The Hispanic people are not that fond of Rubio for some reason, they beat him up on TV here all the time.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Zeb:
About Rubio.
He looks and sounds more and more like he is “running” for the VP spot.
My recommendation to the GOP would be “be careful”…and make sure there has been careful vetting.
Look…there is nothing to say that a young, good-looking guy who lived and spent a LOT of time in Vegas and South Beach (in addition to attending the University of Florida) has absolutely nothing to hide. He can be as clean as the proverbial newly fallen snow.
But he has recently taken some SERIOUS jabs at the President.
If he DOES get the nod (VP); I would say he best “be ready…game on”; and the GOP Nominee best make sure he is carefully vetted. Hoochies coming out of the wordwork and stories of wild parties will not help his currently “squeaky clean” family image.
Also he IS a Conservative Republican with very strong views about immigration that don’t always square with the Hispanic community. I just don’t think that the Hispanic Vote will be so “automatic”.
Mufasa[/quote]
Other than Cubans I doubt he ever had the Latino vote locked in. Many Latinos especially older generations view Cubans differently. The whole amnesty thing.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The Hispanic people are not that fond of Rubio for some reason, they beat him up on TV here all the time. [/quote]
I think it has to do with his hard stance on immigration yet he is for the wet foot dry foot policy many articles have been written calling him a sell out/puppet for the Republicans.
Interesting discussion, guys.
Romney is a smart guy and a planner.
I’m sure his VP pick will be as carefully planned as the rest of his campaign.
Is this “Constitution/Where his parents were Born” really an “issue” for Rubio?
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Zeb:
About Rubio.
He looks and sounds more and more like he is “running” for the VP spot.
My recommendation to the GOP would be “be careful”…and make sure there has been careful vetting.
Look…there is nothing to say that a young, good-looking guy who lived and spent a LOT of time in Vegas and South Beach (in addition to attending the University of Florida) has absolutely nothing to hide. He can be as clean as the proverbial newly fallen snow.
But he has recently taken some SERIOUS jabs at the President.
If he DOES get the nod (VP); I would say he best “be ready…game on”; and the GOP Nominee best make sure he is carefully vetted. Hoochies coming out of the wordwork and stories of wild parties will not help his currently “squeaky clean” family image.
Also he IS a Conservative Republican with very strong views about immigration that don’t always square with the Hispanic community. I just don’t think that the Hispanic Vote will be so “automatic”.
Mufasa[/quote]
It won’t be as automatic…no as robotic as black people voting for Obama. I think the Hispanic community will most likely put more thought into it. Hey, the’d almost have to right? As for wild parties and girls stepping up, I assume you are referring to his college days? Who would really care about that? A young man partying down in college is so common it’s almost a cliche’. Obviously, if someone served up a Herman Cain style beating on him that would indeed tarnish the ticket.
On the topic of vetting however do you think the press will go after Obama and his former ties to radicals and to racist Preachers? Oh wait…forget that. I forgot he’s a democrat and he’s black so none of that matters with him. Hey, it’s a shame Obama isn’t a homosexual he then would have hit the main steam liberal media’s version of the trifecta!
And while I’m on the topic…
I will take this opportunity to once again remind our viewers that Obama will benefit about 3pts by having the press very, very far up his ass. So, Romney and company are going to have to beat him by 4pts. to squeeze out the 1pt. victory. Yeah, yeah I know FOX News is pro republican as is the Wall Street Journal but that’s about it ladies and gentleman. So with a stacked deck once again our republican nominee goes up against the Obama team with one billion dollars in campaign funds and a press that would rather pat Obama on the back (even for his flip-flops) than actually report it straight up
I just can’t wait to see how this one turns out (eye roll)
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Back to Santorum.
There is no question that Iowa was, and SC will be, much “friendlier” to Santorum than New Hampshire is working out to be. He seems to be getting hammered on the stump WITH HIS OWN WORDS.
With that being said; a respectable showing by Santorum in NH going into SC HAS to be perceived as a “win”.
I think SC then Florida with tell us a lot about the direction of this election.
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s already over buddy. After Romney’s huge win in NH and the backing of the Governor of SC and the endorsement of the Tea Party (speculation on my part but I think it will happen) he wins SC and the last meaningful primary will be Florida where Marco Rubio joins him and they tour the state together. And the Hispanic community rushes out to vote for Romney in the primary. And all of the senior citizens look at Romney as the second coming of Ronald Reagan (it’s not me who is saying that it’s the old people:).
Sure I could be wrong anything can happen in politics.
But, I just don’t see the new mean spirited Gingrich pulling it off. And by his recent demeanor he might have blown a cabinet post. Nor do I see the not ready for the top job Santorum beating Romney (but if you’ve noticed he’s said nothing negative about Romney hoping that he’ll get the VP nod). I did watch one of the town hall meetings where Santorum got overly aggressive with a hand full of college kids over gay marriage, which is legal in NH. I actually felt sorry for him as he looked befuddled that the students wouldn’t sit back and allow him to lecture them. Poor guy, I guess he doesn’t realize the sort of brain washing that occurs at our University’s. Oh well, that’s another topic.
But yeah I’m calling this for Romney short of some sort of startling news where he molested a Mormon woman in the back seat of his limo while betting her ten grand that he’d leave his wife for her. Naw…that couldn’t happen, right?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Interesting discussion, guys.
Romney is a smart guy and a planner.
I’m sure his VP pick will be as carefully planned as the rest of his campaign.
Is this “Constitution/Where his parents were Born” really an “issue” for Rubio?
Mufasa[/quote]
If Rubio is not a natural born citizen then he cannot serve as President or Vice President.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Zeb:
About Rubio.
He looks and sounds more and more like he is “running” for the VP spot.
My recommendation to the GOP would be “be careful”…and make sure there has been careful vetting.
Look…there is nothing to say that a young, good-looking guy who lived and spent a LOT of time in Vegas and South Beach (in addition to attending the University of Florida) has absolutely nothing to hide. He can be as clean as the proverbial newly fallen snow.
But he has recently taken some SERIOUS jabs at the President.
If he DOES get the nod (VP); I would say he best “be ready…game on”; and the GOP Nominee best make sure he is carefully vetted. Hoochies coming out of the wordwork and stories of wild parties will not help his currently “squeaky clean” family image.
Also he IS a Conservative Republican with very strong views about immigration that don’t always square with the Hispanic community. I just don’t think that the Hispanic Vote will be so “automatic”.
Mufasa[/quote]
It won’t be as automatic…no as robotic as black people voting for Obama. I think the Hispanic community will most likely put more thought into it. Hey, the’d almost have to right? As for wild parties and girls stepping up, I assume you are referring to his college days? Who would really care about that? A young man partying down in college is so common it’s almost a cliche’. Obviously, if someone served up a Herman Cain style beating on him that would indeed tarnish the ticket.
On the topic of vetting however do you think the press will go after Obama and his former ties to radicals and to racist Preachers? Oh wait…forget that. I forgot he’s a democrat and he’s black so none of that matters with him. Hey, it’s a shame Obama isn’t a homosexual he then would have hit the main steam liberal media’s version of the trifecta!
And while I’m on the topic…
I will take this opportunity to once again remind our viewers that Obama will benefit about 3pts by having the press very, very far up his ass. So, Romney and company are going to have to beat him by 4pts. to squeeze out the 1pt. victory. Yeah, yeah I know FOX News is pro republican as is the Wall Street Journal but that’s about it ladies and gentleman. So with a stacked deck once again our republican nominee goes up against the Obama team with one billion dollars in campaign funds and a press that would rather pat Obama on the back (even for his flip-flops) than actually report it straight up
I just can’t wait to see how this one turns out (eye roll)[/quote]
The Republicans will get a boost from the so called conservative prees
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Back to Santorum.
There is no question that Iowa was, and SC will be, much “friendlier” to Santorum than New Hampshire is working out to be. He seems to be getting hammered on the stump WITH HIS OWN WORDS.
With that being said; a respectable showing by Santorum in NH going into SC HAS to be perceived as a “win”.
I think SC then Florida with tell us a lot about the direction of this election.
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s already over buddy. After Romney’s huge win in NH and the backing of the Governor of SC and the endorsement of the Tea Party (speculation on my part but I think it will happen) he wins SC and the last meaningful primary will be Florida where Marco Rubio joins him and they tour the state together. And the Hispanic community rushes out to vote for Romney in the primary. And all of the senior citizens look at Romney as the second coming of Ronald Reagan (it’s not me who is saying that it’s the old people:).
Sure I could be wrong anything can happen in politics.
But, I just don’t see the new mean spirited Gingrich pulling it off. And by his recent demeanor he might have blown a cabinet post. Nor do I see the not ready for the top job Santorum beating Romney (but if you’ve noticed he’s said nothing negative about Romney hoping that he’ll get the VP nod). I did watch one of the town hall meetings where Santorum got overly aggressive with a hand full of college kids over gay marriage, which is legal in NH. I actually felt sorry for him as he looked befuddled that the students wouldn’t sit back and allow him to lecture them. Poor guy, I guess he doesn’t realize the sort of brain washing that occurs at our University’s. Oh well, that’s another topic.
But yeah I’m calling this for Romney short of some sort of startling news where he molested a Mormon woman in the back seat of his limo while betting her ten grand that he’d leave his wife for her. Naw…that couldn’t happen, right?
[/quote]
Well, my friend…with the exception of the “MSM” stuff (which we’ve “agreed to disagree” on!)…this is how it’s looking to me also. Some points.
When I say “win” for Santorum…I should say “finish that surpasses expectations”…i.e. he finishes closer to Romney than was expected. What this has SEEMED to translate into is a more money for his campaign.
You also talked about Newt’s “meaness”…Santorum appears to also have a “mean” streak that comes out when he’s pressed (and as I stated earlier…he is getting hammered in NH). VP? I’m sure that Romney is not ruling in or ruling out many people right now. As you have indicated in the past, Zeb, that VP choice can come down to a question of numbers and who can best help the ticket pick up those much-needed Electorial Vote numbers.
And you’re right…a LOT can happen over the next few months!
Mufasa
Quick points.
Romney appears to be running his campaign with a carefully thought-out and executed plan.
I doubt that few (if any) people are aware of his VP “short list”.
Also; there hasn’t been much discussion about the Senior Vote (which is ALWAYS important). So…they seem to be getting behind Romney?
Mufasa
So Romney is going to support an amendment defining marriage between a man and woman. There, now he doesn’t appeal to moderates. So, since he’s now too socially conservative for moderates and independents let’s pick a guy with a better economic plan. “Timid” isn’t what we need.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So Romney is going to support an amendment defining marriage between a man and woman. There, now he doesn’t appeal to moderates.[/quote]
Don’t worry, he’ll probably change his mind tomorrow (or after the primaries)
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So Romney is going to support an amendment defining marriage between a man and woman. There, now he doesn’t appeal to moderates.[/quote]
Don’t worry, he’ll probably change his mind tomorrow (or after the primaries) [/quote]
Edited that just before you replied. Should’ve tagged it. That’s a really nasty thing for you to say about Mitt Romney. Anyways, do you feel more confident that Obama can beat him now? You know, him being one of those redheaded-stepchild-social conservatives the republican establishment didn’t want to run against him?
Actually, he’s like another Santorum on the social issues it would appear. It’s just that he has a ‘timid’ economic plan (it got panned by the WSJ editorial report on Fox), and wants to start a trade war with China in what will probably still be a weak economic/employment atmosphere.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, he’s like another Santorum on the social issues it would appear. It’s just that he has a ‘timid’ economic plan (it got panned by the WSJ editorial report on Fox), and wants to start a trade war with China in what will probably still be a weak economic/employment atmosphere.[/quote]
Interestingly enough; if I’m not mistaken, the “WSJ” felt that Huntsman had the best economic plan of all of the candidates.
Now is NOT the time to get into a Trade War with China.
Even with complete control of the White House and the Congress…I don’t think that even the GOP will push for things like Marriage Amendments and Flag Burning Amendments.
Mufasa
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So Romney is going to support an amendment defining marriage between a man and woman. There, now he doesn’t appeal to moderates.[/quote]
Don’t worry, he’ll probably change his mind tomorrow (or after the primaries) [/quote]
Edited that just before you replied. Should’ve tagged it. That’s a really nasty thing for you to say about Mitt Romney. Anyways, do you feel more confident that Obama can beat him now? You know, him being one of those redheaded-stepchild-social conservatives the republican establishment didn’t want to run against him?
[/quote]
Eh, as Mufasa said, this is the GOP’s election to lose. Romney has “flip-flopped” so many times on so many issues that I don’t think another “flop” really matters at this point. He is extremely bright and will “go with the wind” on issues enough to land him in the WH. I’m not sure if that strategy will win, but he is enough of a campaigner (and the election is the GOP’s to lose) that I’m sure it will be VERY close either way. A lot will depend on the economy.
This is a question for anyone here. Romney is seen as a ‘moderate’ and not socially conservative by the GOP base (viz: Sloth, who’s put forward his own views eloquently). Would taking someone like Santorum as his VP (almost like McCain did with Palin) be more beneficial or someone more ‘moderate’ like, as Zeb as suggested Rubio, appeals more to independents?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, he’s like another Santorum on the social issues it would appear. It’s just that he has a ‘timid’ economic plan (it got panned by the WSJ editorial report on Fox), and wants to start a trade war with China in what will probably still be a weak economic/employment atmosphere.[/quote]
Interestingly enough; if I’m not mistaken, the “WSJ” felt that Huntsman had the best economic plan of all of the candidates.
Now is NOT the time to get into a Trade War with China.[/quote]
Huntsman is the candidate that I think Obama should be most afraid of. He is brilliant, has sound policies overall, has tons of experience, and knows China well. Not to mention he’s another rich, good looking guy. I’m not sure why the GOP didn’t look more closely at him, although I suspect the “he’s just like Romney” thing was a part of it… but honestly, I don’t know.
Sloth, you understand religious conservatives better than anyone, why didn’t people look at Huntsman?
[quote]Even with complete control of the White House and the Congress…I don’t think that even the GOP will push for things like Marriage Amendments and Flag Burning Amendments.
[/quote]
Perhaps they won’t push “hard” in these economic times… but I think there will always be an element that pushes for these things. And while they probably won’t shoot for amendments at this time, there will definitely be “pushes” on marriage and abortion issues, in my opinion, like.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So Romney is going to support an amendment defining marriage between a man and woman. There, now he doesn’t appeal to moderates.[/quote]
Don’t worry, he’ll probably change his mind tomorrow (or after the primaries) [/quote]
Like Obama did regarding closing Guantanamo, not continuing the Bush tax cuts, bombing a foreign country (Libya) without congressional approval. There’s a host of other flip-flops that Senator Obama swore he would (or would not) do but President Obama decided wouldn’t be so cool to do
I’m far less worried about conservatives not turning out to vote for Romney in a general election than YOU should be about the far left punishing Obama on election day for his many flip-flops.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
This is a question for anyone here. Romney is seen as a ‘moderate’ and not socially conservative by the GOP base (viz: Sloth, who’s put forward his own views eloquently). Would taking someone like Santorum as his VP (almost like McCain did with Palin) be more beneficial or someone more ‘moderate’ like, as Zeb as suggested Rubio, appeals more to independents?
[/quote]
Seen as a moderate?! Why ever would that be? He’s for an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He’s just as pro-life as Santorum. Heck, last night in the debate he proclaimed his social conservative view for all the world to see. He might as well have been Santorum. He’s one of the far right, according to his pledges, and answers to questions. In fact, he might even be to the right of Rubio! Are you suggesting that he’s lying to social conservatives? Come, now. You make it seem as if he’s some sort of chameleon-like political creature, camouflaging itself with the words and bodies (a Rubio/Palin VP show piece), so as to win his rightful place in the highest office.