The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on May 27, 2014, 12:56:25 pm
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/207212-hillarys-secret-weapon-gop-praise (http://thehill.com/homenews/207212-hillarys-secret-weapon-gop-praise)
Hillary's secret weapon? Praise from Republican lawmakers
By Bob Cusack - 05/27/14 06:00 AM EDT
Republican praise of the Clinton era over the last several years could reverberate in the 2016 presidential race, giving the Democratic front-runner a key talking point.
One of Hillary Clinton's biggest challengers in her likely White House bid is convincing voters that she can make Washington work. Critics have long called Clinton a polarizing figure, citing her effort to revamp the nation's healthcare system in the 1990s and more recently, her congressional testimony on the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya.
But Clinton can counter those salvoes by citing Republican compliments of her and a slew of GOP statements on how former President Clinton worked with the other side of the aisle to pass sweeping legislation.
Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), the 2012 GOP vice presidential candidate, last year said if Clinton had become president in 2009, “we’d have fixed this fiscal mess by now.” The Budget Committee chairman was drawing a comparison between Clinton and President Obama, who has struggled to strike deals with Republicans.
Should she become commander-in-chief, Clinton would not lead the nation exactly how her husband did. But she would likely adopt a similar leadership style, and Bill Clinton would be right at her side.
On many occasions, Republicans have touted Bill Clinton's reign as a way to bash Obama. They maintain the 42nd president negotiated in good faith and Obama doesn't.
Former Arkansas Gov Mike Huckabee (R) said in 2012 that Bill Clinton was a better president than Obama “because he understands that in governing, you do have to sit down and work out your differences.” He added that Bill Clinton was pragmatic and makes even some Republicans want to get bumper stickers that say, “I miss Bill.”
Bill Clinton had many clashes with the GOP, most notably during the government shutdowns of the mid-1990s and when the Republican-led House impeached him amid the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But they did pass landmark legislation together, including welfare reform and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
In a speech late last month, Bill Clinton defended his economic policies during his two terms in office, mentioning the revamp of welfare and an earned-income tax credit he signed into law.
“You know the rest. It worked out pretty well,” he said.
In March, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) delivered a speech on the House floor that highlighted Clinton’s achievements and bashed the record of former President George W. Bush: “[Bill Clinton] signed what amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in American history. He reduced entitlement spending by reforming the open-ended welfare system. He produced four years of budget surpluses, and the economy blossomed. George W. Bush pursued the opposite policies with the opposite results.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he had a lot of disagreements with Bill Clinton, but “at key moments he was willing to cross party lines…” The minority leader, who has lambasted Obama on his dealings with Republicans, added that “there is ample evidence that divided government is the best time to do really difficult things.”
Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) last year lauded Bill Clinton’s leadership in 1993 “when he convinced 47 percent of Senate Democrats and 40 percent of House Democrats to defy organized labor and support the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
Other Republicans have extolled Bill Clinton for in working with them in the 1990s on a range of issues.
Ford O’Connell, a Republican strategist who is chairman of the CivilForumPAC, said these GOP remarks will echo in 2016.
“If Hillary Clinton does indeed run in 2016, one of the most powerful weapons she will have in her campaign arsenal is ‘Republicans, in their own words.’ It’s a treasure trove of sound-bytes and footage that could leave Republicans kicking themselves when it is all said and done.”
With Obama's approval ratings mired in the 40s, Clinton will have to put some distance between her and the president.
One way is for her to vow to work more effectively with lawmakers. Republicans and a surprising amount of Democrats on Capitol Hill have criticized the Obama White House's communication with Congress.
O’Connell said, “Need to distance yourself from the albatross known as Obama? Roll the tape. Want to tout your bipartisan credentials to woo independents? Roll the tape. Have to show that you’re a pragmatic problem solver? Roll the tape.”
Jennifer Lawless, a political science professor at American University, said, “I think the [GOP] comments can only help her. Although remarks like that may be damning in a primary, she’s likely not going to be facing any high-level competitors.”
Peter Ubertaccio, the chairman of the political science department at Stonehill College, said, “Those comments may help her in the general election.” But he suggested they will have a limited impact, noting that Republicans “impeached her husband.”
-
I would not be surprised if John McCain split ranks with the party to endorse Hillary, especially if Rand Paul or Ted Cruz got the GOP nomination.
-
I would not be surprised if John McCain split ranks with the party to endorse Hillary, especially if Rand Paul or Ted Cruz got the GOP nomination.
I would be VERY surprised if he didn't do that in that circumstance!
-
These people are all on the same team. I'm sure Hillary still has fat files of dirt on most of them.
-
Tom McClintock who is cited for the transgression of favorable remarks regarding the opposition's candidate, happens to be the conservatives' conservative. He was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party.
-
Tom McClintock who is cited for the transgression of favorable remarks regarding the opposition's candidate, happens to be the conservatives' conservative. He was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party.
I don't care. You have got to know that these things will be used by her when she is campaigning. I am tired of our guys bending over backwards to "reach across the aisle" and try to show that they are "gentlemen". It's a sure-fire recipe for defeat. You never see the other guys respond in kind. Enough of this "my friend" crap! They are not our friends!
-
I would not be surprised if John McCain split ranks with the party to endorse Hillary, especially if Rand Paul or Ted Cruz got the GOP nomination.
Well, according to the poll here at TBR, more than 75% would do the same, either directly or indirectly if Jeb Bush were the nominee. :pondering:
-
Well, according to the poll here at TBR, more than 75% would do the same, either directly or indirectly if Jeb Bush were the nominee. :pondering:
Well, it's pretty obvious to anyone with elementary skills of observation that the GOP has a problem! Maybe it's time to stop blaming the voter and look at the party itself.
-
Well, it's pretty obvious to anyone with elementary skills of observation that the GOP has a problem! Maybe it's time to stop blaming the voter and look at the party itself.
Can't argue that. And right now it seems to be made up (power-wise) of groups with different goals and even principles, traditional political Republicans, libertarians, social conservatives. It seems more divided today the when the tea parties were in their heyday. Bad sign going into a must-have election.
People are dissatisfied with the primary process but seem to have no answer. They've set up several issues as "no compromise". And they've clearly eliminated any candidate who might sit down with the other side to work through these issues.
Maybe they'll import UKIP. *hmmmm*
-
"People are dissatisfied with the primary process but seem to have no answer."
People have been expressing their displeasure with the primary process for the last several elections - but the party does not listen and does not change it! They are the ones that control the primary process and they are hell-bent to keep it the way it is. After a while, the frustration with the system mounts and people are just tired of "playing the game".
My impression is that the GOP has their own agenda. They claim to have a "big tent", but that is only at election time, and then it's "f**k-you" shut up and go away. Unfortunately, the "big tent" is full of people that don't really even like each other and are increasingly wondering "why am I here"?
-
Well, it's pretty obvious to anyone with elementary skills of observation that the GOP has a problem! Maybe it's time to stop blaming the voter and look at the party itself.
And if they nominate another Democrat lite like Jeb Bush the problem will only get very much larger!
-
And if they nominate another Democrat lite like Jeb Bush the problem will only get very much larger!
They disenfranchise the voter and then when they inevitably lose - they blame the voter.
-
(http://media.cagle.com/95/2014/05/20/148673_600.jpg)
-
People have been expressing their displeasure with the primary process for the last several elections - but the party does not listen and does not change it!
I'm completely missing the argument on the conduct of primaries. What do the "people" want? There've been numerous tea party candidates in most primaries both mid-term and presidential. Six of them are running against Lindsay Graham right now. I'm slow I understand, but the only thing I hear is about how "we the People" want the party to change the primaries.
Do you want to take all the money out of the process? Do you want to change the timing of primaries? How about not letting any mainstream conservatives vote?
The only thing I can get out of all this is that if Jeb Bush, Romney, Chris Christie, John Cornyn, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, or any one else who might be considered a GOP supported candidate is nominated, then the process is obviously flawed, since no one wants them as the nominee.
-
Be grateful you get a choice in the primaries.
We have primaries. 4 or 5 potential candidates throw their hat into the ring. They are looked at by the local party group (usually 13 people) and one gets picked for us plebs to vote for or not.
You really want to go that way?
-
I don't like the timing of the primaries and I know a lot of people here share my feelings that by the time I get to vote in my state primary - a lot of the candidates have already dropped out and many times I'm down to just one candidate and "Ron Paul". I believe in the past that some states have wanted to change their primary dates and weren't allowed to. I'm tired of states like Iowa and New Hampshire picking candidates for the rest of us.
-
I don't like the timing of the primaries and I know a lot of people here share my feelings that by the time I get to vote in my state primary - a lot of the candidates have already dropped out and many times I'm down to just one candidate and "Ron Paul". I believe in the past that some states have wanted to change their primary dates and weren't allowed to. I'm tired of states like Iowa and New Hampshire picking candidates for the rest of us.
Some have suggested having all the primaries on the same date. Meh. Candidates who do drop out very early were in almost all cases without real monetary support, or they put it all on one state, like Giuliani did in '08. If Paul or Cruz are viable candidates they will put together a strong campaign chest, and if they can keep from putting their foot in their mouth in the debates, should be able to survive the early primaries. The west, the east, the south, the midwest all participate in the early primaries.
I do think the endless debates hurt most of those who really started well but then had to answer questions. It truly was a circular firing squad.
-
I'm completely missing the argument on the conduct of primaries. What do the "people" want? There've been numerous tea party candidates in most primaries both mid-term and presidential. Six of them are running against Lindsay Graham right now. I'm slow I understand, but the only thing I hear is about how "we the People" want the party to change the primaries.
Do you want to take all the money out of the process? Do you want to change the timing of primaries? How about not letting any mainstream conservatives vote?
The only thing I can get out of all this is that if Jeb Bush, Romney, Chris Christie, John Cornyn, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, or any one else who might be considered a GOP supported candidate is nominated, then the process is obviously flawed, since no one wants them as the nominee.
I don't have a problem with the individual state primaries as they are. My problem is with the presidential primary alone. I'm sick and tired of a few states picking our nominee for us and personally would greatly prefer returning to the old method of selecting the nominee at the national convention.
-
I don't have a problem with the individual state primaries as they are. My problem is with the presidential primary alone. I'm sick and tired of a few states picking our nominee for us and personally would greatly prefer returning to the old method of selecting the nominee at the national convention.
The old "smoke-filled room". But wouldn't that make it even easier for a small money-backed block to manipulate the convention?
-
The old "smoke-filled room". But wouldn't that make it even easier for a small money-backed block to manipulate the convention?
Perhaps it would but it would still be better than what goes on now IMHO.
-
Well, it's pretty obvious to anyone with elementary skills of observation that the GOP has a problem! Maybe it's time to stop blaming the voter and look at the party itself.
Gee, I come to a different conclusion. I suggest the forum-voters might want to reconsider claims they won't vote, unless they get a candidate so far to the right he will likely lose (Goldwater scenario).
In FACT the GOP has gained state governorships, Senate and Assembly seats recently. The GOP holds a majority in the US House, and is predicted to take the Senate later this year.
That is the opposite from "GOP has a problem." By the way, did you see how well the mainstream GOP did a couple of weeks back, in primaries?
-
Gee, I come to a different conclusion. I suggest the forum-voters might want to reconsider claims they won't vote, unless they get a candidate so far to the right he will likely lose (Goldwater scenario).
In FACT the GOP has gained state governorships, Senate and Assembly seats recently. The GOP holds a majority in the US House, and is predicted to take the Senate later this year.
That is the opposite from "GOP has a problem." By the way, did you see how well the mainstream GOP did a couple of weeks back, in primaries?
You and all you establishment loving buddies keep trying to drag Goldwater into this but everyone knows that NO ONE could have beaten Johnson a single year after a popular president of the United States was assassinated! Not eve Jesus himself could have done that!
We loose when we look just like the opposition and win when we don't! History is pretty clear on that!
-
If the quality of the presidents is any indication, the old smoke-filled room didn't have an entirely bad record. It gave us Lincoln and Coolidge. On the other hand, the primary system gave us Reagan. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
As to the party's current woes, we are one charismatic leader away from being cohesive. In general, the various factions of the party were united behind Romney, in spite of our reservations. Had he won, the national party apparatus would be humming along like a machine. As it is, the party is rudderless.
-
If the quality of the presidents is any indication, the old smoke-filled room didn't have an entirely bad record. It gave us Lincoln and Coolidge. On the other hand, the primary system gave us Reagan. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
As to the party's current woes, we are one charismatic leader away from being cohesive. In general, the various factions of the party were united behind Romney, in spite of our reservations. Had he won, the national party apparatus would be humming along like a machine. As it is, the party is rudderless.
I believe you're on to something. But unless someone very special comes out of the woodwork, none of the potential candidates I've seen have a lot of charisma. OTOH, they all have more charisma than Hillary. And BTW I completely agree with your Romney comment.
-
I believe you're on to something. But unless someone very special comes out of the woodwork, none of the potential candidates I've seen have a lot of charisma. OTOH, they all have more charisma than Hillary. And BTW I completely agree with your Romney comment.
Winning the primaries has a way of conferring charisma on the winner once the PR machine has one goal in mind. Personally, I am hopeful that either Rand Paul or Jeb Bush could step into the leadership role. I can live with either of them. Ted Cruz? Not so much.
-
If the quality of the presidents is any indication, the old smoke-filled room didn't have an entirely bad record. It gave us Lincoln and Coolidge. On the other hand, the primary system gave us Reagan. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
As to the party's current woes, we are one charismatic leader away from being cohesive. In general, the various factions of the party were united behind Romney, in spite of our reservations. Had he won, the national party apparatus would be humming along like a machine. As it is, the party is rudderless.
Reince, Fail, Repeat. Until we get a proper Chairman in place with some guts, the party will never pull out of this. Leadership is essential, and that is the one thing the Party lacks.
-
Winning the primaries has a way of conferring charisma on the winner once the PR machine has one goal in mind. Personally, I am hopeful that either Rand Paul or Jeb Bush could step into the leadership role. I can live with either of them. Ted Cruz? Not so much.
Some just exude charisma, and they don't even have to run for office:
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/05/16/admiral-mcraven-commencement-speech/ (http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/05/16/admiral-mcraven-commencement-speech/)
-
MAC wrote above:
[[ Maybe they'll import UKIP. *hmmmm* ]]
I'd vote for an Americanized version of UKIP in a moment -- certainly before I would vote for many of the current crop of "Republicans". I mean that, I understand the implications, and I do not apologize nor do I regret making such remarks.
The election results in Britain, France, and elsewhere in Western Europe illustrate that it remains possible for an upstart party to upstage the "established" parties.
It seems to be happening there.
I believe it could happen here, as well.
-
alicewonders wrote:
[[ My impression is that the GOP has their own agenda. They claim to have a "big tent", but that is only at election time, and then it's "f**k-you" shut up and go away. Unfortunately, the "big tent" is full of people that don't really even like each other and are increasingly wondering "why am I here"? ]]
See my post just above....
-
MAC wrote above:
[[ I'm completely missing the argument on the conduct of primaries. What do the "people" want? ]]
OK, here's an answer for you:
Make the Republican primaries -- ALL OF THEM, EVERYWHERE -- "closed" primaries.
That is to say, no independents voting, no democrats -- ONLY registered Republican voters.
How's that?
-
Bigun wrote above:
[[ I'm sick and tired of a few states picking our nominee for us and personally would greatly prefer returning to the old method of selecting the nominee at the national convention. ]]
I kinda agree with you.
Seems there was just as good a chance -- perhaps a better one -- of getting a "winnable" candidate from the smoke-filled rooms, rather than the current system of "Republican primaries".
But no one's going back to that.
Quite the contrary -- I expect that we're going to see a whole string of lousy Pubbie candidates for years to come, chosen as a result of the "system" that is in place now...
-
MAC wrote above:
[[ I'm completely missing the argument on the conduct of primaries. What do the "people" want? ]]
OK, here's an answer for you:
Make the Republican primaries -- ALL OF THEM, EVERYWHERE -- "closed" primaries.
That is to say, no independents voting, no democrats -- ONLY registered Republican voters.
How's that?
Fine with me. I'm a registered Republican. I'll be voting. It's the other 75% of y'all here who "claim" to be indies that'll be left out. Maybe I won't see quite so many one-issue wonders running for office.
-
Fine with me. I'm a registered Republican. I'll be voting. It's the other 75% of y'all here who "claim" to be indies that'll be left out. Maybe I won't see quite so many one-issue wonders running for office.
Mac, I'm not sure where that 75% figure is coming from, the recent poll? I believe that almost everyone here retains their Republican registration if they live in a state with closed primary, so that they can vote in them. I do. I think the poll result (take them for what they are worth), was more about whether or not people (regardless of party registration) would vote for Jeb Bush.
-
Mac, I'm not sure where that 75% figure is coming from, the recent poll? I believe that almost everyone here retains their Republican registration if they live in a state with closed primary, so that they can vote in them. I do. I think the poll result (take them for what they are worth), was more about whether or not people (regardless of party registration) would vote for Jeb Bush.
Late to the discussion, but the tone of the threads in here for the past year or so easily shows that almost 3 out of 4 posters that engage in 'spirited' debate are not at all happy with the Republican Party.
It can't be denied.
It seems the moniker "SOCONS" really irritates some people. [I'd like to see a thread debating why that is....LOL]
Look in the mirror folks. It starts there. If you are able to treat your vote like a poker chip, and walk away when the Progressive Left continue to choke the last breath from our Republic.....then you should seek professional help. Drop to your knees and ask yourselves...."What would George Washington do?"
-
Mac, I'm not sure where that 75% figure is coming from, the recent poll? I believe that almost everyone here retains their Republican registration if they live in a state with closed primary, so that they can vote in them. I do. I think the poll result (take them for what they are worth), was more about whether or not people (regardless of party registration) would vote for Jeb Bush.
You're no doubt right Katz. I was being a tad facetious because so many here claim to be indies and not linked to any party...well a few Libertarians and American Independence I guess. But I also believe in the end, regardless of what we say here, most on this forum would hold their noses and vote for the Republican candidate.
But what goes around comes around. Remember "Operation Chaos"?
-
Operation Chaos
wow..a blast from the past. I do remember that one. At the time I thought it was a great idea.
But, the Benghazi Bitch lost all her appeal and let a muslim named, clean, articulate black man with no discernible negro dialect beat her.
-
Operation Chaos
wow..a blast from the past. I do remember that one. At the time I thought it was a great idea.
But, the Benghazi Bitch lost all her appeal and let a muslim named, clean, articulate black man with no discernible negro dialect beat her.
Operation Chaos......Hannity's "Stop Hillary Express".......in hindsight, maybe not such good ideas. Be careful what you wish for.
-
Operation Chaos......Hannity's "Stop Hillary Express".......in hindsight, maybe not such good ideas. Be careful what you wish for.
Hillary and Barack Obama are virtually the same people...politically.
They are both Alinsky warriors. Hillary started government run healthcare. if Bill Clinton had the majority in both Houses that Obama enjoyed...we'd have been right here twenty years ago.
Hillary was a known....Obama an "unknown" by the great unwashed.
-
DC Patriot wrote above:
[[ Drop to your knees and ask yourselves...."What would George Washington do?" ]]
Washington assembled an army and started shooting.
What should traditional-minded Euro-Americans do?
-
Late to the discussion, but the tone of the threads in here for the past year or so easily shows that almost 3 out of 4 posters that engage in 'spirited' debate are not at all happy with the Republican Party.
It can't be denied.
It seems the moniker "SOCONS" really irritates some people. [I'd like to see a thread debating why that is....LOL]
Look in the mirror folks. It starts there. If you are able to treat your vote like a poker chip, and walk away when the Progressive Left continue to choke the last breath from our Republic.....then you should seek professional help. Drop to your knees and ask yourselves...."What would George Washington do?"
I agree, DC. It can't be denied, and the fact that the GOP has been a big disappointment also can't be denied. Everything is relative. And I think because of the fact that we see the other major party going *so far* toward the left, it makes us clamor even more for a true opposing force to counter it. Physical world example: if I have a bucket half-filled with ice cold water, I need to add really HOT water to it to bring it up to become a bucket of warm water. I sense a lot of frustration because we are seeing the GOP provide us with lukewarm water that is barely warming up the left's ice water.
-
You're no doubt right Katz. I was being a tad facetious because so many here claim to be indies and not linked to any party...well a few Libertarians and American Independence I guess. But I also believe in the end, regardless of what we say here, most on this forum would hold their noses and vote for the Republican candidate.
But what goes around comes around. Remember "Operation Chaos"?
I hear you, Mac. And I guess, my comment on the sub-topic that developed here is that I think all state primaries should be closed. I don't understand why anyone thinks that letting everyone in the state vote for the GOP nominee makes a lot of sense. (And, in most states registration is pretty easy, if one wants to drop their party affiliation after voting in a presidential primary, and change it back every 4 years, that isn't all that hard to do!)
-
Hillary and Barack Obama are virtually the same people...politically.
They are both Alinsky warriors. Hillary started government run healthcare. if Bill Clinton had the majority in both Houses that Obama enjoyed...we'd have been right here twenty years ago.
Hillary was a known....Obama an "unknown" by the great unwashed.
Yes. That is a point that I'm not sure that enough get. I think that most people here definitely do, but I sense the general public has this queer notion that Hillary would somehow be "better" than 0bama.
-
I agree, DC. It can't be denied, and the fact that the GOP has been a big disappointment also can't be denied. Everything is relative. And I think because of the fact that we see the other major party going *so far* toward the left, it makes us clamor even more for a true opposing force to counter it. Physical world example: if I have a bucket half-filled with ice cold water, I need to add really HOT water to it to bring it up to become a bucket of warm water. I sense a lot of frustration because we are seeing the GOP provide us with lukewarm water that is barely warming up the left's ice water.
I'm not so sure about that! Down here in Texas we are cleaning up our OWN house with great vigor! Perhaps those of you in other states might consider following that example!
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,138960.0.html
-
I'm not so sure about that! Down here in Texas we are cleaning up our OWN house with great vigor! Perhaps those of you in other states might consider following that example!
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,138960.0.html
No doubt about that, Bigun. Y'all have the HOT water hose in the bucket!! :patriot:
-
I hear you, Mac. And I guess, my comment on the sub-topic that developed here is that I think all state primaries should be closed. I don't understand why anyone thinks that letting everyone in the state vote for the GOP nominee makes a lot of sense. (And, in most states registration is pretty easy, if one wants to drop their party affiliation after voting in a presidential primary, and change it back every 4 years, that isn't all that hard to do!)
Certainly one could argue that open primaries cause a lot of mischief especially in an election like 2012 where Obama had no primary opponent. But I believe Florida is a closed primary state, and I think both McCain and Romney won there. As an early state it had to influence donors and voters in later primaries. Anyway it's an interesting topic. Comes up every four years.
-
I'm not so sure about that! Down here in Texas we are cleaning up our OWN house with great vigor! Perhaps those of you in other states might consider following that example!
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,138960.0.html
Bigun: I live in Maryland. Where would you suggest I start? (serious question, no snark intended}
-
Bigun: I live in Maryland. Where would you suggest I start? (serious question, no snark intended}
And I will answer you honestly! My not having a firm grasp of the situation in Maryland compels me to say that I don't know. A quick bit of research tells me that there is a republican apparatus in Maryland so my advice is to get involved at your local level and work like hell!
When I got seriously involved here in Texas politics (late 80's) there were ZERO republicans holding state wide office and mostly Democrats in both houses of the legislature. Today there are Zero Democrats holding statewide office and both houses of the legislature have huge republican majorities.
It takes time, money , and effort but it CAN be done!
-
Bigun: I live in Maryland. Where would you suggest I start? (serious question, no snark intended}
evad, I left MD just a few years ago. That state has been so far left for so long that there isn't much to work with. Getting Ehrlich as Gov. for a few years was nothing short of miraculous. I don't know what county you live in, but I'd say if you want any hope of change anytime soon you should volunteer to help Lollar & Timmerman. Everyone who is even slightly to the right will be working for them, and you will find connections you might like. Who knows - maybe someday there might even be 2 GOPers that you can choose between! But for now, work for what is maybe possible.
-
evad, I left MD just a few years ago. That state has been so far left for so long that there isn't much to work with. Getting Ehrlich as Gov. for a few years was nothing short of miraculous. I don't know what county you live in, but I'd say if you want any hope of change anytime soon you should volunteer to help Lollar & Timmerman. Everyone who is even slightly to the right will be working for them, and you will find connections you might like. Who knows - maybe someday there might even be 2 GOPers that you can choose between! But for now, work for what is maybe possible.
I'm in Maryland.
Seriously thinking of changing my voter registration to Democrat.
You never know....it could buy me six more months of medical treatment. No snark intended.
-
I'm in Maryland.
Seriously thinking of changing my voter registration to Democrat.
You never know....it could buy me six more months of medical treatment. No snark intended.
I was a registered dim in MD for most of the time I was there. If you can't vote in the dim primaries, you don't have much to say about who is elected. Of course, I always voted GOP in the general election, but there never was a primary challenge for that party's nomination. I changed to GOP when it looked like Bush could win the presidency, and stayed that way when Ehrlich had a chance to become gov. I wouldn't fault anyone for registering dim in that state, although it does sound to me like Lollar has a chance to win, and I'd certainly like it if he did.
-
I was a registered dim in MD for most of the time I was there. If you can't vote in the dim primaries, you don't have much to say about who is elected. Of course, I always voted GOP in the general election, but there never was a primary challenge for that party's nomination. I changed to GOP when it looked like Bush could win the presidency, and stayed that way when Ehrlich had a chance to become gov. I wouldn't fault anyone for registering dim in that state, although it does sound to me like Lollar has a chance to win, and I'd certainly like it if he did.
There wouldn't be an ICC (Inter-County Connector) if it wasn't for Ehrlich. And the Dems made it a toll road with a ridiculously low speed limit. And it's patrolled by some police agency that only works the toll roads. LOL!
They are making a fortune from all these traffic cameras. Now it's pedestrian crosswalk encroachment...or a rolling stop on a red signal.
It's virtually EVERY intersection where a signal exists. Then there's the roadside cameras.
In the meantime, the freaking cops are 200 yards down the road with their radar guns. A double lane road with an unnecessary 35 mph speed limit.
I thought to myself, if I was walking with my toddler, I'd stop and say, "See that police officer? He's an a$$ hole!"
Loud enough so he could hear me.
-
I'm in Maryland.
Seriously thinking of changing my voter registration to Democrat.
You never know....it could buy me six more months of medical treatment. No snark intended.
That's the spirit! Quit!
That will work EVERY time! Snark intended!
-
That's the spirit! Quit!
That will work EVERY time! Snark intended!
Registering as one and voting as one are two separate things.
....but you knew that, didn't you? LOL!
Just figuring that the first group they'll come for in the middle of the night are the Conservative Republicans. The 'enemy'.
Why make it easy for them? Sheesh! :chairbang:
-
Registering as one and voting as one are two separate things.
....but you knew that, didn't you? LOL!
Just figuring that the first group they'll come for in the middle of the night are the Conservative Republicans. The 'enemy'.
Why make it easy for them? Sheesh! :chairbang:
I think I'm on so many "bad" lists that my party registration will not be the only reason they come for me in the night. All of us here, I figure are already on some kind of list, don't you think? On keywords alone, I'm screwed.
13859 13859 13859
-
I think I'm on so many "bad" lists that my party registration will not be the only reason they come for me in the night. All of us here, I figure are already on some kind of list, don't you think? On keywords alone, I'm screwed.
13859 13859 13859
Actually I know very little about party registration as we don't do that here! When you vote in a primary your voter registration card is stamped with Rep or Dem and you cannot then vote in any run off elections of the other party but that's it!
-
Actually I know very little about party registration as we don't do that here! When you vote in a primary your voter registration card is stamped with Rep or Dem and you cannot then vote in any run off elections of the other party but that's it!
That's interesting. Here - you have to "declare" yourself by registering as either a "D" or an "R" - if you want to be able to vote in the primary. If your register as anything else, you can't vote until fall. I don't think that's right, it leaves the power in the hands of the two parties and Independents, Libertarians and other groups can't have a voice.
-
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/988435_10151959239081481_891025315_n.jpg)
-
"I don't think that's right, it leaves the power in the hands of the two parties and Independents, Libertarians and other groups can't have a voice."
What's wrong with that? This exactly how I feel it should be.
It not that the libs or the indies can't have their own candidate, it's that they don't have a say in the RAT or Pubbie candidate.
And I certainly wouldn't want an open primary like some states where rats can vote for the pubbie and totally pollute the entire process.
If you're a rat, you can vote for a rat.
If you're a pub, you can vote for a pub.
If you don't want to commit to either party, tough shiiitesky.
-
That's interesting. Here - you have to "declare" yourself by registering as either a "D" or an "R" - if you want to be able to vote in the primary. If your register as anything else, you can't vote until fall. I don't think that's right, it leaves the power in the hands of the two parties and Independents, Libertarians and other groups can't have a voice.
In California you can ONLY vote in a party's primary if you are registered with the party, or if you are Undeclared.
-
"I don't think that's right, it leaves the power in the hands of the two parties and Independents, Libertarians and other groups can't have a voice."
What's wrong with that? This exactly how I feel it should be.
It not that the libs or the indies can't have their own candidate, it's that they don't have a say in the RAT or Pubbie candidate.
And I certainly wouldn't want an open primary like some states where rats can vote for the pubbie and totally pollute the entire process.
If you're a rat, you can vote for a rat.
If you're a pub, you can vote for a pub.
If you don't want to commit to either party, tough shiiitesky.
There are one party states - like MD. The election is settled in the dim primary. If the rules were as you suggest, then GOPers, Libertarians, etc. could never have any say in who gets elected. Everyone should be able to vote.
I think probably the fairest idea is the one where the states have an open primary, and the two top voters run in the general election. That way, everyone gets to choose.
Any system that limits peoples' ability to vote is not good.