America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

....McCain was electable, until he started campaigning to get the far right...and added caribou barbie to his card.

I think it's funny you think, in a country with a close split on dem/reps population, one that goes back and forth constantly, that the way to win is to choose a candidate that appeals to the far right.... It's like you don't get democracy.

I think it's sad that these days the candidates aren't trying to run on issues which appeal to the majority, they are trying to yell about issues which will motivate the small percentage of the population which constitutes their "base" to vote.... This way we will never get a candidate who represents the people, but rather one who represents the small group most agitated. I suppose we brought it upon ourselves.

If you think trying to appeal to the fringes of either party is a good idea, you aren't trying to lead a country, you're trying to control it with a minority... About the only rep who hasn't been trying to get the fringe whackos riled up is Paul and kasich, both who seem like responsible candidates. Maybe Christie.... And Sanders and Hillary haven't been much better. But the loony fringe left is a little more palatable than the loony fringe right, because they aren't trying to tell you what to do in your bedroom. To think pushing far right is the solution is just silly at best, at worst it's an attempt at trying to wrest control from the majority to achieve the whim of the minority...

Did you forget Goldwater ?

Someone willing to reach accross the aisle and give in on some things to get more than they give up is non viable at this point. Right now giving in on anything is sacrilidge. Reagan gave in on a lot of things to get a lot more. that is in no way acceptable now. Some want this but it's dysfunctional and damaging.

Teddy... You think I'm sad because I don't want to go to either fringe? Or because I don't like a politician telling me what I can or cannot do with my d!ck?

You're part of the problem, with your whining about RINOs and forcing the candidates to play in a far religious right, govt in your bedroom game, or fall out and never make it through the primaries. You're the one who forces me to choose between my pocketbook and my d!ck at election day, and I'll always vote for my d!ck.

The funny part is Cruz is nothing like Reagan. It's an insult to Reagans name to say so. Any true Reagan fan knows that and it's the abuse of his brand rather than anything based on reality. No current candidate is remotely close to him. The funny part is the very folks teddy disparages are close to Reagan than the ones he holds up. It's like bizzarro world.

McCain (also no Reagan) would have been better than Obammy. He chose Palin out of desperation to pacify the extremists and it failed. Palin is an entertainer who had a brief stint as a partial term governor. Keep track of who thought she was a darling of the party and you will find the folks largely responsible for national losses. She and those like her are not the winning solution.

ya, but Palin was hot....

Bolivians = bloviates just like Brazilian is a huge number.

my work is done here.

Right wing does not equal conservative and vice versa.

Judging by the way that they're pandered to, that must be their base.

One of the silliest quotes I have seen here. Reagan would mop up and I would campaign and vote for him every day of the week.

He wouldn't win as a Governor in CA however, because that state is so far gone now.

Bizzaro world is holding up Christie or Kasich as "Reaganesque" when those two are about the furthest from him. You need to go back to school. Cruz is the closest thing we have to a Reagan in this go round and it is sad you don't see it.



responsible for national losses? Did you not see the landslides in favor of republicans? And this was not because of the Rove candidates (read establishment republicans). Many many of these candidates ran as conservatives and won. So I don't get your "national losses" argument, when the opposite is true.

Reagan would not horse trade with a socialistic minded party like the democrats are now. He would explain his case and again force the democrats to move right. I have never said ''no compromise ever." But if compromising, means always the republicans moving further left, then hell yeah, I am for no compromise ever in a situation like that. Why go further left toward socialism?
We are not Europe.

Carter or Obama never got shot either...

Good astrologists are hard to find these days.

Where did I say anything about Christie or Kasaich? Argue with yourself much?

Reagan did horse trade. Period. And he won. He was good at it. Saying he wouldn't now is convenient but it would mean him being totally different than he was which is sort of the point. Reagan dealt with the other side, negotiated and normally won. It's part of what made him great. He engaged and buried them with ideas and ambition. He didn't just bury his head and say no. He didn't capitulate and had his line, but Cruz isn't worthy of washing his taint. Cruz is a flash in the pan one dimensional lightweight. An asterisk. To compare him to Reagan is an insult to Reagan. Simply being a no guy is easy. Reagan did not take the easy path. The only thing in common is they are/were not the preferred establishment guy. But neither is Elmer Fudd.

Reagan was multidemsional and not simply against things. He was actually quite positive rather than negative. As a small minion it was quite fun to work for his campaign. I'm not sure what I could learn about him in school that I didn't learn from experience during the campaigns in Iowa but I'm willing to try. I do value higher learning as long as it's not revisionist.

Teddy there really is only one national election others are statewide or regional. so no I've not seen republican landslides by any republicans in quite some time with the possible exception of a Rove second termer and the reasons for that are interesting and include a sh1tty dem candidate. The fact you don't get it isn't a surprise. It jives with your skewed view of my favorite contemporary President and the first campaign I ever worked on.

Too bad he was wrong.

The socialist frog has been boiling, and the broth is getting more concentrated.

I think we're going from braise to deep fried.

You gotz a boner for Rush.

Fact is part of the Repubs want what Soetoro and the left fringe want they just don't want their names on it. What legislation has the Dog Eater wanted he hasn't gotten? Gun control? HIS fuggin VA is mislabeling thousands of Veterans that now cannot own firearms. His DOJ has ran entrapment efforts on others.....sorry back on point. Show me where the left compromises? Please, I'll listen. But Rush is right about the controlling faction of the left using Alinsky tactics.

See what I did there? I brought it back to him so you could have a happy ending.

I used to listen to rush all the time. I could listen to him at work at the time and rarely missed him for several years. I have nothing against him. I got bored with his act though. He is what he is. An entertainer. A good one too. He's no different than Moore, Stewart, maher etc. And if you listen enough to some it will get old. Meh.

The libs are worse but they always have been. That doesn't mean you can **** the bed and say it doesn't stink. If you want to be like them that's fine but let's not pretend differently. Reagan didn't want to be like them nor was he scared of them.

There are things that could get done if someone blinks first and the other blinks back. Then the game is on. Win it.

Not much in politics is truly new.

That said if the current strategy works for both parties why change?

teeddub, sorry about the Christie/Kasich thing, I think I crossed you with victor. My bad

Ladies and gentlemen, Teddyballgame, the apologetic.

And some don't believe in God......

DemoncRAT controlled senate backed by a PO (S)TUS veto.

What if he's some kind of a warlock or something?

It's called "thread CPR" you're welcome.