Moonlight Graham Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 could a 'Massachusetts moderate' actually win the GOP nomination? Nah, c'mon! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFaWhygzjQ LOL, Newt attacking Mitt for being multilingual and speaking French, and with the silly French elevator music in the background! As if it's a bad thing to have the brain power to speak a foreign language? Didn't Founding Fathers like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson speak French and much enjoy spending lots of time in France? John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR also spoke French. Oh mon dieu!! Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
cybercoma Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Would you like some FREEDOM fries with that? USA! USA! USA! Quote
Shady Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 We can talk about Romney's record as an outsourcer if you want. Sure, go ahead. Quote
dre Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 He's destroying jobs with his policies. It's quite ironic.Just more talking points from you. :lol: Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 ...As if it's a bad thing to have the brain power to speak a foreign language? Romney's linguistic skills could get him a federal job in Canada faster than most Canadians! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 :lol: I wish it were so funny. Unfortunately the small businesses that are under the weight of his regulation don't think so. Either do the oil rigs that have moved from off the gulf coast and on to South America to work. Either do the construction workers that would be working right now on the Keystone pipeline. The list goes on, and so do the jobs being prevented from creation by this administration. They don't even have to do anything. Just get out of the way. That's what's so sad about it. Quote
Shady Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Wow, looks like Gingrich and Perry's pathetic Bain attacks have blown up in their faces! Romney opens 21-point lead in South CarolinaRepublican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has opened a wide lead over his rivals in the South Carolina primary election race, trouncing Newt Gingrich and gaining momentum in his march toward the party's nomination, a Reuters/Ipsos poll shows. AP What Gingrich and Perry did would be the equivalent of a Democrat attacking Obama on his community organizing during a Democrat primary. Not a very good stategy. Quote
punked Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 Wow, looks like Gingrich and Perry's pathetic Bain attacks have blown up in their faces! What Gingrich and Perry did would be the equivalent of a Democrat attacking Obama on his community organizing during a Democrat primary. Not a very good stategy. I know that this was all the way in the 17th paragraph of the poll Shady The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online from January 10-13 with a sample of 995 South Carolina registered voters. It included 398 Republicans and 380 Democrats. Is it normal for a poll for a Republican Primary to be made up half of Democrats? Wow Republican talking points are really off their game this year. Quote
Shady Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Is it normal for a poll for a Republican Primary to be made up half of Democrats? Well, it is an open primary, similar to New Hampshire. But I agree. Without the Democrats, Romney's lead would probably be even bigger. The bain attacks have been a complete backfire on hardcore Republican voters. Quote
jbg Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 If the Mormon church tells him to shun certain people, will President Romney obey? No. A close friend of mine worked directly for him in the old Bain & Company, the predecessor to Bain Capital. I am assured that is not at all the case. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 NY Times Reading this, I am disillusioned that the campaign is so designed for maximum spectacle but there isn't much doubt as to the result. I didn't realize how old this post was and whoever wrote it must have been prescient. The filed was very much open on October 23, 2011. The other candidates more or less ran a circular firing squad. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Wow, looks like Gingrich and Perry's pathetic Bain attacks have blown up in their faces! What Gingrich and Perry did would be the equivalent of a Democrat attacking Obama on his community organizing during a Democrat primary. Not a very good stategy. More circular firing squad strategy. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2012 Author Report Posted January 16, 2012 I didn't realize how old this post was and whoever wrote it must have been prescient. The filed was very much open on October 23, 2011. The other candidates more or less ran a circular firing squad. Read it though. The logic was sound. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
August1991 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) I didn't realize how old this post was and whoever wrote it must have been prescient. The filed was very much open on October 23, 2011. The other candidates more or less ran a circular firing squad.When this NYT article was written, despite its weak logic, six zillion things could have happened to change the outcome. Well, none of them did.I would say that Romney is the nominee despite the argument of the article in the OP rather than because of it. IOW, I reckon that the Republican Party is uncomfortable with Romney and money does not explain his success. If the Repugs had found anyone else, Romney would not be the winner. With that said, Romney is arguably the only Republican who stands a chance against Obama in November. ---- We on the Right are badly served at this time in history. The Leftist social welfare state is clearly unsustainable and threatens western civilization. And yet no political leader on the Right can explain this intelligibly. Romney is another Harper. I suspect that Obama will win in November. Edited January 16, 2012 by August1991 Quote
jbg Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Read it though. The logic was sound. Thanks. I just read it and the inserted video clips. I first must say I've seen the author of the Op-Ed, Ross Douhat, speak in person. I generally agree with both him and the column. That being said, he is too dismissive of the other candidates, and too complimentary of Goldwater and McGovern. Goldwater and McGovern were far more unelectable than Douhat indicates. He also leaves out the context (equally applicable to Dole in 1996) of a virtually inevitable win by the incumbent President. That was the factor that led to weak candidates. In this election, Douhat correctly pins the weakness on Bush II's failure to build a viable party and the Tea Party's elevation of cranks and frauds. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Romney is another Harper. I suspect that Obama will win in November.I suspect and hope you're extremely wrong on that. Obama is a flailing, weak President. Romney has gravitas and presence. Obama looks like an overgrown university child. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Shady Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Apparently Huntsman's dropping out tomorrow and endorsing Romney. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2012 Author Report Posted January 16, 2012 When this NYT article was written, despite its weak logic, six zillion things could have happened to change the outcome. Well, none of them did. Six zillion is actually an accurate number. Romney could have been zapped by lightning. Ron Paul could have been eaten by a shark. Those are two of the six zillion things. But the logic was that Romney was the only candidate with money, and with a real campaign team who was a winnable candidate. The Sherlock Holmes deduction logic shows that the improbable becomes the inevitable once you eliminate the other possibilities. I would say that Romney is the nominee despite the argument of the article in the OP rather than because of it. IOW, I reckon that the Republican Party is uncomfortable with Romney and money does not explain his success. If the Repugs had found anyone else, Romney would not be the winner. But even in October it was too late. Cain entered the campaign quite late and his organization was deplorable. With that said, Romney is arguably the only Republican who stands a chance against Obama in November. Agreed. We on the Right are badly served at this time in history. The Leftist social welfare state is clearly unsustainable and threatens western civilization. And yet no political leader on the Right can explain this intelligibly. Well, we can always raise taxes to where they were in the 80s, streamline government and we'd be good to go but... that's just socialist talk I guess. Romney is another Harper. I suspect that Obama will win in November. But Harper won, so maybe he's not another Harper. Maybe he's a Preston Manning. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2012 Author Report Posted January 16, 2012 He also leaves out the context (equally applicable to Dole in 1996) of a virtually inevitable win by the incumbent President. I too was surprised that he didn't mention this. But the most recent one-termers - Bush I and Carter - were felled by recession. Ford was too, I guess, but he was a no-termer never having been elected to Vice President or President. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Shady Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Well, we can always raise taxes to where they were in the 80s, streamline government and we'd be good to go but... that's just socialist talk I guess. You could raise taxes to what they were in the 1960s, you'd still be looking at a large and mounting deficit. Streamlining government's great as well, but it just doesn't save that much money. The real changes that need to be made are entitlement reform. Those are the drivers of most of the budget problems. And just raising taxes doesn't fix the structural problems within the programs. Edited January 16, 2012 by Shady Quote
Shady Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 I too was surprised that he didn't mention this. But the most recent one-termers - Bush I and Carter - were felled by recession. Ford was too, I guess, but he was a no-termer never having been elected to Vice President or President. I agree. It basically comes down to the economy. If the economy improves, than Obama probably wins re-election. If it doesn't, he probably loses. Quote
dre Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 I agree. It basically comes down to the economy. If the economy improves, than Obama probably wins re-election. If it doesn't, he probably loses. Thats conventional wisdom, but Im not so sure. I would have a hard time voting for Obama OR Romney if I was and American. And a fairly large number of Americans have just realized their government is a joke and theres really not much difference which of the two parties is in charge. I predict low voter turn-out and I wouldnt be suprised if Obama lost due to an anti-encumbant environment and frustration of 30 years of weak ineffectual government. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
August1991 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Thats conventional wisdom, but Im not so sure. I would have a hard time voting for Obama OR Romney if I was and American. And a fairly large number of Americans have just realized their government is a joke and theres really not much difference which of the two parties is in charge. I predict low voter turn-out and I wouldnt be suprised if Obama lost due to an anti-encumbant environment and frustration of 30 years of weak ineffectual government.You're a Paul/Nader voter. You'll either not vote, or vote for a third candidate.dre, many people like you post on Internet forums but smart political analysts ignore your opinion. ---- At this point, Obama and Romney only care about voters in swing states. These two guys (or their staffers) know the swing states, and I suspect that they even know the potential swing voters in those swing states. This has all the makings of a close election: Heads/tails. America, democracy, you gotta love it. Huh? Russia? A two-time strong-man decides. China? A nomenklatura decides who is leader. Europe? A bunch of bureaucrats choose a no-name guy. And then there's America: Everyone knows there will be a President in 2013 but no one knows who it will be. IMV, America is a stable society but it is uncertain. Russia, China and Europe are the unstable places. ---- In mathematics, there is a difference between "stability" and "certainty". America is uncertain but it is stable. China and many other places are certain but unstable. Edited January 16, 2012 by August1991 Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 At this point, Obama and Romney only care about voters in swing states. These two guys (or their staffers) know the swing states, and I suspect that they even know the potential swing voters in those swing states. This has all the makings of a close election: Heads/tails. America, democracy, you gotta love it. Huh? I agree. If Romney gets the nomination, which looks all but certain barring catastrophe, it will be a very close election. Both are closer to the center and both are decent candidates, and so swing-voters will have an interesting time deciding. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
dre Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 You're a Paul/Nader voter. You'll either not vote, or vote for a third candidate. dre, many people like you post on Internet forums but smart political analysts ignore your opinion. ---- At this point, Obama and Romney only care about voters in swing states. These two guys (or their staffers) know the swing states, and I suspect that they even know the potential swing voters in those swing states. This has all the makings of a close election: Heads/tails. America, democracy, you gotta love it. Huh? Russia? A two-time strong-man decides. China? A nomenklatura decides who is leader. Europe? A bunch of bureaucrats choose a no-name guy. And then there's America: Everyone knows there will be a President in 2013 but no one knows who it will be. IMV, America is a stable society but it is uncertain. Russia, China and Europe are the unstable places. ---- In mathematics, there is a difference between "stability" and "certainty". America is uncertain but it is stable. China and many other places are certain but unstable. You're a Paul/Nader voter. You'll either not vote, or vote for a third candidate. Nope. I dont remember enough about Naders policies to say much about that, but I definately wouldnt vote for Paul. dre, many people like you post on Internet forums but smart political analysts ignore your opinion. Must be because they are so busy reading your simplistic two dimensional platitudes, and boring ideological rants, and continuously parroted slogans! Russia? A two-time strong-man decides.China? A nomenklatura decides who is leader. Europe? A bunch of bureaucrats choose a no-name guy. At this point I have to wonder what the hell youre even talking about Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.