The Joke that is the Republican Field...

[Just_Believe18]

As you know, this week has been a disastrous week for the Republican Presidential field. For those of us who know better, it came to no surprise when the entire front-runner field collapsed onto itself with scandal, petty quarrels, and true lack of character.

RICK PERRY:
First, Rick Perry. At a speech in New Hampshire, Rick Perry got on stage to give, what many called, the drunkest speech of his political career. Watch as this embarrassment makes a fool of himself and tell me he's still a serious candidate:

This man is a public embarrassment, and has no place being the President of the United States. There's not a soul on this forum who can possibly defend this man.


HERMAIN CAIN:

And then there was Herman Cain: a dirty pervert who has sexually harassed women who have worked for him. When the news story first broke, Cain denied all charges, but facts slowly began to trickle in, and it became increasingly apparent that the top Republican candidate had a history of shameful conduct in his position of leadership. So what did he do for damage control? Why, he blamed the Rick Perry campaign for tipping Politico on the sex scandal. Very mature.
http://news.yahoo.com/cain-struggles-overcome-allegations-controversy-203207491.html

Since it was reported late Sunday that at least two women had complained about Cain when they worked at the National Restaurant Association — and had received financial settlements — Cain has said consistently he never sexually harassed anyone. But his answers to other pertinent questions have changed. In one instance, he first denied knowing of any settlements with former employees, then said he recalled one, explaining he had been aware of an "agreement" but not a "settlement."
On Wednesday, Cain said he believed a political consultant for rival Rick Perry had leaked the information. The consultant, Curt Anderson, denied it.

And then the Perry Campaign shifted blame towards Romney's campaign
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politi...ey-campaign/5GwfmKAGsyD0No11rL3dTJ/index.html

The campaign of Texas Governor Rick Perry, trying to deflect allegations that their campaign leaked the story about alleged sexual harassment by Herman Cain, is trying to put the attention elsewhere: on former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

The Perry campaign does not claim to have any proof that Romney supporters leaked the allegations against Cain, the businessman and presidential candidate. But a Perry campaign spokesman pointed out that two Romney supporters have ties to the National Restaurant Association, where Cain was president when he allegedly harassed up to three women.

“We never accused anyone,” said Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan. “We simply pointed out the ties between campaign backers and the restaurant association. We’re just saying there are other connections involved potentially in the story.”

Realizing the stupidity of such a claim, Cain's campaign backed off:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...m-perry-aide-leaked-harassment-181128355.html

Herman Cain's campaign is backing off its claim that a political aide to Rick Perry's presidential campaign tipped off reporters about harassment claims against Cain when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.

MICHELLE BACHMANN:

And then there's Batshit crazy, Bachmann, who has fallen under hard times and is no longer a relevant candidate after winning in Iowa.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...d-ideas-in-iowa-says-former-campaign-manager/

Michele Bachmann has “run out of money and ideas” and can no longer expect to win in Iowa, her former campaign manager told ABC News on Monday.
Ed Rollins, who left the campaign in September, said the Minnesota congresswoman had backed off earlier comments by her campaign that Iowa was a “must-win” state because she lacked the finances, campaign structure, and ideas to win the first-in-the-nation caucus state.
“She’s still saying the same things she said in the first the debate. There’s no substance. She says, ‘I’m going to repeal Obamacare.’ But she’s been saying that from Day 1. I told her: That’s your Tea Party speech, now you have to say what you’re going to do next.”

After awhile, the catch-phrases and speaking without substance gets old. Here was a candidate who never should have been taken seriously in the first place. And now her own, former campaign manager is ringing the death-knell to her candidacy.

MITT ROMNEY:
Still Mormon.


As we conclude the first week of November, and marking one year left to the Presidential election, I leave you with this:
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-sexual-harassment-furor-boosts-obama-050333930.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The longer the Republican presidential hopefuls battle over sexual harassment claims against Herman Cain, the better things look for President Barack Obama as he mounts his campaign for re-election.
Cain has been accused by at least three women of sexual harassment when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the mid-1990s, claims that have been front and center in the Republican nomination race since the news web site Politico reported them on Sunday.
The rare instance of infighting in a party known for its unity comes just as Obama, a Democrat, is gaining some traction in opinion polls and the U.S. economy is showing signs of improvement.

 

[hotatlboi]

MITT ROMNEY:
Still Mormon.

I agree with everything except this.

His religion should not be a relevant issue at all, and I don't believe it will be to any but the most intolerant of evangelical voters.

 

[Just_Believe18]

^ That was actually a statement of satire. I agree with you that a man or woman's faith is irrelevant to fulfilling the duties of the Office of the President. "Still Mormon" is in reference to how the Republican voters have continually marginalized Romney with supporting the three above candidates who have clearly imploded. As a result, Romney has compromised his true ideals to pretend to sound like the rest of them.

 

[chrisrobin]

^ That was actually a statement of satire. I agree with you that a man or woman's faith is irrelevant to fulfilling the duties of the Office of the President. "Still Mormon" is in reference to how the Republican voters have continually marginalized Romney with supporting the three above candidates who have clearly imploded. As a result, Romney has compromised his true ideals to pretend to sound like the rest of them.

Good post. Would have been more timely on 10/31 . Brief comments:

Rick Perry: I read his book, Fed Up. Reading level was at about a 4th or 5th grade level - geared to his constituency. SOS, different day. True believers insist that he was completely sober during the above clip. I wasn't born yesterday, and when I see snoggered, I know snoggered.

Herbert Cain: He doth protest too much. If he can't handle the paparazzi, how can he be expected to handle the likes of Kim Jong Il, whoever the fuck he is!

Michelle Bachmann: Her 15 minutes of fame was over a long time ago. Go fellate another corn-dog, Michelle.

Mitt Romney: Being a Mormon is the least of his problems. He changes his stance on virtually issue. He's in the "Mittness Protection Program" - no public statements. He has changed his point of view on so many issues, he no longer exists. Who is this guy? Who cares?

The "beauty" of this group is that one of them will garner the usual 40% of the automatic Republican vote in the presidential election. I hope the "undecideds" will know better.

 

[rareboy]

And Newt is still a slimy sleazeball with no chance of winning.

And Santorum is still a frothy mix of fecal matter and lube.

And Ron Paul is still this bizarre little gnome who only polarizes the issues even more.

And Huntsman is also still Mormon. And served the Obama administration. And speaks Chinese. And is only considered to be Romney lite.

Next Please.

 

[Just_Believe18]

^ Rareboy, who are these people you speak of? Surely you jest at this random accumulation of names you've thrown on here.

 

[rareboy]

Fred Karger

Gary Johnston

Andy Martin

Jimmy McMillan

Buddy Roemer

Matt Snyder

Vern Wuensche

We've yet to hear from these officially declared powerhouse candidates.

My money is on the nomination finally going to Jimmy McMillan.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Buddy Roemer


We've yet to hear from these officially declared powerhouse candidates.

My money is on the nomination finally going to Jimmy McMillan.

If I were new to the political process, and somehow felt obligated to vote "Republican" my vote would go for Buddy Roemer.

I consider him, as he's been presenting himself, as a "moderate."

He's a declared GOP Candidate, and because the only people that seem to be "polled" are the "extremes" Americans are missing out on some real possible candidates IMO.

So the only real joke is how the true "Independent" candidates with REAL grassroots (no national media connections, or corporate, or GOP support) aren't even being offered as viable candidates.

As an American, that's where the REAL POLITICAL STORY is.

Why aren't some of the more "moderates;" rational, reasoned, and clearly true grass roots supported candidates even being shown/given so much as the light of day?

Despite party caucus support, the GOP electorate are only being presented with extremes.

There's an entire "other" list of Republican Candidates who are not only qualified but also listed on many State's GOP Primary ballots that aren't even being considered because of certian "polling numbers."

Who controls those polling numbers?

Those sponsoring the debates?

The RNC?

The Koch Brothers?

 

[Just_Believe18]

^ You two are right. Clearly, the current field is tapped out with charlatans that have imploded because they were never viable candidates in the first place. Yet, serious and legitimate candidates are being completely ignored by the media and GOP. Would it be so hard to allow one or two of them to show up to a debate? If name recognition is the problem, then put them in the spotlight!

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ Rareboy, who are these people you speak of? Surely you jest at this random accumulation of names you've thrown on here.

Nope, as a Canadian he's as serious as someone who's been eating to much Canadian Bacon as opposes to what passes for real bacon here in the States.

It's true.


2012 Declared Presidential GOP Candidates.

There are more candidates that we've been seeing taking up the 24 hours Cable News Cycle.

They're what's going to eat up any "marginal majority" during the first several "early primary" states.

And in my opinion the REAL CANDIDATES, that should be afforded any real attention, but won't because the Plutocracy that owns our media and our Government don't want Americans to know about.

 

[cocksucker4use]

It's Romney. Every day these other clowns stay in the running, they just make the RNC more and more grateful for a flip flopping Mormon who is smart, doesn't proselytize his religion as part of his campaign, keeps his dick in his pants and doesn't lie too much. Basically, Mitt is not crazy and for now if he just keeps quiet and doesn't offend too many people, he can win by letting the other candidates hang themselves with every appearance, speech and soundbite they make.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ You two are right. Clearly, the current field is tapped out with charlatans that have imploded because they were never viable candidates in the first place. Yet, serious and legitimate candidates are being completely ignored by the media and GOP. Would it be so hard to allow one or two of them to show up to a debate? If name recognition is the problem, then put them in the spotlight!

Okay, you're going to have to stop sniffing glue, or the newest "Man Scented" soap and get with the program buddy!

There is so much more going on that either we're not being made aware of, or that we're not paying attention to.

You and I used to get all up in Bush43's shit for his and his GOP followers for making everything so "black and white without shades of grey."

Our political process is now more like an onion, their are layers upon layers of complexities which only further marginalizes, and divides us as "electorate."

A "revolution" is going to have to change a lot more than perceptions.

We're going to have to recognize an entire process so that we're not ourselves manipulated by an already preconceived outcome.

 

[JayHawk]

Actually i think what alarms me the most is with the current economic record ANY other time the sitting President would have no chance at re-election.

I realize we could and have spent countless post discussing whose fault it really is but that isn't very germane to the argument of elect-ability. Why? Because most Americans rarely actually consider the facts before voting. It is a popularity contest using sound bite politics and the economic story would be felt by all and easily laid at the doorstep of the sitting President. (Although there is actually little a President can do to spur the economy and no end to the ways the President can stunt the economy)

So knowing that I would simply clutch your pearls and hope for a better next four years so that it somehow propels the Obama endorsed candidate from the democratic party into the white house.

This lay out of Republican whack jobs has been a cleaning of the house. They laid out all of the 'pop' wonders so that the 'pop' wonders could be eviscerated in the public eye. Now the party doesn't have to argue that X, Y or Z will not make a good candidate. They don't have to take the helm prior to the new norm becoming accepted. Be very wary if New Jersey or Ohio or even Wisconsin (Although I doubt Wisconsin) become successful over the next few years.

The real fight the Dems need to be engaging is to get or keep senate and house seats. otherwise Obama might as well declare lame duck-ancy right now.....

 

[Centexfarmer]

Actually i think what alarms me the most is with the current economic record ANY other time the sitting President would have no chance at re-election.

I realize we could and have spent countless post discussing whose fault it really is but that isn't very germane to the argument of elect-ability. Why? Because most Americans rarely actually consider the facts before voting. It is a popularity contest using sound bite politics and the economic story would be felt by all and easily laid at the doorstep of the sitting President. (Although there is actually little a President can do to spur the economy and no end to the ways the President can stunt the economy)

So knowing that I would simply clutch your pearls and hope for a better next four years so that it somehow propels the Obama endorsed candidate from the democratic party into the white house.

This lay out of Republican whack jobs has been a cleaning of the house. They laid out all of the 'pop' wonders so that the 'pop' wonders could be eviscerated in the public eye. Now the party doesn't have to argue that X, Y or Z will not make a good candidate. They don't have to take the helm prior to the new norm becoming accepted. Be very wary if New Jersey or Ohio or even Wisconsin (Although I doubt Wisconsin) become successful over the next few years.

The real fight the Dems need to be engaging is to get or keep senate and house seats. otherwise Obama might as well declare lame duck-ancy right now.....

I thought for sure that there was not way in hell that Bush43 could get re elected back in 2004.

That the American electorate would vote with their wallets.

But Bush and the GOP used "National Security" and two wars to scare the shit out everyone so Bush43 got a second term.

In 2006 the tide turned, and the GOP lost control of both Houses of Congress for the first time since 1994.

In 2008 America elected its first "African American" President.

In 2010 the Tea Party movement came into view, which has since been usurped by Corporate Sponsors, and Right Wing Ideologues, and what's left are the top candidates down at the bottom, and the extremists up at the top.

At this point in the time in our political process we have no idea what role that the OWS movement is going to play in the 2012 POTUS or Congressional Elections, but if we still have a Plutocracy come 2014 "Mid-Term" elections, either the "revolution" will still be underway, or there will still be more chaos in the streets, more of a police state, and more REAL FEAR amongst the real "middle class" where we'll all decide that it's time to "hunker down."

I'm just saying.

 

[JayHawk]

I just find it ironic that the true middle class are in OWS camps tryin to demand the truly poor who are showing up bring something with them. Although the middle class in the camps SAYS they desire to share the wealth....just not their wealth.

I agree there have been many unpredictable turns... the genius who can figure out the turns will be the king maker for the next few years. Whether that be R or D.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I just find it ironic that the true middle class are in OWS camps tryin to demand the truly poor who are showing up bring something with them. Although the middle class in the camps SAYS they desire to share the wealth....just not their wealth.

I agree there have been many unpredictable turns... the genius who can figure out the turns will be the king maker for the next few years. Whether that be R or D .

I don't understand what you're trying to say there.

Back when my friends were dying from AIDS, and there was an "organized activism" going on within the "Gay Community" on a National Level I didn't have any money to contribute to the "cause."

But I did have my "time" which was and still is valuable to me.

So I showed up with my time.

I worked the street corners with a clip board, and stood out in the hot sun passionate within my cause to make a difference, and to get as many people signed up with what became the Human Rights Campaign

....as possible.

Because I wasn't donating MONEY, I was never invited to the VIP EVENTS that I was volunteering to get people to attend, join, and donate money to, that after awhile I was FUCK THEM!

"Money Talks and Bullshit Walks," and money and power is all that really matters.

Most people, regardless of the "cause" don't have the time to pitch a tent in a public park, or to volunteer to become "precinct chairs" they'd rather just write a check and let someone else deal with it, so that they can later accuse them of "misappropriation of funds" or whatever else.

It's the "onion analogy" that I used earlier.

The Republican Faithful are going to get the candidates that they deserve because none of them are truly prepared to work for anything more than what the majority is willing to accept.

The same goes for the Tea Party, the OWS Movement, the Democratic Party, and The Human Rights Campaign.

And the sooner, that we as Americans recognize that deficiency within our political process the sooner we'll be to "getting our country back."

We can't sit around and complain about Political Action Committees NOT DOING THEIR JOBS, while we sit around expecting them to represent us.

Your vote is your voice, but we're already way beyond that now.

 

[JayHawk]

CTF I am not just talking about OWSers not having money and devoting time or not having time and so donating money to the cause.

I refer to a group of people who espouse the idea that the wealth should be broken up from the top and dispersed to them because their life sucks really bad. I am am of course poking fun at it BUT in reality agree that a fair tax code should exist that gets the rich paying their due instead of getting richer due to loopholes.

However the same folks that started these occupy protest and have organized quite effectively with necessary materials and food prepared for the masses. yet when the truly poor who are wondering the streets shows up you have OWSers who say they believe in this common sharing of goods.... those SAME folks are bitching that the homeless need to bring something to the party.

So that to me is the ultimate speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It is infuriating to me. Either the 99% as is 'sloganized' exist outside of the rich 1% or it does not. You can not have it both ways.

 

[Centexfarmer]

CTF I am not just talking about OWSers not having money and devoting time or not having time and so donating money to the cause.

I refer to a group of people who espouse the idea that the wealth should be broken up from the top and dispersed to them because their life sucks really bad. I am am of course poking fun at it BUT in reality agree that a fair tax code should exist that gets the rich paying their due instead of getting richer due to loopholes.

However the same folks that started these occupy protest and have organized quite effectively with necessary materials and food prepared for the masses. yet when the truly poor who are wondering the streets shows up you have OWSers who say they believe in this common sharing of goods.... those SAME folks are bitching that the homeless need to bring something to the party.

So that to me is the ultimate speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It is infuriating to me. Either the 99% as is 'sloganized' exist outside of the rich 1% or it does not. You can not have it both ways.

Oh that.

Okay that the "socialist" vs "anti-capitalism" label didn't stick, so now the OWS is now expected to address how they propose to handle the homeless and the poor?

Or how they're (who ever "they" are) has already been perceived in one camp or another to been dealing with them?

Got a link a source that I may have missed in this discussion somewhere?

A story outside of this discussion that I might have missed?

I'll freely admit that I can be as thick as a brick at times, we can get into nuances of which of the 99% vs the 1% are most charitable to "giving" to those who are "the least amongst us," I'd probably side with the 1% because they have more money, and more tax loopholes to make it worth their wild.

Why would the current / leading Republicans GOP hopefuls for POTUS be more capable of addressing that issue?

How, in regard to the OWS movement, can a group of many voices speak out of only two sides of one mouth?

 

[JayHawk]

If as a combined organization you state you would like wealth distributed to the many because they are being left out then how can you desire to exclude a group less than you?

But to be honest this is way far afield of the topic. My fault.

The current group of whackos....on the right...dont appear to offer any sort of challenge to BHO....

It does appear as if Romney is the only viable option Mormon or not....

 

[Centexfarmer]

If as a combined organization you state you would like wealth distributed to the many because they are being left out then how can you desire to exclude a group less than you?

But to be honest this is way far afield of the topic. My fault.

The current group of whackos....on the right...dont appear to offer any sort of challenge to BHO....

It does appear as if Romney is the only viable option Mormon or not....

And BHO's campaign is going to follow the GOP candidate for POTUS lead and paint Romney as a "flip flopper."

Which means four more "or 16 years" of failed Reagan / Bush policies.

Either way the American electorate still isn't being represented.

While the Republicans continue to be the party of No, while at the same time getting everything that they want.