http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07...-party-candid/
Heard on the radio today Tom Tancredo gave Maes and Mcinnis an option to drop out of the race, or he's running as third party candidate. What do ya'll think?
Printable View
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07...-party-candid/
Heard on the radio today Tom Tancredo gave Maes and Mcinnis an option to drop out of the race, or he's running as third party candidate. What do ya'll think?
I think he's completely retarded. If he runs as a third party candidate he splits the vote and hands the election to Hickenlooper and Tom will get blamed. If McInnis or Maes don't drop after the primary (which they wont) and he doesn't follow through on his promise he's a liar and spineless. Either way he just commited political suicide. When even the most right wing nut job bloggers are saying that Tom is a fool for doing this (and they are) you know your career in politics is over. You even have Mike Brown who hates both Maes and McInnis on his radio show last night saying that Tom is stupid. Tancredo says he's "trying to save the party". How does running on another party's ticket save the Republican Party?
I've known Tom at arms length for a while and I like him and a lot of his views, but IMHO there is a reason why two presidential bids have gone down the drain. The only thing that puts him on the map is his stand on immigration, otherwise he's just a guy who spent a little time in Washington. In what I do for a living I get the opportunity to connect with a lot of politicians - I've had dinner a couple of times with Lickyourpooper - he's a super nice guy who is way left of me.
While I don't agree with portions of his stance or voting record (I'm pro-choice for instance) I have a ton of respect for the guy, calls it like he sees it and has the backbone to follow through.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Tom_Tancredo.htm
Because it will be HIS FAULT.Quote:
Originally Posted by OgenRwot
Well folks, we're about to live in East California with Gov Hick. [Bang]
I guess I should start job/house shopping in Utah or something. [Rant1]
Anyway I lost respect for Tom when he went crying to mama government looking for a cash handout because he got snookered by Madoff. I'm sorry but asking the tax payers to cover your losses to a con man is for liberal Democrats.
That's what I was implying. A lot of folks talking about the issue are not looking long term. We need a Republican in office even if he's not your favorite. Do you want Hickenlooper or a guy you only agree with 75% of the time? We have the census this year, that means redistricting next year. If we have a liberal gov, senate and possibly house off Colfax we're going to have even more liberal control in the state house and from our Congressional delegation. We can't have them gerrymander the district lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Yeah, I know you have principals and so do I, but at the same time we have to be practical. You will never find a candidate that you agree with 100% of the time unless you're that candidate. Sometimes you have to take what you can get.
I still contend that if Democrats are in control of Denver after this election that Colorado is done. Over. Doomed. Nuevo-California. Period.
So I agree that we need to put ANY Republican in the gov's office even if he doesn't meet my own ideological purity standards.
While I consider myself a tea-party supporter, I am concerned that the tea-partiers are suffering from the same myopia that the Libertarian Party has always suffered from. Certainly there are limits and you don't want an outright liberal Republican in office (frankly I think the country is better off with Obama over McCain since McCain would have done 90% of what Obama has done but without the hue and cry from the right) but if you don't win elections you don't get a say in how things are run.
Neither Maes nor McInnis are ideal Republicans as far as I'm concerned, but either would be better than Hickenlooper. I also don't buy this notion that Hickenlooper is unbeatable by either of them (people over state his popularity) But when Tommy comes along and has his little ego fit he is going to screw ALL conservatives over and ruin this state.
I love the Tea Party movement's ideals, but they can do more to split the party than anything else. We have to be very careful that we don't get a Tea Party candidate, because it's almost a guaranteed loss for republicans in that venue.
As for Tom, he needs to stay out of the race unless he can get the party nod, it will be giving the race to Hick.
So how is Ah-nold working out for Kalifornia??Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
We bitch and whine about this farce of a 2 party system then when we see viable third parties and movements (TEA being one) we bitch and whine that we're fracturing the vote.
UHG... I detest both main stream parties so much that I'll fucking write in Bill and Opus again (yes I've done that) just out of fucking spite if Tom loses his nads and backs out.
No worse than any Democrat would have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Driftwood
Of course you cherry picked my post and conveniently skipped this part: Certainly there are limits and you don't want an outright liberal Republican in office (frankly I think the country is better off with Obama over McCain since McCain would have done 90% of what Obama has done but without the hue and cry from the right) but if you don't win elections you don't get a say in how things are run.
In the case of McInnis or Maes, neither of them is "too liberal" to be a decent Republican governor of Colorado.
:rolleyes: Ahnold IS a freakin' liberal Repub! In every sense of the word!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
You gotta remember though, Arnold is a California Republican. Just like some people are pissed off at Scott Brown in MA. He's a Mass Republican which means he's much more liberal than you or I would like. But he is soooo much better than Kennedy. Same for Arnold, yeah he's pretty liberal and he's done some bad stuff but he has also done things that no Democrat would have ever done.
Multi party systems don't work well. Look at Europe.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by OgenRwot
I don't like politicians in general. They will lie, cheat, steal, whatever to get into office. Then once they do, they crap all over the people who put them there. We have been voting for bags of crap for a long time. Just picking the one that doesn't stink as bad. Our government is broken and needs some serious changes. Back to the way our founders intended it to be. And I think term limits for all branches of government needs to be imposed.
Either way it's a committee and you won't make everyone happy at the same time, ever. I do agree that changes need to be made. I like the Term Limits idea, but it seems to me that politicians need to be limited from being politicians. Don't let them spend two terms as a congressman, two terms as a senator, two more as a governor, and so on. Being a politician was never supposed to be a lifelong career.
If I were re-writing the rules I think I would disallow anyone who has a net worth greater than 51% of the population, we have far too many millionaires in office right now, and once they gain office they have to freeze all their assets, just like the president has to.
I used to be staunchly opposed to the idea of term limits ... if the people wanted politician X for 70 years than they deserve him.
However I've come to realize that term limits is a bad idea who's time has come.
Its not about "evil rich guys" or even about "too damn many lawyers", the problem is with entrenched interests. People get in, and build walls of power around themselves making it harder to get the bad ones out.
I say 2 terms in the Senate or 3 in the House (or one term in each) and you're done. Go home.
Now Tancredo is saying that "the Tea Party and 9.12 groups are part of the 'establishment'" just because they wrote a letter pleading for him to not run. This guy has a bigger ego than BO. The only guy that thinks it's a good idea to run on a third party ticket is Tom. He's going to announce at noon he's in the race and we might as well kiss our asses goodbye. Introducing Governor Hickenlooper, we're fucked.
Ahhh, don't count on that just yet. First off, I don't think he'll pull THAT many conservatives away, second I think America in general is fed up with liberalism (as happens every time we get a liberal president) and that works FOR us. It's going to be a tough race no matter what, we just don't have a good pony in the race.Quote:
Originally Posted by OgenRwot
In modern history, democrats are unable to hold the office of the president for more than one term (Clinton is, of course, the exception) - the reason is the debt they get us into and their policies and high taxes. The country is very unhappy right now and I think that by itself is a good boost to our numbers this year.
No matter who runs against Hick, and it'll likely be McGinnis, I believe it's a 50/50 shot - there are no shoe-ins here. Just because McGinnis sucks doesn't mean that he can't pull down the vote - we really haven't seen HIS ads against Hick yet nor do we know what dirt he'll dig up.
I thought we had a 50/50 shot when Tancredo wasn't running. I think this will be within 5 points, and now that Tom is in he will take at least 5% and if he does that McInnis is done.
I think Tom will grab 3-5% of the TOTAL vote, and I think many of them will be swing voters - not stealing from the republican ticket, but stealing from both. I think it will still be a close election.
Look at it this way, it won't be Ritter!
I just hope all those swing voters I saw running out and buying firearms after the big O took over, will remember who will allow them to keep those firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
I hope so too. I actually hope they learned to use them, O may send us to civil war yet.Quote:
I just hope all those swing voters I saw running out and buying firearms after the big O took over, will remember who will allow them to keep those firearms.
That makes two of us, because it was just plain scary hearing some of the questions they had, and watching them handle pistols. I know everyone has to start somewhere, but damn!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger
Either way, our only hope is that a good majority of the people are just plain fed up with the Dems at the state level. One would think the ridiculous taxes imposed by ole Bill, we be enough in and of itself. I really have to put it all on the back burner, I lose sleep over this crap, lol.
You guys realize hickenpooper is worse than Ritter right?
oooh yeah, and that's why I lose sleep, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by MB888
How so? We really haven't seen him really "govern" Denver, just run it like a business - and not that well either.Quote:
Originally Posted by MB888
The fact that he runs the City based on his personal belief and plays favoritism are two major red flags for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger
My bone with him...
1. He is a staunch anti gun promoter. He is active in Mayors against guns.
2. He is heavily promoting 'Greenprint Denver' as part of Mayors climate protection group which is nothing more than advancing Kyoto protocol agreement on city level.
3. He is actively pushing 10 year homeless plan which is heavily corrupted and pushing the needy out of denver into the surrounding area.
4. Finally, his favoritism did go overboard by letting DNC delegations to purchase city owned gas at 30-40% off street value.
If you are a business owner located in Denver, you would know exactly what's going on. Obviously, all of his programs are paid for by taxing the businesses and just happen most of those are small businesses who are barely surviving in this economy.
And as far as the noble idea of eliminating homelessness? The real homeless are still homeless. My section 8 rentals are filled with city workers who makes decent money and gets GREAT benefits including getting approved for section 8 free rent I suppose.
Man that's some scary stuff. I don't know much about how Hick runs Denver because I used to stay the hell away from there. All I know is that if he's the Governor we're going to need to have the House and the Senate. House looks almost probable and the Senate is a maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by MB888
I am a business owner, I have four of them here in Denver proper. I feel the heat of having Hick in office, but to say he's any worse than Ritter - well that is what I was debating - I don't want him in office but I think they both have issues. Ritter nearly bankrupted this state with his clean energy programs and now nearly all of them sit half finished because of lack of funds. And while you may think Hick is anti gun (something everyone seems to say about every opposing candidate), he has not - to my knowledge - done anything to support that belief as CCW licenses have gotten easier to get in Denver and he's not passed any crazy anti-gun law in Denver. Right now DEMS are becoming very pro-gun (reference recent news) as they see any efforts to do otherwise get defeated by the supreme court. The NRA is endorsing more and more democratic candidates as this trend continues and, lets face it, Colorado has been and will continue to be a very gun oriented state, it would take a lot of effort to change that and he would risk re-election.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
So, all I'm saying is that Ritter sucks, Hick suck the same or slightly less and the only real thing we can hope for would be a win in the state congress.
This doesn't carry much weight considering their actions over the past few years. They made a sweetheart deal with Dems on the DISCLOSE Act probably in trade for endorsements. Not to derail this thread but the NRA is a joke. And this is coming from a Life Member.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger
Originally Posted by hurley842002 http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images...s/viewpost.gif
If you are a business owner located in Denver, you would know exactly what's going on. Obviously, all of his programs are paid for by taxing the businesses and just happen most of those are small businesses who are barely surviving in this economy.
Why is my screename on this, I didn't post that. That would be MB888
No anti-gun laws in Denver??
You must be jocking!
How about the assault weapon ban still enforced in Denver Co (no magazines over 20 rnds), or denying the right to open carry?[Rant1]
STILL enforced is not the same to me as a new law. I agree with the rant, totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by bellavite1
I like to blame people randomly :). Actually I don't know why it did that, I just hit "quote" :).Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
[Beer] Must be Chickenpooper already screwin with things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger
Actually I'm so distraught over the possibility of him winning that I'm distracted and, aside from being unable to eat, needlessly blame folks for postings they didn't post. Oh and I'm switching parties now since that's really a key platform (blaming others) for me now.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
Chief Whitman is actually a great guy who stands his ground. He is responsible for the CCW process easement AFAIK. By far it is not due to Hicky. Whitman has been discredited in the past by Ritter and Denver DA. In my opinion The Denver PD chief is at odd with the city admin.
This is some funny stuff. First I heard.. Lickenpooper, then came Stickinpooper, Then Chickenpooper. I can't wait to see some of his defaced election signs. I think Ken Fuck is going to have a challenge with that as well.