The 2012 GOP Presidential Field Is Set

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marco Rubio: GOP Must Be the ‘Pro-Legal Immigration Party:’

The Republican Party must be seen favoring legal immigration, rather than being known for its stance against illegal immigration, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said Thursday.

Calling for a modernization of federal immigration laws, the freshman Republican added that the GOP should be known for what it stands for, not for what it is against.

Rubio, who is widely viewed as a rising star in the Republican Party, made his remarks at the 2011 National Lawyers Convention, after delivering a speech about American exceptionalism.

cnsnews.com/news/article/marco-rubio-gop-must-be-pro-legal-immigration-party
 
South Carolina will set the stage for the South, and they have stated they will vote Romney if they “must”. They favor Cain, unless its changed in the past week. Which I suppose it has a bit.

Florida moved it primary up to the end of January also. While the Gov has fell out of favor, the Obama handling of the Oil Spill and Obamacare are unacceptable in Fla. And rightfully so, if you lived on the West Coast of Fla, you’d want to deal with that again? Never mind the way it was handled. They are not the only Gulf Coast state opposed either. Obamacare is a statewide issue their also that has drawn a lot of press.

You can’t gauge the Gov, popularity in favor of Obama in Fla, thats propaganda. I don’t see or hear it either. I have family living on the West Coast and I use to live on the East. If anyones talking Obama its the Palm Beach area. Aside from that I haven’t heard much Obama, they been silent. Rightfully so, people are hot their on the West Coast.
 
Sorry, but Florida isn’t as important as South Carolina. Only South Carolina has the distinction of correctly naming the GOP nominee in every primary process since I think that primary began. Maybe it began back with Nixon.

Anyways, whoever wins South Carolina will win the nomination. And, I think it will probably lead to Florida as well.
Right, I agree. Especially with Florida moving the date up to the end of January. Without a doubt it will have a snowball effect in the South.
 
Marco Rubio: GOP Must Be the ‘Pro-Legal Immigration Party:’

The Republican Party must be seen favoring legal immigration, rather than being known for its stance against illegal immigration, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said Thursday.

Calling for a modernization of federal immigration laws, the freshman Republican added that the GOP should be known for what it stands for, not for what it is against.

Rubio, who is widely viewed as a rising star in the Republican Party, made his remarks at the 2011 National Lawyers Convention, after delivering a speech about American exceptionalism.

cnsnews.com/news/article/marco-rubio-gop-must-be-pro-legal-immigration-party
Right, this is correct also. And rightfully so. Look at the Latino poplulation in South Florida?
 
Then why do you think he’s running? I ask seriously. Do you think he’s trying to increase the value of his brand? Lecture circuit $$, etc. ? (Cain has been said to be motivated by this).

Ishii
I can only offer you baseless speculation, but here goes:

There seems to me to be a “sweet spot” within the presidential slate, were a candidate is high enough in the polls to get good press coverage, but not so high that he gets attacked by the opposition (whomever they may be - e.g., Cain’s mysterious “machine”).

I think Newt is hitting that sweet spot and would probably like to stay there. People will listen to what he has to say and he likes to talk! He seems to really enjoy being perceived as a prickly sort of guy who sounds smart. That would all go away if he gets too high in the polls and his “opponents” start attacking him and he has to spend all his time answering questions about his character & past exploits.

I wouldn’t hold it against him for wanting to increase the value of his brand. From what I have heard, he does not have substantial personal wealth like Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsmen. So you could say he needs to work to earn a living, and unlike Cain (whom I fully believe is no more than a Koch brothers puppet) - he doesn’t have any “brothers from another mother” with oodles of money to take care of him when all is said and done. So getting shellacked by the “opposition” could really hurt him.

I don’t think he could beat Obama in a general election. However, as I have said before - a debate between the two would be great!

That’s about it!
 
Sorry, but I have followed Gingrich for years. He is gifted in debate and can present himself as an informed American patriot. Yet, I think he is a fraud. I know that this is harsh, but that is my conclusion. His guiding principle is power, and I suspect that he married a beautiful woman (his third marriage) and became Catholic in part to provide a facade to give him a shot at becoming president. His defenders would compare him to St. Paul and St. Augustine who found the truth and converted. What an insult to these two great saints!
Code:
 If Obama is to be defeated, Gingrich will not do it. The large majority of Americans will be alienated once they hear in detail about his financial shananigans, his mistreatment of his previous two wives, his flagrant adultery, his huge $ account at Tiffanys (since his third marriage), trouble within his staff, etc. Women especially will vote against him, and for the GOP to talk of family values will cause only derision and laughter. I can hear the Stewarts, Lenos, and Lettermans already. Perhaps a third party could emerge to so divide the conservative vote that even in states of the deep South Obama would win by a plurality because of a solid African-American vote plus white southern liberals and Latinos..

 A President Gingrich would be a public embarrassment on the world stage, in part because of his personal problems, but also because of his pious arrogance. What a disaster this would be!  And Catholicism also would be a loser because of it. He would bring shame to the church.
 
Sorry, but I have followed Gingrich for years. He is gifted in debate and can present himself as an informed American patriot. Yet,** I think** he is a fraud. I know that this is harsh, but that is my conclusion. His guiding principle is power, and** I suspect** that he married a beautiful woman (his third marriage) and became Catholic in part to provide a facade to give him a shot at becoming president. His defenders would compare him to St. Paul and St. Augustine who found the truth and converted. What an insult to these two great saints!
Code:
 If Obama is to be defeated, Gingrich will not do it. The large majority of Americans will be alienated once they hear in detail about his financial shananigans, his mistreatment of his previous two wives, his flagrant adultery, his huge $ account at Tiffanys (since his third marriage), trouble within his staff, etc. Women especially will vote against him, and for the GOP to talk of family values will cause only derision and laughter. I can hear the Stewarts, Lenos, and Lettermans already. Perhaps a third party could emerge to so divide the conservative vote that even in states of the deep South Obama would win by a plurality because of a solid African-American vote plus white southern liberals and Latinos..

 A President Gingrich would be a public embarrassment on the world stage, in part because of his personal problems, but also because of his pious arrogance. What a disaster this would be!  And Catholicism also would be a loser because of it. He would bring shame to the church.
All I needed to know, pure speculation.
 
Sorry, but I have followed Gingrich for years. He is gifted in debate and can present himself as an informed American patriot. Yet, I think he is a fraud. I know that this is harsh, but that is my conclusion. His guiding principle is power, and I suspect that he married a beautiful woman (his third marriage) and became Catholic in part to provide a facade to give him a shot at becoming president. His defenders would compare him to St. Paul and St. Augustine who found the truth and converted. What an insult to these two great saints!
Code:
 If Obama is to be defeated, Gingrich will not do it. The large majority of Americans will be alienated once they hear in detail about his financial shananigans, his mistreatment of his previous two wives, his flagrant adultery, his huge $ account at Tiffanys (since his third marriage), trouble within his staff, etc. Women especially will vote against him, and for the GOP to talk of family values will cause only derision and laughter. I can hear the Stewarts, Lenos, and Lettermans already. Perhaps a third party could emerge to so divide the conservative vote that even in states of the deep South Obama would win by a plurality because of a solid African-American vote plus white southern liberals and Latinos...
Ouch. You have just layed out the strategy of the Democrat party should Newt somehow get the nomination. The only thing that might give Newt a better chance is if the economy and the country are even worse than now. Don’t underestimate the possibility that this might be a very different election than before. Also, I think that Newt offers the best possibility of confronting Obama and liberalism in a way that they have never been confronted and challenged before. But as you say, the election could end up being about Newt’s baggage. If so, I think it will be an uphill battle for Newt.
A President Gingrich would be a public embarrassment on the world stage, in part because of his personal problems, but also because of his pious arrogance. What a disaster this would be! And Catholicism also would be a loser because of it. He would bring shame to the church.
On the contrary, I think Gingrich would be a big improvement over Obama and Clinton, who were both arrogant, finger waving types.
I think he is a fraud. I know that this is harsh, but that is my conclusion. His guiding principle is power, and I suspect that he married a beautiful woman (his third marriage) and became Catholic in part to provide a facade to give him a shot at becoming president. His defenders would compare him to St. Paul and St. Augustine who found the truth and converted. What an insult to these two great saints!
Tell us what you really think, Roy5. I think that its okay to criticize Newt for his past indiscretions. But are we not all sinners Roy5? And, who are you to question the sincerity of his conversion? You are treading on shaky ground here. The severity of your criticisms and judgement of what is inside Newt’s heart call into question your objectivity. Therefore I will take these last comments with a large grain of salt, as should everyone else.

Ishii
 
The ideas of Newt Gingrich are superior to ALL ELSE. They are superior in the Republican field. They are superior to those of Barack Obama.

So, what do you do when you can’t beat someone in a substantive debate? You smear his character, his family. You personally attack him in any way you can.

Well, I think Newt already knew this was coming. It hasn’t come yet. But, when it does he isn’t going to let the news media turn away from issues which this country NEEDS to be talking about, to talk about the past of one American.

Has anyone heard the saying of “bury the hatchet” “it’s water under the bridge”.

Newt Gingrich’s transgressions happened a long time ago. He is happily married. He made a sincere religious conversion (to his wife’s religion of Catholicism). He says he’s a different man. He spent over 10 years out of politics, he’s now a grandfather.

If you people want to talk about things that Newt did in his past (when I was less than 10 years old), and I’ll be 20 when I vote for Newt. Go ahead. **Anyone who does that doesn’t know how to bury a hatchet. **

Whatever Newt did in his private life, it didn’t lead to killing babies. As did the actions of Barack Obama. He has their blood on his hands.
 
moderator notice
participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see [thread=132852]charity[/thread] for specifics, or [thread=116150]caf rules[/thread] for an overview, both of which are located in the rules of the road sub-forum.
 
Well, it’s either Perry or Gingrich for me. Still have to think about it some more.

As far as Gingrich’s personal issues are concerned, the guy has cleaned up his life, as far as I can tell, and the baggage out there is all old news (unlike, say, Herman Cain, though the veracity of the allegations against him can be disputed).

Perry’s generally good, but he’s a bad debater. That’ll be problematic in the general.
 
Code:
Well, it's either Perry or Gingrich for me. Still have to think about it some more.
Perry’s generally good, but he’s a bad debater. That’ll be problematic in the general.
Keep thinking about it. Perry can’t debate his way out of a paper bag and his candidacy is pretty much over, as is Cain’s imo. It will be a race between Romney and Gingrich. I would give the edge to Romney. Not sure who would be the best general election candidate. Romney would be the less risky, Gingrich would be like throwing the long bomb for a touchdown. You might win big, but you might also throw an interception or incomplete pass. Or get sacked, more likely. With Romney, its like keeping the ball on the ground to not get a turnover when you’re down two points, get into field goal range to try to win by one, but its a long field goal attempt and the wind is blowing.

Ishii
 
I am not a much of a Ron Paul supporter, although I think he would be a big improvement over Obama, is it true Ron Paul got 90 seconds of talking time in the CBS debate?
 
I am not a much of a Ron Paul supporter, although I think he would be a big improvement over Obama, is it true Ron Paul got 90 seconds of talking time in the CBS debate?
He’s a good man well liked from years of service in Congress. Yes his time has been very limited. I’m not sure why he’s been intentionally overlooked. At least it appears this way.

His cuts without a doubt are drastic, yet were in a difficult period, so I’m not so quick to dismiss his thinking. He makes perfect sense to me. And I agree, I see no reason to continue the expense of Afghanistan. And that cut of expense will save the need to cut needed military improvements which are on the chopping block.

Washington could use some fat cut off also. He’s Pro-LIfe, Christian, and a firm believer in the Constitution.

I believe he’ll be very much in this race as the next few months arrive. Once the Primarys start he’ll have his chance to speak.

Peace
 
** Ron Paul will never get the nomination for a variety of reasons.** He is too libertarian for most, even among right-wing Republicans. He also has always voted against the many billions we give every year to Israel. That is a no-no. Between the Israel lobby and the evangelicals, both of whom are totally committed to Israel no matter what, he wouldn’t have a chance. Ask Pat Buchanan. I’m surprised that he is still on TV, though I have noted that he no longer is critical of Israel. With him, it’s a bread and butter matter. I admire Ron Paul’s courage. A man of rare courage.

** Just to clarify, I am pro-Israel. But the Israeli government under Netanyahu is totally unreasonable, **constantly building more settlements on what little land is left for a Palestinian state. If the USA had been wiser, it would have forced a fair settlement years ago that would have created peace as well as a secure Israel. Instead, Israel and the USA foolishly gave impetus to Muslim terrorists who scoffed at US ‘fairness’ and ‘democracy’ while we continued to lavishly support the Israeli occupation. Both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI have said as much, though in light of Christian history it is not easy to do anything that can be misinterpreted as anti-Semitic. To have an even-handed policy in the Holy Land is not to be anti-Semitic. It would be an enormous favor for Israel in the long run. It’s comparable to ‘friends don’t let drunk friends drive’.

** As for the debate Saturday evening**, in my view Huntsman was the most reasonable. Huntsman won’t get the nomination, of course. All the rest, except Paul were as irresponsibly hawkish as you can get, which apparently appeals to the far right. Raised in a conservative family myself, I recall how my very Republican Dad thought that the USA should follow the advice of George Washington and keep out of wars that did not involve self-defense. How the GOP had changed! We can’t solve all the problems of the world and when we try we lose out - and even risk bankruptcy, Can you imagine another war, this time against Iran? There are powerful forces, some economic, some paranoid, others simply brain-washed, which want to alarm us into one. Didn’t we learn a lesson in Iraq?
Code:
** 9/11 was an evil attack, true, and we had to respond against Al Qaeda and the Taliban,** but our misguided, twisted, biased policy in the Middle East had played into the hands of Isliamic crazies. The invasion of Iraq was a catastrophe. Saddam was evil, but he was despised by bin Laden as an infidel. We lost 4000 brave soldiers, thousands more returned home seriously injured, ten of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians were killed, we spent probably $3 trillion when everything is added up, we increased the influence of Iran, we alienated allies, our invasion led to persecution of Christians more than half of whom have fled, most to Syria, we opened up Iraq to religious civil war plus greater al Qaeda influence - and we could go on and on. Americans were united after 9-11, but the invasion of Iraq succeeded in seriously dividing us. As you can see, it alienated me.
** The GOP candidate I would never vote for is Gingrich.** It’s fine to talk about burying the hatchet, but more recently he established - how much was it? - a $500,000 credit line at Tiffanys! And much of his staff quit. Sadly, he has a gift for gab and considerable knowledge which he exploits and misuses. If he were president I believe he would embarrass Catholicism. What kind of family values does he represent? Because of his record, by the way, I believe he would be solidly defeated by Obama. Once the skeletons were brought out of his closet he would become toast. He brings to mind the recently-resigned top dog in Italy.

** As for the candidates and their performance at the Wofford debate,** I would give Huntsman an A - with the most experience and what seems to be the most intelligent position on foreign policy. Romney, Perry, and Paul get a B. Cain and Santorum get a C, Gingrich and Bachmann get a D. Did I miss somebody? Hm! Like Perry I can’t remember!
**God bless America.** May our voters choose wisely.So much is at stake,
 
As for the candidates and their performance at the Wofford debate, I would give Huntsman an A - with the most experience and what seems to be the most intelligent position on foreign policy. Romney, Perry, and Paul get a B. Cain and Santorum get a C, Gingrich and Bachmann get a D. Did I miss somebody? Hm! Like Perry I can’t remember!

God bless America. May our voters choose wisely.So much is at stake,
Huntsman pretty much gives the status quo on foreign policy. Since he was an ambassador to a major power in the last 2 years, I would hope he would be up to date on foreign policy, at least as expressed by the State Dept.

Romney did an excellent job as usual

Gingrich did very well and schooled the CBS commentator on constitutional law.

Perry didn’t make a major flub but was not up to Romney or Gingrich’s level

Santorum and Bachmann both didn’t penitrate the bottom tier with their performances. Santorum appeard angry.

Paul didn’t speak enough to rate.
 
Huntsman pretty much gives the status quo on foreign policy. Since he was an ambassador to a major power in the last 2 years, I would hope he would be up to date on foreign policy, at least as expressed by the State Dept.

Romney did an excellent job as usual

Gingrich did very well and schooled the CBS commentator on constitutional law.

Perry didn’t make a major flub but was not up to Romney or Gingrich’s level

Santorum and Bachmann both didn’t penitrate the bottom tier with their performances. Santorum appeard angry.

Paul didn’t speak enough to rate.
What else is new. Paul never gets enough time to speak. The debates are basically set up to showcase Romney and the other top pollers. Bachmann was snubbed too.
 
What else is new. Paul never gets enough time to speak. The debates are basically set up to showcase Romney and the other top pollers. Bachmann was snubbed too.
I don’t like the format of these “debates.” They are like a game show. The best debate so far was the one between Newt and Cain they actually had time to put together complete thoughts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top