GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3

[deep]

job 1. - lock up the nomination

Romney Wins CPAC Presidential Straw Poll | Fox News


job 2. - win in November

 

[financeguy]

Actually, I kind of see it the opposite.

With Gingrich and Santorum, you have two guys who have legacies that badly need to be repaired- Gingrich from being thrown out of the Speakership and Santorum from losing re-election in 2006 by 20 points. I truly think that was their sole reason for running in 2012- to try to run an honorable, positive campaign (with no realistic expectation of going anywhere), and then ending their careers on a better note than they otherwise would have. But since all the non-Romneys proved to be sub-par candidates, I think they were legitimately surprised when they actually started gaining some traction.

With Romney you've got a guy who is incredibly wealthy, has a massive family to keep him busy, could probably get a job anywhere in the country if he wanted one, and has no legacy that needs repairing. Yet he seems to have a knack and a passion for turning things around, and feels he would be a competent fit for the presidency and the needs of America right now. But unlike the others, he in no way "needs" this run for office.

That's my impression also. I could be deluding myself but I'd like to think Romney is in this race for the right reasons, in a way that the other GOP candidates aren't (excepting Paul and Huntsman, and the latter has dropped out, while the former has had a poor run of results of late). Let's face it, there have been easier times in the nation's history, to put it mildly, to run for President. Granted, he seems to have a hard time demonstrating to the public that he's in it for the right reasons, but it's early days yet.

There is an optics issue around his wealth and the perception that the Presidency should not be handed out as a bauble for a rich man, but if we are going to disqualify rich men from running for President, well, that pretty much disqualifies all the current candidates, none of whom, last time I checked, are on the breadline.

 

[Canadiens1131]

That's my impression also. I could be deluding myself but I'd like to think Romney is in this race for the right reasons, in a way that the other GOP candidates aren't (excepting Paul and Huntsman, and the latter has dropped out, while the former has had a poor run of results of late). Let's face it, there have been easier times in the nation's history, to put it mildly, to run for President. Granted, he seems to have a hard time demonstrating to the public that he's in it for the right reasons, but it's early days yet..

Romney could easily be running as a Democrat in the post-9/11 American political landscape.

I honestly look at him as a white Obama at this point, except with some private sector experience slashing and burning unprofitable companies. It is a bit worrying, however, knowing your well-founded skepticism, Financeguy, that you seem to be glossing over the fact that he is the same kind of falsely warm and calculating political shark that Obama is; easily playing the long game.

He might have gotten my vote if he wasn't attached to a party full of antiquated, hateful social policies and closeted homosexuals pretending they love America, oil, and vaginas. It's sad but I think of a Republican POTUS more in terms of long-term damage to America from handing out a couple of SCOTUS appointments.

 

[anitram]

It is a bit worrying, however, knowing your well-founded skepticism, Financeguy, that you seem to be glossing over the fact that he is the same kind of falsely warm and calculating political shark that Obama is; easily playing the long game.

Not to mention that for all the concerns about plutocracy taking over, FG suddenly seem to not mind at all that if there is one candidate who really and truly IS the plutocracy, it's Romney.

 

[deep]

Mitt Romney bounces back, wins Maine caucuses - latimes.com

Maine was Paul's best shot

looks good for Romney from here on out, Ohio is kind of important,
expect a couple bible belt states to go Gingrich

 

[financeguy]

Not to mention that for all the concerns about plutocracy taking over, FG suddenly seem to not mind at all that if there is one candidate who really and truly IS the plutocracy, it's Romney.

I've been a Ron Paul advocate since way back when, but I've also learned to be realistic. If there's anyone I've been shilling for on this forum, it's Ron Paul.

Romney is not even in my top five preferred candidates. With the GOP candidates, I prefer Paul and Huntsman. If we are to include candidates that were encouraged to throw their hat in the ring, but decided they were not interested, I would prefer Bloomberg to Romney - and I have many reservations about Bloomberg - so that should tell you something about how I view Romney.

If we were to go back to 2008, Kucinch was infinitely preferable to me than Obama as a Democratic candidate, given my firm anti-war and pacifist views, but like Paul, realistically, he is unelectable.

It seems that on this forum, on the one hand I'm bashed for conspiracy theories, on the other, I'm now shilling for the plutocrat candidate! In my opinion, Obama is a crap president, and if it's between him and Romney, my preference would be for the latter. That's really about it from my point of view.

 

[deep]

It's sad but I think of a Republican POTUS more in terms of long-term damage to America from handing out a couple of SCOTUS appointments.

Sad or not, that is the reality.

I do expect a GOP Senate and House, GOP will lose some House seats but keep majority.

And with that in mind, even a reasonable GOP like Romney, is a no go for me.

 

[BonosSaint]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnFvbOwToxA

 

[anitram]

Sad or not, that is the reality.

I do expect a GOP Senate and House, GOP will lose some House seats but keep majority.

And with that in mind, even a reasonable GOP like Romney, is a no go for me.

It is true.

It's very unfortunate that the SCOTUS is such a politicized body in the US. There also happen to be probably 3 very distinctly possible retirements over the next 5 years - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy and Scalia (God willing!!).

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm no fan of Santorum. I never voted for him as Senator and will never vote for him as President, but I'm thinking the emotions he might have been referring to were men's emotions--ie, thinking they might be more protective of a woman in a battle situation than they were another man and that the focus would be more on protecting the woman than on the mission. That might be an initial response but I figure the men would get over it soon enough.

Then again, Rick Santorum is a douchebag. I've never understood why anyone would decide what would make EVERY woman happy as if we are interchangeable and as if we might not harbor some of the same ambitions other human beings (ie, men) might have. But perhaps, we are not in the full human being category to them. I'm kind of thinking the people who decide what's best for women lean that way. Women serve; men get to soar.

If he meant male emotions, I still find it offensive. I think in light of his overall attitude and statements going back for years, he has a certain mindset that's rather obvious.

Like I have said here already even before his recent comments, the thought of him being POTUS scares me.

 

[anitram]

Actually, I kind of see it the opposite.

With Gingrich and Santorum, you have two guys who have legacies that badly need to be repaired- Gingrich from being thrown out of the Speakership and Santorum from losing re-election in 2006 by 20 points. I truly think that was their sole reason for running in 2012- to try to run an honorable, positive campaign (with no realistic expectation of going anywhere), and then ending their careers on a better note than they otherwise would have. But since all the non-Romneys proved to be sub-par candidates, I think they were legitimately surprised when they actually started gaining some traction.

With Romney you've got a guy who is incredibly wealthy, has a massive family to keep him busy, could probably get a job anywhere in the country if he wanted one, and has no legacy that needs repairing. Yet he seems to have a knack and a passion for turning things around, and feels he would be a competent fit for the presidency and the needs of America right now. But unlike the others, he in no way "needs" this run for office.

I have to say I really disagree with you almost completely.

As far as Newt goes, I don't think he's concerned at all with any kind of a redemption. He is a blowhard who likes the public eye and this was a way for him to make it back and broadcast his obnoxious, grandiose ideas while pretending to be some kind of intellectual statesman of the Republican Party. It's all about the ego, maybe a cabinet position and almost certainly a new book.

Santorum may be looking for redemption, but I think it's more likely that he saw a gap in the field that he thought he could fill. Never thought he'd make it this far or be a serious contender, so I agree with you about his positioning at the moment.

I really believe that Romney is running because it's the one thing he doesn't have. He's been running for president for almost a decade now, essentially as his full-time job. That fits in very well with the Republican establishment's model of promoting a candidate because it's "his time" (see Bob Dole, John McCain).

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Mitt Romney is 100% politically ambitious, always has been. I agree that he has always been running for President-that was the big motivation behind getting health care passed in MA. At the time it was considered a good thing and a feather in his cap, he had no idea that it would be so vilified now.

 

[Irvine511]

the individual mandate was a Republican idea right up until Obama turned it into law.

funny, that.

 

[BonosSaint]

Santorum may be looking for redemption, but I think it's more likely that he saw a gap in the field that he thought he could fill. Never thought he'd make it this far or be a serious contender, so I agree with you about his positioning at the moment..

I always thought this was a run by Santorum to position himself for 2016. I'm not sure if he is more surprised or I am about his recent momentum.

 

[BonosSaint]

If he meant male emotions, I still find it offensive. I think in light of his overall attitude and statements going back for years, he has a certain mindset that's rather obvious.

Like I have said here already even before his recent comments, the thought of him being POTUS scares me.

He's kind of buds with a local talk show host here so I get to hear him a lot more than I want to. There's a lot about Santorum that offends me and creeps me out. He's not a guy who's going to implode, however. He'll stay consistent in his positions which may play well. I don't think anywhere near well enough to win, but enough to stay viable for a while at least for the anyone but Mitt group.

 

[anitram]

I always thought this was a run by Santorum to position himself for 2016. I'm not sure if he is more surprised or I am about his recent momentum.

That's how I felt about Huntsman - that he was testing the waters and could see that the GOP field this time was an utter disaster. If he thinks that they'll pander to the Tea Party and get crushed by Obama, he could come back in 2016 under the banner of "it's time to get back to sane candidates."

Probably wishful thinking as I actually quite liked him as a candidate.

 

[deep]

It is true.

It's very unfortunate that the SCOTUS is such a politicized body in the US. There also happen to be probably 3 very distinctly possible retirements over the next 5 years - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy and Scalia (God willing!!).

Scalia is 75, I can see him still on the court well into his 80s and even past 90.
His ego and arrogance is just too strong for him to give up that much power.

He will go out on his sick bed or death bed.

 

[anitram]

Unfortunately I agree. My biggest concern is Ruth Bader Ginsburg - she has not been well and is the most likely next retiree.

 

[yolland]

Daily Beast (David Frum), Feb. 13

The most quoted speech at CPAC this year was Mitt Romney's, but my vote for the most significant goes to Grover Norquist's. In his charmingly blunt way, Norquist articulated out loud a case for Mitt Romney that you hear only whispered by other major conservative leaders. They have reconciled themselves to a Romney candidacy because they see Romney as essentially a weak and passive president who will concede leadership to congressional conservatives:

All we have to do is replace Obama...We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget...We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.​

The requirement for president?

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.​

This is not a very complimentary assessment of Romney's leadership. It's also not a very realistic political program: congressional Republicans have a disapproval rating of about 75%. If Americans get the idea that a vote for Romney is a vote for the Ryan plan, Romney is more or less doomed. To date, sad to say, Romney has worked hard to confirm this image of weakness. Nobody wants a president who acts as the passive instrument of even generally popular groups like labor unions. (Did you know that—despite decades of declining popularity—unions still have an approval rating of 52%? I didn't until I looked it up.) But a candidate who appeases the most disliked people in national politics? That guy will command neither public affection nor respect.

Mitt Romney badly needs his Sister Souljah moment. Instead, he's running as Jim DeMint's doormat.

Frum, FWIW, is a classic/establishment conservative (worked for Reagan's and Giuliani's campaigns; served on the WSJ's editorial board; served as GWB's speechwriter) who deeply distrusts the Tea Party, the religious right, and orthodox supply-siders, so, make what you will of his alienation.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yeah, I remember Frum getting in trouble with his conservative brethren for some comments about how Republicans work for Fox News now.

All we have to do is replace Obama...

You know, I remember in 2004 conservatives were going after those of us who were voting for Kerry because "He's not Bush" wasn't a strong argument, how we shouldn't vote for someone for the sole purpose of getting rid of a president we didn't like (and they were right about that). But now it seems they're using the same mantra this time around for their Republican nominee-"He's not Obama", "We want to make Obama a one-term president". If that's your only criteria, it's enough to tell me you truly have run out of actual ideas and plans for our country.

And yeah, if they think the Ryan plan will entice Americans, I'm curious as to where they get that idea.

If he meant male emotions, I still find it offensive. I think in light of his overall attitude and statements going back for years, he has a certain mindset that's rather obvious.

Like I have said here already even before his recent comments, the thought of him being POTUS scares me.

Agreed. He's a moron, plain and simple.

 

[Irvine511]

Instead, he's running as Jim DeMint's doormat.

which is kind of what a consultant is, at the end of the day. he aims to please.

sadly, not working:

By David Lauter

February 13, 2012, 9:54 a.m.
Reporting from Washington —

President Obama for the first time has opened a sizable lead over his most likely Republican opponents, thanks to growing support among independent voters, according to a new Pew Research Center poll.

The poll, released Monday, showed Rick Santorum in a virtual tie with Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential race. Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, has moved up as a result of his backing from tea party Republicans and white evangelicals. He led Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, 30% to 28% among Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters in the survey, which was conducted Feb. 8-12 and had a margin of error of 5 percentage points. In a Pew survey only a month ago, Romney led Santorum, 31% to 14%.

But both Republicans trailed Obama by sizable margins. Obama led Santorum by 10 points among registered voters nationwide (53%-43%) and led Romney by eight points (52%-44%). Obama’s lead over Newt Gingrich, who has faded in the GOP race, was 18 points (57%-39%). In previous polls in November and January, Romney and Obama were roughly tied. Obama has moved up because of support from independent voters, 51% of whom now back him against Romney, a gain of 11 points since last month.

The latest poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted among 1,172 registered voters nationwide. It found that Santorum has become the clear favorite of tea party supporters and white evangelical Republicans. He wins support from 42% of tea party Republican voters compared with just 23% who back Romney. Santorum’s margin among white evangelical Republican voters was almost the same, 41% to 23%.

A major factor driving the Santorum surge is that an increasing number of tea party Republicans do not believe Romney is a strong conservative, the poll showed. Only 29% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters who agree with the tea party say Romney is a strong conservative, a steep drop from 51% three months ago. More than two-thirds of tea party Republicans (68%) now say Romney is not a strong conservative.

david.lauter@latimes.com

 

[Canadiens1131]

Comparing taxes under Obama’s and Romney’s budgets - The Washington Post

 

[Canadiens1131]

This is really wonderful to see. Let the destruction continue!!

 

[Irvine511]

it would be incredible if Santorum would be the nominee.

he seems *so* easy to distract with 1960s issues like birth control and women in the military. and the Tea "we're only about economic issues and especially debt and spending issues" Party seems to love it.

please GOP, continue to discuss social issues. you become ever more unelectable every time you do.

 

[BEAL]

I agree. Though.......

Part of me is scared to death that we (being the american people) would even put someone like Santorum this close to the Presidency. While I think deep down we know Obama would wipe the floor with him.....it's that little bit of doubt that frightens me.

But he couldn't even keep his own seat in Washington, losing by the largest margin ever (maybe???), so the odds are he'll continue on about controlling woman and demonizing sex and completely lose the Independent/Moderate base....which is what wins the election

 

[Irvine511]

Obama would taunt and bait him with just about every social issue imaginable, and what Rick does is not just say "here's my beliefs" which is all smart social conservatives do anyway, but he goes further and says "here's why you should live like i do and here's what i'm going to do in order to make it so that you have no other legal choice but to do so."

what's also funny is that Rick seems to genuinely have *no idea* how utterly patronizing he is to women who aren't religious social conservatives. every time he opens his mouth he loses another suburban mother.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Weird...

Rick Santorum says women shouldn't serve in combat, but he's happy to have his wife jump on a grenade for him. When ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked the presidential candidate about a passage of his 2005 book -- "The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness" -- Santorum claimed his wife wrote the passage. But as The New York Times' Brian Knowlton points out, Karen Santorum's name isn't on the cover of the It Takes a Family, and she's not listed in his acknowledgments of people "who assisted me in the writing of this book."

 

[Irvine511]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRU13_L76R4



women will love this!

 

[yolland]

She should've asked if that's the method he and his wife used to limit themselves to four, or if their sex life was just that bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8&feature=related

 

[deep]

that made me smile