Comments Posted By BD57
Displaying 11 To 16 Of 16 Comments
US DECLARES HEALTH EMERGENCY WHILE OBAMA GOLFS
Michael:
here's the thing .... the Republicans in the Senate also "won the election", which means they don't have any obligation to roll over for whatever Obama wants.
You are to be commended, though, for the full-throated hypocrisy of that response .... I don't recall Democrats EVER believing Bush was entitled to deference because "he won the election."
And please - don't waste our time with "because he didn't win."
Comment Posted By BD57 On 27.04.2009 @ 17:29
Rick:
I don't deny that you can't win by pushing moderates away.
You can't win elections with Republicans alone, with Democrats alone or with "moderates" alone.
So - unless your pursuit of the moderates at the expense of the social cons adds more votes than it loses, it's not "smart politics."
The idea of driving off people who've proven loyal over the years in the hope of attracting people who, by definition, are fickle just doesn't seem like a winning strategy.
I'm not arguing for "more of the same" - change is needed. I just don't like the extent to which discussion of the "change needed" has devolved to bitching about people who've stood by the party for years.
Comment Posted By BD57 On 22.04.2009 @ 14:43
No more than it profit a man that he drive off conservatives and still lose the election.
If you're going to make the "addition by subtraction" argument, tell us how you're going to turn the so-called moderates who you seek to attract into rock-ribbed loyal Republicans in such numbers that the party is better off for driving away the icky social conservatives, etc.
I have a hard time believing there is a huge block of voters who'd be consistent, passionate, loyal Republican votes but for social conservatives involvement in the Party.
You don't have to believe it because you're absolutely right - the majority of independents will never be rock ribbed Republicans. But neither will conservatives win any elections by pushing them away, will they? That was my only point.
ed.
Comment Posted By BD57 On 22.04.2009 @ 11:20
A TIPPING POINT ON OBAMA IN SIGHT?
Perfect example of missing the point, Mike; say, why don't you call us "Un-American" while you're at it?
A bit hysterical, too.
Republicans have no ability to stop Obama and no ability to cause him to fail; if he fails, it'll be because of the policies he's chosen to pursue. Policies which conservatives (don't know about Republicans) are willing to say today are mistaken.
If we're wrong, then it won't matter what we say.
If we're right, it won't matter what he says.
Comment Posted By BD57 On 7.03.2009 @ 21:20
When it comes to public opinion polling, Derrick is correct - Obama & the Democratic Congress will be given some time to produce (and the benefit of the doubt in the meantime).
Where Derrick's mistaken is in the inherent assumption that public opinion polling is all there is. "Economic polling" - the decisions people make TODAY based on how they view their finances TODAY - is ongoing ... and unlike public opinion polling, there's no slack given (people tend to focus more on 'worst case' when their money's involved).
Here's the thing - if the economic polling stays negative, the public opinion polling will eventually follow.
Which means "Do Obama's economic policies make sense?" is a far more important question than "How's he polling these days?"
Comment Posted By BD57 On 7.03.2009 @ 16:16
GINGRICH SEES THE PROBLEMS BUT WHERE ARE THE SOLUTIONS?
While there are plenty of differences between Gingrich & Obama, there's one which (to me) cuts hard against Gingrich:
Newt's had plenty of opportunities to actually do something about the problems he identifies - enough to demonstrate he simply isn't "executive" timber.
As the staffer said - Gingrich plans the attack, sends the troops up the hill & then is nowhere to be found when the first reports of combat come in.
Comment Posted By BD57 On 2.02.2009 @ 14:14
