If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   2012: The year of the Obamacan?   (nytimes.com) divider line 28
    More: Interesting, Obamacan, Nelson Rockefeller, Norm Ornstein, social conservatism, nomination contest, litmus tests, Barry Goldwater, the leaner  
•       •       •

2581 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2012 at 11:04 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



28 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-01-05 10:25:54 AM
I thought that was 2008.
 
2012-01-05 10:52:31 AM
OK, how's this for a radical idea? The Republican Party nominates...BARACK OBAMA. Don't worry about the Democrats also nominating him. Just nominate him.
 
2012-01-05 11:09:08 AM
I'm really really trying HARD to care about the demise of the Republican Party....
 
2012-01-05 11:15:47 AM
Rockefeller Republicans aren't dead, they are just democrats and under 35.
 
2012-01-05 11:16:34 AM
You mean Obamayan.

DESTROYING OUR UHMURICUH!
 
2012-01-05 11:21:27 AM
What an Obamacan might look like.
i48.photobucket.com
 
2012-01-05 11:22:10 AM
2012 = 2004. We've got a shiatty incumbent who shouldn't be president, but the clowns the other side is running up against him are somehow not just worse, but a lot worse, so the shiatty incumbent will remain. Ho hum.
 
2012-01-05 11:24:24 AM
HONK BAG II: WRATH OF THE OBAMACAN

/I just don't know this morning.
 
2012-01-05 11:24:54 AM

whidbey: I'm really really trying HARD to care about the demise of the Republican Party....


here are two reasons you should care:

1. The only thing worse than a 2 party system, is a 1 party system.
2. As they crash, the democrats keep moving further to the right.
 
2012-01-05 11:25:57 AM

Why Would I Read the Article: 2012 = 2004. We've got a shiatty incumbent who shouldn't be president, but the clowns the other side is running up against him are somehow not just worse, but a lot worse, so the shiatty incumbent will remain. Ho hum.


Kerry was worse than Bush? Seriously? One was a borderline retarded war criminal that failed at everything he every tried to do in his life, and the other one was . . . boring?
 
2012-01-05 11:27:22 AM
The article's headline is so very true, but needs some fixing.

Not my father's or my grandfather's Republican party.
 
2012-01-05 11:28:38 AM

Why Would I Read the Article: 2012 = 2004. We've got a shiatty incumbent who shouldn't be president, but the clowns the other side is running up against him are somehow not just worse, but a lot worse, so the shiatty incumbent will remain. Ho hum.


Yeah I am wondering more and more what 2016 is going to look like.
It will be another free for all. Biden doesn't stand a chance. I think it will be Hillary and Warren fighting it out on the left and Christi and Huntsman on the right.
 
2012-01-05 11:30:38 AM
there are at least three G.O.P. and G.O.P.-leaning factions in the electorate, roughly equal in size: Staunch Conservatives, including many Tea Party types but also supporters of the core G.O.P. Wall Street establishment; Main Street Republicans, focused on a more populist and social conservatism; and Libertarians (many of who are Republican leaners).

So...

1) corporate Koch-suckers
2) homophobes / xenophobes
3) general crazy people

Yeah, that sounds like the GOP all right.
 
2012-01-05 11:30:58 AM

blahpers: Why Would I Read the Article: 2012 = 2004. We've got a shiatty incumbent who shouldn't be president, but the clowns the other side is running up against him are somehow not just worse, but a lot worse, so the shiatty incumbent will remain. Ho hum.

Kerry was worse than Bush? Seriously? One was a borderline retarded war criminal that failed at everything he every tried to do in his life, and the other one was . . . boring?


I think it was the devil you know vs the devil you don't.
At least we knew what to expect from Bush. Kerry was all over the map.

Of course Romney makes Kerry look like a beacon of consistancy.
 
2012-01-05 11:30:59 AM

blahpers: Why Would I Read the Article: 2012 = 2004. We've got a shiatty incumbent who shouldn't be president, but the clowns the other side is running up against him are somehow not just worse, but a lot worse, so the shiatty incumbent will remain. Ho hum.

Kerry was worse than Bush? Seriously? One was a borderline retarded war criminal that failed at everything he every tried to do in his life, and the other one was . . . boring?


Boring = deathknell for the high school popularity contest that is a presidential election in this country.
 
2012-01-05 11:35:25 AM

blastoh: whidbey: I'm really really trying HARD to care about the demise of the Republican Party....

here are two reasons you should care:

1. The only thing worse than a 2 party system, is a 1 party system.
2. As they crash, the democrats keep moving further to the right.


Other than the foreign policy-related Bush cleanup, I don't agree.

And yeah, I could live with a one-party system for a while. The Republicans are the real problem here, obstructing perfectly good ideas and proposals.
 
2012-01-05 11:40:49 AM

jaylectricity: OK, how's this for a radical idea? The Republican Party nominates...BARACK OBAMA. Don't worry about the Democrats also nominating him. Just nominate him.


He should have ran for it.
 
2012-01-05 11:42:20 AM

jaylectricity: OK, how's this for a radical idea? The Republican Party nominates...BARACK OBAMA. Don't worry about the Democrats also nominating him. Just nominate him.


You realize a) he's black and b) if color were no issue with Republicans, Herman Cain would've been highly touted.*

* -- Yeah, yeah we all know about his infidelities; hasn't stopped Newt from eyeing the prize.
 
2012-01-05 11:44:06 AM

whidbey: I'm really really trying HARD to care about the demise of the Republican Party....


Well, I do. You wanna have a ying to your yang so to speak; but you don't want someone who's so crazy they totally kill whatever sense of normalcy you have.
 
2012-01-05 11:50:07 AM

whidbey: blastoh: whidbey: I'm really really trying HARD to care about the demise of the Republican Party....

here are two reasons you should care:

1. The only thing worse than a 2 party system, is a 1 party system.
2. As they crash, the democrats keep moving further to the right.

Other than the foreign policy-related Bush cleanup, I don't agree.

And yeah, I could live with a one-party system for a while. The Republicans are the real problem here, obstructing perfectly good ideas and proposals.


Heck, a one party system in the US would be democratic, providing that there are fair primary elections. In some congressional districts, the primary already is the only election that counts.
 
2012-01-05 11:56:21 AM
Welcome to 1980, Mr. Ornstein.

The purge of the "Rockefeller Republicans" started with the election of Reagan,
and was fully complete by the time GWB was elected.
 
2012-01-05 01:42:02 PM
Dear moderate conservatives who are open to compromise with others - Please join the Democrat party! Unlike the GOP the Democrats have members of a wide spectrum of views and that is a good thing!
 
2012-01-05 01:42:50 PM

Outrageous Muff: Rockefeller Republicans aren't dead, they are just democrats and under 35.


THIS.
 
2012-01-05 02:17:27 PM

Corvus: Outrageous Muff: Rockefeller Republicans aren't dead, they are just democrats and under 35.

THIS.



By and large, yes, but I think Ornstein's also including certain geezers when he writes about the "dinosaur moderate Republican wing of the party", because he *is* one of these. Anyone who remembers him from Comedy Central's political coverage circa 1992 is probably thinking Ornstein's writing about himself using the third person, here.

Ahhh, the good old days... I think they hired him to lend some intellectual gravitas to the proceedings, which Franken did his best to destroy by dressing him up in ridiculous costumes. But somehow it wound up being both informative and funny at the same time. It was sort of a palaeolithic 'Daily Show'.

/Oddly, a GIS of 'Norman Ornstein pilgrim costume' spits out photos of hot women in party dresses, mostly.
 
2012-01-05 02:37:58 PM

Outrageous Muff: Rockefeller Republicans aren't dead, they are just democrats and under 35.


Bingo. In my lifetime (the last 30 years) the GOP on a national level has moved so far to the Right that I can't see myself voting for any candidate they field. Their social and tax policies are completely antithetical to reality.
 
2012-01-05 02:58:45 PM
Incidentally, I'd love it if both Al Franken and Norm Ornstein found their way to this thread.

They both ought to know that, for at least one stranger, his mental image of Ornstein will always have him dressed up for his 1st grade Thanksgiving pageant.
 
2012-01-05 03:34:37 PM
Off to a noticeable start:

www.examiner.com
 
2012-01-05 04:42:10 PM

blastoh: blahpers: Why Would I Read the Article: 2012 = 2004. We've got a shiatty incumbent who shouldn't be president, but the clowns the other side is running up against him are somehow not just worse, but a lot worse, so the shiatty incumbent will remain. Ho hum.

Kerry was worse than Bush? Seriously? One was a borderline retarded war criminal that failed at everything he every tried to do in his life, and the other one was . . . boring?

I think it was the devil you know vs the devil you don't.
At least we knew what to expect from Bush. Kerry was all over the map.

Of course Romney makes Kerry look like a beacon of consistancy.


Oh yeah, the flip-flop thing. Never made much sense to me; even if he was a waffler, I'd take a coin-flip over a guaranteed moron any day.

meat0918: Boring = deathknell for the high school popularity contest that is a presidential election in this country.


: (

i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report