"Bobby" Jindal

[Gutenberg]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=Gutenberg]
To me the point was that Jindal is the "new" Republican, the guy with the new ideas, the future of the party, and then he got up and presented the same old song, and in a singsong voice to boot. Bad policy speech delivered badly.

Another "disappointed" voter who was sitting on the fence desperately wanting to be persuaded. It is always amusing to have to take advice from people who want nothing but your defeat. That sort of advice gave us McCain, and we know how that turned out. Next time we'll do it our way.
Dakota, the only thing you can assume about my politics is that you don't like them.

[Carnos Jax]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
We are not looking for a monolithic government, despite what you may believe and despite the fact that you probably would love a one-party system that was run by your party. A lot of us believe in the two-party system and would like to see the GOP put up a candidate for president that is intellectually superior to a Supermarionation puppet.

What are you saying? Are you sorry that Republicans lost? You want a Republican to be the next president?
I don't think she's trying to say that. Rather, people prefer two competent choices (even though they may have different ideologies).

Dakota wrote:
...Sorry, we tried that. McCain couldn't challenge Obama on so many fronts because he was so much like him. Cap and trade, anwar, tax cuts etc. etc. He was far more comfortable attacking Republicans than Democrats. In fact, his claim to fame was that he went against his party. Matthews was slobbering all over him when he was the attack dog.

I'm kinda puzzled here. DIdn't the vast majority of Republicans pick McCain? Wouldn't this majority not share your own ideologies in regard to the Republican Party (apologies Dakota if my assumption you weren't a McCain supporter is incorrect)?

[Mac1337]

Carnos Jax wrote:
I'm kinda puzzled here. DIdn't the vast majority of Republicans pick McCain? Wouldn't this majority not share your own ideologies in regard to the Republican Party (apologies Dakota if my assumption you weren't a McCain supporter is incorrect)?

Good question. He was not popular in the party. Part of it had to do with the winner take all Republican primaries. By the time they came to Pennsylvania it was all over. I didn't even vote. One interesting point is that even though almost all other candidates had dropped out McCain STILL couldn't go over 50%. 42% of Republicans voted for people who were not even in the race! What does that tell you? Romney was my personal favorite.

[Don Kiyoti]

Romney was my personal favorite.

That figures.

[mick e]

Note the keywords in the background:
Steamer
Chocolate
Butter
Cream

[JoeH]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=Carnos Jax]
I'm kinda puzzled here. DIdn't the vast majority of Republicans pick McCain? Wouldn't this majority not share your own ideologies in regard to the Republican Party (apologies Dakota if my assumption you weren't a McCain supporter is incorrect)?

Good question. He was not popular in the party. Part of it had to do with the winner take all Republican primaries. By the time they came to Pennsylvania it was all over. I didn't even vote. One interesting point is that even though almost all other candidates had dropped out McCain STILL couldn't go over 50%. 42% of Republicans voted for people who were not even in the race! What does that tell you? Romney was my personal favorite.
Then you don't know the weasel that Romney is. Take it from a resident of MA, you did not want him.

[RgrF]

My take on Dakota is he's cares less about weaseling than he does about winning.

[$tevie]

My take on Dakota is that he is too young to remember pre-neocon Republicanism. Also, he does not vote in his state or local elections.

[$tevie]

Black wrote: Wrong about what? Dakota is absolutely right here, mick e's posts in this thread do resemble bfd's style, and $tevie's response had little relevance.

Why would he even bring it up unless he was implying something? What exactly is the purpose of commenting on mick e's writing style by referring to someone who barely posts here these days, thus rendering the reference obscure for some people not to mention rather pointless for the rest of us? And since when does Dakota write critiques of people's writing styles, anyhow? I am willing to bet Dakota was making a stab at guessing that they are the same person and that was why I responded the way I did. If, however, Dakota was just posting to listen to himself talk then I apologize for the mistake.

[mick e]

mick e was the first, fwiw.