Newt vs. the GOP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Romney is it buddy – that is if you want to win. [/quote]

Oh yeah. The guy who was beat by the guy who Obama beat. Winning![/quote]

What does that mean again? Oh yeah NOTHING!!

Shall we take a quick peek at history?

There are many examples but let’s just take the following: Ford beat Reagan for the nomination in 1976 and went on to lose to Jimmy Carter. Four years later Reagan gets the nod and beats Jimmy Carter.

Now why was that?

Many reasons–A primary is not a general AND once a man is in office and has a record to run on people tend to be more critical.

I get it though you hate Romney. [/quote]

Romney is sure as heck no Reagan. Hell, he ran away from Reagan (and the Contract).

See you at his concession speech. Romney was disliked before, but now he’s burned his bridges. When the numbers come in from his loss, and it’s evident the base didn’t turn out, we’ll have something to talk about. Until then, run your ‘conservative.’
[/quote]

First of all I never claimed Romney was Reagan and neither has Romney. I was just giving you an example of one candidate losing a primary and then coming back four years later and beating an incumbent President, since you thought that this was impossible. One more example would be Richard Nixon who lost to Barry Goldwater and then came back to win in 1968.

As for Romeny, he doesn’t have to be Reagan. All Romney has to do is be the best Romney he can be. Sounds corny but that’s the only way he has a chance of winning. And if you recall I’ve already settled on the fact that if Obama takes Hillary as his VP beating him will be most difficult. But still…Romney has the best chance with a good solid hispanic VP perhaps female, but male if it was Marco Rubio might do the trick.

Did you read about Rubio slapping down Gingrich this week?

62

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
One thing you can bet on, Rubio will get the nod to be VP.[/quote]

That is certainly my hope. Florida has 29 electoral votes and Romney will never win without that state. In addition to that Rubio helps with the hispanic vote all over the country. And this block of voters is actually larger than the black vote that will cling to Obama (even though black unemployment is at record levels).

If it’s Romney/Rubio vs Obama/Biden I’d say Romney has a little better than 50/50 shot depending on the economy of course. If it’s Obama/Clinton that’s another story.

63

Watch and weep.

64

Oh Sloth just stop it. I couldn’t care less how you choose to serve up Romney’s stance on health care. Nor do I care if it was exactly like Obama’s (which it was not). Romney said he’d get rid of Obamacare on day one. I believe that he will. So I don’t really care about how you choose to paint him as a liberal. I’ll tell you for the (I’m guessing but I’m close) 12th time, Romney has the potential to beat Obama therefore I’m for Romney. Now you can post all the negative video’s you want I couldn’t care less.

As I’ve also told you multiple times if Santorum or Gingrich captured the nomination they would be private citizens one day after the election and Obama would still be President. Now tell me again how that helps you, me or the country…it doesn’t. So I’ve taking the sane stance and choosing someone who can win and is far better than Obama. And someday you will think like I do as I’ve also said many times to you, you need your teeth kicked a few more times. I used to think like you too many years ago and then I realized that life doesn’t always work like I want it to and as they say it’s better to get a part of the loaf than none at all.

And until you prove to me why Romney is not the best candidate to win (and it better be stronger than he’s a flip-flopper) you just don’t have my interest pal. I’m going with my head as my heart makes a very poor political advisor–You’ll see that soon enough.

65

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh Sloth just stop it. I couldn’t care less how you choose to serve up Romney’s stance on health care. Nor do I care if it was exactly like Obama’s (which it was not). Romney said he’d get rid of Obamacare on day one. I believe that he will. So I don’t really care about how you choose to paint him as a liberal. I’ll tell you for the (I’m guessing but I’m close) 12th time, Romney has the potential to beat Obama therefore I’m for Romney. Now you can post all the negative video’s you want I couldn’t care less.

As I’ve also told you multiple times if Santorum or Gingrich captured the nomination they would be private citizens one day after the election and Obama would still be President. Now tell me again how that helps you, me or the country…it doesn’t. So I’ve taking the sane stance and choosing someone who can win and is far better than Obama. And someday you will think like I do as I’ve also said many times to you, you need your teeth kicked a few more times. I used to think like you too many years ago and then I realized that life doesn’t always work like I want it to and as they say it’s better to get a part of the loaf than none at all.

And until you prove to me why Romney is not the best candidate to win (and it better be stronger than he’s a flip-flopper) you just don’t have my interest pal. I’m going with my head as my heart makes a very poor political advisor–You’ll see that soon enough.
[/quote]

Sorry, that wasn’t directed at you. My bad if it seemed to be. It was for others.

66

I really don’t think Santorum has the ability to get rid of that “You-have-cooties-and-I-don’t/I’m-gonna’-TELL-on-you!” smirk that he’s maintained not only at each and every debate; but almost everytime I see him speak.

He needs to move on.

Mufasa

67

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I really don’t think Santorum has the ability to get rid of that “You-have-cooties-and-I-don’t/I’m-gonna’-TELL-on-you!” smirk that he’s maintained not only at each and every debate; but almost everytime I see him speak.

He needs to move on.

Mufasa [/quote]

Those darn smirks.

68

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I really don’t think Santorum has the ability to get rid of that “You-have-cooties-and-I-don’t/I’m-gonna’-TELL-on-you!” smirk that he’s maintained not only at each and every debate; but almost everytime I see him speak.

He needs to move on.

Mufasa [/quote]

What you are able to articulate most people just say “I dunno I just don’t like the guy”.

It’s all part of that thing called electability.

69

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I really don’t think Santorum has the ability to get rid of that “You-have-cooties-and-I-don’t/I’m-gonna’-TELL-on-you!” smirk that he’s maintained not only at each and every debate; but almost everytime I see him speak.

He needs to move on.

Mufasa [/quote]

And, did someone mention Santorum?! Calls for a repost of Santorum laying out the conservative smackdown, with Romney slipping into Obama-drive for a full throttle defense of the principles and mechanics behind individual-mandate health care. Better than the administration, even. This is about the most powerful exchange out of all of the debates. This was the moment where Conservatives (big C) knew beyond a doubt, that the Republican party has given up on Obamacare. That the Republican party had become a party of technocratic managers who, if anything, would simply make Obamacare a bit better.

Edit: And look at that Romney smirk! How dare someone bring up his singular political achievement, the individual health-care mandate. I mean, sheesh, who gets mad about that sort of stuff in a republican primary?!

70

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I really don’t think Santorum has the ability to get rid of that “You-have-cooties-and-I-don’t/I’m-gonna’-TELL-on-you!” smirk that he’s maintained not only at each and every debate; but almost everytime I see him speak.

He needs to move on.

Mufasa [/quote]

What you are able to articulate most people just say “I dunno I just don’t like the guy”.

It’s all part of that thing called electability.[/quote]

Haven’t paid any attention to him because he will not go anywhere.

72

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

Haven’t paid any attention to him because he will not go anywhere.

[/quote]

You must’ve paid enough attention to him in order to come to the opinion that he won’t go anywhere, ya think?

BTW, your post is proof that the 19th Amendment was a mistake. “I don’t pay attention to the candidates seeking their party’s nomination, that’s how I know they aren’t going anywhere.”

Sheesh, Mitz!

[b][center]REPEAL THE 19TH![/quote]

I’m not voting in the republican primaries, and I’ve paid enough attention to know that he’s not going anywhere.

Also, he looks like a creeper.

Go be an ass to someone else please.

73

The electability theory is based on the belief that the more moderate and independent the candidate is the more palatable he is to the voters. In Romney’s case he is trying to win the Republican primaries by claiming he has grown in his beliefs and has become more conservative while bashing the other candidates from the right without any real bona fide conservative credentials. So he is trying to be both the moderate/conservative candidate while using negative campaigning to lower the enthusiasm for the 2 more conservative candidates (Newt and Santorum)

The problem with this theory and tactic is that it assumes that the conservative base will be motivated to vote just to get rid of Obama, but this is not the case. Romney’s tactics are not sitting well with the conservatives and tea party. He is making enemies and will dampen enthusiasm come November. Also, if Romney gets the nomination he will undoubtedly move to the center further eroding conservative support. THis will make it extremely difficult to win the crucial swing states.

The only thing that is keeping Romney afloat right now is that Newt and Santorum are splitting the conservative vote. Romney is stuck in the 25%-35% range while the conservative candidates (I am excluding Paul) are polling at 53% (Iowa) and 57% (SC) with NH being the only state decisively for Romney. Florida polls are showing Romney @ 39%, Newt/Rick @ 43%

Newt’s problem is that he has been around so long and has staked so many positions on the center to right political sprectrum that he has presented so many juicy political targets not with standing his less than stellar personal record. The ethics charge (teaching a college class?!?) will be hung around his neck and will be difficult to overcome as it will take too much work for the average voter to research what actually happened during that time.

74

Slim:

I just wanted to add something to your analysis. (Thanks, by the way!)

I think everyone has to realize that when a member of Congress is brought up on some “ethical” charge that leads to action by one or both of the Governing bodies; the charge ITSELF may (or may not) be “serious” (in Washington terms); or anything that someone else may or may not have done.

It usually means that Member of the House and/or Senate has a) crossed some “line” and more importantly in Newt’s case b) angered and alienated a significant number of one, or both, bodies of Congress.

It is clear that Newt has done the latter.

Now I know that Zeb and Sloth have gone back and forth on this on several threads; but I want to understand what Conservatives are saying:

  1. Romney is no “better” than Obama in terms of Ideology? OR

  2. He is more “conservative” than the President; but he is pissing us off, so no way we are helping him get to the White House?

  3. Other?

I’m just not understanding the hardline being taken toward a man clearly “more conservative” than the President (but obviously “not conservative enough”?)

I’m not getting it.

Mufasa

75

It isn’t just about Obama. It’s about the direction of the party, and Mitt (a progressive republican) using a vast money advantage to tear down his conservative betters. He’s burned bridges with the Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry folks for sure.

76

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Slim:

I just wanted to add something to your analysis. (Thanks, by the way!)

I think everyone has to realize that when a member of Congress is brought up on some “ethical” charge that leads to action by one or both of the Governing bodies; the charge ITSELF may (or may not) be “serious” (in Washington terms); or anything that someone else may or may not have done.

It usually means that Member of the House and/or Senate has a) crossed some “line” and more importantly in Newt’s case b) angered and alienated a significant number of one, or both, bodies of Congress.

It is clear that Newt has done the latter.

Now I know that Zeb and Sloth have gone back and forth on this on several threads; but I want to understand what Conservatives are saying:

  1. Romney is no “better” than Obama in terms of Ideology? OR

  2. He is more “conservative” than the President; but he is pissing us off, so no way we are helping him get to the White House?

  3. Other?

I’m just not understanding the hardline being taken toward a man clearly “more conservative” than the President (but obviously “not conservative enough”?)

I’m not getting it.

Mufasa[/quote]

And you are exactly correct Mufasa. For those of us who care about the direction of the country and not some purist motive we need to dump Obama. He will do far more damage to our nation should he have another four years unchecked by the electorate. Liberal Judges at every level appointed, tax hkes, more debt etc. The list is endless. And as you say if someone like Gingrich were to be the nominee Obama would then have coattails and the dems might just pick up seats in Congress. Can anyone here imagine another two years like Obama had when he first took office where the democrats ruled everywhere? That brought us Obamacare folks!

It is most assuredly about beating Obama. And Romney has promised to get rid of Obama care and implement a host of other conservative ideas. Whether his heart is into doing such things matters not to me. What matters is that he is a politician and like all politicians he wants to be reelected. And in order for him to be reelected he must keep the majority of promises that he’s making to the right.

This is a no brainer for those of us who care more about the country than we do our party.

77

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Slim:

I just wanted to add something to your analysis. (Thanks, by the way!)

I think everyone has to realize that when a member of Congress is brought up on some “ethical” charge that leads to action by one or both of the Governing bodies; the charge ITSELF may (or may not) be “serious” (in Washington terms); or anything that someone else may or may not have done.

It usually means that Member of the House and/or Senate has a) crossed some “line” and more importantly in Newt’s case b) angered and alienated a significant number of one, or both, bodies of Congress.

It is clear that Newt has done the latter.

Now I know that Zeb and Sloth have gone back and forth on this on several threads; but I want to understand what Conservatives are saying:

  1. Romney is no “better” than Obama in terms of Ideology? OR

  2. He is more “conservative” than the President; but he is pissing us off, so no way we are helping him get to the White House?

  3. Other?

I’m just not understanding the hardline being taken toward a man clearly “more conservative” than the President (but obviously “not conservative enough”?)

I’m not getting it.

Mufasa[/quote]

The ethics charge against Newt was clearly payback for taking control of the house and using his power as Speaker against the Democrats. Link to good article http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

If Romney is the candidate, I will vote for him. But for me I believe he will generate the same level of enthusiasm that McCain dis 4 years ago. Will Romney win, probably, but he may not pull the volume of Republican votes needed to take back the Senate nor get a mandate.

The big war is between the establishment Republicans and the conservative tea party republicans. The establishment republicans are most concerned about making sure the money doesn’t stop flowing while the tea party side wants to stop the intergenerational theft and get our fiscal and monetary policy back under control.

Romney, and in a lesser manner Newt, is establishment and the establishment accepts the liberal premises but thinks they could just do it better, ie same program for 2% less budget. Though I think Newt is conservative, many of his ideas include a government “solution”.

So yes Romney would be better than Obama but he has a long way to go to convince me and other conservatives that he will do little more than nibble around the edges of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” and not lead the sweeping changes the we think need to be made to bring our country back to the constitutional standard.

Right now, Rick Santorum is the candidate who is best suited for this. It is not over and den’t let the media decide the race for us.