Wrong Direction Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Really? One review from the WaPo of winners/losers I read didn't mention him at all. I look at the things he says that seem extreme even for the GOP and think "I bet there aren't many in his own party who want him around anymore". I guess I'm wrong. People have been ignoring Santorum the entire time. I think most people, like me, were pretty turned off by him before this run. He came across as sanctimonius and overly extreme on social issues. I can only speak for myself, but his social message during these debates is one that should appeal to most people. It's all about promoting family, the socio-economic effects of the breakdown of the family structure (e.g., poverty and education). His economic message is very conservative-populist. He's trying to bring manufacturing back to America through changes in the tax code and he wants to promote domestic energy development. He also is generally right on healthcare, IMO. His foreign policy is in line with Republican policy of the last 30+ years. He hasn't turned isolationist, as some have. This is mainstream R thought, though the party has turned more isolationist over the last few years. Basically, if he had a higher profile going into this race I think he'd be winning. Of course, he hasn't been the target at debates, a la Romney, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. It's hard to know how he'd hold up under that scrutiny. I've noticed some very kind words from the right about him in these debates. He's re-building cred with them. As I said, this could result in a cabinet position, or maybe a return to the Senate. I'd actually think he'd make a nice VP candidate for just about anyone if Rubio weren't around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I would be surprised if Rubio accepted the VP slot,he doesn't fit the mold,nor is it in his best interests.(though I would be pleased if he did) Rick S or Huntsman do though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I thought they had ABC in NH? He did a town forum last night. He's focusing everything on NH, thinking he can upset Mitt. What will really happen on Jan. 11, the day after the NH primary, is that Huntsman will announce he is dropping out. Actually, all these remaining debates will do is ensure Obama's reelection. The moment Ron Paul announce his third party bid; you can pencil in Obama as a lock for a landslide reelection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Maybe commonsense Republicans will break off from the tea party and form their own party with blue dog Dems.yeah....who am I kidding? those traitors? More chance of them simply flipping sides unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Mostly, yes. Also, its driven by the many Jews here in America (and around the world I suppose) that believe after WWII the Jews desperately needed a homeland to prevent anything like that ever happening again. That's not it. It's simple. The religious right believe that in order for Jesus to make his return, Israel must be in the hands of the Jews. That's the only reason they care about Israel. Of course, they forget to mention that once Jesus is back; the Jews must then become Christians. ---------- Post added December-11th-2011 at 11:57 AM ---------- Or to set himself up for a 2016 run by being "reasonable" this cycle and betting that whoever comes out loses to Obama. Hunstman has no shot in 2016. The heavy hitters like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Marc Rubio, Payl Ryan, etc... should be running then and he won't stand a chance. Also, the Dems should have an all star lineup also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 People have been ignoring Santorum the entire time. I think most people, like me, were pretty turned off by him before this run. He came across as sanctimonius and overly extreme on social issues.I can only speak for myself, but his social message during these debates is one that should appeal to most people. It's all about promoting family, the socio-economic effects of the breakdown of the family structure (e.g., poverty and education). His economic message is very conservative-populist. He's trying to bring manufacturing back to America through changes in the tax code and he wants to promote domestic energy development. He also is generally right on healthcare, IMO. His foreign policy is in line with Republican policy of the last 30+ years. He hasn't turned isolationist, as some have. This is mainstream R thought, though the party has turned more isolationist over the last few years. Basically, if he had a higher profile going into this race I think he'd be winning. Of course, he hasn't been the target at debates, a la Romney, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. It's hard to know how he'd hold up under that scrutiny. I've noticed some very kind words from the right about him in these debates. He's re-building cred with them. As I said, this could result in a cabinet position, or maybe a return to the Senate. I'd actually think he'd make a nice VP candidate for just about anyone if Rubio weren't around. I think he's not rebuilding much of anything. Beyond saying that McCain didn't understand torture and that Obama is appeasing terrorists which seems like a joke. He wants to connect the economy to family values and gay rights. Only thing he appears right about is telling people to look closer at Newt's record and not just what's he's saying right now. Can't seem him winning another major election ever again. Maybe locally within PA. But not to the Hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I think he's not rebuilding much of anything. Beyond saying that McCain didn't understand torture and that Obama is appeasing terrorists which seems like a joke. He wants to connect the economy to family values and gay rights. Only thing he appears right about is telling people to look closer at Newt's record and not just what's he's saying right now.Can't seem him winning another major election ever again. Maybe locally within PA. But not to the Hill. He was winning until he lost in a bad year for Rs. We just differ here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Really? One review from the WaPo of winners/losers I read didn't mention him at all. I look at the things he says that seem extreme even for the GOP and think "I bet there aren't many in his own party who want him around anymore". I guess I'm wrong. No, I think you're right. FactCheck article on the debate.Observing that one of the things that really gets me depressed, when I read FactCheck, is how OFTEN I read "this untrue statement has been used by this candidate numerous times before". In short, the recognition that politicians aren't even worried that their dishonesty might get exposed. When it gets exposed, not only are they not embarrassed, they don't even stop doing it. To be fair, even sites like FactCheck and Politi gets things wrong. I remember more than once reading a claim on one of those sites that a politician was lying about something, and thinking, "Hold on, that doesn't prove that [whoever] was lying at all." People have been ignoring Santorum the entire time. I think most people, like me, were pretty turned off by him before this run. He came across as sanctimonius and overly extreme on social issues.I can only speak for myself, but his social message during these debates is one that should appeal to most people. It's all about promoting family, the socio-economic effects of the breakdown of the family structure (e.g., poverty and education). His economic message is very conservative-populist. He's trying to bring manufacturing back to America through changes in the tax code and he wants to promote domestic energy development. He also is generally right on healthcare, IMO. His foreign policy is in line with Republican policy of the last 30+ years. He hasn't turned isolationist, as some have. This is mainstream R thought, though the party has turned more isolationist over the last few years. Basically, if he had a higher profile going into this race I think he'd be winning. Of course, he hasn't been the target at debates, a la Romney, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. It's hard to know how he'd hold up under that scrutiny. I've noticed some very kind words from the right about him in these debates. He's re-building cred with them. As I said, this could result in a cabinet position, or maybe a return to the Senate. I'd actually think he'd make a nice VP candidate for just about anyone if Rubio weren't around. Santorum has done a decent job of creating the appearance that he's just your standard conservative, but he had worked for years to create quite a different image of himself. It's too late to undo his "brand." Too many people associate him with essentially thinking that all of the world's ills are caused by gays and abortions, and that's not going to change. (I'm not saying that's an accurate description of what he thinks, I'm saying that that's what comes to mind when people think of Rick Santorum. Well, that and the other definition of his last name. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 To be fair, even sites like FactCheck and Politi gets things wrong. I remember more than once reading a claim on one of those sites that a politician was lying about something, and thinking, "Hold on, that doesn't prove that [whoever] was lying at all." Agreed. And sometimes it's a case of "well, it's kind of true, if you twist a little." Example: Newt (For some reason, I have a powerful urge to call him "Newt Romney", and I can't for the life of me imagine why) and cap and trade. Newt wants to claim, and has claimed, that "I never supported cap and trade". But he is absolutely on record as saying "I support a Cap and Trade plan, if it has . . . " Which certainly, to me, does sound a lot like he did support it, at least in one version. But yeah, it is possible to claim that well, he didn't support Cap and Trade (the part where he said "I support X"), he only supported those things he mentioned second, after he supported the part he mentioned first. Just like it's possible for Romney to pull his "well, I supported Romneycare, but only at the state level". Anybody actually believe it? Or does everybody else see a politician trying desperately to come up with a difference, any difference, between Romneycare and Obamacare, so he can explain why he wrote one, but opposes one that's virtually identical? Santorum has done a decent job of creating the appearance that he's just your standard conservative, but he had worked for years to create quite a different image of himself. It's too late to undo his "brand." Too many people associate him with essentially thinking that all of the world's ills are caused by gays and abortions, and that's not going to change. (I'm not saying that's an accurate description of what he thinks, I'm saying that that's what comes to mind when people think of Rick Santorum. Well, that and the other definition of his last name. ) I have to confess that those are the definitions I come up with when I hear his name. (Both of them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Agreed. And sometimes it's a case of "well, it's kind of true, if you twist a little." Example: Newt (For some reason, I have a powerful urge to call him "Newt Romney", and I can't for the life of me imagine why) and cap and trade. Newt wants to claim, and has claimed, that "I never supported cap and trade". But he is absolutely on record as saying "I support a Cap and Trade plan, if it has . . . " Which certainly, to me, does sound a lot like he did support it, at least in one version. But yeah, it is possible to claim that well, he didn't support Cap and Trade (the part where he said "I support X"), he only supported those things he mentioned second, after he supported the part he mentioned first. Just like it's possible for Romney to pull his "well, I supported Romneycare, but only at the state level". Anybody actually believe it? Or does everybody else see a politician trying desperately to come up with a difference, any difference, between Romneycare and Obamacare, so he can explain why he wrote one, but opposes one that's virtually identical? The thing is, Romney tries to make a federalism argument, and that line of reasoning could be a complete home run to the Tea Party base. But he does an absolutely horrible job. It's so bad, in fact, that I find myself wondering if Romney believes in federalism at all. It's like he doesn't want to come out and strongly, repeatedly emphasize that there are reasons why some things are handled by the federal government while many other things are left to the states. Instead, he just says that he thought Romneycare was a good idea for his state, but it's not a good idea for the country. But he never explains why. It's the why that matters, and his inability/unwillingness to articulate that why leaves him looking like a complete hypocrite. I have to confess that those are the definitions I come up with when I hear his name. (Both of them.) Me, too. But I don't think it's really something to "confess." There's a reason those things come to our minds when we think of Santorum. And that reason isn't that we've somehow been tricked into misremembering how he was while he was in Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 The thing is, Romney tries to make a federalism argument, and that line of reasoning could be a complete home run to the Tea Party base. But he does an absolutely horrible job. It's so bad, in fact, that I find myself wondering if Romney believes in federalism at all. It's like he doesn't want to come out and strongly, repeatedly emphasize that there are reasons why some things are handled by the federal government while many other things are left to the states.Instead, he just says that he thought Romneycare was a good idea for his state, but it's not a good idea for the country. But he never explains why. It's the why that matters, and his inability/unwillingness to articulate that why leaves him looking like a complete hypocrite. Oh, my personal opinion is that it's glaringly obvious that the reason the R's oppose Obamacare, is because they think that if it catches on, a Democrat will get credit for it. I think that if W had proposed it, they would have enthusiastically supported it. But with Romney, it's even tougher. Other candidates, like, say, Rick Perry, can simply say they oppose Obamacare, and not get caught in the contradiction of having supported Romneycare. Perry can claim that he opposed Romneycare, too, and nobody can prove that he did. I think that Romney had to come up with some reason why the proposal he wrote, the one that was his shining achievement (until it became to his advantage to pretend that he didn't do it), is different from the Obama legislation that was intentionally written to be similar to it. He found a difference, and is now loudly announcing that well, this one difference, here, that's the whole reason why he changed his opinion on the whole thing. To me, it's like the people who want desperately for the government to treat gays differently from people they approve of. So they hnuted around, desperately searching for some difference, so they could claim that well, it's this one difference, here. Gee, gays can't conceive children without artificial means? Hey, that's a reason! I don;t want the government to discriminate against gays because I don't like gays. I want this law because I think it should be unconstitutional for people who can't have kids to get married!. They started with their conclusion, but they're ashamed of the reason for that conclusion, so they hunted around to try to find a different reason, and claim that that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Oh, my personal opinion is that it's glaringly obvious that the reason the R's oppose Obamacare, is because they think that if it catches on, a Democrat will get credit for it. I think that if W had proposed it, they would have enthusiastically supported it. Well you think wrong. Listen, I want to retire and sit home and half affordable health care. Larry who pays for your health care? Any realist will tell you that any federally run healthcare program will be a giant drag on our already trillions of dollars in debt government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Listen, I want to retire and sit home and half affordable health care. Well, then, you live in the wrong country. Any realist will tell you that any federally run healthcare program will be a giant drag on our already trillions of dollars in debt government. Yes, I can certainly see the possibility (make that "damn near certainty") that any federal health care system will become a bloated, ever expanding, entitlement. (Which is why I think that the GOP ought to be enthusiastically endorsing this system. Since if they succeed in killing it, then what the people are going to demand will be "medicare for all". And if you think that having the government subsidize people buying private insurance will become a bloated entitlement program, then you haven't even thought about what Medicare for all would look like.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 The thing is, Romney tries to make a federalism argument, and that line of reasoning could be a complete home run to the Tea Party base. But he does an absolutely horrible job. It's so bad, in fact, that I find myself wondering if Romney believes in federalism at all. It's like he doesn't want to come out and strongly, repeatedly emphasize that there are reasons why some things are handled by the federal government while many other things are left to the states. I don't think Romney can win any discussion about Romneycare. Tea Party folks wouldn't buy the "federalism defense"; a government mandate (federal or state) that they buy health insurance isn't going to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I don't think Romney can win any discussion about Romneycare. Tea Party folks wouldn't buy the "federalism defense"; a government mandate (federal or state) that they buy health insurance isn't going to fly. He could go with the insanity defense,I have no trouble believing people in Mass are crazy. If it was a success he might have stood a chance with the Federalism route Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 He could go with the insanity defense,I have no trouble believing people in Mass are crazy.If it was a success he might have stood a chance with the Federalism route So Romneycare is a failure, then? Let's take a look. Or better yet, let's let factcheck do it: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/ SummaryBOSTON — It has been nearly five years since Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney signed the state’s landmark health care law amid the political flourish of a fife and drum corps and 300 guests in Boston’s Faneuil Hall. The overhaul is largely seen as a blueprint for the sweeping federal legislation that followed, making the state a political target for critics of President Obama’s efforts... ...Even the fiscally conservative, but nonpartisan, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is on board. President Michael J. Widmer calls the law “a well thought-out piece of legislation” that his group supported because, “we believe in public investments.” Widmer says: "There have been critics from the left and the right … that have not wanted the Massachusetts experiment … to succeed from the outset for different reasons. Most of those critics are either out of state," or academics or single-payer advocates. "And then, of course, you get the politicians on top of that." Yes, the politicians. The Massachusetts plan has been attacked by opponents of the national law, liberal advocates of Canadian-style single-payer insurance for all, and conservative Republicans hoping to derail Romney’s presidential aspirations. For example, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, in a February interview with the Associated Press, said Romney should essentially apologize for the law and acknowledge that it “cost more, waiting times were higher, quality of care went down, people were greatly dissatisfied and it ended up having almost the polar opposite effect of what was intended.” We found that there’s not much truth in any of that. As the 2012 presidential campaign gets under way in just a few months (believe it or not), we expect to see an increasing number of attacks on so-called "RomneyCare." So as part primer and part preemptive fact-checking, this article is our attempt to set the record straight. We found: The major components of the state and federal law are similar, but details vary. The federal law put a greater emphasis on cost-control measures, for instance. Massachusetts is just now tackling that. The state law was successful on one big goal: A little more than 98 percent of state residents now have insurance. Claims that the law is "bankrupting" the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated. Small-business owners are perhaps the least happy stakeholders. Cheaper health plans for them through the state exchange haven’t materialized, as they hoped. Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no clear evidence that the law had an adverse effect on waiting times. In fact, 62 percent of physicians say it didn’t. Public support has been high. One poll found that 68.5 percent of nonelderly adults supported the law in 2006; 67 percent still do. For more, click link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I don't think Romney can win any discussion about Romneycare. Tea Party folks wouldn't buy the "federalism defense"; a government mandate (federal or state) that they buy health insurance isn't going to fly. I'm not saying that the Tea Party would consider all to be forgiven, but I think that he'd be doing significantly better than he's doing right now. Romney's messaging on Obamacare/Romneycare has been, in my opinion, just about as bad as it could possibly be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 So Romneycare is a failure, then?Let's take a look. Or better yet, let's let factcheck do it: ] Hey if higher costs and unhappy small business owners is OK with you I am certainly not going to dissuade ya the state treasurer seemed to have a different opinion though http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/17/cahill_attacks_health_care_law/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144372942933394.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADSecond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Hey if higher costs and unhappy small business owners is OK with you I am certainly not going to dissuade yathe state treasurer seemed to have a different opinion though http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/17/cahill_attacks_health_care_law/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144372942933394.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADSecond You mean the former state treasurer who was running for governor against a Democratic incumbent? I guess it all depends on who you want to believe has a motive for misleading you. So wake me up when factcheck runs for governor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 the first two were from factcheck,but if you want to tell me ya'll hired incompetent treasurers too, who am I to argue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Huntsman accepts Romney’s $10,000 bet http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/11/huntsman-accepts-romneys-10000-bet/ Who knew Mormons like to gamble so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockfan7224 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Huntsman accepts Romney’s $10,000 bethttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/11/huntsman-accepts-romneys-10000-bet/ Who knew Mormons like to gamble so much? Ok, Huntsman generally gets on my nerves, but that's pretty funny I'll admit. Romney couldn't have picked a worse time in the race to have a cringeworthy goof like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 These debates don't matter. Obama could win in a landslide. Obama is leading both Romney and Gingrich in Florida and South Carolina. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama-leading-romney-and-gingrich-in-florida-and-so-carolina/ If that holds up, he wins easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.