firstly, yes there are sane voices in the republican party nobody is denying that. but the point is that your party is undergoing a fight for its soul. and this is a fight that is brought on by the tea party that wants to drag your party to the far right. its up to the moderate voices to speak up so that the party does not lose its identity. and this is not a stretch, you've seen the kinds of positions the tea party has taken, and a lot of these positions were not criticized by "moderates" for a long time. perfect example is the birth certificate controversy. that was started by the tea party, but so many republicans were silent about it for a long time. they knew they could profit off of the hysteria it created so many stayed silent. the scary part is that many americans think more like the new republican party than the old one. many parts of this nation are becoming more xenophobic and feel like the government is out to get them, and this is exactly what the tea party plays into. republicans need to be careful or else the tea party will take over before they know it.
secondly, why should democrats feel bad about what they have accomplished? its not just the US thats been in a recession, the entire world has been in one. unemployment is high throughout the world, the EU is teetering on the brink, and in our global economy, that affects everyone. despite that though, obama administration has precised over constant job creation most months, reduced the unemployment rate from 10% to 8%, and ended the war in iraq which is saving billions of dollars every month. and from a patriotic perspective, they killed bin laden which was the US top priority for many years. had bush killed bin laden we would NEVER hear the end of it but because obama did it, it becomes more of a side story. democrats inherited a total crap economy, and the first year the economy was on the brink of collapse. they stabilized that, and then have gone on to tackle the issues in the remaining time. they have received virtually no help from republicans, who have blocked most of the bills put forth by democrats in a very partisan manner. boehner has said many times that the republicans top priority "is to ensure that obama stays a one term president". this is a democracy and democrats alone cannot pass legislation - it requires republican support otherwise they cannot make the numbers. so to put all blame at the feet of democrats is ridiculous.
finally, to your point about media in dems pocket and obama not beating romney. firstly what world do you live in? more people in the US watch fox news than MSNBS and CNN combined. and fox news doesn't even pretend to be unbiased, it is the republican mouthpiece in the US. so there goes that point out the window. secondly, the polls are crap. in the republican primaries, the polls had each candidate favorite to take the race from huntsman to bachman to cain to gingrich. in fact, romney was hardly ever the poll favorite and yet here we stand. so forgive me for not believing the polls. at the end, obama will win in 2012 for one simple reason - republicans do not like mitt romney. he is elitist, out of touch, and very arrogant. republicans like politicians like bush that seem more down to earth and "someone you can have a beer with". romney ain't that guy. so when it actually comes time to vote, i'm predicting that many republicans will either not vote at all, or some will cross party lines and vote for obama. barring any great political gaffes, i can't see how romney even comes close to beating obama in 2012.
Well first point you mention I partially agree that Moderate voices in Republican camps stay quiet. But not because of giving leeway to tea party but because of fear of losing their conservative appeal to voters. Tea Party did whatever they intended to do successfully, though GOP in the end had to pay the price in the form of resignation of moderate conservatives like Olympia Snow and Arlene Spector. In addition, it is also politics. I can equally asked that what were democrats doing when they have the house and senate for two years. They didn't need republicans support, they could've done it without them. But of course they were intoxicated by their success in 2008 and when Tea Party brought them back to earth, they once again started the blame game.
Second point you mention, is again a cry of losers. You are forgetting you have the house and senate for two years and it was more of OBAMA admins failure then anything that cost democrats the house. Now you cannot come out and blame Republicans solely for objecting on bills which are not favoring their interests. Economy was derailing, but OBAMA contrary to his campaign promise had no solutions to fix it. The idea that he stabilize the economy is not true. The job creation numbers were inflated otherwise they wouldn't have dropped down so drastically in three months after job growth was reported. Obama is no saint, read about his political career. He's a pure Chicago brass politician and against all of his opponent he went below the belt. So assuming that he was bulleyed by republicans is just a mere thought, nothing substantial in it.
I am in Wisconsin these days, it's a majority white state where I see considerable number of middle class and poor people as well. Wisconsin being a swing state has a lot of campaign value, but why voters are turned off from Democrats is big question to answer. The main issue here is economy and job creation, not social issues like south. Scott Walker won his re-election as governor, Tommy Thompson (a Bush era adviser on health reforms) I think will win his re-election as a senator as well, and Congressman Paul Ryan is a among fav to be Romney's VP (though I think he's smarter than that). The Democrats have no answer here for issues based politics. They have no answers for poverty in this state. No reforms brought jobs back to the people. All Obama admin policies are for Govt. to take greater control in order to increase the tax hike. They practically have no solution.
Lastly, your point about Fox news. Though numerically it's true but doesn't hold much water realistically. Fox news is the lone channel voicing conservative views so it's liked by all right wing. There is not a single channel out there other than Fox which doesn't favor Obama. Even CNN, which supposed to maintain it's centralist view have also gone far left in support of Obama. Print media also give no room for conservatives, NY Times, Wash Post, Chicago tribune, Newsweek...you name it. Yet you are coming up to argue that media is not in Obama's back pocket, I completely disagree. More than half of Obama's campaign is run by media, where Republican candidate is at significant disadvantage. Fox popularity is high because that's the only outlet for conservatives. Liberals have choice, otherwise if you combine the numbers you'll find following of liberal media by far ahead of Fox news. Media is what's helping Obama dodge the questions on economy and job growth.
Regarding Romney I am with you. He's not well liked by Republicans. But what appeared that he won't be able to garner enough popularity to beat Obama, he made a contest out of it. I don't know how much a VP selection will matter but smart republicans are not sold on it as a winable cause hence are staying quit on it. A lot of policies Romney cannot defend because he had the same under his time in Massachusetts. It's still an Obama's election to lose. If he cannot beat Romney, I think he can never be labeled as a successful President.
__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -
So the latest propaganda Democrats are trying to pull is to outlaw photo ID requirement for voter registration. As many as 20 states, including 8 swing states are in the mix of having law in place that require Photo ID for voting purposes. Democrats are claiming such law will be racist against Hispanic and Blacks. I wonder how and why? The same people who are required to have Photo ID for purposes of WIC cards and other welfare benefits, why shouldn't there be a photo ID requirement for voting purposes? Democrats are playing race cards to make the issue controversial where in reality they are only making an illogical argument.
__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -
Will it be Paul Ryan? I think it will be Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin for VP candidate. He's currently the chair of House Budget committee, so definitely someone with better understanding of Economy.
Obama camp main khulbuli mach gaii hai...The mistake that McCain made, the lesser impressive Mitt Romney is playing the same card right. Race is on now, Obama will be on his foot now if Paul Ryan got nominated.
__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -
yup, ryan got the nomination. republicans will lead the polls now until the debates start. then people will listen to how stupid romney's policies are and be reminded why he was always second behind either huntsman, bachman, gingrich, santorum, and even herman cain. in the end, it's still obama's election to lose. it's the president that governs the country, not the vp, and i'm still not convinced enough republicans like romney to clinch him the presidency.
yup, ryan got the nomination. republicans will lead the polls now until the debates start. then people will listen to how stupid romney's policies are and be reminded why he was always second behind either huntsman, bachman, gingrich, santorum, and even herman cain. in the end, it's still obama's election to lose. it's the president that governs the country, not the vp, and i'm still not convinced enough republicans like romney to clinch him the presidency.
To a good extent yeah, VP doesn't really matter. But Ryan was a smart pick considering his background and experience in economy and his roots in ever critical midwest. Another point is his Cristian Catholic background, that will sway the reluctant voters. I am pretty sure he'll not make mistakes like Palin did last time. In fact 2nd debate which is between VPs, I am pretty sure he'll give a hard time to Biden. I think he has already done a better job of selling Romney than Romney did for himself past 3 months, and I am being serious here. On the whole a good smart pick. I know him from his public policies stand in state of Wisconsin as well. Till he opens his mouth we can't assume any further.
__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -
Watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN, and he is remarking him as smart, intelligent 42 year old. I can't believe CNN is hoovering praise on Ryan (I mean when was the last time that was done by CNN to any Republican), but it's fair to say that there isn't much left there to criticize. More than anything the track record speak for the credentials. Now as a Republican, I must concede that Tea Party isn't much happy with this nomination either. It might appease voters in South to vote Romney more so because at least Ryan sells the ticket better, but overall Tea Party was pushing for Tim Pawlenty as VP which would have been a disaster. Now the race all of a sudden get interesting. I am excited about this pick, and I really have to hear him out because what was my indifference earlier on, that might change and I will vote for this ticket.
CNN polls are showing that 43% suggesting that Ryan's addition will help Romney camp in election campaign, with 36% disagreeing.
__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -
I am excited about this pick, and I really have to hear him out because what was my indifference earlier on, that might change and I will vote for this ticket.
The Republican budget might keep President Obama’s cuts to Medicare. But a Romney administration wouldn’t.
Lanhee Chen, the campaign’s policy director, left no room for doubt in his statement: “A Romney-Ryan Administration will restore the funding to Medicare, ensure that no changes are made to the program for those 55 or older, and implement the reforms that they have proposed to strengthen it for future generations.”
Avik Roy, a health-care policy adviser to Romney, doubles down. “Whatever you think of Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare, the fact is that a Romney administration would repeal them,” he writes.
But then how will a Romney administration make its budget math add up?
Consider what Romney has promised. By 2016, he says federal spending will be below 20 percent of GDP, and at least 4 percent of that will be defense spending. At that point, he will cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, meaning it can never rise above that level.
All that’s hard enough. Romney will have to cut federal spending by between $6 and $7 trillion over the next decade to hit those targets. As my colleague Suzy Khimm has detailed, those budget promises already require cuts far in excess of what even Paul Ryan’s budget proposes.
But Ryan’s budget includes more than $700 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade, Romney’s budget won’t. And Romney promises that there will be no other changes to Social Security or Medicare for those over 55, which means neither program can be cut for the next 10 years. But once you add up Medicare, Social Security and defense and you’ve got more than half of the federal budget. So Romney is going to make the largest spending cuts in history while protecting or increasing spending on more than half of the budget.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indulged this idea back in May. If Social Security and Medicare are spared from cuts, then to get federal spending under 20 percent of GDP while holding defense spending at 4 percent of GDP, “all other programs — including Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, education, environmental protection, transportation, and SSI — would have to be cut by an average of 40 percent in 2016 and 57 percent in 2022.”
Consider what the Romney campaign, then, is saying: If Romney is elected, then by his third year in office, every single federal program that is not Medicare, Social Security, or defense, will be cut, on average, by 40 percent. That means Medicaid, infrastructure, education, food safety, road safety, the postal service, basic research, foreign aid, housing subsidies, food stamps, the Census, Pell grants, the Patent and Trademark Office, the FDA — all of it has to be cut by, on average, 40 percent. If Romney tried to protect any particular priority, it would mean all the others have to be cut by more than 40 percent.
That’s not even remotely plausible. The consequences would be catastrophic. The outcry would be deafening. And Romney has shown no stomach for selling such severe cuts.
Consider that, even as we speak, Romney is running away from the unpopular bits of the Ryan budget, which delivers far less devastating cuts than what Romney is promising. Does anyone really believe that he will take office and then propose cuts that make the Ryan budget look soft on federal spending? That he will take office and, after running away from specifics during the campaign, propose what would surely be the most unpopular budget in American history?
And does anyone believe that the real Romney is the guy who made these outlandish budget promises in order to win a Republican primary, rather than the guy who is disavowing Ryan’s Medicare cuts mere days after naming him to the ticket?
This is simply not a credible budget plan, and Romney’s fast retreat from Ryan’s most unpopular cuts makes it even less credible. And yet Romney, who has never released the specific cuts that would make his numbers add up, repeatedly touts it on the campaign trail, and the media dutifully reports his promises to cut federal spending by more than $500 billion in 2016, and in fact to balance the budget by the end of his second term, which would require far larger cuts than what I’ve outlined here, despite the fact that everyone basically knows these cuts aren’t credible and will never happen.
I’m not sure what alternative there is, exactly, except to say, as clearly as possible, Romney’s budget plan is a fantasy, and it will never happen.
see ahmad this is what i've been saying, when it actually comes time for debates, all this rhetoric will be exposed. right now republicans are on ascendency because campaign funds are rolling in, ads are going up, and nobody is really holding them accountable. when debates start and romney is asked these tough questions, then we'll see how republicans feel about him. i think what you'll find is most republicans wish the ticket was ryan-romney instead of romney-ryan, and that will increase when debates start. and that does not bode well for romney, who has increasingly isolated both the centrists by pandering to the extreme right, and the extreme right themselves who have never been keen on him. we'll see how things play out!
see ahmad this is what i've been saying, when it actually comes time for debates, all this rhetoric will be exposed. right now republicans are on ascendency because campaign funds are rolling in, ads are going up, and nobody is really holding them accountable. when debates start and romney is asked these tough questions, then we'll see how republicans feel about him. i think what you'll find is most republicans wish the ticket was ryan-romney instead of romney-ryan, and that will increase when debates start. and that does not bode well for romney, who has increasingly isolated both the centrists by pandering to the extreme right, and the extreme right themselves who have never been keen on him. we'll see how things play out!
Yaar, I am not going to defend him. I am not impressed with him either. There is joke going on among Republican skeptics that how awful Romney can be, that even McCain (a seasoned republican and politician) chose a dumbo like Palin over him as running mate.
Ryan though, is a different story. I wish he hadn't come out as Romney's running mate. Among the pool with Jindal, Pawlenty and Christie, he was the most reasonable one. Romney played that card shrewdly and where everyone will be asking questions on economy, Ryan has the answers to appease them. Since Democrats hasn't figured out the economy even after 4 years, all they are doing is throwing dirt at Ryan. Before that there was no negativity towards him.
I am just waiting to see what how OBAMA will defend his failures in those debates. I could care less about what Romney thinks or says. I'll see what OBAMA got left in his armor. It is expected that with the departure of Hillary Clinton and possibly Holder as well, Obama will bring in a new team. Though I don't see anyone in Democrat camp capable enough to solve the economic mess. That left choice to bring some Republican with budget experience to do the job. That's a possibility that OBAMA will do that. Clinton kept Greenspan which was originally put in place by G.H.W. Bush. And Obama kept the Defense Sec. Gates who was originally brought on by G.W. Bush. I am waiting for debates as anxiously as you.
__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -
It is expected that with the departure of Hillary Clinton and possibly Holder as well, Obama will bring in a new team. Though I don't see anyone in Democrat camp capable enough to solve the economic mess. That left choice to bring some Republican with budget experience to do the job. That's a possibility that OBAMA will do that.
Tennessee state Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) falsely claimed on Thursday that it was nearly impossible for someone to contract AIDS through heterosexual contact. “My understanding is that it is virtually — not completely, but virtually — impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex," he told Michelangelo Signorile, who hosts a radio program on SiriusXM OutQ.
ahmad what is going on with your party man? from everyone claiming obama was a communist muslim terrorist who was not born in the US to bachman claiming that hpv vaccine causes mental retardation to akin claiming you can't get pregnant after being raped to now this fool saying you can't get hiv through hetrosexual intercourse? doesn't this rhetoric and ignorance disturb you? its one thing to issue attacks and what not, both sides do that. but i don't see democrats just inventing pure lies in order to further their agenda. republicans have been doing this for a while now, just blatantly lying and inventing total rubbish in order to play on people's biggest insecurities. i think it's dishonest at best, and the party leadership should really step in here before this gets out of hand. unless of course, this is a strategy and these are not gaffes at all, but instead calculated moves designed to tinker with public sentiment?
ahmad what is going on with your party man? from everyone claiming obama was a communist muslim terrorist who was not born in the US to bachman claiming that hpv vaccine causes mental retardation to akin claiming you can't get pregnant after being raped to now this fool saying you can't get hiv through hetrosexual intercourse? doesn't this rhetoric and ignorance disturb you? its one thing to issue attacks and what not, both sides do that. but i don't see democrats just inventing pure lies in order to further their agenda. republicans have been doing this for a while now, just blatantly lying and inventing total rubbish in order to play on people's biggest insecurities. i think it's dishonest at best, and the party leadership should really step in here before this gets out of hand. unless of course, this is a strategy and these are not gaffes at all, but instead calculated moves designed to tinker with public sentiment?
I am not gonna lie, I am equally shocked and baffled. I share this sentiment with fellow conservatives as well who feel like this has gotten a bit too far. When I was in Midwest in summer, it's a different political climate there and instead of fear mongering and hate spewing it's more of an issue based politics there. Republicans were putting there head together to devise a plan for economic reforms for state of Wisconsin and I loved how the focus was more on policy and economic issues, instead of religion and fake insecurities. In south though, that's a dirty game. Politicians have always being notorious about mud slinging and getting personal. Republicans are nudge ahead in this game, but trust me Democrats aren't far behind either. It's because Democrats have media in their back pocket, you won't hear it much.
Here's the thing though, I don't like this ticket with Romney running as president. Paul Ryan is OK, but I can't see an elitist bringing any good to the turmoil we are already in. Republicans stood behind a wrong candidate and that's where my differences are with the party. I am indifferent to election, I feel like OBAMA was disappointing but Romney will be worse. Here's I am hoping that Republicans goes back to their GOP roots instead of being hijacked by tea party, otherwise more Olympia Snowes and Arlene Spectors will follow the exodus. It's not practical for me to vote for some party who I have ideological differences with and I will not vote for Democrat under any condition. But I am not willing to vote Romney either. It's just a sad state of affairs.
__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -
^ i don't think you're the only republican who feels that way. i think a large majority of the party feels how you do. its like in pakistan where the rambunctious minority speaks for overwhelming majority. but unlike in pakistan, i think people here take voting very seriously. i expect many republicans will refrain from voting in this election for the same reasons that you did, and then demand that the party go back to its true base. that's what is required for the sanity of this nation, because tea party has taken the republican party to a weird extreme, and democrats are spending all their time countering the tea party rhetoric. for everyone's sake, the conversation needs to be dialed down and issues need to be discussed. there is too much ignorance and vitriol being spread, and it's only creating confusion and panic.
25Likes
Linear Mode
