Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 lybob would love to see Newt go down. He knows when push comes to shove, Newt will expose his boy Obama for the phony intellectual fraud that he is. It's worth Newt winning the nomination just to see him verbally undress our pres in a debate. Funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Would you have voted for him over Al Gore in 2000? Yeah, you got me...the memory is the first thing to go...I would have voted for McCain over Gore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Has there ever been a front-runner candidate, Republican or Democrat, that has been less embraced by the base of their party, than Romney? He has been at the top, or near the top since the GOP election season started. The rest of the candidates have gone up and down in the polls, but Romney just sits there, steady, with his 22-28%. So, it seems like he is neither gaining or losing support...I suppose that could be interprited in different ways, but, to me, it signals that his message (whatever it is) is just not connnecting with the people he wants it to connect with. He will, most likely, utimately win the Republican candidacy, but I don't know how that will translate against Obama Geez, listen to Alan Colmes much? The bottom line is this: the Tea Party folks would prefer someone other than Romney, but for one very simple reason: he is the establishment pick. It has nothing to do with Romneycare, or social issues like abortion or gay marriage, or any of the other things that liberals like to tell themselves. He's considered part of the machine dictating who-does-what for the GOP, and that is simply not acceptable to the Tea Party folks. That said, there is no way in hell a Romney nomination -- which IS going to happen -- will cause any significant number of Tea Party folks to sit out the race. You can hope, you can pray, you can even change if you want, but the moment it's Obama vs. Romney, you will see the polls change very dramatically for Romney, and it will be at that very moment that it will suddenly hit those of you spouting the "Romney just sits there, steady, with his 22-28%" nonsense that Obama is in serious trouble. Like many Tea Party folks, I'm not sure if Romney is my guy, but I'm damn sure that Obama isn't, and if you want to fool yourself into thinking I'll stay home because my candidate didn't win the nomination, you are absolutely, positively fullgoose bozo batschit crazy because I'd get my whole neighborhood to vote for a toaster oven over what has continues to look like the most embarrassing president of my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Timely or not my eidt is how I feel. I lean right of course but I don't vote exclusive GOP. If Hillary ran I'd consider voting for her. You would? Forget repealing Obamacare if she should happen to get in. She would be only a very slight improvement over Obama. There are a few people on the Republican side that I would be happy with. Problem is the established Republicans don't like them because I think they like the status quo. They made sure Cain was trashed beyond repair. I would like Bachman as well but they pay little attention to her. Same with Santorum who I also like. So we are stuck with Mit and Newt. Even though I'm far from thrilled with either both are far better than Hillary or Obama. I would grade Mit a C- and Newt a B. Obama a solid F and Hillary E. Edited December 21, 2011 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Geez, listen to Alan Colmes much? The bottom line is this: the Tea Party folks would prefer someone other than Romney, but for one very simple reason: he is the establishment pick. It has nothing to do with Romneycare, or social issues like abortion or gay marriage, or any of the other things that liberals like to tell themselves. He's considered part of the machine dictating who-does-what for the GOP, and that is simply not acceptable to the Tea Party folks. That said, there is no way in hell a Romney nomination -- which IS going to happen -- will cause any significant number of Tea Party folks to sit out the race. You can hope, you can pray, you can even change if you want, but the moment it's Obama vs. Romney, you will see the polls change very dramatically for Romney, and it will be at that very moment that it will suddenly hit those of you spouting the "Romney just sits there, steady, with his 22-28%" nonsense that Obama is in serious trouble. Like many Tea Party folks, I'm not sure if Romney is my guy, but I'm damn sure that Obama isn't, and if you want to fool yourself into thinking I'll stay home because my candidate didn't win the nomination, you are absolutely, positively fullgoose bozo batschit crazy because I'd get my whole neighborhood to vote for a toaster oven over what has continues to look like the most embarrassing president of my lifetime. I didn't say anything about Tea Partiers sitting out the race. I just think their carrying on like spoiled children, particualarly when Romney gets the nod, will turn off enough people, if they are undecided, they will go with the other side. Romney will likely be held at a proverbial gunpoint, by his reluctant Tea Party constituants to make a lot of impractical pledges and promises, and the whole cycle will start all over again. Think of all the "buyers remorse" there has been since the mid-term elections. And, of course, Romneys numbers will go up, once the rest of these clowns are out of the race. But, when Tea Partiers, like yourself start settling for candidates you don't really want, just because you don't like the other guy, you can't pretend that you are any more noble or principled than the rest of the "partisan hacks". Obviously, many are fires up about this...it will be a very interesting election. You would? Forget repealing Obamacare if she should happen to get in. She would be only a very slight improvement over Obama. There are a few people on the Republican side that I would be happy with. Problem is the established Republicans don't like them because I think they like the status quo. They made sure Cain was trashed beyond repair. I would like Bachman as well but they pay little attention to her. Same with Santorum who I also like. So we are stuck with Mit and Newt. Even though I'm far from thrilled with either both are far better than Hillary or Obama. I would grade Mit a C- and Newt a B. Obama a solid F and Hillary E. Wow! Edited December 21, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I didn't say anything about Tea Partiers sitting out the race. I just think their carrying on like spoiled children, particualarly when Romney gets the nod, will turn off enough people, if they are undecided, they will go with the other side. Romney will likely be held at a proverbial gunpoint, by his reluctant Tea Party constituants to make a lot of impractical pledges and promises, and the whole cycle will start all over again. Think of all the "buyers remorse" there has been since the mid-term elections. And, of course, Romneys numbers will go up, once the rest of these clowns are out of the race. But, when Tea Partiers, like yourself start settling for candidates you don't really want, just because you don't like the other guy, you can't pretend that you are any more noble or principled than the rest of the "partisan hacks". Obviously, many are fires up about this...it will be a very interesting election. Wow! I like the most conservative candidate. I'm not a social conservative but fiscal conservatism is priority at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Think of all the "buyers remorse" there has been since the mid-term elections. Almost as much as there has been since the last presidential election. But, when Tea Partiers, like yourself start settling for candidates you don't really want, just because you don't like the other guy, you can't pretend that you are any more noble or principled than the rest of the "partisan hacks". People pretending to be "more noble" is just something you have stuck in your head. Otherwise, I don't like it any more than the next person, but this is the hand we are dealt right now so it's the only one we can play. Sure, I can vote for a third party, but at the risk of having another Obama presidency? Not on your freaking life. They don't come any more leaderless or spineless than Obama. I've said many times that the problem with this race is the same problem we had in the last presidential race: people are voting for "anyone but (fill in the blank)." That's no way to elect someone. But it will be like this for years because even if Romney beats Obama, the left-leaning chuckleheads will begin screaming from day one about something, and the media will pick up on it, and three years in Romney will be in the same place as Obama is now and as Bush was then and in 2016 everyone will be voting for "anyone but (fill in the blank)" again. On the other hand, I hear lots of people telling me how it will always be like this as long as there is a two-party system, but no one says specifically WHAT should be done about it beyond yelling about an idiot like Ron Paul. Just because "the answer" is to have a third party doesn't make it an easily achieved answer, and saying it over and over means jackschitt until people do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I like the most conservative candidate. I'm not a social conservative but fiscal conservatism is priority at this point. All the folks you like are pretty extreme social conservatives. I think that is why "nobody listens" (as you say) to Bachmann, and why Santorum is one of the candidates in the GOP field who has seen no spike in his numbers, at all. And, maybe your point is a bigger issue...the country needs some financial conservativism right now, but doesn't seem ready, en masse, to embrace social conservatism. Not sure if fiscal conservatism can exist with social libralism. It seems, in theory they should be able to, but I can't think of a situation where they have. People pretending to be "more noble" is just something you have stuck in your head. Otherwise, I don't like it any more than the next person, but this is the hand we are dealt right now so it's the only one we can play. Sure, I can vote for a third party, but at the risk of having another Obama presidency? Not on your freaking life. They don't come any more leaderless or spineless than Obama. I've said many times that the problem with this race is the same problem we had in the last presidential race: people are voting for "anyone but (fill in the blank)." That's no way to elect someone. But it will be like this for years because even if Romney beats Obama, the left-leaning chuckleheads will begin screaming from day one about something, and the media will pick up on it, and three years in Romney will be in the same place as Obama is now and as Bush was then and in 2016 everyone will be voting for "anyone but (fill in the blank)" again. On the other hand, I hear lots of people telling me how it will always be like this as long as there is a two-party system, but no one says specifically WHAT should be done about it beyond yelling about an idiot like Ron Paul. Just because "the answer" is to have a third party doesn't make it an easily achieved answer, and saying it over and over means jackschitt until people do something about it. You will get absolutely no argument from me on any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Almost as much as there has been since the last presidential election. People pretending to be "more noble" is just something you have stuck in your head. Otherwise, I don't like it any more than the next person, but this is the hand we are dealt right now so it's the only one we can play. Sure, I can vote for a third party, but at the risk of having another Obama presidency? Not on your freaking life. They don't come any more leaderless or spineless than Obama. I've said many times that the problem with this race is the same problem we had in the last presidential race: people are voting for "anyone but (fill in the blank)." That's no way to elect someone. But it will be like this for years because even if Romney beats Obama, the left-leaning chuckleheads will begin screaming from day one about something, and the media will pick up on it, and three years in Romney will be in the same place as Obama is now and as Bush was then and in 2016 everyone will be voting for "anyone but (fill in the blank)" again. On the other hand, I hear lots of people telling me how it will always be like this as long as there is a two-party system, but no one says specifically WHAT should be done about it beyond yelling about an idiot like Ron Paul. Just because "the answer" is to have a third party doesn't make it an easily achieved answer, and saying it over and over means jackschitt until people do something about it. It's a shame we have to settle, but I guess that's the way its going to be. We may not get exactly what we want but like you say even your toaster is better. I just hope we get someone with a backbone willing to stand up. Personally I think we have a better chance with Newt doing that. All the folks you like are pretty extreme social conservatives. I think that is why "nobody listens" (as you say) to Bachmann, and why Santorum is one of the candidates in the GOP field who has seen no spike in his numbers, at all. And, maybe your point is a bigger issue...the country needs some financial conservativism right now, but doesn't seem ready, en masse, to embrace social conservatism. Not sure if fiscal conservatism can exist with social libralism. It seems, in theory they should be able to, but I can't think of a situation where they have. What do you think would happen if a social conservative got in office Buftex? Just curious? Would it be that bad? I guess someone like Bachman and Santorum might try to ban abortion but do you actually think that would happen? I'm willing to take my chances with that if they are willing to make a honest effort to reign this mess in fiscally. To actually keep our military strong and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) It is all a game. The way things are. The reality is, as often as not, we are voting against somebody, more than voting for somebody. I don't like that, but that is the truth, as cynical as it sounds. Hell, I live in Texas, so, anytime I vote for anyone who isn't Republican, I am only doing it to make a statement, in my own small way...and, consequently, making sure my vote doesn't really count. Because we allow it to be that way. If the majority of the people who held a distaste for the two party system stopped acquiescing to it, you'd see legitimate change. Maybe not in the first election, but eventually majorities would become pluralities. Edited December 21, 2011 by SageAgainstTheMachine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts