Largest lead for GOP in history of poll (started in 1942)

As the internet is saying, "Don't get cocky."

(08-31-2010 08:14 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  As the internet is saying, "Don't get cocky."

I'm not. Just pleased. I never underestimate the ability of the GOP to screw up a good thing.

The republicans haven't shown me much that appeals. But at least they should gridlock the Obama agenda. And that alone is reason enough to root for the republicans this time.

The republicans are pretty much going to have to disavow and repudiate Shrub before I can see supporting them as anything but the only way to stop Obama.

(08-31-2010 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The republicans are pretty much going to have to disavow and repudiate Shrub before I can see supporting them as anything but the only way to stop Obama.

This makes very little sense to me. Bush is gone and isn't coming back. He doesn't speak publically, doesn't push policy ala Clinton. Why is it necessary for republicans to all come out and say, "yeah, Bush sucked" for you to get behind them?

To me it's more important that they push an agenda I can agree with and then act on that agenda as opposed bashing a guy who's been out of office for over 18 months. Are you really of the mindset that they could have an agenda you like and pursue it, but unless they come out and say "Bush sucked" you can't get behind them?

(08-31-2010 08:58 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The republicans are pretty much going to have to disavow and repudiate Shrub before I can see supporting them as anything but the only way to stop Obama.

This makes very little sense to me. Bush is gone and isn't coming back. He doesn't speak publically, doesn't push policy ala Clinton. Why is it necessary for republicans to all come out and say, "yeah, Bush sucked" for you to get behind them?
To me it's more important that they push an agenda I can agree with and then act on that agenda as opposed bashing a guy who's been out of office for over 18 months. Are you really of the mindset that they could have an agenda you like and pursue it, but unless they come out and say "Bush sucked" you can't get behind them?

I mean a repudiation of Shrub's agenda, not a repudiation of him personally. They cannot push an agenda that I can agree with unless they pretty much repudiate everything Shrub did.

(08-31-2010 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The republicans haven't shown me much that appeals. But at least they should gridlock the Obama agenda. And that alone is reason enough to root for the republicans this time.

The republicans are pretty much going to have to disavow and repudiate Shrub before I can see supporting them as anything but the only way to stop Obama.

You have got to get over your hate. Have faith we will endure. Quit crying its getting your powder wet.

I will say I'm much more enthused about Republicans nationwide than I can ever remember being, but nearly ALL of them are from the Tea Party or very libertarian:

Level 1: Ayn Rand All-Stars
- Ron Paul (US House, TX-14 ... US President 2012)
- Gary Johnson (US President 2012)

Level 2: Playing the game ... a little bit
- Rand Paul (US Senate, KY)
- Joe Miller (US Senate, AK ... can't readily find his foreign policy position?)
- Nikki Haley (Governor, SC)
- Jeff Flake (US House, AZ-6)

Level 3: A few gaping holes
- Marco Rubio (US Senate, FL; Foreign policy neocon)
- Jim DeMint (US Senate, SC; Far right socially; foreign policy neocon)
- Mike Lee (US Senate, UT; Massive foreign policy neocon who thinks Israel is the 51st state)

I like what I've seen so far, but I'm still somewhat ignorant:
- Mitch Daniels (US President 2012)
- Tim Pawlenty (US President 2012)
- Bill Posey (US House, FL-15)
- Chris Christie (Governor, NJ)

I would work for and donate large to Level 1. I'd only donate moderate to Level 2. I'd vote for Level 3.

On the flip side ... the following people must be repudiated and eliminated from government as quickly as possible:

Level 1: A burning hatred with the brightness of 1,000 suns
- Anybody working within the Dubya, McCain, or Obama campaigns. This includes Vice Presidents (yes, even Palin). No excuses.

Level 2: Unforgiveable sins
- Anybody who voted for TARP. No excuses.
- Anybody who thinks Dubya was a good President or refuses to blast him where criticism is more than warranted. No excuses.

Level 3: Purgatory
- Anybody who refuses to support AND FIGHT FOR the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax. No excuses.
- Anybody who refuses to take on entitlements. No excuses.

(08-31-2010 08:58 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The republicans are pretty much going to have to disavow and repudiate Shrub before I can see supporting them as anything but the only way to stop Obama.

This makes very little sense to me. Bush is gone and isn't coming back. He doesn't speak publically, doesn't push policy ala Clinton. Why is it necessary for republicans to all come out and say, "yeah, Bush sucked" for you to get behind them?

So he can push the "I'm a moderate" mantra.

Sorry Owl. Just calling it like I see it. Seems you try way to hard to please liberals on this board. If they're still bitching about Bush after almost two years when Obama is doing the SAME things, but exponentially worse, they lack the intelligence to utilize your time and effort.

(08-31-2010 09:23 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I will say I'm much more enthused about Republicans nationwide than I can ever remember being, but nearly ALL of them are from the Tea Party or very libertarian:

Level 1: Ayn Rand All-Stars
- Ron Paul (US House, TX-14 ... US President 2012)
- Gary Johnson (US President 2012)

Level 2: Playing the game ... a little bit
- Rand Paul (US Senate, KY)
- Joe Miller (US Senate, AK ... can't readily find his foreign policy position?)
- Nikki Haley (Governor, SC)
- Jeff Flake (US House, AZ-6)

Level 3: A few gaping holes
- Marco Rubio (US Senate, FL; Foreign policy neocon)
- Jim DeMint (US Senate, SC; Far right socially; foreign policy neocon)
- Mike Lee (US Senate, UT; Massive foreign policy neocon who thinks Israel is the 51st state)

I like what I've seen so far, but I'm still somewhat ignorant:
- Mitch Daniels (US President 2012)
- Tim Pawlenty (US President 2012)
- Bill Posey (US House, FL-15)
- Chris Christie (Governor, NJ)

I would work for and donate large to Level 1. I'd only donate moderate to Level 2. I'd vote for Level 3.

I don't understand, you'd vote for the "gaping holes"?

(08-31-2010 09:28 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I don't understand, you'd vote for the "gaping holes"?

They're running against black holes. Better to be a lump of swiss cheese than a giant sucking void. And they have very strong upsides. I can tolerate DeMint's values-voters-ness so long as he keeps fighting for Rubios and Rands and real financial reform.

(08-31-2010 09:24 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 08:58 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The republicans are pretty much going to have to disavow and repudiate Shrub before I can see supporting them as anything but the only way to stop Obama.

This makes very little sense to me. Bush is gone and isn't coming back. He doesn't speak publically, doesn't push policy ala Clinton. Why is it necessary for republicans to all come out and say, "yeah, Bush sucked" for you to get behind them?

So he can push the "I'm a moderate" mantra.
Sorry Owl. Just calling it like I see it. Seems you try way to hard to please liberals on this board. If they're still bitching about Bush after almost two years when Obama is doing the SAME things, but exponentially worse, they lack the intelligence to utilize your time and effort.

I'm not trying to please liberals or moderates or anyone else. My problem with Shrub is not that he wasn't liberal or moderate enough, but that he wasn't a true conservative. What really angers me is to hear liberals trying to characterize true conservative positions as "George Bush's failed policies." I want the republicans to say, "You're right, he did fail, because he didn't stick with the principles that work, and we're going to succeed because we are going back to what works."

He wore a cowboy hat and talked about Jesus a lot, but he spent money like a drunken sailor.
He talked tough about going after bin Laden, and nine years later the SOB is still alive.
When he ran the first time, he said that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business. He did the opposite.

To get my vote, the republicans are going to have to reject those things. I thought you were on that same page.

I want a true principled fiscal conservative. Shrub wasn't. The TEA Party started there, but I'm afraid too many establishment republicans are trying to take it over.

(08-31-2010 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 09:24 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 08:58 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The republicans are pretty much going to have to disavow and repudiate Shrub before I can see supporting them as anything but the only way to stop Obama.

This makes very little sense to me. Bush is gone and isn't coming back. He doesn't speak publically, doesn't push policy ala Clinton. Why is it necessary for republicans to all come out and say, "yeah, Bush sucked" for you to get behind them?

So he can push the "I'm a moderate" mantra.
Sorry Owl. Just calling it like I see it. Seems you try way to hard to please liberals on this board. If they're still bitching about Bush after almost two years when Obama is doing the SAME things, but exponentially worse, they lack the intelligence to utilize your time and effort.

I'm not trying to please liberals or moderates or anyone else. My problem with Shrub is not that he wasn't liberal or moderate enough, but that he wasn't a true conservative. What really angers me is to hear liberals trying to characterize true conservative positions as "George Bush's failed policies." I want the republicans to say, "You're right, he did fail, because he didn't stick with the principles that work, and we're going to succeed because we are going back to what works."

He wore a cowboy hat and talked about Jesus a lot, but he spent money like a drunken sailor.
He talked tough about going after bin Laden, and nine years later the SOB is still alive.
When he ran the first time, he said that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business. He did the opposite.

To get my vote, the republicans are going to have to reject those things. I thought you were on that same page.

I want a true principled fiscal conservative. Shrub wasn't. The TEA Party started there, but I'm afraid too many establishment republicans are trying to take it over.

What, you liked his immigration policies?

(08-31-2010 09:30 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 09:28 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I don't understand, you'd vote for the "gaping holes"?

They're running against black holes. Better to be a lump of swiss cheese than a giant sucking void. And they have very strong upsides. I can tolerate DeMint's values-voters-ness so long as he keeps fighting for Rubios and Rands and real financial reform.

I'm looking for one person that will bridge the void of economic leadership we are experiencing from both parties. That and immigration is the top of my list.

(08-31-2010 09:24 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Sorry Owl. Just calling it like I see it. Seems you try way to hard to please liberals on this board. If they're still bitching about Bush after almost two years when Obama is doing the SAME things, but exponentially worse, they lack the intelligence to utilize your time and effort.

But that's exactly my point. The things that Obama does that I don't like are nothing but the same things that Shrub did that I didn't like, only exponentially worse, as you say. I didn't like it when Bush was doing it, and I don't like it when Obama does it.

Conservatives have to admit that Shrub wasn't one of them. For the life of me, I can't comprehend why ANYONE sticks up for him. I really cannot. Except maybe the socialists who would never have had a chance to come to power without his f-ups.

(08-31-2010 09:51 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  What, you liked his immigration policies?

What do you want to do about illegal aliens? Send them back to Mexico and deal with anarchy on our southern border?

That's what people don't realize. They cause fewer problems here than they would if they were back in Mexico, particularly from a national security standpoint. Think it through. Seriously. How do you see a good outcome resulting if we rounded them all up and deported them to Mexico?

I think we're better off with some sort of guest worker program, where we can at least get some kind of handle on the situation. I would not offer citizenship, at least not until after they jump through a LOT of hoops--full English fluency, oath of allegiance, ten year waiting period where one screw up and they're gone, that sort of stuff. Actually, I wouldn't offer citizenship to anyone on more lenient terms, just maybe a shorter waiting period for those who go through the process legally.

(08-31-2010 12:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 09:51 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  What, you liked his immigration policies?

What do you want to do about illegal aliens? Send them back to Mexico and deal with anarchy on our southern border?

That's what Abrams, Bradleys, and Strykers are for.

(08-31-2010 12:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 09:51 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  What, you liked his immigration policies?

What do you want to do about illegal aliens? Send them back to Mexico and deal with anarchy on our southern border?

That's what people don't realize. They cause fewer problems here than they would if they were back in Mexico, particularly from a national security standpoint. Think it through. Seriously. How do you see a good outcome resulting if we rounded them all up and deported them to Mexico?

I think we're better off with some sort of guest worker program, where we can at least get some kind of handle on the situation. I would not offer citizenship, at least not until after they jump through a LOT of hoops--full English fluency, oath of allegiance, ten year waiting period where one screw up and they're gone, that sort of stuff. Actually, I wouldn't offer citizenship to anyone on more lenient terms, just maybe a shorter waiting period for those who go through the process legally.

I sure a hell wouldn't give them any sort or color of amnesty. If they want to immigrate here, I want restitution of services they obtained while here illegally. Since they change their names like some change underwear, I want fingerprints and DNA. I want to know if they voted in elections illegally, its perjury to fraudulently obtain a voter registration card and a 2nd degree felony to actually vote, each occurrence. They should be punished for illegal use of SS#s, if that is the case. In other words, prosecute them to the full extent of their crimes, instead of turning a blinds eye to their illegal activities. And make them pay for the resources to process them for their transgression. Implement any of these and you will see self-deportation. There are way to get the desired action, its just do we have the stomach for it.

(08-31-2010 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 09:24 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 08:58 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The republicans are pretty much going to have to disavow and repudiate Shrub before I can see supporting them as anything but the only way to stop Obama.

This makes very little sense to me. Bush is gone and isn't coming back. He doesn't speak publically, doesn't push policy ala Clinton. Why is it necessary for republicans to all come out and say, "yeah, Bush sucked" for you to get behind them?

So he can push the "I'm a moderate" mantra.
Sorry Owl. Just calling it like I see it. Seems you try way to hard to please liberals on this board. If they're still bitching about Bush after almost two years when Obama is doing the SAME things, but exponentially worse, they lack the intelligence to utilize your time and effort.

I'm not trying to please liberals or moderates or anyone else. My problem with Shrub is not that he wasn't liberal or moderate enough, but that he wasn't a true conservative. What really angers me is to hear liberals trying to characterize true conservative positions as "George Bush's failed policies." I want the republicans to say, "You're right, he did fail, because he didn't stick with the principles that work, and we're going to succeed because we are going back to what works."

He wore a cowboy hat and talked about Jesus a lot, but he spent money like a drunken sailor.
He talked tough about going after bin Laden, and nine years later the SOB is still alive.
When he ran the first time, he said that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business. He did the opposite.

To get my vote, the republicans are going to have to reject those things. I thought you were on that same page.

I want a true principled fiscal conservative. Shrub wasn't. The TEA Party started there, but I'm afraid too many establishment republicans are trying to take it over.

Well said throughout the thread, Owl.

(08-31-2010 02:36 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 12:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 09:51 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  What, you liked his immigration policies?

What do you want to do about illegal aliens? Send them back to Mexico and deal with anarchy on our southern border?
That's what people don't realize. They cause fewer problems here than they would if they were back in Mexico, particularly from a national security standpoint. Think it through. Seriously. How do you see a good outcome resulting if we rounded them all up and deported them to Mexico?
I think we're better off with some sort of guest worker program, where we can at least get some kind of handle on the situation. I would not offer citizenship, at least not until after they jump through a LOT of hoops--full English fluency, oath of allegiance, ten year waiting period where one screw up and they're gone, that sort of stuff. Actually, I wouldn't offer citizenship to anyone on more lenient terms, just maybe a shorter waiting period for those who go through the process legally.

I sure a hell wouldn't give them any sort or color of amnesty. If they want to immigrate here, I want restitution of services they obtained while here illegally. Since they change their names like some change underwear, I want fingerprints and DNA. I want to know if they voted in elections illegally, its perjury to fraudulently obtain a voter registration card and a 2nd degree felony to actually vote, each occurrence. They should be punished for illegal use of SS#s, if that is the case. In other words, prosecute them to the full extent of their crimes, instead of turning a blinds eye to their illegal activities. And make them pay for the resources to process them for their transgression. Implement any of these and you will see self-deportation. There are way to get the desired action, its just do we have the stomach for it.

All of your points have merit, and that's why I wouldn't offer citizenship except through a very exhaustive procedure. It would be reasonable to put steps to address each of those points in some way. One problem is that they probably can't reimburse for prior services because if they had the money to do that, they wouldn't be here illegally in the first place.

I think the way to go is guest worker, get them into the system and get our arms around who they are and where they are, and tweak the solution once we know what we are really up against.

Two things that I don't think you can do:
1. Send them back
2. Make them citizens

Guest worker is about all you're left with.