The GOP needs a "compassionate conservative" back, or at least one that pretends it really well. What they have now is a super rich man who thinks the poor are poor because they want to be, and a egotistical wacko who thinks the world is his to command.

TsarTom: You just described George W Bush twice.

No I didnt. Bush was not Romney rich. No nominee has ever been Romney rich. Bush ran on the "compassionate conservative" ticket in 2000, and while that wasn't how he governed, he as at least gave the appearance of it. No candidate still in the race does. In fact, the only one that did was Huntsman, and he got run out of the party.

I don't get the point of the article. The author wants a GOP candidate to be like Bush the candidate, but not like Bush the president. But... if any of the GOP candidates, their policies will be twice as damaging as Bush's. So, why give them advice to get elected?

Bush was "The Decider".

As in he decided to phone it in for 8 years while his advisers ran the country.

I didn't realize this was aimed at Republicans.

He did save us from Al Gore.

Cletus C.: He did save us from Al Gore.

Saved from prosperity and responsible governance. We sure dodged a bullet there.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Fark, no.

Car_Ramrod: I don't get the point of the article. The author wants a GOP candidate to be like Bush the candidate, but not like Bush the president. But... if any of the GOP candidates, their policies will be twice as damaging as Bush's. So, why give them advice to get elected?

Yes, it doesn't make sense because they seem to be saying that Bush policies were not good even thought the front runners they want to see win share about 95% of Bush's policies.

Say what you will, but the only Republicans that managed to get elected to President in the last 25 years have been named Bush. You can't argue with that type of electoral results.

/willing to bet that the next Republican President will be named Bush

FTFA - "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Some pundits made fun of it, but that's what many Americans want right now, especially after Obama's failed promises to end partisanship in Washington.

You can just go fark right off, man. Obama can be criticized in many ways, but failure to compromise sure as sh*t isn't one of them. If anything, the man bends over backward to appease a petulant GOP rather than letting them careen from a cliff, taking all of us with them. Hyper-partisanship is certainly alive and well in Washington (one could argue that it's at its highest point, ever), but it's not Fartbanjo stonewalling every single suggestion purely on party line.

Romney just hired a guy to throw shoes at him during his next appearance.

HotWingConspiracy: Romney just hired a guy to throw shoes at him during his next appearance.

Next up: Choking on a pretzel.

dickfreckle: FTFA - "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Some pundits made fun of it, but that's what many Americans want right now, especially after Obama's failed promises to end partisanship in Washington.

You can just go fark right off, man. Obama can be criticized in many ways, but failure to compromise sure as sh*t isn't one of them. If anything, the man bends over backward to appease a petulant GOP rather than letting them careen from a cliff, taking all of us with them. Hyper-partisanship is certainly alive and well in Washington (one could argue that it's at its highest point, ever), but it's not Fartbanjo stonewalling every single suggestion purely on party line.

Fartbongo isn't a uniter! Look, the Republicans are insanely set against him, to the point of being willing to kamikaze the whole country just to see him fail! That proves he's divisive! Vote Republican!

dickfreckle: FTFA - "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Some pundits made fun of it, but that's what many Americans want right now, especially after Obama's failed promises to end partisanship in Washington.

You can just go fark right off, man. Obama can be criticized in many ways, but failure to compromise sure as sh*t isn't one of them. If anything, the man bends over backward to appease a petulant GOP rather than letting them careen from a cliff, taking all of us with them. Hyper-partisanship is certainly alive and well in Washington (one could argue that it's at its highest point, ever), but it's not Fartbanjo stonewalling every single suggestion purely on party line.

This is how constructive dialogue, bipartisan cooperation and a spirit of unity for the sake of country over self begins.

This entire Republican electoral cycle is in reaction to the excesses of W. He spent money like a sailor and expanded government in a way that would have impressed FDR. The Republican Party paid dearly for this in 2006 and 2008 and their success in 2010 is due primarily to a Tea Party rebranding which promised to return the Republican Party to some mythical golden age of small government conservatism. There's a reason that you never, ever hear from W or Cheney or Condi Rice these days. They are persona non grata.

The last thing they want is another W. Is the writer retardo, or a concern troll?

Cletus C.: dickfreckle: FTFA - "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Some pundits made fun of it, but that's what many Americans want right now, especially after Obama's failed promises to end partisanship in Washington.

You can just go fark right off, man. Obama can be criticized in many ways, but failure to compromise sure as sh*t isn't one of them. If anything, the man bends over backward to appease a petulant GOP rather than letting them careen from a cliff, taking all of us with them. Hyper-partisanship is certainly alive and well in Washington (one could argue that it's at its highest point, ever), but it's not Fartbanjo stonewalling every single suggestion purely on party line.

This is how constructive dialogue, bipartisan cooperation and a spirit of unity for the sake of country over self begins.

He's calling it like he sees it. You bastards can stop throwing bombs at us and we'll stop yelling at you.

Cletus C.: dickfreckle: FTFA - "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Some pundits made fun of it, but that's what many Americans want right now, especially after Obama's failed promises to end partisanship in Washington.

You can just go fark right off, man. Obama can be criticized in many ways, but failure to compromise sure as sh*t isn't one of them. If anything, the man bends over backward to appease a petulant GOP rather than letting them careen from a cliff, taking all of us with them. Hyper-partisanship is certainly alive and well in Washington (one could argue that it's at its highest point, ever), but it's not Fartbanjo stonewalling every single suggestion purely on party line.

This is how constructive dialogue, bipartisan cooperation and a spirit of unity for the sake of country over self begins.

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." ~Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, (R-Ky.), October 2010

Now that's what constructive dialogue, bipartisan cooperation and a spirit of unity for the sake of country over self sounds like!

It's worth noting that the Democratic Party voted for virtually every GW Bush policy. Just sayin.

Bush was the most disliked U.S. President (71% disapproval) in recent history (if not all history...ratings don't go back earlier than the 1930s).

That the current Republican party is so full of racists, bigots, idiots, liars, adulterers, corruption, greed, etc. that BUSH can even be theorized to be a role model simply shows the state of the Republican party. That the Republican party is still one of only two major parties seriously contending for control of the country, however, shows the horrible condition of U.S. democracy.

Cletus C.: dickfreckle: FTFA - "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Some pundits made fun of it, but that's what many Americans want right now, especially after Obama's failed promises to end partisanship in Washington.

You can just go fark right off, man. Obama can be criticized in many ways, but failure to compromise sure as sh*t isn't one of them. If anything, the man bends over backward to appease a petulant GOP rather than letting them careen from a cliff, taking all of us with them. Hyper-partisanship is certainly alive and well in Washington (one could argue that it's at its highest point, ever), but it's not Fartbanjo stonewalling every single suggestion purely on party line.

This is how constructive dialogue, bipartisan cooperation and a spirit of unity for the sake of country over self begins.


Actually this is how it ends. There is very little middle ground between 'we need slightly higher taxes on the very wealthy' and 'we need to get prevent Obama from having any policy successes'. Having different legislative goals prevents any sort of negotiation in this case.

I don't think Bush would have been as despised as he was at the end of his presidency without Darth Cheney and Emperor Rove on board. Had he not chosen a VP who tortures puppies for fun and a campaign manager who eats the souls of babies and small children, I believe his presidency and legacy may have turned out much differently. Bush was kind of a goofy, likable guy in many ways. Most pictures you see of Bush show him either with that cocky grin on his face, or a slightly confused, quizzical dog look. Cheney always looks like every cartoon super-villain you've ever seen. And let's face it - modern campaigns are basically giant popularity contests, more akin to a messed-up version of American Idol than to a contest to see who would be the best leader.

Maybe GHWB but not GWB.

What? To finish it off?

Nadie_AZ: 4. Can't wait for April. Going canyoneering for the first time. (And no, it had nothing to do with idiot getting his hand caught in a boulder.)

Where are you going (if you don't mind my asking)?

Actually, upon reflection, Dubya was a pretty ideal political candidate for the GOP. He covered a lot of bases and created a pretty large tent. He was a white evangelical from the South. At the same time he was Hispanic friendly and could win over the conservative latinos in the Southwest. He had a (albeit splotchy at best) business background to suit the corporatists. His name association with his father, and therefore Reagan, gave him cred with the moderates and neocons.

It will be hard for the GOP to find a candidate that touches that many bases and keeps the tent that wide again.

WTF Indeed: The GOP needs a "compassionate conservative" back

There never was, is not, nor ever will be such a creature as a "compassionate conservative". It is one of the greatest oxymorons in existence.

The very definition of being a "conservative" is "one who tales a perverse delight in the abuse and torment of the helpless".

In July of 2002 President Bush stood before a banner marked "Corporate Responsibility" and announced that he was opposed to fraud.

With the enactment of the new Corporate Corruption Act, the President declared "there would not be a different ethical standard for Corporate America than the standard that applies to everyone else. The honesty you expect in your small businesses, or in your workplace....will be expected and enforced in every corporate suite in this country."

Well whoda thunk it.

Nadie_AZ: Just above Roosevelt Lake in Arizona.

The Jug, then. Have fun (and be careful)!

Didn't Bush lose the 2000 election?

Obama's failed promises to end partisanship in Washington

Wow. Just...wow.

InmanRoshi: Actually, upon reflection, Dubya was a pretty ideal political candidate for the GOP. He covered a lot of bases and created a pretty large tent. He was a white evangelical from the South. At the same time he was Hispanic friendly and could win over the conservative latinos in the Southwest. He had a (albeit splotchy at best) business background to suit the corporatists. His name association with his father, and therefore Reagan, gave him cred with the moderates and neocons.

It will be hard for the GOP to find a candidate that touches that many bases and keeps the tent that wide again.

He was wealthy and elite while managing with his mangled English and folksy accent to appear to be a "good ol' boy". He did what Newt and Mittens will never pull off. Newt comes closer but not as the guy you wanna have beer with, he's the guy that you get angry drunk on whiskey with and talk about how the place would be better if he could just get rid of the negative influences on society (re: gays, liberals, democrats, RINOs, non-anglo's).

So the gist of the article is that the GOP needs to sell more of a lie, right -- knowing that what's marketed will be nothing like the final product.

hammettman: So the gist of the article is that the GOP needs to sell more of a lie, right -- knowing that what's marketed will be nothing like the final product.

More or less. The author seems to think that the delivery is the issue. Newt's vindictive policies and Romney's disingenuity wouldn't be issues if they would just smile, laugh, and kiss more babies.

GhostFish: hammettman: So the gist of the article is that the GOP needs to sell more of a lie, right -- knowing that what's marketed will be nothing like the final product.

More or less. The author seems to think that the delivery is the issue. Newt's vindictive policies and Romney's disingenuity wouldn't be issues if they would just smile, laugh, and kiss more babies.

There's actually truth to that. I really believe over 90% of politics is marketing. If you get the people to believe in you, what you do from there is viewed from a biased perspective. Bill Clinton was a prime example. He could get away with murder (no not literally, put that argument away now trollees) because he could win people with his personality. From there, people would be more inclined to believe he was doing what he did for good reasons. Newt and Mitt lose that battle before it begins.