Romney the Centrist Peeks Out

[ringil]

It was decided? By who, a sinister cabal of backroom establishment types conspiring to nominate Romney? Did they orchestrate the rise (and fall) of Perry, then Cain, Gingrich, Santorum et al? This must be some powerful group. Hopefully they can conspire to overthrow the Obama regime.

Ishii

The candidate with the best chance will be selected. Yes, folks will play with the flavor of th e day, but in this case it was always going to be Romney.

 

[ishii]

The candidate with the best chance will be selected. Yes, folks will play with the flavor of th e day, but in this case it was always going to be Romney.

If you’re saying that Romney was the frontrunner and had the best chance I would agree. I don’t think there were very many serious contenders this time. Perry showed that he was a lightweight - and unable to debate. Neither Cain nor Bachmann was ever a serious candidate. Newt and Santorum gave Romney a run for his money but they had big negatives that have been discussed already. Romney was the strongest candidate in a mediocre field. Some observers said that Tim Pawlenty dropped out too early - that he could well have come back and challenged Romney and possible won. I guess we’ll never know.

Ishii

 

[ringil]

If you’re saying that Romney was the frontrunner and had the best chance I would agree. I don’t think there were very many serious contenders this time. Perry showed that he was a lightweight - and unable to debate. Neither Cain nor Bachmann was ever a serious candidate. Newt and Santorum gave Romney a run for his money but they had big negatives that have been discussed already. Romney was the strongest candidate in a mediocre field. Some observers said that Tim Pawlenty dropped out too early - that he could well have come back and challenged Romney and possible won. I guess we’ll never know.

Ishii

I’m just comenting that so many pretended that there was really ever a chance that it wasn’t going to be Romney. Perhaps hopeful thinking for some but Romney was pretty able to stamp out any meaningful gains by his oponents before any real danger was posed to his eventual nomination.

 

[Lujack]

I’m just comenting that so many pretended that there was really ever a chance that it wasn’t going to be Romney. Perhaps hopeful thinking for some but Romney was pretty able to stamp out any meaningful gains by his oponents before any real danger was posed to his eventual nomination.

It was always obvious that Romney was going to go into the convention with the lead; the only issue was whether or not Ron Paul’s dream scenario of a contested convention could actually come true. I don’t think it can, and so we’ll go another four years to wait for that to happen (there hasn’t been a contested convention since 1960, and there hasn’t been one that was legitimately up for grabs since 1952; there was drama at the DNC in 1968, but Humphrey had the delegates sewn up and it was never going to be anyone but him).

 

[Lujack]

If you’re saying that Romney was the frontrunner and had the best chance I would agree. I don’t think there were very many serious contenders this time. Perry showed that he was a lightweight - and unable to debate. Neither Cain nor Bachmann was ever a serious candidate. Newt and Santorum gave Romney a run for his money but they had big negatives that have been discussed already. Romney was the strongest candidate in a mediocre field. Some observers said that Tim Pawlenty dropped out too early - that he could well have come back and challenged Romney and possible won. I guess we’ll never know.

Ishii

I don’t think Pawlenty had the money. He also has less charisma than Romney; I know that some of my College Republican friends would refer to him as “Tim Pawlenty, the most boring man alive”.

 

[CMatt25]

You always lump together conservatives with the tea partiers in an attempt to defame conservatism. I never said that Romney would have to bend over backwards to keep the tea partiers happy. I think supporting the Ryan budget to help avert the fiscal mess that Obama has gotten us in will endear Romney to conservatives, tea partiers and probably moderates as well - anyone who doesn’t want us to have a fiscal crisis and knows that a tax the rich scheme would not do much to lower the deficit, but only feed into class envy. Also if Romney nominates solid justices he will please the conservative base. These are things that are mainstream conservative and also appeal to the mainstream of America because most Americans aren’t on the left. That is why Obama care is so unpopular. Sometimes your political analysis is correct but this time I think you’re letting your liberal hopes and dreams cloud your vision.

Ishii

Tea Partiers tend to be conservatives, Ishii, judging by those elected in the off yr midterm election of 2010. I don’t argue there are not varying degrees on the “right”. But the same can be said for the left. And you never heard me say most are on either extreme. The vast middle are inbetween. What saddens me thouigh about the analysis of conservatives is you always lump fairness and justice with “envy”.

 

[CMatt25]

If you’re saying that Romney was the frontrunner and had the best chance I would agree. I don’t think there were very many serious contenders this time. Perry showed that he was a lightweight - and unable to debate. Neither Cain nor Bachmann was ever a serious candidate. Newt and Santorum gave Romney a run for his money but they had big negatives that have been discussed already. Romney was the strongest candidate in a mediocre field. Some observers said that Tim Pawlenty dropped out too early - that he could well have come back and challenged Romney and possible won. I guess we’ll never know.

Ishii

Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll but wow does that seem like light yrs ago. Cain rose in polling until his personal problems brought him down. Indeed Perry showed he was a lightweight. In the end I would agree the field was mediocre.

 

[ishii]

Tea Partiers tend to be conservatives, Ishii, judging by those elected in the off yr midterm election of 2010. I don’t argue there are not varying degrees on the “right”. But the same can be said for the left. And you never heard me say most are on either extreme. The vast middle are inbetween. What saddens me thouigh about the analysis of conservatives is you always lump fairness and justice with “envy”.

Cmatt, conservatives were around before anyone spoke of “teapartiers” and will be around when most have forgotten the tea party movement. But I notice that you speak derogatively of the tea partiers and use them interchangeably with conservatives. The tea party mainly is concerned with fiscal issues and the budget, conservatives are concerned with those issues as well as social issues. But I can understand your desire to marginalize conservatives by calling them “tea partiers”.

And no, confiscating others’ hard earned money out of a misguided sense of “fairness and justice” will not solve our deficit problems brought on by Obama - but it will make liberals “feel” better - which is what counts for them, I guess.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

Cmatt, conservatives were around before anyone spoke of “teapartiers” and will be around when most have forgotten the tea party movement. But I notice that you speak derogatively of the tea partiers and use them interchangeably with conservatives. The tea party mainly is concerned with fiscal issues and the budget, conservatives are concerned with those issues as well as social issues. But I can understand your desire to marginalize conservatives by calling them “tea partiers”.

And no, confiscating others’ hard earned money out of a misguided sense of “fairness and justice” will not solve our deficit problems brought on by Obama - but it will make liberals “feel” better - which is what counts for them, I guess.

Ishii

No one said a thing about all of the deficit problems (which began long before Obama) being fully erased by a fairer tax policy where the wealthiest, those who can afford more, are asked to pay higher rates than they are. But it would be a start to have more revenue coming in to help towards the deficit. That’s simple math. But good grief Republicans haven’t even been willing to support ending the portion of the Bush tax cuts geared to the wealthy and going back to Clinton era rates for them. I know they try to use the excuse that tax cuts for the wealthy would create jobs but it didn’t work. We had a Great Recession after the Bush tax cuts. And of course not even a single Republican of whatever conservative stripe would raise their hand when asked in one of the debates if they would support a deficit reduction plan with even a 10:1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases. Not even a show of a single hand for a 10:1 cuts to revenue ratio! So you might as well lump them altogether. I’d think the Democrats would have a picture of Romney among that group to run in an ad.

 

[ishii]

No one said a thing about all of the deficit problems (which began long before Obama) being fully erased by a fairer tax policy where the wealthiest, those who can afford more, are asked to pay higher rates than they are. But it would be a start to have more revenue coming in to help towards the deficit. That’s simple math. But good grief Republicans haven’t even been willing to support ending the portion of the Bush tax cuts geared to the wealthy and going back to Clinton era rates for them. I know they try to use the excuse that tax cuts for the wealthy would create jobs but it didn’t work. We had a Great Recession after the Bush tax cuts. And of course not even a single Republican of whatever conservative stripe would raise their hand when asked in one of the debates if they would support a deficit reduction plan with even a 10:1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases. Not even a show of a single hand for a 10:1 cuts to revenue ratio! So you might as well lump them altogether. I’d think the Democrats would have a picture of Romney among that group to run in an ad.

I have a hard time taking you seriously, Cmatt. You say we had a Great Recession after the Bush tax cuts - newsflash, Cmatt: the Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001. The recession didn’t start until 2008. If the tax cuts caused the Great Recession then it took seven years for that to happen. The Bush tax cuts brought our country out of the Clinton/dot.com bubble recession of 2001. But I can understand your desire to blame lower taxes for the recession as that is part of the soak the rich/class warfare solution that the Democrats offer. As for the deficit, it has risen significantly during Obama’s term compared to Bush admin. So its obvious that the biggest problem is Obama’s out of control deficit spending - including Obamacare which is (surprise, surprise) going to end up costing way more than earlier projected. But that is what happens when you put the federal government in charge of things - efficiency isn’t a trait of the federal govt.

No doubt, Obama will use his billion dollars to smear Romney as being too rich and out of touch. All Romney will have to do is come back and highlight Obama’s own failed record during the past four years - including the unemployment rate for women going from 7% to 8.1%. Talk about a war on women!

Ishii

 

[andrewstx]

It is known that republicans run to the right in primaries.

And democrats run to the left.

But in the general election both go to the centre.

 

[CMatt25]

I have a hard time taking you seriously, Cmatt. You say we had a Great Recession after the Bush tax cuts - newsflash, Cmatt: the Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001. The recession didn’t start until 2008. If the tax cuts caused the Great Recession then it took seven years for that to happen. The Bush tax cuts brought our country out of the Clinton/dot.com bubble recession of 2001. But I can understand your desire to blame lower taxes for the recession as that is part of the soak the rich/class warfare solution that the Democrats offer. As for the deficit, it has risen significantly during Obama’s term compared to Bush admin. So its obvious that the biggest problem is Obama’s out of control deficit spending - including Obamacare which is (surprise, surprise) going to end up costing way more than earlier projected. But that is what happens when you put the federal government in charge of things - efficiency isn’t a trait of the federal govt.

No doubt, Obama will use his billion dollars to smear Romney as being too rich and out of touch. All Romney will have to do is come back and highlight Obama’s own failed record during the past four years - including the unemployment rate for women going from 7% to 8.1%. Talk about a war on women!

Ishii

The wealthy “job producers” were still getting their tax cuts to “produce jobs” as the Great Recession began and were all throughout. Thanks to Obama it didn’t turn into a full blown 1930s style Great Depression. I always laugh when someone like Romney says govt doesn’t or can’t help produce jobs… Seriously? He’s seeking one.

 

[meltzerboy]

Just a guess, but I think Romney would want to get re-elected. He can’t get re-elected if he doesn’t govern like a conservative and do the things he promised - such as nominate constructionist judges, repeal Obamacare, and support the Ryan budget plan. Look at what happened to Bush 1 who reneged on “no new taxes” pledge - he lost his re-election bid.

Ishii

I understand what you’re saying; but, seriously, are you already contemplating Romney’s RE-election?

 

[meltzerboy]

It is known that republicans run to the right in primaries.

And democrats run to the left.

But in the general election both go to the centre.

I agree; however, I think the center for Republicans is right of center, while the center for Democrats is left of center. There are in effect two centers, because neither candidate wants to lose their party’s constituency while gaining the votes of Independents.

 

[ishii]

I understand what you’re saying; but, seriously, are you already contemplating Romney’s RE-election?

My post was in answer to Pnewton implying that Romney might govern as a liberal and therefore he wouldn’t vote for him. If Romney did govern as a liberal he would be jeopardizingn his re-election chances. So my point was to reassure those who are wary of voting for Romney because they don’t trust him to govern as a conservative should he win. No, I am not assuming that he will beat Obama.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

The wealthy “job producers” were still getting their tax cuts to “produce jobs” as the Great Recession began and were all throughout. Thanks to Obama it didn’t turn into a full blown 1930s style Great Depression. I always laugh when someone like Romney says govt doesn’t or can’t help produce jobs… Seriously? He’s seeking one.

Cmatt, you said that we had a “great recession” after the Bush tax cuts - implying wrongly that it was somehow the Bush tax cuts that created the recession. If tax cuts cause recessions then why didn’t the recession start sooner? You are not making sense.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

I agree; however, I think the center for Republicans is right of center, while the center for Democrats is left of center. There are in effect two centers, because neither candidate wants to lose their party’s constituency while gaining the votes of Independents.

The pendulum of the center swings back and forth between right of and left of . Rarely it seems does the same party hold onto the WH for longer than 1 - 3 cycles. How many decades since one party controlled the WH for any longer than 3 consecutive terms?

 

[CMatt25]

Cmatt, you said that we had a “great recession” after the Bush tax cuts - implying wrongly that it was somehow the Bush tax cuts that created the recession. If tax cuts cause recessions then why didn’t the recession start sooner? You are not making sense.

Ishii

Ishii, we did. By your own admission the wealthy began receiving their breaks in 2001. What I’m saying is the wealthy did not use their tax cuts to keep us out of the Great Recession. Otherwise they would have been producing more jobs during it, which afterall is what conservatives always tell us tax cuts for the wealthiest will do. The concept of trickle down upon the lower classes. I’m just never sure under such a concept what it is that’s going to trickle down upon them.

 

[ishii]

Ishii, we did. By your own admission the wealthy began receiving their breaks in 2001. What I’m saying is the wealthy did not use their tax cuts to keep us out of the Great Recession. Otherwise they would have been producing more jobs during it, which afterall is what conservatives always tell us tax cuts for the wealthiest will do. The concept of trickle down upon the lower classes. I’m just never sure under such a concept what it is that’s going to trickle down upon them.

So if the 2001 tax cuts caused the “great recession” of 2008, why didn’t it happen sooner? Did the wealthy use their tax cuts in the years 2001-2007 to keep us out of a recession but stop in 2008? Please explain how this works, I’d like to know.

Ishii

 

[Lujack]

My post was in answer to Pnewton implying that Romney might govern as a liberal and therefore he wouldn’t vote for him. If Romney did govern as a liberal he would be jeopardizingn his re-election chances. So my point was to reassure those who are wary of voting for Romney because they don’t trust him to govern as a conservative should he win. No, I am not assuming that he will beat Obama.

Ishii

That’s rather an issue with Romney, though, don’t you think? If we had a President Santorum, you would know he would govern as a conservative because those are his convictions…that’s what he believes. The same goes for a Ron Paul.

Romney will shift with the political winds.

Take it with however much salt you want, since its coming from someone who won’t be voting Republican in the next election, though.