The 2012 GOP Presidential Field Is Set

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ishii said:
I work for a corporation that makes profits and creates jobs. Why is it that you can’t comprehend such a thing? Or do you think only the government can create jobs?

Socialized medicine of the type you want can only be passed incrementally. To try to pass it all at once would cause a revolt so the only way is to pass it piecemeal. Obama took a big first step. The GOP might well win the Senate, but hard to say whether they will get to 60. If Romney campaigns on repealing Obamacare and wins the presidency, and the senate obstructs its repeal, then I would predict more Democrat losses in the next mid-terms.

Didn’t watch the debate, but I did hear about this big gaffe by Perry, whose campaign is becoming a train wreck:

youtube.com/watch?v=EZYQ9IYeOlU

Given how things are going, and that Cain and Perry are probably on their way out, it seems to be shaping up as a race between Romney and Gingrich. Either could do well against Obama. I think the Obama/Democrat/MSM smear campaign could smear Gingrich (considering his past) more easily than they could smear Romney for being Mormon or for his flip-flops.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Ishii, it’s not that I can’t comprehend whether corporations with the profits they have CAN create jobs. I’m questioning with their profits, where ARE the jobs?

Well if we use your theory about obstuction, Ishii, then the Democratic Party should make gains in the Senate next yr. Not that I necessarily am predicting that one way or the other. I actually think Democrats could make gains in the House.

Yes I just saw a clip of Perry played on MSNBC. He sealed his own fate as I would see it if I were a Republican. He simply is not ready for primetime. Never was it appeared.
 
CMatt25 said:
Ishii, it’s not that I can’t comprehend whether corporations with the profits they have CAN create jobs. I’m questioning with their profits, where ARE the jobs?

Well if we use your theory about obstuction, Ishii, then the Democratic Party should make gains in the Senate next yr. Not that I necessarily am predicting that one way or the other. I actually think Democrats could make gains in the House.

Yes I just saw a clip of Perry played on MSNBC. He sealed his own fate as I would see it if I were a Republican. He simply is not ready for primetime. Never was it appeared.
Click to expand...
I felt sorry for the guy. It could happen to anyone.
 
Okay. One voter;s view coming up.
Code: 
**Romney.** Good. May vote for him. Am a bit troubled by his Mormonism because he was a leader in that sect, which suggests that he is a devout Mormon. I hesitate to give Mormonism the prestige that a Mormon president might give them. That may not sound fair, but that's how I feel. Still, he seems to be a well-equipped candidate with considerable experience along with the persona of a president. 

 **Perry.** I liked him until the debates, etc. He simply undercuts his own candidacy and makes you wonder if he's stable. He still has time to redeem himself in my opinion. Possibly could vote for him if he 'straightens out and flies right'.

  **Cain.** An appealing personality, but I can't envision him as president. There is something less than serious about him and his candidacy. And 9-9-9 is too simplistic.. He seems to have been a competent businessman, but as president - no. Will not vote for him.

  **Gingrich.** Well-versed in US history and government. I admire that. But his personal record is so besmirched by marital and financial scandal that he would serve as an abominable example to the country, especially our youth. Will vote third party before voting for him.
**
Paul ** When it comes to foreign policy, I like Paul. America cannot and should not be trying to run or police the world. On the other hand, he is too libertarian for me on domestic issues. Too close to anarchism. Will not vote for him.
Code: 
  **Santorum.** Pious, but too pious for me. We're not electing a Pope. Pompous, too legalistic. Will not vote for him.

   **Bachmann.** Like Santorum, too pious for me. Extremist views. Will not vote for her.

  **Huntsman.** Perhaps the best candidate, but I don't know enough detail about him to support him as yet. Also a Mormon (see Romney above). Could vote for him, but he is very unlikely to win the nomination.

   It's sad that none of the the GOPs candidates is without a major problem and/or weighty baggage. This would have been the election that they should win - and may yet, of course, depending upon many factors that continually are subject to change.
 
I feel that at present Romney is the only Republican candidate who actually has a chance to defeat President Obama in next year’s elections. I did think that Perry would make a big splash when he entered the race, and he did, but now he just seems to be thrashing about in the pool, hoping not to drown. Maybe he’ll learn how to swim, but I don’t see him threatening Obama very much right now. More and more it looks as though Romney is the only viable candidate the Republicans have. Maybe John McCain should enter the race again.
 
Tsuwano said:
I feel that at present Romney is the only Republican candidate who actually has a chance to defeat President Obama in next year’s elections. I did think that Perry would make a big splash when he entered the race, and he did, but now he just seems to be thrashing about in the pool, hoping not to drown. Maybe he’ll learn how to swim, but I don’t see him threatening Obama very much right now. More and more it looks as though Romney is the only viable candidate the Republicans have. Maybe John McCain should enter the race again.
Click to expand...
The more I watch and listen to Newt Gingrich, the more I am convinced that he is the only one who has the capacity to revive this faultering nation. Maybe if this country wasn’t teetering on the precipice of oblivion, I would keep pushing Ron Paul. However, much as I would like it, we are past the time for trying to establish a libertarian utopia. Our country has really serious problems and Newt is the only one that I have seen that has an answer for all of them. Maybe Ron Paul can be Secretary of the Treasury. That would be a hoot, especially if Bernanke is still chairing the Fed.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
The more I watch and listen to Newt Gingrich, the more I am convinced that he is the only one who has the capacity to revive this faultering nation. Maybe if this country wasn’t teetering on the precipice of oblivion, I would keep pushing Ron Paul. However, much as I would like it, we are past the time for trying to establish a libertarian utopia. Our country has really serious problems and Newt is the only one that I have seen that has an answer for all of them. Maybe Ron Paul can be Secretary of the Treasury. That would be a hoot, especially if Bernanke is still chairing the Fed.
Click to expand...
Actually, Newt Gingrich does look like an interesting candidate in many ways. He carries a lot of heavy baggage from his years in the Senate and this may turn a lot of voters away from him. A lot of people may not want to know Newt Gingrich and this, of course, is a burden on any candidate. Secondly, Gingrich himself doesn’t really strike me as all that serious about running for the presidency. Maybe he is being ignored by the media, but I haven’t really seen him campaigning very much. As punsters like to say, he doesn’t seem to have that “fire in the belly.” Having said all this, I think Gringrich does have name recognition and this could help him in the long run as other candidates begin to flame out. If Perry, Romney and Cain all make huge gaffes (and that is not altogether impossible), Gingrich’s name recognition along could propel him into the front ranks of the candidates. No, I wouldn’t count Gingrich out just yet, but I would like to hear a little bit more from him.
 
CMatt25 said:
Ishii, it’s not that I can’t comprehend whether corporations with the profits they have CAN create jobs. I’m questioning with their profits, where ARE the jobs?
Click to expand...
That’s just what I’m saying, Cmatt. I work for a corporation that is doing what you’re asking : its making profits and expanding and hiring more workers (and, I might add, promoting workers internally). Now I realize that’s just one corporation. Perhaps some corporations are waiting to see who will be in charge next year before they make decisions to expand. Businesses don’t like a guessing game as far as taxes, rules and regulations that might effect their bottom line. If we had some sound and consistent leadership (which we don’t) then you might see businesses hire more and invest more.
CMatt25 said:
Well if we use your theory about obstuction, Ishii, then the Democratic Party should make gains in the Senate next yr. Not that I necessarily am predicting that one way or the other. I actually think Democrats could make gains in the House.
Click to expand...
I think many more Democrats are up for election this year than Republicans so it looks like the Democrats have an uphill battle to keep control of the senate. The Democrats will win house seats in some states due to redistricting - such as in Illinois, but lose some to redistricting also - such as in Texas. I heard some analysts say that the House will probably stay in GOP hands. Hopefully the voters will remember that the Democrat party had complete filibuster proof majority in congress and had Obama too for two whole years and did nothing but pass a the unpopular health care law, instead of doing something effective about the economy. Whoever wins next year, GOP or Democrat, suffice it to say, they will be held accountable.
CMatt25 said:
Yes I just saw a clip of Perry played on MSNBC. He sealed his own fate as I would see it if I were a Republican. He simply is not ready for primetime. Never was it appeared.
Click to expand...
It was painful to watch. I hope he does the right thing and bows out.

Ishii
 
mlund said:
And that’s not starting with the “baggage” Newt carries strung around his neck like an albatross.

Newt could mop the floor with Obama in debates, but Obama’s paid advertising and partisan media support would crucify Newt in the majority of air-time where he’s not allowed to defend himself. All Obama has to do to beat Newt is keep debates to a minimum and in bad time spots while letting the DNC machine keep reminding people over and over how Newt resigned from his congressional position in “disgrace” or pound on any number of narratives about his divorces and affairs.

Seriously, Team Obama will play the “hypocrite for going after Clinton while seeing your own mistress on the side” and “started a divorce on his first wife while she was in the hospital after tumor surgery” and then the “Republicans are just corrupt old white men with no hearts,” narrative sticks to Newt like a rare-earth magnet.

It isn’t true or fair, but David Axelrod isn’t interested in truth or fairness.
Click to expand...
Scott_Lafrance said:
The more I watch and listen to Newt Gingrich, the more I am convinced that he is the only one who has the capacity to revive this faultering nation. Maybe if this country wasn’t teetering on the precipice of oblivion, I would keep pushing Ron Paul. However, much as I would like it, we are past the time for trying to establish a libertarian utopia. Our country has really serious problems and Newt is the only one that I have seen that has an answer for all of them. Maybe Ron Paul can be Secretary of the Treasury. That would be a hoot, especially if Bernanke is still chairing the Fed.
Click to expand...
I admit to being torn between these two conflicting but simultaneously persuasive posts. On the one hand, I fear a Gingrich candidacy would end up not being about Obama’s failures and Newt’s ideas but about Newt’s past indiscretions. Like it or not, they exist and the Dems will try to exploit them to get their guy elected. One might say that the GOP would do exactly the same thing, but I remember a certain candidate in the last election taking the “high road” and not playing it tough against Obama. One factor will be the state of our country - the economy and how people view the future. If it is bleak, then Obama’s attempts to make the election about Newt’s past might backfire. Newt has many strengths, his intellect, persuasive communicative ability, experience in front of a TV audience, political skill, and most importantly his positive vision for America’s future. Part of me would like to see Newt get the nomination because for once, I’d like a conservative who not only has the ability to communicate conservative ideas effectively, but also, be able to get to the heart of what Obama is doing to our country. It would be an interesting campaign.

On the other hand, we need to nominate the guy with the best chance to beat Obama. And I know some folks hate this idea because its a compromise and seems to perpetuate the status quo and allow the establishment to maintain power. We need to remember that Romney might not be a doctrinaire conservative, but he is a mainstream conservative and I believe that he would, for example, end Obama care and nominate solid justices to the supreme court. He also happens to know a thing or two about business. Lastly, have you noticed that he has performed very well in all of the debates? He would do well against Obama, imo. NOt as well as Gingrich, but he would do well. So, the part of me that wants to “go for it” supports Gingrich, the part of me that wants to play it safe, supports Romney.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Businesses don’t like a guessing game as far as taxes, rules and regulations
Ishii
Click to expand...
Ishii, if whomever emerges from the GOP field wants to try running a campaign on Wall St being over regulated, I guess go for it.
 
Roy5 said:
Okay. One voter;s view coming up.
Code: 
**Romney.** Good. May vote for him. Am a bit troubled by his Mormonism because he was a leader in that sect, which suggests that he is a devout Mormon. I hesitate to give Mormonism the prestige that a Mormon president might give them. That may not sound fair, but that's how I feel. Still, he seems to be a well-equipped candidate with considerable experience along with the persona of a president.
Click to expand...
However, he is presidential, and experienced, and arguably stands the best chance of beating Obama. While there are no guarentees, I would be surprised if there was a skeleton waiting for an “October surprise” to be sprung on the week before election day. This may be attributed to his being a serious Mormon.
Roy5 said:
Perry. I liked him until the debates, etc. He simply undercuts his own candidacy and makes you wonder if he’s stable. He still has time to redeem himself in my opinion. Possibly could vote for him if he ‘straightens out and flies right’.
Click to expand...
You liked him in the debates???!! He is done. Finished.
Roy5 said:
Code: 
**Cain.** An appealing personality, but I can't envision him as president. There is something less than serious about him and his candidacy. And 9-9-9 is too simplistic.. He seems to have been a competent businessman, but as president - no. Will not vote for him.
Click to expand...
The only one who you could say is “charismatic”. YOu’re right, 9-9-9 is too simplistic but he’s not presidential. I don’t think he’d be a strong candidate against Obama.
Roy5 said:
Code: 
  **Gingrich.** Well-versed in US history and government. I admire that. But his personal record is so besmirched by marital and financial scandal that he would serve as an abominable example to the country, especially our youth. Will vote third party before voting for him.
Click to expand...
Perhaps then, you could focus on his redemption and conversion to the catholic faith. I believe your aversion to Gingrich is misplaced. He is more than “well versed in history and govt.” He is an idea man who has a vision for America. He is a skillful politician and leader. He is a heavyweight who could be a statesman for America - in contrast to who we have apologizing for us around the world now.
Roy5 said:
**
Paul ** When it comes to foreign policy, I like Paul. America cannot and should not be trying to run or police the world. On the other hand, he is too libertarian for me on domestic issues. Too close to anarchism. Will not vote for him.
Click to expand...
His recent comments about being “friends with Iran” made him seem like the second coming of Neville Chamberlain. Look, there is much to like about Paul, but let’s be serious: he is not a serious candidate.
Roy5 said:
Code: 
 **Santorum.** Pious, but too pious for me. We're not electing a Pope. Pompous, too legalistic. Will not vote for him.
Click to expand...
Interesting take. You wouldn’t vote for him if somehow he got the nomination? That seems a bit unfair.
Roy5 said:
Code: 
**Bachmann.** Like Santorum, too pious for me. Extremist views. Will not vote for her.
Click to expand...
Generally agree. Not presidential timber.
Roy5 said:
Code: 
 **Huntsman.** Perhaps the best candidate, but I don't know enough detail about him to support him as yet. Also a Mormon (see Romney above). Could vote for him, but he is very unlikely to win the nomination.
Click to expand...
The “best candidate” but you “don’t know enough detail about him” !!! Don’t understand you here.
Roy5 said:
Code: 
It's sad that none of the the GOPs candidates is without a major problem and/or weighty baggage. This would have been the election that they should win - and may yet, of course, depending upon many factors that continually are subject to change.
Click to expand...
No one is perfect. We are nominating a presidential candidate, not trying to canonize a saint. We have three candidates who have what it takes to be successful presidents: Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum. I believe it will be between Gingrich and Romney and that Romney will win. Also, I would vote for any of the candidates (including Paul) over Obama in a heartbeat.

Ishii
 
I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently. Chances are that if Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich get the nomination I’ll consider voting third party.*(Ventura 2012?)

I’m hoping Ron or Newt pull off a surprise leap to front runner, but it would have to be soon since the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary are only a little over a month away.

While I like both, I prefer and support Dr. Paul
 
ishii said:
We have three candidates who have what it takes to be successful presidents: Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum. I believe it will be between Gingrich and Romney and that Romney will win. Also, I would vote for any of the candidates (including Paul) over Obama in a heartbeat.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Ishii, why don’t you think Huntsman has what it takes? I’d actually think the Democrats in the Democratic Party might fear him more than Gingrich and Santorum in the ability to draw moderates in a general.
 
ishii said:
However, he is presidential, and experienced, and arguably stands the best chance of beating Obama. While there are no guarentees, I would be surprised if there was a skeleton waiting for an “October surprise” to be sprung on the week before election day. This may be attributed to his being a serious Mormon.

You liked him in the debates???!! He is done. Finished.

The only one who you could say is “charismatic”. YOu’re right, 9-9-9 is too simplistic but he’s not presidential. I don’t think he’d be a strong candidate against Obama.

Perhaps then, you could focus on his redemption and conversion to the catholic faith. I believe your aversion to Gingrich is misplaced. He is more than “well versed in history and govt.” He is an idea man who has a vision for America. He is a skillful politician and leader. He is a heavyweight who could be a statesman for America - in contrast to who we have apologizing for us around the world now.

His recent comments about being “friends with Iran” made him seem like the second coming of Neville Chamberlain. Look, there is much to like about Paul, but let’s be serious: he is not a serious candidate.

Interesting take. You wouldn’t vote for him if somehow he got the nomination? That seems a bit unfair.

Generally agree. Not presidential timber.

The “best candidate” but you “don’t know enough detail about him” !!! Don’t understand you here.

No one is perfect. We are nominating a presidential candidate, not trying to canonize a saint. We have three candidates who have what it takes to be successful presidents: Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum. I believe it will be between Gingrich and Romney and that Romney will win. Also, I would vote for any of the candidates (including Paul) over Obama in a heartbeat.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are saying about Huntman either. What does “Don’t understand you here” mean?
 
CMatt25 said:
Ishii, if whomever emerges from the GOP field wants to try running a campaign on Wall St being over regulated, I guess go for it.
Click to expand...
No. But campaign on Obama’s imcompetence in trying to turn the economy around by massive amounts of govt. spending. Its not about Wall Street being overregulated, but about the Obama admin. not sending a clear, consistent message that they are not the enemy of business. Instead, they play the class envy/business is bad card. Its no wonder why businesses are waiting to invest and hire. They don’t know what will come next from the incompetent Obama administration. This, btw, is party to blame for the length and severity of the Great Depression - the lack of a clear, consistent plan from FDR on the economy. Instead it was an erratic mish-mash that kept business guessing. Business want stability and consistency. They want confidence that the govt. isn’t going to do one thing this month then go and do aa 180 the next month. Then they will invest and hire. Doesn’t that make sense to you?

If you’re open to other ideas (and supposedly liberals by definition are) then you might read The forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes which was a NY Times bestseller. You don’t even have to read the whole thing. Just reading the introduction and the first chapter would enlighten you. Not sure why I’m even bothering with this, but in the outside chance that you want to go beyone the liberal cliches, check the book out. (incidentally, she points out some conservative myths about the Great Depression too).

amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0060936428/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320985271&sr=8-1

Check it out at your bookstore or library.

Ishii
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top