Republican candidates for 2012
-
wkfan
At this time in the campaign, most of the negative attack ads are coming from the PACs rather then the candidates campaigns themselves.jhay78;1073329 wrote:If Romney spent millions of Florida campaign ads saying that ^^^ and not setting a record for negative ads, I would respect him a bit more. I agree that Newt's mixture of whining and arrogance is annoying. Both get credit for dragging the primary into the negative campaign ad gutter. -
wkfan
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama.sleeper;1073005 wrote:I'd rather have Ron Paul. That is who I will be voting for come November. -
sleeper
No, it's a vote for Ron Paul.wkfan;1073335 wrote:A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama. -
wkfan
That will help to re-elect Barack Obamasleeper;1073358 wrote:No, it's a vote for Ron Paul. -
sleeper
Actually, it'll help elect Ron Paul.wkfan;1073372 wrote:That will help to re-elect Barack Obama -
sjmvsfscs08sleeper;1073398 wrote:Actually, it'll help elect Ron Paul.
-
ZombaypirateI am also voting for Ron Paul. Screw the liberals who all want big governement.
Vote for Romney or Obama you get the same thing and I am sick and tired of the same thing and will not participate in the crap they are offering.
Lets see a tax and spend liberal vs a just spend and raise the deficit to greater heights liberal hmmmm which one to vote for what a difficult choice.
To win the answer is neither of those clowns. -
sjmvsfscs08
What makes you think Romney is a liberal? Do you have a brain?Zombaypirate;1073585 wrote:I am also voting for Ron Paul. Screw the liberals who all want big governement.
Vote for Romney or Obama you get the same thing and I am sick and tired of the same thing and will not participate in the crap they are offering.
Lets see a tax and spend liberal vs a just spend and raise the deficit to greater heights liberal hmmmm which one to vote for what a difficult choice.
To win the answer is neither of those clowns. -
pmoney25
Its hard to tell what Mitt is, he probably will change his mind tomorrow. -
dtdtim
He left the governorship with pretty low approval ratings for a state that he left in fairly good shape, at least if you compare Ohio and the state of the state when Taft and Strickland both left office. IMO I still don't think they'd go GOP even with a Minnesotan on the ballot. Although you're scenario definitely makes things more interesting. In all reality, though, Romney needs a flashier pick for VP if he is the nominee. Romney/Pawlenty will not win an election in a country as plastic and entertainment-obsessed as this one. There's just no flash there and Romney is going to need someone a little more attention-getting to motivate the Republicans not excited by his nomination.sjmvsfscs08;1071838 wrote:What if Tim Pawlenty is the VP?
I read an article the other day that reported that in a survey, I think by Gallup, more people felt Obama could relate to the struggles of the average American than Romney. Trying to find it. They need to campaign against each other before I would take something like that as seriously but, just starting out, I can see how your average American might say that right now.Manhattan Buckeye;1073019 wrote:"He is on pace to overtake John Kerry as the single most out of touch politician to seek the Presidency in the modern era if he keeps this up. "
As opposed to what we have in office? Do you realize how much people hate Obama's administration? He isn't sniffing winning North Carolina or Virginia again. Ohio is likely to go GOP and Pennsylvania and Michigan are at play. Obama will win California/New York, but I don't know anyone that will admit to voting for him. This is Jimmy Carter part deux.
Romney or Paul could definitely beat Obama if the campaign sends the right message to voters. This race is absolutely not in the bag for the opposing candidate of Obama, though, and I hope the GOP doesn't think that way. Ohio is never a state I would say is in the bag for either party until right before the election and, even then, you can never be sure. Same with Pennsylvania although they are much more likely on a general basis to be blue as East PA keeps trending more to the left and is the portion of the state that is growing in population. Michigan is a hard state for the GOP to win because of the heavy Union influence but Romney would be the Republican to win it if anyone can. Virginia is going to be carried by the vote of Northern Virginia, which is just as bellweather nowadays as Ohio, at least in my neck of the woods. My gut thinking is that North Carolina and Indiana are going to go back to being reliably red again but, at the same time, you can't underestimate the efficiency of each campaign to get voters to the polls, which is something we won't have any idea on until much closer to the election. I think there are so many variables in play right now it's impossible to rule out any scenario with this current crop of politicians.
I don't see a blowout election happening ever again with the current, constant state of political polarization that the US has been in since 2000.
P.S. You don't know anyone in California or New York that will admit they voted for Obama? Am I reading this wrong? -
Cleveland Buck
Romney and Obama are not exactly the same.
When Barack wants to start a new war, he'll help pay for it by giving the troops fewer bullets or take away their armor. Then he'll take those savings and start up a new entitlement that he claims will reduce the deficit.
When Mitt wants to start a new war, he'll ensure the Fed prints enough money to equip them, then he'll lay off a couple secretaries in the Dept. of the Interior, call himself a spending hawk, and claim with a straight face that we will have to bail out the European banks to save ourselves.
The end result is the same, and I won't endorse this charade anymore. I will vote for Ron Paul whether he is on the ballot or not. At least "socialist" Democrats will take the fall for what happens instead of "capitalist" Republicans. -
ptown_trojans_1
I must have missed where the O&M budget went down.....Cleveland Buck;1073745 wrote:Romney and Obama are not exactly the same.
When Barack wants to start a new war, he'll help pay for it by giving the troops fewer bullets or take away their armor. Then he'll take those savings and start up a new entitlement that he claims will reduce the deficit. -
Cleveland Buck
It was a metaphor. Obama is willing to make insiginificant cuts in military spending. Romney is willing to make insignificant cuts in domestic spending.ptown_trojans_1;1073758 wrote:I must have missed where the O&M budget went down..... -
believer
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I appreciate your Paulist convictions. But don't kid yourself. While the "end result" might indeed be the same, your means to rectify the problem certainly won't justify the end.Cleveland Buck;1073745 wrote:I will vote for Ron Paul whether he is on the ballot or not. At least "socialist" Democrats will take the fall for what happens instead of "capitalist" Republicans.
A write-in vote for Dr. Paul is a default vote for Obama. -
IggyPride00
Willard governed as a liberal.sjmvsfscs08;1073595 wrote:What makes you think Romney is a liberal? Do you have a brain?
He so desperately wants to be President he is saying Conservative things now, but in his heart he is a liberal.
That is why he has so many gaffes. Conservatism isn't natural to him, so he forgets his prepared script at times and lets the real Willard come through.
As governor his state was 47th in job creation, he was pro abortion, he raised taxes, implemented socialized healthcare......these are all liberal policies. He was running to the left of Ted Kennedy in 94 for the Senate seat.
You are free to believe the snake oil salesman who will say anything to get elected, but I look at his record as a governor to see what he actually believes in when he is elected. -
dwccrew
Unfortunately for Romney experience and record hardly get you votes anymore. It's all about who can put out the most effective negative ad campaigns about their opponent.sjmvsfscs08;1073003 wrote:Not different enough?
Person A was a mediocre student in political science at Columbia, studied political law at Harvard, was a local community organizer for a few years and while teaching political science, and then spent a few years running for elections and ended up riding the Change-wave into the White House. Person A spoke often before politics about his dream of changing the structure of America into a pseudo-Socialist mirror of Europe. Person A is a very smart man, and full of ideas--thus his Poli Scit baskground--but literally has produced zero results. Person A is the definition of an amatuer.
Person B was the son of an extremely successful governor, and graduated near the top of his class in Business Administration (and Business Law), founded and lead a multi-billion dollar venture capitalist firm which generated tens of thousands of jobs, managed the turnaround of the Olympic Games--from $380 million in debt to $100 million in profit. Then, he governed the most liberal state in America and dealt with an 85% democratic legislature and actually accomplished something...like going form $3 billion in debt to $1.3 billion in surplus over his last two years. Oh and he did all of the Olympics/Governor thing for free, just because he actually cares about people.
Tell me, average American, which guy do you want running the show? Which guy do you think has the knowledge to turn things around?
I guess I just want to know, as specifically as possible, what would Romney do as President that you are not okay with? Please don't give me the Ron Paul "eliminate ________." Give me something more, please. Is it that he isn't a social conservative, or is it that he is not a fiscal conservative (in your opinion)? I honestly want to know what people dislike about the idea of a Romney White House. I don't get it.
As for the "carpet bombing:" Newt is a bitch. Like he wouldn't do the same damn thing to Romney if he had the ability, he is the ruthless son of a bitch let's not pretend like he isn't. What really happened is that Romney called Newt out and Newt acted like a child and got exposed. I honestly liked Newt a lot in the summer and fall, and assumed he was the most knowledgable guy when it came to DC political maneuvers--and I guess I still believe that. But I don't want that. I don't want the Socialist who is driving this country off a cliff, I don't want the libertarian who won't get anything accomplished, I don't want the Reagan/Bush GOP stereotype who spent his enture career in the Beltway...I want the very skilled business leader who had succeeded in the global markets and has a trackrecord of bringing efficiency and profits to whatever he lays his hands on.
wkfan;1073335 wrote:A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama.
I never understood this line of thinking. I wouldn't vote for Romney even if he was running against someone other than Barack Obama. Why is voting for the person you want to vote for a default vote for the other canidate? I wouldn't vote for either of the two (Romney likely the nominee) so whether I vote for Ron Paul or not, why is it a default vote for Obama? Couldn't it be a default vote for Romney? You can't be sure a person that votes for Ron Paul would vote for Romney over Obama. Paul supporters don't differentiate between Obama and Romney, so it isn't a default vote for anyone. It's not as if I'd vote for Romney if I wasn't voting for Ron Paul and I'm sure most Paul supporters agree with me.believer;1073767 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: I appreciate your Paulist convictions. But don't kid yourself. While the "end result" might indeed be the same, your means to rectify the problem certainly won't justify the end.
A write-in vote for Dr. Paul is a default vote for Obama. -
Cleveland Buck
Exactly. If I don't write in Paul then I will vote for Gary Johnson or not vote at all, who knows. What I do know is there are an awful lot of things I would do before voting for either Obama or Romney, and if forced to choose between them I don't even think I could.dwccrew;1073807 wrote:I never understood this line of thinking. I wouldn't vote for Romney if he was running against someone other than Barack Obama. Why is voting for the person you want to vote for a default vote for the other canidate? I wouldn't vote for either of the two (Romney likely the nominee) so whether I vote for Ron Paul or not, why is it a default vote for Obama? Couldn't it be a default vote for Romney? You can't be sure a person that votes for Ron Paul would vote for Romney over Obama. Paul supporters don't differentiate the difference between Obama and Romney, so it isn't a default vote for anyone. It's not as if I'd vote for Romney if I wasn't voting for Ron Paul and I'm sure most Paul supporters agree with me. -
dwccrew
Exactly. When people say "if you vote for so and so, it is really a vote for blah blah", that is some useless and meaningless tactic. As Sleeper said, it is not a vote for anyone other than the man I am voting for which is Ron Paul.Cleveland Buck;1073811 wrote:Exactly. If I don't write in Paul then I will vote for Gary Johnson or not vote at all, who knows. What I do know is there are an awful lot of things I would do before voting for either Obama or Romney, and if forced to choose between them I don't even think I could.
Please don't try and convince me that it is voting for the "lesser of two evils" because that is just stupid. -
Manhattan Buckeye"P.S. You don't know anyone in California or New York that will admit they voted for Obama? Am I reading this wrong?"
Correct. And I know many people that are California/New York voters, whether living there or are ex-pats.
The country made an atrocious mistake in 2008, we don't know anyone that will admit to voting for this disaster then or will fess up to planning on voting for the continuing disaster this year. This is why I think the pre-election polls aren't reliable. Many people just want Obama to go away, even DEMs.
Are you better off now than you were before the Obama administration? Do you think trillion dollar deficits throwing money at political cronies for four more years is good for the country? Unacceptable unemployment rate? Falling home values? The U.S. in economic decline? Government takeover of healthcare, autos and whatever business it decides it wants to be involved in? I'm often ashamed to admit I'm an American in taxis. The international community is laughing at us. Ironic that an administration that finally made Michelle to be proud of America caused me to be ashamed. This is what happens when we elect an inexperienced executive, at least Romney has some experience in the private sector and in government. I'm not sure the country will handle four more years of Obama learning on the (golf course) job well. -
majorspark
Willard cloaks his record as governor with the 10th amendment. Attempting to portray himself as a states rights conservative. I agree the state of Massachusetts can set up their own socialized healthcare system and do alot of things the feds can't do. Many conservatives just do not trust that this is the case with Willard. When he says he is not worried about the "poor" because they have safety nets and if it needs repair he will fix it. As the cheif executive to the federal government? Shouldn't he say its a states responsibility to craft their own plans. Isn't healthcare a safety net too? But Willard says its for the states to craft their own plans. I am confused.IggyPride00;1073806 wrote:You are free to believe the snake oil salesman who will say anything to get elected, but I look at his record as a governor to see what he actually believes in when he is elected. -
IggyPride00
[video=youtube_share;wAkKl3Y8xmQ][/video]
-
sjmvsfscs08
So pretty much it's exactly what I expected.IggyPride00;1073806 wrote:Willard governed as a liberal.
He so desperately wants to be President he is saying Conservative things now, but in his heart he is a liberal.
That is why he has so many gaffes. Conservatism isn't natural to him, so he forgets his prepared script at times and lets the real Willard come through.
As governor his state was 47th in job creation, he was pro abortion, he raised taxes, implemented socialized healthcare......these are all liberal policies. He was running to the left of Ted Kennedy in 94 for the Senate seat.
You are free to believe the snake oil salesman who will say anything to get elected, but I look at his record as a governor to see what he actually believes in when he is elected.
Your proof that his is a liberal is how he acted when he governed the most liberal state in the country? He could be what every other reasonable person is saying in that he is a populist conservative.
47th in job creation, but this doesn't look too bad to me:
Especially when you consider that in 2002, this was the situation:
He raised taxes (hey, so did Reagan and HW Bush...what fucks! amirite?) IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IT WAS THE BEST MOVE? After all, the MA budget needed to be balanced...“Massachusetts is number one in the nation in job losses, shedding 4.7 percent of all jobs over the last two years. The state has lost 71,000 manufacturing jobs, or 17 percent; 69,000, or nearly 14 percent, of all jobs in the professional and business services sector; and nearly 18 percent of all jobs in the information industry.”
Boston Globe - A little perspective - Apr 25, 2003
Or how about...“ -Speaker Thomas Finnernan...
“There's a $300 million shortfall. There is a $2 billion structural deficit confronting Massachusetts. The budget is $23 billion, 40% of which is off the table because of court mandates and laws that you must provide that kind of funding. With the remaining $12 billion, you have to find $2 billion...”
"It's the worst I've seen it. Going back to the post-war era, I've never seen such an acute and focused fiscal crisis and particularly for the state government," said Richard P. Nathan, director of the Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York-Albany...
“The estimated budget gap of $547 million in Massachusetts is among the largest in total dollars, according to the report by the National Conference of State Legislatures... Massachusetts officials have predicted that in the next fiscal year the shortfall will far exceed an earlier projection of $2 billion.”
On being pro-abortion, I could give a shit. He won't have an impact on that, just like Reagan, HW Bush, and Bush had zero impact on abortion.
On implementing socialized health care...does anything with social in front of it scare you? States can do what they want and Massachusetts decided to do that. At the very least, it was a fiscally-sound socialized health care. It was not, NOT, Obamacare.
Got any more brain busters? Is it possible he inherited horrific economic and fiscal situations with Massachusetts, and that unlike Obama he actually made the most of his bad hand and dealt with it? -
IggyPride00
You need to watch the ad posted above your post.sjmvsfscs08;1073992 wrote:So pretty much it's exactly what I expected.
Your proof that his is a liberal is how he acted when he governed the most liberal state in the country? He could be what every other reasonable person is saying in that he is a populist conservative.
47th in job creation, but this doesn't look too bad to me:
Especially when you consider that in 2002, this was the situation:
He raised taxes (hey, so did Reagan and HW Bush...what ****s! amirite?) IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IT WAS THE BEST MOVE? After all, the MA budget needed to be balanced...
Or how about...
On being pro-abortion, I could give a ****. He won't have an impact on that, just like Reagan, HW Bush, and Bush had zero impact on abortion.
On implementing socialized health care...does anything with social in front of it scare you? States can do what they want and Massachusetts decided to do that. At the very least, it was a fiscally-sound socialized health care. It was not, NOT, Obamacare.
Got any more brain busters? Is it possible he inherited horrific economic and fiscal situations with Massachusetts, and that unlike Obama he actually made the most of his bad hand and dealt with it?
Willard is a George Soros approved candidate.
I prefer to find a Conservative, not Obama-lite.
McCain demoralized the Conservative base and low turn out handed Obama a victory in 2008.
Willard is even more loathed than McCain among the base, and will do nothing in excite or inspire Conservatives to knock on doors, campaign and organize for the upcoming election. He will have zero coat-tails down ballot, and will be a drag on the party.
Look at the enthusiasm the Tea Party generated in 2010. How does nominating a Soros approved candidate tap into that when largely Willard polls very poorly with them? -
sleeper
Great video from the Gingrich campaign. I can't stand either Romney nor Obama because they are both the same. The only difference is one is already a colossal failure and the other hasn't had the chance.
-
Manhattan Buckeye"Willard is even more loathed than McCain among the base, and will do nothing in excite or inspire Conservatives to knock on doors, campaign and organize for the upcoming election. "
He doesn't have to, he just has to run against Obama.