Perry out

[KAWDUP]

actually I had read an article or two about how Karl Rove & his people hated Perry and his people from the days campaigning in Texas. That was before the primary campaigns kicked off, and Perry was still undecided about entering the race.

I wasn't sure whether the bad blood was legit, or whether it would really matter when things came down to it, but apparently it was.

This also makes sense.

. . . but I also saw and read other opinions that Perry would make a great candidate, not as good as some that didn't get in the race, but still pretty viable. On the other hand, a lot of my Tea Party friends said "yuk - is that all we get"? So there is evidence on both sides.

But . . . in today's world, there is no possible way that someone would get into the campaign if there weren't enough people telling him/her that it was a good idea. I personally believe it is rather hard to foresee how badly some will do, even if you have it on good knowledge that certain punditry don't like that candidate. Things change so dramatically.

You can say hey look at that, I was right about saying he should have never gotten in the race, but back when it was happening, the same things were said about Newt when his entire campaign staff was either fired or quit.

When I do watch Fox News, I like to listen to Charles Krauthammer. He is a very intelligent man, and he still got some things wrong from what he was saying in the beginning.

Not that he is any more credible than Karl Rove and his bunch, just that he seems to have a pretty level head about quite a few things.

In any case, I am done. We can agree to disagree. I don't think it was that bad of an idea for Perry to get in the race considering who was "in" at the time. I was wrong, but just like many, would not admit it until the debates.

. . . and I guarantee that I am not "blinded" by any nominee.

 

[mhughes0021]

BTW - Perry DID endorse Gingrich: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/breaking-perry-endorses-gingrich/

There appears to be a clear divide in the GOP between the well-connected Bush/Rove/Romney/WallStreet/DC scene, and the "others" e.g., Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, etc.

and then there's Ron Paul.

theres a republican civil war for sure.....the funny thing is none of the big money running the campaigns stand for the tea party.

 

[KAWDUP]

. . . yet.

It isn't any different than when Hillary and Obama were going at it. Saying it like it is somehow a detriment to anything makes you look like you have no idea how it really works.

 

[Thumb]

the Bush pressers used to be awesome to watch...when they tried and tried to get him off message he would get flustered , then angry and finally they'd pull him outta the room.

Bush though was a likeable guy....I'd actually love to take in a baseball game with him and drink beers.

....and don't forget snort some blow.

 

[Michchamp]

. . . yet.

It isn't any different than when Hillary and Obama were going at it. Saying it like it is somehow a detriment to anything makes you look like you have no idea how it really works.

no, the 2008 democratic primary was a typical political contest. I don't think there was much fundamental difference between the two. and for god's sake, Obama made her secretary of state afterward. both of them were acceptable to Wall Street & big business and both would've raked in the cash.

I don't see Mitt doing that with Gingrich, Santorum, and certainly not with Paul. he wasn't going to do that with Cain, Perry or Bachmann either.

Romney is the only GOP candidate with a chance at catching Obama in fundraising.

the divide between the tea party support & Romney IS really the haves versus the have nots. and between Paul and Romney it's even more obvious.

 

[grandy]

Looking forward to the SC exit polls, curious to see where the women voters stand after this week.

 

[KAWDUP]

. . . yet.

It isn't any different than when Hillary and Obama were going at it. Saying it like it is somehow a detriment to anything makes you look like you have no idea how it really works.

no, the 2008 democratic primary was a typical political contest. I don't think there was much fundamental difference between the two. and for god's sake, Obama made her secretary of state afterward. both of them were acceptable to Wall Street & big business and both would've raked in the cash.

You are just forgetting what it was like. It wasn't just Fox News that was predicting a Democratic party split. Wrongly I might add. You think it really mattered how far apart their ideologies are?

C'mon, that doesn't even deserve a response. Everyone was thinking her husband would create some serious chaos - when that did not occur, everyone made up and it was one big happy family again. You have selective memory if you think that was "normal", and this campaign is somehow a huge divide that won't be overcome.

I call BS. Take off your partisan glasses and really assess what is happening. Until then, your cred takes hit.

 

[Michchamp]

whatever.

Yes, I don't think there was much of a split between the Obama/Clinton in '08.

I think there's a bigger gap between Romney and the rest of the GOP field, such that if Ron Paul (or anyone else) runs as a 3rd party candidate with Tea Party support, he would take a substantial amount of votes from Romney.

that wouldn't have happened in '08. You wouldn't have seen Ralph Nader poll as well as he did in '00, for example. the party was going to unite behind whoever was nominated.

also, I like how you consider yourself the guy around here who determines who has cred or not. apparently everyone else here is too dumb to think for themselves, so KAWDUP has to decide who has "cred" and who can be ignored.

...and even if KAWDUP decides you have "no cred," he will still respond to you over and over again, and get upset and start calling you names...

 

[cheeno]

whatever.

Yes, I don't think there was much of a split between the Obama/Clinton in '08.

I think there's a bigger gap between Romney and the rest of the GOP field, such that if Ron Paul (or anyone else) runs as a 3rd party candidate with Tea Party support, he would take a substantial amount of votes from Romney.

that wouldn't have happened in '08. You wouldn't have seen Ralph Nader poll as well as he did in '00, for example. the party was going to unite behind whoever was nominated.

also, I like how you consider yourself the guy around here who determines who has cred or not. apparently everyone else here is too dumb to think for themselves, so KAWDUP has to decide who has "cred" and who can be ignored.

...and even if KAWDUP decides you have "no cred," he will still respond to you over and over again, and get upset and start calling you names...

Seriously who cares if they have 'cred' on an internet message board for Detroit Sports fans? I've already got enough problems with the old drunk at the end of the sports bar determining my 'cred'. Now this.

 

[KAWDUP]

Look at them crying like babies, because I suggested that something they said was not credible. LOL.

Face it, you start losing an argument because you don't always confirm the crap you spew, and I get called out for calling credibility into question. You have a nasty double-standard.

You are going to have to look long and hard to find a thread where I was the one who starts calling someone names.

Calling someone ignorant is not the grave insult you obviously must think that it is. Maybe you need to look it up. I didn't think I had to define the simple terms for you graduated types.

. . . and for the record - I don't determine jack shit about whether you have "cred" on a message board. That is not what is being refered to. It could have just meant credibility with what you are posting in this discussion and nothing more. Do I care whether you think that is important, useful, or even a desirable trait in this discussion? Not in the least.

Carry on with your ridiculous bashing without considering anything contrary or even neutral that might actually allow a reasonable discussion.

It is what you do.

For you to jump all over that like I insulted your mother is just lame.

 

[Michchamp]

ok, well... you just told me i had no cred, or less cred, and now you didn't even respond to the actual point I made related to the argument.

 

[KAWDUP]

The Ralph Nader point was good, but don't you believe that the Republican party, due to the religious right affiliation, along with the Tea Party, and any number of other possible fringe groups is always more prone to talk of the third party spilt?

My point is that this perceived divide/war in the Republican party is no bigger or will have no more lasting effect than in any other past elections including 2008 (without counting Ross Perot's run of course).

You can disagree, but the only thing you offered was your opinion that there are no parallels or comparisons about the size of the gap in 2008. I can find you what Bill was saying in public at the time if you like? It looked pretty divisive to me.

I think the likelyhood of there being a third party run by anyone other than say Trump, is pretty slim. The reason I say that is simple. Every single one of the candidates including the other pundits that didn't get in, all stated uncategorically that the number one goal (no matter who the nominee is) must be to attempt to defeat Obama in 2012.

Is it too lofty a goal or even likely? I reserve judgment as I do not know, but I definitely think there is a lot of evidence that the current campaign, like a huge majority of the campaigns before this one, will end up with all of them united behind a single candidate.

Personally I believe history in on my side, but hey, I didn't join this discussion to get you to believe what I do, just to add some balance to some of these discussions that is sorely lacking sometimes.

I know one thing, I'm willing to wait and see how it all plays out before I get all panicky that a possible split is going to happen all but guaranteeing another term for our current president.

 

[Michchamp]

Yes, I'm just offering my opinion... like most people who post here.

I was not saying "it's a fact..."

I thought it was understood that most postings on message boards are opinions, unless otherwise specified.