• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Karl Rove Correct?

What Will Obama dedice to do?


  • Total voters
    16
what? my reply to you was both honest and perfectly polite.
No but it was impolite because you support the Ryan plan and don't support Obama. :roll:
 
But back in those days the candidates didn't get directly involved in their campaigns. They had to remain above the fray. The partisans wrote and spoke on their behalf.

Up until the election of 1840. In Harrison vs. Van Buren both candidates did some campaigning, I believe.
 
It will be ugly. They are already digging up dirt on Christy. Guess they know something we don't.
Now this, that sounds illegal to me...


White House Beefs Up Online Rapid Response

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has created and staffed a new position tucked inside their communications shop for helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community.
The post is a new one for this White House. Rapid response has been the purview of the Democratic National Committee (and will continue to be). Lee's hire, however, suggests that a portion of it will now be handled from within the administration. It also signals that the White House will be adopting a more aggressive engagement in the online world in the months ahead.
Lee has played that role in the past, including writing a semi-infamous White House blog post that said Fox News' Glenn Beck was lying about the administration on his show. His new gig comes with its own Twitter account, precisely for the purposes of disseminating push back.
 
Given that the modern GOP has become more and more made up of ideologues who are motivated by BELIEF rather than anything else, it is inevitable that such policies which flow from the True Believers will have to be a central part of the campaign. The Ryan Plan is the perfect example. Is that negative? Is shining the bright light of day upon the darkness negative? Is using a strong bleach to get rid of the smell of cat urine on a floor negative?
 
It will be ugly. They are already digging up dirt on Christy. Guess they know something we don't.
Now this, that sounds illegal to me...


White House Beefs Up Online Rapid Response

Well would you rather they do it right in front of you so you know they are doing it or would you rather they outsource it to campaigns, PACs, organizations they claim are independently funded or they have nothing to do with but actually in many times create the campaigns themselves? That is normally how it was done in the past. I'm trying to think of a prominent example of such dastardly horrible smear campaigns that helped win a president re-election...oh yeah here is one: Swift Vets and POWs for Truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I personally don't believe any Republican candidates have a chance this election period. The Republicans have shown they are increasingly being influenced by the Tea Party, which by all means is a far right conservative group. This IMO will push Independents away from voting for them. .

Not the Tea Party is "far right", but "thanks" Liberalism America is getting too much left, GOP has good chances with Palin and Cain.
Obama is a Joke, the World is laughing about the US and its too funny potus.
 
Well would you rather they do it right in front of you so you know they are doing it or would you rather they outsource it to campaigns, PACs, organizations they claim are independently funded or they have nothing to do with but actually in many times create the campaigns themselves? That is normally how it was done in the past. I'm trying to think of a prominent example of such dastardly horrible smear campaigns that helped win a president re-election...oh yeah here is one: Swift Vets and POWs for Truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ah, 2004. the election in which a group allied with Republicans claimed that John Kerry had left vietnam early (he had) under inauspicious circumstances (perhaps debatable)..... and in which a group allied with Democrats claimed that George Bush had helped to mass-murder thousands of innocent American citizens.

yup, those evil republicans sure did smear, didn't they.
 
you must have missed the speech where he brought Republicans to the school by hinting he was going to offer a compromise and begin negotiations, only to go on live television and accuse them of abandoning seniors and attacking autistic kids.

Was that part of the presidential campaign, or part of the fight over a bill that was at the time being considered? Why did you not include actual quotes and a link?

:shrug: i'm not whining - i'm thinking strategically and predicting. The man doesn't want to spend it talking up himself, and he doesn't need to spend it in a primary. the main area of focus for political campaigns that is left is "define the opposition".

Yes you are whining. He is not even actively campaigning yet, and you are accusing him of campaigning negatively.

what? my reply to you was both honest and perfectly polite.

Among other things, your focus on Obama. Simple questions: Has Obama spoke positively this week on achievements(hint: he has)? Have republican presidential candidates spoke negatively about Obama(hint: they have)? So why are you focusing on Obama, who is not even campaigning yet? Why no mention of republicans going negative?

You don't want to discuss the campaign neutrally, which is what I attempted to do, but instead you want to spread propaganda about how bad a person Obama is(well, will be) and smear Obama for what he might, maybe, possibly will do. And you don't see the irony in that?
 
ah, 2004. the election in which a group allied with Republicans claimed that John Kerry had left vietnam early (he had) under inauspicious circumstances (perhaps debatable)..... and in which a group allied with Democrats claimed that George Bush had helped to mass-murder thousands of innocent American citizens.

yup, those evil republicans sure did smear, didn't they.

Holy **** you completely and totally misrepresented what Swiftboats for truth did, and attempted to put it on the same level as truthers. That is insane. Not only did Swiftboats for truth claim lots of things you failed to mention(for example that he lied about his service), they ran TV spots making those claims. How many truther TV spots where run against Bush?
 
I'll wait for the GOP to pick their guy, then go after both for idiocy. :mrgreen:

I will have a little fun poking at the candidates in the primary. I won't get serious until the general.
 
I will have a little fun poking at the candidates in the primary. I won't get serious until the general.

Sounds like a solid plan.

My early, uninformed prediction.

It's gonna be between Romney and Pawlenty.
Both are the safe candidates, but I personally find them both flaccid and uninspiring.
 
My early, uninformed prediction.

It's gonna be between Romney and Pawlenty.
Both are the safe candidates, but I personally find them both flaccid and uninspiring.

OK, I got to walk away before I make a joke that could get me in trouble.
 
I think Obama will definitely run with a strong influence on focusing on future issues, and sort of whisking over his past administration. His administration has been lined with failures, but it is possible he'll remind people that it's because the Republican's employed a stonewall tactic where literally anything proposed was argued to the tooth and regain a little traction in that respect.

The Republicans and the Tea Party are definitely at odds with one another, and it seems more than it lets on. I think the Tea Party sees itself as the successor to the Republican Party and judging by the line-up they got, they don't have any notable charisma to draw votes off the top so they'll likely find some square and either push their issues or focus merely on debunking Obama's own proposals and continued ability to lead. Although they could be playing coy and have a surprising last minute contender...

But overall, mild
 
I think Obama will definitely run with a strong influence on focusing on future issues, and sort of whisking over his past administration. His administration has been lined with failures, but it is possible he'll remind people that it's because the Republican's employed a stonewall tactic where literally anything proposed was argued to the tooth and regain a little traction in that respect.

The Republicans and the Tea Party are definitely at odds with one another, and it seems more than it lets on. I think the Tea Party sees itself as the successor to the Republican Party and judging by the line-up they got, they don't have any notable charisma to draw votes off the top so they'll likely find some square and either push their issues or focus merely on debunking Obama's own proposals and continued ability to lead. Although they could be playing coy and have a surprising last minute contender...

But overall, mild

Gary Johnson has a good track record but him being an outsider candidate, pretty much has me believing that he won't make it past the primary.
 
Back
Top Bottom