According to PEW,
the public supports Republicans on guns by a margin of 43 percent to 37
percent. Regarding the “terror threat,” the public sides with
Republicans over Democrats 46 percent to 34 percent. On the economy they
side with Republicans by a margin of 42 percent to 37 percent, and, finally, Republicans over Democrats on
Immigration by a margin of 42 percent to 40 percent.
As things stand, today, the GOP, with a competitive presidential candidate, is well positioned to win in 2016, and win by a significant margin.
Be encouraged. Things have been going our way, in terms of the direction of this nation, for some time . . . . . beginning in 2010 and the midterm election of that year.
The American Conservative on last night's GOP debate: "All in all, the debate was mostly disheartening for anyone interested in a sober and responsible approach to foreign policy issues. Alarmism, panic, and fear-mongering dominated the evening, and threat inflation ran rampant. There were a few notable and important exceptions to this, but on the whole the Republican candidates showed why their party isn’t and shouldn’t be trusted to conduct foreign policy".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/foreign-policy-and-the-fifth-republican-debate/
Dan Larson (author of the quoted reference in the above “comment”) usually has good things to say, but the quote, above, standing on its own, is not a good reflection of the CNN debate, imo. 18 million folks watched on television and several more millions on other media, no doubt, proving that folks were very interested in the event.
DeleteLarson forgets that the debate was more about gathering votes for the individual candidates than a thorough vetting of foreign policy theories. Tuesday night was a contest much more than a debate . . . . . . as it should be during an election cycle. If Larson seeks substantive foreign policy discussions, perhaps he should troll C-Span. And, to argue the comparative foreign policy skills of the New Marxist/Progressives is laughable, so ridiculous, in fact, that I see no need to list the host of qualified failings we have witnessed over the past seven years.
But, I will include a few of the most obvious failings beginning with Obama's decision to put the lives of a comparative few civilians ahead of killing those that thrive on killing those same civilians by the thousands.
His belief that "victory" was no longer a viable military designation and did not wage war with “victory” in mind.
His desertion of Iraq after declaring it "strong, stable and sovereign” set the stage for ISIS as he stood by and watched the peace secured by 5,000 American soldiers wither away, lost forever . . . . part of the reason his approval rating with our military is around 15%.
His decision to end all covert surveillance of those who would kill us overseas and in our own country, is part of the reason for the rise of terror related violence since 2009 (460 casualties to date - all of which were complete surprises to this Administration ) .
30 Navy Seals killed when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan as Obama ordered two military support air units to stand down for fear of killing civilians. The Seals belonged to Seal Team Six, and were killed 12 weeks after Osama bin Laden - an obvious retaliation for Osama's assassination.
I could probable create a list of 50 events off the top of my head, but, I believe the reader will see the point. Case closed.
Eighty-one percent of the electorate who will pick the president next year are either female, people of color, or young people between the ages of 18 and 35. In other words, not Republicans.
ReplyDeleteSo, if 160 million votes are cast, Dems will get 128 million and the GOP, 32 million ???? I am going to fixed me a red beer. You. Maybe you should reconsider your "comment."
DeleteThis is what I know: Obama got 51% of the vote in 2012, and, Hillary is no Barack Obama.
Dan Larson nailed it. Said what every intelligent information seeking American believes.
ReplyDeleteHillary ain't no Barack Obama and Larson has no clue as to the difference between a symposium on foreign policy and a debate dealing with policy issues.
Delete