Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
john5746

Republican Nominee: Romney

Recommended Posts

Not that I care too much, but I think Romney will be the Republican candidate. I think the Rupaul, Bachman and Perry split the fringes. Of course, I picked Pawlenty back in May, so... I doubt Pawlenty will be picked as VP. Maybe Bachman, depends on how well she does.

 

I would like to see Obama get another term, but Romney or Huntsman are the only Republican candidates that I think wouldn't run the country back in the ditch too far if they were elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

john; Romney won't be the nominee, but if he were to, would beat Obama, it's that simple in my mind.

 

I'd give Perry a 50% chance today, Bachman about a 30% chance and both will try to get Rubio or Christie for their VP and Palin will run for Jon Kyl's (AZ.) Senate Seat. Ron Paul or Trump may go third party and if so Obama might win.

 

Out of curiosity why would you prefer 4 more years of what all has been going on the past 3???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

john; Romney won't be the nominee, but if he were to, would beat Obama, it's that simple in my mind.

 

I'd give Perry a 50% chance today, Bachman about a 30% chance and both will try to get Rubio or Christie for their VP and Palin will run for Jon Kyl's (AZ.) Senate Seat. Ron Paul or Trump may go third party and if so Obama might win.

 

Do you have any actual basis for that or is it just bald assertion?

 

All the latest polls show Obama beating all republican challengers (except, for some bizarre reason, for Rudy Giuliani who isn't even running)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/11/gop2012poll.pdf

http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/dcor120811fq_WEBSITE.pdf

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/09/120110/before-declaring-perry-in-2nd.html

 

The last election prediction I remember you making was years ago when you told us that you were certain that Norm Coleman would beat Al Franken. That prediction smacked of wishful thinking on your part, and this one does too.

Edited by bob000555

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity why would you prefer 4 more years of what all has been going on the past 3???

 

Because anything else would be unpatriotic! Country first! :D

 

It really comes down to whom I trust going forward - Obama or choice X. I really like Obama, his style, many of his ideas. But, our political system is broken, so at this point, I think it would be better to have all republicans or democrats(although I think liberals are more likely to compromise). So, I will vote straight ticket from now on. And it will be straight democrat until I hear tax increase coming out of the mouths of republicans. It is a shame, because I don't think the democrats will cut entitlements as much as they need to be cut, but I will not budge on that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have any actual basis for that or is it just bald assertion?

 

All the latest polls show Obama beating all republican challengers (except, for some bizarre reason, for Rudy Giuliani who isn't even running)[/Quote]

 

bob000; It's probably closer to "bald assertion", then a scientific survey analysis, but it's the way I see it today. You might check out some performance polls, which are quite telling.

 

The last election prediction I remember you making was years ago when you told us that you were certain that Norm Coleman would beat Al Franken. That prediction smacked of wishful thinking on your part, and this one does too. [/Quote]

 

You do have an exceptional memory and yes I was predicting Franken would lose his recount battle. You then should recall, some of my predictions over the "Tea Party" candidates, where any error was under estimating the effect on State Legislatures.

 

 

It really comes down to whom I trust going forward - Obama or choice X. I really like Obama, his style, many of his ideas. But, our political system is broken, so at this point, I think it would be better to have all republicans or democrats(although I think liberals are more likely to compromise). So, I will vote straight ticket from now on. And it will be straight democrat until I hear tax increase coming out of the mouths of republicans. It is a shame, because I don't think the democrats will cut entitlements as much as they need to be cut, but I will not budge on that issue. [/Quote]

 

john; Then no matter who -X- actual is, makes no difference? However if you like what's been going on, especially as you prefer during the first 2 years (all Democrats), then you should be voting for Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

john; Then no matter who -X- actual is, makes no difference?

 

Most likely not. However, as I said, Romney is at least possible. During the general, he will come to the middle. He is already somewhat moderate on the social issues and at least acts like a grown up. Is there an X that would make you vote for Obama?

 

 

However if you like what's been going on, especially as you prefer during the first 2 years (all Democrats), then you should be voting for Obama.

 

I'm happy with what Obama has done given the circumstances. If we could eliminate or at least control the filibusters, I think a majority democrat congress would do pretty well - except they wouldn't cut the deficit as quickly as I would like, if at all. Of course you disagree, that's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most likely not. However, as I said, Romney is at least possible. During the general, he will come to the middle. He is already somewhat moderate on the social issues and at least acts like a grown up. Is there an X that would make you vote for Obama?[/Quote]

 

john; No, but if Ms. Clinton were the nominee there would be several X's I'd put second to her.

 

I'm happy with what Obama has done given the circumstances. If we could eliminate or at least control the filibusters, I think a majority democrat congress would do pretty well - except they wouldn't cut the deficit as quickly as I would like, if at all. Of course you disagree, that's fine.[/Quote]

 

Both parties use the filibuster rule, but after Franken (mentioned above) was sworn in, think 6/09, the Democrats had a virtual filibuster proof Congress (60/40). I'm one that believes in two party rule or that no one ideology should control the entire agenda and I mean either party, so yes we disagree on that point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both parties use the filibuster rule, but after Franken (mentioned above) was sworn in, think 6/09, the Democrats had a virtual filibuster proof Congress (60/40). I'm one that believes in two party rule or that no one ideology should control the entire agenda and I mean either party, so yes we disagree on that point...

When Democrats have even a "virtual" filibuster proof Congress they still disagree and take forever to agree on anything - with the long winded airing and discussions of a variety of options, plans etc.

 

Sadly, a body of just Democrats with a super-majority does this better than any body of Republicans at 51%+... because for the life of me I can't understand why Republicans have to do everything in lock-step, and if they break ranks, it always seems to be towards some crazier, less reality-based radical agenda on immigration, taxes, abortion, religion, or social safety nets.

 

 

Our two-party system seems to act more and more like a completely bipolar single-party system. Compromise should mean "discarding or revamping that which fails to withstand scrutiny in the face of a well informed opposition" and instead compromise never even touches the topic at hand most of the time - only the "meta-factors" such as the number of votes per isle and pop-polls, that everyone knows before ever going in. The only signs of an evolving argument these days come from what "three sentences or less" emotional knee-jerk quips are echoed in the 24 hr news cycle.

 

 

 

I have a lot of blame for the Democrats over the last four years, but in the same way I would blame firefighters if they dragged their feet putting out fires by arsonists. For a Republican candidate to actually distinguish themselves from the general body of arsonists, I'd have to be absolutely sure of a few things:

 

If a Republican wanted my support, they'd have to guarantee:

 

1) Taxes can be raised.

It's nice to know someone doesn't want to raise taxes and thinks taxes are bad. I support that. I hope they also think sticking knives in people is generally bad. However, I will never support a surgeon that has signed a "pledge" to never break the skin of a patient for any reason for any medical condition. Could a politician that signed such a pledge about taxes be any more in touch with reality than such a surgeon? I can't see how, so that's an issue.

 

2) I don't ever want to hear about recreational abortions, sacred stem-cells, creationist "alternatives" for science in public schools, prayer in public schools, "protecting" marriage, or abstinence-only education from sitting president until we have a BALANCED budget, and perhaps some sort of plan to pay off the debt.

NPR is not breaking the bank, the National Endowment for the Arts isn't forcing us to go light on body armor for soldiers, and Planned Parenthood does not spend 90% of it's money on aborting young future Einsteins. Nothing in the "values war" has any real impact on any of our real issues, and I don't trust Republicans to remember that when they are dealing with the noise-makers in their own base.

If a genuine real issue came up on one of these topics - that's fine... it's not like I'm looking for a "pledge" either, I just don't want a politician that takes that as an easy distraction from the real issues.

 

3) Support the radical idea that the Congress/Senate are places where legislation is discussed, debated, and refined - not merely voted on in lock-step accordance with party lines.

 

 

Hell I'd even entertain supporting a Republican that was a throwback to the William F Buckley style of conservationism. As much as I always detested Buckley, and found his arguments generally flawed - he at least was a genuine conservative intellectual who would rip liberal views apart not because they were liberal, but because they were logically unsound. He was the sort of conservative that helped liberals either learn to be better liberals, or pack up and go home in humiliation.

 

I would want to support such a candidate not because I thought they were best candidate, but because such a candidate taking the White House on a GOP ticket would revitalize the intellectual conservative movement, which would go a very long way to balancing our political theater in ways that Obama couldn't help to achieve, whether he wanted to or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.