Are the Republicans throwing the 2012 presidential election?

[auburngrad82]

I'm just wondering. The front runner right now seems to be Herman Cain, a man who most of the "base" won't touch. The media keeps pushing Perry, even though he's dumber that Bush, a feat that I wouldn't have thought possible. And today on Face The Nation they had Bachman, whose staff just quit, and Santorum who's crazier than anyone outside of a mental institution has a right to be.

They're going against all the polls by blocking the jobs bill, opposing taxes on millionaires and now opposing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Can they seriously think they're on the right path to winning back the White House or are they throwing in the towel and looking towards 2016?

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!

just as long as they fail next year. Personally, I find it hard to believe that the repug crime ring would concede the office for one reason alone: the ability to appoint Supreme Court justices, and there could be at least three vacancies over the next four years. If they wanna throw in the towel, though, I say let 'em!

[sendero]

2. The real crap..

.... hasn't hit the fan yet but it will within the next couple of years. And there is nothing really any politician can do about it. I would not want to be the "party" in power in the next four years.

[panader0]

10. when the "real crap" comes

would you rather have Obama as our prez or one of the repub clowns currently running?

[sendero]

19. I'd rather he had never been elected at all..

... he's merely transferring the blame for this mess from the Republicans (where it belongs) to the Democrats.

[txlibdem]

25. That's only because he solved NONE of the underlying problems

His first failure was giviving TRILLIONS to banks at practically zero interest while letting homeowners become prey for those same banks via illegal foreclosures. Prez. Obama's mistake was putting the home refinance program under the control of private banks -- does that sound like a Democratic program to you??? His second failure was NOT nationalizing the banking industry and the stock market and ending the dangerous and idiotic practices that led to the crash -- which still to this day are not outlawed and are still going on.

His third failure was not starting back up the WPA (Works Projects Administration) from the 1930s which DIRECTLY hired millions of workers by the government.

His fourth failure was believing the Democrats in congress who promised millions of jobs via "shovel ready" projects... we all know how that turned out. They were not ready and did not create millions of jobs but instead saved the jobs of fat cat state officials who were on the chopping block due to budget downturn. They also used the money to save jobs for police, firefighters, and teachers... that I think is great... but the rest? No.

His fifth failure was ALWAYS in EVERY situation allowing the Repukes to control the media narrative. His administration was filled with wall street'ers and big banksters and corporate-control-fascist-wannabes so they were no help and Barrack had NO CLUE what to do most of the time.

[sendero]

35. Exactly..

... he had a chance, albeit a small one, to really make a dent in this mess. He didn't.

[txlibdem]

42. Agreed. And the inevitable question is WHY???

In the early days he had all the popular support a new President could possibly get. He had great speeches and a winning smile and claimed he was a student of FDR and Johnson.

Why did he never turn to their solutions (or their modern equivalent)? All he did was give away money to the rich (tax cuts) and corporations (tax cuts and incentives to hire).

[RKP5637]

38. Well said. He stayed with the SOS IMO. It was an opportunity to take really

bold steps and change this country for the better, but IMO all that happened was the SOS was propped up again, and frankly thanked. I'm so tired of the same old BS as we sink.

[Atman]

49. Past...it was BUSH who gave the trillions to banks.

True, Obama then did nothing to prosecute anyone, and invited some of the foxes in to run the hen house, but he was NOT responsible for TARP. Please don't help the GOP with their propaganda campaign.

Oh, and yes, I totally believe they are trying to throw the election.

[txlibdem]

53. It was the current administration that is continuing to give away trillions to banks

in the form of almost-zero-percent loans. Bush gave $700 Billion in a bailout. Pres. Obama could have stopped the TRILLIONS anytime... but it's been 2 years now and nothing has been done to stop it.

And I reject out of hand your foolish suggestion that pointing out the flaws in our leadership will be tantamount to throwing the election. Quite the opposite. We need a LOT of angry people to get out and vote and we need to MAKE them angry before they will get out in the numbers we need them in.

PS, I did not say "they" are trying to throw the election. I said the President is. That way he gets to retire on a nice fat pension... FOR LIFE... and doesn't have to do a single additional thing again, ever. Plus it's an awful PTA to be President, he may just be over it.

[Atman]

57. Hey, take your meds...stay focused.

The OP was about the GOP throwing the election, that is why my second line was about. And I reject out of hand that it is the President who set the 0% interest rates Mr. Andrea Mitchell put in place many years before Obama got elected. If you think he can single-handedly say "Hey, I'm going to up the interest rates!" you're understanding of the situation is even less than that of your understanding of who handed out the TARP funds. Again, hit, it wasn't Obama.

[txlibdem]

64. You're right. I was stupid to think

that a President with a fully Democratic-controlled House and Senate could have done anything to stop $16 Trillion in near-zero unlimited lines of credit to go to the big banks. I forgot that we're in the age where the President can't do anything unless the GOP and Tea Party give the OK first!!!

Gawd. I'm so frustrated with people who will not or cannot see the truth! Obama's hands are just as dirty as Bush's on the TARP money... it was given out under his watch with a fully Democratic congress and NOT A SOUL attempted to put any limits on what they could do with it. Then the current administration continued to give away trillions of dollars to the big banks. In secret.

How much has been loaned? At what interest rate? When was it paid back (if ever)???? We'll never know because Geithner set it up that way. And who put Geithner in his position? Who has failed to ask for his resignation??? Why it's my President, the one I walked and talked and marched and pounded the pavement for months for.

These are NOT the actions of a Democratic President. When are the "Obama can do no wrong" crowd going to see the facts????

PS, if Obama is the winner of the Democratic Primary then I WILL vote for him. I just hope for an actual Democrat to step forward to at least let him answer for all that he has done that is anti-Democratic on its face. Any Democratic President who says "we need the big banks" makes me scratch my head.

And, yes, I am on medication because I am disabled. But that hasn't clouded my memory of events nor my mind's ability to process them.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

52. TARP occured under Bush II

Please get that right.

Second of all Roosevelt had a larger Democratic majority in congress to work with. Not sure he had those like today's Blue Dogs.

[txlibdem]

54. Please get it right: TARP was $700 Billion - Obama continues to give TRILLIONS

to the big banks in near-zero-interest lines of credit that are unlimited and automatic. Oh, and those banks... shall remain nameless from here to eternity (thanks to Geithner).

[JuniperLea]

61. Ok...

I really can't take any more of your FreepSpeak...

[expatriate2mex]

72. Acknowledging the truth is freepspeek?

Jeez, when did the democratic party leave me? Anyone that thinks obama's hands are not at least as dirty as bush's in this have to be blinded by the D by his name. Democrats/Liberals used to get behind causes, not a letter of the alphabet. "The times they are a changing", for sure Bob it's very different now.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

73. That's the Fed that does that.

My God did you sleep through Civics class? The Fed is set up as an independent body.

And are you saying you want higher interest rates? I can't think of anything else that could throw the economy further into the shitter.

[JuniperLea]

60. Your first failure...

Was incorrectly crediting Obama with TARP. One might even call BULLSHIT on that RW talking point.

Shame on you for furthering this nonsense.

[RKP5637]

28. Yeah, that's my feeling too. I think the next several years are going to be

real hell and probably a deeper recession. Of course many have been living in a great depression for several years now, our metrics for economic measurement make it sound better than it is ... Bush was a major instigator of this crap and he got off the hook far too easily IMO. Obama inherited a mess and it's going to continue. I bet some of the strategists in the republican party are saying "lay low 'till 2016" and let this entire mess fall on the democrats.

[txlibdem]

55. If you have no college degree, are young or non-white then it HAS been a Depression

People between the ages of 18 and 24 who have no college degree have a 52% unemployment rate right now!!! (Heard that from Thom Hartman)

[RKP5637]

68. Last night I was looking on you tube at many of the cities in decay. I've done this

before, but stumbled across a blog that listed a lot I had not realized were in such despair. I often think many Americans really don't realize just how many towns/cities/citizens are in outright poverty and despair. People see the numbers, but until you see it first hand it doesn't sink in IMO.

What really saddens me are the great factories abandoned and falling apart, and the gutted cities/towns ... and all of the feeder industries/consumers. Our country has been hollowed out, and I frankly don't see where all of the jobs are going to come from to rebuild this nation.

To be "between 18 and 24 ... have no college degree ... a 52% unemployment rate right now" is extremely depressing.

Millions and millions of people are being left behind and it's a national crisis, much as if we had been attacked in a major war.

Sadly many politicians, wealthy and many are content as is ... and for many it's out of sight out of mind.

[Nay]

33. Amen, Sendero. I told Mr Nay when Obama was elected that it was

over -- now it was gonna be all the Dems' fault when the shit hit the fan. I was right. It didn't help that Obama played into so much of the RW bullshit. Now he truly DOES own it, and it isn't going to be pretty.

[RKP5637]

36. Yep, my thoughts too. He followed right along with the same agenda and

absorbed all of the republican shit. Even brought in the right people to help him keep with the agenda.

[woo me with science]

62. Why should they want to replace him?

The corporate agenda is getting through just fine with this President.

In fact, they have the advantage of the lack of a unified Democratic opposition.

Both parties are corporate-owned, and they have a very effective setup going right now. It is very easy for the Democratic corporate party to move rightward, when there is always another corporate party further right.

[Kalidurga]

3. I hope they are throwing the election....

that would imply that they have the ability to plan and whatnot...However, they just might be insane enough to think they have a winning platform despite being on the wrong side of nearly (perhaps every) issue...

[txlibdem]

44. Hope yes. But doesn't it sound more like Obama is throwing the election.

As the previous poster said, he's done nothing a Democrat would do and has done EVERYTHING a repuke would do.

I believe Obama is trying to throw the election so the Republicans can continue to destroy the middle class and turn this nation into a fascist dictatorship. Maybe he gets to be mayor of Chicago as part of his Devil's Bargain?

[LonePirate]

4. They are playing to the base by opposing everything Obama says and does.

They refuse to let him be on the winning side of anything and their base won't allow it either, no matter how harmful it is to the country as a whole. They would rather see the country suffer instead of letting Obama claim a victory on something.

[auburngrad82]

17. More and more that's being reported

That can't sit well with the unemployed and struggling, Republican or Democrat. I think that people are going to get fed up with the obstructionist mindset. Right now all polls are against the GOP on the jobs bill and the taxes on millionaires. And the Iraq withdrawal.

[txlibdem]

45. Honestly? I think people are angry and are going to backlash against the spineless Dems in office

The Dems had one chance to begin turning this country around and they did nothing but complain that "The Republicans wouldn't let us" do this or that legislation. That's crap as far as I'm concerned.

[babylonsister]

5. I think they are lacking in any kind of talent, brain power, or anyone

who can merge the baggers and the gop. That might be an impossible task anyway.

[auburngrad82]

9. Let's hope so

But then again, after the 2008 election Time and Newsweek were predicting that the GOP would lose power until at least 2016 and somehow they regained Congress. I'm hoping people see just what a mistake they made in 2010. I know that Renee Elmers, the Teabagger Congresswoman in my district, can't seem to raise any money.

[Liberal_in_LA]

30. +1

[Johonny]

31. I agree this IS the Republican party

It isn't exactly the Republican voter historically. The question to me is when will the broader Republican base wake up that there isn't a magic Republican out there. The party has changed and the people leading the House, these states and running for president are the party.

[still_one]

6. cain or perry will not win the nomination, it will be romney /nt

[auburngrad82]

14. He's got the Mormon thing going against him

And he's from a liberal state. The "base" might not go for that. I think Obama can beat Romney.

[still_one]

48. I was referring to republican nomination, not general election. I sure hope you are right about the

general

[lunatica]

7. I've been thinking the same thing

The Republicans are confident they'll be able to hogtie Obama for the rest of his second term also. By then they will have pretty much gutted this country to their satisfaction. We'll be a nation of less than minimum wage slaves so they can bring their corporations back since we'll be 'competitive' with the other third world countries.

That is their plan and they're gonna stick to it.

[auburngrad82]

11. I'm hoping there will be "buyer's remorse" for some of the GOP newcomers elected in 2010

I think polls are worse for the Teabaggers than for Obama and the Dems. And the freshman teabaggers aren't having any luck raising money for their reelection campaigns.

[RKP5637]

29. Bobby Jindal just got reelected by a huge margin, they seem to love him. n/t

[Sal Minella]

22. A bit shortsighted of them, since no one will be able to afford

to buy the products/services they want to produce.

[randome]

8. No.

They really are inept. They have no charismatic leaders running for President because they have no real leaders. Period. Look at how Boehner and Cantor run over each other's priorities on an ongoing basis.

Ineptitude is their stock in trade at this point in our history. Celebrate it.

[quinnox]

12. I would love if Cain is the last man standing

but unfortunately I think Romney has it sewn up and will be Obama's opponent, and because of the horrible economy, I'm afraid that Obama is very vulnerable to losing. I hope I'm wrong and they are throwing the election, but I tend to be a realist, and that sounds a little "out there" to me.

[auburngrad82]

13. I think the news that the GOP is intentionally holding back the economy can't help them

And I think that we'll see better economic news between now and the election. At least I hope so.

[MineralMan]

15. I think the Republicans believe that Democrats won't turn out

to support the President they have blockaded for an entire term. They're counting on frustration with President Obama's ability to get done what needs to be done to limit Democratic turnout. I think that is their entire plan. Who gets the nomination seems to be irrelevant to them.

I also think we need to dramatically demonstrate that they're completely wrong, by turning out in record numbers. I know that's an unpopular idea for some, but I think it's what we need to do. I believe we can retake the House and increase our majority in the Senate if we do. If we don't turn out, the Republicans were right in thinking we're too stupid to see through their plan.

[auburngrad82]

18. I would think 2010 would have opened a lot of eyes about staying home

If we don't get to the polls in 2012 we deserve whatever idiot we get.

[MineralMan]

21. You'd think so, wouldn't you? And yet, we still have a bunch

of people saying that voting is worthless and that there are few worthy candidates who will be running. I have seen a few people even opine that it would be better if everything fell apart, so we could start over. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Politics is trends. Keeping the trend going in the direction you want is the best thing that's possible. There's no magical route to an equitable society, only a slow and steady route. If we go off the road, we're going to get stuck in some deep, deep mud.

[DefenseLawyer]

16. I remember people asking much the same question about Clinton, Brown and Tsongas n/t

[Scuba]

20. They're pretty sure they will win....

...cause they are rigging the elections.

[nineteen50]

23. Yes

They already have a republican corporatist president.

[Raksha]

46. Exactly! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Hmm no.... The RNC is a religion these days

And if you look it that way, no they are not. God help us if any of the chief Accolytes get even ten feet from the prize.

[opihimoimoi]

26. Yup...The GROPers are playing for 2016...their real opening

2012 is Lost esp when Mitch McConnel insists on lying his ass off...whad a turd....

[dionysus]

27. i don't think so. they just have a pathetic field.

[Dan]

32. I think

that they might end up in an Open Convention and nominate Jeb Bush...

[Dash Riprock]

34. I think no "good" Republican candidate emerged,

like Cristie or Jeb Bush" because they see beating Obama would be difficult, so they are waiting for 2016 when the Democrats won't have any incumbents running.

I don't see the Republican base getting excited about Romney. He's a Mormon, which the evangelicals won't get behind and he once was pro choice, which they won't forgive. Thirdly, he has Romneycare around his neck.

[MrScorpio]

37. They're not intentionally throwing, they're just too fucking incompetent

They've been incompetent for quite some time… The result of their profound ideological transformation over the years.

[HopeHoops]

39. No - nobody serious wants to be "McCain'd".

[Yavin4]

40. No. Their Candidates Just Suck.

They really don't have anyone any better.

[kentuck]

41. Republicans do not throw elections - they steal them.

They are Machiavellian.

[Atman]

50. They will attempt to steal the Senate...then further blame Obama for the damage they cause

They are long-range planners.

[kentuck]

63. Very true...

Democrats tend to plan from election to election and Repubs tend to plan in 10 or even 20 year cycles. They develop a strategy and stick with it until the people are ripe for the picking.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

43. I think after all these years of Fox News and teabaggery, they just don't HAVE good candidates.

This is what they got.

Their wingnut media machine has made it so that the somewhat sane ones like Christie or Daniels don't have a chance.

[McCamy Taylor]

47. The Kochs are not throwing the election. I think they plan to finance Cain as a splitter 3rd

to suck up some of the African-American vote. They have more than enough money to finance two candidates, the GOP and a 3rd party splitter. Hell, they could probably finance Nader, too, to split the progressive vote. Or some other Naderish person, maybe a celebrity with name recognition.

With e-vote fraud, they could steal up to ten percent of the Democrat vote and reassign it to either Cain or the 4th guy and it would be within the margin of error in the exit polls. The more candidates, the wider the error margin.

If Obama wants to keep his job he better get rid of those e-vote machines. Paper ballots are very easy to do, and it would be simple to require them everywhere and then threaten to do random manual recounts. I think there is plenty of evidence to justify the DOJ shutting down e-voting.

As for the splitter candidates, the Dems will need to do some investigating, find out where their money is coming from and let the public know. Since the federal government has wiretap info on everyone, this should be easy as pie.

[SheilaT]

51. No one ever throws an election.

People who run, delusional as they may be, almost always believe they actually have a chance to win.

Every single cycle this idea is brought up, and I'm here to tell you it's not the way it happens. Some of the more realistic among the Republicans may think there's no real chance to beat Obama, and they're sort of holding back -- at least at the Presidential level -- until 2016, but those who are running are in it for real.

[randome]

56. I think the 'smart' Republicans (?)...

...already know that with this bunch of utter twits, they have lost 2012. But it's the twits who are front and center right now.

[ileus]

58. Where's bob dole when the need him....

[JuniperLea]

59. They know full well they haven't a snowball's chance in hell...

So they are only running the expendables. Not one viable GOP candidate will get themselves tarnished in this event.

[ChillbertKChesterton]

65. Well considering they get everything they want under Obama

It's not like they have much to lose

[randome]

66. 'Everything they want'.

Hyperbole, much?

[LynneSin]

67. 2012 lineup of GOP contenders is going to give us the next Bob Dole Jr.

I really think anyone who could give Obama a run for his money (Jeb Bush, Chris Christie) is waiting until 2016 when the Dems don't have an incumbant running (and highly unlikely that Joe Biden will run).

So I'm guessing the GOP would rather put good money into trying to capture the US Senate, increasing their hold on the House and that way they can have another 4-8 years of full control like they did with Bush.

[JoePhilly]

69. No .... they simply have nothing to offer. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

70. spending lots of money to throw an election

I just think the party is broken and dysfunctional. I honestly believe they are trying to win and this is the best they can do.

[TNLib]

71. They're not throwing it on purpose. But their party has been taken over by insane people.

The GOP is IMHO serious trouble and I don't think they can survive politically. They basically created a monster that's destroying it's creator.