Please, kindly take your socialism vs libertarianism conversation to another thread there are literally dozens if not hundreds on this forum. This one is about South Carolina.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Please, kindly take your socialism vs libertarianism conversation to another thread there are literally dozens if not hundreds on this forum. This one is about South Carolina. [/quote]
its more of a libertarian vs everything from centrist liberalism to socialism debate, but I agree the discussion derails the thread so atleast I am done debating it.
( ZEB and Octavius can pm me if they want to continue the discussion with me )
[quote]florelius wrote:
I am myself not against taxes on principal grounds and dont belong to those who believe in the “taxation equals stealing” paradigm. [/quote]
“redistributive taxes equal servitude”-
You are welcome.
Santorum
Newt
Paul
Mitt
Though, among the wider audience, maybe Newt. He delivered a pretty nasty smack down, earning himself another big applause moment.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Santorum
Newt
Paul
Mitt
Though, among the wider audience, maybe Newt. He delivered a pretty nasty smack down, earning himself another big applause moment. [/quote]
I thought Newt was the star of that show.[/quote]
Definitely the star of the last one, that I won’t argue. Personally, I thought Santorum was persuasive about himself being a stark contrast to Obama; not supporting bailouts/TARP, never supporting an individual mandate health-care solution, etc. However, as I said, I could see many, if not most, giving it to Gingrich. How many left-wing media scalps has he racked up in these debates?
Goodbye Perry, Hello Newt. He knocked that debate question out of the park. John King (sp?) looked like an assistant giving an “I’m sorry” after Newt’s response.
I don’t know how, long-term, this question of “open marriages” will affect Newt though. I think it’s just one more piece of his sordid past. I can’t imagine a guy with a couple ex-wives is going to see too much of a dip now that it’s out he tried to have an open marriage with one. The question I have is: Will social conservatives continue to look past Newt’s past now that it has come out again. I can only assume there are a few who “forgot” or never knew about his past… everyone knows now. I guess we’ll see.
I heard an argument this morning that some republican establishment grandees currently support Newt because the want a brokered convention. Think there is any truth to that? Could someone show up at the convention and “steal” the nomination from Newt/Romney? I think either is little loved by the GOP.
I thought that Gingrich handled the adultery question the only way that he could. that is, the best defense is a good offense. Maybe he did enough to deflect the harm that was coming his way. I will say that if they don’t care about having three wives, cheating on two of them and asking one to have an open marriage in South Carolina our country has certainly taken a turn for the worse.
I do know that the MSLM will have a field day with him regarding that topic and him being removed as Speaker Of The House and the many other scandals he’s been involved in. Gingrich has more baggage than a busy bell hop at the Waldorf Astoria. Certainly more than any man who has ever run for President during modern times.
And I hope that no one deludes themselves into thinking that there will ever be a President Gingrich because that’s not going to happen. While I love his sharp attacks on Obama along with his baggage and general fat gray haired old man look the general public will take a quick look as they always do and reject him out of hand and vote for Obama.
Last night Santorum reminded me of the smart kid in class who also tells on everyone. His Boy Scout persona wears thin. Keep in mind I don’t think that I’ve ever disagreed with one word that he’s said. I like him most of the time, not last night however. He would stand a better chance against Obama than Gingrich for sure.
He could bring PA which is one of those key swing states. Or could he? He did lose the Senatorial race last time around—Ah he would probably bring PA. He is certainly my second choice in the race.
Romney had a very solid performance last night as he always does. Funny some of you screamed about him not showing his taxes this early. But Ron Paul hasn’t turned his in and neither has Santorum. But neither of them is the front runner, or nearly as successful financially as Romney so no big deal right boys? And Gingrich only showed his last night one hour before the debate.
One final point regarding debating skillsy. Perhaps not many of you are into public speaking but hopefully you can appreciate a candidate like Romney who actually has a logical beginning, middle and end to his presentations. Contrast that with the babbling Paul. Sure Paul’s a smart guy on the economy but he just winds on from one area to another unrelated area.
And Gingrich while very smart on all the answers is sometimes too detailed for the average guy to follow. Santorum gives a nice presentation but tends to look like he’s scolding people and doesn’t smile nearly enough —Yeah that’s not important to you big tough T Men but over half the country will judge him harshly because of that one flaw.
There is more to Presidential politics than issues. And when you run against the total package that is Obama you better have a candidate who can look and act the part or you lose. Now if you don’t care about having four more years of Obama unless you have your perfect candidate then no big deal. But to me the name of the game is WIN!! Romney has the best chance of winning vs Obama and nothing last night changed that.
About 4 years of prep, a HUGE advantage in money and organization (and the following one-sided ad blitz)…Yet, Romney may end up losing SC, and then FL, after all. With all those advantages, he can’t seem to seal the deal to finish off a greatly outspent Gingrich, and run away with it. Gingrich, who not only has to battle leftist media, but even some rightest media.
I’m thinking Newt is going to end up pulling off the SC win, emerging as a risen phoenix. This will mean, I’m confident, that Santorum will drop. With momentum and the bulk of Santorum’s support (I’m certain), Newt could take Florida. For all the money and organization, Romney himself is a weak, weak, candidate.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
About 4 years of prep, a HUGE advantage in money and organization (and the following one-sided ad blitz)…Yet, Romney may end up losing SC, and then FL, after all. With all those advantages, he can’t seem to seal the deal to finish off a greatly outspent Gingrich, and run away with it. Gingrich, who not only has to battle leftist media, but even some rightest media.[/quote]
And that’s because (as I’ve explained many times) the right wing votes in the republican primary and the left wing votes in the democratic primary. Therefore, each has an advantage in the primary which turns into an automatic disadvantage in the general election. McCain lost the general not because he was too moderate but because he was one more gray haird old republican man who was rejected out of hand. That and the public had enough after 8 years of republican rule.
Romney is THE strongest candidate that the republicans could possibly put forward (out of this field) against Obama. As I’ve stated he is the total package. Strong enough to stand toe to toe and look Presidential. Experienced in business and politics polished, calm and focused. I know you hate him so you’re wishing Gingrich will pull it off and maybe he will. But then there is Florida and the senior citizens who make up a huge voting block down there will most likely reject Newt’s cheating ways. He is by far the weakest candidate in the field (not counting Paul because well…I never count Paul as he never had a chance to begin with). Honestly, before he dropped out Rick Perry with all his mistakes would be stronger than Gingrich in a general election vs Obama. The republican party will get the ass kicking of their lives if Newt is the candidate, also unlike you I feel that any GOP candidate is better than Obama.
Finally, why do you think that the White House has commented on Romney far more than any other candidate in the race? And why do you think Bill Clinton said that Gingrich would be a really good candidate to face Obama? Do you need a house to fall on you?
Obama and company does NOT want to run against Mitt Romney!
Yeah…but you don’t like Romney so I guess he can’t win.
Again:
Put Newt in a debate in front of a receptive audience…and he will win every time.
Mufasa
“…Last night Santorum reminded me of the smart kid in class who also tells on everyone. His Boy Scout persona wears thin…”
Same here, Zeb.
Add that “smirk” he always has, and he just comes off vindictive, angry and judgmental. (IMO)
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Last night Santorum reminded me of the smart kid in class who also tells on everyone. His Boy Scout persona wears thin…”
Same here, Zeb.
Add that “smirk” he always has, and he just comes off vindictive, angry and judgmental. (IMO)
Mufasa
[/quote]
You are in touch with what every other American would see should he be the eventual nominee. They can’t articulate it as well as you can but they would feel that he’s not the right man for the job. Once again, the candidates persona is just as, if not more important than what he has to say when it comes time to attract votes. And that’s why I’ve been beating the drum about Romney. We’ve not had anyone look and speak in such a Presidential way since Ronald Reagan.
Disclaimer There is perhaps no bigger fan of Ronald Reagan on this board than me. And I am in no way comparing Romney to Reagan in terms of his policy positions, only charisma and persona…you know the things that actually win general elections.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Last night Santorum reminded me of the smart kid in class who also tells on everyone. His Boy Scout persona wears thin…”
Same here, Zeb.
Add that “smirk” he always has, and he just comes off vindictive, angry and judgmental. (IMO)
Mufasa
[/quote]
You are in touch with what every other American would see should he be the eventual nominee. They can’t articulate it as well as you can but they would feel that he’s not the right man for the job. Once again, the candidates persona is just as, if not more important than what he has to say when it comes time to attract votes. And that’s why I’ve been beating the drum about Romney. We’ve not had anyone look and speak in such a Presidential way since Ronald Reagan.
Disclaimer There is perhaps no bigger fan of Ronald Reagan on this board than me. And I am in no way comparing Romney to Reagan in terms of his policy positions, only charisma and persona…you know the things that actually win general elections.[/quote]
Aw c’mon, Zeb, Romney comparable to RR in charisma and persona? Great Bats in the Belfry, Batman, that is so far over the top. Back off, man, or you risk some credibility here. I’ll be calling you a Romneybot before too long.[/quote]
I remember Reagan before he was Reagan. He was campaigning for President in his 1980 run against Jimmy Carter. I was one of the first to arrive as a member of the young republican club it was our duty to check out all the candidates. When he was speaking I was no more than 20 feet away from him. And quite honestly I was not impressed. When he went off his notes to answer questions he stammered and hemmed and hawed all over the place. Granted what he was saying was great when he got it out. And he was a very charismatic candidate. After all they don’t put just anyone in movies. When Reagan was prepared there was no one better. When he wasn’t he was just a good looking candidate who did not have a great command of the english language (to confirm this point you only need watch the second debate with Jimmy Carter in 80’ and the first debate with Walter Mondale in 84’).
I will repeat in the charisma and persona department Romney is Reagan’s match. Not the mythical Reagan that we all remember, but Ronald Regan the man. Furthermore, I would give Romney higher grades relative to his off the cuff presentation skills. There is no candidate running in this race, including Obama, who can match Romney’s polish and presentation skills.
Push, you fall into that category of people who believe Romney to not be conservative enough. And granted I cannot disagree based upon his record. But if you think a red faced finger pointing Gingrich, or a lecturing Santorum will be able to beat Obama think again. Those to guys say things that you and I both like to hear, but they do not have the shear political ability and charisma needed to beat Obama. Putting your political preferences aside if you look at candidate Romney as a pure political force he is the only one who can oust Obama, as he is the total package.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Those to guys say things that you and I both like to hear, but they do not have the shear political ability and charisma needed to beat Obama.[/quote]
And this right here is why Uhmuruhkuh is falling from stature: Hollywoodized elections which produce dumb voters who elect dumb politicians who do dumb things.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Those to guys say things that you and I both like to hear, but they do not have the shear political ability and charisma needed to beat Obama.[/quote]
And this right here is why Uhmuruhkuh is falling from stature: Hollywoodized elections which produce dumb voters who elect dumb politicians who do dumb things.[/quote]
You question the system, and no doubt it needs questioning. But that is the game that we have. There is currently no other way to get elected to the highest office in the land. So we either rally behind someone who has at least a chance of beating Obama, or we act like a bunch of brainless idealists.
We can always choose not to play silly games.