And why would we get a better candidate by doing that? The history hasn’t been that promising.
A brokered convention would yield a candidate with little or no experience in running for national office. There’d be a honeymoon, as there was with Palin in 2008, but it’d be followed by gaffes, the media’s gleeful exhumation of various personal and political skeletons, and the overall impression of a party that doesn’t know what it’s doing.
The grass only looks greener. The best candidates and campaign organizations get there with practice. Romney and Gingrich are leading in part because their experience has helped them avoid damaging mistakes.
So are you voting for Mitt or Newt?
I had planned to vote for Mitt in the NH primary, reasoning that any GOP nominee has a decent shot of being elected (given the state of the economy, and the possibility of a Euro collapse and recession next year), and I’d rather have President Romney than President Perry, Paul, Bachmann, etc.
But I’m not sure now. I’d much rather have Obama in the White House than Romney. If Obama does win re-election, he’ll likely preside over four more years of slow recovery, protect the Affordable Care Act until people get used to its benefits, protect Roe-v-Wade with another court pick or two, and go down in history as the best Democratic president since FDR. Come 2016 we’ll regret the 22nd Amendment.
I think Obama’s got a much better shot at beating Gingrich than Romney; Gingrich is less appealing to independents, and more likely to self-destruct on the campaign trail. So I’m considering a strategic vote for Gingrich. If it backfires, and Gingrich wins the general election, he won’t be much worse than Romney, and at least we should get an interesting space policy.
JIM, JIM…what…did…you…TAKE!!! YOU’RE talking kinda CRAZY!! Somebody may have SLIPPED you SOMETHING!!
You talk as if Romney and Gingrich are close on policy. I don’t see it. First off, I believe zero, zip, nada that Romney says. If he’s THIS much a conservative, explain Romneycare. And Newt has danced with everyone in D.C. but Obama’s dog in the last few years. He was ‘concerned’ about AGW enough to do a PSA with Nanny Pelosi.
He’s lost a BUNCH of supporters for that move.
Romney is too far left for most conservative voters. He’s not even as “centrally” political as GWB was. If the GOP pushes Romney, instead of pushing him aside, it’s a losing proposition.
Not AS losing a proposition as another 4 years of Obama, but not a winning proposition either I don’t think for the country. And unless a Republican President gets a Republican controlled Congress. We’ll be right where we are now.
Screwed and broke.
First off, I believe zero, zip, nada that Romney says.
Me neither. But if elected I think he’ll stick to the things he’s been saying, because otherwise he’d face a primary challenge in 2016.
We’ll be right where we are now.
Screwed and broke.
A deadlock on Capitol Hill would solve the deficit crisis, because the Bush/Obama tax cuts would expire. Look at Belgium — they haven’t had a government for over a year, and as a result they’re doing better than their austerity-obsessed neighbors. If the Euro falls apart, US Treasuries will be even more attractive, making it easier to finance our debt. Eventually Americans will get tired of being afraid to spend money, and tired of living with their relatives, so they’ll start buying and building houses again, at record low interest rates (we broke ground on our new house last week). Things will slowly get better, no matter who the President is.
Jim writes:
“But if elected I think he’ll stick to the things he’s been saying, because otherwise he’d face a primary challenge in 2016.”
4 years is a long way down the road and most politicians figure they will transgress now and it will be forgotten. I wouldn’t bank on a primary challenge in the slightest.
“A deadlock on Capitol Hill would solve the deficit crisis, because the Bush/Obama tax cuts would expire.”
Sorry but this isn’t supported by the arithmetic nor past experience (e.g. Laffer curve and all the other studies that show that you max out at 19% regardless of tax rate). Also, as I understand them the Bush tax cuts gave cuts to a large spectrum of taxpayers. Lower income people will end up paying more taxes.
I’m having a tough time with the Mitt vs Newt thing.
Living in Massachusetts under the Willard Regime, I was very happy that Mitt won. I also noticed that Mitt got tired of the whole Guv’ner thing about halfway through.
I also lived through Newt 1.0 in the 1990’s. I recall my feelings quite clearly back then that Speaker Newt became totally full of himself; hubris set in hard and fast.
I think the reason Newt is rising in the poles is that he’s *talking* like republicans want their candidate to talk – look at the way he ripped Pelosi a new one this week. No hesitation; no delay. He clubbed her over the head, and she backtracked immediately. He uses phrases during debates that resonates deeply – like when he talked about drilling for so much oil that you “collapse the prices”. Even if that’s not likely, people like the idea. Cheap energy will strongly help to revive the economy.
They LIKE it when candidates are not afraid to go after Obama – like when Newt challenged the Dear Leader to a debate and said Obama could bring his teleprompter.
He is giving voice to that which people are saying to themselves. The GOP voter likes that this year. Anyone who wants to beat Obama better not go into this thing in a mincing gait. Romnoid doesn’t give you the impression he will take it to Obama.
GOP voters like that because they want to see the GOP candidate do that to Obama.
Both are incorrigible flip floppers.
Both have historical weaknesses (e.g. Romneycare vs sitting in the love seat with Pelosi on warming).
I guess I will vote for the one who has the best chance of beating Obama…
I just don’t know which one that is.
They LIKE it when candidates are not afraid to go after Obama – like when Newt challenged the Dear Leader to a debate and said Obama could bring his teleprompter.
This ^^
With the Obama, the Democrats, and the journolisters attacking Republicans based on class, race, age, gender, and religion who ever the Republican candidate is needs to be able to fight back not just sit there and take it.
err “…rising in the polls….”
most politicians figure they will transgress now and it will be forgotten
Republicans remember what happened to George H.W. Bush. A President Romney would take office knowing that a substantial part of the GOP base doesn’t trust him. He would make extra efforts to keep them on his side.
you max out at 19% regardless of tax rate
19% would be a big boost from 15%, which is what we have now.
Also, as I understand them the Bush tax cuts gave cuts to a large spectrum of taxpayers. Lower income people will end up paying more taxes.
Yes. The Democrats say they won’t extend the Bush cuts for the rich, and the Republicans say they won’t extend the cuts unless they’re extended for the rich too. Unless one side budges, the cuts will expire for everyone.
GHWB could have survived the “no new taxes” transgression if he ran a halfway decent campaign.
But he didn’t.
Face it… it’s not possible to have a decent candidate because this corrupt system would eat’m up alive.
Newt would have a small chance of slightly correcting social security by partly privatizing it.
Frankly (and I realize the impossibility of it) I’m hoping Ron Paul takes an early lead and fades… giving Sarah an opportunity to jump in late and take it all. Nobody else could face down the media to do what’s needed.
And why would we get a better candidate by doing that? The history hasn’t been that promising.
A brokered convention would yield a candidate with little or no experience in running for national office. There’d be a honeymoon, as there was with Palin in 2008, but it’d be followed by gaffes, the media’s gleeful exhumation of various personal and political skeletons, and the overall impression of a party that doesn’t know what it’s doing.
The grass only looks greener. The best candidates and campaign organizations get there with practice. Romney and Gingrich are leading in part because their experience has helped them avoid damaging mistakes.
So are you voting for Mitt or Newt?
I had planned to vote for Mitt in the NH primary, reasoning that any GOP nominee has a decent shot of being elected (given the state of the economy, and the possibility of a Euro collapse and recession next year), and I’d rather have President Romney than President Perry, Paul, Bachmann, etc.
But I’m not sure now. I’d much rather have Obama in the White House than Romney. If Obama does win re-election, he’ll likely preside over four more years of slow recovery, protect the Affordable Care Act until people get used to its benefits, protect Roe-v-Wade with another court pick or two, and go down in history as the best Democratic president since FDR. Come 2016 we’ll regret the 22nd Amendment.
I think Obama’s got a much better shot at beating Gingrich than Romney; Gingrich is less appealing to independents, and more likely to self-destruct on the campaign trail. So I’m considering a strategic vote for Gingrich. If it backfires, and Gingrich wins the general election, he won’t be much worse than Romney, and at least we should get an interesting space policy.
JIM, JIM…what…did…you…TAKE!!! YOU’RE talking kinda CRAZY!! Somebody may have SLIPPED you SOMETHING!!
You talk as if Romney and Gingrich are close on policy. I don’t see it. First off, I believe zero, zip, nada that Romney says. If he’s THIS much a conservative, explain Romneycare. And Newt has danced with everyone in D.C. but Obama’s dog in the last few years. He was ‘concerned’ about AGW enough to do a PSA with Nanny Pelosi.
He’s lost a BUNCH of supporters for that move.
Romney is too far left for most conservative voters. He’s not even as “centrally” political as GWB was. If the GOP pushes Romney, instead of pushing him aside, it’s a losing proposition.
Not AS losing a proposition as another 4 years of Obama, but not a winning proposition either I don’t think for the country. And unless a Republican President gets a Republican controlled Congress. We’ll be right where we are now.
Screwed and broke.
First off, I believe zero, zip, nada that Romney says.
Me neither. But if elected I think he’ll stick to the things he’s been saying, because otherwise he’d face a primary challenge in 2016.
We’ll be right where we are now.
Screwed and broke.
A deadlock on Capitol Hill would solve the deficit crisis, because the Bush/Obama tax cuts would expire. Look at Belgium — they haven’t had a government for over a year, and as a result they’re doing better than their austerity-obsessed neighbors. If the Euro falls apart, US Treasuries will be even more attractive, making it easier to finance our debt. Eventually Americans will get tired of being afraid to spend money, and tired of living with their relatives, so they’ll start buying and building houses again, at record low interest rates (we broke ground on our new house last week). Things will slowly get better, no matter who the President is.
Jim writes:
“But if elected I think he’ll stick to the things he’s been saying, because otherwise he’d face a primary challenge in 2016.”
4 years is a long way down the road and most politicians figure they will transgress now and it will be forgotten. I wouldn’t bank on a primary challenge in the slightest.
“A deadlock on Capitol Hill would solve the deficit crisis, because the Bush/Obama tax cuts would expire.”
Sorry but this isn’t supported by the arithmetic nor past experience (e.g. Laffer curve and all the other studies that show that you max out at 19% regardless of tax rate). Also, as I understand them the Bush tax cuts gave cuts to a large spectrum of taxpayers. Lower income people will end up paying more taxes.
I’m having a tough time with the Mitt vs Newt thing.
Living in Massachusetts under the Willard Regime, I was very happy that Mitt won. I also noticed that Mitt got tired of the whole Guv’ner thing about halfway through.
I also lived through Newt 1.0 in the 1990’s. I recall my feelings quite clearly back then that Speaker Newt became totally full of himself; hubris set in hard and fast.
I think the reason Newt is rising in the poles is that he’s *talking* like republicans want their candidate to talk – look at the way he ripped Pelosi a new one this week. No hesitation; no delay. He clubbed her over the head, and she backtracked immediately. He uses phrases during debates that resonates deeply – like when he talked about drilling for so much oil that you “collapse the prices”. Even if that’s not likely, people like the idea. Cheap energy will strongly help to revive the economy.
They LIKE it when candidates are not afraid to go after Obama – like when Newt challenged the Dear Leader to a debate and said Obama could bring his teleprompter.
He is giving voice to that which people are saying to themselves. The GOP voter likes that this year. Anyone who wants to beat Obama better not go into this thing in a mincing gait. Romnoid doesn’t give you the impression he will take it to Obama.
GOP voters like that because they want to see the GOP candidate do that to Obama.
Both are incorrigible flip floppers.
Both have historical weaknesses (e.g. Romneycare vs sitting in the love seat with Pelosi on warming).
I guess I will vote for the one who has the best chance of beating Obama…
I just don’t know which one that is.
They LIKE it when candidates are not afraid to go after Obama – like when Newt challenged the Dear Leader to a debate and said Obama could bring his teleprompter.
This ^^
With the Obama, the Democrats, and the journolisters attacking Republicans based on class, race, age, gender, and religion who ever the Republican candidate is needs to be able to fight back not just sit there and take it.
err “…rising in the polls….”
most politicians figure they will transgress now and it will be forgotten
Republicans remember what happened to George H.W. Bush. A President Romney would take office knowing that a substantial part of the GOP base doesn’t trust him. He would make extra efforts to keep them on his side.
you max out at 19% regardless of tax rate
19% would be a big boost from 15%, which is what we have now.
Also, as I understand them the Bush tax cuts gave cuts to a large spectrum of taxpayers. Lower income people will end up paying more taxes.
Yes. The Democrats say they won’t extend the Bush cuts for the rich, and the Republicans say they won’t extend the cuts unless they’re extended for the rich too. Unless one side budges, the cuts will expire for everyone.
GHWB could have survived the “no new taxes” transgression if he ran a halfway decent campaign.
But he didn’t.
Face it… it’s not possible to have a decent candidate because this corrupt system would eat’m up alive.
Newt would have a small chance of slightly correcting social security by partly privatizing it.
Frankly (and I realize the impossibility of it) I’m hoping Ron Paul takes an early lead and fades… giving Sarah an opportunity to jump in late and take it all. Nobody else could face down the media to do what’s needed.
We need to fire the justice department as well.