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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
:)

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.”
― Stephen Colbert
Click to expand...
 
well. seems the GOP still loathes Romney so -- and they are so dismayed at Perry's inept, Palin-like debate performances that have made the GOP money think he's an idiot, as well as his suggestion that maybe the children of illegal immigrants should be treated like human beings that enraged the racist base -- that there's more rumors of Chris Christie jumping into the GOP race.

Chris Christie back in spotlight as Perry sags - Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

now, at first glance, i think, "this is someone who could win independents, his appearance and "regional" appeal might be overcome by how refreshing he seems to be for calling out total BS on both sides, despite the fact that he initially won Republican hearts by slashing $10bn from school budgets in NJ. Republicans from the Northeast tend to be sane, like the Senators from Maine, perhaps. and, hey, Bloomberg likes him."

but then, if the GOP base is going to turn on Perry over his DREAM Act-like record in Texas, what are they going to make of a blue state governor who has appointed Muslims judges (and nicely slammed his bigoted critics), supports same-sex civil unions, gun control, and solar power.

will he survive a primary?

moreover, what does this say about Romney? we're already into the fall, have had numerous debates, Romney is clearly the class of this field and likely has enough business acumen to appeal to a certain amount of independents and who everyone says is by far the most (only?) plausible candidate ... and yet they still can't stand him?

you'd think a president struggling with the worst economy since the Great Depression and a 9% unemployment rate, despite myriad accomplishments, would be eminently beatable, just think of H.W. Bush in 1992.

but are the Republicans in such disarray, is the heart of the party so far to the right, that they can't even pull this one off?

just asking questions is all.
 
This is precisely why I think the Republicans are in trouble in a national election. NE Republicans are called RINOs by Southern and Mid-West Republicans and don't even get them started on California Republicans.

The regionality of the primary candidates is going to make the actual primaries very, very interesting.

In a National election, Romney and Christie have the best chance, but can they get out of the primary.
 
what about his Mormonism? for me, i could care less. Romney is much more modest about his religion than, say, W. Bush was, who used it as one of his primary qualifications for higher office. i see no evidence that he would pursue some sort of Mormon worldview in his policies in the way that W did. i see his Mormonism as no more or no less than any other typical politician's religion -- sure, it's there, but it's not cited as a raison d'etre, again, unlike W.

but this seems not good enough for the base? is this going to be an issue?

genuinely curious.
 
kramwest1 said:
He's a closet socialist from the People's Republic of Massachusetts
Click to expand...


Yeah it's the MA thing too

Mitt Romney doesn't even talk about his religion or his religion as related to his political beliefs, not that I can recall. I'm sure there must be instances (like gay marriage maybe? ) but he doesn't define himself that way or preach it. Maybe that hurts him.
 
Well, there was his big "Religion Speech" back in late 2007--we had a thread on it in here. But whatever exactly Romney really thinks about the ideal role of religion vis-a-vis government is a moot point, because the fact is if you belong to a minority religion in this country, it'd be political suicide for you to present your faith as a primary qualification for office, or to make a show out of praying with your particular brethren like Perry did, or to work it into your stump speeches on a day-to-day basis. All you'd be doing is underlining how different you are from the statistically average base voter, and especially in a presidential candidate that's a fatal mistake.
 
this could contribute to some (good) 'rated G' jokes


Why do Mormon women stop having babies at 35?
Because 36 is just too many.


What do you get when you cross a kleptomaniac and a Mormon?
A year’s supply of stolen food.


Who is the pushiest person in the world?
A Mormon missionary with an Amway distributorship on the side.
 
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.”
― Stephen Colbert
Click to expand...

And what's the best way to help the poor? Bigger government or private charities and philanthropists?

1) When help is given privately 70% or more of each dollar gets to an in-need recipient. Government is much less efficient as the inverse, 30% or less, reaches a welfare recipient.
2) Private charities and philanthropies are subject to market forces. Government charity is subject to political forces.
3) Private charities provide more localized and personable services and programs. Government charities are centralized, anonymous and lead more often to dependency.
4) Private charity is optional. Government taxes are coerced. (for the libertarians out there)

So why is President Obama pushing to have the tax deductions that wealthy Americans can claim for their charitable donations reduced? Despite bipartisan criticism and evidence that it will hurt private charities? For the exact reasons I listed. He wants the political power in increasing dependency on government programs. He wants the increased revenue to redistribute as he sees fit. And the incentive will not to be efficient with the spending but to blame failures on too little spending.

That and the fact the man is a true blue statist. He thinks government is always the solution. Sadly it's all he knows.
 
I've seen some funny slogans for a Cain vs Obama ballot.

Yes we Cain
Cain 2012, now without the Mc
Cain versus Not-Abel

and my favorite,

999 not 666
 
INDY500 said:
And what's the best way to help the poor? Bigger government or private charities and philanthropists?

1) When help is given privately 70% or more of each dollar gets to an in-need recipient. Government is much less efficient as the inverse, 30% or less, reaches a welfare recipient.
2) Private charities and philanthropies are subject to market forces. Government charity is subject to political forces.
3) Private charities provide more localized and personable services and programs. Government charities are centralized, anonymous and lead more often to dependency.
4) Private charity is optional. Government taxes are coerced. (for the libertarians out there)

So why is President Obama pushing to have the tax deductions that wealthy Americans can claim for their charitable donations reduced? Despite bipartisan criticism and evidence that it will hurt private charities? For the exact reasons I listed. He wants the political power in increasing dependency on government programs. He wants the increased revenue to redistribute as he sees fit. And the incentive will not to be efficient with the spending but to blame failures on too little spending.

That and the fact the man is a true blue statist. He thinks government is always the solution. Sadly it's all he knows.
Click to expand...
Dear Christ, talk about missing the point entirely.
 
INDY500 said:
And what's the best way to help the poor? Bigger government or private charities and philanthropists?.
Click to expand...



The hard truth is that *only* government possesses the organizational capacity and can marshal the resources to begin to deal with the systemic problems of health, poverty, and education in this country (as it does in any other country).

Private charity is lovely. Let's see private charity respond to a tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the earthquake in Haiti, or educate the South Side of Chicago.

Boystown was just a movie. The real world has problems far, far beyond the scope of charity alone to address.
 
What hurts Romney more than anything with that primary crowd is that he has no principles. He's all over the place on every issue and if Perry weren't drunk in the last debate, he could have flattened him on the spot. But Mittens (I love that name, haha) is slick and sharp as a tack.

Look at Paul and Cain or even a bit with Santorum. They have some decent support. And all three of them are flatly unelectable. The difference is in being seen as honest/sincere. Remember the attacks on John Kerry as a "flip-flopper". Nothing was more effective (rhetorically) in 2004 outside of Swiftboatism. And then they brought in their Mariano Rivera from the bullpen and closed the deal by scaring all those Ohioans of the gayz.

That shit is important to these people. Your word actually meaning something. This is part of why Perry has taken a beating, his words on social security. The Mormon angle with Romney is exaggerated. He believes in Jesus, that's good enough. The health care mandate is also a huge negative with social conservatives but not business conservatives. But the one thing business conservatives, religious conservatives and libertarian conservatives agree on - is that you better actually mean what you say.
 
it's true. while he's been much better in 2012, the rap against Romney in 2008 was that he was perhaps the most oleaginous politician anyone had ever seen.

it's just that when you're choosing between a used car salesman and a know-nothing ideologue, what are you going to do?
 
CBS News

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has repeatedly said he is not running for president. But one of his predecessors who has known Christie for decades says he is now at least thinking about it.

Former governor Tom Kean told the National Review Online that the chatter around Christie's change of heart in recent days is "real."

"He's giving it a lot of thought," Kean said. "I think the odds are a lot better now than they were a couple weeks ago."

Christie is scheduled to speak later Tuesday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. in remarks titled "Real American Exceptionalism."

The news comes as front-runner Rick Perry continues to get poor reviews for his debate performances. The Texas governor himself jumped into the race after initially saying he was not interested.

The chatter of Christie run may be just that. Kean, who would like to see Christie run, may have an interest in stirring up talk of presidential campaign.

"He is the best speaker I may have ever heard in politics," Kean told the National Review, adding "a lot of people are not satisfied with the field."

Republicans are clamoring for a candidate who will be able to energize the base and beat President Obama in a general election. Erstwhile front-runner Mitt Romney is widely seen as one of the strongest Republican candidates in a general election, but the most conservative parts of the party are less than thrilled with a candidate who was once governor of left-leaning Massachusetts.

Christie, as governor of Democratic New Jersey, may run into the same problem with Republican primary voters, who tend to be have the most conservative views of the party.

In New Jersey, however, Christie's approval rating has risen sharply since he signed into a law a dramatic revamp of pension and health benefits for state workers in June.

About 54 percent of voters in his state now approve of his performance as governor, while 36 percent disapprove, according to a poll released Tuesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind. That's a 10 point increase from the 44 percent approval in May, when about 44 percent also disapproved, and the highest approval rating for Christie since taking office after ousting former Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in 2009.
 
i still don't think Christie will enter, and i think he'll have issues with the base if he does, but i would welcome his entry. much like Romney, he's not insane. and i'd rather have Obama run against a sane person who is actually capable of running the country as opposed to running the risk of him running against a know-nothing fanatic and possibly losing, thus leaving the country beyond screwed.

also, anyone who's seen Springsteen 120 times can't be all bad.
 
He seems a bit insane, but it's more of an angry cranky insane..not a true insane. I would think the base would love his budget and spending cutting. Other than that I know nothing about his views. He just took the tax break away from Jersey Shore, so points for that.

I think the base would also love that he clearly doesn't pay any attention to the food police :wink:
 
Maximum entertainment is important - they should only be allowed to add Christie to the cast if they also add Palin.

Money wins in the end, and the Tea Party doesn't have the chops once the serious, serious cash starts flowing into those who actually have a clue, but in the meantime, please just make it as messy and ugly and entertaining as possible. Thanks!
 
INDY500 said:
And what's the best way to help the poor? Bigger government or private charities and philanthropists?

1) When help is given privately 70% or more of each dollar gets to an in-need recipient. Government is much less efficient as the inverse, 30% or less, reaches a welfare recipient.
2) Private charities and philanthropies are subject to market forces. Government charity is subject to political forces.
3) Private charities provide more localized and personable services and programs. Government charities are centralized, anonymous and lead more often to dependency.
4) Private charity is optional. Government taxes are coerced. (for the libertarians out there)

So why is President Obama pushing to have the tax deductions that wealthy Americans can claim for their charitable donations reduced? Despite bipartisan criticism and evidence that it will hurt private charities? For the exact reasons I listed. He wants the political power in increasing dependency on government programs. He wants the increased revenue to redistribute as he sees fit. And the incentive will not to be efficient with the spending but to blame failures on too little spending.

That and the fact the man is a true blue statist. He thinks government is always the solution. Sadly it's all he knows.
Click to expand...

The fact that you can't see how private charities aren't reaching enough shows that you haven't seen the facts about healthcare, education, or disaster recovery.

The fact that you don't think private charities aren't subject to political forces shows your vision is short sighted.

The fact that you really think that Obama is really trying to increase the dependency on government means you've been listening to too much Hannity and Beck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
916
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
12 13 14
Replies
401
Views
11K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom