Republican Primary

[didymus]

Santorum fortunately will never get the nomination.

.

You know that how? After four primaries ~60 delegates have been allocated (see NYT) with 1144 needed to win.
And if we care about principle why worry about “electability”? Pick your guy and stick with him. Maybe there will be a miracle and he’ll get the nomination. If he does, who knows what can happen during the campaign?

Personally I’d like to abolish primaries/caucuses altogether but since people seem to like them we have to make the process at least a little rational.

1st, no primaries before Memorial Day
2nd, stupid little states like NH & Iowa have way too much clout choosing candidates. California, Texas, and New York should go first (perhaps rotating). Of course, NH is not going to want to give up its prized position, it is even in their constitution that theirs will be the first primary. Some state (I think Texans are crazy enough) needs to schedule theirs for “one week before the NH primary”.

 

[Cider]

Between Gingrich and Santorum it’s not even a question for me. Santorum of course. Heck, I’d vote for Romney before Gingrich.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Santorum fortunately will never get the nomination.

And Gingrich…well besides his super nutty ideas, I can’t see Callista as FLOTUS. I mean really.

But right now I believe Romney has the best chance of helping Obama slide into his second term. I look forward to the upcoming months.

Don’t be too sure abou that…lot of things could happen in the upcoming months. The economy could further go down the tank, foe instance.

NOT saying I wish that…just saying it is ver irresponsible to be so “certain.”

Let’s all wait and see…

 

[pnewton]

We have Gingrich , who was encouaraged by his able wife and his own passion…

LOL

I can’t be the only one who found this funny in an ironic sort of way.

 

[pnewton]

in the mormon power structure that also has a not so distant history of devaluing of women’s lives , with its advocacy of poly gamy as well as bias against persons of color.

If we are going to do that, then it would be just as logical to use scandals of the Catholic Church against Catholic candidates. Both would be an ad hominem fallacy. Besides, it is factually incorrect to think that Mormons are bigamists. That is in the distant past. Mormons, like Gingrich believes one should be married to one wife…

…at at time.

 

[Personanongrata]

You know that how? After four primaries ~60 delegates have been allocated (see NYT) with 1144 needed to win.
And if we care about principle why worry about “electability”? Pick your guy and stick with him. Maybe there will be a miracle and he’ll get the nomination. If he does, who knows what can happen during the campaign?

Personally I’d like to abolish primaries/caucuses altogether but since people seem to like them we have to make the process at least a little rational.

1st, no primaries before Memorial Day
2nd, stupid little states like NH & Iowa have way too much clout choosing candidates. California, Texas, and New York should go first (perhaps rotating). Of course, NH is not going to want to give up its prized position, it is even in their constitution that theirs will be the first primary. Some state (I think Texans are crazy enough) needs to schedule theirs for “one week before the NH primary”.

Do you have to ask? He is divisive and continues to try and force his religious beliefs upon everyone. The voters are smarter than him.

 

[didymus]

Washington Post:

**Would Mitt Romney be the richest president ever? **

Mitt Romney is rich; this much we know.But would he be the richest president ever?
In terms of raw dollars, yes. If you adjust for inflation, though, the answer is no.
In fact, the wealthiest president appears to have been one of the nation’s most beloved Commanders in Chief and the nation’s first president, George Washington.
Multiple studies have estimated Washington’s net worth, in today’s dollars, at more than $500 million, due in large part to his Virginia plantation at Mount Vernon being so vast and so fertile.

A 1996 book by two economists also ranked Washington among the wealthiest 100 Americans of all-time, noting that his net worth, which stood at about half a million dollars at the time of his death in 1799, would be worth about half a billion dollars today. Washington is the only president who made the “Wealthy 100” list.
Romney, whose net worth is estimated at between $190 and $250 million, just can’t compete with that. So where does he rank?

Probably either second or third, depending on whether his actual net worth is closer to $190 million or $250 million.
Thomas Jefferson, the nation’s third president, was worth an estimated $212 million, according to a study by the Web site 24/7 Wall St., so he and Romney are pretty close.

(Interesting fact:** John F. Kennedy **stood to inherit his father’s $1 billion fortune, but he didn’t live long enough.)

See, the 1% has been in charge from the very beginning!

Actually, I’m not sure how such comparisons hold up. Our early presidents were mostly capital-rich with land & slaves, but cash-poor and often in debt.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why is Romney’s wealth always being discussed; he earned his money, he did not inherit it. He has run a business, he has invested, he has created jobs etc.

 

[Dale_M]

Why is Romney’s wealth always being discussed; he earned his money, he did not inherit it. He has run a business, he has invested, he has created jobs etc.

I can’t say this is the only reason, but for the past 36 years a characteristic of successful presidential candidates is that he is viewed as “one of us,” someone who is in touch with the ordinary American and understands our lives.

The only exception to this would have been the election of 1988, when the very patrician George HW Bush beat Michael Dukakis. Arguably, Bush benefited from a Reagan halo effect. Then again, his opponent came across as wonkish and cold.

So the concern about Romney’s wealth may have to do with his ability to empathize with ordinary citizens. Certainly he stumbled with his offer, during a debate, of a friendly $10,000 bet.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So the concern about Romney’s wealth may have to do with his ability to empathize with ordinary citizens. Certainly he stumbled with his offer, during a debate, of a friendly $10,000 bet.

I think he also blew it on his taxes. First, he seemed reluctant to release his tax returns, which is a de facto requirement for serious presidential candidates. Second, when the issue of his lower average tax rate was brought up, he could have easily spun into a situation where we have a broken income tax system and we need comprehensive tax reform. He just blew that one.

 

[Josephene]

If we are going to do that, then it would be just as logical to use scandals of the Catholic Church against Catholic candidates. Both would be an ad hominem fallacy. Besides, it is factually incorrect to think that Mormons are bigamists. That is in the distant past. Mormons, like Gingrich believes one should be married to one wife…

…at at time.

Have to disgree ; diffrence like night and day , when a religious body , its founders who claim to be christain , promote and practice polygamy , in total oppsition to the teachings of The Lord , who even professed the superiority of virginity ; this , in comparison to members who sin , who yet want to belong to The Church even if dead in sin and Church amply warning what that involves and providing the remedy of repentance and conversion !

irr.org/mit/Mitt-Romneys-Mormonism.html

Seems like a little summary on Romney and Mormonism , how he mentions being prohibitted to discuss details of the doctrines of their faith , since he belongs to a high office !

This is a faith that he has said deeply moves him !

Do we have a right to know !

Compare that with The Church , where the Holy Father and Bishops , priests , would love to have any willing ears , to share glady all the tenets of the faith !

Peace !

 

[bbarrick8383]

Have to disgree ; diffrence like night and day , when a religious body , its founders who claim to be christain , promote and practice polygamy , in total oppsition to the teachings of The Lord , who even professed the superiority of virginity ; this , in comparison to members who sin , who yet want to belong to The Church even if dead in sin and Church amply warning what that involves and providing the remedy of repentance and conversion !

irr.org/mit/Mitt-Romneys-Mormonism.html

Seems like a little summary on Romney and Mormonism , how he mentions being prohibitted to discuss details of the doctrines of their faith , since he belongs to a high office !

This is a faith that he has said deeply moves him !

Do we have a right to know !

Compare that with The Church , where the Holy Father and Bishops , priests , would love to have any willing ears , to share glady all the tenets of the faith !

Peace !

I think you might be looking at it from a bit of a biased approach.

I don’t think many non-Catholics trust Catholicism anymore than they do Mormonism.

 

[Josephene]

I think you might be looking at it from a bit of a biased approach.

I don’t think many non-Catholics trust Catholicism anymore than they do Mormonism.

And that is o.k , as long as that trust or lack of it is based of the true teaching of The Church , which we get to share on occasions like this !

 

[Josephene]

LOL

I can’t be the only one who found this funny in an ironic sort of way.

Yes , we do have reason to laugh , in an ironic way too ; we have Romney who converted his wife to LDS ( did not look up her previous faith ) , thus taking her furthur away from the revealed truth …

and we have Mrs Gingrich through whom The Holy Spirit , brought him, into The Church and all that comes with it !

We do need many more like her and she can be the first among all the First Ladies , for she knows who the real First Lady is , does not caluminate her …and serves her , right there in the shrine that procalims one of the most unique truths about her , which is what many are deaf to !

God bless !

 

[pnewton]

Have to disgree ; diffrence like night and day , when a religious body , its founders who claim to be christain , promote and practice polygamy , in total oppsition to the teachings of The Lord , who even professed the superiority of virginity ; this , in comparison to members who sin , who yet want to belong to The Church even if dead in sin and Church amply warning what that involves and providing the remedy of repentance and conversion

This is a topic that is best discussed in Non-Religions. Your ideas of Mormonism are far off base from what they teach. It is notable though that there will be a few who vote against Romney based on sheer anti-mormon prejudice, just as some would vote against Gingrich for their anti-Catholic prejudice. There will be some that do not vote for Obama because they are anti-black. I simply do not see where this can be taken into consideration.

Let me suggest that we bypass the ad hominem that Mormonism is bad, Romney is a Mormon, ergo he is bad. ** Let me instead suggest that the anti-Mormon poster provide evidence from speech or voting record where Mitt Romney supported polygamy, or any advancement of a specifically Mormon teaching.** I do not consider polygamy a Mormon teaching because it is not. I only included it because of the misconception being portrayed here.

 

[didymus]

Fox News:

GOP candidates run into ad trouble, resort to name-calling in final Florida stretch

The Republican race for president began to resemble a schoolyard brawl Saturday, as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich achieved new levels of name-calling amid an unusual debate over the nature of debates.
The campaigns also ran into fresh trouble over the content of their latest attack ads in Florida. The twists comes as the candidates barrel into Tuesday’s primary, one that will inevitably be seen as somewhat of a tie-breaker after three distinct candidates walked away with a win in the first three contests.

Gingrich is making sure, though, that nobody is counting him out despite slipping in the Florida polls.

Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has called on Gingrich to pull his latest Florida ad, which opens with a clip of Huckabee complaining about dishonesty.
Huckabee told Fox News the clip was from an ad that never aired and didn’t mention Romney by name.
“I don’t want people to think that that is an endorsement or that it is somehow a slam against Romney in this campaign,” said Huckabee, who is also a Fox News host. “I’ve essentially said that that is really an unauthorized, disapproved use of something that was copyrighted material that was never authorized for the Gingrich campaign.”

Meanwhile, NBC on Saturday asked Romney’s campaign to pull its ad – which uses a 1997 newscast of Tom Brokaw discussing ethics charges against Gingrich. Brokaw said he was “extremely uncomfortable” with the use of his image, according to The Associated Press.
Gingrich’s campaign also objected to the ad’s content, calling it “another big lie” – since it did not include context, like the fact most of the ethics charges against him were dropped.
A Romney aide told Fox News on Saturday afternoon that they are looking at NBC’s request.
“We are now reviewing the letter, but we believe it falls within fair use,” [HAH!!] the aide said.

Well, aside from the nastiness of the ads (which we’ll leave aside for this discussion) I am shocked, just shocked! that stalwart Republicans would have so little respect for intellectual property rights.

Fair use? Tell that to the poor schmuck whose blog was taken down because their ISP received a takedown notice.

Since Gingrich & Romney seem to be the final two (---- it!) it’s fun that we have two pirates running on the GOP ticket.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I can’t say this is the only reason, but for the past 36 years a characteristic of successful presidential candidates is that he is viewed as “one of us,” someone who is in touch with the ordinary American and understands our lives.

The only exception to this would have been the election of 1988, when the very patrician George HW Bush beat Michael Dukakis. Arguably, Bush benefited from a Reagan halo effect. Then again, his opponent came across as wonkish and cold.

So the concern about Romney’s wealth may have to do with his ability to empathize with ordinary citizens. Certainly he stumbled with his offer, during a debate, of a friendly $10,000 bet.

I think all of the Presidents have been rich, and all if not most of the candidates, Republican and Democrat have been millionaires. None of them can really relate to what it feels like to worry about paying a bill for example. But I think hard work to get to where you are is respected in America, and Romney certainly has done that.

 

[mary_bobo]

I think he also blew it on his taxes. First, he seemed reluctant to release his tax returns, which is a de facto requirement for serious presidential candidates. Second, when the issue of his lower average tax rate was brought up, he could have easily spun into a situation where we have a broken income tax system and we need comprehensive tax reform. He just blew that one.

Perhaps you don’t know the difference in income tax and capital gains tax. Romney paid the rate he did on capital gains, not income. While I agree that the tax code needs to be reformed, let’s not confuse the two.

 

[mary_bobo]

Why is Romney’s wealth always being discussed; he earned his money, he did not inherit it. He has run a business, he has invested, he has created jobs etc.

 

[pnewton]

Gingrich’s campaign also objected to the ad’s content, calling it “another big lie” – since it did not include context, like the fact most of the ethics charges against him were dropped.

Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by a candidate agianst whom “most of the ethic charges” are dropped.