Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[rjs246]

How about if we just focus on his abject failure as leader of the house in the 90s, instead of his joke of a personal life? I mean, his own party drove him out of leadership. WTF?

[PhillyGirl]

Since polls have been thrown around about Obama's approval rating....

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/politics&id=8124657

[Rome]

That can't be right.  Someone here said he was wildly unpopular!

[rjs246]

Can we not put any weight behind a single poll in either direction please? Thanks.

[ice grillin you]

in terms of winning the pub nom i cant decide if newt running is a colossal waste of time and money or if the field is so weak that he actually has a chance

[rjs246]

As soon as Daniels enters he fills the policy wonk gap that Newt is gunning for, completely negating Newt's legitimacy as a candidate.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

policy wonk

You have special gifts when it comes to verbiage and wit.


Oh, and you were right about not putting too much weight behind one poll also.

[Rome]

So we shouldn't put too much weight behind the poll but we should definitely rely on the unbiased assessment from someone from The National Review.

Gotcha.

[ice grillin you]

speaking of idiotic right wing rags did anyone see the weekly standard cover story on barry by bill kristol that hit newstands the week of obl gettin got

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/leader-behind_558488.html

After all, we, like sheep, had gone astray. Under the spell of John Wayne, Rambo, and Ronald Reagan, we'd come to believe in American exceptionalism, in a special American global role and responsibility. Or perhaps we've been astray from the very beginning, with all the talk from the Founding on about our distinctive task and national destiny. But now a new shepherd has come to guide us, stealthily and modestly (though, one must add, with a fair amount of personal self-promotion) away from foolish thoughts of national assertion and exertion. And toward a future of .  .  . what?

Whatever this future world will look like, it will not be pretty, nor will it be friendly to America. Lizza's piece is titled "The Consequentialist." The claim is that Barack Obama is a hard-headed pragmatist who judges policy choices by their real-world consequences. But who now wants to defend the consequences of Barack Obama's foreign policy?

As Americans, we will have to hope and work for the best for the next year and a half. But, as Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, "from President Obama's shocking passivity during Iran's 2009 Green Revolution to his dithering on Libya, acting at the very last moment, then handing off to a bickering coalition, yielding the current bloody stalemate," Obama's has been "a foreign policy of hesitation, delay, and indecision, marked by plaintive appeals to the (fictional) 'international community' to do what only America can." The consequences of leading from behind have been grave. Another four years could be disastrous.

How do you defeat a leader from behind? With a leader from the front. All the Republicans have to do is nominate a real leader: a workhorse not a show horse; a steady hand not a flip-flopper; a profile in courage not in cleverness; a competent man or woman with strength and confidence in defense of liberty at home and abroad.

Surely this isn't too much to ask?

[PhillyGirl]

Ron Paul running as a republican this year.

oh, and I like this pic lol

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

So we shouldn't put too much weight behind the poll but we should definitely rely on the unbiased assessment from someone from The National Review.

Gotcha.

The unbiased part is the number of people who identified themselves as Democrats vs Republicans. The rest of the article is shtein as expected.

[Rome]

Polls are useless.   I think if you cared to check back during the last ten years I may have mentioned that once or twice.

[Diomedes]

those signs are great

[Sgt PSN]

That they are. 

[PhillyPhreak54]

Texas Congressman and prospective 2012 presidential candidate Ron Paul revealed in a radio interview that he would not have ordered the mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden almost two weeks ago.

Talking to WHO's Simon Conway on Tuesday, Paul – who has formed an exploratory committee for president – explained that a better approach would have been to cooperate with Pakistan to arrest bin Laden like the U.S. did with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and try him in civilian court.

"Why can't we work with the government?" asked Paul.

When the host pressed Paul on whether he would have ordered the kill had he been president, the congressman responded with "I don't think it was necessary, no."

"It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law and world law, international law," he continued. "What if he had been in a hotel in London? So would we have sent the helicopters into London? No, you don't want to do that."

The host, sounding a little shocked, sought to clarify even more, "I think you're being very clear...I definitely do not want to put words in your mouth, but you're telling me a President Ron Paul would not have ordered the bin Laden kill to take place as it took place in Pakistan."

"Not the way it took place, no," replied Paul.

Paul, who garnered a massive following during his 2008 presidential bid, is well known for his foreign policy views and opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When contacted by The Daily Caller, Rachel Mills, a spokesperson for Ron Paul, explained the comment by saying that "technically, we didn't have Pakistan's permission to go into their territory this way, which was a violation of their sovereignty."

"But now that it is done," Mills added, "let's declare victory, withdraw our troops and put an end to these quagmires."