Just a few observations:
- Romney owned the night. He is like the Soviet Army in '44-45. Nothing tactically brilliant, just slow, steady progress based on mass, logistics, and will. I don't see anything getting in his way.
- I think Perry is done. Let him go back to Texas. Again; our nation is done with Texas accents for at least one more election cycle, and as a history Geek, the 16th Century American Revolution comment was just a bit too much of a flub. Can't afford that in the general election; ask President Ford.
- Cain more than survived some very unattractive attacks. He will continue to grow as the "Not Romney."
- Gingrich is still selling books and providing oversight. Someone should give him a white vest. I think he is just the Safety guy.
- Bachmann is someone who was. Smart, attractive, but will never be on the ticket. Please go back to the House where you can do some good.
- Santorum is a nice guy and all - but will never get traction nationally. Someone put him it a/the Cabinet.
- Paul is RON PAUL.
- Huntsman in this primary season will be a never was has been. I never had anything against the guy until now - his snobby comment about pizza soured me. Coming from a family who made its money off the Big Mac clamshell - he should be careful about throwing stones.
That is all. I'm still uncommitted since T-Paw left - but all in all; I'm happy with the offerings.
5 hours ago
40 comments:
Sadly, I have fallen into the ABB (Anyone But Barack) crowd. I would love to have the perfect candidate, but at this point I would vote for a tree stump if it would get Barry out of office.
I have a sinking feeling that it's going to be Romney. It's killing me because this is a great, historic opportunity with a country that has turned sharply right to elect a genuine conservative. I don't think Romney has any conservative instincts or beliefs at all, and I don't think he'll work hard to undo the mammoth federal bureaucracy or the regulatory nightmare that constrains the economy. I'll vote for whoever the Republican nominee is, but I can't work up any enthusiasm for Romney.
I think Sarah Palin will bitterly regret not running. Cain has zero experience, Romney is Obama Lite, and Perry is imploding.
I am beginning to embrace the notion that the next occupant of the White Hosue is not even in the race yet.....I know, wishful thinking.
For the sake of argument let's say the process fails all the way to the general election. What are the options? What are the possibilities? Civil unrest? What about protecting the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic? Where is that line crossed? I do not believe it is tolerable or prudent to continue with the same occupant in the White House past January 20, 2013. This dividing America style of politics may ultimately result in a truly divided America. That is a scary thought, but I would rather stand for what is right than blindly go down the path we are currently traveling. Romney doesn't have the fire in the belly to pull it off. He has already been defined by the left. They are currently trying to define Herman Cain. They ignore Ron Paul. Already defined Michelle Bachman. We should have elected Perot back in 1992 to break the 2 Party cycle, but he went off the deep end about the Repubs trying to destroy his daughter's wedding. He had nice charts and people understood what he was telling them - the truth. We haven't heard that since.
I will grudgingly vote for Romney if necessary. However, his former support for gun control, later moderated to a squishy "I'm a hunter" weasel position really tells me that he is more pro-politician than pro-freedom.
I still like Perry, but recognize his chances are increasingly slim.
Cain's position on guns is unclear, apparently he opposed federal restrictions, but favors states being allowed to restrict whatever they like. I need to hear him actually spell out his views before deciding, but overall I like Cain and would be much more enthusiastic supporting him than Romney.
However, anyone there last night, even kooky Ron Paul, would be vastly better in every respect than B. Hussein Obama.
What John said. If the race comes down to Romney vs. Obama, I'll hold my nose and pull the lever for Romney with the same enthusiasm I mustered for McCain...which is to say, not much at all...
Gingrich and Bachmann need to go home. "Turn the 9-9-9 plan upside down...the devil's in the details"? WTF?
Romney will be BUSH III or Obma II depending on how you look at it (though I do believe he is more competent than the current CINC.
Find me a Pro-Life (who actually fights for it) politician who supports limited US involvement overseas, energy independence and "FAIR Trade" to include protectionist policies to keep manufacturing jobs at home along with a recognition for true subsidiarity in the government and I will vote for that man.
Ron Paul is the closest to that. But we all know he is insane, right?
I'll eat my own balls before I ever vote for a politician from Massachusetts. Hell, I'd be happy if we gave the damn place back to the Brits.
That's one "no."
If there will be no charismatic leader on the right, there is a BIG risk of another 4 years of Obama...
I think it does ewok.
Really i would be happy with either Cain or Romney.
BTW does anyone else think the MSM trying to make romney's mormanism a issue is just funny?
Mike when something like 78% of eligable voters say she shouldn't........you dont.
Palin simply isnt a national candidate. If she ran it would have been one of the few times that some hard red states went blue.
I dont give a dang about pro life, lesbains or gays angst, or any of a dozen things that have derailed the conservatives in national votes.
Think Big picture. I dont like abortion but you know what? Dont think you are going to get rid of it....REALLY dont think its worth losing a election over when the guy elected because of it is going to be more set against it than the one you couldn'tr vote for.
I'll vote for the person who has the best chance at wining the national election while showing he will remain strong on national defense, American Sovereignty, as well as a strong economic an fiscal policy.
Keep the nation strong, keep our rights, reform the tax code, good fiscal policy.
Dont get mired in the secondary issues delegate after the election.
Of course we ignore Ron Paul. He's Ron Paul.
He's like that night you were talked into drinking 9 yeager bombs in a row after drinking for 12 hrs straight. At first it sounded like a good idea by the 5th shot your puking bile.
Rinse and Repeat. Here comes Romney.
I do not recall any such night. Then again, not many do. :)
Agreed. He's a Massachusetts liberal Republican who -many cycles ago- explicitly stated on video that he was not a conservative, nor was he in any way (at that time) ideologically related to Ronald Reagan.
Kristen has highlighted the main issue with Romney; he can get elected, but will he be worth a darn once there?
I like her where she is; she can raise more publicity and explode more heads this way, all the while drawing at least some fire from the eventual candidate. It will be funny watching the usual suspects dithering between going after Palin, or after the nominee, on a regular basis. :)
I asked. They don't want the place back. Too liberal.
James, I care deeply about the moral issues and I'm always going to take them into account when I vote.
As it happens, polls have consistently shown that being pro-life has been a net positive in national elections for about 20 years now. The political reporting of the MSM would give you the opposite impression, but that's not true.
Both nationally and locally, I vote for the most conservative electable candidate. This year, I'd love to vote for Santorum, but I don't believe that he's electable, so I defaulted to Pawlenty and then to Perry. With his campaign in the process of imploding, these days I'm sitting in the corner and pouting.
I hope to see her out campaigning actively for the eventual nominee. She can be a tremendous fundraiser and create a lot of enthusiasm in the base.
Can I "like" this comment about 10 or 12 times?
I would change the order, myself. Finances first. Our liberty a near second, as I consider the current DC regime (the whole town, not just this administration) one of the greatest threats to our liberties. Remove power from D -by removing money- and things will improve. Then defense. As for tax reform? It is to laugh. I guarantee you any workable plan will piss off enough people who want to keep specific credits, or rates, etc, that it won't get through Congress. A balanced budget amendment might be doable.
Stu, nothing personal, but social cons have been torpedoing decent candidates for years because they a)don't want to completely outlaw abortion, and b)aren't willing to stuff gay people back in the closet. Never mind that neither of those issues are (properly speaking) Federal concerns, hence irrelevant at the national level.
Nope, your insistance on the perfect has regularly taken out those candidates willing to disagree with your position in public, which leaves ... folks like Romney. Yes, he's your fault. :-[
Imagine that, I've met some Mormon missionaries in my own city lately! And re: presidency - I thought religious card was buried along with Kennedy, the first Catholic president...
I guess both Romney and Cain are better than Obama, but my initial instinct was for Perry since his one biggest advantage - he knows how to create jobs as exemplified by Texas. And by my reckoning US has jobs as the biggest problem. Every man without job is one taxpayer less and one needing social care more. Too bad he didnt get this message across.
I completely respect your opinion and understand where your coming from. As i said i am against the abortions for everybody policy that is the standard now. I DO have one thing in particular. Late term abortions. That is something that is simply evil. Of course thats one of those things that seems to piss off everyone who hears about it.
One step at a time.
Romney is my fault. Bizarre logic.
Nobody has torpedoed any descent candidates for the simple fact there haven't been any descent candidates since Reagan.
We get the leadership we deserve. Bush I, Clinton, GWB and Obama are all cut from the same cloth. McCain and Dole would have likewise continued the status quo. Romney will be nothing but more of the same.
I will continue to vote for a candidate who want to end our own version of the Holocaust. 53 million infants killed "legally" in this country since R v W. Some would say such an issue isn't of Federal concern. Well some also said another inhuman scourge on our society, slavery, was also a state matter. Those folks were wrong then too.
You won't solve any other societal ills until you stop infanticide. And until we do, it's the fault of those who won't stand up against that evil.
(BTW, for the record I don't consider myself a "Social Con." In fact, I'm neither conservative nor progressive. Call me a Chestertonian if you want.
<span>"The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." </span>
<span></span>-G.K. Chesterton )
Amen to all of what you wrote.
The media is being nice to Romney now because they want him to be the Republican nominee. The sharp knives and slanderous attacks and scurrilous aspersions on his religion are being held until then.
The last time the media selected the Republican nominee, we ended up with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 'Nuff said.
I am NOT for a national VAT, so the 9-9-9 plan has a BIG flaw for me, unless we take out the first "9" and get rid of the income tax on individuals. But that's just me. Generally, I like the cut of Cain's jib: He's plainspoken, direct, doesn't act like he's somehow ordained to be the GOP candidate and I get the feeling he's more proposing we have a very frank conversation about how we finance our government. As for foreign policy, as Dear Leader has finally figured out, most POTUS actually have little searoom to maneuver in and they don't get the chance very often to decide which events drive which responses. (welcome to the grown-up's table, Barack) So I'm pretty sure Cain would make sure his foreign policy team would have a lot of expereince on it with ideology coming behind performance and competence.
I have been around members of the LDS chruch many years, I have quarrel with them in the least. This is America, I don't give a rat's behind what you believe, just don't offer me flowers or a tract. :-P
Dang it! I meant "<span>no</span> quarrell!"
Stu, you just proved my point. Your obsession with abortion places you in the minority; one which regularly issues "thumbs-down" on otherwise acceptable candidates, such as Giuliani. In fact, if Barry Goldwater ran today, he would most likely be rejected by the social cons.
And, yes, Stu, you are a social conservative. Your position on abortion makes that crystal-clear. And you force me to repeat: abortion is not a Federal matter. If you have doubts, try reading the Constitition. No specific mention abortion, yes? Hence a state matter, yes? In this respect, social cons are exactly like Progressives; both are more than willing to use Federal power to enforce their own moral code on rest of society. In fact, both are quite willing to tout the Constitution, until such time as it becomes inconvenient. Examples on the left are rampant, but on the right we have the obsession with abortion, as well as the hypocrisy with respect to marijuana. The great state of California has every right to decriminalize, or even legalize, the use of hemp. Alas, this is when we separate the genuine Federalists from the fair-weather wanna-bees. Social cons are more than willing to use the club of Federal compulsion so that they might supress the use of the Demon Weed, and forget the language of the otherwise sacrosanct Constitution.
Hate to tell you, Stu, but many forms of abortion were legal for a very long time in this country's history before the radicals became involved. Please go back and do some historical review.
...And Chesterton was a smarta**. :)
Andy, that's my biggest beef with Cain's "9-9-9" plan as well. I am -to say the least- not enthused about the idea of a 9% cost increase in everything I buy. Such a suggestion goes directly against the old saying "If you want to encourage a behavior, subsidize it. If you want to discourage a behavior, tax it."
Does Cain wish to discourage buying things?
...Not to mention the excellent example Europe has set for VAT... {rolls eyes}
Casey, with all due respect... for many... abortion is a canary in the well... an easy predictor of how wrong a candidate is on a host of other issues. As a WOMAN who has given birth several times, who has watched her babies on ultrasound and has pictures of 9-week old infants in utero in their baby books, I find the whole concept abhorrent. And you can almost bet your bottom dollar that candidates who can't respect that primary right of a person will trample a whole bunch of other rights before the day is out. Sorry... the more educated America becomes on the physical status of the unborn, the more the support for abortion erodes. It's a poor choice and we should do better by the women who need help than offering them dead babies as the solution to their problems.
(off soapbox)
It is interesting and amusing to watch (again) the religious inner turmoil in conservative circles wrt Gov Romney. Apparently some of them don't really believe in religious freedom after all...
Assuming he will be the nominee, a lot depends on (1) how the economy fares this and next year and (2) how successful the House is in blocking progress. My hope is that Pres Obama gets a second term, and as many of you have commented - how would candidate Romney ever *convince* (especially his super-duper conservative critics) the electorate that he would have done much differently the past two years as Pres Obama has.
<p><span>If I am such a "minority" in my view, as you have ponted out, then by your logic I really should have no bearing on who the "Republicrat" candidate is. It's all you and you get the candidate that you deserve and that the party wants. Now you may certainly disagree with my position.<span> </span>That’s fine.<span> </span>We have a difference of opinion.<span> </span>But don’t go blaming me for the piss-poor showing of your piss-poor candidates.<span> </span>They are yours.<span> </span>Simple as that.<span> </span>The fact that they can’t get a showing is indicative that voters don’t want them.<span> </span>Same can be said for a candidate I might support.<span> </span>Difference is, I don’t have a silly notion that it is everyone else’s fault for not compromising their moral beliefs. <span> </span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>The fact that abortion may or may not have been legal is of no consequence.<span> </span>Slavery was legal too. Doesn't make it moral. Legality vs morality is a distinction often lost on modernists like yourself (since we are into labelling each other).<span> </span>And you can point to the Constitution all you want in matters like this and I will respond that the Constitution only recognizes that which already existed.<span> </span>In other words, it is not the final authoritative document on my rights as a human being nor that which is moral. And if you think that is where your rights comes from, you really should think that through to it’s natural end.<span> </span>Not a pretty thought.</span>
</p><p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>And for the record part of Federalism is the principle of subsidiarity. And what goes along with that is in fact the Federal government getting involved in some issues. I’m fairly confident you like the Bill of Rights. Now I might agree that it has its hands in too many things at this time, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for such involvement. Abusus non tollit usum.<span> </span>You want to go get high with your “Demon Weed” and do all manner of stupid things, I really don’t care.<span> </span>But I will continue to make the killing of innocent children in the womb my priority to stop.<span> </span></span></p>
Jay,
How about some chapter and verse - you know names - for "<span>in conservative circles</span>". The only people I see making this an issue are goofy outlier preachers and leftists - each for their own reasons.
Give me some serious names for "<span>in conservative circles</span>" - and don't quote me a poll.
I don't think there is a whole lot of religious turmoil, but I would suspect that if he does get the nomination, the dems will hit that fast and furiously.
Casey,
In Europe they have a 19% VAT or more. Just a perspective...... (which is the danger of a VAT - they always start low and move up ... just like income taxes did. You get the government you deserve, I guess).
Oooo...clubbing baby seals...shiny.
Post a Comment