General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHuh? left-wing Freak Show???
Halperin's true colors never fail to bleed through...
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/21/democrats_already_defining_2016_gop_hopefuls.html
November 21, 2012
Democrats Already Defining 2016 GOP Hopefuls
Mark Halperin notes Democrats are quickly trying to shape the 2016 Republican presidential field.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and it will take again a Clinton to defeat a Bush
only thing HIllary(who I was 100% against in 2008, but am 150% for in 2016) didn't have in 2008 was Obama's voters.
This time she does.
I hope we have no primary because 1968 showed what happens when we sold the best president of the modern age after FDR down the river in 1968.
Hillary only and victory in 2016.
the fight should be for the VP with her (but I wouldn't mind if Chicago runs the campaign again.
Chicago community organizers. It worked in 1960, 1964 2008 and 2012.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)My heart bleeds for ya'.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)of the past decade and who likes to pretend he's "fair and balanced." That man is so unctuous and smarmy.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,318 posts)Halperin thinks this is an area on which 'non-freaks' aren't certain. At least Scarborough, in the interview, said the area in which Democrats are ahead is 'science'. And the RW Commentary magazine at least managed to say Rubio was being stupid:
...
For Senator Rubio to duck on this matter, then, is, to me at least, a bit disquieting. There are many issues that dont have to do with the economy that are still worth knowing about when it comes to major political leaders. This is one of them, since it offers an insight into the broader views one holds about the nature and validity of science.
One of the attributes of conservatism, at least as I understand it, is openness to evidence, including scientific evidence, and embracing reality. It can be discrediting to a political partyas well as religious institutionsto stand against (or deny) overwhelming empirical evidence on any subject. (Its worth recalling that up until 500 years ago the Christian church, to its great detriment, argued that if the Bible were taken literally, the sun would have to revolve around the earth. The claim that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old is about as believable as are those made in attacking Galileo and Copernicus.)
I like Senator Rubio and believe he has a very bright future. But it seems to me he not only needs to re-think his answer to this question, but come to terms with its larger implications. He and his party will suffer, and should suffer, if they are seen as agnostic on, or standing against, science.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/19/marco-rubio-v-science/
Overseas
(12,121 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Unless he was in a coma through the primaries where the entire GOP field destroyed Bain Capital. And we're all over Rubio because 1-They accused Obama of not having enough experience, yet want to run Rubio. 2-They are seriously under-estimating the amount of racists in their National base who would never vote for him. 3-He doesn't know how old the Earth is.