Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter rlg94086
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Santorum had a poor showing in tonight’s debate, while Romney’s performance was better than expected. Gingrich also did well, returning to his role as elder statesman now that some of the pressure has been taken off him and placed on Santorum. The latter appeared nervous and tentative, especially when he was put in a position by Romney of defending his support for the much-disliked (by Republicans) Senator Arlen Spector. Paul didn’t help matters either by his comments about Santorum’s changeability. Santorum seems to have missed a great opportunity to beat Romney in Michigan and perhaps make more gains on Super Tuesday. It looks even more now that Romney will be the eventual GOP nominee, unless Gingrich or Santorum can make a comeback or Romney shoots himself in the foot.
 
catholictiger said:
Code: 
 lets say the economy in 2012 has a 5% increase does that increase alone help a single mother of 2 who has no job get food for her and her two kids?
or does it help the unemployed guy who has no health insurance but just came down with a life threatening illness? (no i’m not calling for obama care)

does it help the middle class elderly couple who is in debt up to their ears, and only one can work a low end job that pays minimum wage?

there may be less poor but there will still be poor, and those who are poor are still going to struggle to get money they are still going to struggle to pay for medical expense and pay of debts, and while a 5% increase in GDP may help them in the long term it won’t do anything for the immediate short term.
Click to expand...
Well, you’ve given some examples of situations that even an expanding economy might not help - there is never going to be a system that helps everyone perfectly. If the economy grows by 5% then the unemployment rate goes down- the single unemployed mother can get a job and put food on the table. You’re acting like a strong, robust, expanding economy is some kind of enemy of the poor, and nothing could be further from the truth. The economy is not a finite pie in which if someone is successful and makes more money than last year it must come at the expense of the poor. You seem to believe that and its not true. There will always be poor in dire situations - some because of no fault of their own, and they need the basics. That is why I’m not a libertarian. I believe in a safety net to help those people. But a safety net, not a hammock.
catholictiger said:
I don’t think its up to the government to make sure the poor are feed the, the sick are taken care of, and so on and so forth. But*** I don’t think the government should put in a system that makes it very difficult for the poor to get out of the situation they are in, but helps the economy boom.*** You have to put in a system that finds a balance a system that provides a small safety net but no enough to live on, a system that gives the ability for the poor to come out of poverty and have no road blocks set up that will make it difficult to come back, some happen today. Lastly have a system that will encourage economic growth without sacrificing the two things I just mentioned.
Click to expand...
The part I bold italicized is where I think you’re wrong. The government doesn’t “put in a system that helps the economy boom.” The government let’s people be creative and productive, start businesses by not having overly strict regulations and not over taxing people - by getting out of the way. A booming economy is the biggest help for someone who is out of work! Let me fgive you a hypothetical: Imagine if you were unemployed and needed a job. South Carolina with an unemployment rate of 6% is booming. California with an unemployment rate of 10% is depressed. Which state would you move to so you could get a job? (Incidentally California is a state that is highly regulated such that it costs so much to do business there - and its been run by Democrats for years, essentially a one-party state).
catholictiger said:
and I think government job is more to set up systems that help the poor, like a tax structure that doesn’t discourage increases in salary. Setting up a system that doesn’t make it impossible for people with bad credit histories to make purchases. Providing some safety nets that those who are the worst of the worst won’t be left out on the street to fend for themselves. Setting up safety nets could simply be providing funds for the local St. Vincent De Paul Charity.*** Along with other things. I don’t think the government should do nothing and let people do everything. While the people should do the most the government still has a job to help the poor***.
Click to expand...
That last part is a strawman. I never said that government should have no role, just that government should have a reduced role. The government is inefficient and tends to grow exponentially, creating ever larger bureaucracies that need more and more tax$$ to just operate. All the while, having little of no effect on the problems they were created to help in the first place. In fact, the government programs that were designed to help the poor actually create more poor, more dependence and more disfunction. Rick Santorum is correct to say that it is strong families that are the best antidote to poverty and help create a strong economy. As for government intervention to help those who can’t help themselves, it should be based on the catholic principle of subsidiarity - in which the problems are dealt with at the lowest level of government that is appropriate. In other words, we shouldn’t have a federal nanny-state “lunch czar” going around policing kid’s lunches. Kid’s lunches should be taken care by parents. For those kid’s whose parents can’t or won’t provide lunches, there should be a local program in place to deal with that - not a federal one.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
I never said that government should have no role, just that government should have a reduced role.
Click to expand...
It’s important, in these situations, to emphasize that when people advocate for a smaller government role they are not advocating doing less for the poor and needy but usually arguing for a different approach to poverty and need. Aside from the benefits of a robust and growing economy, which you covered, we also have information relationships, such as family, as well as more formal non-governemntal organizations, such as the Church and charities. Big government tends to crush these alternatives, sometimes quite intentionally.
 
ProVobis said:
Good individual tax planning would have prevented the Govt from getting most of the money in the first place. This is not government spending unless you’re forcing IRS to work overtime to send back that money.
Click to expand...
Nope you are mixing this up a bit. The “refunds” are not taxes paid in by the recipient but “refunds” of YOURS AND MY TAX DOLLARS. This is the Earned Income Credit where people who pay no taxes get money back because they had earnings. I understand the theory behind this…to encourage people to work instead of malinger but not sure it’s really working to encourage more work.

Lisa
 
Yeah, Ron Paul’s carrying Mitt Romney’s water now. He pulled out of Michigan but keeps paying to run anti-Santorum (and only anti-Santorum) ads in Michigan. His debate coordination with Mitt Romney was quite effective.

That said, Rick Santorum hit his points where he needed to and took a strong leading position on family, foreign policy, and drawing a bright line between what a President is supposed to enact into law and what a President is supposed advocate from the bully-pulpit.

He also took the high road, patiently explaining why dealing with Arlen Specter (the 51st Republican in the Senate and the Judiciary Chairman) was critical to getting justices Alito and Roberts on the bench. The simple retort would be to throw Paul Tsongas back in Romney’s face.

Mitt Romney also looked like a shameless, glib hypocrite for trying to scold Santorum on earmarks while his “rescue” of the Utah Olympics hinged on Mitt Romney lobbying for an earmark to bail out those Olympic Games.

The best (and most dishonest) tactic of the night had to be Ron Paul attacking Santorum and Gingrich for actually voting to pass budgets, even when they couldn’t strp every line-item they disagreed with. Romney’s largely immunized because his only political experience is as a 1-term governor, while Ron Paul always votes “no” on the budget every year.
  • Marty Lund
 
meltzerboy said:
Santorum had a poor showing in tonight’s debate, while Romney’s performance was better than expected. Gingrich also did well, returning to his role as elder statesman now that some of the pressure has been taken off him and placed on Santorum. The latter appeared nervous and tentative, especially when he was put in a position by Romney of defending his support for the much-disliked (by Republicans) Senator Arlen Spector. Paul didn’t help matters either by his comments about Santorum’s changeability. Santorum seems to have missed a great opportunity to beat Romney in Michigan and perhaps make more gains on Super Tuesday. It looks even more now that Romney will be the eventual GOP nominee, unless Gingrich or Santorum can make a comeback or Romney shoots himself in the foot.
Click to expand...
I didn’t watch the debate but did catch some of the post debate CNN coverage. And my take from it was exactly what you say here, meltzerboy. David Gergen basically said too Santorum’s performance was dismal and that Romney definitely won.
 
I missed the first hour of the debate, but watched the second half. Santorum did not come across as presidential, he actually came across quite poor in the debate. Romney and Gingrich sounded presidential.
 
John king and CNN left out important issues that should of been brought up in the debate:
  1. Gas prices
  2. The cut of the nuclear arsenal
  3. Fast and Furious, considering the debate was in Arizona
 
mlund said:
Yeah, Ron Paul’s carrying Mitt Romney’s water now. He pulled out of Michigan but keeps paying to run anti-Santorum (and only anti-Santorum) ads in Michigan. His debate coordination with Mitt Romney was quite effective.
Click to expand...
I can’t figure out the Romney-Paul “alliance.” My only guess is that Paul assumes Romney will be the nominee and expects that Mitt will return these kinds of favors later on, maybe by putting Rand Paul in the administration or something. I like Paul’s positions on many issues, but this doesn’t sit well with me. Romney’s record and positions ought to be just as repellent to Paul as Santorum’s or Gingrich’s.

That said, it was a rough debate for Santorum. I was astounded that in explaining “No Child Left Behind” he admitted to voting against his own principles and just being a team player. He may as well have been wearing a shirt that said “Washington Insider.” I much prefer Santorum to Romney, but things just didn’t go his way last night.
 
_Abyssinia said:
John king and CNN left out important issues that should of been brought up in the debate:
  1. Gas prices
  2. The cut of the nuclear arsenal
  3. Fast and Furious, considering the debate was in Arizona
Click to expand...
He couldn’t do that. It would not have looked good for Obama and his handling (bungling) of those issues.
 
The Republicans have not been well served by having liberal democrats moderate their debates.
 
gilliam said:
The Republicans have not been well served by having liberal democrats moderate their debates.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. These questions are so basis and wrong that it’s hard to keep up with them; however last like Santorum completely fell apart when struck with the Title X thing. Romney the snake as my vote.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Rand Paul says ‘it would be an honor to be considered’ as Romney’s veep (this explains a lot)

Read more: dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/rand-paul-says-it-would-be-an-honor-to-be-considered-as-veep-this-explains-a-lot/#ixzz1nCkCqqTO
Click to expand...
The theory behind this is that the Paul supporters would then move to Romney rather than sitting out the election or going for Obama again. (Paul’s Libertarian bent has a socially libertine approach which might appeal more to Democrat platform than Republican). It would also prevent Paul from a third party run…something I think is HIGHLY unlikely now. He had a bit of Mo at the beginning but right now is sort of seen as the cranky uncle who spouts off from the corner of the dinner table.

My hope is that we get Romney/Rubio. If you have every heard Senator Rubio speak, he is the MOST articulate politician in my lifetime. He can boil down seemingly complex issues into short phrases that make sense even the guy on the street who doesn’t watch politics like I do. One of his best phrases was “We don’t need more TAXES we need more TAXPAYERS.” Well DUH but that theory seems lost on the Democrats who see any new program as a license to steal from us.

He also is Hispanic, has a wonderful story…much more inspiring than Obama’s story of an irresponsible drunk of a father, a nutty hippie mother and IMO use of affirmative action to get ahead…but I digress. He has a great family, is in an important swing state and would be a fabulous choice for many reasons.

The other one I see rising is Chris Christie. He’s suddenly everywhere, on TV, speaking out against Warren Buffet (good for him on that!). He and Romney are clearly sympatico.

That being said, RAND Paul is IMO a rising star, intelligent articulate and strong.

We’ve got a lot on the “bench” so I am hopeful we can unload Obama soon
Lisa
 
LisaA said:
The theory behind this is that the Paul supporters would then move to Romney rather than sitting out the election or going for Obama again. (Paul’s Libertarian bent has a socially libertine approach which might appeal more to Democrat platform than Republican). It would also prevent Paul from a third party run…something I think is HIGHLY unlikely now. He had a bit of Mo at the beginning but right now is sort of seen as the cranky uncle who spouts off from the corner of the dinner table.

My hope is that we get Romney/Rubio. If you have every heard Senator Rubio speak, he is the MOST articulate politician in my lifetime. He can boil down seemingly complex issues into short phrases that make sense even the guy on the street who doesn’t watch politics like I do. One of his best phrases was “We don’t need more TAXES we need more TAXPAYERS.” Well DUH but that theory seems lost on the Democrats who see any new program as a license to steal from us.

He also is Hispanic, has a wonderful story…much more inspiring than Obama’s story of an irresponsible drunk of a father, a nutty hippie mother and IMO use of affirmative action to get ahead…but I digress. He has a great family, is in an important swing state and would be a fabulous choice for many reasons.

The other one I see rising is Chris Christie. He’s suddenly everywhere, on TV, speaking out against Warren Buffet (good for him on that!). He and Romney are clearly sympatico.

That being said, RAND Paul is IMO a rising star, intelligent articulate and strong.

We’ve got a lot on the “bench” so I am hopeful we can unload Obama soon
Lisa
Click to expand...
I LOVED Christie’s response to Warren Buffet.

“I hear Warren Buffet always complaining about wanting to be taxed more. Do us a favor, write a check and shut up.”

Classic.

And please stop calling Ron/Rand Paul “libertine”. Its a desperate accusation that isn’t even grounded in reality. Libertinism is akin to the Marquis de Sade, one completely devoid of moral constraints. This hardly describe the Pauls. The term was coined by John Calvin to slander his opponents. Calvin believed that all of Geneva should follow his rigid moral constraints, and anyone who didn’t follow suit was slandered as a libertine. As a Catholic, I am loathe to duplicate anything promoted by such a violent and corrupt heretic as Calvin.
 
LisaA said:
Nope you are mixing this up a bit. The “refunds” are not taxes paid in by the recipient but “refunds” of YOURS AND MY TAX DOLLARS. This is the Earned Income Credit where people who pay no taxes get money back because they had earnings.
Click to expand...
I understand your point but I was talking about withholding taxes when they exceed the taxes owed. I don’t know what other controls an individual has in the matter prior to claiming the tax “refund.” The earned income credit which more than offsets taxes owed is another animal.
 
Gift_from_God said:
That’s not progressive taxation. A progressive tax system is based on increased percentage of taxation based on income. The United States has no such system. What you are referring to is the amount of money accumulated as a whole. A person with more money than poor people obviously pays more in terms of the amount of money, especially in a country with unemployment, retired people, and people with wages to low to collect income tax, but this is not based on percentage. A person who makes a million dollars and pays 15% pays $150,000 but a person who makes $50,000 dollars who pays 25% pays $12,500. That is not progressive taxation. Warren Buffet pays what is to us a lot of money in taxes, but it’s pocket change for him compared to the rest of the money he makes because of the low percentage ha pays. When a person of the poor or middle class pays a higher percentage, that affect them more
Click to expand...
You couldn’t be more incorrect with you’re post above.
 
LAST NIGHT’S BIG DEBATE: VERDICTS
Code: 
"Rick Santorum’s night was defined by explaining why he voted for things he opposed (NCLB, Title X). He’s right that politics is a “team sport” (at least most of the time), but that’s not the best posture to be defending when you’re occupying his slot in a Republican presidential primary." - Rich Lowry on [NRO](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291768/santorum-loses-rich-lowry)

 "Having heard a little more than an hour of the Republican debate on Wednesday evening, my gut reaction was that it was a disaster for Rick Santorum and a solid night for Mitt Romney. Santorum was booed repeatedly while cheers for Romney sounded more enthusiastic than anything I've heard since Florida." - Ross Kaminsky for the [American Spectator](http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/23/santorums-disastrous-debate)

 Romney earns poor marks - [Daily Caller](http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/santorum-earns-poor-marks-for-debate-performance/)

Santorum flops in the debate spotlight - [Commentary](http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/santorum-flops-arizona-debate/)

Tough night for Santorum - [HotAir](http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/22/video-tough-night-for-santorum/)

It was the last debate and Gingrich won it - [RedState](http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/02/23/gingrich-the-rick-perry-factor/)

 "Newt Gingrich won the debate, hands down. These contests are like air to him. For his purposes, there have been far too few of late. He is the kind of professor who will always be popular with students because he is clear, concise, and great at tracing out an argument. The audience were his students. He delivered the material beautifully. Everything depends on whether GOP voters have finally settled in the belief that he is too damaged for serious consideration. If he rebounds while Santorum falls, it’s happy days for Romney again." - Hunter Baker for [NRO](http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291775/mesa-debate-nro-symposium)

Mitt managed the seemingly impossible task of outflanking Rick from the right - Paul Begala for the [Daily Beast](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/22/paul-begala-on-romney-s-desperate-dive-to-the-right-in-the-arizona-devate.html)
Declining audiences for debates mean there’ll be no encores - New York Times

Polls seem to suggest that Santorum is as electable as Romney - WSJ

38% see Santorum as too conservative; 51% see Obama as too liberal

http://conhomeusa.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f4f7f710970b016762d68c51970b-500wi

A USA Today poll finds a rock landscape for both Democrats and Republicans.

Romney is getting less support from small donors than other GOP candidates - Washington Post

Neither Romney nor Santorum looks like a formidable candidate for November - George Will for the Washington Post

“GOP leaders are watching with rising dismay as the 2012 presidential campaign has featured excursions into social issues like contraception and a sprint by the candidates to strike the toughest stance against illegal immigration, which they say are far removed from the workaday concerns of the independent voters Republicans need to evict Barack Obama from the White House.” - Politico

…More on social conservatism…

“Rick Santorum on Wednesday showed no signs of backing down from his provocative statements about President Obama and religion, accusing the president of working to undermine the country’s “Judeo–Christian values” through his implementation of health-care reform and other policies.” - Fox
Code: 
Santorum "is rigid and a homophobic" - Romney-supporting former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) issues big blast - [The Hill](http://thehill.com/video/campaign/212055-former-sen-alan-simpson-criticizes-santorum-for-focus-on-social-issues)

 "In the (still-unlikely) event that Santorum captured the nomination, then, his campaign would probably be to social conservatism what Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign was to small-government conservatism: A losing effort that would inspire countless observers to declare the loser’s worldview discredited, rejected, finished." - [Ross Douthat](http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/can-santorum-win-in-november/)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top