Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 26, 2014, 02:32:36 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81267 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 116552 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #1100 on: December 04, 2011, 02:51:03 PM »

"electronic medical records, something in which he believes."

There are hundreds of EMR vendors.  It is like the tech craze before the tech crash of the late 90's.  It is predicted in a few years that the number will fall to a few dozen through consokidation and bankruptcy.

Realistically they are not ready for prime time yet CMS is pushing and bribing us all to jump on board.

And no doubt there are thousands out there vying to cash in on it all.


I'm glad we'll have all our medical records in electronic form, so when the Chinese Ministry of State Security wants to read up on our cholesterol counts, it's just a few clicks away....
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1101 on: December 04, 2011, 07:09:41 PM »

Doug:

Thank you for that on Newt and Ryan's plan.  It was not as I thought.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1102 on: December 04, 2011, 08:21:39 PM »

Crafty, thank you. He made a mistake that day and has been remarkably consistent and disciplined since then.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3963


« Reply #1103 on: December 05, 2011, 09:41:59 AM »

"Chinese Ministry of State Security wants to read up on our cholesterol counts, it's just a few clicks away...."

I read that hardware has components made overseas so we should not kid ourselves into thinking there are things put into these components that can be used in ways not intended.  I don't think for one second US manufactureres of software and hardware do not have ways to get in our electronic devices.

Eventually the Chinese will probably be able to shut our entire country down with a few clicks.

That might very well the start to the next world war.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #1104 on: December 05, 2011, 12:36:35 PM »

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2011/12/05/wargaming-the-electoral-college-31/

Not looking good for Team Buraq.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1105 on: December 05, 2011, 04:05:29 PM »

Moving this over from Newt thread.

"What "national election" did Newt win?

He nationalized the 1994 congressional elections for the first time in 40 years, got all the candidates to run across the country on the same platform with him as leader, and he won - for the first time in 40 years.   Did you really need that explained?  If you don't agree it's a fact, then you must agree it is a well-supported opinion.  No?  Much better documented than any Huntsman foreign policy experience, what foreign policy decision did he make, lol.

"He was governor of Utah for two term."  Which two terms as a Governor did Huntsman serve?  Good grief.  Then he wasn't Ambassador?   "He did balance the budget."  Was it previously out of balance.  Did he fight off those entrenched, liberal, Utah special interests everyday to get that done, lol.  None of them have promised to come in and balance this budget.  Whether he will be a fiscal conservative or not in Washington is another blank canvas.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1106 on: December 05, 2011, 04:27:08 PM »

 huh

Let me repeat, the ONLY popular (voter) election Newt ever won was Georgia's 6th congressional district as a Republican from 1979 until his resignation in 1999.  Period.

The fact that he orchestrated and "got candidates to run across the country on the same platform with him as leader" is interesting, but HE did not
ever win a "national election".  He didn't even win a state wide election.  THAT is a fact, not a "well-supported opinion.


However, I'm not saying he's not qualified; as I said, he was House Speaker and he is brilliant; albeit he has a mercurial personality.  And his morals are suspect.

As for Huntsman, he is qualified; you just don't accept it.  But it's not important; he's going no place.  But for the record.


Huntsman worked as a White House staff assistant for Ronald Reagan, and he was appointed by George H.W. Bush as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and later as United States Ambassador to Singapore from 1992–1993. Huntsman served as Deputy United States Trade Representative under George W. Bush, launching global trade negotiations in Doha, Qatar in 2001 and guiding the accession of China and Taiwan into the World Trade Organization.

Huntsman has also served as CEO of his family's Huntsman Corporation and was elected Governor of Utah in April, 2004 and won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote. While governor, he also served as chairman of the Western Governors Association and as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Governors Association. On August 11, 2009, he resigned as governor to accept an appointment as the United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.

He left office with his approval ratings over 80%. Utah was named the best managed state by the Pew Center. Following his term as governor, Utah was also named a top 3 state to do business in.

Maybe he's not right of Attila the Hun as some here prefer, but he's not bad.  He's clean, he's experienced, he has good morals, and I think he's electable.  But given his ratings, that is all moot.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 04:37:32 PM by JDN » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #1107 on: December 05, 2011, 06:25:15 PM »

"was elected Governor of Utah in April, 2004 and won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote."

Sarah Palin had a 90% approval rating as Gov.

Just saying.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1108 on: December 05, 2011, 11:37:34 PM »

If Newt did not win a national election in 1994, only his district not the election for Speaker, because electors were involved, then no President has ever won a national election. 

I asked about two term governors and you post Huntsman was Governor of Utah for two terms.  A term in Utah is 4 years.  His second term was from 2009-2009.  He didn't serve his second term.  You already know that, from your own post: "Following his term as governor..."(singular) , so you go from falsehoods to insults (right of Attila the Hun as some here prefer).  Who needs it. 

Everyone else I have encountered here comes in pursuit of the truth. 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1109 on: December 06, 2011, 12:15:38 AM »

 huh huh huh

Newt won a local congressional "election" in Georgia - period.  Only the people in his district voted for Newt.  He never ran for any "national office".  Heck, as I said, Newt never even ran for State Office. 
He was never a governor or a senator.  In contrast, Presidents do win "national elections".  The people, all across the nation vote for the President, i.e. a "national election".  That is  the "truth".

Then again, as I have repeatedly acknowledged, he was Speaker of the House, he has a wide range of experience, he is brilliant, therefore he is qualified to be President; no one disputes that at least I don't.

Huntsman while governor, also served as chairman of the Western Governors Association.  Like Newt, according to you, does that mean he won a "national election"?  Of course not.

However, Huntsman was a "two term Governor".  He war RE-ELECTED in a landslide.  He choose not not to finish his term, but rather to serve his country as
Ambassador to China.  I never said he finished his term or served a full two terms (again note, he was very popular in Utah, but he voluntarily agreed to serve
his country and become Ambassador).  Once you are elected, you begin your term, i.e. that means two terms - everyone knows that.  I mean if you died in the third year for example
of your second term, would you be referred to as a one term governor?  Of course not.  It's common sense.  Two terms.  Repeat after me...   Again, truth...

As for Attila, sometimes I do get the impression that Republicans are trying to outdo themselves to be more conservative.  Signing ridiculous "pledges"?  You
must be kidding.  Who needs it.  Poor Newt, whose conservative credentials are pretty good, tried to be reasonable on immigration and he gets skewered by the right wing.

This hard core right wing philosophy may sell in the primaries, it seems like a beauty contest who can be more right wing, but let's see if it sells in the final election.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1110 on: December 06, 2011, 07:44:25 AM »

a) Huntsman most certainly has a resume worthy of a man seeking the nomination of the Republican Party.  Many of his positions are excellent and well-thought out.  That said, he announced himself for the nomination by explicitly saying that the other candidates were too radical to appeal to the center.  This certainly sounds the RINO alarm bells going around here  cheesy

b) In that I sometimes have described myself as "to the right of Attila the Hun" on various issues, I take JDN's use of the phrase to be meant in a good-natured tone.

c) I think JDN, while technically correct, quite understates what Newt led and accomplished with the Contract with America-- which thoroughly undermines the point he apparently is trying to make by saying that Newt has only won a Congressional district election.  We see the difference here and now once again.  In the debates it is Newt who has led the way in pointing out that it will not be enough to win the Presidency, we need to win the Senate too i.e. there needs to be another contract with America as to what a Gingrich-Republican Congress would mean.  The man understands there needs to be a mandate FOR something whereas Romney (or Huntsman for that matter) seem to get this quite a bit less.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1111 on: December 06, 2011, 11:40:48 AM »

What Does Adultery Tell Us About Character?
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
ShareThis
With Herman Cain's announcement that he was suspending his presidential campaign because of the charges of sexual harassment and of a 13-year affair, issues are raised that the country would do well to think through. The two most obvious are whether we should care about a politician's sexual life and how much the press should report about these matters.

But there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed first: What does adultery tell us about a person? For many Americans, the answer is: "Pretty much all we need to know." This certainly seems to be the case with regard to presidential candidates. The view is expressed this way: "If he can't keep his vows to his wife, how can we trust him to keep his vows to his country?"

I am a religious conservative, but I know this statement has no basis in fact. It sounds persuasive, but it is a non sequitur. We have no reason to believe that men who have committed adultery are less likely to be great leaders or that men who have always been faithful are more likely to be great leaders. To religious readers, I point to God Himself, who apparently thought that King David deserved to remain king -- and even have the Messiah descend from him -- despite a particularly ugly form of adultery (sending Bathsheba's husband into battle where he would assuredly be killed).

And while on the subject of leadership, another question for religious and/or conservative readers who believe that a man who sexually betrays his wife will likely betray his country: Who would you prefer for president? A pro-life conservative who had had an affair, or a pro-choice man of the left who had always been faithful to his wife?

Jimmy Carter, to the best of our knowledge, has been faithful to his wife throughout their long marriage. That is certainly commendable. Did it make him in any way a better president? Has it given moral acuity to the man who wrote a book equating democratic Israel with apartheid South Africa?

And the American who, perhaps singlehandedly, may have prevented inter-racial war in America, Martin Luther King Jr., committed adultery on a number of occasions.

Would John F. Kennedy, a serial adulterer while in the White House, have been any different a president were he faithful?

Just knowing that a man or a woman had extramarital sex may tell us nothing about the person. I have always wanted to know: Why is sexual sin in general and adultery in particular the one sin that many religious people regard as defining a person as well as almost unforgiveable?

Nothing here is in any way meant to be a defense of adultery. As a religious Jew, I believe it violates one of the Ten Commandments. As a married person, I know how much it would hurt my wife and how much it would hurt me if the other had an affair. But marriage is too complex an arena to draw any immediate conclusions about a person. Are we to label a man who takes loving care of his chronically ill wife and who has a discreet affair no more than an adulterer who merits disdain and mistrust? Is a woman who stays in an emotionally abusive marriage for the sake of her children someone with little integrity because she sought to be held in another man's loving arms? The questions and nuances are innumerable.

And what is adultery? Women have called my show to tell me that a man who gets a lap dance has committed adultery. Others go further -- merely attending a strip show, or looking at Playboy, is adultery. To my mind, this is emotion -- not reason, morality or religion -- talking. Yes, many Christians cite Jesus as saying that a man who lusts after a woman other than his wife has committed adultery with his heart. But he made it clear that this is adultery (SET ITAL) with his heart (END ITAL). Jesus, the practicing and knowledgeable Jewish rabbi, would never equate actual adultery with adultery with one's heart. And if someone believes the two are morally identical, why not start asking candidates if they have ever lusted for any woman other than their wife?

In choosing a president of the United States, adultery would greatly matter to me is if it were engaged in indiscreetly. I don't trust the integrity or conscience of a man or woman who publicly humiliates his or her spouse.

Beyond that, I do not want to know anything about the sexual life of any candidate. Media reporting or questioning about candidates' sexual lives constitutes a form of hypocrisy so deep that the English language does not have a word for it. Media people report on the sexual lives of candidates -- for virtually any public office -- on the grounds that since these politicians have great power, the public needs to know all about them. Yet, they offer no insight into their own sexual lives, even though some in the news media are far more powerful than almost any politician except the president of the United States. If we cannot trust a candidate who committed adultery, then why can we trust a news reporter or editor who has committed adultery?

The only thing this preoccupation with candidates' sexual lives has achieved is to ensure that some of the best, brightest, finest and most honest men in America never run for office.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2137


« Reply #1112 on: December 07, 2011, 08:44:21 PM »

This is more "presidential" than necessarily limited to 2012, but here is a report on Mitch McConnell's view of the "dissolution" of the Electoral College.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/07/9280257-mcconnell-warns-of-popular-vote-catastrophic-outcome
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1113 on: December 07, 2011, 09:27:46 PM »

What Does Adultery Tell Us About Character?

In choosing a president of the United States, adultery would greatly matter to me is if it were engaged in indiscreetly. I don't trust the integrity or conscience of a man or woman who publicly humiliates his or her spouse.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1114 on: December 07, 2011, 11:20:27 PM »

BD, that seems worthy of a thread where posts are less evanescent than this one.  How about the Constitutional law thread?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1115 on: December 08, 2011, 11:00:58 AM »

Besides the character issue, adultery and other sins kept secret have the potential to expose a President (or anyone else) to blackmail in any of its many forms, like support for certain causes for reasons we won't understand.

Just in the hypothetical, the list of Clinton pardons comes to mind: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1116 on: December 12, 2011, 08:43:47 AM »



By DAMIAN PALETTA
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is solidifying his lead in key states as the final stretch before the Iowa caucuses begins, while Mitt Romney faces criticism for a $10,000 bet he offered Rick Perry during a weekend debate.


 ..An NBC News/Marist Poll poll released Sunday showed support for the former speaker of the House soaring in South Carolina and Florida, making Mr. Gingrich the distinct front-runner for those states' late January primaries. His performance in the Saturday night debate in Des Moines suggests Mr. Gingrich also remains on stable footing with just over three weeks left before Iowa's first-in-the-nation voting on Jan. 3.

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, was trying to tamp down a potential misstep after former Texas Gov. Rick Perry accused Mr. Romney during the Saturday debate of saying his 2006 Massachusetts health insurance expansion "should be the model for the country." Mr. Romney disputed ever making such a comment and offered to bet him $10,000 that he was right. Mr. Perry turned down the bet.
 
A $10,000 wager triggered a backlash among Democrats and Republicans, given Mr. Romney's wealth from his private equity days.
.Who would have won the wager isn't clear. Mr. Perry was referring to a passage from the first edition of Mr. Romney's 2010 book "No Apology." The former governor wrote that "we can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country" in reference to the Massachusetts law that requires most residents to carry insurance or pay a fee.

Those words were cut from subsequent editions of the book. Elsewhere in the book, Mr. Romney called for other states to design their own models, different from the one in Massachusetts.

Still, the $10,000 wager triggered a quick backlash among Democrats and Republicans given the former private-equity executive's wealth and the way he appeared to flaunt the money. By noon Sunday, the Democratic National Committee had sent out seven emails either mocking or slamming the five-figure offer.

Mr. Perry, speaking on Fox News Sunday, said he was "a little taken aback" by the proposed bet, and that it showed how Mr. Romney was "a little out of touch with the normal Iowa citizen." The campaign of former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman immediately set up the website 10kbet.com with the headline "Why Mitt Romney owes Rick Perry $10,000."

Mr. Romney turned the comment into a bit of a joke at a press conference after a town hall in Hudson, N.H., on Sunday evening. "After the debate was over, Ann [Mrs. Romney] came up and gave me a kiss and said I was great and she said there are a lot of things you do well, betting isn't one of them," Mr. Romney said. He didn't elaborate. Asked a follow-up question, he said, "that's all I got."

Mr. Romney's stumble came amid new evidence he is losing ground in key states. The new NBC News/Marist Poll showed Mr. Gingrich leading Mr. Romney 42% to 23% among likely Republican primary voters in South Carolina and 41% to 28% in Florida. Adding in likely Republican voters in Florida who were undecided but said they are leaning towards one of the candidates, Mr. Gingrich's lead widened to 44% to 29% for Mr. Romney.

Mr. Gingrich seemed to fare better during Saturday's debate, despite efforts by his opponents to challenge positions he has taken. Over the weekend, Mr. Gingrich drew fire for his recent suggestion that Palestinians were an "invented" people.

Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa) said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that the comment was "probably unnecessary in the scope of this campaign" and makes you "wonder what kind of discipline he might have." Mr. King, who has not yet endorsed a Republican in the presidential race, has an influential voice with Iowa Republican voters.

Mr. Gingrich defended his Palestinian comments Saturday night, saying Palestinians encouraged terrorism and should not be put on an equal playing field with the Israelis.

Mohammed Sobeih, the Arab League official who handles Palestinian affairs, told the Associated Press on Sunday that Mr. Gingrich's comments were "irresponsible and dangerous."

Reps. Ron Paul (R., Texas) and Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.), who are trailing but trying to climb in the polls, said Messrs. Gingrich and Romney shared similar philosophies on governing and didn't represent the break from the past that Republicans need.

Ms. Bachmann, appearing on "Face the Nation," tried to reiterate a theme she invoked Saturday night, when she suggested the two front-runners were essentially the same person who she dubbed "Newt-Romney." "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them," she said.

Mr. Paul said he would not rule out running on a third-party ticket or endorsing a third-party candidate if he didn't win the Republican nomination, but he said it wasn't something he was thinking about now. "I'm not going to rule anything out or anything in," Mr. Paul said.

President Barack Obama said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes" that whichever GOP nominee emerges will offer Americans a stark contrast with his strategy for running the country. Mr. Gingrich is "somebody who's been around a long time, and is good on TV, is good in debates," Mr. Obama said. "But Mitt Romney has shown himself to be somebody who's … good at politics, as well. He's had a lot of practice at it." He added: "I think that they will be going at it for a while."

Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1117 on: December 12, 2011, 08:50:53 AM »


A follow up to my post a moment ago concerning Mitt's $10k bet challenge to Perry:

What a kitty response to the psuedo-brouhaha!  He should have pushed back and said that the chattering class was missing the point-- as it so often does-- the point being to challenge Perry to put up or shut up concerning the allegation in question.  Instead of the patricianly guilt he displays, he should have no apology-- "Yes, I have money, and I earned it.  Its a reason I should be president.  Look at what I did for turning the Olympics around!  Let me do that for America!".

We didn't see Newt kittying out to the brouhaha over his comments on the Palestinians, did we?

IMHO this sort of thing encapsulates a lot concerning the ceiling to Romney's support.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3963


« Reply #1118 on: December 12, 2011, 10:04:59 AM »

Crafty
well said.
what was he doing in effect apologizing for not being poor?!

if only he could take make the fight like Newt.  He has to be able to do this.

It is the ONLY way to get past the liberal controlled media which is doing all they can to dampen all Republicans and promote their guy.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3963


« Reply #1119 on: December 12, 2011, 02:09:59 PM »

This is the Republicans race "to lose".  I noted that some months back and even the Economist in the last issue echoed those exact same words.   Yet this is depressing from George.
Wow:

****Stop the coronation: Both Gingrich and Romney are too risky

By George Will

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Republicans are more conservative than at any time since their 1980 dismay about another floundering president. They are more ideologically homogenous than ever in 156 years of competing for the presidency. They anticipated choosing between Mitt Romney, a conservative of convenience, and a conviction politician to his right. The choice, however, could be between Romney and the least conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich.

Romney’s main objection to contemporary Washington seems to be that he is not administering it. God has 10 commandments, Woodrow Wilson had 14 points, Heinz had 57 varieties, but Romney’s economic platform has 59 planks — 56 more than necessary if you have low taxes, free trade and fewer regulatory burdens. Still, his conservatism-as-managerialism would be a marked improvement upon today’s bewildered liberalism.

Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything.

Granted, his grandiose rhetoric celebrating his “transformative” self is entertaining: Recently he compared his revival of his campaign to Sam Walton’s and Ray Kroc’s creations of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, two of America’s largest private-sector employers. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian”), to say, “If you want to put people in jail,” look at “the politicians who profited from” Washington’s environment.

 RECEIVE LIBERTY LOVING COLUMNISTS IN YOUR INBOX … FOR FREE!

  Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
 
 




His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today. On Election Eve 1994, he said a disturbed South Carolina mother drowning her children “vividly reminds” Americans “how sick the society is getting, and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way you get change is to vote Republican.” Compare this grotesque opportunism — tarted up as sociology — with his devious recasting of it in a letter to the Nov. 18, 1994, Wall Street Journal (http://bit.ly/vFbjAk). And remember his recent swoon over the theory that “Kenyan, anti-colonial” thinking explains Barack Obama.

Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”

Obama is running as Harry Truman did in 1948, against Congress, but Republicans need not supply the real key to Truman’s success — Tom Dewey. Confident that Truman was unelectable, Republicans nominated New York’s chilly governor, whose virtues of experience and steadiness were vitiated by one fact: Voters disliked him. Before settling for Romney, conservatives should reconsider two candidates who stumbled early on.

Rick Perry (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises him) has been disappointing in debates. They test nothing pertinent to presidential duties but have become absurdly important. Perry’s political assets remain his Texas record and Southwestern zest for disliking Washington and Wall Street simultaneously and equally.

Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures — food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, “an unmitigated disaster.” (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.

Romney might not be a Dewey. Gingrich might stop being (as Churchill said of John Foster Dulles) a bull who carries his own china shop around with him. But both are too risky to anoint today.



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1120 on: December 12, 2011, 09:36:53 PM »

Crafty wrote: "What a kitty response to the psuedo-brouhaha!  He should have pushed back and said that the chattering class was missing the point-- as it so often does-- the point being to challenge Perry to put up or shut up concerning the allegation in question.  Instead of the patricianly guilt he displays, he should have no apology-- "Yes, I have money, and I earned it.  Its a reason I should be president.  Look at what I did for turning the Olympics around!  Let me do that for America!".

We didn't see Newt kittying out to the brouhaha over his comments on the Palestinians, did we?"
----------------------
I agree on both points.  The Romney bet attempt was stupid on many counts.  On the other, they were asked what your family ever had to cut back on or do without and Romney said he didn't grow up poor.  There are a bunch of other directions he could have ran with that to show he learned those lessons anyway.  Or he could have graciously shown admiration for the family of one of his competitors.  Perry didn't have running water in his earliest years, neither did Clarence Thomas.  Isn't it amazing what can happen in when people grow in freedom...
----------------------

Newt leads in Iowa, leads in South Carolina, leads in Florida and these are double digit leads.  Ggaining in NH now single digits and will get a bump up there if the momentum is clearly his, and he just won another debate by all accounts.

He said he would prove he could be a disciplined candidate by being one.  So what does he do next, Monday morning with all this momentum...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/gingrich-challenges-romney-to-a-bet/

Londonderry, New Hampshire (CNN) – Newt Gingrich responded to a call Monday by GOP rival Mitt Romney to return the money he received from mortgage giant Freddie Mac by issuing his own challenge.

"If Gov. Romney would like to give back all the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain that I would be glad to then listen to him," Gingrich told reporters...
---------------------

Here we go again.  This is wrong on so many levels.  (Please correct me if I am wrong) He is throwing the 'capitalism is exploitation' message of the occupy movement back at Romney for participating in risk based ventures.  Meanwhile he is dodging his own problem.  The Freddie Mac money involved a mind blowing amounts of money for... trading off influence gained as speaker to put lipstick on a pig?  Not an ordinary pig but one that played a key part in bringing down the economy.  Those payments deserves real explanations; a legitimate attack on a vulnerability of the frontrunner.  So he humors it away with a bet joke while taking a shot at the creative destruction aspect of free enterprise, giving fodder to the salivating leftists who couldn't believe the 'right wing social engineering' gift they received earlier in the year.

Who would get mileage out of this?
Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/12/387503/gingrich-romney-bain-money/
CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/gingrich-challenges-romney-to-a-bet/
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/mitt-romney-freddie-mac-newt-gingrich_n_1144548.html

A few conservatives comment:
Charles Krauthammer: Newt's Attack On Romney Is "What You'd Expect From A Socialist"  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/12/krauthammer_newts_attack_on_romney_is_what_you_expect_from_a_socialist.html

Brit Hume: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y36HeSMNZuQ

Hugh Hewitt: http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/33529b9b-4546-4a0f-a91f-a7d8d606eef0
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 09:38:56 PM by DougMacG » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1121 on: December 12, 2011, 09:48:14 PM »

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but if the Republicans want to win the election, versus just posturing and preening, Huntsman should be considered.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/opinion/avlon-huntsman/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #1122 on: December 12, 2011, 10:08:50 PM »

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but if the Republicans want to win the election, versus just posturing and preening, Huntsman should be considered.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/opinion/avlon-huntsman/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9

A guy that struggles to hit 3% will be a general election dynamo?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1123 on: December 12, 2011, 10:20:05 PM »

Krauthammer's criticism of Newt is correct.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1124 on: December 12, 2011, 10:31:53 PM »

GM said, "A guy that struggles to hit 3% will be a general election dynamo?"

I do understand your point, however....  I assume, as you have already pointed out, in the general election that you would vote for him "anybody but Obama"
so he has the vote of the right.  More important, HE can sway the middle.  The tea party loves Gingrich, but in the general election the polls, even
given the terrible economy, project Obama to win versus Gingrich.  Frankly, Gingrich carries too much baggage in a general election.  And when the gloves
come off, it will only get worse for him.  And Mitts is really boring.  Huntsman, in contrast, could win.

But you are right, he will never be the Republican nominee unless he makes a move; and soon. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #1125 on: December 12, 2011, 10:45:29 PM »

I'd even vote for Loon Paul vs. Obozo, though he has even less chance than Huntsman.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1126 on: December 12, 2011, 11:16:29 PM »

"Krauthammer's criticism of Newt is correct."

Those were strong words.  Newt should get out front correcting this.

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1127 on: December 12, 2011, 11:39:55 PM »

I'd even vote for Loon Paul vs. Obozo, though he has even less chance than Huntsman.

hahaha  GM you would even vote for Bozo the Clown before Obama.   smiley   I KNOW the Republicans
have your vote; and that is my point. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1128 on: December 14, 2011, 10:46:04 AM »



Week 3,334 of Mitt Romney's quest for the presidency hasn't been a good one. Newt Gingrich has seized the lead in the polls. The voluble front-runner has even lined up with Ted Kennedy, Paul Krugman, Obama's campaign brain trust and the Pulitzer department of every major newspaper in assaulting Mr. Romney as a job killer for his role in private equity.

Oddly, though, these are now the discordant media notes. For the first time, and perhaps here we can blame the Gingrich phenomenon, the press has suddenly found Mr. Romney a fascinating, nuanced figure.

The New York Times discovers him frugal in his personal habits, generous with his family, personally U-Hauling the clan's gear between vacation homes. The Washington Post says that in debates Mr. Romney's "body language speaks of physical modesty, discipline." Another Post profile finds him "supremely rational," a "problem solver," "devoted to data," keenly appreciative of the role of "incentives."

Stereotypes are fun: The greedy businessman. The sneering, tenured professor. The clapped-out pundit who hides his creative destitution behind crude appeals to prejudice. But Mr. Romney never really fit his assigned part as Gordon Gekko or Milburn Drysdale. His Bain Capital period has already been in the rearview mirror for 12 years. When other private equity pioneers were turning their millions into billions, he left to rescue the Winter Olympics.

Before Bain, he spent two years proselytizing for Mormon converts in the unpromising vineyards of France. After Bain, once his financial independence was secured, he turned with suspicious enthusiasm to politics and policy.

Of his Bain period, a former colleague (not a supporter) said it best: The goal wasn't to maximize job creation but to maximize returns for the private equity fund's investors.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images
 
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich
.At that, he succeeded. At rescuing the Olympics, he succeeded. At winning the Massachusetts governorship, he succeeded. At crafting a bipartisan Massachusetts health-care plan, he succeeded. At subsidizing demand for health care without breaking the bank, he didn't succeed.

RomneyCare has been his biggest albatross, yet it merely makes him the soulmate of our two most recent presidents, ideological opposites though they are considered to be. Both Presidents Bush and Obama also expanded access to health care without figuring out how to pay for it.

Mr. Romney should probably just tell the truth: He faced a political imperative to act but no political consensus to act effectively, so he acted ineffectively. Oh well. His lack of a consistent ideological lodestar might be a handicap when a lodestar is needed. But—and we know this contravenes everything you've been taught—America is not headed in 2012 for a landmark decision on the size and role of government. America is headed only for a moment of recognition.

Like Greece. Like the troubled businesses Bain overhauled. Like the failing Salt Lake City Olympics. There's no money to pay for bigger and bigger government. There's no money to pay for the government we've already promised ourselves. Yes, around the edges, there may be room for adjustment, if we can get the economy growing again. But that means tax reform to make the fiscal engine more efficient, not tax hikes on some imaginary motherlode of billionaires to get us off the horns of our dilemma.

On the particular problem that made a fool out of Mr. Romney (and Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama), don't worry, bankrupting the nation to pay for health care is not an option. If we do nothing, if entitlements remain unreformed, the money simply will be withheld to pay for them. You'll still be entitled to that knee operation at taxpayer expense. Good luck finding a doctor to perform it. The waiting list will be long.

Our world that's coming is a world of narrowing, not widening, choices. It's a world that suits Mr. Romney's skills and history, his knack for operating within constraints and making choices based on data, data, data. Mr. Obama lives in the same world, of course, but is unequipped to deal with it given his dubious gifts for execution, execution, execution. Also, given his inclination to seek refuge in a clueless reverie of big new programs at a time when the resources simply don't exist.

Nor is there a Big Idea that can transform our unhappy prospects. Lunar mining will not rescue Medicare. People like Mr. Gingrich play a useful role in politics: It's good to be able to talk thrillingly about history, civilization. But they make bad—perhaps we should say, unnecessary—presidents. When ideas are new and unfamiliar, they're not executable. When they're executable we need people who can execute.

The consensus for painful reform comes when the status quo hits the wall. It's a myth that we don't know what our choices are. That's the Romney moment. His strong suit has always been to do what everyone else has put off.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1129 on: December 14, 2011, 12:51:32 PM »

That is quite a mixed and roundabout endorsement of Romney: "When ideas are new and unfamiliar, they're not executable. When they're executable we need people who can execute."  I love the intro: "Week 3,334 of Mitt Romney's quest for the presidency hasn't been a good one."  Also, he is 'frugal' in that he 'personally U-Haul's family gear between vacation homes'.  Perhaps Gingrich is exactly what Romney needed - if he survives the challenge.

On the Massachusetts health care, Romney just can't say it out loud, but it is a very liberal state and that is what THEY wanted, and he delivered.  Romney hasn't ever personally had a problem with the cost of coverage, the cost of health care, the cost of gas or the cost of a loaf of bread.  Romneycare is a state plan.  Other state's can look at it, learn from it and judge it against their own state constitutions and their own polling data if they want to.  On the federal level he has committed to repealing PelosiObamaCare on the first day possible and a second term Pres. Obama will not.  That is enough contrast to bring into the general election on that issue.

Too early to say this with Newt still leading by double digits, but don't rule Newt out for the VP spot.  That still puts him on the stage and in the debates as the most articulate attacker of the opponent.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1130 on: December 15, 2011, 02:02:45 PM »

The best sparring partner is a madman who goes all out.

—Bruce Lee

Every presidential election is a heavyweight fight. It is big, bloody and long.

An incumbent president is always favored to win. No matter what the numbers say, running against a sitting president, you generally are overmatched from day one. See the Kerry and Dole campaigns.

Now comes Mitt Romney. Is he a contender? That eternal 25% ceiling on him says no, not yet.

For months, Mitt has been The Front-Runner, whatever the polls said. It's hard to say that after last Saturday's GOP debate.

About a third of the way in, Newt Gingrich said to Mr. Romney: "The only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994."

The Front-Runner looked stunned, as if he'd just been hit with a left hook out of nowhere. No one—not Undercards Bachmann, Cain or Perry—had been able to land one like this. Literally, you could see Mitt trying to clear his head. His words came in clumps: "Now, now wait a second, that—I mean you'll—OK, go ahead."

What we saw Saturday is that Mitt Romney is reachable personally. Somewhere under that cool front is a wafer of thin skin. If we have learned anything about Barack Obama the past three years it's that he enjoys hitting. He will be merciless with Mitt. Ask Hillary. Ask the respectful Republicans that Obama pistol-whipped in that George Washington University speech. Ask Wall Street's Democrats.

To compete against a do-what-you've-gotta-do opponent, Mitt Romney needs more of what Newt Gingrich gave him Saturday night: pressure. Forget the pleasures of a no-sweat primary season. He needs a sparring partner, someone who will toughen him to handle what he's going to get next fall. That would be Newt Gingrich, the best sparring partner in American politics.

Barack Obama, a novice in February 2007 when he announced for the presidency, survived an arduous set of primary battles and debates with Hillary Clinton, who was plenty tough herself. John McCain had to contend with . . . Mitt Romney. (And a tough guy named Rudy Giuliani, who failed to answer the bell.)

The Republican establishment is writing at great length that no matter how smart Newt is, he can't be part of this because he is an unhinged and unreliable creature of the Beltway cesspool. But if he were gone or discredited, the Romney candidacy will go into a virtual coma.

The Romney campaign may think their man is ready to compete against the president. They should watch the tape of the Saturday night "$10,000 bet" meltdown. In that brief, disastrous exchange over the Massachusetts health-insurance "mandate," a smirking, taunting Rick Perry showed why he won three governor's races. And Mitt buckled, as he had 10 days earlier when Fox's Bret Baier leaned on him about the mandate.

 
Newt Gingrich will make Mitt Romney a fit candidate.

If Mitt Romney still can't handle needling attacks on the Massachusetts mandate, there's not much chance he'll stand up under the withering mockery of Barack Obama over Bain Capital. Newt's own Bain Capital attack on Mr. Romney this week is taken as proof Newt is no conservative. What difference does that make so long as someone forces Mr. Romney to find a persuasive defense of Bain and free-market capitalism before September?

Newt Gingrich will either get Mitt Romney into shape for 2012, or he will take Mitt down in next year's primary contests before the former Massachusetts governor gets himself, and his party, in over his head.

And what if the man who was House speaker 13 years ago does defeat Mr. Romney? If somehow he steals the party's nomination, the Republican establishment—its leadership and its donor base—can blame themselves for failing to find one strong Republican willing to run against a vulnerable president.

For all the guff he is getting now from that same establishment, Mr. Gingrich is the one who was willing to stand in and—altogether predictably—take it in the neck over everything from spending at Tiffany to his often antic speakership. The top-tier candidates stayed home. They wouldn't do it. He did.

So let's push past the sparring- partner metaphor. If this improbable figure wins those primaries, Newt Gingrich will become the Rocky Balboa of American politics—a flawed, scarred figure who, against the odds, resurrects himself. If he self-destructs in the primaries, he's gone. If not, he's got a shot in the general. (As for Newt's egregious Freddie Mac lucre, let the record show that Rocky was working as a loan shark's collector.)

It has come to this—a Republican nomination out of Hollywood, which too often is where this process has been the past seven months. But it isn't going to have a Hollywood ending. Tinker Bell isn't going to conjure Chris Christie or anyone else out of fairy dust before the primaries begin. These two are it.

Newt Gingrich's flaws have been posited. Mitt Romney's inadequacies are known. It's time to put these two in a cage together so that one can emerge a fighter, ready to compete for the presidency.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1131 on: December 15, 2011, 08:41:22 PM »

Ron Paul is, in many ways, the ideal candidate for a conservative electorate hungry for a principled GOP nominee. Ron Paul will never be the GOP nominee. For this, Mr. Paul has himself to blame.

In his third run for president, and only a few weeks out from the 2012 Iowa caucuses, the Texas congressman has become the sleeper news of this nomination fight. Polls show him with real strength in Iowa, and stories are brimming with speculation about how the ardent libertarian might pull off a victory there, or how he might command crucial support in Western states, or how all this might upend the Romney-Gingrich narrative.

It's fun as far as it goes, but it misses the world. Or, rather, it misses Mr. Paul's unpopular foreign-policy views, which make him the ultimate self-limiting candidate. And what makes those views more notable is the candidate's stubborn refusal to modulate them—an obstinacy at odds with the rest of his 2012 campaign.

Mr. Paul was largely written off in the past as an ideological crank, a man who ran primarily to have his views heard, and many political watchers have made the same mistake this time. But if there has been an overlooked theme in this race, it has been Mr. Paul's new seriousness about winning the nomination. The Ron Paul of 2012 is a different candidate from the Ron Paul of the past. Aware that his absolutist positions worry voters, the libertarian has been conducting a far more mainstream campaign.

Not that he's flipped on any major positions. The Paul campaign knows that its greatest opportunity is attracting voters who are dissatisfied with the other front-runners' policy timidity or lack of consistency. Mr. Paul is neither timid nor inconsistent, and it ought to make him a star.

Nicknamed the "intellectual godfather" of the tea party movement, he's held the same views about limited government since before his first election in 1976. Those views are behind his platform today to slash $1 trillion from the federal government, to eliminate five federal cabinet agencies, to cut the corporate tax rate and get rid of taxes on capital gains and dividends, and to repeal everything from ObamaCare to Sarbanes-Oxley.

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press
 
Texas Congressman Ron Paul
.The difference in the 2012 Paul campaign is instead one of a maturing tone and emphasis. Consider: The Ron Paul who in 1988 ran for president as a Libertarian spoke pugnaciously of abolishing "unconstitutional" entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. The Ron Paul of 2008 acknowledged these entitlements could not go away overnight and argued for an opt-out. The Ron Paul of today still holds those positions but is now at great pains to stress that his budget plan is in fact the only one that would "save" entitlements like Social Security and Medicare for current retirees.

He's toned down his calls to legalize drugs. He wrote an October USA Today op-ed reassuring parents they'd retain (in the near term) student loans. Whereas Mr. Paul still despises income taxes and wants to kill off the IRS, he now concedes this might require reform of the existing system, and he promises to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Organizationally, the 2012 Paul campaign has also sloughed off its 2008 disdain of the establishment, and in Iowa at least Mr. Paul is engaging in retail politics, sitting down with party elders and activists. These are the efforts of a candidate newly willing to work within a certain framework, if it means a shot at the White House.

Except on foreign policy, where Mr. Paul does himself in. In discrete areas, Mr. Paul's "noninterventionist" approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid. And note that Mr. Paul has made small stabs at reassuring voters of his patriotism, as with a big national TV ad that highlighted his own military service and commitment to veterans.

But none of this has addressed voters' big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland. Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because "we've been in the Middle East."

Far from toning down such views, Mr. Paul has amped up the wattage, claiming this year that 9/11 prompted "glee" in a Bush administration looking for a pretext to "invade Iraq." He's condemned the Obama administration's killings of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and he insists the U.S. is "provoking" Iran.

For foreign-policy hawks, this is a disqualifier. It explains why a Washington Post-ABC poll in late September showed that Mr. Paul drew some of his weakest numbers from his own base. Of the 25% of voters who viewed him favorably, nearly two-thirds did not identify themselves as Republicans. Among self-identified "conservative Republicans," only 8% gave him a "strongly favorable" rating. You don't win a GOP nomination with figures like this. Even mainstream Democrats and independents have no time for Mr. Paul's brand of isolationism, which is why his national numbers remain stuck around 10%.

Mr. Paul's new strategy has been to assail opponents like Mr. Gingrich, hoping to remind voters of his rivals' flaws. But the bar to Mr. Paul's campaign is not his opponents, or their money, or (a frequent Paul complaint) media bias. Because he can't, or won't, accommodate his own foreign policy views to those of the nation, there is only one bar to a Ron Paul victory: Mr. Paul
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1132 on: December 16, 2011, 10:23:06 AM »

Comments on last night's debate?

Here's the WSJ's take on it:
===========
SIOUX CITY, Iowa—Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich used a televised debate Thursday to try to keep momentum going in his front-running presidential campaign. But he found himself on the defensive over his consulting work for Freddie Mac, his positions on Medicare and the question of electability.

Mr. Gingrich parried the attacks and insisted he could beat President Barack Obama next year. ""Barack Obama will not have a leg to stand on in trying to defend a record that is terrible and an ideology that is radical," he said.

The debate, the 13th of the Republican campaign, was the final televised showdown before GOP voters begin choosing nominating convention delegates, starting Jan. 3 with Iowa's caucuses. The issue of electability in the general election emerged immediately as a centerpiece.

Some Republicans have framed the 2012 election as theirs to lose against a president with weak poll numbers. But national surveys show Mr. Obama is in a virtual dead heat with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and ahead of Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich asserted in the debate that at this time in 1979, Ronald Reagan was 30 percentage points behind Jimmy Carter, an incumbent he would trounce 10 months later.

"Probably anybody up here could probably beat Obama," said Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose surging campaign is threatening to upend expectations in Iowa. "He is beating himself."

After attacking Mr. Gingrich for the past few days, Mr. Romney toned it down. "The American people care very deeply about having a president who will get America right again," he said. "I'll have credibility on the economy when [President Obama] doesn't."

Seven candidates—Mr. Romney, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Paul, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.—began making a final pitch to Iowa voters before the holidays.

For the moment, the race in Iowa appears to be a three-man contest, with Messrs. Gingrich, Romney and Paul battling for the lead. The Thursday debate may end up blunting Mr. Paul's charge due to an extended exchange over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Mr. Paul, an ardent libertarian, warned the drum beat for military action against Iran threatened to push the United States into a quagmire. "That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much," he said.

That triggered sharp responses from his rivals, who echoed conservative public opinion. Ms. Bachmann said she has "never heard a more dangerous answer on foreign policy."

Mr. Gingrich was forced to defend his role as a well-paid adviser to the mortgage giant Freddie Mac. In 2007, he had praised the role of a government-sponsored enterprise like Freddie only to castigate congressional Democrats for their support of the same firm.

Those Democrats, he said, were elected officials in power. "I was a private citizen engaged in a business like any other business," Mr. Gingrich said. He also said he wouldn't "step back from the idea that in fact we should have as a goal helping as many Americans as possible be capable of buying homes."

Ms. Bachmann pronounced herself shocked at Mr. Gingrich's stance. "We cannot have as our nominee someone who continues to stand with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae," she said.

Mr. Gingrich accused her of hurling "wild allegations."

The leading candidates, who have done relatively little retail campaigning, now have less than three weeks to meet Iowans and build the organizations they will need to help supporters navigate the caucus process.

The campaigns are now saturating Iowa's airwaves with advertisements. On Thursday, Messrs. Gingrich, Romney and Perry unveiled new ads, all with different tacks. After drubbing Mr. Gingrich for days as an "unreliable" conservative, Mr. Romney turned positive with an ad proclaiming, "It is a moral responsibility to believe in fiscal responsibility."

Mr. Perry stayed on the attack, labeling both Messrs. Gingrich and Romney "political insiders" responsible for "reckless spending and high taxes."

And Mr. Gingrich tried to keep his candidacy above the fray. "We want and deserve solutions," he said in his new ad. "Others seems to be more focused on attacks, rather than moving the country forward."

A Rasmussen Research poll of Iowa GOP voters released Thursday gave fresh evidence that the contest is up for grabs. Mr. Gingrich, who has had double-digit leads in recent polls, came in second in the survey at 20%, behind Mr. Romney's 23% and ahead of Mr. Paul's 18%. The poll might be an outlier, but it indicates the contest remains fluid.

After steering clear of South Carolina, where Mr. Gingrich holds a commanding lead in recent polls, Mr. Romney will begin a campaign swing through the state beginning Friday. The winner of South Carolina has gone on to win the Republican nomination since its inception in 1980.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1133 on: December 17, 2011, 12:45:07 PM »

"Comments on last night's debate?"

After hearing the takes of plenty of others, I finally watched and listened to the entirety last night.

All stepped up their game.  Even the two weakest players, Santorum and Huntsman were pretty good. Huntsman made mostly good policy points, but doesn't look ready or Presidential.  Rush L said that it is now a 4 person race: Newt, Mitt, Perry and Bachmann.  Hannity said that Newt was answering difficult policy questions like Derick Jeter taking care of routine infield ground balls.  Mitt was great answering for capitalism under attack and was correct - that criticism is exactly what he will face from the left if nominated.  Newt was great except for not answering the unanswerable, regarding >1.6 million received from Freddie Mac.  He just can't say that he needed the money and did almost nothing for it.  Instead he answered a question not asked - I have never changed my vote for money...

Ron Paul showed the flexibility to compromise on everything except his area of weakness, foreign policy, where he doubled down on doing nothing no matter what.  Michele Bachmann scored good points on attack and contrast against Paul. I think her direct attacks on Newt were lame and opportunistic; she was gushing over Newt not long ago, how is that for consistency, and could make similar claims of inconsistency against Ronald Reagan's record if he were standing next to her.  The effort to make Newt or Mitt look too moderate or just compromise candidates will only strengthen them in the general election if they advance. 

Gingrich was suburb on his defense of abolishing an appeals court, except that those kinds of unnecessary charges are repeated without his great explanation and live on as examples of recklessness and extremism later.  They all seemed to understand the importance of appointing the right kinds of Justices (from my point of view),  There is no way to know who would actually do that best.

Crafty wrote elsewhere today: "I repeat my accusation of vaginitis in the Commander in Chief's failure to destroy or retrieve the drone."  Perry made that exact point (without the gender reference) with rehearsed precision, unlike some of his previous appearances.  He said forcefully, either you destroy it or you go in and retrieve it.  This President chose the worst of all choices, to do nothing!

I believe Newt, Mitt and Perry will come out of Iowa.  Paul will score in there with them but is going nowhere.  Bachmann, Santorum, (and Paul) have no executive experience and debating well doesn't change that.  Newt has the double digit lead - just slightly too early ), Mitt perhaps has the momentum.  My guess for the 3rd player is Perry.  With all his mis-steps, he is still the most consistently unapologetic conservative on the issues of the 3 people with the strongest backgrounds to be President.  I could visualize him, with all his inarticulateness and ridicule on the late shows, actually making Washington DC less important in our lives, but he is not as well positioned for the fight for the center in the general election as Mitt and Newt.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3963


« Reply #1134 on: December 17, 2011, 12:55:40 PM »

"This President chose the worst of all choices, to do nothing!"

One cited reason was it might look like an "act of war".

But, but, but, isn't a drone flying over Iran airspace already an act of war?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #1135 on: December 17, 2011, 12:57:03 PM »

A war Iran has been waging against us since 1979.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1136 on: December 17, 2011, 01:01:44 PM »

"Newt was great except for not answering the unanswerable, regarding >1.6 million received from Freddie Mac.  He just can't say that he needed the money and did almost nothing for it.  Instead he answered a question not asked - I have never changed my vote for money..."

In my opinion, it is much, much worse than that.

What I understood Newt to say was that he IN FAVOR of the FMs economic fascist/GSE/public-private partnership mission to "encourage home ownership" in particular and in general in favor of economic fascism/GSEs/public-private partnerships.  Add in his serial praise of FDR, and his praise of Woodrow Wilson and even SEIU's Andy Stern and Glenn Beck seems to have a pretty decent prima facie case , , ,



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1137 on: December 17, 2011, 01:30:45 PM »

Crafty:  "In my opinion, it is much, much worse than that.

What I understood Newt to say was that he IN FAVOR of the FMs economic fascist/GSE/public-private partnership mission to "encourage home ownership" in particular and in general in favor of economic fascism/GSEs/public-private partnerships.  Add in his serial praise of FDR, and his praise of Woodrow Wilson and even SEIU's Andy Stern and Glenn Beck seems to have a pretty decent prima facie case , , ,"
----------

Yes you are right on this.  He went quite a ways into praising GSE's - the mixture of public and private in do-good ventures.  That is the status quo - the world we live in.  Perry was doing it with state money in Texas, and it turns my stomach.  That means payments and opportunities for corruption forever, if people accept that.  It is the opposite of level playing field governing.  I think it was our Freki who questioned, when did the power to regulate commerce become the power to participate in it?  Or in the case of mortgages, the power to go from controlling 90% of a market to an all-Federal government system.  And health care comes next.

I don't want my government to help people one by one buy a home, choosing which ones in which order.  I want a society where people can all go out and do that on their own if they choose - by getting educated, trained and valuable, by working hard and saving and investing, by building their own good credit and putting their own money down - on homes at real market price, not subsidized, inflated prices.

We still need a President.  Who then?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2137


« Reply #1138 on: December 17, 2011, 02:52:40 PM »

We still need a President.  Who then?

A Crafty/DougMacG ticket.  With GM as SecDef.   evil cool
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #1139 on: December 17, 2011, 03:36:32 PM »

We still need a President.  Who then?

A Crafty/DougMacG ticket.  With GM as SecDef.   evil cool

 cool

Sadly, there are many people who should be running for higher office that never will. The founders never intended for there to be a "political caste" in American society. George Washington shot down any attempt to make him king, or the trappings of monarchy. Too bad that ethos is in decline.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1140 on: December 17, 2011, 10:41:54 PM »

You honor me gentlemen.  If elected, I accept-- and I'd be delighted and honored to have Doug & GM with me  grin
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 11:07:36 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1141 on: December 18, 2011, 12:36:56 AM »

"A Crafty/DougMacG ticket.  With GM as SecDef." 

I'm in. Let's roll.  grin 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #1142 on: December 18, 2011, 01:11:31 AM »

"A Crafty/DougMacG ticket.  With GM as SecDef."  

I'm in. Let's roll.  grin  

First thing, I'd have a meeting with the Pakistani generals and ISI that hid Bin Laden.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYa1IsxGVuc&feature=fvsr

Unfortunately, a variety of mishaps and domestic terror attacks would prevent the meeting from ever taking place. I think I'd work out a clear understanding with their replacements, however.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 01:13:03 AM by G M » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1143 on: December 18, 2011, 12:42:25 PM »

We've just signed up our BigDog as Chief of Staff!  grin cool
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1144 on: December 18, 2011, 01:43:56 PM »

We've just signed up our BigDog as Chief of Staff!  grin cool

I was thinking Chief Justice, but I suppose you will have to wait for an opening.   

Meanwhile our opponents keep taking each other down.  Mitt refrained from going after Newt directly in the Sioux City debate.  Instead we find out: "Last week alone, anti-Gingrich ads from a Romney ally outspent Gingrich by an 8-to-1 margin on television."  http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111217/D9RMH5F00.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #1145 on: December 20, 2011, 02:25:52 PM »

The Past and the Present

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.

What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?

This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: "We are going to change the United States of America."

Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.

Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.

Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.

Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.

Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.

While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.

Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.

In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich's past, rather than on the nation's future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell122011.php3
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1146 on: December 22, 2011, 11:38:28 AM »



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-storms-off-set-after-cnn-keeps-asking-newsletter-questions/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #1147 on: December 22, 2011, 12:38:33 PM »


Fringe candidate. Always will be.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #1148 on: December 22, 2011, 12:48:47 PM »

He may never win, but he matters:

a) He may well win Iowa;
b) he's got a big bank account and is aiming a goodly percentage of it at Newt;
c) as I have written here, the Rep party has been rather incoherent on the subject of foreign affairs and has allowed Baraq, a notably damaging CiC, to establish himself in much of the public mind as both a badass and the man who ended Iraq and is in the process of ending Afpakia.  A goodly % of Americans, including those otherwise likely to vote Rep, sense us as having been badly led in our foreign adventures of the last ten years and are receptive to Paul's isolationism.  With Paul hammering at Newt and Ritt's harder lines from within the party this may well facilitate a Baraq victory.
d) He may run as an independent, thus guaranteeing Baraq victory as Ross Perot did for Clinton in 1992.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #1149 on: December 22, 2011, 01:02:56 PM »


He may never win, but he matters:

a) He may well win Iowa;

It's possible, but I think not. Even if he did win, it won't mean much. He'll never be the nominee.

b) he's got a big bank account and is aiming a goodly percentage of it at Newt;

Newt already has the DNC-MSM aimed at him, Loon Paul ain't much compared to that.

c) as I have written here, the Rep party has been rather incoherent on the subject of foreign affairs and has allowed Baraq, a notably damaging CiC, to establish himself in much of the public mind as both a badass and the man who ended Iraq and is in the process of ending Afpakia.  A goodly % of Americans, including those otherwise likely to vote Rep, sense us as having been badly led in our foreign adventures of the last ten years and are receptive to Paul's isolationism.  With Paul hammering at Newt and Ritt's harder lines from within the party this may well facilitate a Baraq victory.

Paul manages to have a foreign policy to the left of Obozo, which takes some doing.  rolleyes Even "low info voters" have to worry about his assurances that a nuclear Iran isn't a problem.


d) He may run as an independent, thus guaranteeing Baraq victory as Ross Perot did for Clinton in 1992.

He might, which shows exactly who he really is.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!