Republican candidates for 2012

• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;1081819 wrote:That might work, except he has no problem with the thousands of other federal programs that violate the 10th amendment of the Constitution, or the ones that violate other parts of it either.

  This is another good point why people are not buying Willard's argument that Romneycare is a state issue. What about the department of educaton? And the host of other federal departments? Rick Perry forgot one in his list and his ship was sunk. Willard's 10th amendment schtick comes off as reactionary to the political fallout from Romneycare.
• BoatShoes

  IggyPride00;1081815 wrote:No, he couldn't.
  
  In 2012, the Republican/Conservative base has zero tolerance for a government mandate of any kind be it on the state or federal level.
  
  The 10th amendment argument falls flat because being supportive of government mandates is not in step with Conservative values.
  
  That is why Romney is boxed in so bad on the issue. Any way he argues it, Republicans don't want to hear it.
  
  The Tea Party had the biggest Congressional victory in 100+ years on the back of outrage over Obamacare. To then nominate someone who ideologically agreed with everything in Obamacare (and implemented it himself when given the chance) cuts off that wave of enthusiasm at the knees.
  
  How do you argue against Obamacare when you are supportive of all the ideas behind it. That is how you get yourself labeled a flip flopper in American politics.

  All I'm saying is that if he showed some passion about the issue, which is clearly his achilles heal, from some kind of Constitutional foundation maybe he'd have a fighting chance. The way he spits out his rationale as if he's at a country club brunch doesn't do him any favors.
  
  But either way, as you suggest, that wouldn't do anything to change the fact that choosing a nominee who also supported an individual mandate of any kind probably isn't the GOP's best bet when that is supposed to be their wheelhouse against Obama.
• sjmvsfscs08

  IggyPride00;1081815 wrote:No, he couldn't.
  
  In 2012, the Republican/Conservative base has zero tolerance for a government mandate of any kind be it on the state or federal level.
  
  The 10th amendment argument falls flat because being supportive of government mandates is not in step with Conservative values.
  
  That is why Romney is boxed in so bad on the issue. Any way he argues it, Republicans don't want to hear it.
  
  The Tea Party had the biggest Congressional victory in 100+ years on the back of outrage over Obamacare. To then nominate someone who ideologically agreed with everything in Obamacare (and implemented it himself when given the chance) cuts off that wave of enthusiasm at the knees.
  
  How do you argue against Obamacare when you are supportive of all the ideas behind it. That is how you get yourself labeled a flip flopper in American politics.

  Why do you continue to make such incorrect generalizations??
• IggyPride00

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1081919 wrote:Why do you continue to make such incorrect generalizations??

  Have you seen how similar Willardcare and Obamacare are?
  
  If Willard was philosophically opposed to things like mandates and forced coverage of birth control he would have vetoed the bill when it came before him in Massachusetts.
  
  Instead, he not only signed it, but made sure he had Ted Kennedy there to thank for helping push it through.
  
  How do you draw a contrast with BHO on healthcare when you share the same vision for mandates? That is not a generalization, it is a fact. One that Willard and his troop of surrogates have yet to figure out how to spin their way out of, which is why he can't seal the deal with Conservatives still even though he has been running for President for 6 years now.
• fish82

  

  IggyPride00;1081949 wrote:Have you seen how similar Willardcare and Obamacare are?

  To be fair, there are also numerous significant differences.
• FairwoodKing

  Right now the Repub candidates are right where I want them: fighting each other. Whoever the nominee is, he will be badly bruised. Obama will be able to run TV ads showing what the other Repubs have had to say about the candidate. It will not be a pretty sight. And I'm loving every moment of it!
• majorspark

  

  FairwoodKing;1082005 wrote:Right now the Repub candidates are right where I want them: fighting each other. Whoever the nominee is, he will be badly bruised. Obama will be able to run TV ads showing what the other Repubs have had to say about the candidate. It will not be a pretty sight. And I'm loving every moment of it!

  This happens in every presidential primary. An incumbent president running for re-election usually gets to stay out of it on his side.
• fish82

  

  majorspark;1082014 wrote:This happens in every presidential primary. An incumbent president running for re-election usually gets to stay out of it on his side.

  Truth. It's like some of these people have never watched a Presidential election before.
• IggyPride00

  

  Jim Demint has said recently he sees an increasingly likely chance that there will be a brokered convention for the Republicans. That would give someone like Chris Christie or some other white knight a chance to come in and save the party from Willard.
  
  Turn out has been low at these primaries, and Erik Ericson of Redstate said this is the most depressed he has seen the CPAC convention in all the years he has been going because Willard inspires no enthusiasm.
  
  The Wallstreet Journal Editorial board nailed the big problems with Romney dead on.
  

  "Conservatives don't trust Mr. Romney in part because he gives them little reason to do so," the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote Thursday morning. "The former Massachusetts Governor also isn't winning friends with his relentlessly negative campaign."
  
  "Now his political team's instinct will be to dig into its oppo research and savage Mr. Santorum," the Journal wrote. "This may get Mr. Romney to 50.1% of the GOP delegates, but he'd be a weaker nominee for it. The low GOP turnout in early primary states is one sign of his weakness. What Mr. Romney needs is to make a better, positive case for his candidacy beyond his business resume."

  If Mitch Daniels didn't have a crazy wife he was trying to protect from the spotlight of a presidential campaign he would be the nominee by now. A midwestern governor with solid Conservative credentials that could have united the base. There was a big push to get him to run, but too many skeletons in the closet with his family to deal with the vetting process. It's too bad.
• sjmvsfscs08

  IggyPride00;1082045 wrote:Jim Demint has said recently he sees an increasingly likely chance that there will be a brokered convention for the Republicans. That would give someone like Chris Christie or some other white knight a chance to come in and save the party from Willard.
  
  Turn out has been low at these primaries, and Erik Ericson of Redstate said this is the most depressed he has seen the CPAC convention in all the years he has been going because Willard inspires no enthusiasm.
  
  The Wallstreet Journal Editorial board nailed the big problems with Romney dead on.
  
  
  
  If Mitch Daniels didn't have a crazy wife he was trying to protect from the spotlight of a presidential campaign he would be the nominee by now. A midwestern governor with solid Conservative credentials that could have united the base. There was a big push to get him to run, but too many skeletons in the closet with his family to deal with the vetting process. It's too bad.

  Considering Chris Christie was one of the first big names to endorse Mitt Romney, I find this post to be pretty funny.
  
  You're running away from Romney because of many non-issues. Romneycare isn't an issue because he thinks states should do their own thing, why is that so hard for you to understand?
  
  I understand if you want to rip on Romney for the deficit, because in my opinion he hasn't laid out a good plan yet. But to criticize Rommey on something that will never impact your life is rather foolish, in my opinion. You're not even recognizing that Romneycare has worked, for the most part, for the people of Massachusetts and that it is still just as popular now as the day it was passed for them. We live in a country where you are allowed to govern yourselves and if the people of Massachusetts want a liberal health care plan then the people in Ohio should be okay with that. Don't fuckin move to Massachusetts then!
• IggyPride00

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1082058 wrote:Considering Chris Christie was one of the first big names to endorse Mitt Romney, I find this post to be pretty funny.
  
  You're running away from Romney because of many non-issues. Romneycare isn't an issue because he thinks states should do their own thing, why is that so hard for you to understand?
  
  I understand if you want to rip on Romney for the deficit, because in my opinion he hasn't laid out a good plan yet. But to criticize Rommey on something that will never impact your life is rather foolish, in my opinion. You're not even recognizing that Romneycare has worked, for the most part, for the people of Massachusetts and that it is still just as popular now as the day it was passed for them. We live in a country where you are allowed to govern yourselves and if the people of Massachusetts want a liberal health care plan then the people in Ohio should be okay with that. Don't ****in move to Massachusetts then!

  You clearly are not making the connection as far as Obama and Willard sharing the same ideology that government (be it state or federal) should be able to force citizens to purchase Health care from private companies.
  
  Conservatives, and a great deal of American citizens (remember the Tea Party) thankfully don't share this belief as far as the role of government in our lives.
  
  Willard and Obama both agree that government on any level should be able to make such decisions, and it is wrong.
  
  It is why after 6 years of running for President he can't close the deal. It is why Conservatives don't trust him.
  
  As far as the Christie thing, if Willard can't get to the delegate number before the convention, all bets are off. Christie could very easily be drafted if he can win the vote count at the convention.
  
  In fact, the new slogan in many conservative circles is "go for broker" because it will save them from a Willard candidacy.
• sjmvsfscs08

  IggyPride00;1082062 wrote:You clearly are not making the connection as far as Obama and Willard sharing the same ideology that government (be it state or federal) should be able to force citizens to purchase Health care from private companies.
  
  Conservatives, and a great deal of American citizens (remember the Tea Party) thankfully don't share this belief as far as the role of government in our lives.
  
  Willard and Obama both agree that government on any level should be able to make such decisions, and it is wrong.
  
  It is why after 6 years of running for President he can't close the deal. It is why Conservatives don't trust him.
  
  As far as the Christie thing, if Willard can't get to the delegate number before the convention, all bets are off. Christie could very easily be drafted if he can win the vote count at the convention.
  
  In fact, the new slogan in many conservative circles is "go for broker" because it will save them from a Willard candidacy.

  False.
• jhay78

  

  FWIW, the other day Dick Morris (by no means the end all be all) said there's no chance a brokered convention will happen this time. Someone will wrap it up before then.
• fish82

  

  It's still funny that Dick's name keeps getting blanked out. :laugh:
• IggyPride00

  

  Santorum is using this contraception fiasco to start attacking Willardcare, calling it the "stepchild of Obamacare today."
  
  Very smartly, he is also going to start nailing Willard as being a proponent of government intrusion into the lives citizens because of his support for mandates.
  
  As I posted earlier, and I am happy to see Rick is picking up on, Obamacare vs. Willardcare is not a federalism issue (state vs. federal implementation), it is about whether you are supportive of and encourage government intrusion into the lives of private citizens.
  
  That is the big issue at play, and this contraception debate has thankfully brought that back to the forefront so that people can see that Willard stands with BHO on his personal belief that government should be able to force you to make certain decisions regarding your healtchare.
  
  Whether it is at the federal or state level doesn't matter, the principle (as Santorum is starting to point out) is that you should never be supportive under any circumstances of the government gestapo coming in and mandating you have to purchase heath insurance.
• pmoney25

  

  Cracks me up that someone with Santorum voting record is attacking Mitt for not being conservative enough.
• HitsRus

  

  http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
  http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
  
  here are the two candidates you've mentioned voting records.
  
  I've posted this before, but apparently you missed it.
• jhay78

  

  pmoney25;1082289 wrote:Cracks me up that someone with Santorum voting record is attacking Mitt for not being conservative enough.

  Santorum doesn't need to attack Mitt- his flaws stand out quite well enough on their own.
  
  http://www.redstate.com/tomjefferson/2012/02/10/mitt-romney-the-big-government-non-conservative-casting-rick-santorum-as-a-big-government-non-conservative/
• pmoney25

  

  HitsRus;1082398 wrote:http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
  http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
  
  here are the two candidates you've mentioned voting records.
  
  I've posted this before, but apparently you missed it.

  Yea I know there Voting Records. I was in no way defending Mitt Romney. Just that when given the chance to increase the government debt, Santorum Did. When expanding size of the Dept of Education, Santorum Did. Expanding Medicare, Santorum did. Vote against Right to Work, Santorum Did. Countless others to mention. My comment was more of Santorum claiming to be Captain Conservative just because he is conservative on Social issues but on Fiscal issues he is a disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention our defense budget would probably double if he were president.
  
  If I was forced to rank the candidates and I would never want to vote for these guys but I would pick Newt or Mitt over Santorum anyday.
• pmoney25

  

  jhay78;1082454 wrote:Santorum doesn't need to attack Mitt- his flaws stand out quite well enough on their own.
  
  http://www.redstate.com/tomjefferson/2012/02/10/mitt-romney-the-big-government-non-conservative-casting-rick-santorum-as-a-big-government-non-conservative/

  You are preaching to the Choir. Im one of the Ronulans or PaulBots whatever you want to call us.
• majorspark

  

  fish82;1082269 wrote:It's still funny that Dick's name keeps getting blanked out. :laugh:

  Just call him the toesucker. Works just fine.
• IggyPride00

  

  “ I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”

  Willard tells a massive whopper of a lie in his CPAC speech today. Conservative sites are already panning his speech for insulting the intelligence of the base by outright lying like this. It is this kind of unauthenticity that makes him so unappealing to so many Republican voters. It is like he thinks we are all stupid or something.
• gut

  IggyPride00;1082584 wrote: It is like he thinks we are all stupid or something.

  People don't keep saying he's just like Obama for nothin!
• HitsRus

  

  Joke told at the convention:
  
  A liberal, a conservative, and a moderate walk into a bar.....the bartender says "Hi Mitt!".
• majorspark

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1082058 wrote:You're running away from Romney because of many non-issues. Romneycare isn't an issue because he thinks states should do their own thing, why is that so hard for you to understand?

  sjmvsfscs08;1082058 wrote:But to criticize Rommey on something that will never impact your life is rather foolish, in my opinion. You're not even recognizing that Romneycare has worked, for the most part, for the people of Massachusetts and that it is still just as popular now as the day it was passed for them. We live in a country where you are allowed to govern yourselves and if the people of Massachusetts want a liberal health care plan then the people in Ohio should be okay with that. Don't fuckin move to Massachusetts then!

  You are right and so is Willard that states can do their own thing. And no we don't have to move to Massachusetts. But Willard is not running for governor of Massachusetts. He is running for the President of all the states. What you need to understand is the states elect the president. And no other state has been able pass a state healthcare system like Romneycare in Massachusetts with mandated participation. State governors across the country would have vetoed any such legislation in their states. Most would not get past their respective state legislatures.
  
  What those of us that are not citizens of Massachusetts are left to decide it this. Can Willard compartmentalize his ideology that government needs to intervene and mandate its citizens to purchase health insurance and leave it at that level of governance. Will he be able to constitutionally restrain himself when given power over all of us or will he bastardize it as others have. Therein lies the doubt.