I feel 2012 will be catastrophic for the Republican party

[DainBramaged]

There is NO VIABLE CANDIDATE to run against President Obama

They haven't created ONE SINGLE JOB since they ran on job creation during the 2010 election

They voted to ELIMINATE MEDICARE for 2/3 of the population

They CONTINUE TO GIVE TAX BRAKES TO THE OIL COMPANIES in spite of record pump prices and a recession.

They have once again made ABORTION the focal point of their campaign against women

And they have shown that they will do ANYTHING TO BREAK ALL UNIONS in this Country.

And the attacks on TEACHERS AND EDUCATION will not go unnoticed.



I don't think America will be fooled again. lets hope the DNC and the White House takes advantage of these insane policies and HELPS TO return the Country to sanity.


Thanks for reading.

[GoCubsGo]

1. I hope you are right, but...

The republicans are masters at deflection and blame. They will certainly do their best to pin everything on the President and the Democrats. They are already at it.

[niyad]

2. in the meantime, 2011 is very bad for the population as a whole.

and, as another pointed out, the repukes are masters at spin --and their minions are not exactly rocket scientists.

[jillan]

3. In a pre-Citizens United World, I would agree. Now, I don't know. Think about this -

the repugs in Congress are doing everything they can to protect their interests, the corporations.

They even voted *against* ending tax subsidies to the most profitable corporations, the oil companies.

I am afraid the corporate powers will be sending them large thank you notes during the coming year.

Sorry to be such a downer, but thanks to Roberts and Alito this is reality.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Did Meg Whitman's huge expenditure buy her the CA Governor's

office? Nope. Did piles of out of state 'funny money' defeat my Rep, DeFazio? Nope. So the leap from 'they will have money' to 'they will win because of money' is not a proven thing. I see no evidence that more advertizing equals success. It is just not true that anything heavily advertized sells. Many wish it was that way, but it is not. Step aside from politics and look at something like the movies. Now, honestly, when you see constant ads for a film, long in advance, does that film always hit big box office? Don't some people see heavy ad rotation and conclude the film must suck? Is it not true that heavily promoted films tank, badly, all the time? Add to that a look at some successful films, such as Avatar, that had very little advance advertizing, almost no commercials with images from the film, nothing touting the stars. Biggest hit of all time.
Products come out all the time that are heavily promoted only to fail. Huge money spent, huge efforts, all for naught.
Just some stuff to think about. It is an issue, but it is not a magic wand for anyone. It is just money, and there has for some time been enough or too much money in national campaigns, adding more is not really a huge plus. Shakespeare said 'they are as sick that surfeit with too much as those who starve with nothing' which is another way of saying enough is the goal, not lack or excess.

[Mz Pip]

15. THe ads will be negative

The GOP can't help itself and will run attack ads 24/7. I think most people really get sick of that.

It's true about Nutmeg. She put something like 100 million dollars of her own money into the campaign and had a staff the about size of Obama's. People just didn't like her and she came across as a person trying to buy the governorship.

In spite of our terrible budget woes CA managed to avoid the teabagging phenomena that swept so many into Congress. PErhaps the rest of the country will catch on throw the rest of them out in 2012.

[jillan]

16. They poured alot of money into my state, and we lost our share of Dem Reps.

I'm in Az. I guess the more red your state is, the more successful corporations are at buying votes.

Believe me, there is nothing in politics I want more than to see C.U. overturned.

[still_one]

4. There will be. At a minimum you will have huntsman funning. As for your other arguments

they will not be persuasive enough unless the Democrats actually get out their and exploit it. In the past they haven't been particularly agressive

You indicate that you don't think America will be fooled again, they have been fooled time and time again since reagan when all the republican deregulation, anti-union, and anti-women movement began

If the past is any reflection of the future, it looks very uncertain

[DainBramaged]

6. OK well thanks for making me feel I am unworthy

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:




















:rofl:

[still_one]

11. I assume you were soliciting different views. My comments only reflect my comments, and do not

necessarily reflect what will be

[DainBramaged]

21. Did you miss the laugh smiley at the bottom?

:shrug:

[still_one]

23. OOPS /nt

[sufrommich]

5. I agree. I think it will be a good year for us. nt

[Solomon]

7. You should have seen that thing that passed for a Republican

presidential debate last night.

It was b-b-b-bad.

[handmade34]

8. All the more reason

to really work hard to get Democrats elected!!! The more the better; we need a large majority in both houses and as heads of all committees and maybe we can get something done in this country...

[southernyankeebelle]

9. By the time the republicans finish destroying language of hate in 2012 running it will

take a man of patience. He is there right now. Thank god. The republicans will divide this country more than unite.

[quinnox]

10. You are more optimistic than I am

I feel the economy being lousy will result in a huge win for the republicans in 2012, unless it dramatically changes in the near term.

And Mitt Romney I feel is a very potent and dangerous opponent if the republicans manage to nominate him. He could win the presidency I'm afraid. If the republicans don't nominate him, then Obama will have an easier time.

[emulatorloo]

18. Republicans are doing everything in their power to tank the economy so they

can Blame Obama.

As to Mitt, he has a lot of questionable things on his record. His idea of being a "successful businessman" was to lay off workers. And merge businesses in order to close their doors. To me he has a huge weak spot.

And then there is the Republican primary voter. Mitt is not crazy enough for that crowd. And no way can he explain away his Mass health care reform.

To me their best chance candidate is Huckabee. Insane enough for the crazy base. And would appear sane to the low-info voter, because he is funny charming etc. MSM would have no problem covering up his extremism

[LynneSin]

12. What you don't get is the GOP is not bothering with the presidency in 2012 - this is 199

For them this election is more important for them to strengthen their control on the house and gain control of the Senate. They'll sacrifice this presidential election in hopes of building a stronger candidate to run in 2016 when they hope to have a solid lock on the House and Senate. Then with total control they can slam thru the legislation they want to finish destroying this country.

I suspect that neither Christie, Walker, Scott, Daniels or Kasich will run in 2012. They want to build their conservative creds to show they are the best candidate for 2016. These are the 'Bush Brothers' of the new Millennium.

[DainBramaged]

19. I get that completely, which is why I wrote what I did.

[Snoutport]

14. You are 100% right

I think. :0) But, their lack of candidate does not bode well for them...BUT...a really conservative candidate will get the conservatives in all the red states out. :0( there will be many small right wing wins, i fear.

[izquierdista]

17. You can fool some of the people all of the time

The rest just require more advertising.

Just a corollary to Lincoln's observation.

[Fire1]

20. I think you're right. They shot themselves in the foot. n/t

[jpak]

22. Ya think?

I do

yup

[louslobbs]

24. I'm not a praying man anymore, but if it will help, I'd be willing to start praying again that you

are right.
Lou