The 2012 GOP Presidential Field Is Set

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bbarrick8383 said:
I believe I read it took Denmark 25 years, with things like 100 percent tax on automobiles to become energy independent. Somewhere around the mid 70’s if I remember right there was an oil crunch that left them in a bind. They now produce more energy than they consume, but their population is the about the same as Oklahoma City.
Click to expand...
They also don’t spend much on military because us and the EU is their bodyguard. It’s a lot easier to grow your economy if you don’t have to allocate resources to defense.
 
BVM_1221 said:
First, re-read what the USCCB had to say about our votes being based on our individual well-formed understanding of the issues, not being one issue voters, and voting for the candidate that we agree with as best putting into action a balanced program of Catholic principles.:coffeeread:

Obviously, you have qualms about Romney. Understandable. I have major qualms about the other seven candidates. I have fewer qualms about Romney then other candidates. YMMV.🤷
Click to expand...
There are** non negotiables** are not up for debate when selecting a political candidate to support. These have been said by Pope Benedict as being; protect life from conception to natural death, protection of marriage between man and a woman, and a parents right to educate their children.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians_en.html
 
You know some are saying Republican voters are unenthusiastic about their choices, the evidence says otherwise:

“In the Aug. 18-22 Associated Press poll, 64% of Republicans said they were “satisfied” with the GOP field, up from 52% in June. The Sept. 25-27 Fox News poll found 63% of Republicans “impressed” with their choices, up from 44% in April. By comparison, in a mid-October 1991 CBS/New York Times poll, only 18% of Democrats were “satisfied” with their field and 64% wanted someone else to enter the race. And we know how the 1992 contest turned out. Bad economic news and GOP enthusiasm mean increasingly that the president’s re-election hopes depend on an exceptionally weak Republican running an unusually bad campaign. The warning to Mr. Obama is this: It’s always better not to depend on your opponent making big mistakes.” - Karl Rove for the WSJ
 
SamH said:
Agreed

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
Homer Simpson
Click to expand...
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.” Agent K
 
BVM_1221 said:
First, re-read what the USCCB had to say about our votes being based on our individual well-formed understanding of the issues, not being one issue voters, and voting for the candidate that we agree with as best putting into action a balanced program of Catholic principles.:coffeeread:

Obviously, you have qualms about Romney. Understandable. I have major qualms about the other seven candidates. I have fewer qualms about Romney then other candidates. YMMV.🤷
Click to expand...
One needs to read the full document, and not just the summary.
 
Thought this an interesting observation, and very well might be the case. There is a good chance that Mitt Romney will receive the GOP’s approval. This poll even reflects that.
And the President is counting on that to be the case. His office already has a video created attacking Romney, as can be seen on the sight. The basics of the President’s re-election tactics are ~

“Does OWS Nullify “Tea Party” as Election Attack?”

commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/03/obama-attacks-romney-tea-party/

From the article:
The Obama PAC ad shuffles through three basic Romney attacks:
Click to expand...
The Tea Party: the ad shows a clip of Romney hesitating before saying “I’m for the Tea Party.” Then it cuts to a video of Tea Partiers marching angrily with signs.
Job Creation: the ad calls out Romney for the layoffs he oversaw during his time at Bain Capitol, and the fact that Massachusetts rated very low for job creation when he was running the state.
Class warfare: there are clips of Romney arguing that “corporations are people” and allegations that he receives support from “Wall Street.”
The job creation and class warfare criticism are predictable. But the fact that the Obama PAC seems to be highlighting Romney’s hesitation on the Tea Party is interesting. It makes you wonder whether the Obama campaign is planning to use this as a wedge issue to force Romney into taking a clearer stance on the Tea Party – either back away from it, or embrace it more strongly.
Click to expand...
The Republican base is already suspicious of Romney, so if he seems to be distancing himself from the Tea Party it could really hurt him with conservatives. On the other hand, if Romney aligns himself with the Tea Party, the Obama campaign could use that as a way to portray him as “extreme” and out of touch with the American public.
Click to expand...
It would be an interesting tactic, but is it neutralized now that Obama and the Democratic Party have publicly declared their support for Occupy Wall Street? Tea Party rallies look like economics seminars at the Brookings Institute when compared to the violent chaos at OWS protests. With Occupy activists dissolving into mob violence, it’s going to be hard to argue that supporting the Tea Party is “extreme” but supporting OWS isn’t. If anything, the Occupiers are making the Tea Partiers look exceptionally calm and rational…
Click to expand...
 
Raskolnikov said:
And I don’t like the idea of candidates getting elected on emotional appeal. It is typical, of course, for people to react against the previous administration, of course. Do recall how ‘fired up’ people were at tha failures of the BUsh administration, all that was going wrong in the country back then? So you see, reacting with one’s impulses does not necessarily yield a good result. I don’t want in the least a candidate who can get me excited or incite me to worship him.

Americans of course will not stand a long speech by a candidate. Only sound bites. And most would certainly never read position paper by candidates even if they bothered to write them.
Click to expand...
Ok, maybe me using the words ‘fired up’ wasn’t the best terminology to use.

I support Newt Gingrich. Do you think Newt Gingrich is using emotional appeal and base impulses similar to Obama?

I just listened to a video of him today where he was speaking and was talking about ways to save $6-10 trillion by investing in the fight against Alzheimers. And how advances in brain science has the potential to save FAR more money than the super committee is trying to save through entitlements. Innovations in Brain Science… that isn’t a cheap emotional campaign slogan.

The point is, Newt Gingrich is an ideas man. He spent some of his time out of office running his own think tank.

So… I’m not saying Mitt Romney is bad because he doesn’t appeal to people’s emotions. I’m saying that Mitt Romney is no one’s cup of tea. His positions aren’t going to help this country, they’re just going to hurt this country less than Obama. Republicans are choosing Mitt because they HAVE to, not because they WANT to.

Obama wants to keep the tax rate where it is 35%
Mitt Romney wants to take it down to 25%
Rick Perry wants to take it down to 20%
Newt Gingrich wants to take it down to 15%, and corporate tax 12.5
And then obviously Cain has the 9 income, 9 sales, 9 corporate.

This election shouldn’t be choosing the lesser of two evils. And, if Mitt Romney is our nominee that’s exactly what it’s going to be.

Yes, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain are all running on people’s emotions. And, because of the Tea Party they’re getting everyone “fired up”… but who actually think they would be a solid President?

I’m saying that Newt Gingrich would be a solid President. I would honestly say, I haven’t seen a true conservative as articulate as him and as likeable as him since Ronald Reagan.

Sure, Paul and Bachmann may be more conservative than him, but… they’re also widely perceived as crazy. (that’s just the way it is). Whereas Gingrich would actually be able to connect to people.

BTW, one of the only wierd results in the 50 votes so far is the high support Santorum is getting. Yes, he’s a faithful, devout, orthodox Catholic. But, he’s also getting 1-2% support in national polls. So, what are the reasons y’all are voting for Santorum despite his slim chances?
 
Semper_Zelare said:
Ok, maybe me using the words ‘fired up’ wasn’t the best terminology to use.

I support Newt Gingrich. Do you think Newt Gingrich is using emotional appeal and base impulses similar to Obama?

I just listened to a video of him today where he was speaking and was talking about ways to save $6-10 trillion by investing in the fight against Alzheimers. And how advances in brain science has the potential to save FAR more money than the super committee is trying to save through entitlements. Innovations in Brain Science… that isn’t a cheap emotional campaign slogan.

The point is, Newt Gingrich is an ideas man. He spent some of his time out of office running his own think tank.

So… I’m not saying Mitt Romney is bad because he doesn’t appeal to people’s emotions. I’m saying that Mitt Romney is no one’s cup of tea. His positions aren’t going to help this country, they’re just going to hurt this country less than Obama. Republicans are choosing Mitt because they HAVE to, not because they WANT to.

Obama wants to keep the tax rate where it is 35%
Mitt Romney wants to take it down to 25%
Rick Perry wants to take it down to 20%
Newt Gingrich wants to take it down to 15%, and corporate tax 12.5
And then obviously Cain has the 9 income, 9 sales, 9 corporate.

This election shouldn’t be choosing the lesser of two evils. And, if Mitt Romney is our nominee that’s exactly what it’s going to be.

Yes, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain are all running on people’s emotions. And, because of the Tea Party they’re getting everyone “fired up”… but who actually think they would be a solid President?

I’m saying that Newt Gingrich would be a solid President. I would honestly say, I haven’t seen a true conservative as articulate as him and as likeable as him since Ronald Reagan.

Sure, Paul and Bachmann may be more conservative than him, but… they’re also widely perceived as crazy. (that’s just the way it is). Whereas Gingrich would actually be able to connect to people.

BTW, one of the only wierd results in the 50 votes so far is the high support Santorum is getting. Yes, he’s a faithful, devout, orthodox Catholic. But, he’s also getting 1-2% support in national polls. So, what are the reasons y’all are voting for Santorum despite his slim chances?
Click to expand...
Newt is an idea man and his ideas and positive “can do” thinking just might connect with the electorate this time around. But he still has to get the nomination. I sort wrote Newt off early on because of his campaign troubles and his checkered past. Now in hindsight I think I was wrong to write him off. He has performed admirably in the debates - refusing to resort to backstabbing, petty attacks on his fellow GOP candidates, preferring instead to take the fight to Obama. I like Newt’s idea to have a Lincoln/Douglas style series of debates with Obama - leave it to a history professor to come up with an idea like that. Kind of a gimmick, I guess, but I think Obama would have his hands full with Newt’s idea driven campaign and his (Newt’s) ability to actually speak without a teleprompter.

That said… I wouldn’t quite characterize Romney as a “lesser of two evils”. Romney is not as conservative as the others, but he would be a huge improvement over Obama. I believe Romney would also pick a constructionist justice if there was a vacancy. He would be more business friendly - get the economy rolling again, etc.

Another thought about Newt - he is not quite the natural politician that Reagan was. Newt is not as charismatic as Cain is (leaving aside his current troubles for now).

I think Santorum gets votes from CAF membes because he’s probably a sentimental favorite. I know that I admire him very much. He is the only candidate who brings up the moral decline in our country and ties it into our current economic troubles. In an ideal world, I’d have a Gingrich/Santorum ticket. Political reality being what it is, I think I’ll have to settle for a Romney/(?) ticket. Put Rubio or Bobby Jindal on the ticket and I think I’d enthusiastically support the GOP ticket. I think that is a good question to pose:

***“what vp candidate would you like to see on the GOP ticket, and would his/her being on the ticket make you more likely to support a Romney candidacy?” ***

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Newt is an idea man and his ideas and positive “can do” thinking just might connect with the electorate this time around. But he still has to get the nomination. I sort wrote Newt off early on because of his campaign troubles and his checkered past. Now in hindsight I think I was wrong to write him off. He has performed admirably in the debates - refusing to resort to backstabbing, petty attacks on his fellow GOP candidates, preferring instead to take the fight to Obama. I like Newt’s idea to have a Lincoln/Douglas style series of debates with Obama - leave it to a history professor to come up with an idea like that. Kind of a gimmick, I guess, but I think Obama would have his hands full with Newt’s idea driven campaign and his (Newt’s) ability to actually speak without a teleprompter.

That said… I wouldn’t quite characterize Romney as a “lesser of two evils”. Romney is not as conservative as the others, but he would be a huge improvement over Obama. I believe Romney would also pick a constructionist justice if there was a vacancy. He would be more business friendly - get the economy rolling again, etc.

Another thought about Newt - he is not quite the natural politician that Reagan was. Newt is not as charismatic as Cain is (leaving aside his current troubles for now).

I think Santorum gets votes from CAF membes because he’s probably a sentimental favorite. I know that I admire him very much. He is the only candidate who brings up the moral decline in our country and ties it into our current economic troubles. In an ideal world, I’d have a Gingrich/Santorum ticket. Political reality being what it is, I think I’ll have to settle for a Romney/(?) ticket. Put Rubio or Bobby Jindal on the ticket and I think I’d enthusiastically support the GOP ticket. I think that is a good question to pose:

***“what vp candidate would you like to see on the GOP ticket, and would his/her being on the ticket make you more likely to support a Romney candidacy?” ***

Ishii
Click to expand...
I agree with most everything you wrote in your post.

And, I’ll grudingly conceede that Romney wouldn’t be a lesser evil, he would perhaps just be a milder good than one of the more conservative candidates. He would, after all, appoint justices that would repeal Roe v. Wade. That is true, and that is the biggest moral issue facing America.

But, I still grudgingly say that. I REALLY do not prefer Mitt Romney. And personally, his Mormon faith is an issue with me on top all of his flip flops and so forth.

And, I’ll say that while Newt reminds me of Reagan the most, he still is not as charismatic as Reagan, I’ll agree.

As for Vice Presidents, Marc Rubio has really wide appeal in the Republican base. I think he would impress most Americans once they heard his story and saw he was a true conservative. We need a solid guy in the VP slot… not someone to pander for votes like Palin was picked to appeal to women. Rubio IMO is a good VP pick for any ticket.

I’ll leave you with this: fellow Catholics, fellow conservatives, fellow Republicans, we should not settle for Mitt Romney if he isn’t our favorite pick. In the next 2 months of campaigning before Iowa and New Hampshire, watch Newt Gingrich. I think you’re gonna like what you see.
 
ishii said:
If Perry has such a tough time in debates now and on the stump, how do you think he’ll fare in a general election against Obama? He doesn’t seem like a very strong candidate - in fact, he’s one of the weaker candidates in a field of weak candidates. The only thing he really has going for him is his fundraising and a pretty strong record as governor. But is that enough?

Ishii

Democrat Party 1935: " the only thing we have to fear is fear itself "

Democrat Party 2011: " the only thing we have to offer is fear itself "
Click to expand...
Ishii, would you mind spelling Democratic Party correctly in your signature? I don’t see folks saying Republic Party.
 
CMatt25 said:
Ishii, would you mind spelling Democratic Party correctly in your signature? I don’t see folks saying Republic Party.
Click to expand...
Does that bother you? I see the word “Democrat” on many a sign around town during election time. I don’t see “Republic” but “Republican” on other signs. There are many things that bother me, Cmatt. What bothers me most is the anti-Christian policies of the Democrat party, and otherwise good folks who don’t understand the true nature and goals of secular leftism.

Ishii
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top