GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 2

[BVS]

Both Romney and Perry have huge glaring big government hypocrisies(for those of us who understand the word) in their recent pasts. So those that know they need the tea party vote are worried that they might have a 2004 election on their hand, where the low rated incumbent might win due to apathy.

Are the tea party voters actually principled? This is the question people will be asking themselves. My guess is no.

But they talk a big talk, and that's why they like perry, he does the same thing.

 

[Irvine511]

Honestly, I wish I knew. I haven't heard many reasons that I think are valid other than Romneycare, which I think is relatively weak. Perry's got way more flaws.

i think there's no doubt that Romney is your strongest candidate.

and as i've said, from my perspective, he seems generally rational and competent and he's improved from 2008.

of course, that's what i thought about McCain right up until the moment he chose Palin for VP. (that's also when traditionally Republican money on Wall Street shifted to Obama -- because they understood that she was/is a lunatic).

i'd rather a closer race with someone who i think could actually be president rather than have O run against a lunatic who he'd probably beat but we'd still have that small chance that he could lose.

so, at the end of the day, i'm Team Mittens.

 

[anitram]

Mitt is their best pick (of the crowd so far) and the least frightening for the rest of us. Frankly, I don't think he'd preside much differently than Obama or any other person before him who was in cahoots with Wall Street one way or another.

His problem is that he stands for nothing, talks out of both sides of his mouth, believes 27 different things between Monday and Wednesday and comes across like a used car salesman in a Canali suit. The sort of person who would sell his mother if the price were right.

Essentially, Mitt ain't likeable. From a party who prefers guys that you "want to have a beer with", a bad thing.

 

[deep]

I don't think Tea Party, social conservatives, etc will sit out if Romney gets the nom.
Many claimed Hillary voters, and others in the Dem coalition would sit out 08 if Obama got the nom, Also, that was an extremely divided primary season, too.

But come November, there was so much momentum for a change that voters turnout was high in all groups.

I think that is what 2012 will be like. That means Romney will get votes from people that he was not their first or 2nd primary choice. Plus Romney could pull a Bush 1, and choose a junior Senator that has conservative bona fides. Rubio. That worked well for Bush1 in 88.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

His problem is that he stands for nothing, talks out of both sides of his mouth, believes 27 different things between Monday and Wednesday and comes across like a used car salesman in a Canali suit. The sort of person who would sell his mother if the price were right.

You pretty much nailed it

That and his hair doesn't move-I don't think it has moved since the 70's

 

[Irvine511]

i agree that people won't sit at home because it's Romney. but the desire, by some, to get Obama out will be great.

but i don't think there will be enough umpf behind Romney the way there was for Bush in '04 who had orange alerts to scare and fags to bash. after all, fear is what drives the right, and Romney doesn't seem to inspire any much emotion either which way.

 

[Irvine511]

You pretty much nailed it

That and his hair doesn't move-I don't think it has moved since the 70's

and his first name is actually Willard.

 

[Irvine511]

Mitt is their best pick (of the crowd so far) and the least frightening for the rest of us. Frankly, I don't think he'd preside much differently than Obama or any other person before him who was in cahoots with Wall Street one way or another.

on the big things, yes.

but on social issues, i'm sure he'll have to bash some gays and kick some Mexicans and hurt poor women to make the base happy and ensure that a Republican house will work with him.

 

[deep]

i agree that people won't sit at home because it's Romney. but the desire, by some, to get Obama out will be great.

but i don't think there will be enough umpf behind Romney the way there was for Bush in '04 who had orange alerts to scare and fags to bash. after all, fear is what drives the right, and Romney doesn't seem to inspire any much emotion either which way.

the GOP should not have been surprised in 2008, why?

the handwriting was on the wall from the 2006 election. plain and simple.


does everybody have amnesia? 2010 there was an election then, too

people were driven to the polls to vote against the Administration both in 06 and 10, but only a lot more so in 2010.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

and his first name is actually Willard.

And he allegedly strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario for a family vacation in 1983. It was the 80's and maybe people weren't as enlightened but you don't need to be a member of PETA to be skeeved out by that. The poor dog had an accident all over the car. I can't believe he survived.

I know that has nothing to do with being President but wtf. I still say wtf about that one. As a dog lover and just as a human being.

 

[anitram]

That and his hair doesn't move-I don't think it has moved since the 70's

Was it Jon Stewart who said "this is what happens when you don't let the gays touch your hair"?

 

[INDY500]

funny -- i assumed you were deeply offended by the Christie speech?

after all, he kept saying that "exceptionalism" was something we have to earn, that it isn't our birthright, that it's proved through our actions as a nation, and not something just automatically are because we are American.

so that's totally opposite to your posts on the topic.

Simply not true. I've said all along that we have to teach each generation its meaning and live up to the ideas it expounds.

 

[Irvine511]

Simply not true. I've said all along that we have to teach each generation its meaning and live up to the ideas it expounds.

and all that means, apparently, is keeping taxes low on rich people.

 

[INDY500]

and all that means, apparently, is keeping taxes low on rich all people.

 

[Irvine511]

a part of me is a little sad that being an American is only about money to you.

but i suppose that's been the GOP message since 1980.

 

[PhilsFan]

Why is that deserving of a thumbs up? Why the hard-on for making the rich richer?

 

[Irvine511]

Because, one day, you could win the lottery. And then you'd be rich. And in a society that worships money above all else, you'll then be one of the chosen ones. Then you'll be happy. Keep on praying. That financial deus ex machina is going to swoop in any minute and rapture make you rich.

 

[kramwest1]

And he allegedly strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario for a family vacation in 1983. It was the 80's and maybe people weren't as enlightened but you don't need to be a member of PETA to be skeeved out by that. The poor dog had an accident all over the car. I can't believe he survived.

I know that has nothing to do with being President but wtf. I still say wtf about that one. As a dog lover and just as a human being.

There's audio of him bragging about that.

I should look for it.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

There's audio of him bragging about that.

There is? Again, wtf?

Poor Seamus-on more than one level

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Pat Buchanan endorsed Herman Cain's controversial claim that black voters have been "brainwashed" into voting Democratic -- and, on Thursday, he added some very controversial opinions of his own to the mix.

On Wednesday, Cain told CNN that black voters "have been brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view." The comment received a lot of attention, and MSNBC's Martin Bashir asked Buchanan about it on his Thursday show. Buchanan said he wholeheartedly approved.

"I think the African American community has embraced Great Society liberalism which has been devastating for the African American family," he said. "...I admire Herman Cain for standing up and going against, if you will, the conventional wisdom, and being a tough African American businessman."

"Brainwashed?" Bashir said. "That's a fairly strong term."

"I think what he's saying is they bought a lot of liberal propaganda on the liberal plantation and I think he's right!" Buchanan replied staunchly.

"On the liberal plantation. Wow." Bashir said. "That's right," Buchanan said.




Former House Speaker and struggling presidential candidate Newt Gingrich sure has a way with words.

During a campaign event in Iowa Friday, Gingrich dismissed same-sex marriage as a "temporary aberration," reports Jason Clayworth for The Des Moines Register.

That choice of words could also perhaps be used to describe Gingrich's bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Despite being a long-time figure in Republican politics, the GOP hopeful's campaign is reportedly running low on cash and in the past month, he's been forced to compete against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry for media attention.

Gingrich's full remarks on the issue of same-sex marriage, in response to an audience question, are as follows: “I believe that marriage is between a man and woman," he said. "It has been for all of recorded history and I think this is a temporary aberration that will dissipate. I think that it is just fundamentally goes against everything we know.”

 

[Irvine511]

During a campaign event in Iowa Friday, Gingrich dismissed same-sex marriage as a "temporary aberration," reports Jason Clayworth for The Des Moines Register.

is he talking about SSM, or one of his three marriages?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

one of his three marriages?

I guess that would be a no- even serving divorce papers on his cancer stricken wife.

All kinds of aberrations are allowed in straight marriages-well, just cause they're straight marriages.

And of course any and all aberrations in Newt's marriages were because of his love of country zeal which forced him to have affairs. aka America boners.

 

[INDY500]

Why is that deserving of a thumbs up? Why the hard-on for making the rich richer?

and all that means, apparently, is keeping taxes low on rich all people.

Did you not notice I stuck the word rich and replaced it with all?

I want taxes low for everyone. So should you.

 

[deep]

Thank You Governor Perry - YouTube

the loose change sound track is a nice touch​

 

[deep]

.

that is Government out of control
killing the environment, giving us all cancer

 

[PhilsFan]

Did you not notice I stuck the word rich and replaced it with all?

I want taxes low for everyone. So should you.

I did notice. My post stands. Why should I want really rich people to pay the same tax rate as me or my even poorer neighbor? What good does that do any of us?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The problem is this whole buffett rule is just posturing. It won't accomplish anything. The majority of these big wigs make very little actual "income." The majority of their wealth is in long term investments, which are taxed at a much, much lower rate.

So the country is screaming for a higher income tax rate for the super rich, when the reality is that wont really effect the super rich because the majority of their money is in long term investments.

They won't play around with capital gains tax out of the fear that people will pull their money from the stock market.

So we're fucked.

 

[anitram]

They won't play around with capital gains tax out of the fear that people will pull their money from the stock market.

So we're fucked.

That isn't their motivation. If it were then Canadians, who are currently in a situation about 20x better than the Americans would not be investing in the stock market at all. 50% of capital gains in Canada are taxable at your respective income tax rate. There are other examples in the world as well.

The real reason is the lobby preventing this.

Just like the lobby preventing the very sensible financial speculation or financial transaction tax, proposed by such communists like Sarkozy and Merkel.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Fair enough... but they still won't touch it, and sell this phony income tax increase instead.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

The only thing that is phony is pretending it's going to solve everything.

We could use an extra 800 billion in tax revenue that was in place the last time the budget was actually balanced. And BEFORE all these Baby Boomers start retiring. And BEFORE we had to finance two wars. And BEFORE bailouts and...you get the idea.

Federal revenues average about 18% (to GDP) over the last 30 years.
It was at 20% when the budget was actually balanced last in FY 2000/2001.
Revenues were lower in 2003 and 2004 than they are now in 2011.
Those Bush tax cuts directly affected/added to the deficit.
The outrageous spending under Obama has quadrupled it.
They are both part of the problem.

The bottom line is, revenues need to be higher than recent historical average (18%) because expenses are going up. We got to 20% under the Clinton rates, we can't get back there without them. There's nothing phony about simple math.

But yeah, the reliance on taxing the rich, as if it is the biggest key to the whole puzzle is phony and political. We need to increase revenues somehow. Cutting spending is also a HUGE piece of the puzzle.

We could be cutting spending NOW if the Democrats weren't using that to leverage those tax cuts...aside from never wanting to cut anything.