Archive

Republican candidates for 2012

  • QuakerOats
    Abe Vigoda;976730 wrote:If it is Newt, there is no way Bam will lose.
    What planet are you on? Newt Gingrich is obama's absolute worst nightmare. He will completely destroy bho in the debates ..... and I can hardly wait.
  • Cleveland Buck
    BoatShoes;978081 wrote:Blah, Blah, Blah. Might as well say real debt burdens need to rise while your at it; including the U.S. national debt.
    Nah. What we need is a $3 trillion stimulus complete with public works projects and corporate welfare and farm subsidies and wage controls. That will do the trick. The world would gobble $3 trillion in new treasury bills. Oh, well then the Fed surely has enough paper and ink to print it up. The poor occupiers that your bleeding heart feels so bad for would be elated to pay $10/gal for gas and $5 for a loaf of bread and $9 for a gallon of milk. That would make their lives easier.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/17/newt_gingrich_msnbc_essentially_the_obama_re-election_team.html


    :D
  • pmoney25
    We should give everyone $5 million dollar stimulus checks. Free doctorate degrees and 0% interest mortgage loans. Thats my platform.
  • sleeper
    pmoney25;978231 wrote:We should give everyone $5 million dollar stimulus checks. Free doctorate degrees and 0% interest mortgage loans. Thats my platform.
    I know you are joking, but I'd be willing to bet they'd get quite a few voters who would back this guy.
  • jhay78
    The poll of likely Republican primary voters by Magellan Strategies for the online New Hampshire Journal shows Mr. Romney with 29% in the Granite State, within the poll’s 3.6-percentage-point margin of error over Mr. Gingrich’s 27%. Texas Rep. Ron Paul has 16% support, with former pizza company executive Herman Cain at 10%.
    That's good news. 71% of New Hampshirians don't favor Mitt Romney. We have a shot.
  • fish82
    Bigdogg;977813 wrote:His toe jam must be better than him.

    http://www.nationalpolls.com/2012/obama-vs-gingrich.html
    Cool story, broseph.
  • Footwedge
    QuakerOats;978095 wrote:Completely incorrect. He and his consulting company did consulting work for them as private consultants and charged a slighly below mid-range fee for their work, which was focused on long term strategies. There is absolutely nothing here, so you may as well give it up now; otherwise the spotlight will again become focused on those in the public sector whose corrupt relationships with these GSE's needs to continue to be investigated.
    Nothing here? Really? Newt has more skeletons in his closet than anybody running.

    [LEFT]Abramoff replied, "This is exactly what I'm talking about. People who come to Washington who have public service and they cash in on it. And they use their public service and their access to make money, and unfortunatley Newt Gingrich is one of them who have done it. But far too many of them do it and one of the reforms I propose in my book is to close permanently the door, the revolving door, betweeen public service and cashing in as a lobbyist."
    He added after another question, "I don't know if he'll survive this, to be honest with you, this is a very big thing."
    "Why?" Gregory asked.
    "Because he is doing, and engaging in the exact kind of corruption that America disdains. The very things that anger the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement and everybody who is not in a movement and watches washington and says why are these guys getting all this money, why do they all become so rich, why do they have these advantages? Unfortunately Newt seems to play right into it."


    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68547.html#ixzz1eDp1LLdY    [/LEFT]


    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68547.html
  • I Wear Pants
    I'd bet a lot that if Newt is the candidate the Republicans don't win. And it probably wouldn't even be that close.

    I'll say it again, this is starting to look like 2004 again. If the Republicans would put up someone besides these absolute jokes they'd win. But they seem to refuse to do that. Hell, even one of the likely non-joke candidates in Romney is almost a mirror image of Obama so it takes away a lot of the "anyone but Obama" edge, because he is Obama.
  • fish82
    I Wear Pants;978884 wrote:I'd bet a lot that if Newt is the candidate the Republicans don't win. And it probably wouldn't even be that close.

    I'll say it again, this is starting to look like 2004 again. If the Republicans would put up someone besides these absolute jokes they'd win. But they seem to refuse to do that. Hell, even one of the likely non-joke candidates in Romney is almost a mirror image of Obama so it takes away a lot of the "anyone but Obama" edge, because he is Obama.
    If Obama can get his approval rating up to 47-48% by this time next year, then it will likely shake out exactly like 2004. As I've already stated, if it's still at 40%, then the Pubs can nominate my dead grandma and they'll get to 270 pretty easily.
  • stlouiedipalma
    QuakerOats;978095 wrote:Completely incorrect. He and his consulting company did consulting work for them as private consultants and charged a slighly below mid-range fee for their work, which was focused on long term strategies. There is absolutely nothing here, so you may as well give it up now; otherwise the spotlight will again become focused on those in the public sector whose corrupt relationships with these GSE's needs to continue to be investigated.
    The perception the public will focus on is how he took money as a "historian" from Freddie and Fannie.

    He also has to explain his adultery issues, his support of individual mandates for health care (before he was against it) and his ethics issues from when he was Speaker.

    That ought to keep the cheater busy for a while.
  • 2kool4skool
    Every few months, Republicans start clinging to the hope that some new candidate will defeat Romney.

    Palin, Bachman, Perry, Christie, Cain, Gingrich....all had/will have their hype train derail.

    It's just simply not going to happen. Romney will be the nominee and it's been obvious for a while. He's the only thoroughly vetted candidate.

    Note: Paul is vetted and would have a real chance if he was more willing to play into the fear-mongering game that is necessary to capture a portion of the Republican base. But alas...
  • fish82
    stlouiedipalma;981173 wrote:The perception the public will focus on is how he took money as a "historian" from Freddie and Fannie.

    He also has to explain his adultery issues, his support of individual mandates for health care (before he was against it) and his ethics issues from when he was Speaker.

    That ought to keep the cheater busy for a while.
    His "adultery issues" are farking 10 years old, and he's discussed them ad nauseum. I don't know what else you people want him to say.
  • BGFalcons82
    fish82;981625 wrote:I don't know what else you people want him to say.
    They want him to say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Or maybe they want these parsed words to float out, "It depends on what the definition of is, is."

    I really don't know the Left's problem with Gingrich's adultery, after all, "it is just sex and not of national importance."

    Remember??? :D
  • Cleveland Buck
    I want him to tell the truth. Just say, "I'm the only candidate in this race that wants an even bigger and stronger central government than Obama and Romney want."
  • majorspark
    stlouiedipalma;981173 wrote:The perception the public will focus on is how he took money as a "historian" from Freddie and Fannie.
    Come the general election this issue will fade away. The last thing the democrats want is attention focused on Freddie and Fannie. A lot of people took a lot of money. A hell of a lot more than Newt.
    stlouiedipalma;981173 wrote:He also has to explain his adultery issues.
    Unless the adultery was recent or during the campaign, I don't think past adultery issues matter so much anymore. Bill Clinton pretty much put that issue to bed (pun intended).
    stlouiedipalma;981173 wrote:his support of individual mandates for health care (before he was against it) and his ethics issues from when he was Speaker.
    Obama was against the individual mandate before he was for it. So this will not matter in a general election either.

    [video=youtube;7AOJBiklP1Q][/video]
    stlouiedipalma;981173 wrote:his ethics issues from when he was Speaker.
    I believe all were dismissed except one. I doubt this gets any real traction either.

    Like I said before I am not a big fan of Newt. I share his fondness of history. However he not only knows his history but also his politics. During the debates he says things that hit the nail right on the head. He knows when and where to throw a political bone and to whom. He has thrown them all over the place in times past. I am not sure he can be trusted.
  • majorspark
    2kool4skool;981346 wrote:Every few months, Republicans start clinging to the hope that some new candidate will defeat Romney.
    LOL. Romney is a republican. A number of republicans support him. Are the republican candidates curently supporting Romney hoping for some new candidate to come along and defeat him?

    Romney has consitently polled around 25% of the primary voters (nationally). Most of the rest of conservative primary voters are split between Cain, Gingrich, and Paul. If they would solidify between one candidate Romney would lose. It all depends on if and when. The longer it drags out it likely benefits Romney. Paul is hedging his bets early in Iowa and New Hampshire. If Paul does not finish well in those two states he is in deep trouble.
  • 2kool4skool
    majorspark;981933 wrote:LOL. Romney is a republican. A number of republicans support him. Are the republican candidates curently supporting Romney hoping for some new candidate to come along and defeat him?
    Republicans that don't support Romney is who was being referred to. That should have been fairly obvious based on the context...

    The bottom line is he's going to be the nominee. It's been obvious for over a year, and the constant propping up of these other non-factors is comical.
  • O-Trap
    The fact that anyone who considers himself a Republican would vote for Romney is equally comical.
  • Cleveland Buck
    O-Trap;982200 wrote:The fact that anyone who considers himself a Republican would vote for Romney is equally comical.
    Pretty much. Gingrich too for that matter.
  • O-Trap
    Cleveland Buck;982216 wrote:Pretty much. Gingrich too for that matter.
    Agreed. I would have said so, except he wasn't the topic of the aforementioned comment.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47606

    :thumbup:
  • Footwedge
    2kool4skool;982059 wrote:Republicans that don't support Romney is who was being referred to. That should have been fairly obvious based on the context...

    The bottom line is he's going to be the nominee. It's been obvious for over a year, and the constant propping up of these other non-factors is comical.
    I think Newt will be the nominee when it's all said and done. He's the best orator by far and will play his ace card....that he balanced the budget in 98, 99....not Clinton.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;982488 wrote:http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47606

    :thumbup:
    Hooray! Yay Republicrats!
  • gut
    Footwedge;982649 wrote:I think Newt will be the nominee when it's all said and done. He's the best orator by far and will play his ace card....that he balanced the budget in 98, 99....not Clinton.
    Well, technically the dot com boom balanced the budget. Won't prevent Newt from taking credit....just saying.