[quote]ZEB wrote:
Character matters![/quote]
Every now and then I actually agree with you Zeb.
For the life of me I can’t really “understand” how people could vote for Newt.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Character matters![/quote]
Every now and then I actually agree with you Zeb.
For the life of me I can’t really “understand” how people could vote for Newt.[/quote]
Because they won’t vote for another guy with character flaws of his own. Romney is a phony of epic proportions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Character matters![/quote]
Every now and then I actually agree with you Zeb.
For the life of me I can’t really “understand” how people could vote for Newt.[/quote]
Because they won’t vote for another guy with character flaws of his own. Romney is a phony of epic proportions. [/quote]
Romney might be phony, but Newt is an egotistical, lying, petulant hypocrite. He only started his campaign as a book tour.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Character matters![/quote]
Every now and then I actually agree with you Zeb.
For the life of me I can’t really “understand” how people could vote for Newt.[/quote]
Because they won’t vote for another guy with character flaws of his own. Romney is a phony of epic proportions. [/quote]
Romney might be phony, but Newt is an egotistical, lying, petulant hypocrite. He only started his campaign as a book tour.[/quote]
He’s all those things and more. So is Romney. In fact, Romney today is a completely fabricated political persona.
Study: Romneycare was “template” for Obamacare
By James Pethokoukis
January 26, 2012, 9:15 am
It?s one thing when Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum say Romneycare was the inspiration for Obamacare. Such charges can be written off or minimized as political exaggeration. But how about when an academic study in Health Affairs, a peer-reviewed, health policy journal, says it? The publication just published an analysis of Mitt Romney?s health reform in Massachusetts. And, at least for political pundits, this is the big takeaway (bold for emphasis):
http://blog.american.com/2012/01/study-romneycare-was-template-for-obamacare/
Disarmed on one of the biggest issues before the general is even underway.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Character matters![/quote]
Every now and then I actually agree with you Zeb.
For the life of me I can’t really “understand” how people could vote for Newt.[/quote]
Because they won’t vote for another guy with character flaws of his own. Romney is a phony of epic proportions. [/quote]
Romney might be phony, but Newt is an egotistical, lying, petulant hypocrite. He only started his campaign as a book tour.[/quote]
True-
but then, so is the incumbent…
Romney pummels, profits from Fannie, Freddie
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/09/romney-pummels-profits-from-fannie-freddie/a2YN7UoFKXQHW1RzAiaW4J/index.html
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Character matters![/quote]
Every now and then I actually agree with you Zeb.
For the life of me I can’t really “understand” how people could vote for Newt.[/quote]
Because they won’t vote for another guy with character flaws of his own. Romney is a phony of epic proportions. [/quote]
An “emotional” thing? Kind of a “F you” to the GOP? Before you stay home on the “real” election day (or vote 3rd party)?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Character matters![/quote]
Every now and then I actually agree with you Zeb.
For the life of me I can’t really “understand” how people could vote for Newt.[/quote]
Because they won’t vote for another guy with character flaws of his own. Romney is a phony of epic proportions. [/quote]
An “emotional” thing? Kind of a “F you” to the GOP? Before you stay home on the “real” election day (or vote 3rd party)?[/quote]
Some will turn out to cast an anti-Obama vote, no doubt. But I’m telling you, turn out will be poor. And no, not anymore emotional than voting. A message, just like voting is.
Santorum scored in that debate. Too late for a surge, realistically. But, he slammed Romney and Newt (but especially Romney) on health-care. Audience and Pundits, even National Romney online, agree, this was Santorum’s debate. Mitt looked bad defending individual mandates, again. When he get’s angry about being questioned on it, he actually slips into defending the principle of individual mandates…Not just “Oh, I hated it, but I ejected my principles and signed off on the damn thing for political cover”…But defends it on principle, defends the mandate, defends it’s structure, defends it’s performance. Santorum was right, one of the biggest issues in now off the table. Still, Newt looked exhausted, and it’s just too late for Santorum. So, Romney will take Florida. And, Mark my words, the GoP has just shifted it’s position on Obamacare. The new GoP position will be that they could manage it better with a few ‘tweaks.’
There were two winners in last nights debate Romney and Santorum. And that was a good thing because that means there was only one loser and that was Gingrich. Santorum will pull some votes from Gingrich because of this which could give Florida to Romney who now leads in the polls from 3pt to 8pts.
And as always I don’t count Paul as he can’t win. And speaking of Paul, I made a prediction about a year ago. I said that Paul would be lucky to break in to double digits nationally. And the latest polls have him between 10% and 13% so you Paulies can count him lucky.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Menthol wrote:
Saw the latest Florida candidate poll had Romney moving up a bit. Imagine tonights debate in Jacksonville could move the polls one way or another.
“Gingrich Dropping in Florida Polls”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/26/gingrich-florida-polls/[/quote]
In a few polls that I looked at this morning they had Mitt ahead between 3-8 points. I’m not sure why he is now ahead as there has been a crap storm thrown at him because he’s an evil rich guy. There could be a backlash to that, people thinking that it is unfair to pick on him because he’s successful. But I don’t think that’s it. Rather I think the seniors in Fla are tipping the polls after considering Newts prior behavior in his personal relationships.
Obviously that’s just a guess.
To those who say that your personal life doesn’t matter–BULL!
If you will cheat on your wife and break the most sacred vow that you could ever make what’s to stop you from lying to the American people and doing other underhanded things while in power?
Character matters![/quote]
Mitt’s already lying to us. [/quote]
Well I for one will never tolerate a politician who lies!
Oh my…
Despite all thats transpired; things are still pretty close between Romney and Newt, Zeb.
Mufasa
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think the seniors in Fla are tipping the polls after considering Newts prior behavior in his personal relationships.
Obviously that’s just a guess.
[/quote]
It’s the negative ads. Multiple robocalls a day. On top of flyers. On top of the unmatched negative tv/radio blitz. They cut back the destroy-Santorum ads and have stepped up the the destroy-Netw ads. And have you been to Drudge? Or what some grassroots republicans are now calling the Romney opposition research headquarters. National Review has been just as bad. They went to bat for Mitt when it looked like Newt would beat him in Iowa. They slacked off afterwards and got caught by the SC Newt-storm. Now, they’ve ramped it up to over-drive. I doubt it’ll be nearly effective as it was was in Iowa, but with Santorum staying in the race, it’ll most likely be enough.[/quote]
Just wait a minute here. Are you saying the the person who usually wins the nomination is the one with the most money, and influence within the party?
Oh my…
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Character matters![/quote]
Every now and then I actually agree with you Zeb.
For the life of me I can’t really “understand” how people could vote for Newt.[/quote]
You do have moments of clarity don’t do you? 
Obama is the reason that they want(ed) Newt. The more liberal the President the more the right wing of the party reaches for someone as far from Obama as possible. It happened in 80’ when Jimmy Carter took the country on a merry walk to the left. But unfortunately, Gingrich is no Reagan as much as he’d like everyone to think that he is. I backed Reagan in 1980 and of course again in 1984. I was very familiar with the architects who helped Reagan craft his ant-Soviet strategy and economic policy. And I can tell you that Newt Gingrich was absolutely no where around. He was a young sitting Congressman who no doubt backed Reagan but so did the majority of others. For him to say he is heir to the Reagan legacy is pure bunk. But that’s what Newt does he cheats on the facts just like he cheated on his prior wives. Newt is very focused on Newt.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Despite all thats transpired; things are still pretty close between Romney and Newt, Zeb.
Mufasa[/quote]
I agree, they are much closer than I would have expected. But I think in the end republicans will take a deep breath and vote for Romney as he has at least the potential of beating Obama. And republicans want to beat Obama. They realize, as I do, that 4 more years of Obama, unchecked by the electorate as he does not get to run again would be most disastrous.
Once again, Romney will have his hands full trying to beat Obama. And I do predict as I did months back that Hillary will in fact be on the ticket. This along with the media in Obama’s back pocket will make it very difficult for anyone to beat him. But Romney is the best hope no question there.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think the seniors in Fla are tipping the polls after considering Newts prior behavior in his personal relationships.
Obviously that’s just a guess.
[/quote]
It’s the negative ads. Multiple robocalls a day. On top of flyers. On top of the unmatched negative tv/radio blitz. They cut back the destroy-Santorum ads and have stepped up the the destroy-Netw ads. And have you been to Drudge? Or what some grassroots republicans are now calling the Romney opposition research headquarters. National Review has been just as bad. They went to bat for Mitt when it looked like Newt would beat him in Iowa. They slacked off afterwards and got caught by the SC Newt-storm. Now, they’ve ramped it up to over-drive. I doubt it’ll be nearly effective as it was was in Iowa, but with Santorum staying in the race, it’ll most likely be enough.[/quote]
Just wait a minute here. Are you saying the the person who usually wins the nomination is the one with the most money, and influence within the party?
Oh my…[/quote]
What I’m saying is that Romney is such a horrible candidate, he’s had to struggle despite huge advantages.
Edit: As an example, National Review and Drudge actually tried to make Gingrich out to be the non-Reaganite. Mrs. Reagan had liberally passed the Reagan torch to Newt, at a time when Romney was distancing himself from Reagan(ism). Mark Levin went on a rampage on his show over the conduct of the cocktail party Rebulican wing and the Romney campaign. Love or hate him, Gingrich did more for Reagan and the party, than Romney could ever do. Romney ran away from Reagan and the Contract. It’s been enlightening to many of us out here.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Are you saying the the person who usually wins the nomination is the one with the most money, and influence within the party?
[/quote]
Perhaps most influence with the establishment wing. As for the traditional conservative base, irreparable harm has been done. There will be low turnout among conservatives, and Romney will lose. A protracted war within the party will follow. The conservative base will begin to recoup it’s earlier strength and message as was seen in the tea-party movement. But I really believe it’s going further this time, ending with fracture.
Opposition to TARP, Obamacare, and stimulus provoked the base-energizing tea party movement. The GoP establishment-commentariat, not confident that Romney’s uber million dollar campaign could do it, helped push Romney over the finish line. A man completely disarmed over those three issues.
Santorum gave us the preview. Listen carefully, Romney literally defends the mechanisms and principles of Romney/Obama care.
“It’s not worth getting mad over.”
Oh, it’s not?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think the seniors in Fla are tipping the polls after considering Newts prior behavior in his personal relationships.
Obviously that’s just a guess.
[/quote]
It’s the negative ads. Multiple robocalls a day. On top of flyers. On top of the unmatched negative tv/radio blitz. They cut back the destroy-Santorum ads and have stepped up the the destroy-Netw ads. And have you been to Drudge? Or what some grassroots republicans are now calling the Romney opposition research headquarters. National Review has been just as bad. They went to bat for Mitt when it looked like Newt would beat him in Iowa. They slacked off afterwards and got caught by the SC Newt-storm. Now, they’ve ramped it up to over-drive. I doubt it’ll be nearly effective as it was was in Iowa, but with Santorum staying in the race, it’ll most likely be enough.[/quote]
Just wait a minute here. Are you saying the the person who usually wins the nomination is the one with the most money, and influence within the party?
Oh my…[/quote]
What I’m saying is that Romney is such a horrible candidate, he’s had to struggle despite huge advantages.[/quote]
As do they all almost regardless of advantages. But as you know those advantages have power over the long haul. For example when it is all said and done if Newt only wins SC those advantages have real power. And then what did all the polls really mean? We do not yet have the power of that persepective as yet, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Anyway it’s those same advantages that can help him beat Obama. The republican establishment may stay home if Newt is the nominee. And then he gets clobbered by monumental proportions.
[quote]Edit: As an example, National Review and Drudge actually tried to make Gingrich out to be the non-Reaganite. Mrs. Reagan had liberally passed the Reagan torch to Newt, at a time when Romney was distancing himself from Reagan(ism). Mark Levin went on a rampage on his show over the conduct of the cocktail party Rebulican wing and the Romney campaign. Love or hate him, Gingrich did more for Reagan and the party, than Romney could ever do. Romney ran away from Reagan and the Contract. It’s been enlightening to many of us out here.
[/quote]
Yes, she said that during the time that Newt was Speaker and trying to thwart the Clinton agenda. I wonder if she meant that to mean that Newt should become President? Ah…who knows? All we know is that Newt is no Reagan. Not in substance or style, and thus would lose to Obama.