Archive for Monday, June 13, 2011

Republicans assail Obama, not each other in debate

June 13, 2011


— Republican White House hopefuls condemned President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy from the opening moments of their first major debate of the campaign season Monday night, and pledged emphatically to repeal his historic year-old health care overhaul.

“When 14 million Americans are out of work we need a new president to end the Obama Depression,” declared former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the first among seven contenders on stage to criticize the president’s economic policies.

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, invited as an unannounced contender for the 2012 nomination, upstaged her rivals for a moment, using a nationwide television audience to announce she had filed papers earlier in the day to run — a disclosure in keeping with a feisty style she has employed in a bid to become a favorite of tea party voters.

Obama was hundreds of miles away on a day in which he blended a pledge to help companies create jobs in North Carolina with a series of campaign fundraisers in Florida. He won the two states in 2008, and both figure to be battlegrounds in 2012.

The New Hampshire event unfolded more than six months before the state hosts the first primary of the 2012 campaign, and the Republicans who shared a stage were plainly more interested in criticizing Obama than one another.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who first sought the nomination in 2008, was the nominal front-runner as the curtain rose on the debate. But the public opinion polls that made him so are notoriously unreliable at this point in the campaign, when relatively few voters have begun to familiarize themselves with their choices.

Already, this race has had its share of surprises.

Several likely candidates decided not to run — Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels among them — and at least one who ruled out a race is reconsidering. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said he will decide after the state Legislature completes its current session, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s plans are still unknown.

Gingrich, quick off the mark in attacking Obama, suffered the mass exodus of the entire top echelon of his campaign last week, an unprecedented event that left his chances of winning the nomination in tatters.

All seven flashed their anti-abortion credentials and were largely unified in opposition to same-sex marriage, which is legal in New Hampshire.

Several praised a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman, a position popular among conservative voters. Bachmann said she supported that, but she added that states have the right to write their own laws and said that if elected president, she would not step into state politics — a nod to tea partyers who cherish the Constitution’s 10th Amendment.

Obama’s rivals found little if anything to like in what the president has done since taking office in the midst of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum accused Obama of pursuing “oppressive policies” that have shackled the economy.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty labeled Obama a “declinist” who views America “as one of equals around the world,” rather than a special nation.

“If Brazil can have 5 percent growth, if China can have 5 percent growth, then America can have 5 percent growth,” he added, shrugging off criticism that his own economic projections were impossibly rosy.

Businessman Herman Cain, a political novice, called for eliminating the capital gains tax as a way to stimulate job creation.

Romney stressed his experience as a businessman over 25 years as evidence that he can lead the nation out of a lingering recession.

Said Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the seventh contender on the stage: “As long as we are running a program that deliberately weakens our currency, our jobs will go overseas. And that’s what’s happening.”

As front-runner of a sort, Romney could well have expected criticism from his rivals.

But Pawlenty, a few feet away on the debate stage, at first sidestepped a chance to repeat his recent criticism of Romney in connection with the Massachusetts health care law that Romney signed as governor. It includes a requirement for residents to purchase coverage, a forerunner of the “individual mandate” that conservatives loath in the new federal law.

“My using ‘Obamneycare’ was a reflection of the president’s comments,” Pawlenty said, referring to a word he coined in a Sunday interview.

Bachmann — newest to the race — drew one of the loudest rounds of applause Monday night from a partisan debate audience when she predicted that Obama would not win re-election. He is “a one-term president,” she declared.

Instead, the most conservative presidential field in memory all but said what Ronald Reagan once preached — that government was the problem.

Romney said the auto bailout was a mistake, and said more generally, “Instead of thinking in the federal budget what should we cut, we should ask ourselves the opposite question, ‘What should we keep?”’

Santorum criticized the financial bailout that Presidents George W. Bush and Obama backed, and Bachmann said she had worked in closed-door meetings in Congress to defeat the legislation when it was originally passed.

Pawlenty said politicians had caused the housing price bubble that contributed to the recession, and Paul blamed the recession on the Federal Reserve.

“As long as we do what we’re doing in Washington it’s going to last another 10 years,” Paul said. “What we’re doing now is absolutely wrong,” he said of federal programs meant to support the housing industry.

Even when they differed, the White House hopefuls did so in muted terms.

Santorum said he wholeheartedly supported Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal to turn Medicare into a program in which the government subsidizes beneficiaries who would seek coverage from private insurance companies. Under the current system, the government pays doctors and other health care providers directly.

Pawlenty said he would have a plan of his own that shared some features with Ryan’s but would differ on other points.

The program’s finances are perilous, and Republican calls for fundamental change are at the heart of a roiling debate in Congress that is expected to extend into the 2012 campaign for the White House and both houses of Congress.

Cain bluntly told one questioner he was unlikely ever to receive in benefits from the money he has paid in through payroll taxes during his working life.

Gingrich, who was attacked by fellow conservatives when he criticized Ryan’s proposal for being mandatory, said, “When you’re dealing with something as big as Medicare ... you better slow down. ... If you can’t convince the American people it’s a good idea, maybe it’s not a good idea.”

Gingrich, Bachmann, Romney and Pawlenty all pledged to seek repeal of the health care law that Obama won from Congress earlier in his term. The others on stage hold the same position.

Romney and Paul both said the United States should withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, but disagreed on a timetable.

Romney said that generals in Afghanistan should guide the pullout schedule of American troops based on conditions on the ground. He said the troops should come home as soon as possible under those conditions. Paul said the president must tell generals what to do. He said if he were president he would begin withdrawing troops almost immediately. He said the United States has no purpose fighting a war in Afghanistan.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman did not participate in the event. He is expected to announce his candidacy within a few weeks.


kansanjayhawk 7 years ago

I think that is is clearly time for Obama to be voted out of office. Admit it folks this adminstration is a failure for the economy of the U.S.

beatrice 7 years ago

Would you claim he inherited a strong economy? Do you honestly expect the worse economic crash since the Depression that was left on Obama's doorstep like a parting gift from the previous administration should be over in two years?

Jim Phillips 7 years ago

He inherited nothing. He voted for everything he is dealing with now, economically speaking. He was part of the problem since Congress, not the President, contols the money.

Jim Phillips 7 years ago

Reread my post. He helped create the current crisis during his brief stint as a Senator. But, to answer your question, they are his policies but Congress approved them with little resistance.

Jimo 7 years ago

GOP creates a mess and blames the Dems .... how Republican!

Jimo 7 years ago

In the first quarter of 2009, when Bush handed over a collapsed economy, job losses totaled 2.3 million (almost 800,000 jobs lost per month and accelerating!). In the last 3 months, the economy added 160,000 jobs, this is the face of significant (GOP-demanded) public sector layoffs and a policy of scorched-earth opposition from Day One of every job-creating initiative Obama proposed.

But that's not GOP incompetence -- it's the sabotage of America. Hmmm....wonder what the Colonial Army would have done to saboteurs?

No, the GOP was handed a decade ago (by the Dems) a nation at peace with a balanced budget and surpluses as far as the eye could see. A massive tax cut for the wealthy was enacted and ten years later we have a GOP created lost decade with no prosperity, no increase in wages, no net jobs, and a $14 trillion debt with GOP proposals to double that!! (see Pawlenty's panderous poofery).

Thanks, 1977 - it take real initiative to screw up things this badly == and chutzpah to then blame others.

gkerr 7 years ago

It was astounding how articulate and attractive all of the candidates were last night. I am not a Romney fan due to his waffling and RomneyCare, yet he was very telegenic and powerful in his campaign rhetoric. I could certainly vote for him if he were the nominee.

It's nice to see Newt but only because I know and am thankful that he's toast as far as a nominee is concerned- he is a good debater in short sound bites but is not a steady leader, and is far too unfocused to be president..

Bachmann was extraordinary. Attractive, articulate, a businesswoman, conservative who has lived the philosophy in her family, legal and political life. She was a terrific surprise.
She is an electable Palin. The left has shot it's wad destroying Palin, like the drone bees of the progressive hive they are their stings may be lethal to their victim, but is always lethal to themselves when they imbed their stingers so deep as to spill their own guts. Bachman will be a huge target from here on as she is a magnificent politician who is genuine, attractive and has guts, like Palin has guts, like Cain has guts. She could beat Obama for the top office. She can raise money with the best of them and does not wilt in a crowd. Gkerr

Jimo 7 years ago

Bachmann was extraordinary -- extraordinarily dense, that is.

For example, she confused the 800,000 projected workers desperately holding down jobs with group health care because they can't qualify for individual health coverage that the ACA will provide ... with job losses!!

Out of the millions of people who the ACA will grant individual, anti-preexisting condition health coverage to, the GAO estimates 800,000 will go ahead and quit working jobs they don't want, freeing up positions for 800,000 NEW employees. (There are 800,000 unemployed Republicans voters abandoned by the GOP who'd love to take those jobs!)

I realize Fox Propaganda won't point this out ... even if they understood it. No one else is fooled, however.

gkerr 7 years ago

Jimo, Bachmann was indeed extraordinarily good in the debate last night. Even the leftist media types were impressed as they knew nothing about her and were laboring under leftist Memes- they were shocked by her articulate prose and her energy and optimism. They have put their eggs into the basket of destroying Palin as a political option. This Bachmann is Palin like, and a lawyer, not a showy Ivy league neighborhood activist who taught Resentment 101 using the scripture according to Alinsky with accompanying amen chorus of intellectual fools who droll over all things left, bitter and Ivy league. (These types have flat ruined the country.). Bachmann is a mother of 5 and a foster mother of 24 other dear souls. She is a ten year member of the house, not a hundred day member of the Senate with no history, other than the contrived one ghost written by others. She has childhood and school chums who knew her then and now, not the anonymous cipher who is currently in the white house who has had few if any come forward with reminiscences about their friendships in the past. She is Reaganesque, not a bad thing in light of Barak Obama a kind of Carter light, remembering Carter was thrashed by Reagan and won reelection in a landslide against Mondale, another shallow leftist. No spin it as you will. Bachmann is a real Mench and must be reckoned with carefully or she will it all. Gkerr

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

Nothing but psychobabble about a psychobubblehead.

jafs 7 years ago

Just one example of the contradictions from Bachmann - she supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but says she supports the right of states to make their own laws.

If (God forbid) such an amendment is ever passed, then it will by definition remove the ability of states to allow gay and lesbian people to get married.

You can't logically support both that amendment and "states' rights".

kansanjayhawk 7 years ago

I guess you have to balance the fact that some issues trascend states rights and go to the heart of our moral civilization. Protecting the institution of marriage is just such an issue and it trumps states rights in my view. I do not say this lightly because I do take federalism very seriously but we cannot have runaway courts mandating definitions of marriage and legal protections for unnatural acts.

jafs 7 years ago


I completely agree that some issues transcend states' rights and go to the heart of our civilization, and that gay marriage is one such issue.

Of course, my conclusion differs - the only course that is consistent with our founding ideals is to prevent states from denying gay and lesbian marriage.

As it was with inter-racial marriage.

Jimo 7 years ago

But we cannot have runaway courts mandating definitions of marriage and legal protections for unnatural acts like interracial marriage. Sorry but our moral civilization is more important than whatever minor injustice to a few individual's demand to be treated equally. Protecting the institution of racial purity in marriage is just such an issue and state rights trump judicial interference.

(And please, I am not a bigot just because I believe some citizens are less equal than others.)

kansanjayhawk 7 years ago

I guess you have to balance the fact that some issues trascend states rights and go to the heart of our moral civilization. Protecting the institution of marriage is just such an issue and it trumps states rights in my view. I do not say this lightly because I do take federalism very seriously but we cannot have runaway courts mandating definitions of marriage and legal protections for unnatural acts.

kansanjayhawk 7 years ago

I guess you have to balance the fact that some issues trascend states rights and go to the heart of our moral civilization. Protecting the institution of marriage is just such an issue and it trumps states rights in my view. I do not say this lightly because I do take federalism very seriously but we cannot have runaway courts mandating definitions of marriage and legal protections for unnatural acts.

beatrice 7 years ago

You do know that when gay marriage is allowed it won't be mandatory, don't you?

Liberty275 7 years ago

"You can't logically support both that amendment and "states' rights"."

Sure you can. It would be logically identical to an amendment forcing the federal government to accept state medical marijuana laws as the law of the land while not forcing every state to allow medical marijuana.

jafs 7 years ago

No it wouldn't.

A constitutional amendment on the federal level defining marriage as between a man and a woman would trump state laws, which differ on the subject.

If you want for states to be able to set their own laws regarding medical marijuana, the way for that to happen is to not have federal laws or amendments on the subject.

gkerr 7 years ago

Jaifs, Of course you can. States are required in a super majority to ratify any constitutional amendment. No easy thing without massive support by a super majority of the states. Gkerr

jafs 7 years ago

And what of the states in the minority?

The idea of "states' rights" as I understand it is that states should have wide latitude in setting their own laws, regulations, etc. and the federal government should be limited in scope.

Amendments to the US constitution are an example of the federal government having a very wide scope and impact on states' rights.

Mike Ford 7 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

gkerr 7 years ago

Tuschkahouma, How brave to cackle cuckoos and hang up on Politicians. Seems rather immature to me. For two years Obama had a majority of both House and Senate. All he got done was Obamacare loathed by the people and rammed through with an adoring press who have been shameless acolytes and servants of his agenda. Two wars was not enough for his ego mania he now has us involved in four wars- adding Libya, and bombings of Somalia as well as much deeper involvement in Afghanistan. You sure don't pull out of two wars by doubling down on one of them (Afghanistan) and starting two others without congressional approval, and misrepresenting all the while that it was a NATO and European mission while we are left to pay 75 % of the tab and operate 75 % of the missions. We were going to be finished in what did they say "days not weeks" with no no never any boots on the ground. Now they are talking about months or even years with boots on the ground. No wonder only 26% of Americans support the new war Libya. Please reconsider your thoughts, they are not factual or likely to be supported by any other than leftist cool aide drinkers. Gkerr

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years ago

I disapprove of much of what Obama has done, some of which is laid out in your post.

But the difference between you and me is that I disapprove of these policies on their own merit. You disapprove because Obama isn't a Republican. (although sometimes it's hard to be sure of that.)

kansanjayhawk 7 years ago

I guess in your world the President should be exempted for any blame after being in office? Well -- it does not work that way -- whoever the President is will get the blame or the creidt for a good or bad economy. The simple fact is that we have learned that we cannot use the credit card to get us out of a recession. Obamanomics has been a complete failure and we see just how sluggish our economy is after all of this additional debt he has piled on us. Just remember that after four years of Obamaomics he will have run up more debt than all of the previous Presidents in U.S. history. No doubt about it folks it is time for this guy to be turned out to pasture and replaced by a President who understands economics 101.

beatrice 7 years ago

The married congressman Weiner is being asked by Republicans and Democrats to resign for showing his bits via twitter to a woman while in office. Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife while in office. Why aren't Republicans demanding he step down from seeking office again? If Weiner is unfit to hold office, isn't the same true for Gingrich?

I'm not just pointing fingers. I think Weiner should resign for demonstrating horrible judgment, but it isn't worse than what Gingrich did last time he was in office. I would like to know what others think.

gkerr 7 years ago

Beatrice, I agree with you. Gingrich if anything is worse than that pitiful Weiner fellow. He was a failed Speaker, a failed husband who even abandoned one wife on her death bed. He is an inside the beltway gadfly with great rhetorical skills and even sophistry who cannot get out of the limelight, can't leave DC, apparently can't say no to his wife's thirst for very expensive jewelry, and is a shameless demo gouge who will not follow through for more than two weeks on any of his plans for the nation.
The conservatives, long ago have given up on Newt as a champion of their political philosophy because he cannot be loyal to those who have trusted him including his own loved ones. Gkerr

fancy80 7 years ago

Honestly, it just appears that you are deflecting attention away from Weiner (a Dem) by bringing up Newt's (a Repub) dirty laundry. I like Newt. I think he loves America, I think he writes good books. I think he is very intelligent but he isn't my choice for Prez. and I don't think he has much of a chance at all. I wouldn't lay awake at night and worry about Newt becoming the next Pres. Btw...Wiener has "shown his bits" to more than a woman, as stated above. Try several women, or at the very least, a number of women. Where he screwed up was by saying he had been hacked and insinuating that, quite possibly, it was the Republicans who had hacked him.

jafs 7 years ago

Except that she said she thinks Weiner should resign.

Why shouldn't Newt?

fancy80 7 years ago

Resign from what???? Did I miss something while I was working? Did Newt get a job that I don't know about?

Jimo 7 years ago

Pawlenty's message to Romney was clear: I'd be happy to be Veep! (or any other job that doesn't require me to think much)

Liberty275 7 years ago

I would like to be the first to reassign the acronym "BDS" from "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to "Bachmann Derangement Syndrome". The left has another woman to hate.

Jimo 7 years ago

More useful in this AP story would have been an inventory of falsehoods peddled by various Republicans in their "debate" (a/k/a, mass delusion). Isn't that what the press is supposed to be useful for?

I realize the list would be long but it's greatest hits would have to include: 1. The Recovery Act didn't create jobs. It did. 2. The Recovery Act made the economy worse. A child could pick out the point on a chart where the Act took effect. 3. The stimulus didn't work. Pre-stim job losses = 8 million. Post? Zero. 4. The economy is weak because of "uncertainty." Business survey routinely cite lack of demand (a/k/a, insufficient stimulus). 5. Obama has raised taxes. Democrats enacted multiple tax cuts, especially for the middle class, often over GOP objections. 6. Misleading claims that corporate taxes are the highest in the world. Effective corporate taxation is almost the lowest in the developed world, giving us routine headlines about various corporations paying little or no taxes at all. 7. Claims that Obama has no plan to improve Medicare's fiscal standing. Democrats have passed into law the ACA to control health care expenses, both public and private. 8. GOP will save Medicare. GOP destroys Medicare, despite exposed fake math and wishful thinking that comprises the GOP plan. 9. Cutting taxes even more will bring prosperity for all. Cutting taxes last time was a disaster in every respect. The closest periods of prosperity in recent memory came twice - when Reagan raised taxes in the '80s and when Clinton raised taxes in the '90s.

Fox Propaganda won't mention these facts to the Bubble-heads. I just did.

gkerr 7 years ago

Jimo, Great recap of DNC talking points. All agree that there have been 1.9 million jobs lost since Obama's stimulus package. Remember, pre Stimulus we were told by Obama that jobless rating would peak below 8 %, It is now 9.1 and jobs are not being created. If we measured the true jobless rating rather than the fake rating that throws out of the mix those who have lost jobs and given up actively looking for a job, the real jobless percentage would be close to 18% depending upon who you read. Just like the true inflation rate is nearly 10% if measured like it was in 1991.
The government cheats, as in lies about the statistics cause if they published the truth the folks would have their hide. They deceive to stay popular enough to be reelected.
Republicans over the past several decades are little better than the Dems. The Dems are disgustingly horrible. The republicans as a whole are just horrible. Gkerr

gkerr 7 years ago


AP you say. Where was it published? Where can we check the AP story which is clearly just nattering DNC talking points.

No the nation tuned in heard articulate and passionate critique of the squandered opportunity to lead when America is in great need of leadership. Obama and Dems haven't even submitted a budget yet. This is curious since we are in great economic peril.

Why no budget? Obama's political style is to vote present, not take a stand on difficult votes. He did it excessively in both US and Illinois Senate. He is a afraid of making a mistake so he does nothing. Not very helpful to a Nation in Jeapordy. Gkerrk

beatrice 7 years ago

  1. Yes, it absolutely did, but it didn't create enough because it wasn't a large enough recovery package. It also didn't create the 2 million Obama claimed it did, but it created somewhere closer to 1.5 million.
  2. Many economists claim that without it, the economy would have been much worse.
  3. The stimulus helped, but again, see #1.
  4. Correct. (Perhaps people are concerned a Republican will be voted President?)
  5. Absolutely false! Amazingly, few of the "tea partiers" recognize the fact that their taxes are lower now than they have been in decades.
  6. For starters, Obama's health care legislation closes the hole in the cost of prescription drugs and greatly helps Medicare's fiscal standing.
  7. I agree.

Mike Ford 7 years ago

can I give you the cuckoo treatment as I did when I called Bachmann's and Ryan's offices? I love how dumblicans defend their dimwits by claiming there's an attack against them because of their political positions. I attack them because they say outragious and idiotic things that deserve a rebuttal. No conspiracy just attacking the first dummy I hear speak like dodgeball. I'll give you a rundown.... Olympia woman.... Nancy Kassebaum woman.... Sarah Palin...dimwit... Michelle Bachmann....sounding less crazy but still a dimwit....the tea party witch from Delaware whose name thankfully escapes me... raging dimwit. You tealicans and dumblicans so lower the bar that all your clown has to do is repeat the faux news mantra to play the flute to the ruralicans and you don't even sweat the facts. When your constituency is almost completely informed by the churchlicans on 92.3 FM on Saturdays or pillboy from 11 AM to 1PM on the dimwit brainwashing channel KMBZ, how much truth do you have to use??? none....just tell the cattle what they want to hear. If you all could actually field smart candidates who appealed to your idiot base you might win. Too bad you'll have to nominate an idiot to represent the tealicans and throw the race based on your own inept desire of political fascist purity. Newt Gingrich is smart...really????

Mike Ford 7 years ago

too bad ks pillboy you must not like the facts because they don't match what rush told you do they??? you just got owned and that's the best putdown you have??? you better consult rush before they use his large derrier to plug the levees in Cape Girardeau.

riverdrifter 7 years ago

"you better consult rush before they use his large derrier to plug the levees in Cape Girardeau."

Now, that's funny!

Mike Ford 7 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Mike Ford 7 years ago

politics became sporting when the AM radio people dumbed down the process and tried to rewrite recent history with all of the Reagan BS. I became a voter during Reagan. He sucked. Supply Side economics sucked. Ketchup as a vegetable sucked. Just Say No sucked. Stockman and Watts sucked. Ollie North and Iran Contra sucked. The Savings and Loan scandal and Charles Keating and his attacks on the first amendment sucked. Neil Bush and Silverado Savings and Loan sucked. Tribal gaming signed into law by Reagan didn't suck but bad memory conservatives don't like the whole picture. They want their mythology and they want their mythology to be fact in a fascist world in their minds where there's personal freedom except for those whom the churchlicans scorn. Keep up the contradictions...they'll sink you at some point.

Mike Ford 7 years ago

sorry for the family guy reference if it violated anything. you know peter griffin's on family guy right? some of these fox people don't act any smarter than peter griffin and that was the purpose of my comment.

somedude20 7 years ago

for all of these jagaloons who say that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts try and remember when the Govt was going to shut down what party demanded that tax cut to be extended otherwise no budget would be passed. Can you remember? Of course you can't as you were not designed for thinking rather you are likkke cattle bread for meat. I love how some try to rewrite history next thing you know America lost to the British, the South won the war and magic underwear lives unprecedented...have a nice day!

beatrice 7 years ago

I started this earlier in a question about Newt Gingrich and congressman Weiner. I find it interesting the way some conservatives will demand that Weiner step down from office for trying to cheat on his wife, yet we know that the last guy to run for the Republican office, John McCain, cheated on his first wife. The current Republican slate also has at least one known cheater in Gingrich and possibly two if Rudy Guiliani joins the race. And many Republicans seem okay with it. Nobody demanded Newt get off the stage during the debate. Why is this?

If it isn't the cheating, then what is it exactly that differentiates Weiner from known Republican cheaters who get support from many conservatives?

To restate my opinion, I think Weiner should resign.

xclusive85 7 years ago

Here's what I will say about Weiner. I don't care whether or not he resigns. I don't care about if someone in office cheats. I personally wouldn't vote for them, but others might. Republicans seem to be a party that champions the sanctity of marriage, and dems seem to be of the mindset that there really is no sanctity in marriage, just benefits. I think that Republicans would be acting more on their beliefs to call for resignations due to cheating/attempted cheating. However, why are dems calling for Weiner to resign for trying to cheat, especially since most of them seem to not believe that marriage has any sanctity?

jayhawklawrence 7 years ago

I think you can sum up the Republican plan on the state level and the national level as the "Trickle Down Plan".

Isn't it always the same plan. The only thing that changes is the packaging.

I did not see one person in this debate that was anything other than a salesperson. Not someone I would want to manage the world's greatest superpower.

Perhaps the job has gotten too big for a sane person to handle. Our expectations might be too high and the pool of candidates is definitely too small.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.