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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
ok, we are about three days out


so lets predict the Iowa GOP Cauci finish order

here is my best guess:

1. Romney
2. Paul
3. Santorum
4. Gingrich
5. Perry
6. Bachmann
7. Huntsman



1 and 2 could flip

and 3 and 4 could flip

I am very confident I got 5 6 and 7 in the right order.

If this truly was a horse race,
my winnings at the track would be much better.
 
MASON CITY, Iowa -- Mitt Romney on Thursday sought to portray President Barack Obama as out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans -- a charge he himself has often faced -- by comparing the president to a former French queen who was overthrown during the French Revolution.

"When the president's characterization of our economy was, 'It could be worse,' it reminded me of Marie Antoinette: 'Let them eat cake,'" Romney said, referring to the infamously dismissive remark toward the poor attributed to the queen.

"This is not a time to be talking about, 'It could be worse.' It's a time to recognize that things should be better," Romney said during an interview on his campaign bus with The Huffington Post. "And the president's policies have failed the American people, have led to 25 million people still being out of work. He didn't cause the recession, but he has made it deeper and has made the recovery more tepid and the pain last longer."
 
MASON CITY, Iowa -- Mitt Romney on Thursday sought to portray President Barack Obama as out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans -- a charge he himself has often faced -- by comparing the president to a former French queen who was overthrown during the French Revolution.

"When the president's characterization of our economy was, 'It could be worse,' it reminded me of Marie Antoinette: 'Let them eat cake,'" Romney said, referring to the infamously dismissive remark toward the poor attributed to the queen.

"This is not a time to be talking about, 'It could be worse.' It's a time to recognize that things should be better," Romney said during an interview on his campaign bus with The Huffington Post. "And the president's policies have failed the American people, have led to 25 million people still being out of work. He didn't cause the recession, but he has made it deeper and has made the recovery more tepid and the pain last longer."

So, the Obama message of 2008 "Hope & Change" and "Change you can belive in" has now dwindled to or been replaced with "It could be worse?"

Please say this isn't so....:|
 
"When the president's characterization of our economy was, 'It could be worse,' it reminded me of Marie Antoinette: 'Let them eat cake,'" Romney said, referring to the infamously dismissive remark toward the poor attributed to the queen.

Right, "attributed" but easily disproven.

President Obama did say however, “Things aren’t as bad as they could have been, this could have been a catastrophe, in that sense it [the stimulus] worked.”
 
I dunno ... bringing up old-timey French queens? Sounds like stuff only elite folk knows about.

But I can see how "it could be worse," while true, could rub someone the wrong way, if they've been hit hard by all the crap raining down around them.
 
MASON CITY, Iowa -- Mitt Romney on Thursday sought to portray President Barack Obama as out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans -- a charge he himself has often faced -- by comparing the president to a former French queen who was overthrown during the French Revolution.

"When the president's characterization of our economy was, 'It could be worse,' it reminded me of Marie Antoinette: 'Let them eat cake,'" Romney said, referring to the infamously dismissive remark toward the poor attributed to the queen.

"This is not a time to be talking about, 'It could be worse.' It's a time to recognize that things should be better," Romney said during an interview on his campaign bus with The Huffington Post. "And the president's policies have failed the American people, have led to 25 million people still being out of work. He didn't cause the recession, but he has made it deeper and has made the recovery more tepid and the pain last longer."

And his plan is...what, then, to fix that? This is the same guy who infamously said, "Corporations are people" a number of months back. But clearly he's totally "in touch" :rolleyes:.

This story's from my town-if I weren't so bogged down with work, I would have liked to get a chance to attend that meeting, lob a question or two his way. I think Santorum was here the other day, too.
 
Which is true.

Ok, it woulda been worse but could it have been better?

You can't prove something that didn't occur but, 3 years out, would the recovery (joblessness, economy and finances) be stronger now if we'd swallowed hard and let the market take care of the housing and auto failures instead of government bailouts; reformed entitlements rather than creating a new one; cut government spending rather than adding 5 trillion in debt and getting downgraded; and pursued American energy?

Can't be proven that it would be... but some of us have a hunch.
 
the GOPs days are (should be) numbered

BTN_graphic1230.jpg


their best strategy? > voter suppression,
and they are working it with everything they got!
 
the GOPs days are (should be) numbered

BTN_graphic1230.jpg


their best strategy? > voter suppression,
and they are working it with everything they got!

The United States will have more black, brown, and yellow (and purple?) than white people by 2050.

Eventually former minorities are going to figure out how to get their fair share of the pie.

Either that or all the white baby-boomers will be dead, as well :up:
 
Ok, it woulda been worse but could it have been better?

You can't prove something that didn't occur but, 3 years out, would the recovery (joblessness, economy and finances) be stronger now if we'd swallowed hard and let the market take care of the housing and auto failures instead of government bailouts; reformed entitlements rather than creating a new one; cut government spending rather than adding 5 trillion in debt and getting downgraded; and pursued American energy?

Can't be proven that it would be... but some of us have a hunch.

Whose policy was the bailout? You know, the one in the fall of 2008?

As for the fiscal stimulus (the one-time expenditures that Obama started in 2009) was good policy and strongly supported by Bernanke (that Marxist). Obama inherited a recession marked by a contracting economy and insufficient aggregate demand. The first step in terms of the government response was to effect monetary policy by cutting interest rates. They'd already cut them to zero by the end of 2008 and there had not been a positive response. At that point, you have the government properly stepping in to become a sort of buyer of last resort, which has historically been effective. You can debate whether by the time the stimulus $ got to where it needed to go (due to the length it takes for bills to pass and funds to flow), and you can fault Democrats for all sorts of pork barrel politics. But you cannot debate that the economic recovery would have been slower and more jobs would have been lost due to the cyclical nature of insufficient aggregate demand. You may postulate that the debt and deficit would have been lowered, but this is a debateable point.

I think that you completely ignore the positive effect that a government stimulus has in terms of encouraging the business community and increasing business confidence. Simple proof of that can be seen in the stock markets which jump wildly at even minor announcements of government intervention. And that in itself has a positive effect on the economy and brings in more government revenues in the long run.

I don't believe it would have been better, and I haven't read an argument from you showing me how you think it would be either. :shrug:
 
Ok, it woulda been worse but could it have been better?

You can't prove something that didn't occur but, 3 years out, would the recovery (joblessness, economy and finances) be stronger now if we'd swallowed hard and let the market take care of the housing and auto failures instead of government bailouts; reformed entitlements rather than creating a new one; cut government spending rather than adding 5 trillion in debt and getting downgraded; and pursued American energy?

Can't be proven that it would be... but some of us have a hunch.

Take a look at the run on the banks that led to the Great Depression. It was the Government's non-involvement that exacerbated the lack of confidence in the banking system, and led to the greatest economic downturn in history. There is no question that without TARP, things would have been much, much worse today.

To give you a look at where things were heading, after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, credit markets froze. There was an evaporation of trust. Banks stopped lending. Forget Wall Street, even the behemoth GE was having trouble meeting it's short term financing, and would have certainly gone under had it not been for TARP. There was a chance that McDonald's was not going to be able to pay it's workers in the next week because it couldn't access short term financing.

All in all, we needed a restoration of trust in the banking system, and the only party that was large enough to take action was the U.S. Government. It's silly to think that the affect of free markets can't be proven, because the Great Depression is a perfect example that disproves anyone who thinks government should have stayed out of it. All this anti-TARP talk coming from most of the Republican candidates is designed to appeal to the stupidity of the American public.
 
All this anti-TARP talk coming from most of the Republican candidates is designed to appeal to the stupidity of the American public.

And/or their short memories. Not just Americans, all peoples are like this, at least in the West. It's part of human nature to quickly forget traumatic events, almost as though they never happened. I assume there is a good evolutionary reason for this. But I digress.
 
A President McCain wouldn't have done anything differently.

McCain is about as daft as a mad ole brush that has been left in the sun for too long. I could easily picture him starting WWIII if his Viagra prescription wasn't renewed or some such.
 
ok, we are about three days out


so lets predict the Iowa GOP Cauci finish order

here is my best guess:

1. Romney
2. Paul
3. Santorum
4. Gingrich
5. Perry
6. Bachmann
7. Huntsman



1 and 2 could flip

and 3 and 4 could flip

I am very confident I got 5 6 and 7 in the right order.

If this truly was a horse race,
my winnings at the track would be much better.

1-Romney
2-Santorum
3-Paul
4-Fatso
5-Perry
6-Michelle
7-Cheeseman

<>
 
He certainly would have. One of his promises for when he took office was a spending freeze across the board on everything other then Defense, S.S., Medicare/Medicaid.

He said this after the economic meltdown in the fall of 2008?
 
Yes I think Romney might be cleverly distorting what Obama said about the bailouts, etc-that it could have been a depression. Just like the laziness comment is being distorted. The candidates can throw out these soundbites and if people don't research them, and they're already predisposed to believe them-they work.

I'm not some diehard Obama supporter but I hardly think the man is dumb or insensitive enough to make those kinds of comments.

As for Santorum if everything else about him isn't bad enough, I knew he was a complete idiot when he said that it was no surprise that the church sex abuse scandal was centered in Boston because it's just so librul there. F him, basically. He's a joke to me.

And I saw a clip of Newt crying talking about his late mother, I liked seeing him be human. Where is all the criticism of his crying the way Hillary was criticized?
 
This could change, but as of now-

1) Romney, in the mid 20s, maybe even approaching 30
2) Paul, very close behind
3) Santorum, mid-teens
4) Gingrich, low-teens
5) Perry, high single digits or low double digits
6) Bachmann, mid-single digits
7) Huntsman, barely registering

Both Bachmann and Santorum need top 3 or else they drop out.
 
When asked during a tele-town hall organized by the Faith and Freedom Coalition whether he would consider the former Alaska governor as his running mate in 2012, Newt Gingrich explained that he would definitely consider her for that position.

Gingrich stated that he was a “great admirer” of Palin’s, and argued that her record of political reform in Alaska was impressive enough that he would expect her to bring the same spirit to Washington. But the candidate also brought up the possibility that Palin’s record on energy independence would make her an ideal candidate for Energy Secretary in his administration.

“I can’t imagine anybody who would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Governor Palin.”
 
He certainly would have. One of his promises for when he took office was a spending freeze across the board on everything other then Defense, S.S., Medicare/Medicaid.

Your use of "certainly" makes me chuckle. Because presidential candidates always keep their campaign promises.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom