CNN Poll: Republicans Want A Winner

There are 319 comments on the WFMZ story from Jun 12, 2011, titled CNN Poll: Republicans Want A Winner. In it, WFMZ reports that:

One day before a CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire Union Leader Republican presidential debate, a new national poll suggests that when it comes to the next election for the White House, Republicans put winning over ideological purity.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WFMZ.

First Prev
of 16
Next Last
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#319 Jun 22, 2011
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a thoughtful post, Marichu. Thank you.
"How in the world could a republican be called a “fiscal liberal”?"
Great question! One has to stop looking at the letter after their name (D or R) and look at their policies, their efforts and their methodologies.
Bush was a fiscal liberal. He was a liberal in spending, growing government and the housing debacle which so severely affects our economy today.
The tax cuts were the right idea, but they were an anomaly among the REST of his and our ONE PARTY GOVERNMENT.
"GWB knew that the tax cuts combined with the Medicare prescription drug plan could not be sustained under budgetary restraints. That was the impetus of our economic decline."
Partially true, but Bush and his extended wars drained the economy. He created giant, unneccessary revenue drains like Homeland Security and the TSA, who now fondles children and grandparents. Brilliant! Unlike other wars, the chief beneficiary was cronyism called Haliburton. Billions poured in, and no accountability. Perfect.
I agree that Bush did not predict 9/11, but all the clues were there. The CIA, FBI and other executive branch law enforcement groups dropped the ball. They had the info and, like Pearl Harbor, our government found a way to allow Americans to die because they did not want to do their jobs and connect the dots.
While the economy was strained, as historically it is during every war, the mortgage crisis was what broke our backs starting in 2005/2006. It has continued to hemorrhage our economy and will continue to do so for a couple of years. Word on the street is we will lose 3 more points before the end of this year, then get a couple of years of stagnation (meaning values won't drop much more based on present circumstances, but they won't rise, either).
I believe it was not the same McCain. I also believe he did not even want to win. He made no effort to do so.
I am curious. Why do you think we should cut defense spending to the bare bones? I will share some ideas with you after your response to that question.
What can we cut without hurting people? Another excellent question. Answer me this, friend: would you continually purchase a product or service that does half as much for twice the price of a comparable service from another vendor?
bush a liberal?? LOL, he was a die hard conservative all the way. His spending is just like all the rest of the conservatives, wasteful and highly in favor of corporate welfare.

The only reason some now call him a liberal is because the obvious results of his time in office were so horrific that they had to find a scape-goat so they can put another republican in office to do the same thing all over again.
Gracebemine

Garden City, MO

#320 Jun 22, 2011
They need to ditch the Romney in Obama clothing! I am strongly considering a move to independent if this blue dyed red Mitt is going to be the Republican choice. Evidently no lesson was learned from the last presidential election with the wimpy McCain run.
Goose

United States

#321 Jun 22, 2011
Gracebemine wrote:
They need to ditch the Romney in Obama clothing! I am strongly considering a move to independent if this blue dyed red Mitt is going to be the Republican choice. Evidently no lesson was learned from the last presidential election with the wimpy McCain run.
Undoubtedly, a lot of us will ditch the GOP if Romney is the nominee.
The first time I did it was in 1996. I couldn't see a difference between Clinton & Dole so I voted for CP nominee Howard Phillips.
Does the GOP ever learn anything?
Abner

Tacoma, WA

#322 Jun 22, 2011
Gracebemine wrote:
They need to ditch the Romney in Obama clothing! I am strongly considering a move to independent if this blue dyed red Mitt is going to be the Republican choice. Evidently no lesson was learned from the last presidential election with the wimpy McCain run.
I agree.

I've been a registered Independent for years.

I voted against Nixon and against Ford. Voted for Reagan against Carter (which I sorely regret)..

Voted for Ross Perot..turns out he was right on the money with his predictions after all, as was Carter.

I voted for Clinton (who was the last true conservative president in my opinion), as much as voting for whomever was running opposite Bush.

I voted as much for Obama as against McCain Palin.

Gingrich was laughable before he started..as was Trump. Romney can't quit dancing and avoiding direct questions. Pawlenty, Huntsman..nothing there. I've always like Ron Paul..but the strict and exclusive libertarianism can't work in this global community.

I bet Bachman gets the GOP nomination. She stands for everything anti-middle class.

Even if she ends up on the VP ticket, that means another vote for Obama.

Since: Sep 08

Viva Madeira

#323 Jun 22, 2011
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a thoughtful post, Marichu. Thank you.
"How in the world could a republican be called a “fiscal liberal”?"
Great question! One has to stop looking at the letter after their name (D or R) and look at their policies, their efforts and their methodologies.
Bush was a fiscal liberal. He was a liberal in spending, growing government and the housing debacle which so severely affects our economy today.
The tax cuts were the right idea, but they were an anomaly among the REST of his and our ONE PARTY GOVERNMENT.
"GWB knew that the tax cuts combined with the Medicare prescription drug plan could not be sustained under budgetary restraints. That was the impetus of our economic decline."
Partially true, but Bush and his extended wars drained the economy. He created giant, unneccessary revenue drains like Homeland Security and the TSA, who now fondles children and grandparents. Brilliant! Unlike other wars, the chief beneficiary was cronyism called Haliburton. Billions poured in, and no accountability. Perfect.
I agree that Bush did not predict 9/11, but all the clues were there. The CIA, FBI and other executive branch law enforcement groups dropped the ball. They had the info and, like Pearl Harbor, our government found a way to allow Americans to die because they did not want to do their jobs and connect the dots.
What can we cut without hurting people? Another excellent question. Answer me this, friend: would you continually purchase a product or service that does half as much for twice the price of a comparable service from another vendor?
If as you say GWB was a “fiscal liberal” how is it that his economic policies did not help those most in need? Bush’s tax cuts were close to Reagan’s 1981 cuts. Would Reagan be considered a “fiscal Liberal too?”

I am no fan of GWB never was, his economic, national and foreign policies were misguided and nearsighted. But to lay all the blame on GWB is not accurate. Congress had a hand in every decision and policy that was handed down. Congressional members were his enablers; complicit in every decision he made for the simple reason being they never questioned him. They blindly followed along unconstrained in satiating their appetite for earmarks. If I’m not mistaken, GWB during his first term in office did not veto a single bill. The relationship between Congress and the office of the presidency was incestuous. They made a mockery of the Founding Fathers’ premise of checks and balances.

Totally agree with your take on how cronyism was rampant. I have no doubt many members, family and friends included, profited off the backs and lives of Americans.
It was a domino effect: the subprime mortgage crisis, housing bubble burst, defaults and foreclosures, banking meltdown resulting in a reduction in bank capital which in turn led to a credit crunch, depressed consumer spending because of decreasing household wealth, the end of mortgage equity withdrawals, declining jobs and incomes, government and personal debt. Bottom line: fiscal irresponsibility. Then the rest of the world followed along after us. I thought by now there would be significant signs of the economy improving, but it is still stubbornly sluggish.

Why cut defense to the bare bones? Why not? When sacrifices have been asked from other departments, why is it that from the 35% of discretionary spending, defense takes 20%? If the government is serious about deficit reduction, everything should be on the table. The US defense budget is larger than all other nations combined. Yet with all this might, we were attacked by a group of ragtag extremists. Something is fundamentally wrong with this picture.

When you talk about humans, it cannot be compared to a commodity or a purchase of a product or service. I comparison shop, so I would not pay more for an item if I could get it for a cheaper price from a different vendor or merchant.

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#324 Jun 22, 2011
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
bush a liberal?? LOL, he was a die hard conservative all the way. His spending is just like all the rest of the conservatives, wasteful and highly in favor of corporate welfare.
The only reason some now call him a liberal is because the obvious results of his time in office were so horrific that they had to find a scape-goat so they can put another republican in office to do the same thing all over again.
Really, Donna Joe?

We have this same discussion every few months and you are always shocked, humiliated and then run away for a time.

As Bush was such a "die-hard-conservative ", you won't have any trouble at all giving proof to that ASSertion, will you.

Your posts are like living the movie "Groundhog Day".

Someday, you might get it right!

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#325 Jun 22, 2011
Marichu wrote:
<quoted text>
If as you say GWB was a “fiscal liberal” how is it that his economic policies did not help those most in need? Bush’s tax cuts were close to Reagan’s 1981 cuts. Would Reagan be considered a “fiscal Liberal too?”
Bottom line: fiscal irresponsibility. Then the rest of the world followed along after us. I thought by now there would be significant signs of the economy improving, but it is still stubbornly sluggish.
Why cut defense to the bare bones? Why not? When sacrifices have been asked from other departments, why is it that from the 35% of discretionary spending, defense takes 20%? If the government is serious about deficit reduction, everything should be on the table. The US defense budget is larger than all other nations combined. Yet with all this might, we were attacked by a group of ragtag extremists. Something is fundamentally wrong with this picture.
When you talk about humans, it cannot be compared to a commodity or a purchase of a product or service. I comparison shop, so I would not pay more for an item if I could get it for a cheaper price from a different vendor or merchant.
Great questions!

Just because he spent money like a drunken sailor does not mean he spent it on social programs. Remember the whole "1,000 points of light"? Well, that partially came true, but when juxtaposed against the mortgage fiasco, the two wars and, the instantaneous creation of Homeland Security and the TSA, and other factors, basically, the money went to MORE government, Wall Street, Haliburton (Bush's buddy) and other "self or friend" serving projects.

His entire deficit was so nominal compared to Obama (When Bush left office, there was less than 500 Billion total deficit vs. Obama, who racks up over 200 BILLION a MONTH for every month he has been in office so far...and the number keeps going up)

Reagan has a tremendous reputation as a fiscal conservative, and on some levels, he was. Sadly, his legend is greater than his actual accomplishments that way.

Reagan did not do badly, he just did not do as well as he could have.

You are right to say that Bush and Congress acted in unison...another sign of his liberalism.

We did not have some staunch Conservatives in Congress like the few we have now. It was just business as usual. And that meant helping one another invest and make money off of GSA contracts, or help your buddies to do that.

Kinda like Joe Biden's son getting a $100,000 dollar a year job right out of college at MBNA. Ironically, MBNA is Biden's largest corporate supporter!

Or, Barney Frank getting his boyfriend a job at Fannie Mae BEFORE the meltdown.

One thing I would be very interested in seeing is if ANY of Congress or their relatives had gone "short" on the Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) market BEFORE it crashed.

I just have a hunch.

"Why not" is NOT a good reason to cut defense. I understand you lean to the left, but think about the REASON we have been a World Super Power for over 200 years. Do you think if we cut defense, other nations or groups will leave us alone because of our old reputation? Or because we are "nice guys"?

It is my belief that we could cut 5 - 10% out of the defense budget AND NOT LOSE ANY PERSONNEL.

This would be accomplished by actually containing costs and eliminating duplication.

In other words, eliminate and prosecute with reparations the rampant cronyism in that and other areas of government.

That "ragtag bunch of extremists" you talk about were let in here by the State Department, and missed by FEDERAL and LOCAL law enforcement.

They have NOTHING to do with the military.

Of course our defense budget is bigger...no one has attacked Switzerland in 65 years. No one is attacking Spain.

But don't be fooled...check on the military of the Soviets, China, North Korea, Iran and the nations of Africa, much less the Middle East.

The threats are real.
BOoo hiss

Orange, CA

#326 Jun 24, 2011
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing. I didn't realize all those things. The US is taxed higher than Europe yet we don't get any of the benefits Reagan warned us about Obama, yet we are just now hearing about it. LOL How can you believe this stuff????
What stuff are you referring to???

That the US is the second highest taxed nation after Japan? Or that Greece, Britain and many European countries are in fiscal trouble. America is more than 5 times bigger than Great Britain and cannot survive under a centralized bureaucatic government.

You should start realizing things then, if you didn't realize all those things as you say, instead of living in a world of unicorns and happy rhetoric, hopey changey Obama drugged up dreams and sugared poor nutrition koolade.

Guess you didn't know this too

Top 10 Examples Proving Obama Wants High Energy Prices
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php...

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#327 Jun 24, 2011
See, Donna Joe ran away AGAIN!

Liberals, easy and fun to humiliate.
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#328 Jun 27, 2011
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
See, Donna Joe ran away AGAIN!
Liberals, easy and fun to humiliate.
The only person you humiliate is yourself with your totally inane comments. Can't even go one post without slinging mud because of course you have nothing else. I on the other hand have a life and I don't sit on line all day posting in an attempt to support some dying ideology.
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#329 Jun 27, 2011
BOoo hiss wrote:
<quoted text>
What stuff are you referring to???
That the US is the second highest taxed nation after Japan? Or that Greece, Britain and many European countries are in fiscal trouble. America is more than 5 times bigger than Great Britain and cannot survive under a centralized bureaucatic government.
You should start realizing things then, if you didn't realize all those things as you say, instead of living in a world of unicorns and happy rhetoric, hopey changey Obama drugged up dreams and sugared poor nutrition koolade.
Guess you didn't know this too
Top 10 Examples Proving Obama Wants High Energy Prices
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php...
Why I guess I should just watch Fox News all day and find out all kinds of new stuff. In fact I could learn something new every day; but then I would have to forget what they said yesterday so I could believe the new stuff today. But then that is the happy part of being a republican, you never have to think, not even one iota.
JDC

El Paso, TX

#330 Jun 27, 2011
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your argument that the income had been redistributed so unfairly that the bottom 50% don't even make enough to pay taxes?
Income is earned not redistributed.

50% of this country pays no income taxes, I hope that is not news to you.
JDC

El Paso, TX

#331 Jun 27, 2011
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
The top 5% with 90% of the money only pay 40% of the taxes.
People are subject to income tax on earnings, not wealth or money they possess. The government at least waits until you die before your wealth is subject to estate taxes.

Actually the top 5% pay more in income taxes than the other 95% of Americans. They pay almost 59% of all income taxes on 35% of all income. Sounds like they pay their fair share.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/sho...
JDC

El Paso, TX

#332 Jun 27, 2011
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's say I had all the money. Since I have all the money, I have to pay all the taxes since no one else can. Does that mean it is too unfair to me and people should have to borrow from me so they can pay taxes? I promise I won't charge them more than the worst credit card rates.
Great real world example!

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#333 Jun 27, 2011
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
The only person you humiliate is yourself with your totally inane comments. Can't even go one post without slinging mud because of course you have nothing else. I on the other hand have a life and I don't sit on line all day posting in an attempt to support some dying ideology.
Read your own post...

...and weep.
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#334 Jun 27, 2011
JDC wrote:
<quoted text>
Income is earned not redistributed.
50% of this country pays no income taxes, I hope that is not news to you.
Income is earned? you mean like you daddy gives you some stock and it pays nicely and you have to pay 15% in income taxes, while someone who puts forth labor to earn an income only has to pay 29%?

What I am referring to is the redistribution of wealth so that most of the jobs left, and the ones remaining have had huge cuts in pay.

I am referring to the fact that the US economy has doubled since 1980, yet salaries are less now than then. The money all went to the top. Half the people don't have jobs that even pay enough to pay taxes. While you may not realize it, that is a horrible condemnation of our economy. In my opinion, if you don't make enough at your job to pay taxes, you are unemployed. Thus, according to your statement, our unemployment rate is 50% or more.
JDC

El Paso, TX

#335 Jun 27, 2011
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Income is earned? you mean like you daddy gives you some stock and it pays nicely and you have to pay 15% in income taxes, while someone who puts forth labor to earn an income only has to pay 29%?
What I am referring to is the redistribution of wealth so that most of the jobs left, and the ones remaining have had huge cuts in pay.
I am referring to the fact that the US economy has doubled since 1980, yet salaries are less now than then. The money all went to the top. Half the people don't have jobs that even pay enough to pay taxes. While you may not realize it, that is a horrible condemnation of our economy. In my opinion, if you don't make enough at your job to pay taxes, you are unemployed. Thus, according to your statement, our unemployment rate is 50% or more.
I would respond, but frankly I don't have a clue what point you are attempting to make.

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#336 Jun 27, 2011
JDC wrote:
<quoted text>
I would respond, but frankly I don't have a clue what point you are attempting to make.
Donna Joe's posts are like that....

...a lot.

“bar0ckalypse n0w”

Since: Mar 10

Huntington, NY

#337 Jun 27, 2011
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Income is earned? you mean like you daddy gives you some stock and it pays nicely and you have to pay 15% in income taxes, while someone who puts forth labor to earn an income only has to pay 29%?
What I am referring to is the redistribution of wealth so that most of the jobs left, and the ones remaining have had huge cuts in pay.
I am referring to the fact that the US economy has doubled since 1980, yet salaries are less now than then. The money all went to the top. Half the people don't have jobs that even pay enough to pay taxes. While you may not realize it, that is a horrible condemnation of our economy. In my opinion, if you don't make enough at your job to pay taxes, you are unemployed. Thus, according to your statement, our unemployment rate is 50% or more.
Mrs. Obama’s South Africa Trip Cost Taxpayers Over $500,000

Marie Antoinette rides again!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 16
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rudy Giuliani Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Walker: I Don't Know if Obama Is a Christian May 20 erty 4
News Chris Christie: 'You Can't Enjoy Your Civil Lib... May 19 Billy Ringo 2
News Obama cracks wise about Kenya, birth certificates May 7 Cordwainer Trout 2
News No NY special election upset on the horizon Apr 29 Black Annie 1
News Giuliani explains why Obama doesn't love America Apr '15 Dix 1,095
News Giuliani pushes Senate GOP to confirm Loretta L... Mar '15 Le Jimbo 35
News Giuliani's fiery rhetoric clouds legacy of 'Ame... Mar '15 Lawrence Wolf 5
More from around the web