Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter rlg94086
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NASHVILLE – Newt Gingrich went on the offensive against Rick Santorum during a campaign swing through Tennessee Monday, calling him a “big Labor Republican” and predicting his surging opponent’s fortunes will quickly change amid a chaotic race that could remain competitive all the way to the Republican National Convention in August.
Gingrich, who has said he must do well in the Southern states to win the GOP nomination, also predicted he would win the Alabama and Mississippi primaries next month.

Turning to the escalating violence in Afghanistan, the former Georgia congressman said the United States is facing an impossible task there.

“We are not going to fix Afghanistan. It is not possible,” he told a large group of Republicans at an afternoon luncheon here. “These are people who have spent several thousand years hating foreigners. And what we have done by staying is become the new foreigners.
“This is a real problem. And there are some problems where you have to say, ‘You know, you are going to have to figure out how to live your own miserable life… because you clearly don’t want to learn from me how to be unmiserable. And that is what you are going to see happen.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com …
 
gilliam said:
Study: Over 20 debates, Paul attacked Romney’s rivals 39 times — but never once attacked Romney

Can anyone explain this?
Click to expand...
Yes. It is an op-ed. Note that attacks by other candidates on Paul, or other candidates on the other candidates are not tracked. Therefore, since only one stat is tracked, I would say that there was purpose in tracking. Most of the time someone tracks something with a purpose of proving a point, he succeeds. Much global warming science follows this same process. One can always find evidence for pre-conceived notions.
 
gilliam said:
Study: Over 20 debates, Paul attacked Romney’s rivals 39 times — but never once attacked Romney

Can anyone explain this?
Click to expand...
It’s not that hard really.

Paul said he would endorse the Republican candidate if he felt they were worthy of calling themselves small government, paraphrasing of course.

In the last election cycle Paul and Romney got to know each other, I’ve heard their wives became really good friends.

Paul was hoping this would have been a two man race a long time ago. Gives him more of a spotlight to educate people. It would only make sense to use as much money possible to make it that way.
 
I voted for Santorum. I don’t know much about him but he seems like a likeable person.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
It’s not that hard really.

Paul said he would endorse the Republican candidate if he felt they were worthy of calling themselves small government, paraphrasing of course.

In the last election cycle Paul and Romney got to know each other, I’ve heard their wives became really good friends.

Paul was hoping this would have been a two man race a long time ago. Gives him more of a spotlight to educate people. It would only make sense to use as much money possible to make it that way.
Click to expand...
Then again, my guess: He wants a cabinet position for Rand.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I aw your post above. Santorum voted for every dumb idea Bush had, in addition to pay raises for himself and congress, and against unemployment extentions.

He was one of the reasons why the GOP congress spent off the surplus they inherited, and ran up the deficite again.

Santorum doesn’t have a chance at being president. If he manages to win the GOP nomination by some fluke, the Obama campaign staff will begin their victory celebration throwing each other hi-fives and buying rounds of drinks as soon as its announced.

Jim
Click to expand...
Code: 
 Ronald Reagan had no chance at becoming President either. Look, if you don't understand that as a senator, you have a choice to play the grandstander, OR TRY to make as much difference as you can working with the cards (fellow Congressmen) that you are dealt, then you do not wish to face reality. 
 BTW, is Rick's vote AGAINST extending UC benefits (in relatively good times) a contributing factor toward spending "the surplus", or might the bursting of the dot.com bubble, a terrorist attack and the reckless social spending by Democrats and a spendthrift President have something to do with it? Bush, of course, was a penny-pincher compared to the $5T man in the WH now. :ouch: Rob
 
RACJ said:
Ronald Reagan had no chance at becoming President either. Look, if you don’t understand that as a senator, you have a choice to play the grandstander, OR TRY to make as much difference as you can working with the cards (fellow Congressmen) that you are dealt, then you do not wish to face reality.
BTW, is Rick’s vote AGAINST extending UC benefits (in relatively good times) a contributing factor toward spending “the surplus”, or might the bursting of the dot.com bubble, a terrorist attack and the reckless social spending by Democrats and a spendthrift President have something to do with it? Bush, of course, was a penny-pincher compared to the $5T man in the WH now. :ouch: Rob
Click to expand...
Reagan never made foolish statements like Santorum did yesterday on Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulas.

Santorum commited political suicide yesterday.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Reagan never made foolish statements like Santorum did yesterday on Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulas.

Santorum commited political suicide yesterday.

Jim
Click to expand...
Have you heard his interview on MSNBC where he’s arguing that the government created 240 million jobs?
 
LisaA said:
Right…can’t wait to find that perfect candidate that has never backed a bill we disagree with or held a position in his lifetime that gave us pause. We have people in a snit that the long deceased Ronald Reagan made (yes it was a HUGE) a mistake forty years ago. Had every pro life person written him off then we’d have had another term of Jimmy Carter…

Perfection is the enemy of the good. I wish more people would stop crossing off candidates entirely because of one action because we’re going to end up with Obama after tossing all of our good candidates off a cliff. I agree SOPA sounded like a well intentioned but over-reaching bill. But obvoiusly Rubio was willing to reverse when that was demonstrated.
Click to expand...
You don’t understand the difference between a mistake in judgment or error and a mistake in principle. Sponsoring that SOPA bill was a violation of basic liberty, the very thing that Christianity helped foster on thee shores.

Here’s the difference.
  1. Politician argues that the capital gains tax should be lowered by 5% instead of 10%.
    –This is possibly an error in judgment. Ideally, it should be done away with altogether but my problem with this politician is a matter of degree, nor principle. He is moving in the right direction, but lacks the courage or knowledge to fully commit. There’s hope here.
  2. Politician argues that a new tax should be put on all drivers who use public roads to pay for bike lanes and public transit.
    –This is an error in principle. First, we don’t need new taxes, which by their nature rob liberty (we have enough taxes). Second, he is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Peter has the right to spend his money on cars, which generates revenue for this unprincipled politician. Taking Peter’s money at gunpoint just to give it directly to another private citizen is theft, a violation of principle.
The issue is not that the candidates are flawed. The issue is that people like yourself don’t see that the bar has been lowered to the point where it’s practically touching the floor. I don’t see it as a high standard expect people who freely chose to grab power in the federal government behave in a consistent and principled manner. Don’t play games by supporting rotten folks like Arlen Spectre (an advocate of murdering babies). Don’t cheat on your wife. Don’t say one thing and do another. Don’t rob Peter to pay Paul.

If you do screw up, even on principle, then have the guts to say you did it and explain what was going through your head. If you argue, as Rubio does, that he wasn’t sure about the bill, then what was he doing sponsoring it? See? It is not principled to sponsor legislation you don’t understand. That’s not an error. That’s a corrupt way of thinking all too common in our government.

For decades, we’ve heard this pollyanna argument about picking the lesser of two evils, and where are we? The culture is corrupt. The government steals more liberty each years regardless of who is in power (Bush gave us DHS, another waste of our money and freedom, Obama controls your health). This strategy is a clear failure.

“Compromise” is an interesting word. One definition is that neither side gets what they want and must give up something to reach an agreement in the middle. Well, do this enough and you end up with the second definition of “compromise”. The kind where a vessel or security system is “compromised” and will eventually collapse. And that’s what we have now. Abandon principle once too often and you end up down the tubes.

That lesson is repeated over and over in the Old Testament and echoed in the New. The founders constantly referred to these verses and warned against these dangers. But people don’t want to hear it. You all want to, no have to, believe that one of the parties is really good at the end of the day. The alternative is inconceivable to you because it means you’ve been buying into a lie. Well, that’s the truth. I don’t like it either, but the truth burns.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
It’s my understanfing of market projection.

By voters, I’m using a general term, and we’ll see who laughs last after this weeks primaries, as Santorum gets crushed as a direct result of his performance yesterday on national tv.

Jim
Click to expand...
Could be. As he is not my preferred candidate, I’m okay with that.
 
Nec5 said:
You don’t understand the difference between a mistake in judgment or error and a mistake in principle. Sponsoring that SOPA bill was a violation of basic liberty, the very thing that Christianity helped foster on thee shores.

Here’s the difference.
  1. Politician argues that the capital gains tax should be lowered by 5% instead of 10%.
    –This is possibly an error in judgment. Ideally, it should be done away with altogether but my problem with this politician is a matter of degree, nor principle. He is moving in the right direction, but lacks the courage or knowledge to fully commit. There’s hope here.
  2. Politician argues that a new tax should be put on all drivers who use public roads to pay for bike lanes and public transit.
    –This is an error in principle. First, we don’t need new taxes, which by their nature rob liberty (we have enough taxes). Second, he is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Peter has the right to spend his money on cars, which generates revenue for this unprincipled politician. Taking Peter’s money at gunpoint just to give it directly to another private citizen is theft, a violation of principle.
The issue is not that the candidates are flawed. The issue is that people like yourself don’t see that the bar has been lowered to the point where it’s practically touching the floor. I don’t see it as a high standard expect people who freely chose to grab power in the federal government behave in a consistent and principled manner. Don’t play games by supporting rotten folks like Arlen Spectre (an advocate of murdering babies). Don’t cheat on your wife. Don’t say one thing and do another. Don’t rob Peter to pay Paul.

If you do screw up, even on principle, then have the guts to say you did it and explain what was going through your head. If you argue, as Rubio does, that he wasn’t sure about the bill, then what was he doing sponsoring it? See? It is not principled to sponsor legislation you don’t understand. That’s not an error. That’s a corrupt way of thinking all too common in our government.

For decades, we’ve heard this pollyanna argument about picking the lesser of two evils, and where are we? The culture is corrupt. The government steals more liberty each years regardless of who is in power (Bush gave us DHS, another waste of our money and freedom, Obama controls your health). This strategy is a clear failure.

“Compromise” is an interesting word. One definition is that neither side gets what they want and must give up something to reach an agreement in the middle. Well, do this enough and you end up with the second definition of “compromise”. The kind where a vessel or security system is “compromised” and will eventually collapse. And that’s what we have now. Abandon principle once too often and you end up down the tubes.

That lesson is repeated over and over in the Old Testament and echoed in the New. The founders constantly referred to these verses and warned against these dangers. But people don’t want to hear it. You all want to, no have to, believe that one of the parties is really good at the end of the day. The alternative is inconceivable to you because it means you’ve been buying into a lie. Well, that’s the truth. I don’t like it either, but the truth burns.
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
JimR-OCDS said:
It’s my understanfing of market projection.

By voters, I’m using a general term, and we’ll see who laughs last after this weeks primaries, as Santorum gets crushed as a direct result of his performance yesterday on national tv.

Jim
Click to expand...
Can you tell me what the stock market is going to do in 6 months? I have a tax refund that’s only getting .5% interest in my savings account. I’d like to get a higher return.😛
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Reagan never made foolish statements like Santorum did yesterday on Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulas.

Santorum commited political suicide yesterday.

Jim
Click to expand...
Really? I heard both interviews in full, and apart from his using "throwing up" hyperbole about JFK's horrible concession, I liked everything he had to say. Esp, the fact that kids go off to college to be indoctrinated and lose their faith. He is exactly the candidate the Washington establishment fears. Bob :cool:
 
VIDEO: Romney ad questions whether Santorum really is a conservative with “courage”

Romney returns to core economic message

“Romney is dropping his recent focus on social issues and returning to his core message on the economy. After two weeks of talking about abortion, religious liberty and gay marriage to appeal to recalcitrant GOP conservatives ahead of Tuesday’s Michigan and Arizona primaries, Romney is signaling that he will leave those hot-button subjects to to the rival campaign of Rick Santorum in the upcoming states.” - Washington Post

“Romney must give some evidence — visiting, say, a low-income health clinic or a gang-occupied school — that his hand has touched, that his retina has registered, the hurt and hardship of another America” - Mike Gerson in the Washington Post
Code: 
Santorum, Romney spar over economy ahead of Michigan primary - [NPR](http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/02/27/147514682/santorum-romney-spar-over-economy-ahead-of-michigan-primary)
Michigan is too close to call: Romney leads by 2 points in polls by Rasmussen and Public Policy Polling, while Santorum leads by 2 points in the latest Mitchell-Rosetta Stone survey - The Hill
Code: 
   The intensity is with Santorum says [Bill Kristol](http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michigan-mo_631978.html) but [Byron York](http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-everything-stake-santorum-wings-it/397431) thinks Santorum - "with little staff and little organization" - is winging it.

"This sure has been fun these last 10 days or so. We've started out what 15 points down in the polls; now we are leading in the polls. Thank you, guys," Romney said." - [USA Today](http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-27/romney-santorum-michigan-primary/53275698/1)
A defeat for Romney in Michigan could reset the Republican race - New York Times

“The stakes are very high, particularly for Romney. A failure to achieve anything other than the top spot in the state where his dad was governor for three terms could prove to be a dramatic momentum killer – enabling Santorum to bolster his argument that Romney is far from the presumptive GOP nominee.” - Fox

Polls split on how Romney, Santorum perform against Obama in swing states, with voters - Weekly Standard

Obama weighs in after Santorum calls him a ‘snob’ - LA Times | Washington Times
Code: 
"We have found out that Santorum believes he is on a mission from God, that he doesn’t believe in public education, doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state, that he doesn’t believe in contraception and that Satan has somehow possessed a bunch of people that he disagrees with. He sounds like our Founding Fathers." - John Feehery for [The Hill](http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/john-feehery/212859-what-campaigns-reveal)
Libertarians should vote for Gingrich says Bob Barr - Daily Caller

The number of Americans who say they strongly approve of Obama has been creeping up, but that group has not exceeded 30% in more than a year - PowerLine

'59% of moderate Republicans support gay unions; 63% of independents do. Those voters might be sympathetic to a candidate who opposes civil unions, but they will be strongly against someone who tells them their position on the issue makes them part of the country’s moral collapse." - TIME

At NRO Thomas Sowell says the GOP candidates are too focused on peripheral issues

Dems target likely veep pick Rubio - The Hill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top