equal pay for equal work for women isn't a worthy issue???? Women's right's to their own reproductive choices isn't a worthy issue??? The Dems never made it just about those issues although the right would like people to think that. The Dems have engaged on all major issues, not just the small ones and they will again in the next election and the whole of the country, at least the voting whole will decide who they think is better for the majority of American people on the majority of major issues.
{quote}Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't rue Doug??????????
I'll repeat the question. If he was a felon why didn't Holder charge him with the offense(s) he was guilty of? Would have seemed like a no-brainer if they were interested in locking up the election.
He was accused of not paying his taxes. Why didn't the IRS back up this claim? They never did.
A lot of the rest of what you consider "fact" are subjective traits that cannot be proven or measured one way or the other. There was never any proof that he loved to fire people, for instance. Yet we heard attacks of this type 24/7. Factual or not, they worked.
Watching that campaign made me feel like I needed to take a shower.
{quote}Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't rue Doug??????????
I'll repeat the question. If he was a felon why didn't Holder charge him with the offense(s) he was guilty of? Would have seemed like a no-brainer if they were interested in locking up the election.
He was accused of not paying his taxes. Why didn't the IRS back up this claim? They never did.
A lot of the rest of what you consider "fact" are subjective traits that cannot be proven or measured one way or the other. There was never any proof that he loved to fire people, for instance. Yet we heard attacks of this type 24/7. Factual or not, they worked.
Watching that campaign made me feel like I needed to take a shower.
It was a point of contention during the campaign...the Obama campaign said he could have been charged with a felony and provided evidence to support it, and the Romney campaign said he didn't and provided evidence to the contrary. Back and forth it went, typical campaign stuff. Factcheck.org was critical about the Obama campaign on this issue and others, but was also critical of the Romney for similar tactics as well (here's one example, there are many others that cut both ways if you do a search at Factcheck.org.)
alloak, you've obviously been around long enough to know this crap has become standard fare in elections and your one-sided indignation rings hollow, IMO, unless you are also prepared to acknowledge that the Romney campaign was up to the same political shenanigans.
Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't rue Doug??????????
I'll repeat the question. If he was a felon why didn't Holder charge him with the offense(s) he was guilty of? Would have seemed like a no-brainer if they were interested in locking up the election.
He was accused of not paying his taxes. Why didn't the IRS back up this claim? They never did.
A lot of the rest of what you consider "fact" are subjective traits that cannot be proven or measured one way or the other. There was never any proof that he loved to fire people, for instance. Yet we heard attacks of this type 24/7. Factual or not, they worked.
Watching that campaign made me feel like I needed to take a shower.
It was a point of contention during the campaign...the Obama campaign said he could have been charged with a felony and provided evidence to support it, and the Romney campaign said he didn't and provided evidence to the contrary. Back and forth it went, typical campaign stuff. Factcheck.org was critical about the Obama campaign on this issue and others, but was also critical of the Romney for similar tactics as well (here's one example, there are many others that cut both ways if you do a search at Factcheck.org.)
alloak, you've obviously been around long enough to know this crap has become standard fare in elections and your one-sided indignation rings hollow, IMO, unless you are also prepared to acknowledge that the Romney campaign was up to the same political shenanigans.
I don't think they were the same type shenanigans. I'm trying to judge what I saw fairly, I really am, and feel the two approaches are beyond compare. Romney did spend considerable time going after Obama's record, I'll grant you that. I think that's fair game, but would admit that accuracy is important. But even the example you presented is about policy, not the person.
For example, had the Romney campaign said Obama might have performed better if he'd spent less time with a straw up his nose, or laying on the beach smoking dope during his formative years you might have something. They didn't go there. They did little or nothing to attack Obama's past or Obama personally.
Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't rue Doug??????????
I'll repeat the question. If he was a felon why didn't Holder charge him with the offense(s) he was guilty of? Would have seemed like a no-brainer if they were interested in locking up the election.
He was accused of not paying his taxes. Why didn't the IRS back up this claim? They never did.
A lot of the rest of what you consider "fact" are subjective traits that cannot be proven or measured one way or the other. There was never any proof that he loved to fire people, for instance. Yet we heard attacks of this type 24/7. Factual or not, they worked.
Watching that campaign made me feel like I needed to take a shower.
It was a point of contention during the campaign...the Obama campaign said he could have been charged with a felony and provided evidence to support it, and the Romney campaign said he didn't and provided evidence to the contrary. Back and forth it went, typical campaign stuff. Factcheck.org was critical about the Obama campaign on this issue and others, but was also critical of the Romney for similar tactics as well (here's one example, there are many others that cut both ways if you do a search at Factcheck.org.)
alloak, you've obviously been around long enough to know this crap has become standard fare in elections and your one-sided indignation rings hollow, IMO, unless you are also prepared to acknowledge that the Romney campaign was up to the same political shenanigans.
I don't think they were the same type shenanigans. I'm trying to judge what I saw fairly, I really am, and feel the two approaches are beyond compare. Romney did spend considerable time going after Obama's record, I'll grant you that. I think that's fair game, but would admit that accuracy is important. But even the example you presented is about policy, not the person.
For example, had the Romney campaign said Obama might have performed better if he'd spent less time with a straw up his nose, or laying on the beach smoking dope during his formative years you might have something. They didn't go there. They did little or nothing to attack Obama's past or Obama personally.
I think we all see what we want to see. I saw plenty of personal attacks toward Obama, and vice-versa and it is all well documented. Doesn't really matter though, that one is over and I've lost interested in debating it tit-for-tat.
You're right. Time to look ahead.
You're right. Time to look ahead.
+1 
You're right. Time to look ahead.
+1
______________________________________________
obama's policies are under attack, it is nothing personal.
The liberals say it is personal to make it an issue.
The liberals say disagreeing on policy is racist.
The liberals lie constantly. They have to because they have nothing to offer.
Problem is they don't have anyone remotely like Reagan unless they are hiding them or unless they won't get involved because all of their views don't coinside with those on the far right which would make them have to flip some of their core views to get the GOP nomination.
So issues like equal pay for equal work for women isn't a worthy issue???? Women's right's to their own reproductive choices isn't a worthy issue??? The Dems never made it just about those issues although the right would like people to think that. The Dems have engaged on all major issues, not just the small ones and they will again in the next election and the whole of the country, at least the voting whole will decide who they think is better for the majority of American people on the majority of major issues.
I don't think everyone here is on the same planet. Equal pay for women was decided and has been the law for decades. Abortion has been legal for 41 years. No one should be talking about those issues in 2016 IMHO. We've got a whole new set of problems that need to be addressed. Great, look forward, but also look at what we need now.
The fractured democrat party is moving away from Hillary, embrace Warren:
IT’S OFFICIAL, WARREN NOW SENATE DEMS LINK TO LIBERALS
HuffPo: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) got a promotion on Thursday. She now has a seat at the Senate Democratic leadership table and, in a role created just for her, she will serve as a policy adviser and voice for progressives. Her colleagues have no idea why this is happening. ‘A liaison to liberals? I've never heard of such a thing,’ said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), throwing his hands in the air. ‘I asked her about it and she said she was some kind of adviser. I don’t know what it is. I don’t know what that all means.’…Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was the driving force behind creating the role for Warren, and he and his leadership team worked privately to figure out where she would best fit ahead of a Thursday caucus meeting, where Democrats elected their leaders for the next Congress. As the new strategic policy adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Center, Warren will attend weekly leadership meetings and help shape caucus policies.”
Populist faithful fawn over Warren:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., got the rock-star treatment from a group of wealthy donors, who are actively pushing her to launch a 2016 bid, as she addressed the liberal Democracy Alliance Thursday. Politico: “Throughout the day, donors repeatedly broached the question of whether Warren would run to Paul Egerman, a Democracy Alliance board member who was the national finance chairman of her Senate race and introduced Warren for her speech Thursday.”
Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't rue Doug??????????
I'll repeat the question. If he was a felon why didn't Holder charge him with the offense(s) he was guilty of? Would have seemed like a no-brainer if they were interested in locking up the election.
He was accused of not paying his taxes. Why didn't the IRS back up this claim? They never did.
A lot of the rest of what you consider "fact" are subjective traits that cannot be proven or measured one way or the other. There was never any proof that he loved to fire people, for instance. Yet we heard attacks of this type 24/7. Factual or not, they worked.
Watching that campaign made me feel like I needed to take a shower.
It was a point of contention during the campaign...the Obama campaign said he could have been charged with a felony and provided evidence to support it, and the Romney campaign said he didn't and provided evidence to the contrary. Back and forth it went, typical campaign stuff. Factcheck.org was critical about the Obama campaign on this issue and others, but was also critical of the Romney for similar tactics as well (here's one example, there are many others that cut both ways if you do a search at Factcheck.org.)
alloak, you've obviously been around long enough to know this crap has become standard fare in elections and your one-sided indignation rings hollow, IMO, unless you are also prepared to acknowledge that the Romney campaign was up to the same political shenanigans.
I don't think they were the same type shenanigans. I'm trying to judge what I saw fairly, I really am, and feel the two approaches are beyond compare. Romney did spend considerable time going after Obama's record, I'll grant you that. I think that's fair game, but would admit that accuracy is important. But even the example you presented is about policy, not the person.
For example, had the Romney campaign said Obama might have performed better if he'd spent less time with a straw up his nose, or laying on the beach smoking dope during his formative years you might have something. They didn't go there. They did little or nothing to attack Obama's past or Obama personally.
Really??? Maybe Romney didn't directly, but there were plenty of right wing attacks calling Obama a secret Muslim who wasn't even born in the USA. There were accusations that Obama never actually went to Columbia University. Those weren't an attack on Obama's past or Obama personally? Why don't those count in your world?
Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't rue Doug??????????
I'll repeat the question. If he was a felon why didn't Holder charge him with the offense(s) he was guilty of? Would have seemed like a no-brainer if they were interested in locking up the election.
He was accused of not paying his taxes. Why didn't the IRS back up this claim? They never did.
A lot of the rest of what you consider "fact" are subjective traits that cannot be proven or measured one way or the other. There was never any proof that he loved to fire people, for instance. Yet we heard attacks of this type 24/7. Factual or not, they worked.
Watching that campaign made me feel like I needed to take a shower.
It was a point of contention during the campaign...the Obama campaign said he could have been charged with a felony and provided evidence to support it, and the Romney campaign said he didn't and provided evidence to the contrary. Back and forth it went, typical campaign stuff. Factcheck.org was critical about the Obama campaign on this issue and others, but was also critical of the Romney for similar tactics as well (here's one example, there are many others that cut both ways if you do a search at Factcheck.org.)
alloak, you've obviously been around long enough to know this crap has become standard fare in elections and your one-sided indignation rings hollow, IMO, unless you are also prepared to acknowledge that the Romney campaign was up to the same political shenanigans.
I don't think they were the same type shenanigans. I'm trying to judge what I saw fairly, I really am, and feel the two approaches are beyond compare. Romney did spend considerable time going after Obama's record, I'll grant you that. I think that's fair game, but would admit that accuracy is important. But even the example you presented is about policy, not the person.
For example, had the Romney campaign said Obama might have performed better if he'd spent less time with a straw up his nose, or laying on the beach smoking dope during his formative years you might have something. They didn't go there. They did little or nothing to attack Obama's past or Obama personally.
Really??? Maybe Romney didn't directly, but there were plenty of right wing attacks calling Obama a secret Muslim who wasn't even born in the USA. There were accusations that Obama never actually went to Columbia University. Those weren't an attack on Obama's past or Obama personally? Why don't those count in your world?
We're either of those accusations made by a high-level staffer (like Cutter) or a majority leader (like Reid?). Also, I don't recall seeing a single TV ad pertaining to secret Muslims or Obama at Columbia University. I DO recall seeing an ad that claimed Romney didn't care about a guy losing his health insurance and didn't care that the guy's wife died as a result (the ad was later debunked.)
So, nothing counts unless it was in an ad you saw.... got it......
Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't rue Doug??????????
I'll repeat the question. If he was a felon why didn't Holder charge him with the offense(s) he was guilty of? Would have seemed like a no-brainer if they were interested in locking up the election.
He was accused of not paying his taxes. Why didn't the IRS back up this claim? They never did.
A lot of the rest of what you consider "fact" are subjective traits that cannot be proven or measured one way or the other. There was never any proof that he loved to fire people, for instance. Yet we heard attacks of this type 24/7. Factual or not, they worked.
Watching that campaign made me feel like I needed to take a shower.
It was a point of contention during the campaign...the Obama campaign said he could have been charged with a felony and provided evidence to support it, and the Romney campaign said he didn't and provided evidence to the contrary. Back and forth it went, typical campaign stuff. Factcheck.org was critical about the Obama campaign on this issue and others, but was also critical of the Romney for similar tactics as well (here's one example, there are many others that cut both ways if you do a search at Factcheck.org.)
alloak, you've obviously been around long enough to know this crap has become standard fare in elections and your one-sided indignation rings hollow, IMO, unless you are also prepared to acknowledge that the Romney campaign was up to the same political shenanigans.
I don't think they were the same type shenanigans. I'm trying to judge what I saw fairly, I really am, and feel the two approaches are beyond compare. Romney did spend considerable time going after Obama's record, I'll grant you that. I think that's fair game, but would admit that accuracy is important. But even the example you presented is about policy, not the person.
For example, had the Romney campaign said Obama might have performed better if he'd spent less time with a straw up his nose, or laying on the beach smoking dope during his formative years you might have something. They didn't go there. They did little or nothing to attack Obama's past or Obama personally.
Really??? Maybe Romney didn't directly, but there were plenty of right wing attacks calling Obama a secret Muslim who wasn't even born in the USA. There were accusations that Obama never actually went to Columbia University. Those weren't an attack on Obama's past or Obama personally? Why don't those count in your world?
We're either of those accusations made by a high-level staffer (like Cutter) or a majority leader (like Reid?). Also, I don't recall seeing a single TV ad pertaining to secret Muslims or Obama at Columbia University. I DO recall seeing an ad that claimed Romney didn't care about a guy losing his health insurance and didn't care that the guy's wife died as a result (the ad was later debunked.)
And I don't remember any ads talking about Romney being a felon. It is funny how you move the goalposts when it suits you.
Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't rue Doug??????????
I'll repeat the question. If he was a felon why didn't Holder charge him with the offense(s) he was guilty of? Would have seemed like a no-brainer if they were interested in locking up the election.
He was accused of not paying his taxes. Why didn't the IRS back up this claim? They never did.
A lot of the rest of what you consider "fact" are subjective traits that cannot be proven or measured one way or the other. There was never any proof that he loved to fire people, for instance. Yet we heard attacks of this type 24/7. Factual or not, they worked.
Watching that campaign made me feel like I needed to take a shower.
It was a point of contention during the campaign...the Obama campaign said he could have been charged with a felony and provided evidence to support it, and the Romney campaign said he didn't and provided evidence to the contrary. Back and forth it went, typical campaign stuff. Factcheck.org was critical about the Obama campaign on this issue and others, but was also critical of the Romney for similar tactics as well (here's one example, there are many others that cut both ways if you do a search at Factcheck.org.)
alloak, you've obviously been around long enough to know this crap has become standard fare in elections and your one-sided indignation rings hollow, IMO, unless you are also prepared to acknowledge that the Romney campaign was up to the same political shenanigans.
I don't think they were the same type shenanigans. I'm trying to judge what I saw fairly, I really am, and feel the two approaches are beyond compare. Romney did spend considerable time going after Obama's record, I'll grant you that. I think that's fair game, but would admit that accuracy is important. But even the example you presented is about policy, not the person.
For example, had the Romney campaign said Obama might have performed better if he'd spent less time with a straw up his nose, or laying on the beach smoking dope during his formative years you might have something. They didn't go there. They did little or nothing to attack Obama's past or Obama personally.
Really??? Maybe Romney didn't directly, but there were plenty of right wing attacks calling Obama a secret Muslim who wasn't even born in the USA. There were accusations that Obama never actually went to Columbia University. Those weren't an attack on Obama's past or Obama personally? Why don't those count in your world?
We're either of those accusations made by a high-level staffer (like Cutter) or a majority leader (like Reid?). Also, I don't recall seeing a single TV ad pertaining to secret Muslims or Obama at Columbia University. I DO recall seeing an ad that claimed Romney didn't care about a guy losing his health insurance and didn't care that the guy's wife died as a result (the ad was later debunked.)
And I don't remember any ads talking about Romney being a felon. It is funny how you move the goalposts when it suits you.
More like nailing a 50-yarder right down the middle...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-brings-felons-latest-ad_649152.html
Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't rue Doug??????????
I'll repeat the question. If he was a felon why didn't Holder charge him with the offense(s) he was guilty of? Would have seemed like a no-brainer if they were interested in locking up the election.
He was accused of not paying his taxes. Why didn't the IRS back up this claim? They never did.
A lot of the rest of what you consider "fact" are subjective traits that cannot be proven or measured one way or the other. There was never any proof that he loved to fire people, for instance. Yet we heard attacks of this type 24/7. Factual or not, they worked.
Watching that campaign made me feel like I needed to take a shower.
It was a point of contention during the campaign...the Obama campaign said he could have been charged with a felony and provided evidence to support it, and the Romney campaign said he didn't and provided evidence to the contrary. Back and forth it went, typical campaign stuff. Factcheck.org was critical about the Obama campaign on this issue and others, but was also critical of the Romney for similar tactics as well (here's one example, there are many others that cut both ways if you do a search at Factcheck.org.)
alloak, you've obviously been around long enough to know this crap has become standard fare in elections and your one-sided indignation rings hollow, IMO, unless you are also prepared to acknowledge that the Romney campaign was up to the same political shenanigans.
I don't think they were the same type shenanigans. I'm trying to judge what I saw fairly, I really am, and feel the two approaches are beyond compare. Romney did spend considerable time going after Obama's record, I'll grant you that. I think that's fair game, but would admit that accuracy is important. But even the example you presented is about policy, not the person.
For example, had the Romney campaign said Obama might have performed better if he'd spent less time with a straw up his nose, or laying on the beach smoking dope during his formative years you might have something. They didn't go there. They did little or nothing to attack Obama's past or Obama personally.
Really??? Maybe Romney didn't directly, but there were plenty of right wing attacks calling Obama a secret Muslim who wasn't even born in the USA. There were accusations that Obama never actually went to Columbia University. Those weren't an attack on Obama's past or Obama personally? Why don't those count in your world?
We're either of those accusations made by a high-level staffer (like Cutter) or a majority leader (like Reid?). Also, I don't recall seeing a single TV ad pertaining to secret Muslims or Obama at Columbia University. I DO recall seeing an ad that claimed Romney didn't care about a guy losing his health insurance and didn't care that the guy's wife died as a result (the ad was later debunked.)
And I don't remember any ads talking about Romney being a felon. It is funny how you move the goalposts when it suits you.
More like nailing a 50-yarder right down the middle...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-brings-felons-latest-ad_649152.html
Did you watch the ad? Of course not. Had you watched you would have seen that at no point did anyone call Romney a felon.
Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job! {quote}
If the shoe fits, wear it!!!
The Dems didn't create Romney's history, they just exposed it. It was all documented facts! He made his own bed and couldn't flip his way ou!t of it
[Edited on 11/10/2014 by sixty8]
That's baloney. The Dems did to him what the Republicans did to Dukakis and tried to do to Clinton.
Tell me then EXACTLY what the Dems said about him that wasn't rue Doug??????????
I'll repeat the question. If he was a felon why didn't Holder charge him with the offense(s) he was guilty of? Would have seemed like a no-brainer if they were interested in locking up the election.
He was accused of not paying his taxes. Why didn't the IRS back up this claim? They never did.
A lot of the rest of what you consider "fact" are subjective traits that cannot be proven or measured one way or the other. There was never any proof that he loved to fire people, for instance. Yet we heard attacks of this type 24/7. Factual or not, they worked.
Watching that campaign made me feel like I needed to take a shower.
It was a point of contention during the campaign...the Obama campaign said he could have been charged with a felony and provided evidence to support it, and the Romney campaign said he didn't and provided evidence to the contrary. Back and forth it went, typical campaign stuff. Factcheck.org was critical about the Obama campaign on this issue and others, but was also critical of the Romney for similar tactics as well (here's one example, there are many others that cut both ways if you do a search at Factcheck.org.)
alloak, you've obviously been around long enough to know this crap has become standard fare in elections and your one-sided indignation rings hollow, IMO, unless you are also prepared to acknowledge that the Romney campaign was up to the same political shenanigans.
I don't think they were the same type shenanigans. I'm trying to judge what I saw fairly, I really am, and feel the two approaches are beyond compare. Romney did spend considerable time going after Obama's record, I'll grant you that. I think that's fair game, but would admit that accuracy is important. But even the example you presented is about policy, not the person.
For example, had the Romney campaign said Obama might have performed better if he'd spent less time with a straw up his nose, or laying on the beach smoking dope during his formative years you might have something. They didn't go there. They did little or nothing to attack Obama's past or Obama personally.
Really??? Maybe Romney didn't directly, but there were plenty of right wing attacks calling Obama a secret Muslim who wasn't even born in the USA. There were accusations that Obama never actually went to Columbia University. Those weren't an attack on Obama's past or Obama personally? Why don't those count in your world?
We're either of those accusations made by a high-level staffer (like Cutter) or a majority leader (like Reid?). Also, I don't recall seeing a single TV ad pertaining to secret Muslims or Obama at Columbia University. I DO recall seeing an ad that claimed Romney didn't care about a guy losing his health insurance and didn't care that the guy's wife died as a result (the ad was later debunked.)
And I don't remember any ads talking about Romney being a felon. It is funny how you move the goalposts when it suits you.
I don't remember that either, but I do remember a Fox Fair and Balanced News anchor calling Obama a terrorist. I also remember them running an hour long hit piece on Obama a couple weeks before the '08 election. But I guess those don't count because it didn't come from a high ranking Republican elected official.
