jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (56 posts)

Why do Repubican Candidates attack each other?

  1. Michele Travis profile image68
    Michele Travisposted 5 years ago

    I am just wondering, why they are fighting so hard.  As soon as someone gets to the top, not only do they attack someone during the debates, but so does the media. Why don't they just work on helping they people who will vote for them.  I don't think they are doing enough of that.  Also, if they really want votes, they should be telling the middle class they will lower their taxes, not just lower the 1% rich peoples taxes.


    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5899209_f248.jpg

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's part of the vetting process, voluntarily.  And I'm glad.  And I wouldn't necessarily call it "attacks" that the Republicans have been doing.  I'd call it revealing the Candidates.
      For instance, wouldn't you want to know if Herman Cain had a history of asking women for sexual favors in exchange for a job?   Wouldn't you want to know Newt Gingrich's past history?   Ya know, the kind of thing that Obama still gets protected from?   Just because the Democrat Party covers up their Candidate's carp doesn't mean Republicans should cover up theirs.   The American people have a right to know a LOT about anyone they put into the highest Office in the land.  And the Democrat Party should've been fined or had sanctions of some type imposed upon it for nominating someone who wasn't even a Democrat!  Obama's not a Democrat!  He's off in some far-Left field that so far remains label-free and obscure.   Same situation with Ron Paul, but to a smaller degree.  Paul isn't really a Republican, I think.

      1. Michele Travis profile image68
        Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is true.  You are right,  they should not be able to cover up what they have done.  I agree with you,  I just think what they have done should be put in the news.  Why don't people look up what they have done?  I mean in terms of office.

  2. manlypoetryman profile image71
    manlypoetrymanposted 5 years ago

    Uhhh...That would require having a heart to stand up for what is right, being in touch with Americans, Holding to your convictions always, appealing to the American people, and having the ability to think for yourself...without a panel of at least 100 calling the shots for you.

    Any politicians out there that fit that bill?

    1. Michele Travis profile image68
      Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think so, none that I have ever seen.  So, there are no answers to my question.   Well, exept the one you gave me.
      Thanks.

      1. profile image60
        unavailableposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Michele

        Would you like a research list to know what is going on?

        1. Michele Travis profile image68
          Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, what I actually was wondering about, was what is going on in somebody's heart.  Do they truely want what is best for the country they love?  Do they want the best for the people who live in the country they love?
          The way I worded, this hub was incorrect, very incorrect.  However, what the people are writting is true.

          1. profile image60
            unavailableposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            OK  I will answer your question on that plane.
            I believe it is FEAR.  Because it sure is not coming out of love.
            It is also about power, power is sexy power demands respect.
            "O" did I say something about Fear.  These things are self assuring that they are stronger, safer and don't you just know that most of the voting public sees them as the dominate figure and best protector of the tribe.
            This is not to say that Republicans are any worse than Democrats in any way.  The socialist  deal with their fear in a sense of security in numbers.
            They are just as vile if not more so because they don't care about the truth.
            So you see they are still coming out of  FEAR only they turn their vile nature against the top runner in the opposing party.  In a situation of collectivisms that the democrats are about they are trained to collaborate and move like sheeple and always go from the top down.  Unfortunately this is counter productive to a healthy republic where we are all part of the process of the way the nation moves.  This is best exemplified by looking at how many times Obama engaged in wars already in this term, without bothering to adhere to the constitution and follow the direction of the US Congress in declaring of war.  Now if this had been a republican president behaving this way, the Democrats would have been outraged.  But sense it is top down and they all collaborate like good sheeple, well there is no problem with the Democratic leader doing it.  So you see it is a mater of fear on both sides.  By the way, do you know what a herd of sheep is called?
            A Mob.  Check it out, it's true. a MOB.  The question you may want to ask is the intent of the Democrat candidate about love of country ?  The Democrat candidate Obama has been doing everything he can to bankrupt this country.  I would not say this is a good heart space.  Look to see what the Fabian agenda is about in this regard.  Their coat of arms is a wolf in sheep's clothing. You want a good heart that is interested in the country?
            Vote Ron Paul

            1. Michele Travis profile image68
              Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are incorrect on this answer.

                "  This is best exemplified by looking at how many times Obama engaged in wars already in this term, without bothering to adhere to the constitution and follow the direction of the US Congress in declaring of war."

                 The U.S.A has been involved in many "wars"  not just Obama.  They are not supposed to be called wars, however, because it says in the constitution that only Congress has the right to declare war.  That is in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution..  So, according to that definition, America has only been in five wars.

              1) England-1812
              2) Mexico-1846
              3) Spain-1898
              4) WW1
              5) WW 2

              Since then we have been in many "wars" some large, some small, but none of them had been declared by congress. They have been called police actions, or aiding civilions, being part of the U.N.  Here is another list.

              1) Korea- Truman
              2)Vietnam- Nixon
              3) Lebanon- Reagan
              4) Grenada- Reagan
              5) Panama- George W. Bush
              6) Somolia- Clinton
              7) Bonia- Clinton
              8) Iraq-  George Bush
              9) Lybia- Obama

              Please tell me, which has been worse for this country.
              The war in Iraq, Afganistan,etc. Which has been going on over 10 years  ( excuse me "police action" maybe, or perhaps " because he was trying to kill my father"?)  Or Lybia.   Just wondering.
              I am not saying Obama is good.  He is not.  But, he is not the only one.

              1. Michele Travis profile image68
                Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ok, the destruction of the Twin Towers was an attack which started that war.  But, what would Ron Paul have done?   But, Obama is the one who is starting to pull the troops out.  Does that also make him the worst?

                1. profile image61
                  geordmcposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The twin towers was probably a  "false flag" operation masterminded by war mongering military assh@!es

                  1. Michele Travis profile image68
                    Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I have thought that also,  but it will always be kept secret.

              2. profile image60
                unavailableposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The US Congress DID sanction / declared  the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
                I know the Left has tried to ignore this and it has effected the rest of US public at large.
                This was part of the post 9/11 raw raw patriotic hysteria.

                1. Michele Travis profile image68
                  Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  True,  they did change the way the president could make our troops go into other countries.
                  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_congress_ … t_in_a_war

                  1. Michele Travis profile image68
                    Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    By the way,  thank you for your post.  That was a very good answer.  I hope more  people read it, and think about it.  We ( the left and the right) need to think for ourselves, not just let the media tell us what to think.

  3. Disappearinghead profile image88
    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago

    TV ratings and a desire to keep the sponsorship money rolling in?

    1. Michele Travis profile image68
      Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That works for tv, but what about the politicians?

  4. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    There is a major difference between candidates.


    Ron Paul +
    Rick Santorum +
    Michelle Bachman are much different then Mitt or Newt.
    .

    1. Michele Travis profile image68
      Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is true,  but some seem like they do not know much, and others seem like they only care for the rich.  Newt cares for the rich.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ron Paul is going to be noticed by the citizens despite being ignored by the media.   He is the most consistent and has the best ideas for our Nation at this time....imo

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Word.

  5. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Whats happening now in the GOP  happens as well with the dems! Unfortunately all we see nowadays are these ignorant attempts to lower the other persons image in a media driven popularity charade ! Does anyone ever find it interesting that the incumbant has no competition from his own party! This is all such a game ! As a more often GOP voter ,I see absolutely no one but the lower tier of candidates worthy of the job!  Newt - please ! Romney the 'Image'! Paul a dreamer! America does not want a leader ---we want an American Idol" star!

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I also agree with most of that!  And the actual things that are "attacks" are of course instigated by the opposition Party or their proponents.  Like the personal attacks against Bachmann, etc.
      Yep, many people only look at the "rock star status" of the Candidate, in both Parties instead of actually listening to where they stand on all issues.  But that was never more evident than in the last Election.  Obama was made into an icon by the Left, called "brilliant" and a "savior" and all that; and maybe Newt and Romney too, to a certain degree, are looked at on the surface more than in-depth.

      I was just about to refer to the Democrat's lack of competition within the Dem Party too!   Someone did mention a couple of other Candidates somewhere....
      There's a guy named  Randall Terry who's running against Obama supposedly.   I guess everyone else is scared to stand against him.  Why, I have no clue.

  6. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Hi Brenda , we really need term limits now, and the two party system works against progressive political action. Are we as Americans  so devoted to one of only two idealist parties that we cannot compromise ?  We need change and we need it soon.  I don't see a viable , a worthy candidate on either side ! And I have never seen that before!

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't see it as a problem with the two-Party system.

      Ask yourself why this is the first time you've never seen a viable Candidate on either side?  What's changed?
      The only thing that's changed was that in the last Election the Democrats nominated someone who wasn't even a Democrat; he was an activist with no loyalty to either Party.

      I believe if we get Obama outta there, things can return to normal.  And by normal, I mean normally Constitutional.   He and his cronies are the ones who've tried to shred the Constitution.  I'm appalled that even the Democrat Party has allowed that.

      I think it would be putting the cart before the horse to make a third Party rise up. 
      Well, you know me---I'm not for compromising on the main issues.   If we must choose between two Candidates, it should be choosing from the best two, not having to choose between good and evil.   Let them argue about who can build better bridges or appoint better bridge-builders instead of violating our American foundation.

    2. Michele Travis profile image68
      Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi ahorseback  I agee with you about term limits,  we really need them.  They also should have to be in Obamacare, have the same medicare, pay the same taxes as the rest of us.  Since we vote and have thus hired them, why can't we decide what their salary is?  If they miss a meeting, can their pay be docked?
      You gave an excellent reply!

  7. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Why do Republican Candidates attack each other? Ignorance. For the same reason Democrats attack each other...ignorance.

    It just goes to show you that none of them have a lick of integrity to hold the office in which they are attempting to get their hands on.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Although low in the polls Rick Santorum has not really engaged in the fray.   He was a fighter in Congress and in my eyes has integrity and honor.   Even more then him, Gary Johnson has remained true to his views.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Good to know Reality Bytes.

      2. Michele Travis profile image68
        Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What is interesting about not engaging in the fray, is that is exactly what Jimmy Carter did.  While the others were tearing each other apart he stayed quiet for a while.  That is very interesting.

  8. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    It is a two party system - winner take all. Anything else is an illusion. It is a beautiful system for empire however.

  9. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Two parties alone make otherwise bright people chose between only  two choices  ,thereby alienating the other half immediately. As voters do the same ,so do the workings of the legislative system.Just play out the party role and be reelected safely =  rhetorical nothingness !

  10. Charles James profile image85
    Charles Jamesposted 5 years ago

    You could get a politician who says - "hey there are six of us who could all be leader. What a wonderful talented party we are". - And then go on to explain where the internal fault lines lie and why they are the best.

    But you get publicity by saying "X is a moron, Fred has his hands in the till, Susie is a flake, and Ron Paul is a whacko - vote for me".

    Ron Paul interests all thinking people because he has a clear political position that is internally consistent. He spends his time promoting his political programme and lets the others bite each other.

    In an election between Paul and Obama the military industrial complex would probably have to support Obama. That would be fun!

  11. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    This is nothing new, even though some folks seem to think so. Hillary and Obama went after each other pretty hard. American votes seem to have short memories. lol

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      and limited choices

      1. Michele Travis profile image68
        Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Even if they have limited choices and short memories, they have the internet.  They can look up what the canditates have done in the past.  What they have  voted on, what their choices were, things like that.

        1. profile image60
          unavailableposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They would have to break them selves away from the broadcast news first.
          Take personal responsibility for finding out.  It sounds like too much work
          and I would rather not know anyway.  This is an example of where a country gets the government it deserves.

  12. I am DB Cooper profile image69
    I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago

    They do it because they are desperate to find a viable candidate who isn't Mitt Romney. The biggest problem is they can't protect the candidates from each other and from the press at the same time.

    Rick Perry was out in front until he faltered badly in several debates. Herman Cain took the lead until his sexual escapades made Bill Clinton look like an amateur. Newt Gingrich was on top until people realized he was the same Newt Gingrich who was sanctioned by the House of Representatives for ethics violations and had such a poor public image that Republicans forced him out as Speaker of the House. When you're actually considering Newt Gingrich as a potential presidential candidate, you're not just scraping the bottom of the barrel, you're clawing through the dirt under that barrel.

    Ron Paul seems to be the current top not-Romney candidate, and the attacks have already started. From the racist remarks made in a newsletter published by him back in the 1990's to his going against the party line on military spending, I can't see Paul finding much success past Iowa. The deep pockets supporting the GOP do not seem to favor him.

    1. habee profile image89
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      True. In my neck of the woods, people seem to want ABO (anyone but Obama) or ABM (anyone but Mitt). lol

      1. I am DB Cooper profile image69
        I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think that sentiment is pretty widespread, which is why I'm almost 100% certain our only choices will be Obama or Mitt, and people will vote for the person they dislike the least.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this



      Plus he got beat up by a girl which doesn't help.  He runs away crying from Gloria Borger but thinks he can stand toe to toe with Obama?

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Here, Ron Paul makes little children cry:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLuqIWwTYK4

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Good thing the girl's dad was white.  Otherwise Paul would have left him over there to keep him off welfare.

          1. Michele Travis profile image68
            Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He is denying that now.  Or saying somebody else wrote it.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And I'm sure they did; I don't think he's a racist.  If he is truly so incompetent though that this stuff could be published under his name without his knowledge, how can he manage the duties required as POTUS?  The more likely answer is that he did know what was being written and by whom and made a political decision to let it continue.  He knew he could always pull the old man who forgets things routine later when needed.

              1. Michele Travis profile image68
                Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A president who lets thing happen without his knowledge?  Or one who continues to let things happen then pretends to "forget" later?  I think he did know what was being written and by whom.   One or the other, do not make a  good   choice for president.

                1. profile image60
                  unavailableposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I guess this means that Obama should be held for high crimes in regard to Fast and Furious as well.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "I don't think he's a racist"

                Ok, then I'll ignore all the "Ron Paul is racist" comments you will be making in the next few months!

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Only to you.  Needling Libertarians and watching them combust is great sport.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Miscellaneous/kaboom.jpg

                    Owie!

  13. profile image61
    geordmcposted 5 years ago

    It's actually a three party system. Everybody forgets about the Independents. But mudslinging is still mudslinging. Politicians feel the need to do this because they don't have an original thought in their puny little brains.

    1. Michele Travis profile image68
      Michele Travisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol..their puny little thought is "me,me,me"

 
working