Paul leads GOP NH field 2016, Hillary leads Dems

[Crossbones]

Is Santorum running in 2016? I haven’t heard his name mentioned much. He had some success in the primaries (remember that there was a string of different “front-runners” before Romney ended up winning). My own view of Santorum is that he is a great guy - good Catholic and I would agree probably with him on 90% of is stands, but: he would be very easily smeared as the candidate who would “turn the clock back” , war on women, etc. He is too identified as a social conservative, and while I like him, I think we need a candidate who can communicate with America on such things as the ACA, fiscal issues, entitlements, etc.

Then again, I could be wrong and its possible he’s exactly the candidate that we need in 2016. I am open to any arguments in favor of that

Ishii

Isn’t Mitt Romney a candidate that communicated on the ACA, fiscal issues and entitlements? And he lost. Badly. To a president that was overseeing a terrible economy.

We would be much better off with a candidate like Rick Santorum that has core beliefs and isn’t wishy-washy depending on the audience he is in front of or the office he is running for. We all knew Romney was a horrible candidate - he just outspent every good candidate in the primary with negative ads.

It’s our punishment for not standing for our beliefs - we wanted to win so badly that we accepted Romney’s obvious flaws instead of selecting a true candidate made of presidential character.

 

[Tomdstone]

We all knew Romney was a horrible candidate…

I didn’t know that. I thought he was a great candidate until the last two weeks when he weakened. The polls showed that he was winning at various stages in the campaign.

 

[Crossbones]

I didn’t know that. I thought he was a great candidate until the last two weeks when he weakened. The polls showed that he was winning at various stages in the campaign.

It was really obvious during the primaries when another Republican surged, then Romney and Ron Paul attacked that candidate. Over and over again. I’m not saying all of them were good candidates, but Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich had core beliefs and credentials to be a good president.

Maybe you only paid attention during the campaign against Obama, but even then, he did a horrible job. He lost 2 of the 3 debates, played into Obama’s hands with the 47% comment, wouldn’t release his tax forms, etc and lost by 5 percentage point (and a relative electoral college landslide in this era) to a president overseeing the worst economy of the last 70 years.

 

[Mulligan2]

We would be much better off with a candidate like Rick Santorum that has core beliefs and isn’t wishy-washy depending on the audience he is in front of or the office he is running for. We all knew Romney was a horrible candidate - he just outspent every good candidate in the primary with negative ads.

And who were these supposed “good candidates” that you reference? Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum would have lost by wider margins than Romney. Santorum lost his last Senate race by double digits - yet somehow he could win a national election???

The one primary candidate who I thought had a chance to beat President Obama in the general election was Jon Huntsmann. In most of the interviews I saw, he came across as more of statesman and less of a politician. And in the early primary debates, he came across as the grown-up of the group. However, I don’t think he will run again.

 

[Crossbones]

And who were these supposed “good candidates” that you reference? Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum would have lost by wider margins than Romney. Santorum lost his last Senate race by double digits - yet somehow he could win a national election???

I believe that Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum would have done better than the Republican nominee, as they had clear core beliefs and I believe a large enough portion of the electorate would have come to understand and respected the importance of that. But there is no way to ever know now, so there is no sense of arguing the hypothetical.

My point is ‘settling’ on a candidate that many Republicans thought would result in a win despite the lack of evidence he shared our core beliefs failed, so that is an exercise that I do not wish to repeat. Furthermore, there shouldn’t be this revisionist history that Governor Romney was a good candidate. That’ll lead us down to the same path as last time - 4 more years of a Democratic president.

 

[Mulligan2]

I believe that Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum would have done better than the Republican nominee, as they had clear core beliefs and I believe a large enough portion of the electorate would have come to understand and respected the importance of that. But there is no way to ever know now, so there is no sense of arguing the hypothetical.

My point is ‘settling’ on a candidate that many Republicans thought would result in a win despite the lack of evidence he shared our core beliefs failed, so that is an exercise that I do not wish to repeat. Furthermore, there shouldn’t be this revisionist history that Governor Romney was a good candidate. That’ll lead us down to the same path as last time - 4 more years of a Democratic president.

Yet Gingrich and Santorum could not win the GOP primary, where the voters are decidedly more conservative than in a general election. The notion that either of them would have done better than Romney in a general election would seem to defy logic.

 

[Crossbones]

Yet Gingrich and Santorum could not win the GOP primary, where the voters are decidedly more conservative than in a general election. The notion that either of them would have done better than Romney in a general election would seem to defy logic.

I suppose we’ll have to disagree then. I think Speaker Gingrich or Senator Santorum could have won the Republican nominations if they weren’t faced with the tremendous funding that Governor Romney had. But that money gave Governor Romney the chance to go VERY negative and neither had the funding to counteract it.

I also think the Republican electorate fell for the ‘electability’ arguments that were made by the talking heads at the time. Instead of voting for the person that they felt best represented their core beliefs, they voted for the fellow that could win. Except he didn’t.

 

[Tomdstone]

It was really obvious during the primaries when another Republican surged, then Romney and Ron Paul attacked that candidate. Over and over again. I’m not saying all of them were good candidates, but Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich had core beliefs and credentials to be a good president.

Maybe you only paid attention during the campaign against Obama, but even then, he did a horrible job. He lost 2 of the 3 debates, played into Obama’s hands with the 47% comment, wouldn’t release his tax forms, etc and lost by 5 percentage point (and a relative electoral college landslide in this era) to a president overseeing the worst economy of the last 70 years.

If Romney was such a poor candidate, why did he win the primaries and why did the Republicans nominate him?

 

[Crossbones]

If Romney was such a poor candidate, why did he win the primaries and why did the Republicans nominate him?

For the reasons I stated above. Money and the desire to select someone who could beat President Obama.

 

[ishii]

Obama didn’t win the election, Romney lost it.

Isn’t Mitt Romney a candidate that communicated on the ACA, fiscal issues and entitlements? And he lost. Badly. To a president that was overseeing a terrible economy.

We would be much better off with a candidate like Rick Santorum that has core beliefs and isn’t wishy-washy depending on the audience he is in front of or the office he is running for. We all knew Romney was a horrible candidate - he just outspent every good candidate in the primary with negative ads.

It’s our punishment for not standing for our beliefs - we wanted to win so badly that we accepted Romney’s obvious flaws instead of selecting a true candidate made of presidential character.

The Romney campaign made mistakes - as all campaigns do. One was not answering the barrage of attacks/smears from the Obama campaign and surrogates which defined Romney in the Spring and Summer leading up to the election. The “war on women” narrative of Sandra Fluke. I think the strategy was to let Obama spend tons of money and then have little to show for it. Problem was, the attacks hurt Romney, and he never quite recovered… until the debates. Romney won the 1st debate handily - exposing Obama for the lightweight that he is. Romney schooled him on the issues. Unfortunately, Candy Crowley intervened in the 3rd debate saving Obama from any damage from Benghazi. Finally, as the election neared, Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast “blowing” many of the issues damaging to Obama off the front pages, and allowing him to look presidential, get hugged by Chris Christie, and win.

Thus, Mitt Romney was beaten by Sandra, Candy, and Sandy.

There is no evidence that Santorum would have fared better in the debates, or in the polls. He wasn’t the most effective speaker/communicator. Yes, he was a good Catholic social conservative and would have fought the good fight, but I think Romney was the best choice the GOP had.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I also think the Republican electorate fell for the ‘electability’ arguments that were made by the talking heads at the time. Instead of voting for the person that they felt best represented their core beliefs, they voted for the fellow that could win. Except he didn’t.

I think the best strategy is to nominate the most conservative candidate with the best chance of winning. Strong arguments can be made that neither Newt nor Santorum would have been a stronger candidate than Romney - and hindsight is always 20/20 isn’t it. “shoulda, coulda, woulda,”

Ishii

 

[Crossbones]

I think the best strategy is to nominate the most conservative candidate with the best chance of winning. Strong arguments can be made that neither Newt nor Santorum would have been a stronger candidate than Romney - and hindsight is always 20/20 isn’t it. “shoulda, coulda, woulda,”

Ishii

When has this strategy ever worked to get the results we’ve wanted? Two of the three justices confirmed under President Reagan supported the right to abortion is Casey. President Bush the first nominated Justice Souter. President Bush the second nominated Justice Roberts who supported the ACA.

And that’s the three Republican nominees that won. The ones that have been lost have been centrist (Dole, McCain and Romney) as well.

The Republicans cannot expect to hold onto the presidency for long enough to nominate all 9 justices to the Supreme Court, so their nominees must be true to the cause, and Governor Romney flip flopped on the issue and there can be made a strong argument that he was just playing lip service to the issue.

 

[ishii]

When has this strategy ever worked to get the results we’ve wanted? Two of the three justices confirmed under President Reagan supported the right to abortion is Casey. President Bush the first nominated Justice Souter. President Bush the second nominated Justice Roberts who supported the ACA.

And that’s the three Republican nominees that won. The ones that have been lost have been centrist (Dole, McCain and Romney) as well.

The Republicans cannot expect to hold onto the presidency for long enough to nominate all 9 justices to the Supreme Court, so their nominees must be true to the cause, and Governor Romney flip flopped on the issue and there can be made a strong argument that he was just playing lip service to the issue.

I understand and sympathize with your point, Crossbones. However, please be aware of two things:

One, there is NO guarantee how a supreme court justice will vote on any case - no matter how vetted they are in the nomination process. They are not robots, but humans who are susceptible to all sorts of things, including the pressure of “growing in office” etc. One would hope that all GOP supreme court justices are consistent and stick to their guns like Clarence Thomas, Scalia, & Alito. I don’t know how Roberts could have voted like he did on the ACA, but that does not mean he wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe V Wade, e.g.

Two, Mitt Romney’s advisor for judicial appointments was Robert Bork of all people. That should tell you something about the kind of people Romney was intending to nominate.

We’ll never know what kind of justices Romney would nominate, but atleast he seemed to be surrounding himself with the right people - including Paul Ryan.

Also, - not sure how far you go back, but remember that in 1980, many in the establishment thought the Republicans should nominate a centrist - like Bush or even Ford, that Reagan was too conservative. They were wrong, of course, but there are two things to remember about Reagan that apply to our discussion:

One, Reagan was an exceptional kind of candidate: he was not only conservative (right-wing according to some) but also a great communicator. It is not enough to be merely right on the issues - the candidate has to be a very good communicator - I think that’s true more than ever today. I am not convinced that the conservatives like Santorum are in that type of category of exceptional communicator. Reagan had broad appeal, too. He was a strong advocate for all facets of conservativism. Santorum was a bit too narrow - strong on social issues but not that good on the fiscal/economic matters. That said, he could be strong now having been through the process and he might surprise us all.

Two, even though Reagan was a conservative, some of his judicial appointments did disappoint. There are no guarantees with judicial appointments - even when they are appointed by conservatives.

Ishii

 

[Crossbones]

I understand and sympathize with your point, Crossbones. However, please be aware of two things:

One, there is NO guarantee how a supreme court justice will vote on any case - no matter how vetted they are in the nomination process. They are not robots, but humans who are susceptible to all sorts of things, including the pressure of “growing in office” etc. One would hope that all GOP supreme court justices are consistent and stick to their guns like Clarence Thomas, Scalia, & Alito. I don’t know how Roberts could have voted like he did on the ACA, but that does not mean he wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe V Wade, e.g.

Two, Mitt Romney’s advisor for judicial appointments was Robert Bork of all people. That should tell you something about the kind of people Romney was intending to nominate.

We’ll never know what kind of justices Romney would nominate, but atleast he seemed to be surrounding himself with the right people - including Paul Ryan.

Also, - not sure how far you go back, but remember that in 1980, many in the establishment thought the Republicans should nominate a centrist - like Bush or even Ford, that Reagan was too conservative. They were wrong, of course, but there are two things to remember about Reagan that apply to our discussion:

One, Reagan was an exceptional kind of candidate: he was not only conservative (right-wing according to some) but also a great communicator. It is not enough to be merely right on the issues - the candidate has to be a very good communicator - I think that’s true more than ever today. I am not convinced that the conservatives like Santorum are in that type of category of exceptional communicator. Reagan had broad appeal, too. He was a strong advocate for all facets of conservativism. Santorum was a bit too narrow - strong on social issues but not that good on the fiscal/economic matters. That said, he could be strong now having been through the process and he might surprise us all.

Two, even though Reagan was a conservative, some of his judicial appointments did disappoint. There are no guarantees with judicial appointments - even when they are appointed by conservatives.

Ishii

You make some interesting points, though I mostly disagree with you.

One, I don’t believe in the end that Reagan was especially conservative. He said the right things, but was fiscally irresponsible in allowing for massive deficits and did a poor job on nominating Supreme Court justices. He was a stauch anti-communist and as you say, a great communicator, which I don’t mistake as a purely conservative principle.

Two, you say you never know with judicial appointments. It’s funny how the Democrats seem to have no problem with nominating justices with their point of view. In fact, if you take it to that point where presidents can’t have control over it, then abortion becomes a moot issue in electing a president.

Three, Judge Bork was a weak jurist and a poor pick for the Supreme Court. I find the original intent idea espoused by some jurists to be ridiculous and contrary to the fact that the founding fathers placed mechanisms in the Constitution for making changes and understood it would be open to interpretation. One does not need to be a believer in this flawed judicial thinking to understand that abortion in not a protected right; that the child has right to life and the child’s rights outweigh that of his mother.

Four, involving Judge Bork was just red meat to those who opposed Governor Romney’s election to the presidency. A poor decision on his and his campaign’s part. Was it necessary because of Romney’s previous pro-life statements? I personally don’t think so. I wasn’t going to trust him based on what he had said in the past and don’t like the idea of ‘original intent’ as the conservative judicial thinking. Basically, it was more a turn-off for me than a help and I am the type of person this was supposed to help convince that Romney has the same core values that I do.

Five, President Bush the second was not a great communicator. While nice, it is not a requirement for the president. You can’t convince me that Senator Santorum was worse than Governor Romney (47%).

As I said, you make interesting points, but I mostly disagree. We should not repeat these mistakes in the future if we expect change.

 

[Tomdstone]

Governor Romney flip flopped on the issue .

Can you give me the name of one single politician who has never flip flopped on an issue?

 

[Tomdstone]

Two, Mitt Romney’s advisor for judicial appointments was Robert Bork of all people. That should tell you something about the kind of people Romney was intending to nominate.

That was a big mistake on Romney’s part. In the Saturday night massacre, Bork fired Archibald Cox. This was later found to be illegal. It is always bad to appoint someone who has acted illegally.

 

[ishii]

You make some interesting points, though I mostly disagree with you.

Thank you.

One, I don’t believe in the end that Reagan was especially conservative. He said the right things, but was fiscally irresponsible in allowing for massive deficits and did a poor job on nominating Supreme Court justices. He was a stauch anti-communist and as you say, a great communicator, which I don’t mistake as a purely conservative principle.

He was indeed conservative. If you studied his life, writings, speeches, and politics more closely you might understand this. In the 80’s, Reagan did not have control of the House which controls the purse strings as I’m sure you know. That was controlled by Tip O’neill. Reagan probably knew that he couldn’t cut spending as much as he wanted to. But he did think that cutting taxes was very important to revive the economy. And he knew that a defense buildup - including funding for SDI - was key to winning the Cold War. Crossbones, Reagan understood the political reality of the 80’s - that he couldn’t get everything he wanted - but that does not mean he wasn’t conservative.

Two, you say you never know with judicial appointments. It’s funny how the Democrats seem to have no problem with nominating justices with their point of view. In fact, if you take it to that point where presidents can’t have control over it, then abortion becomes a moot issue in electing a president.

Crossbones, its true you never know. The Democrats have the ability to torpedo Republican nominees but not vice versa. That is the unfortunate political reality and has been for decades. Second, I never said that presidents have no control. I would take my chances with a Romney pick over an Obama pick any day. But as you know, we’ll never know who Romney would have picked.

Three, Judge Bork was a weak jurist and a poor pick for the Supreme Court. I find the original intent idea espoused by some jurists to be ridiculous and contrary to the fact that the founding fathers placed mechanisms in the Constitution for making changes and understood it would be open to interpretation. One does not need to be a believer in this flawed judicial thinking to understand that abortion in not a protected right; that the child has right to life and the child’s rights outweigh that of his mother.

With all due respect, Bork was a first rate legal mind and a great pick for the Supreme court. I am not a legal expert by any means, but I am not ready to toss out all the commentary of respected conservatives and accept your contention that Bork was a bad choice and that his judicial philosophy was bad. Speaking of core values, were you aware that Rick Santorum supported pro-abortion liberal senator Arlen Spector?

Four, involving Judge Bork was just red meat to those who opposed Governor Romney’s election to the presidency. A poor decision on his and his campaign’s part. Was it necessary because of Romney’s previous pro-life statements? I personally don’t think so. I wasn’t going to trust him based on what he had said in the past and don’t like the idea of ‘original intent’ as the conservative judicial thinking. Basically, it was more a turn-off for me than a help and I am the type of person this was supposed to help convince that Romney has the same core values that I do.

Again, I would much rather have had Romney picking our justices than Obama. Surely you can agree with that? Voting for Romney over Obama was a no-brainer. The only ones that don’t get that are Democrat catholics (who think voting for a Republican is a vote for greed and war on poor) and “true-believer” catholics who will only vote for the ideologically pure candidate -regardless of his/her ability to win.

Five, President Bush the second was not a great communicator. While nice, it is not a requirement for the president. You can’t convince me that Senator Santorum was worse than Governor Romney (47%).

True - Bush wasn’t a great communicator. He wasn’t really all that conservative either. I don’t think he really articulated conservative principles very well. Prosperity, and the desire for foreign policy continuity (as well as going against Kerry) helped him win a 2nd term. I do think Romney was much better articulating fiscal/economic issues than Santorum was.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

That was a big mistake on Romney’s part. In the Saturday night massacre, Bork fired Archibald Cox. This was later found to be illegal. It is always bad to appoint someone who has acted illegally.

I highly doubt that Bork’s actions against Archibald Cox had any bearing whatsoever on the election of 2012

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

I highly doubt that Bork’s actions against Archibald Cox had any bearing whatsoever on the election of 2012

Ishii

It was found that Mr. Bork had acted illegally. I am not in favor of having criminals in charge in the political sphere.

 

[ishii]

It was found that Mr. Bork had acted illegally. I am not in favor of having criminals in charge in the political sphere.

Interesting. You would forego the advice and counsel of a brilliant legal mind to a president - helping him choose solid judicial picks (ones that would overturn Roe V Wade) because of what that he did in 1973?

Amazing.

Ishii