What are everyone's thoughts on the RNC chair voting? Steele has dropped out and endorsed Maria Cino, who seems to be the GOP establishment pick. She was also endorsed by Boehner and worked as an operative under W. Same for Ann Wagner...she was an ambassador under W and listed her favorite book as Decision Points. Saul Anuzis is the walking piece of dung that wanted Ron Paul barred from debates and kicked out of the Republican party. I don't know much about Reince Priebus (which is probably why I dislike him the least as of right now), but he is currently in the lead. Apparently, he has close ties to MS governor Haley Barbour, and some seem to think that his motive for running is to try to launch a presidential bid for Barbour.

Priebus wins.

(01-14-2011 05:05 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  .... Steele has dropped out

Shoulda quit a long time ago.l

(01-14-2011 05:05 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Apparently, he has close ties to MS governor Haley Barbour, and some seem to think that his motive for running is to try to launch a presidential bid for Barbour.

I had never heard of Priebus until yesterday and still know almost nothing about him. But I am absolutely positive that if the chairman of the national committee -- Steele, Priebus, or anyone else -- tried to use his position to benefit one particular presidential candidate -- Barbour or anyone else -- the uproar and backlash over that would actually make it much, much more difficult for that candidate to succeed in the primaries. Politically, that would be a disaster far, far worse than any of the problems that Michael Steele had in this role.

(01-15-2011 11:28 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 05:05 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Apparently, he has close ties to MS governor Haley Barbour, and some seem to think that his motive for running is to try to launch a presidential bid for Barbour.

I had never heard of Priebus until yesterday and still know almost nothing about him. But I am absolutely positive that if the chairman of the national committee -- Steele, Priebus, or anyone else -- tried to use his position to benefit one particular presidential candidate -- Barbour or anyone else -- the uproar and backlash over that would actually make it much, much more difficult for that candidate to succeed in the primaries. Politically, that would be a disaster far, far worse than any of the problems that Michael Steele had in this role.

I would imagine he wouldn't be public about it but would definitely attempt to line up the big donors behind a Barbour candidacy. On a related note, the Republicans have a great shot at winning the Oval Office in 2012 and it seems they just can't stop from running the biggest load of horseshit for the nomination. Palin? Romney? Pawlenty? Barbour? Yes, Rebel, I know who Hermann Cain is and haven't seen anything that I truly despise or love about him, but I'm assuming that he would have a hard time in the early and some Southern primaries. However, I don't count him as part of the load of horseshit.

Why can't yall get your act together and get me someone I can vote for!!!!!!!

I'm not impressed with him, but anyone is a major improvement over Steele.

The reason the republicans don't appear to have an attractive nominee at this point is because the republicans don't have a clue, either. They lost the plot somewhere between Monica Lewinsky and Shrub and D*** Cheney, and show few signs of getting it back. As long as both parties see their primary roles as being ATM's for their respective special interest groups, we are pretty much hosed.

They are a lesser evil than the democrats at this point, but you can be pretty evil and still be a lesser evil than the democrats.

(01-16-2011 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reason the republicans don't appear to have an attractive nominee at this point is because the republicans don't have a clue, either. They lost the plot somewhere between Monica Lewinsky and Shrub, we, D*** Cheney, and showfew signs of getting it back. As long as both parties see their primary roles as being ATM's for their respective special interest groups, we are pretty much hosed.

They are a lesser evil than the democrats at this point, but you can be pretty evil and still be a lesser evil than the democrats.

Until they prove to me that they won't bomb anything that moves and that they won't take away more of my civil liberties, I disagree they are the lesser of two evils. That aren't any more evil than the Dems, just equally repulsive.

(01-16-2011 12:55 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  he wouldn't be public about it but would definitely attempt to line up the big donors behind a Barbour candidacy.

Even that would leak out to other GOP donors/candidates and the media, and cause a big stink, thus negating whatever advantage there was to be gained. Besides which, Haley Barbour has been involved in national GOP politics for about 40 years. He doesn't really need to be introduced to the bigfoot donors. He knows where to find them, and they know where to find him.

Quote:the Republicans have a great shot at winning the Oval Office in 2012 and it seems they just can't stop from running the biggest load of horseshit for the nomination... Why can't yall get your act together and get me someone I can vote for!

I know your comment is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the honest answer is that -- compared to most Republicans -- you probably have different political values/priorities, and different visions of how society and the government ought to function.

It is curious to me that out of all the "advanced" industrial or post-industrial countries in the world, the US is pretty much the only one in which there are only two viable, national political parties. I don't think that is true anywhere else. The reasons for why America wound up that way could fill (and have filled) several books. But anyway, that is where we are right now, and people who want to participate in our National political system ultimately have to decide if the Democrats or the Republicans are more in tune with their personal views and outlook. All the other options -- Libertarians, Greens, Ralph Nader's crowd, Pat Buchanan's crowd -- are just different ways of abstaining from the main event.

(01-16-2011 11:14 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 12:55 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  he wouldn't be public about it but would definitely attempt to line up the big donors behind a Barbour candidacy.

Even that would leak out to other GOP donors/candidates and the media, and cause a big stink, thus negating whatever advantage there was to be gained. Besides which, Haley Barbour has been involved in national GOP politics for about 40 years. He doesn't really need to be introduced to the bigfoot donors. He knows where to find them, and they know where to find him.

Quote:the Republicans have a great shot at winning the Oval Office in 2012 and it seems they just can't stop from running the biggest load of horseshit for the nomination... Why can't yall get your act together and get me someone I can vote for!

I know your comment is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the honest answer is that -- compared to most Republicans -- you probably have different political values/priorities, and different visions of how society and the government ought to function.

It is curious to me that out of all the "advanced" industrial or post-industrial countries in the world, the US is pretty much the only one in which there are only two viable, national political parties. I don't think that is true anywhere else. The reasons for why America wound up that way could fill (and have filled) several books. But anyway, that is where we are right now, and people who want to participate in our National political system ultimately have to decide if the Democrats or the Republicans are more in tune with their personal views and outlook. All the other options -- Libertarians, Greens, Ralph Nader's crowd, Pat Buchanan's crowd -- are just different ways of abstaining from the main event.

I am a different kind of Republican, because I am not a Republican....or a Democrat.

WTS, neither party can get their **** straight and neither party deserves my vote. They'll earn it by showing a backbone on our fiscal future or by giving me a direct payoff. Either will do.

(01-16-2011 10:43 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reason the republicans don't appear to have an attractive nominee at this point is because the republicans don't have a clue, either. They lost the plot somewhere between Monica Lewinsky and Shrub and D*** Cheney, and show few signs of getting it back. As long as both parties see their primary roles as being ATM's for their respective special interest groups, we are pretty much hosed.
They are a lesser evil than the democrats at this point, but you can be pretty evil and still be a lesser evil than the democrats.

Until they prove to me that they won't bomb anything that moves and that they won't take away more of my civil liberties, I disagree they are the lesser of two evils. That aren't any more evil than the Dems, just equally repulsive.

I've seen no indication that democrats are any less likely to do either of those things. They actually seem determined to take away the civil liberties that Shrub and Cheney didn't, which is the main reason why I opposed the patRIOT act--which passed with strong majorities from both parties.

If they're no better on those things, and worse on others, then they are the greater evil. But finding evil in both parties is kind of like finding hookers in a whorehouse.

(01-16-2011 02:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 10:43 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reason the republicans don't appear to have an attractive nominee at this point is because the republicans don't have a clue, either. They lost the plot somewhere between Monica Lewinsky and Shrub and D*** Cheney, and show few signs of getting it back. As long as both parties see their primary roles as being ATM's for their respective special interest groups, we are pretty much hosed.
They are a lesser evil than the democrats at this point, but you can be pretty evil and still be a lesser evil than the democrats.

Until they prove to me that they won't bomb anything that moves and that they won't take away more of my civil liberties, I disagree they are the lesser of two evils. That aren't any more evil than the Dems, just equally repulsive.

I've seen no indication that democrats are any less likely to do either of those things. They actually seem determined to take away the civil liberties that Shrub and Cheney didn't, which is the main reason why I opposed the patRIOT act--which passed with strong majorities from both parties.

If they're no better on those things, and worse on others, then they are the greater evil. But finding evil in both parties is kind of like finding hookers in a whorehouse.

as I said, equally repulsive.

This is why if you ever look at my ballot, I'm all over the place. I voted for neither Barack Obama, or John McCain, because I thought, and still think, they are/would be bad Presidents. I voted for the GOP everytime in the Senate, and all but once, a Democrat in the House. Local elections are a little stranger.

But, I see neither party as being worse than the other. They both villify eachother to the max, and they'd both take a candy from a baby the minute you turned your back.

I have on more than one occasion walked into the voting booth and pressed the VOTE button without actually voting for a single person.

(01-16-2011 03:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I have on more than one occasion walked into the voting booth and pressed the VOTE button without actually voting for a single person.

Wait. You can do that?!

(01-16-2011 03:13 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 03:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I have on more than one occasion walked into the voting booth and pressed the VOTE button without actually voting for a single person.

Wait. You can do that?!

When I first started voting in Shelby County, Tennessee we had these big grey machines with a green VOTE button at the bottom. You could just hit the green button when you were done regardless of what you had/hadn't voted for. In Travis County,TX we use computer voting machines that brings each race up individually with the option of skipping.

in Broward County, FL, we had a paper ballot, that was fed into a computer scanner after you voted. and I voted absentee in Ohio. and in SC it was paper ballots as well.

(01-16-2011 03:13 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 03:10 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I have on more than one occasion walked into the voting booth and pressed the VOTE button without actually voting for a single person.

Wait. You can do that?!

The question is Why would you do that. Just Vote Present, like CinC.

The important thing here is that Saul Anuzis lost.