December Republican Primary Poll

[Scott_Lafrance]

That is my understanding as well. But then again, Lincoln wasn’t on the side of States’ Rights.

Which generally puts him at odds with most of the bill of rights…which makes him a pretty aweful President, like most modern Presidents.

 

[RACJ]

It’s the primary. Why not vote for the best conservative in the race? That’s Rick Santorum, with Bachmann next best. Still pining for Sarah, Rob

 

[LisaA]

Romney was my choice in 08 and has been my choice since then. I grow extremely weary about the obsession with “flip flops” given that I grew up an athiest with a proabortion pro feminism point of view. I was a liberal bleeding heart democrat who thought the government was our friend.

Then I grew up.

So I sympathize with Romney being tarred with the flip flop brush to the detriment of his personal strength of character, ability to problemsolve, obvious intelligence and ability. Yes I think he’s made some mistakes but if you are going to change positions, better to change to the RIGHT side than the wrong (Left) side of things.

I do admit I’d LOVE to see Newt debate Obama. Newt would MOP the floor with that stuffed shirt. And I think Newt would be a good president. So either way, I’m going to be much happier than with John McCain…wonderful man, terrible candidate.

Aside from that I’d vote for a potted plant over Obama. What a disaster!

Lisa A

 

[gilliam]

Which generally puts him at odds with most of the bill of rights…which makes him a pretty aweful President, like most modern Presidents.

He saved the Union. Stuck it out when everyone else gave up. May have been the only man who could have done it. He temporarily put aside the Constitution for 4 years to do it, but it saved the Union. The Constitution wouldn’t have been of much use had the Union fallen apart.

By the way a similar thing happened in the South towards the end of the war.

 

[RACJ]

Aside from that I’d vote for a potted plant over Obama. What a disaster!

Lisa A

I too would vote for a pot plant over Obama. We're all going to need a copious supply of mind-altering drugs if Obama is successful in completing his destruction of America. :hypno: Rob

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

Romney was my choice in 08 and has been my choice since then. I grow extremely weary about the obsession with “flip flops” given that I grew up an athiest with a proabortion pro feminism point of view. I was a liberal bleeding heart democrat who thought the government was our friend.

Then I grew up.

So I sympathize with Romney being tarred with the flip flop brush to the detriment of his personal strength of character, ability to problemsolve, obvious intelligence and ability. Yes I think he’s made some mistakes but if you are going to change positions, better to change to the RIGHT side than the wrong (Left) side of things.

I do admit I’d LOVE to see Newt debate Obama. Newt would MOP the floor with that stuffed shirt. And I think Newt would be a good president. So either way, I’m going to be much happier than with John McCain…wonderful man, terrible candidate.

Aside from that I’d vote for a potted plant over Obama. What a disaster!

Lisa A

Good post.

 

[meltzerboy]

Why do you think that? Neither side can win with just their base. It always takes moderates. And with the extreme conservative wing of the GOP brand flocking to Gingrich now as their anti Romney candidate, Romney appears the more moderate candidate between the 2 who are the GOP frontrunners at the moment.

I’m not sure about that. I do agree with you that Gingrich is conservative compared to the more moderate Romney. But Gingrich is also a thinking man’s conservative, an intellectual, who is at the same time attractive to the working man. (These are all generalized stereotypes, I realize, but somehow they seem to fit.) Thus he has broader appeal than Romney, who appears more detached, an elite intellectual, a multi-millionaire (or billionaire?), and lacks charisma though he looks presidential. Bill Clinton had some good words about Gingrich in an interview tonight on the PBS News Hour: the latter’s intellect, his adeptness in foreign policy, and his ability to work with Congress across party lines as well as with former President Clinton and with Hillary Clinton when she was senator of New York. Although opposite in their political views, there is a curious parallel between Clinton and Gingrich in their experience and political savvy, ability to think outside the box, non-ideologue practicality, and even moral character or lack thereof.

 

[gilliam]

I’m not sure about that. I do agree with you that Gingrich is conservative compared to the more moderate Romney. But Gingrich is also a thinking man’s conservative, an intellectual, who is at the same time attractive to the working man. (These are all generalized stereotypes, I realize, but somehow they seem to fit.) Thus he has broader appeal than Romney, who appears more detached, an elite intellectual, a multi-millionaire (or billionaire?), and lacks charisma though he looks presidential. Bill Clinton had some good words about Gingrich in an interview tonight on the PBS News Hour: the latter’s intellect, his adeptness in foreign policy, and his ability to work with Congress across party lines as well as with former President Clinton. Although opposite in their political views, there is a curious parallel between Clinton and Gingrich in their experience and political savvy, ability to think outside the box, non-ideologue practicality, and even moral character or lack thereof.

Primaries tend to be a selection of who you like the best. Mitt needs to get his “likability” index up if he wants to win it… or Newt’s down.

 

[SwissGuard25]

Reporter asks: “All right Gingrich I’m calling your bluff…do you really want to be President?”

Newt Gingrich: “Uhh No”

Nah I’m joking.
I don’t care who wins as long as they do they’re job well and do what they’re suppose to do.

 

[bbarrick8383]

He saved the Union. Stuck it out when everyone else gave up. May have been the only man who could have done it. He temporarily put aside the Constitution for 4 years to do it, but it saved the Union. The Constitution wouldn’t have been of much use had the Union fallen apart.

By the way a similar thing happened in the South towards the end of the war.

That’s like saying, well the kids are dead but at least mom and dad are still married.

BTW, where would abortion be today had the North lost? The slaves would eventually have been freed anyway. How many children would be alive?

 

[gilliam]

BTW, where would abortion be today had the North lost? The slaves would eventually have been freed anyway. How many children would be alive?

There was nothing to stop the South from continuing with slavery. I doubt if the slaves would have been freed for a very long time if the CSA was allowed to separate.

I have no idea if the war was worth the lives lost or not, a lot of people greater than I am think so, so I will go with them on this. Lincoln nor anyone else thought the war would be as bloody as it was. Much of that was thanks to the era in which it was fought. But that is a different discussion than saying that Lincoln somehow was bad because he ignored parts of the Constitution to save the Union.

 

[LisaA]

I’m not sure about that. I do agree with you that Gingrich is conservative compared to the more moderate Romney. But Gingrich is also a thinking man’s conservative, an intellectual, who is at the same time attractive to the working man. (These are all generalized stereotypes, I realize, but somehow they seem to fit.) Thus he has broader appeal than Romney, who appears more detached, an elite intellectual, a multi-millionaire (or billionaire?), and lacks charisma though he looks presidential. Bill Clinton had some good words about Gingrich in an interview tonight on the PBS News Hour: the latter’s intellect, his adeptness in foreign policy, and his ability to work with Congress across party lines as well as with former President Clinton and with Hillary Clinton when she was senator of New York. Although opposite in their political views, there is a curious parallel between Clinton and Gingrich in their experience and political savvy, ability to think outside the box, non-ideologue practicality, and even moral character or lack thereof.

Whenever Clinton says something nice about a Republican I smell an ulterior motive. Clinton screamed like a scalded pig when Newt was Speaker and shoved Welfare Reform down Clinton’s unwilling throat. Oh and how did Clinton feel about his shutting down the government?

I think the Dems are building up Gingrich whom they feel is a weaker candidate with respect to attracting the independents. There is no doubt that both hardcore Republicans and Democrats will vote for “their guy” even if they hold their nose. Don’t tell me some San Francisco liberal won’t vote for Obama no matter how disappointed they are that he didn’t close GITMO. How many Republicans voted enthusiastically for McCain? It was a 'lesser of two evils" choice. Those votes are safe. So what’s up for grabs is that independent voter who may swing Dem or Republican depending on the candidate, state of the economy etc.

That voter is going to be far more skeptical of Gingrich who has a long record, and opens his mouth way too often. They can drag more skeletons out of his closet than found in a medical supply house. Add to that the multiple marriages (triggering the hypocrite rant), the many ethics charges (even if no convictions) and the fact that he is the “old white guy” that is the target of liberal ire and you have a lot to work with. Plus look at any election and the more likeable candidate wins. I respect Gingrich but I don’t find him very likeable.

Further I think a lot of the anti-Romney sentiment is good old fashioned envy. I mean look at the guy, he’s handsome, intelligent, articulate, ethical, and rich. What’s not to hate? I think more people hate the IDEA of Romney than anything about Romney himself. (Kinda like the Church huh?). Either way, I’m much happier than in 08.

Lisa A

 

[meltzerboy]

Primaries tend to be a selection of who you like the best. Mitt needs to get his “likability” index up if he wants to win it… or Newt’s down.

I agree. It’s not that Romney is unlikable; he just doesn’t stimulate much excitement and he doesn’t appear to have a core set of principles. His personal life, however, is (so far) impeccable, especially compared to that of Gingrich. I would also not rule out the influence of conservative Evangelicals, some of whom may find Romney somewhat unlikable with respect to both his political and religious beliefs. I don’t mean to say that everyone votes according to religion or race; certainly times have changed quite a bit. But there still may be enough hard-core voters among the electorate who are able to make a difference in the primaries and the general election.

 

[bbarrick8383]

There was nothing to stop the South from continuing with slavery. I doubt if the slaves would have been freed for a very long time if the CSA was allowed to separate.

I have no idea if the war was worth the lives lost or not, a lot of people greater than I am think so, so I will go with them on this. Lincoln nor anyone else thought the war would be as bloody as it was. Much of that was thanks to the era in which it was fought. But that is a different discussion than saying that Lincoln somehow was bad because he ignored parts of the Constitution to save the Union.

Wasnt their southern leaders, well known leaders such as Sam Houston who worked to rid the south of slavery? Time would have brought an end to slavery in the south, of that I have no doubt. It is a lesser evil than what has occured since then when you take abortion into consideration.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

He saved the Union. Stuck it out when everyone else gave up. May have been the only man who could have done it. He temporarily put aside the Constitution for 4 years to do it, but it saved the Union. The Constitution wouldn’t have been of much use had the Union fallen apart.

By the way a similar thing happened in the South towards the end of the war.

Without the Constitution, the union is pointless. It makes as much sense as:

“I abandoned free market principles to save the free market.”

or

“I cheated on my wife to save my marriage.”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There was nothing to stop the South from continuing with slavery. I doubt if the slaves would have been freed for a very long time if the CSA was allowed to separate.

I have no idea if the war was worth the lives lost or not, a lot of people greater than I am think so, so I will go with them on this. Lincoln nor anyone else thought the war would be as bloody as it was. Much of that was thanks to the era in which it was fought. But that is a different discussion than saying that Lincoln somehow was bad because he ignored parts of the Constitution to save the Union.

Yes there was. There was global economics. Europe and most of south America had already abolished slavery. In time, a peaceful resolution to slavery would have happened without the spilling of alot of blood and the wholesale abandonment of the Constitution.

 

[meltzerboy]

Whenever Clinton says something nice about a Republican I smell an ulterior motive. Clinton screamed like a scalded pig when Newt was Speaker and shoved Welfare Reform down Clinton’s unwilling throat. Oh and how did Clinton feel about his shutting down the government?

I think the Dems are building up Gingrich whom they feel is a weaker candidate with respect to attracting the independents. There is no doubt that both hardcore Republicans and Democrats will vote for “their guy” even if they hold their nose. Don’t tell me some San Francisco liberal won’t vote for Obama no matter how disappointed they are that he didn’t close GITMO. How many Republicans voted enthusiastically for McCain? It was a 'lesser of two evils" choice. Those votes are safe. So what’s up for grabs is that independent voter who may swing Dem or Republican depending on the candidate, state of the economy etc.

That voter is going to be far more skeptical of Gingrich who has a long record, and opens his mouth way too often. They can drag more skeletons out of his closet than found in a medical supply house. Add to that the multiple marriages (triggering the hypocrite rant), the many ethics charges (even if no convictions) and the fact that he is the “old white guy” that is the target of liberal ire and you have a lot to work with. Plus look at any election and the more likeable candidate wins. I respect Gingrich but I don’t find him very likeable.

Further I think a lot of the anti-Romney sentiment is good old fashioned envy. I mean look at the guy, he’s handsome, intelligent, articulate, ethical, and rich. What’s not to hate? I think more people hate the IDEA of Romney than anything about Romney himself. (Kinda like the Church huh?). Either way, I’m much happier than in 08.

Lisa A

You may be right after all. That’s why probably all one can say at this point is it’s up for grabs between Romney and Gingrich, unless another candidate comes out of the woodwork in the final hour of the primaries although I can’t imagine who at the moment.

 

[RACJ]

Without the Constitution, the union is pointless. It makes as much sense as:

“I abandoned free market principles to save the free market.”

or

“I cheated on my wife to save my marriage.”

 Great point, Scott. I too was utterly disgusted by W's support of TARP. That one really worked out well!
 I do disagree with some here about people's reluctance to support Romney. Many have now seen clips of Romney's remarks as governor of Ma. which bear no resemblance to the smooth "conservative" salesman that we see today. It's hard not to conclude that he views Republican voters as chumps. His disastrous, rattled performance in the utterly fair Bret Baier interview had to give his most strident partisan pause. :juggle: Cordially, Rob
 P.S. Mark Levin announced tonight that he is supporting Santorum and Bachmann. America could sleep well if one of these solid patriots resided at 1600 Pa. Ave.

 

[gilliam]

Yes there was. There was global economics. Europe and most of south America had already abolished slavery. In time, a peaceful resolution to slavery would have happened without the spilling of alot of blood and the wholesale abandonment of the Constitution.

Had the CSA succeeded in separating without a war with the US, England and Europe would have bought their cotton. They weren’t boycotting because of slavery. They were boycotting because the CSA was an enemy of the USA.

As for the Constitution. It is a document that controls a government of a country. It isn’t scripture and shouldn’t be confused with scripture. It can’t stand alone without a country. It is useless if that country splits up. Look how many constitutions have been formed this year after so many revolutions…

But I think we have stayed on this topic long enough. I’ll leave you to the last word.

 

[ringil]

Yes there was. There was global economics. Europe and most of south America had already abolished slavery. In time, a peaceful resolution to slavery would have happened without the spilling of alot of blood and the wholesale abandonment of the Constitution.

How much spilling of blood, loss of the family, and loss of freedom would have happened before the slaves were freed by the peaceful means you describe. How much longer would the Jim Crow-type ;aws have persisted.

Was the price of freeing the slaves too high? I don’t think so. Freedom sometimes costs lives and to dismantle the evil of slavery may cost many lives.

Lincoln was a great President and he only got greater until the day he was assassinated.