Republican Primary

[Savior2012]

Romeny is much iore pro life than Obama. Obama is married to planned parenthood and funds abortion paid by taxpayers. The first laws enatcted by Obama ten days in office were international abortions paid by american taxpayers.

 

[JimG]

I haven’t really followed Romney’s carreer. But most assuredly Obama will be the staunchest pro-abortion candidate.

 

[Savior2012]

Anyone but Obama. Obama is married and funds planned parenthood, Obama’s admin owns record poverty and food stamp usage. Obama has had three wars, two of which he wanted with Afghanistan and Libya

 

[_Abyssinia]

Saw an exit poll tonight from NH where 58% of the non Romney voters would be dissatisfied with him being the GOP nominee in a general election match-up vs President Obama. It will be interestng to see whether or not someone to the right of Romney mounts a campaign in such a scenario.

It appeared turnout was less than in 2008 as well.

mediaite.com/tv/bill-kristol-wary-of-romneys-low-turnout-in-nh-i-think-thats-worrisome-for-republicans/

Neither of which shows all that much enthusiasm among GOP voters for Romney the frontrunner nor for the field in a yr in which some say is poised to be a big GOP yr.

According to CNN, there was record turnout yesterday.

CNN Estimates turnout in NH will exceed 246,000 which tops the record GOP turnout of 241,000 in 2008.

Romney attracted a large number of self identified ‘‘conservatives’’ and ‘very conservative’ voters. He also won 40% of New Hampshire voters who said they support the Tea Party movement:

foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/new-hampshire-primary-jan-10/exit-polls

Romney’s 39% win messes up the talking point that he has a ceiling of 25%.

 

[Roselle]

Thought Gerri Willis had a nice article about Mitt Romney and his successful time at Bain Capital.

“Romney’s Achilles’ Heel?”

foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/01/10/romneys-achilles-heel

 

[BVM_1221]

After seeing him take polar opposite positions on the abortion issue, I really can’t trust that he is a true pro-life candiate. This has become somewhat of a tradition in the Republican party. A previously pro-choice pro-gay rights candidate wants to enter into national politics but has to reverse his position on social issues before doing so. Mccain didn’t have the most pro-life record before his run for the POTUS either. I think if Romney wins the nomination, we can safely say there will be no true pro-life candidate running in 2012.

youtube.com/watch?v=cFMdK0TWtks

:yawn: For what definition of pro-life?

Romney will probably be as much pro-life as any other GOP candidate under the circumstances, and it won’t matter very much. What matters is what Justices are aopointed to the Federal Courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular.

So, first you have to have a Republican in the White House, a Republican who has received more votes then Obama. Next, you need sixty (60) Republican Senators to get the "Non-Political " Federal Judges. that you want.

So if you want to split hairs over who is more pro-life, go ahead. I am sure a lot of Forum Members will join you in this entertainment. Just remember that outside this Forum is something called The Real World.

 

[CMatt25]

How strongly Romney would be in opposition to one of the life issues, abortion, which seems to be the one being discussed here, probably would depend on which Romney we would get actually moving onto Pennsylvania Ave. The previous Romney or the Romney he’s been since trying to obtain the nomination of the Republican Party. My own personal hunch is he’s more into the already having failed Republican economic policy of tax cuts for the rich for instance, a failed road already travelled, and not so much the social issues.

 

[CMatt25]

:yawn: For what definition of pro-life?

Romney will probably be as much pro-life as any other GOP candidate under the circumstances, and it won’t matter very much. What matters is what Justices are aopointed to the Federal Courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular.

So, first you have to have a Republican in the White House, a Republican who has received more votes then Obama. Next, you need sixty (60) Republican Senators to get the "Non-Political " Federal Judges. that you want.

So if you want to split hairs over who is more pro-life, go ahead. I am sure a lot of Forum Members will join you in this entertainment. Just remember that outside this Forum is something called The Real World.

 

[JimG]

:yawn: For what definition of pro-life?

Romney will probably be as much pro-life as any other GOP candidate under the circumstances, and it won’t matter very much. What matters is what Justices are aopointed to the Federal Courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular.

So, first you have to have a Republican in the White House, a Republican who has received more votes then Obama. Next, you need sixty (60) Republican Senators to get the "Non-Political " Federal Judges. that you want.

So if you want to split hairs over who is more pro-life, go ahead. I am sure a lot of Forum Members will join you in this entertainment. Just remember that outside this Forum is something called The Real World.

In the real world, whoever the GOP candidate turns out to be, Obama will still be the pro-abortion candidate par excellence. No to tax cuts for the rich; yes to killing unborn children. What kind of choice is that?

 

[Joe_5859]

Am I the only one bothered with the fact that the media has not gone after Romney the same way they have gone after other candidates?

If there is any truth that the media has been attacking those that they fear, then this little tidbit says volumes.

I’m with you on that. It makes me nervous that the media has already proclaimed Romney to be the Republican nominee when only 2 out of 50 States have voted in any capacity whatsoever.

It makes me feel like I’ve been removed from the voting process and I simply have to accept whatever candidate the media deems fit for me to rubber stamp.

Not that my vague uneasiness can really be construed as a substantial argument in opposition to Romney. I keep hearing that he’s the only GOPer with a chance of beating Obama, and it just makes me uncomfortable seeing that the media is not pouncing all over him as I would expect they would do for any legitimate threat to Obama.

 

[_Abyssinia]

“According to exit polls, the former Massachusetts governor did well across the ideological spectrum, making it hard to point to an area of weakness in his vote total.” - Politico

“Mitt Romney performed strongly among conservatives and won decisive backing from voters worried about the economy” - AP

 

[AlwaysCurious]

I keep hearing that he’s the only GOPer with a chance of beating Obama, and it just makes me uncomfortable seeing that the media is not pouncing all over him as I would expect they would do for any legitimate threat to Obama.

They don’t need to attack him as long as his GOP rivals are doing so. By the time Obama is ready to go fully on the offensive, he’ll have plenty of clips to choose from, courtesy of Newt Gingrich.

 

[Savior2012]

Anyone but Obama. Obama is a nightmare economically, deficits and abortions.

 

[_Abyssinia]

They don’t need to attack him as long as his GOP rivals are doing so. By the time Obama is ready to go fully on the offensive, he’ll have plenty of clips to choose from, courtesy of Newt Gingrich.

But they are not very good attacks from Newt, and he has been criticized. This could be good for Romney, the same would only be brought up by Obama and now he can work out good defense against those attacks and it will not be a shock when they come.

 

[rlg94086]

Not exactly history-making by any stretch of the imagination.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203436904577152820194293782.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_10_1

So, yes, New Hampshire was the one place where Mr. Romney—resident of the state and former governor next door in Massachusetts—absolutely had to win. It’s even fair to call it a historic victory, for Mr. Romney becomes the first nonincumbent Republican candidate to win both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary back-to-back.

 

[rlg94086]

But they are not very good attacks from Newt, and he has been criticized. This could be good for Romney, the same would only be brought up by Obama and now he can work out good defense against those attacks and it will not be a shock when they come.

He’ll have a fantastic defense - job creation, saving/growing failing businesses. Did they all succeed? Nope. We’re some jobs lost? Yep. We’re lots of jobs created? Yep. Throwing out the names of some of the successes (Staples, Dominoes) will give credence to his claims.

Meanwhile, how is Obama’s job creation? No, not the total change in jobs nationwide, the growth in jobs Obama had influence over. Last I read, he grew the federal employee count ~100k while increasing our debt. I’ve also seen the dollar/job breakdown of his stimulus plans…while increasing our debt.

There is plenty of ammunition against Obama.

 

[Khalid]

Hi everyone, it’s good to see people that are concerned about our nations security as we should be, but I think we reasonably have more than enough military power at the moment. We’re bankrupt, building a stronger military is not a good option. We maintain a military more suited for defense against the Eastern Bloc. I think it’s time to get out of the bases, return home, and be much more careful before intervening anywhere. With today’s technology we don’t even need the bases. Consider our submarine fleet, we’ll still have a reasonable defenses all over the world, and without as much cost.

Now it’s best to really think about the implications of possible military policy. What exactly would happen if we significantly scaled back our armed forces? I’d like to see some decent scenarios based on solid facts and historical precedent. For example, people are very worried about Iran. I mean understand, we hear reports that they talk about attacking the US and Israel. However, I’d like an example of a major nation led by anyone in the past 100 years, whose first strike was blatantly and I mean blatantly suicidal. It’s just a bit counter-intuitive to think Iran would really attack Israel or the US. However once you start a war, well that’s when crazy things start happening. Anyone who considers war with Iran should be an expert in the possible repercussions and then judge whether it’s worth starting a war over.

We have more than enough military power to keep ourselves secure. I also don’t think more military spending won’t really do much for the economy. We spend money on resources and goods that if ever needed will be used to destroy more resources and goods. War is the economy cannibalizing itself, something we don’t need at the moment.

Personally I’d be more concerned about our economy, economic disasters have a habit or ruining nations too you know.

Ahmadenijad believes it’s his Allah-given duty to wipe out the Jews and create chaos in the world in order to hasten the coming of the Imam Mahdi and the end-times, no matter what the cost to anyone. Islamic fanaticism can do that.

 

[Khalid]

You can’t possibly think our military isn’t presently the most dominant force in the history of the world … right?

Pax,
OA

Several ancient empires, including Rome, the Mongols, and the Achaemenids, at their height, had more relative military force and influence than we have and more ability to project force over the then-known world, if one discounts the possibility of nuclear holocaust and the limited force projection granted by airlifts, etc.

 

[Marie5890]

uscatholic.org/news/2012/01/five-former-us-ambassadors-vatican-endorse-romney-presidential-bid

 

[ringil]

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203436904577152820194293782.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_10_1

So, yes, New Hampshire was the one place where Mr. Romney—resident of the state and former governor next door in Massachusetts—absolutely had to win. It’s even fair to call it a historic victory, for Mr. Romney becomes the first nonincumbent Republican candidate to win both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary back-to-back.

That’s an interesting statistic, thanks.

Yes, Romney is the man. GOP better get used to it.

Soon he will have to transform from hard-nosed conservative Mitt, to collegial and receptive Mitt.