G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Because that's not going to be the choice. What will be the choice then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Because that's not going to be the choice. Are you predicting that Romney will lose the nomination to someone else? If he gets it -- and he will -- that will indeed be the choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 So Americans will have a choice between:A) Obama A pro-choice, health-care-mandate-signing, climate-change-accepting, weird-religion-having guy from a true blue state, and whose stated positions the GOP has already deemed completely unacceptable Why, exactly, will rank-and-file GOP voters bother to go to the polls at all? For the same reason they'd go to the polls to elect a birther, tax increasing, evolution-denying, conspiracy-theorist, "gay people cause hurricanes" following, theocratic, person who believes that what's wring with the economy is that we aren't intentionally making it worse, overnight. Because of the letter after his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spearfeather Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 For the same reason they'd go to the polls to elect a birther, tax increasing, evolution-denying, conspiracy-theorist, "gay people cause hurricanes" following, theocratic, person who believes that what's wring with the economy is that we aren't intentionally making it worse, overnight. Because of the letter after his name. Don't know about any of that junk, but I think the " choice " is: Do you want Obama for four more years, or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 29, 2011 Author Share Posted October 29, 2011 Mitt Romney, the pretzel candidate By George F. Will, Published: October 28 The Republican presidential dynamic — various candidates rise and recede; Mitt Romney remains at about 25 percent support — is peculiar because conservatives correctly believe that it is important to defeat Barack Obama but unimportant that Romney be president. This is not cognitive dissonance. Obama, a floundering naif who thinks ATMs aggravate unemployment, is bewildered by a national tragedy of shattered dreams, decaying workforce skills and forgone wealth creation. Romney cannot enunciate a defensible, or even decipherable, ethanol policy. Life poses difficult choices, but not about ethanol. Government subsidizes ethanol production, imposes tariffs to protect manufacturers of it and mandates the use of it — and it injures the nation’s and the world’s economic, environmental, and social (it raises food prices) well-being. In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century, Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it? Every day, 10,000 baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, from which they will receive, on average, $1 million of benefits ($550,000 from the former, $450,000 from the latter). Who expects difficult reforms from Romney, whose twists on ethanol make a policy pretzel? A straddle is not a political philosophy; it is what you do when you do not have one. It is what Romney did when he said that using Troubled Assets Relief Program funds for the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts “was the wrong source for that funding.” Oh, so the source was the bailouts’ defect. Last week in Ohio, Romney straddled the issue of the ballot initiative by which liberals and unions hope to repeal the law that Republican Gov. John Kasich got enacted to limit public employees’ collective bargaining rights. Kasich, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, is under siege. Romney was asked, at a Republican phone bank rallying support for Kasich’s measure, to oppose repeal of it and to endorse another measure exempting Ohioans from Obamacare’s insurance mandate (a cousin of Romneycare’s Massachusetts mandate). He refused. His campaign called his refusal principled: “Citizens of states should be able to make decisions . . . on their own.” Got it? People cannot make “their own” decisions if Romney expresses an opinion. His flinch from leadership looks ludicrous after his endorsement three months ago of a right-to-work bill that the New Hampshire legislature was considering. So, the rule in New England expires across the Appalachian Mountains? A day after refusing to oppose repeal of Kasich’s measure, Romney waffled about his straddle, saying he opposed repeal “110 percent.” He did not, however, endorse the anti-mandate measure, remaining semi-faithful to the trans-Appalachian codicil pertaining to principles, thereby seeming to lack the courage of his absence of convictions. Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming. Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Don't know about any of that junk, but I think the " choice " is: Do you want Obama for four more years, or not? Oh, I wish things were better. But if my choices are Obama, Romney, or seven birthers*? I'll take Obama in a heartbeat. Heck, I'd take Cynthia McKenny over any of the R candidates. She's bat**** crazy, just like they are. But I at least can hope that she's incompetent. * I'm using that term as an expression of the level of bat**** crazy-ness, rather than as an assignment of a specific policy. I have no idea how many of the R candidates are actually Birthers. What I do know is that every one of them is as disconnected from reality as the Birthers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 So Americans will have a choice between:A) Obama A pro-choice, health-care-mandate-signing, climate-change-accepting, weird-religion-having guy from a true blue state, and whose stated positions the GOP has already deemed completely unacceptable Why, exactly, will rank-and-file GOP voters bother to go to the polls at all? cause they're bat **** crazy or completely manipulated the "Base" has proven to be pretty stubborn in the face of cognitive dissonance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Heck, I'd take Cynthia McKenny over any of the R candidates. She's bat**** crazy, just like they are. But I at least can hope that she's incompetent. * I'm using that term as an expression of the level of bat**** crazy-ness, rather than as an assignment of a specific policy. I have no idea how many of the R candidates are actually Birthers. What I do know is that every one of them is as disconnected from reality as the Birthers. Wow! Hell no. She's dangerously crazy. Romney might be untrustworthy and a jerk but I'd pick him over her in a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 29, 2011 Author Share Posted October 29, 2011 Romney gains two Perry fans politicalmugshot Posted by CNN Political Unit (CNN) – Mitt Romney captured two endorsements Friday from former Rick Perry supporters. New Hampshire Republican state Rep. Norman Major, who backed Perry over a month ago, and prominent social conservative Maureen Mooney, who flew to Texas earlier this year to encourage a Perry White House bid, threw their support behind Romney. Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said Major's decision, first reported by the New Hampshire Union Leader, is proof the campaign is continuing to gain momentum. "Voters across the country realize that Governor Romney is the only Republican who can fix our economy and defeat President Obama in 2012," Williams told CNN. In an interview with the Leader, Major said he originally endorsed Perry because of his accomplishments in Texas, but "as I saw him in the debates and how he handles himself, I realized he isn't going to beat Obama." A recent CNN/TIME/ORC International poll of Republican voters in New Hampshire, the first-in-the-nation primary state, showed Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, leading the GOP pack with 40% of the vote. Texas Gov. Perry came in sixth place with 4% of the vote. Mooney also announced her Romney support Friday, according to CNN affiliate WMUR. "This is Mitt's time and this is his year," she told the station. "He has been a friend of New Hampshire for years now and is very supportive of the New Hampshire Republican Party, candidates locally, the county and state. Furthermore, he demonstrates a sharpness in every debate we have seen him in that will match up well against Barack Obama. That is precisely what we need." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spearfeather Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 So, as for the George Will article; What does he suggest to the conservative voter who doesn't want Obama for four more years, but is ultimately less than satisfied with the Republican nominee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Because of the letter after his name. That's the only answer I can come up with as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Romney gains two Perry fans(CNN) – Mitt Romney captured two endorsements Friday from former Rick Perry supporters. Mitt's really waiting for twa's backing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Are you predicting that Romney will lose the nomination to someone else?If he gets it -- and he will -- that will indeed be the choice. I am predicting exactly that. Look, like it or not, the conservative base gets its message out better than anyone in politics right now; and we motivate our voters exceptionally well too. Romney is not in any way, shape, or form a conservative. And we've got a full year to make that perfectly clear. Bookmark it. Romney will NOT be the nominee. ---------- Post added October-29th-2011 at 03:59 PM ---------- Because of the letter after his name. It's better than voting for a skin color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 29, 2011 Author Share Posted October 29, 2011 I am predicting exactly that.Look, like it or not, the conservative base gets its message out better than anyone in politics right now; and we motivate our voters exceptionally well too. Romney is not in any way, shape, or form a conservative. And we've got a full year to make that perfectly clear. Bookmark it. Romney will NOT be the nominee. You guys should make a wager on that. I'd be interested in who HH thinks WILL be the nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I am predicting exactly that.Look, like it or not, the conservative base gets its message out better than anyone in politics right now; and we motivate our voters exceptionally well too. Romney is not in any way, shape, or form a conservative. And we've got a full year to make that perfectly clear. Bookmark it. Romney will NOT be the nominee. ---------- Post added October-29th-2011 at 03:59 PM ---------- So who will Obama's sacrifice.... Sorry. I mean "opponent" be? Romney's the only one with a chance at beating him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 So who will Obama's sacrifice.... Sorry. I mean "opponent" be? Romney's the only one with a chance at beating him. We'll see. I'm content to let you guys talk junk for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 We'll see. I'm content to let you guys talk junk for now. I don't have a side in this for once, so I'm honestly curious as to who people think can beat Obama. Personally I'm ok with O at the moment, even though I voted for McCain. But I can see myself voting for Romney (though I hated him in 2008)...I can't imagine voting for most of the other imbeciles and loonies on the right. (not including Huntsman maybe, but he has no chance of going anywhere and has far less conservative appeal than Romney) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaO Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 The problem is that an alternative to Romney doesn't emerge and the conservative wing of the Republican party just splits their votes amongst a bunch of different candidates, allowing Romney to win the nomination with 30% - 35% of primary voters voting for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I am predicting exactly that.Look, like it or not, the conservative base gets its message out better than anyone in politics right now; and we motivate our voters exceptionally well too. Romney is not in any way, shape, or form a conservative. And we've got a full year to make that perfectly clear. Bookmark it. Romney will NOT be the nominee. I agree with you. The primaries will be determined by the True Republicans. And the True Republicans will never, ever, vote for anybody who has in any way so much as questioned their Kool Aid fueled delusions. It's better than voting for a skin color. Like that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spearfeather Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 . And the True Republicans will never, ever, vote for anybody who has in any way so much as questioned their Kool Aid fueled delusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Just imagine if the Republicans had won, Bin Laden would still be out there, Ghadaffi would still be out there. The debt would be worse (McCain had pledged a stimulus of the same size, but wanted to add on additional tax cuts because... well, ya know... tax cutting and mega spending is fiscal conservatism these days) We'd be deeper into Iraq and be fighting a third front on Iran and unemployment would most likely be the same or worse. On the plus side, we probably wouldn't have had health care reform. By the way, for those saying we would have still gotten Bin Laden and Moamar you are lying to yourselves. Republicans decried and said it was insanity to commit to any operation in Pakistan so Al Qaeda and Bin Laden over there would have been safe. Further, Republicans had no interest and in fact, fervantly opposed the U.S. supporting rebels with No Fly Zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I agree with you. The primaries will be determined by the True Republicans. And the True Republicans will never, ever, vote for anybody who has in any way so much as questioned their Kool Aid fueled delusions. It would be really nice if just once, just God damned once, I could have a discussion with a liberal and NOT be accused of being a spoonfed idiot. Guess what, Larry? Your opinion is not the be-all to end-all. I know that comes as a shock to you. And I hope you won't stroke out when I expound on that just a little further. An intelligent person can consider an issue, come to a different conclusion, and NOT be influenced by any pundit nor "drink the Kool-Aid." I am so sick to death of this pathetic cop out of an argument from the left, that I'm surprised my computer continues to survive the experience. How much ****ing Kool-Aid did I drink last year when I voted for Obama, Lare? What color was it? Because clearly you don't think I'm intelligent enough to consider facts and come to disagree with His High-and-Mightiness. So you tell me? How did it happen? Were the FOX rays blocked from entering my house by the uranium siding I put up? Or did I consider the facts and actually end up making a seemingly rational decision? Of course I agreed with you in that case, so you didn't make this type of bull**** accusation back then. But frankly it's more than a little ridiculous, given my posting history, and my record around here to make the foolish assertions that you do every time I encounter you in a thread. Your snarky bull**** has gotten more than tiresome, and frankly, I'm left to wonder what mod you're in such good graces with to even remain here. I've laid off, because I was told by a friend "Don't mess with Larry. He has friends in high places on the board." That's fine. I don't know if I do or not, and frankly I don't care. But this has needed to be said for a long time, and if it costs me my membership here, I'm fine with that. It's not just you either. Though you seem to be a frequent flyer in this regard. It's damned near impossible to have a discussion with anyone on the left here any more without the same tired "FAUXNews" cop out of an argument. The assertion that conservatives can't think independently is made here HUNDREDS of times a week. It's gotten old. It's gotten VERY old. And the sad thing is, it comes from people I used to have some level of respect for, despite our disagreements. Still, I can take some amount of solace away from the fact that it's not us allegedly spoonfed idiots that have to resort to this kind of pathetic assertion. It's the enlightened. It's the elite. It's those oh-so-impressive critical thinkers that have to use that same broken crutch. So you tell me, Larry? Who can't think for themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Just imagine if the Republicans had won, Bin Laden would still be out there, Ghadaffi would still be out there. The debt would be worse (McCain had pledged a stimulus of the same size, but wanted to add on additional tax cuts because... well, ya know... tax cutting and mega spending is fiscal conservatism these days) We'd be deeper into Iraq and be fighting a third front on Iran and unemployment would most likely be the same or worse.On the plus side, we probably wouldn't have had health care reform. By the way, for those saying we would have still gotten Bin Laden and Moamar you are lying to yourselves. Republicans decried and said it was insanity to commit to any operation in Pakistan so Al Qaeda and Bin Laden over there would have been safe. Further, Republicans had no interest and in fact, fervantly opposed the U.S. supporting rebels with No Fly Zones. This seems out of place.... And not to get too off topic, but McCain had a lot of the same positions (although he criticized O for not doing enough in some cases...which I think could be argued both ways) as Obama has had now...just a bit earlier than him on Libya and other foreign policy issues. (I'm not saying McCain would have been better overall though considering everything his presidency might have entailed) Anyway...back to Romney.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 This seems out of place....And not to get too off topic, but McCain had a lot of the same positions (although he criticized O for not doing enough in some cases...which I think could be argued both ways) as Obama has had now...just a bit earlier than him on Libya and other foreign policy issues. (I'm not saying McCain would have been better overall though considering everything his presidency might have entailed) Anyway...back to Romney.... It might be... but I was riffing off what Spearfeather was saying while he was basically complaining that Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to this country and anything could be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 HH, if I remember correctly, you didn't vote for Obama, in fact you didn't actually get to vote at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.