Thread: MSNBC very anti-GOP?

No GOP anchor in sight - The New York Times - MSNBC.com

This article is a bash all about the GOP. I dont really argee with most of this at all. If you agree with it please explain, just cause there has been 3states and 3winners doesn't mean the GOP is a wreck. The demo. race is between 2people the GOP right now is between 4 so does that mean the GOP is a wreck and divided cause there is more choices?

Originally Posted by Spatta

No GOP anchor in sight - The New York Times - MSNBC.com

This article is a bash all about the GOP. I dont really argee with most of this at all. If you agree with it please explain, just cause there has been 3states and 3winners doesn't mean the GOP is a wreck. The demo. race is between 2people the GOP right now is between 4 so does that mean the GOP is a wreck and divided cause there is more choices?

The GOP pissed in their own bed. They have to sleep in it.
MSNBC is just pointing out the obvious.

Originally Posted by Spatta

No GOP anchor in sight - The New York Times - MSNBC.com

This article is a bash all about the GOP. I dont really argee with most of this at all. If you agree with it please explain, just cause there has been 3states and 3winners doesn't mean the GOP is a wreck. The demo. race is between 2people the GOP right now is between 4 so does that mean the GOP is a wreck and divided cause there is more choices?

As MSNBC is just reprinting an article form the NYT, maybe your title should be "NYT very anti-GOP".

Then rather then putting the onus on others to support the article, you could detail what in the article consititutes anti GOP.

ftr - I personally disagree with the term "wreck" to describe the GOP race. However, the three GOP winners do seem to have different enough philosophies that one would have time figuring out what direction the party wants to take.

Originally Posted by Spatta

No GOP anchor in sight - The New York Times - MSNBC.com

This article is a bash all about the GOP. I dont really argee with most of this at all. If you agree with it please explain, just cause there has been 3states and 3winners doesn't mean the GOP is a wreck. The demo. race is between 2people the GOP right now is between 4 so does that mean the GOP is a wreck and divided cause there is more choices?

The party that picks its nominee first, also usually wins the election.

Yep, excellent journalism:sarcasm:.

The convincing victory by Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary on Tuesday means three very different states — with dissimilar electorates driven by distinctive sets of priorities — have embraced three separate candidates in search of someone who can lead the party into a tough election and beyond President Bush.

On the most tangible level, the vote on Tuesday was proof from the ballot box of what polls have shown: this is a party that is adrift, deeply divided and uninspired when it comes to its presidential candidates and unsure of how to counter an energized Democratic Party.

So at the beginning of the process no one stands out. This must mean that the party is adrift, deeply divided and uninspired. I guess the democratic party must also be adrift, deeply divided and uninspired too.

What ever happened to journalists providing supporting evidence for the claims that they make? What polls? And how does the vote indicate that?

What ever happened to journalists trying to be objective?

The funny thing is that the pubs might be adrift, divided and uninspired but this journalist lost the opportunity to demonstrate it.

They should have pointed out that a large number of Republican voters (based on exit polling from these early contests) are not satisfied with the field of candidates they have to choose from. Given the developing economic story, things look bleak for the Republican nominee, but in 1992 at this point no one thought anyone had a chance against Bush senior either. But when nearly half the voters in the Republicans voting state that they are either disappointed or angry at their President it is easy for the talking heads or anyone else to be poking fun at the party that occupies the White House.

Originally Posted by Spatta

No GOP anchor in sight - The New York Times - MSNBC.com

This article is a bash all about the GOP. I dont really argee with most of this at all. If you agree with it please explain, just cause there has been 3states and 3winners doesn't mean the GOP is a wreck. The demo. race is between 2people the GOP right now is between 4 so does that mean the GOP is a wreck and divided cause there is more choices?

Americans are highly dissatisfied with the miserable choices the GOP elites are trying to force upon them. Fact is fact.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Americans are highly dissatisfied with the miserable choices the GOP elites are trying to force upon them. Fact is fact.

Ain't that the truth? Nobody exciting...just a bunch of old white men spouting variations on the same thing, and none are particularly well-spoken.

Huckabee....old, greasy/weasely lookin', bad name, white guy
McCain....old, looks close to Death and beat up from life as POW, white guy
Romney....not that old, but plastic looking and insincere, white guy
Thompson....old, looks like his face is falling off, butt-ugly, white guy
even Ron Paul....I like him, but hes OLD and white!

Again, none are captivating speakers. And looks (and speaking/charisma) do matter...ask Dick Nixon circa 1960 v. JFK.

Originally Posted by NO-Bama

Ain't that the truth? Nobody exciting...just a bunch of old white men spouting variations on the same thing, and none are particularly well-spoken.

Huckabee....old, greasy/weasely lookin', bad name, white guy
McCain....old, looks close to Death and beat up from life as POW, white guy
Romney....not that old, but plastic looking and insincere, white guy
Thompson....old, looks like his face is falling off, butt-ugly, white guy
even Ron Paul....I like him, but hes OLD and white!

Again, none are captivating speakers. And looks (and speaking/charisma) do matter...ask Dick Nixon circa 1960 v. JFK.

The common thread in your post is "old white guy"
You have something against old white guys?

Originally Posted by Migi e!

The common thread in your post is "old white guy"
You have something against old white guys?

No, as I will be one someday. Its just that nowadays, there seems to be a very negative connotation to old white guy politicians. The far left always accuses the GOP of being nothing but Rich, Old, White guys. The GOP needs someone young, male or female, and someone who is as outstanding an orator as BHO. Someone who can inspire actual excitement in not only the Party, but in the Media and in Independents. Its just not there.

Oh...forgot one....Giuliani....Old, bald, mean looking, and white!