I just don’t think Gingrich has to get out of it. I think Santorum can effectively pull more than enough of the Gingrich folk away. Newt’s problem is that he can’t meet Romney on the issues. He is the better debater, but what is he going to debate? Romneycare? Nope, Newt has supported an individual mandate for some time now. TARP? Nope. Like Romney, he also supported it. Etc. I think the Newt/Anti-Romney folk can and will begin to recognize this. And fairly quickly. Newt is disarmed against Romney, therefore, can’t meet him head-on on the issues. It’s obvious, just ask yourself “why didn’t Gingrich claim that debate moment on Romneycare, instead of Santorum?” He can’t. Heck, like I said, he probably could’ve outdone Santorum in that moment…if not for the fact that he’s supported the mandate over a considerable amount of time.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
pushharder,
I know some people look at Romney and think that he’s a phony, fair enough, he is after all a competent politician so…But when I look at Gingrich I see a 300 pound wife cheating sleaze ball with an ego larger than my 5 acre yard. It IS all about him and that’s easy to spot. He doesn’t care about the party first, he cares about Newt first. And you can see that through out his entire private and public life. I really can’t stand the man.
But yeah I’d support him over Obama, no problem there.[/quote]
And I look at Romney and see a Republican Kerry or Edwards. Honest, I do.
I do see Gingrich’s flaws but I also see a competent politician.
At the end of this campaign I would rather see Romney as POTUS over Bam Bam but there is no way I’d vote for him. None. I will probably do what I’ve done in 2004 and 2008 and vote the Constitution Party. I do this partly because I know MT is a red enough state that my fellow state citizens will send Republican electors to the electoral college.[/quote]
Then what you’re saying in essence is that you’d rather help Obama win reelection. Wow, you must really hate Romney. I don’t dislike any of the republicans that much. The worst republican is better than Obama. I hope you reconsider and vote for who you think is the best of the final two.[/quote]
I’m under no obligation to vote for someone who does not stand for my values because his opponent doesn’t either.[/quote]
You could have cut that sentence off after five words, “I’m under no obligation to vote…”
Simple.
And with that said there are ways to help Obama get reelected and one of those ways is to not vote for the one opponent (whomever that is) who can beat him. If you’re okay with that then fine. We each answer to our own conscience. As for me I would vote for just about any sane person who had a chance of defeating Obama. Because he will hurt us over the next four years I assure you of that. He will affect you personally in some very nasty ways. Maybe you’ll be paying an extra 10% in taxes (do the math on that one). Maybe you’ll end up being affected by the ultra liberal judges that he appoints. Hey I have no idea but he is after people like you and me and over the next four years should he be reelected, I guarantee that you and I will be adversely affected by his policies. Not to mention the country that we both love.
More commentary on Santorum and his 1994 race.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I just don’t think Gingrich has to get out of it. I think Santorum can effectively pull more than enough of the Gingrich folk away. Newt’s problem is that he can’t meet Romney on the issues. He is the better debater, but what is he going to debate? Romneycare? Nope, Newt has supported an individual mandate for some time now. TARP? Nope. Like Romney, he also supported it. Etc. I think the Newt/Anti-Romney folk can and will begin to recognize this. And fairly quickly. Newt is disarmed against Romney, therefore, can’t meet him head-on on the issues. It’s obvious, just ask yourself “why didn’t Gingrich claim that debate moment on Romneycare, instead of Santorum?” He can’t. Heck, like I said, he probably could’ve outdone Santorum in that moment…if not for the fact that he’s supported the mandate over a considerable amount of time.[/quote]
All very good points. But I feel that as long as Gingrich is in the race he will draw enough of the potential Santorum voters to assure Romney’s victory. Therefore, I feel that not only does Gingrich need to get out he needs to endorse Santorum on the way out the door. Because as you say Gingrich (like Romney) has done some not so conservative things in the past. Hence, there may very well be some Gingrich supporters (many perhaps) who will vote for Romney in the unlikely event that Gingrich leaves the race. Simply because Gingrich and Romney appear to hate each other does not mean that their supporters hate the other guy.
One more point, it will take more than Gingrich leaving (which is not likely to happen) for Santorum to rise in the polls. He needs cash and lots of it. And he needs a far better organization. I have no inside information but I get the feeling that Santorum is running his campaign by the seat of his pants. By the way I admire that kind of spunk, but it will get him crushed against the Romney machine. How does he get this money and organization with Newt still in the race?
Interesting topic.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Good point ZEB , The way I see the election is , those that vote Obama about %30 those that don’t like Obama will vote Mitt %30 and those that are libertarians at heart %30 , close call but I would concede to Obama
[/quote]
You’re talking about a third party candidacy for Ron Paul? You should realize that isn’t going to happen. You have to realize that for his son’s sake Ron Paul is not going to depart from the republican party run a third party race and hand Obama four more years. Rand has too much to lose within the party and will be blamed (in part) for his Dad’s nutty move.
By the way, if winning on solid conservative principles isn’t nearly as important as simply winning, why not scrap the two party system? That way one’s team always wins, while one attempts to persuade everyone else in one’s team.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re more a moderate than I thought. You attempt to mask it as pragmatism and to a certain extent that is a correct approach. However, to dump on the Tea Party for the tax extension deal though runs your true colors up the flag pole.[/quote]
I didn’t dump the Tea Party for the tax extension deal - I was skeptical of the newly formed and organized capital-T, capital-P Tea Party as soon as it was co-opted by libertarianish types who ran candidates like Sharron Angle for perfectly winnable seats.
The tax extension deal was simply the nadir of what was once a very-good grassroots movement. And now, the credibility of this group is gone, and likely can’t recover. They blew it.
And, no, I don’t mask my pragmatism, assuming you can read. As I have type many times, conservatives are definitionally pragmatists, else they really aren’t conservatives. My true colors should be fairly obvious - and, uh, I did say Huntsman was my guy for 2012 - but most importantly, I understand one crucial thing: there is talking about policy, and there is enacting policy. Navel-gazing ideologues think they are the same; they are not.
Incorrect, I haven’t been aligned (or even a casual member of) the GOP since they committed to deficit spending that they preached that deficits “didn’t matter” because tax cuts would deliver the deficits away. So, in fact, though I have voted for the GOP in national elections, I am not part of the GOP because…wait for it…I’m more fiscally conservative than the platform of the GOP.
But, I’m also wise enough not to make the perfect the enemy of the good, so the GOP candidate has (usually) gotten my vote in a national election based on the fact that the Democrats have almost always put up an urban/coastal-oriented candidate emamored with a social-democrat policy.
Glad you realized that, and that was entirely my point - any candidate (and any supporter of such candidate) who goes in with the presumption that they are going to be able to enact a hard-right cramdown and ignore Democrats is going to not only be sorely disappointed, they are setting the Democrats up for political re-alignment and huge victory in 2014 and beyond.
Also, Reagan raised taxes. You might also want to realize that particular piece of history when waving around your “true believer” flag.[/quote]
Fair enough. I appreciate the thoughtful reply.
Two things, however:
-
You didn’t answer my question about the 1980 primary.
-
You leaned Huntsman way earlier even though my impression of him is that he was THE most libertarian of the bunch save Paul and Johnson. What gives?[/quote]
Out of all the republican canditates, Huntsman may have gotten my vote in a national election.
Really, in my opinion, he was the most interesting candidate that they had.[/quote]
There were some things I liked about him too.
Explain why you thought he was interesting.[/quote]
Well, he does have good international experience, knows China well and has been successful as a Governor in Utah.
I mostly thought he was interesting because he didn’t sign the purity pledge or whatever the zealots call it.
He seams to honestly understand the importance of working with people who may have viewpoints contradictory to his own.
I disagree with the premise that Romney was an awful governor. He was actually really good. Massachusetts may be second only to Illinois when it comes to political hacks and corruption. The senate and house of the state is about 85% Democrat, 15% Republican. That’s why he was hated because he didn’t back down to the Democrats here. The last 4 Speakers of the House in Massachusetts have all been convicted of felonies. That is what he is working with. He threw Whitey Bulger’s brother, who politically was as dirty as Whitey out of a 300k job as the head of UMass after he testified and embarassed himself in front of Congress. Romeny’s health bill isn’t great but it hasn’t bankrupted us. Government healthcare doesn’t work. And the most liberal paper in America, the Boston Globe bashed him on a daily basis, which means he must have been doing something right.
Is he perfect, no, but he is the most electable. Newt’s been married 3 times, been on the poliical take for years and was making 300k a year as a lobbyist for FNMA. The independent vote is what needs to be captured. Romney is right center. Yeah he flip flops, and being a Mormon is not everyone’s cup of tea and he’s a little slick. But at least he has poilitical and business experience, unlike Obama who was a one term senator whose private sector career was a “community orgnaizer”
Third Ruffian, we may not agree, but that story was the greatest piece of literature ever put out on the forum. I’m sad it’s over.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, if winning on solid conservative principles isn’t nearly as important as simply winning, why not scrap the two party system? That way one’s team always wins, while one attempts to persuade everyone else in one’s team.[/quote]
I just want to defeat Obama—Is that so wrong?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, if winning on solid conservative principles isn’t nearly as important as simply winning, why not scrap the two party system? That way one’s team always wins, while one attempts to persuade everyone else in one’s team.[/quote]
I just want to defeat Obama—Is that so wrong?
[/quote]
Give me your reasons why Santorum is incapable of doing so.[/quote]
He has principles, no money and the liberal machine would tear him a new a-hole.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, if winning on solid conservative principles isn’t nearly as important as simply winning, why not scrap the two party system? That way one’s team always wins, while one attempts to persuade everyone else in one’s team.[/quote]
I just want to defeat Obama—Is that so wrong?
[/quote]
Ok, but my question is why not do away with the GoP completely? If platform doesn’t define the party, or it’s not important as winning, why not support a one party system? Your team never loses, and you can always push your ideas regardless.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
However, the money will come if his viability increases.
[/quote]
Never enough. Romney spent more in Florida than McCain spent on his entire 2008 campaign. More money flooding in after the Florida landslide. Unless Romney has some sort of scandal or serious stumble I don’t like the odds.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anybody wanna play the “what if” game with me?[/quote]
I agree. If Romney and Newt keep tearing into each other, they could very likely come off as unlikeable. Policy differences are one thing, but both of these guys have taken it to another level. Romney’s unfavorables have gone up. And Florida’s turnout was was down about 12% (lack of enthusiasm and disgust with the attacks?). In comes Santorum. He has some high favorables in upcoming states.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, if winning on solid conservative principles isn’t nearly as important as simply winning, why not scrap the two party system? That way one’s team always wins, while one attempts to persuade everyone else in one’s team.[/quote]
I just want to defeat Obama—Is that so wrong?
[/quote]
Ok, but my question is why not do away with the GoP completely? If platform doesn’t define the party, or it’s not important as winning, why not support a one party system? Your team never loses, and you can always push your ideas regardless.[/quote]
There are vast differences between the two parties. And simply because someone changes their mind on an issue and becomes more conservative you cannot accuse them of being a democrat. Hey Reagan was actually a democrate before he turned republican. People change man give it a rest will you? And as I said you have no idea how any of them really feel and you never will. As long as they 90% of what they say they’ll that’s good enough for me.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, if winning on solid conservative principles isn’t nearly as important as simply winning, why not scrap the two party system? That way one’s team always wins, while one attempts to persuade everyone else in one’s team.[/quote]
I just want to defeat Obama—Is that so wrong?
[/quote]
Give me your reasons why Santorum is incapable of doing so.[/quote]
Okay, but they are mostly superficial reasons and you won’t like them.
1- He doesn’t smile enough and the electorate likes a happy leader. Think Reagan and Bill Clinton. And some say that’s why Hillary lost to Obama.
2- When debating he sounds too preachy this turns people off.
3- I don’t think he’s fast enough on his feet to handle Obama. Sometimes you need a snake to kill a snake and Santorum isn’t it.
4- The media will absolutely destroy him. They despise this guy because he is the real deal. This is not 1980 when the media was just mildly biased toward the dems. This is 2012 and they will say and do anything to destroy the republican nominee.
5- This is far right wing candidate and as I’ve said before far right, or far left wing candidates do not win. The two exceptions have been Ronald Reagan and Obama. Reagan because of his stunning personality and Obama because of timing (running against McCain was a gift from God) and a huge boost from the media.
If I could pick Santorum as President I’d do it in a heart beat but I can’t. And he will never beat Obama the way I see it.
Okay I’ll stop there but there are other things as well.