Town Square

Post a New Topic

Republican Embarrassment

Original post made by Your Neighbor on Jan 19, 2012

Until tonight, I was undecided but leaning toward Newt Gingrich's corner. Now, I just cannot do it. I am embarrassed that the party cannot come up with a single viable presidential candidate. Tonight's SC debate was painful to watch.

Newt's indignation regarding questions about his ex-wife and mistess/wife were obscene. Even more offensive was his earlier pledge that on his first day as president he would force a constitutional showdown regarding supreme court rulings that HE considers "legally flawed". He said the presidency is above the supreme court and the president can declare certain rulings "null and void". These include rulings on legal rights of terrorism suspects and Roe vs Wade. Emperor Newt tonight wore no clothes, and I cannot vote for such a man.

Web Link

So, what are the alternatives? Is there a Republican out there, maybe someone as yet undeclared, who can do the job? Aside from Stephen Colbert, of course. Seriously, who is a viable option against Obama?

Comments (80)

Posted by Steve, a resident of Parkside
on Jan 19, 2012 at 9:04 pm

No one can take you seriously when you so badly fail at pretending you are a Republican conflicted as to who to vote for. You trolls and the mainstream media have lifted all pretense of impartiality and now routinely show open contempt for anyone but your messiah.
Give up your posing and come up with some ideas for a positive plan to rebuild the country that Obama continues to destroy. Or you could go work for ABC.


Posted by anon, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jan 19, 2012 at 9:11 pm

I guess we'll have to wait and see. This isn't the only election. There are plenty of Democrats running for local/state offices that need to be removed based on their union affilition. It is painfully clear that many of these democrats have lost sight of middle class values and owe their campaigns to the unions that fund them (who claim middle class values while actually stealing from the middle class).


Posted by Your Neighbor, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 19, 2012 at 10:37 pm

Steve, you have grossly misjudged me. As for your remark that I should "come up with some ideas for a positive plan to rebuild the country", that is precisely the dialogue I had tried to open here. It starts with a candidate who can actually lead the party and get through the primary process. Again, any ideas?


Posted by Democrat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 19, 2012 at 10:48 pm

Actually, I was very impressed by Gingrich's reply.

I'm a Democrat, but appalled by that type of mudslinging going on. How disgusting that the liberal-biased media would open a presidential debate like that! They never opened a Democratic debate with a question about Gennifer Flowers to Bill Clinton.

Gingrich's reply lambasting the media was outstanding and he got a standing ovation.

If Gingrich is nominated, I'll definitely be voting for him rather than Obama.


Posted by Presidential material, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 19, 2012 at 10:48 pm

Steve's right, Your neighbor is a cross-dresser. No matter. Ignorant question, .....Can't get a much more perfect candidate than intelligent, experienced, poised, presidential demeaner Mitt Romney. Many in the electorate are too ignorant to value and recognize what really matters in a president.
It's not be about what you want or like, it's not about you...it's about beating Obama to get into office, and more importantly, the intelligence and demeaner to BE President of the world.


Posted by My 2 cents, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2012 at 7:28 am

"At the same election forum, Rick Perry, the Texas governor, did not go so far as Gingrich but he did say that as president he would seek to pack the supreme court with judges who would overturn the ruling legalising abortion. "

Even though Perry is not a viable candidate, he raises a good point: the next president will get to appoint some supreme court justices, and it is important that a right wing nut (Santorum) is not elected.

The only person who stands a chance against Obama is Romney.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jan 20, 2012 at 7:42 am

"Democrat" said: "If Gingrich is nominated, I'll definitely be voting for him rather than Obama."

Speaking of "cross-dressing".....

Anyway, the only Republican candidate who has a chance against Obama is Mitt Romney. All the others are clowns and/or too extremist to get the votes of independents.

It is sad to see how dysfunctional the Republican party has become. Only the Republican party could possibly come up with clowns such as "I-can-see-Russia" Palin, or "Mr. Family Values" Gingrich, or "Vaccines-Cause-Autism" Bachman, or "My-Mind-Went-Blank-Again!" Perry, and seriously present them as possible Presidential material. Come on, Republicans, America deserves better.


Posted by Presidential material, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2012 at 8:25 am

We don't know that Romney can beat Obama, but he would have a chance, and is the one fit to BE president.
Sam, you mention the dysfunctional 'Republican' party, actually, it's just the extreme 'social' (judgemental meddling religious) conservatives that are the xxxx disturbers.
It's common knowledge that Newt had a 3 yr affair with staffer Calista (plastic hair and large beak) while he was still married to his second wife, Marianne. So all the self-righteous hypocrites stood and applauded ? ? go figure, they like Newt's temper tantrums! !
Romney, a loyal husband for 42 years, is too good for the hypocrites.


Posted by My 2 cents, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2012 at 9:33 am

"If Gingrich is nominated, I'll definitely be voting for him rather than Obama."

There is no way you are a democrat. No democrat would vote for Gingrich - have you forgotten all he did in the past? (I am not talking about his personal life btw)

The only candidate that has a chance against Obama (and a good chance) is Romney because he is moderate and appeals to independents.

I only hope that the right wing folks do not force Romney, should he win the GOP primary, to select a VP running mate like the one McCain did. I am an independent and would have voted for McCain but then he selected Palin and I had to vote for Obama even though I did not, and still do not, like him..... chose the lesser of two evils.


Posted by About Gingrich, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2012 at 10:16 am

For those hypocrites that claim to be republican and conservative, read about Gingrich:

Web Link

Not only did he divorce his second wife after she was diagnosed with MS, but he divorced the first wife and did not provide adequate support for her or his daughters.

And yet Rush L and followers defend Gingrich? Hypocrites!


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jan 20, 2012 at 10:29 am

"My 2 cents" said: "I only hope that the right wing folks do not force Romney, should he win the GOP primary, to select a VP running mate like the one McCain did. I am an independent and would have voted for McCain but then he selected Palin and I had to vote for Obama even though I did not, and still do not, like him..... chose the lesser of two evils."

I was undecided between McCain and Obama, but when McCain (or, rather, the extreme right wing) selected Palin for his running mate that clinched it for me. That forced me to vote for Obama. Hopefully, the GOP now realizes how many independents they alienated with that move and don't try to do something like that again.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2012 at 4:16 pm

If Romney doesn't make it through, Obama will be re-elected.

Romney is the only Republican candidate that can attract enough indepedent voters like myself. The Obama campaign knows this and is why they are actively courting independents like myself.

BTW, I too find the excitement surrounding Gingrich to be a tad hypocritical. He's a great debater and I'd love to see him go up against Obama, but his personal actions are completely divorced from his eloquent rhetoric.


Posted by Democrat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2012 at 7:03 pm

Gingrich is a better choice than Romney for the Republican nomination. Romney's wealth and offshore holdings of wealth will be hit much harder by Obama than Gingrich in any campaign. Also, don't you think the words "I'm successful" 15 times in a debate are a little grating (the Romney-speak of last night's debate)? It sounds obnoxious.

Gingrich has released his tax returns. Romney hasn't.

Also, who knows what skeletons Romney has in the closet? At least Gingrich's are out in the open.

Haven't you forgotten that Ronald Reagan divorced Jane Wyman before marrying Nancy? Who cares.


Posted by Democrat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2012 at 7:08 pm

Web Link is an article on the Cayman offshore money of Mitt Romney.


Posted by Wow, a resident of Del Prado
on Jan 20, 2012 at 7:49 pm

You libs are too much. How many years were you preaching to us that BJ Clinton's dalliances were his personal business and had no bearing on his ability to lead the country?

Sam; better check your facts. "I can see Russia..." was from and SNL skit.

It's clear who the Democrats and country club Republicans fear the most.


Posted by Indie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2012 at 7:58 pm

It's a tough one. I also voted for Obama last time and am now in the "anyone but Obama" camp. I had no idea that he planned to move us so far in a big government direction.

But, big problem, I can't stand Gingrich or Santorum and really can't see myself voting for either of them. At least Obama is a good man (which Gingrich is not) and I just totally disagree with Santorum on some social issues.

I like Ron Paul a lot (small government, protecting our freedom and steering clear of unneeded international engagements, while totally supporting national defense), but he's being totally blacked out by the media. This has been an education in itself - I had no idea how deliberately the media can so deliberately and intentially ignore a candidate who was #3 and #2 in the first two states. Last time around I thought he was a crank, but when I'm allowed to hear him I find I agree with a lot (not all) of what he says. It really has opened my eyes to how the media works and how much the other candidates including Obama change their minds to say what they think we want to hear.

I think I would vote for Romney over Obama, but again I don't like the tendency towards overseas aggression, which of course that also costs a lot of money we don't have now.

It will be tough.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2012 at 9:27 pm

Great summary Indie - you capture well the thinking and dilemma we independents face.


Posted by Democrat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 20, 2012 at 11:06 pm

Not all democrats are libs, whatever that means.

The 24X7 media today just focuses on who is the most photogenic and not what they say, but what they look like. I think that in past decades, this was not as important because the newspapers were the top of the pecking order in the media and you only saw candidates in 5 minute slices on the six o'clock news. Now, the internet and video drives everything. And all the candidates have a slew of PR people to drive their messaging.

I like Gingrich because he seems to be well versed in the facts, and doesn't have to pay too many PR people to tell him what to say (unlike the photogenic ones that are more beauty than brains thus have a well oiled spin machine).

And regarding the Clinton dalliance(s) issue, the problem with that was that he lied under oath. If he had said what happened it would have been one thing, but he held press conferences saying he barely knew who the intern was and then he lied under oath. Clinton said "there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship or any other kind of improper relationship" which he defended as truthful saying "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Oh brother.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jan 20, 2012 at 11:36 pm

Wow said: "Sam; better check your facts. "I can see Russia..." was from and SNL skit."

Sorry. it's not always easy to tell since Tina Fey of SNL sometimes uses quotes from Sarah Palin verbatim in the SNL skits.

For the record, here is what Palin said:
"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin in interview with Katie Couric


Posted by Repentent Democrat, a resident of Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
on Jan 21, 2012 at 12:16 am

I voted for the dastardly communist Owebama, but never again. I'm very impressed with Romney's ability to shelter his money from the socialist tax mongers by keeping it in Cayman Islands and other off shore shelters. He's brilliant, and great for America. He's rich and he'll figure how to keep his money and that of the wealthy out of the pilfering hands of the entitlement groups like kids and old people.


Posted by Nope!, a resident of Downtown
on Jan 21, 2012 at 12:27 am

Democrat said: "Also, who knows what skeletons Romney has in the closet? At least Gingrich's are out in the open."

We don't know what skeletons Romney has in his closet, and we probably never will seeing as he spent state funds destroying his records as Governor. Web Link


Posted by Steve, a resident of Parkside
on Jan 21, 2012 at 7:33 am

Speaking of skeletons in the closet, what do you know about Obama? His former girlfriends, drug use, sexual preference, birthplace, education, questionable political associations with bill ayers, etc.?.
If its fair to perform these types of inquiries of republican politicians, why is Obama off limits and was never vetted when people where alleging their guilt by voting for him in 2008.
When will the media do their jobs? When will they impartially investigate all comers and not target only those that don't follow their political leanings? And why is it always called racist when you question the guy who's half white, but not when Herman Cain was smeared?
Pathetic process you leftists support.....


Posted by Beat Obama!, a resident of Castlewood Heights
on Jan 21, 2012 at 9:13 am

It's been a very entertaining process; I even enjoyed watching John King squirm when Gingrich toasted him. Personally, I think 3 of the 4 (not Paul) can beat a very weak Obama. As far as my choice? It's Romney, it was last time too. It's actually the only rational choice. He has had some quiet debates, but I think he is uncomfortable in the clown show. Romney will win. He has the money and organization for the long run, it is well organized and in the end it will be lethal to the other candidates. He will come close in SC and that in itself is a victory and then go on the win FL and the other states. Why? He is a solid leader and great administrator, has proven it his entire career. That's what we need to beat Obama...not bomb throwers. Give me an enormously succesful business man and politican against a community rabble rouser any day, Romney beats Obama hands down. In fact I liked the commnet Mitt made that no one else noticed. He said "Obama is in over his head", I have thought this from day one, from even when he was a poor excuse for a Senator. What a mess were in, we were in one before, but Obama just keeps adding wood and pouring gas on the fire.


Posted by Repentent Democrat, a resident of Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
on Jan 21, 2012 at 9:19 am

Yes, Obama is over his head. Last week he put more regs on the banks, today he's putting the clamps on 'payday' companies. He's such a communist! Romney would let the banks and payday companies flourish, and he'd encourage them to set up money in the Caymans. Romney has so much more integrity!

p.s. I want to know more about Obama's girlfriends while he was in college. What a bombshell this is threatening to become!


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jan 21, 2012 at 9:22 am

Steve said: "Speaking of skeletons in the closet, what do you know about Obama? His former girlfriends, drug use, sexual preference, birthplace, education, questionable political associations with bill ayers, etc.?."

LOL! Good one, Steve! Especially "birthplace"! I didn't think that there were any of you left.


Posted by My 2 cents, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 10:14 am

"Speaking of skeletons in the closet, what do you know about Obama? His former girlfriends, drug use, sexual preference, birthplace, "

Born in Hawaii. Went to Columbia University and Harvard Law School

His former girlfriends are irrelevant. If you are trying to defend Gingrich with this, wow!

btw, the democrats have never claimed to be the "family values" party, the republicans do it all the time, and yet their personal lives say the opposite: affairs, divorce, et


As for drug use, Obama himself admitted to past drug use, and there is nothing wrong with that, just like Bush's alcohol battles before becoming president.... irrelevant! If you want to read about Obama's drug use:

""Years later in his 1995 memoir, he mentioned smoking "reefer" in "the dorm room of some brother" and talked about "getting high." Before Occidental, he indulged in marijuana, alcohol and sometimes cocaine as a high school student in Hawaii, according to the book. He made "some bad decisions" as a teenager involving drugs and drinking, Senator Obama, now a presidential candidate, told high school students in New Hampshire last November.

Mr. Obama's admissions are rare for a politician (his book, "Dreams From My Father," was written before he ran for office.)"

Web Link


Stop trying to justify Gingrich and the extreme right wing with useless accusations.

I am not a fan of Obama, but attacking him the way Steve did is simply dumb. You sound very uneducated, Steve, focus on the issues: Obama has done a horrible job as president, no one denies that, but come on, questioning his birth place? WOW!

I suppose you are one of the "anyone but Romney" republicans? Well, the only candidate that stands a chance against Obama is Romney. THat is, if the extreme wing does not force him to pick a moron like Palin as the VP.


Posted by My 2 cents, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 10:19 am

"Gingrich is a better choice than Romney for the Republican nomination."

Let's see, he resigned and paid 300K in fines for ethics violations.....please read about this guy (not his personal life) and what he did in the past. The country is already in bad shape, and Gingrich would only make it worse.

The best candidate is Romney.. and even if you don't like Romney, if you want to see Obama be a one term president (like I do), you would understand that Romney is the only one who can beat Obama in the general election. I am an independent btw, and it is the independent vote that generally determines elections. So republicans should stop worrying about the "base"


Posted by indie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 10:51 am

Romney and Paul fare much better than Gingrich and Santorum against Obama in polls. They are the only ones who will get the independent and democrat votes of people disappointed by Obama. We deserve a better person than Gingrich as president.


Posted by Repentent Democrat, a resident of Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
on Jan 21, 2012 at 10:56 am

"Obama has done a horrible job as president, no one denies that"

Yes, the list is long. He's a socialist, a tyrant, a communist, and he's left-handed. His wife has done a bad job too. Just horrible. He's taken us into several wars we've lost, he's lied to the american people about SOOOOOO much, and he's a bad basketball player. C'mon for pete's sake, American, come to your senses and vote for the Cayman Island man Mitt.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jan 21, 2012 at 11:08 am

"Obama has done a horrible job as president, no one denies that"

Actually, I would disagree with that. I don't think that Obama is horrible. I just think that maybe someone else could do better, at least on the domestic front. Come to think of it, Obama has actually done fairly well on the international front, much better than Bush. He did restore much of the image of the US which was tarnished under the Bush administration. Also, under the Obama administration Osama Bin Laden was finally tracked down. Obama also put a lot more pressure on the Taliban by greatly stepping up the rate of Predator attacks on the Taliban. If judged solely by his achievements on the international and foreign policy front, Obama would have no problems getting re-elected. It's the economy and other domestic issues that are going to sink him.


Posted by Beat Obama, a resident of Castlewood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 12:44 pm

"Romney would let the banks and payday companies flourish, and he'd encourage them to set up money in the Caymans. Romney has so much more integrity!"

Really, that's all you have? LMAO! Yeah, its those terrible payday lender preying on thise poor morons too dumb to have a budget that has us in trillions in debt and 9% unemployment, the number is actually way higher. I am in the Romeny tank. But Gingrich does have one thing right, the Left Wing Obamanista's have created a state where his socialists supporter believe we need him and him alone to protect us from "evil" capitalists like Romeny. Unless keeping money in the Caymans is illegal, how does that compromise Rommney's integrity? Is there really something wrong in your eyes with someone staying within the law to protect and perhaps increase one's wealth? Just because your a loser...do we all have to be? Class warefare in Pleasanton...LOL. I wish I was in Romeny position and needed to keep money offshore. It's mine, why does the government want to get more of my money? Here in CA I give them more than 50%...how much more is enough? The answer is it's never enough for the Left Wing social engineers who are in power now. The good news is that even if I had to give the gov 75%...I would still never need a payday loan so please Lord Obama...no more help for me.

BTW...he's toast. A one termer for sure. He lost independents long again, he all he has left is a noisy, yet pathetic base.


Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Jan 21, 2012 at 12:53 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

The entire method of selecting candidates is terrible. New Hampshire and Iowa insist on being first, followed by SC. Doesn't that give you a giant clue the small states want to dominate the process. They are afraid they will be stepped on but look what get, candidates that learn how to pander.

Wake up.


Posted by My 2 cents, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 1:22 pm

"Also, under the Obama administration Osama Bin Laden was finally tracked down."

Obama did not replace Bush's people. It was the policy and personnel Bush had that was responsible for getting rid of Osama bin Laden.


Posted by Repentent Democrat, a resident of Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
on Jan 21, 2012 at 2:28 pm

"Class warefare in Pleasanton...LOL. I wish I was in Romeny position and needed to keep money offshore. It's mine, why does the government want to get more of my money?"

Why should we concern ourselves with Mitt's hard-earned, scraping-his-fingers-to-the-bone money he's sheltered in off-shore accounts when 1 in 4 kids in US is going to bed hungry at night? It's his money, and he has the blisters to show for it!

And, right, Obama had nothing to do with getting bin Laden. If only he had ignored the CIA's misgivings like Bush did, then we'd be in a better position. Without Bush ignoring warnings about 9-11, we wouldn't even have had bin Laden to go after. Hail Bush! Defeat the over his head Owebama and his communist wife. He should have set up a lemonade stand in front of the white house from day one to create more jobs. He didn't, and so like Sam so astutely points out, he needs to be defeated big time by a guy like ... Mitt Romney. Let's replace our nat'l health care with the one in Massachussetts.


Posted by Beat Obama, a resident of Castlewood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Again...you libs crack me up. Who cares how Romeny got his money? It simply just doesn't matter.It's really none of your business. As long as it was legal and nothing indicates it wasn't, in this country your entitled to as much wealth as you can earn, its what makes us great. Yes, even at the expense of others.

LOL, this blog proves Darwinism in its most simple form.

The 1% are just a hell of a lot smarter than the other 99.


Posted by LOL, a resident of Foothill Farms
on Jan 21, 2012 at 3:04 pm

Hey Rep Dem...What are you doing to help the 25% of hungry kids? I'll bet the millions that Romeny pays in taxes, yes, even at the legal 15% is a hundred times more for poor people than what you contribute...if anything at all. BTW, he also tithes millions to his church, not many Mormons on the governement tit...another thing you leftists can learn from Mitt. Romeny is a solid citizen who has followed all the rules and succeded, he takes care of his family and community and loves his country enough to run for President...God, what evil!


Posted by Repentent Democrat, a resident of Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
on Jan 21, 2012 at 3:10 pm

Yep, top 10% of pop possesses over 80% of wealth in US, and some moron crows about the poor embattled Mitt being taxed "maybe" at 15%. How truly "evil" that the govt would take so much from the guy who has given so much to the Mormons to fight gay marriage and other human rights issues. Can anyone spell simpleton?


Posted by John, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 3:43 pm

I always love the comments that Bush is the one responsible for Bin Laden's death, but not the poor economy. Spoken like a true GOP! They even are now saying extramarital affairs are not an issue- love this wacked party, so fun to laugh at their indignation as they try to justify the new class of hypocrits, thinking all of these characteristics are better than a Democrat in office. Cant wait to see Steve get all riled up over this one!


Posted by Beat Obama, a resident of Castlewood Heights
on Jan 21, 2012 at 3:48 pm

" when 1 in 4 kids in US is going to bed hungry at night?

OK fair enough; now lets consider this statement. If true, and I think it probably is, then its a sad reflection of not only both political parties but society in general, no kid in this country should be hungry...agreed.

So my question; who is the President now? Romney or Obama? So what blame does Obama have? His policys? He has been President 4 years? Are there less hungry kids? Does the buck stop with him? Or will you continue to make excuses for him? Are you really that blind on the left? Don't you remember his broken promises during last campain.More jobs, less hunger, less foreclosures, lift the seas and us all with them? Yes, maybe Mitt's class that top 10% who have "worked their fingers to the bone" might pay just a little more, but only if it goes to helping poor kids. I fall in that category and I would be agreeable. Byt what guarentee do I have that this administration will be good stewards of my money. You could have feed a lot of kids with the $3.5B taxpayer dollars flushed at Solyndra.

But do your really think that your Messiah Obama really loses any sleep about these poor kids, or does he really care more about his power? I don't know, he got enough sleep to play 90 rounds of golf while these kids are starving.

It's true, kids are hungry, people are out of work and our education system is in shambles...the country has been driven into a ditch. I just find it ironic that those on the left are blind to the current driver...Obama.

Instead they make ugly and typical unfounded attacks on a successful man who knows what a mess Obama has made this country and thinks that he has what it takes to make sure those kids don't get any hungrier and is willing to run for President to prove it.

There is no rationale in the arguements of the left, they are simply noisy and retorical. But this time it won't work. It didn't work in the mid-terms and it won't work in this year's election either, people are coming to there senses, well, maybe not here in CA, were to far gone for that, but in all the swing states, where Obama has sunk like a rock. We WILL see a Republican House, Senate and White House in 2012, then we will finally see which party really cares about doing something for hungry kids.


Posted by John, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 3:58 pm

Oh because the Rep. did such a good job with it in the prior administration- I cant wait to see a repeat performance! Oh, I'll wait for you to blame it all on the Dem. congress, though, see that works for your argument. Try keeping the same criteria why dont you, and you laugh at the Dems, you really dont hear yourself I guess.


Posted by Beat Obama, a resident of Castlewood Heights
on Jan 21, 2012 at 4:17 pm

That's all you have John? That's your answer. Same old Playbook and that Playbook is WAY too old.

See, I am a partisan that would have voted for Obama if he would have kept his promises and been the Leader everyone was hoping he would be. Hell, I voted for Bill Clinton his second term, he did a great job, I'd vote for him again, even consider voting for Hillary. But Obama is not Clinton, he is more like the Italian cruise ship captain...and Dems like you are blinded by your ideology. Too bad too...your party has gone so far left. There once were Dems to be respected, no longer. You have one in Webb in VA, but he's had enough of your party too. We have one too and he is going to be our nominee and Independents are going to flock to him, because your President sold Independent's a lie, and fool me once.


Posted by John, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm

I would love to have seen what could have been possible if the GOP controlled house would not have filibustered/blocked every attempt OUR president made to get our country out of the mess that was handed to him. It would have been great to see a GOP right wing party that preaches "we want our country back" to actually DO something to help that happen rather than obstruct any progress, to do it for our country and us, the 99% rather than big business and the state of their re-election campaigns. Sorry to hear the strange logic that from the GOP that when news is positive, its not because of OUR president, when news is negative, it is the fault of their president. It would be great to see the GOP actually interpret the successes we are experiencing, slowly but surely as a good thing coming out of this administration rather than deny all of it. It really makes me question the rationality, goal, and purpose of this party. Sure doesn't seem like its about helping the majority of Americans. Seems like it matches your name- beat the Dem. no matter how bad the alternatives are.

As for judging me as you have, nice try- I think both parties are wonked. The support for more of the same is what I find hilariously hypocritical from the likes of you.


Posted by Beat Obama, a resident of Castlewood Heights
on Jan 21, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Oh John...poor John. Your too far gone. Maybe if your President spent less time on 90 rounds of golf and more time trying to build consensus versus and doing what he was elected to do instead of trying to get re-elected by dividing the country we would be better off. I don't know...just saying. You keep hoping for those green energy jobs and electric cars...such romantics you libs are.

You can lay all the blame you want...but you are affictated with the most liberal of all sickness. the sickness of never being accountable for your actions, always blaming someone else for your problems, taking that easy way out instead of being willing to do some heavy lifting to take care of yourself and community, very femanine of you. Like us evil 1%ers. It's all Darwinsim poor John, the 1% just happens to be smarter than the other 99%. The fast eat the slow. has always been this way and always will be. Not even your Messiah can change it.


Posted by John, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 5:03 pm

Just as I expected, no answer for the hard work from the party of NO. Just the lame party line insults, now to add the personal insults, you must be stressing tonight, with the Newt win. Interesting how you only see blame from one side. Not sure what you call your rhetoric then, is it an "observation" when it comes from a GOP writer? What more could I expect from the 1%. The group who works tirelessly to ensure this country is divided and stays that way. Something that is recognized regardless of what party you believe in.


Posted by Beat Obama, a resident of Castlewood Heights
on Jan 21, 2012 at 5:08 pm

LMAO!

4 years ago Obama ran on his promises....this time he has to run on his record. He's toast!


Posted by Presidential material, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm

Our country is in a severe economic crisis, resulting in severe unemployment. Jobless families is the biggest issue to be dealt with, which first requires somebody who actually understands WHAT makes economic wheels turn.
Eonomically ignorant and uneducated talkers should have at least tiny bits of economic market awareness before sharing their . . to use George Carlin's phrase 'bird droppings'.
Today the US economy is part of a world market...and as the kid on tv says 'it's complicated'. I agree,and MUCH too complicated for peabrains. Sadly, even in our educated Pleasanton there are still a few peabrains....(magnified when they are politically motivated).
First, there are LEGAL Cayman accounts. LEGAL accounts upon which US taxes are PAID.!. Many economic illiterates aren't aware of illegal vs LEGAL. Some politically driven either intentionally or unintentionally choose to make false statements.
On the opposite end of taxable legalities, are those who simply FORGET to pay taxes.... like our Secy of Treas, Timothy Geithner. That was ok with Obama when he picked him, but I didn't see much discussion here, on the topic of overlooking filing taxes at all!! In fact, I think Mr Geithner's failure to file, when April 15 is coded into all American's DNA at the time of birth. That issue is quite different than 'economic' issues beyond the understanding of economic illiterates.
Next election, I hope we can have a team of economic literates. Of course, it would help to have an economically aware electorate as well.


Posted by Right On, a resident of Danville
on Jan 21, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Well said PM. The Pleasanton economic illiterates don't realize that US income tax is paid on Cayman accounts. The advantage is to defer taxes not dodge them...yes, all perfectly legal.

The challanges as you mentioned are huge, and we need a leader who really understands them, has lived them, who can get us back to work.

I haven't decided who to vote for yet, but Romney did say it best, Obama "is in over his head".

Oh, you missed Obama's biggest business supporter. Jeffery Immelt the CEO of GE and an advisor to Obama. His company didn't pay a dime of income tax last year, moved tens of thousands of jobs offshore. How do the Obama supporters defend that? Only one way, they are forever the dreamers of the free lunch.


Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Jan 21, 2012 at 5:39 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

One exit poll by a national news company indicates that the reason for choosing their Republican candidate is someone that can beat President Obama. Reasons such as in dealing with the economy and foreign countries ranked at the bottom.

Sad. No wonder this country is in a mess. Hate wins.


Posted by Right On, a resident of Danville
on Jan 21, 2012 at 5:44 pm

No worries dublinmike...its South Carolina not the country. Hate happens on both sides, it's unfortunate...


Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Jan 21, 2012 at 5:52 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

"Hate happens on both sides" you are correct. People on the extremes do not care for opinions, they have an insecure need to support their opinions that they are right, no matter what.

As I have signed off in the past, Bless Our Mess. At least we have an venue to express our opinions

From the Middle, Cheers.


Posted by Democrat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 7:15 pm

Looks like Gingrich has won the S.C. primary. As I said yesterday, Romney putting money in off-shore Cayman accounts does not look good, irregardless of whether it is legal or not.

Americans do not like tax loopholes for the rich, particularly for Republican presidential candidates who boast about how rich they are.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 8:09 pm

I believe Romney stated he was not going to be ashamed of his success. This is a bit different than boasting about one's wealth.

Also, the Cayman accounts were set up by Bain as a way to attract foreign investors. Also these accounts are in a blind trust for Romeny who does not personally direct them. Unfortunately these subtleties will be lost on most Americans with their short and shallow attention spans.

Lastly, paying 15% on long-term capital gains is a benefit that all Americans have if they are willing to consume less than they earn, save and invest. Sacrifice and savings seem to be a foreign concept for most Americans these days.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 8:12 pm

And if we are going to talk about loopholes, lets make sure we don't forget the one for public employees where they can claim a disability at the end of their career and have their already rich pensions be 50% tax free. The very high percentage of fire/police personnel who claim this disability is suspect, to say the least, especially those who ended up in desk jobs.


Posted by Democrat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 8:31 pm

All good points, GX.

But paying 15% tax on dividends by having money sheltered in the Cayman Islands when the going rate for the amount of tax regular people pay, around 30%, is double is not going to sit well with the American people.

I agree what you say about the public employees as well. When you add up the salaries made when the public employee works then look at the millions raked in through pensions when the person retires at say, 50, then lives another 30 or so years, what is paid out in pensions is much more than what the person earned while working on the clock. The total compensation is astronomical. Democrats and republicans are fed up with the public pension gravy train and the draining of our tax dollars. Adding disability on top of that as well as other tricks to up pension pay have the general public disgusted.


Posted by GX, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 21, 2012 at 8:48 pm

FYI, I pay 15% on some of my dividends that are "qualified". I don't understand the specific tax rules around this but this benefit is available to people like myself who don't have off-shore accounts.

I sure do wish Romney had approaches this sensitive topic in a different manner. But the key point here is that nothing illegal happend.

Now I will agree that tax rules need to be changed. Not only at the top end but also at the lower end. It is not healthy to have 50% of our population not paying income tax. It makes it much to easy to ask for free stuff that others have to pay for.


Posted by Kangaroo, a resident of another community
on Jan 21, 2012 at 8:50 pm

This is the battle cry for those of us that still have common sense.
Web Link


Posted by Repentent Dem, a resident of Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
on Jan 21, 2012 at 11:46 pm

Right. Make poor people who pay on average 13% of their income to taxes pay more than the top 50% who average 11%. Some real sick little puppies contribute to these posts. Imagine those public workers thinking they can pull a fast one on us smart guys. They're all paying more than Romney's 15%, but that's because they're stupid and corrupt, while Romney is virtuous, law-abiding, and presidential. Romney, the next great white hope. Gingrich, the next great white whale.


Posted by Indie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2012 at 1:03 am

Repentant dem. do you care to comment on the public sector retirement age of 50-55. I am not in the 1 percent or the lucky early retirees. They are the same as far as I am concerned. The whole system is corrupt and there is one party.


Posted by My 2 cents, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2012 at 6:56 am

Unfortunately, we are looking at an Obama second term (yikes) if the GOP does not get smart.

So the "base" (conservative right wing nuts) went for Gingrich and not Romney. They will decide who gets the GOP nomination, but come the general election, independents like myself WILL NOT vote for Gingrich but would have voted for Romney. We are looking at another 2008 scenario where many of us were forced to vote for Obama, in order to keep the right wing nuts (Palin et al) as far away from Washington as possible.

When will the GOP understand that the base will not be sufficient support in the general election? that they must obtain the independent vote?

"More than one-third of South Carolina primary voters identified themselves as very conservative, according to exit polls conducted on behalf of the television networks and the Associated Press. Mitt Romney won only 20 percent of their votes, compared to Newt Gingrich's 45 percent.

Among the 60 percent of the electorate who are evangelical Christians, Romney was able to grab roughly 20 percent of the vote, while Gingrich captured 40 percent.

These groups of voters are part of the core of the Republican Party. But it's clear that Romney, still the favorite for the party's 2012 presidential nomination, could enter the general election campaign without the full embrace of his party's base. "

Web Link


Posted by My 2 cents, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2012 at 7:05 am

"Americans do not like tax loopholes for the rich, particularly for Republican presidential candidates who boast about how rich they are."

You are wrong. The folks who did not vote for Romney are the "base" of the republican party, and they embrace this kind of thing, tax loopholes for the rich. They are the antigovernment, anti tax, anti social reforms party.

Romney did not do well in SC because he is perceived as moderate.

The tax loophole may come into play in the general election, when you have independents and democrats vote as well (not just republicans as in the primaries), but then again, in the general election, Newt's ethics violations, consultant for the very entity responsible for the housing mess, etc will come into play with independents and democrats alike.


Posted by Beat Obama, a resident of Castlewood
on Jan 22, 2012 at 7:44 am

It doesn't matter who comes up on top in the Republican primary, Obama is toast. Both Romney and Gingrich will crush him as they did in the mid-terms. The Left is noisy and angry but impotent, no ideas and full of blame, but there is a bottom line here as the Dems and Obama have driven this country off a cliff. Professor Obama who has always been over his head is going to have to pay for his own golf (wow, 90 rounds so far!)in 2012.

Last time Obama ran on his promises, this time he has a record...this is going to be a cake walk to the White House.

Rep Dem is going to half to get of the couch and get a job!


Posted by My 2 cents, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2012 at 7:57 am

"the Dems and Obama have driven this country off a cliff. "

Yes, Obama, Pelosi et al have done a horrible job, but don't forget that it all started with Bush and the republican congress, the GOP had control of the WH and Congress for 6 years, and they did a horrible job. The economy was in very bad shape when Bush's term ended, and Obama has only made things worse.

We need the extreme left and extreme right to back off!

Gingrich will not win against Obama, Romney will. Get smart GOP and select Romney as the GOP nominee!!! (otherwise, we are looking at an Obama second term, something this country simply cannot afford)


Posted by My 2 cents, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2012 at 8:05 am

"I always love the comments that Bush is the one responsible for Bin Laden's death, but not the poor economy"

Bush had a big role in the recession we saw in 2008 (which began before then), but so did the democrats. Don't forget it was Clinton who, on his way out of office in 1999, passed the "mortgage for all" deal, with the approval of the republican congress. Bush failed to undo this, both parties are at fault for the economic mess that started in 2008. Obama has made things worse.

As for bin Laden's death: read about it. Tell me who came up with the plan (it was not Obama), and you do know that Obama kept Bush's personnel and policy in place, right? That is why the left was mad at him. Get your facts straight, please. I truly hate the rethoric of both the extreme left and extreme right, both are driving this country to the ground and neither side accepts responsibility, only blames the other side.

We need moderate people. and right now it looks like Romney, while not perfect, is our best hope.


Posted by Arroyo, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2012 at 8:24 am

Public service announcement:

I've heard that "Goo-Off" will remove most of the glue left by Obama/Biden 2008 bumper stickers.


Posted by Repentent Dem, a resident of Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
on Jan 22, 2012 at 1:21 pm

Romney has been retired all his life. It just shows he's smarter than the public service workers who work 30-35 years before retiring. Romney's my choice. If he's elected, he'll take all remaining constraints off Cayman Island tax shelters. Go Mitt, Go! He's a moderate. And Obama's over his head. I read that in the media. Oh, and I think GX is a genius.


Posted by indie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2012 at 1:31 pm

. . . and the public sector workers are smarter than us as we have to work 45-50 years before we retire in order to pay for their 30-35 years.


Posted by Repentent Dem, a resident of Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
on Jan 22, 2012 at 1:39 pm

... therefore, all suckers of the world unite and vote Romney!


Posted by Oklahoma Fats, a resident of Oak Tree Acres
on Jan 22, 2012 at 10:10 pm

... therefore all suckers, too dumb to recognize their own interests, will vote for whatever slop the Republican Party puts on their plate.


Posted by Oklahoma Fats, a resident of Oak Tree Acres
on Jan 23, 2012 at 9:34 pm

I was so impressed by Romney's 'self-deportation' concept, that I self-arrested myself and self-turned myself into the police after I self-caught myself going 5 miles over the speed limit.

Why was I speeding? I was so angry because at the debate tonight Romney informed us that price of gas has doubled under Obama.

And that durned Obama is strangling the NASA program. Like Mitt says, we shouldn't let the govt take money to run it, just the military. (Whose military? I don't know. Utah's? Mormon Church? I dunno, but it isn't our military because our military is part of the govt., financed by our tax dollars.)

Oh golly and for goodness sakes. He'll be so able to trounce Obama in the fall. Obama's in over his head. PS, let's invade Cuba and bomb the heck out of Iran. PPS, he'll be releasing his tax statements on Tues, depending on what his accountants tell him he has done with his hard-earned wealth. Now, can't we go back to talking about Obama's citizenship status and the girls he dated in high school?


Posted by Your Neighbor, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Ok, this was my first time posting after years of reading, and I must say it did not turn out as I had hoped.

I was hoping that someone here would be able to offer a new option, someone who could come in and run this presidential campaign game as a Republican. Such an option has not been offered.

Gingrich has too many negative ethical issues in his personal, business and political life to list here that I simply cannot abide. His view that the Supreme Court can be overridden by the office of the president is repugnant. He wants to eliminate estate and capital gains taxes. He would negate Sarbanes-Oxley, which established accounting regulations on public companies after major scandals at Enron, Tyco and others. He wants to return to the gold standard and referred to the Congressional Budget Office a "reactionary socialist institution".

This man is not president material. I had hopes, now all dashed.

Paul and Santorum are nut jobs. Please don't go there.

That leaves Romney. Many posting here seem to consider him the answer to my initial question. After reading every post I am not convinced. Still. Guess I cannot expect the township to resolve my dilemma for me. Thank you all for you thoughts. This topic will be revisit in the months to come.


Posted by Oklahoma Fats, a resident of Oak Tree Acres
on Jan 24, 2012 at 12:49 pm

The reason the GOP is so far right is that the Democratic Party moved to the middle during the Clinton administration, and Obama has remained throwing screen passes for short gains on the 50 yard line. The GOP had a choice --- to fight it out for the middle, or slide to the right. They slid, and plenty, as indicated by the ill-educated rubes on these posts wailing about Obama being a tyrannical muslim socialist. The far left is unoccupied by anyone of any importance or national stature. Leaving, as you see, the lopsided mess we now enjoy.

Since there are no strong candidates on the left, and the right is faced with the twin embarrassments, Romney and Gingrich, the country will give Obama another 4 years -- probably by the same margin or more than he won in 2008. (What current polls are not showing is that approx 8-10 of Obama's disapproval numbers are coming from the left, which will support his centrist tendencies when pitted against the lunacy of the right's candidate.)


Posted by Democrat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2012 at 1:01 pm

I think Barack Obama will be a one term president just like Jimmy Carter was. The economy is much worse now than it was during Carter's term and he served only one term.


Posted by steve, a resident of Parkside
on Jan 24, 2012 at 1:15 pm

Interesting, Democrat, how many times over the past three years that we've heard comparisons between obama and Jimmy Carter. Not exactly flattering to either, but Carter is still getting the short end of the stick in that comparison.


Posted by Buddy, a resident of Foxborough Estates
on Jan 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm

I'd much rather have Jimmy Carter as president than any of the boo-bobs being fielded by the party of NO.


Posted by Democrat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm

Back in 1980 John Anderson ran under the Independent Party so there was a 3 way race -- Reagan, Carter and Anderson.

Maybe that could happen again. I think a 3 way race would be interesting. There are a lot of Independents/Declined to State voters out there.

It would be nice to have a real choice of candidates -- not just the 2 party system


Posted by Buddy, a resident of Foxborough Estates
on Jan 24, 2012 at 5:40 pm

There usually are multiple candidates from multiple parties on the ballot in November. Problem is, the boobs currently fielded by the Republicans are the best they have to offer. After a week under the public lights, Daniels, Christie, Rubio, Bush, et.al. would fare no less miserably than did Perry, Bachmann, Trump, and Cain.


Posted by Oklahoma Fats, a resident of Oak Tree Acres
on Jan 24, 2012 at 8:24 pm

Boy. Governor Mitch Daniels' speech ... was ... really ... good. He ... had ... me ... sitting ... on ... the ... edge ... of ... my ... seat ... until ... I ...

So, this was the guy who was supposed to handily stop Obama's 2nd term? Or maybe I have him confused with Donald Trump?

These guys are hilarious.


Posted by Presidential material, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2012 at 10:39 pm

Repent Dem, so you try to create a false picture that somebody paying a higher rate, pays more $. So WRONG ! FALSE, NOT TRUE ! Romney gave $7.2 million to charities in last two years, and PAID $$6.2million in just FEDERAL TAXES, plus state and others!!!! Can you come up with a name of anybody who paid more than $6.2million in federal taxes. I know it's complicated for you, and get confused or intentionally try to confuse others with the Dem party line of 'paying smaller rate'. As a senior with NO pension, I would be furious if I had to pay on my tiny interest earned, on savings I already paid taxes on at the time I earned my savings.
Anyway, I'll be watching for the names of all those people who pay MORE than $6.2MILLION in just Fed taxes.... those who are getting robbed for paying a higher rate !!.....or you can just stick to real facts and not mix %rate and hard $$, two VERY DIFFERENT things. . . . ..you really do understand, you're just pulling our legs, pretending you don't get it.


Posted by Presidential material, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2012 at 11:15 pm

I just replayed Obama's words from tonight ....started out about 'rates' then he closes sentence, with. .. shouldn't Buffet pay as much as his secretary?.... ....Well, he does PAY more DOLLARS, BUT, he's paying a lower RATE. similar to the Romney situation above.
Very deft, very deceitful, intended for the ignorant. (ignorant meaning ill-informed).


Posted by Oklahoma Fats, a resident of Oak Tree Acres
on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:23 am

Right. According to "Presidential material's" um 'reading', if I make a mill a year and my secretary makes 40K, I'm in the clear as long as I pay more tax dollars than she does. She pays 5k, I pay 6k, and everything is hunkydory. My 7 year-old reasons better than that. "Pres mat" shows why a lack of education is so ruinous for this country.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 1,095 views

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 31 comments | 982 views

Political posturing about water
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 711 views