Posted on 01/02/2012 11:05:14 AM PST by Shout Bits
Tomorrow, the Iowa GOP caucuses will yield their punditry fodder. Despite Iowa's hostility toward Gov. Romney's East Coast big government, pro-abortion, and socialized medicine record, he may win narrowly. Combined with a decisive victory in New Hampshire, many analysts think an Iowa victory could lock in Romney for the nomination. Tactically, an early Romney lock makes sense – less wasted resources in primary battles, a seasoned politician who does not make mistakes, the fact that good looks matter against all reason. Still, why does the GOP eternally embrace the Democrat agenda in a dilute form? Why does the GOP simply want to slow the march to national destruction?
All the GOP candidates have rightly criticized Pres. Obama for his wild socialism. Through aggressive regulation, shameless union biases, and of course Obamacare, he has thrown a series of socialist hand grenades into the private sector. Jobs are created when investors see a reasonable certainty of profit, and the reams of legislation and regulation foisted by Obama have yet to allow clarity as to where the next jobs will be found.
By contrast, Pres. Bush was a big government failure that took a steady course. Bush socialized prescription medicine, but its impact was reasonably predictable. Bush over regulated corporate finance through Sarbanes Oxley, but it did not reach down to the products and prices people pay for everyday financial transactions. Obama's big government socialism is like a street drug, while Bush was like a pharmacy pill; both are addictive and dangerous, but one is easier to predict and contain.
Can anyone reasonably claim that a Pres. Romney would be less of a socialist than Bush? Bush had better governor credentials from Texas than Romney has from Massachusetts. Gov. Bush never socialized all of medical care. Gov. Bush never conscripted every citizen into buying health insurance against his will. Even Romney's excellent hair and winning smile cannot cover his big government instincts, and how often do politicians exceed their expectations?
Romney offers competence and stability; he has the ability to stay on message (i.e. tell the people the lies they want to hear until they believe them). Romney may be able to beat Obama in November, but is a victory for the GOP a victory for the people? Is getting rid of the worst, most socialistic President since FDR enough? Not nearly so.
Wild man Rep. Paul has been sounding the alarm for decades – the US is in desperate trouble. The US does not have nearly the resources to pay for its immense promises such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a $700 bln military. These are unpopular facts, but the longer they are ignored, the worse the consequences when Athens comes to Washington. Everyone agrees that Paul cannot become President; unfortunately, he is tied to fairly racist newsletters and laughable extremists like the Truthers (although nobody criticizes Obama that many of his Hollywood backers are similarly deranged). Paul is unlikeable and has no political fineness. Still, Shout Bits calls on Iowa to vote for Paul or stay home.
Paul is a messenger, not a candidate. His Iowa support reflects an instinctive sense that the US cannot carry on with the status quo. Romney and Gingrich are the status quo pleading to give big government another chance – this time big government will be better and really solve the nation's problems. If the GOP continues to embrace this lie, the GOP must be destroyed, and a sharp rebuke of big government is the start. So, Iowa, vote for Paul, and let the other states sort out who really should be President. At this early stage, it is more important to send a message to the GOP establishment than to worry which watered down version of Obama will carry on a slow march to Hell.
Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Shout-Bits/191627784211089
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — 23 percent ..LIBERAL DEM IS NOT GETTING OUR NOM
Texas Rep. Ron Paul — 22 percent ..RACIST NUTJOB APPEALS TO DEMS & DRUGGIES
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum — 18 percent : ) ..GO RICK!
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — 16 percent : ) ..GO NEWT!
Texas Gov. Rick Perry — 10 percent ..DROPS OUT WED
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann — 6 percent ..DROPS OUT WED
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman — 2 percent ..NO ONE CARES
Other — 1 percent
Undecided — 2 percent
The poll was completed Sunday night after the Des Moines Register poll of 729 Iowa Republicans likely to vote Tuesday and has a statistical error margin of 3.5 percent.
“It’s basically a two-tiered race,” Matt Towery, chief pollster for InsiderAdvantage, tells Newsmax. “The first tier is Romney, Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich.”
The remaining candidates no longer are players in the GOP race for president, Towery said.
The surprise of the poll, Towery said, is how well Gingrich is doing despite “seeing blood everywhere” after the massive pummeling he’s taken in local and national TV ads, largely funded by pro-Romney supporters, attacking the former speaker’s record.
The InsiderAdvantage closing survey for Iowa has been the most accurate poll in predicting the winner. The poll foresaw John Kerry’s upset over Howard Dean in 2004, Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton in 2008, and Mike Huckabee’s surprise victory that same year.
“Still, why does the GOP eternally embrace the Democrat agenda in a dilute form?”
The simple answer is that since the 19th amendment was passed politicians have worked to appeal to women voters who are for the most part socialist that strongly believe in the nanny state philosophy and can’t seem to comprehend or don’t care about the loss of freedom that naturally goes with that philosophy. There is not much practical difference between the RATS and the GOP, it’s really just a matter of style, one goes full-out to appeal to women, the other tries to hold out a small concession to males but policy wise are pretty much catering to the female voters (and the rising population of effeminate men).
THe 17th and 19th amendments are the evil twins that destroyed the republic.
THe 17th and 19th amendments are the evil twins that destroyed the republic.
We all know entitlements need to be cut by, maybe 10%?
Tell me which candidate has even remotely taken that bull by the horns. Maybe Perry when he can remember wbhich depts to cut.
If anyone was serious they would repeal the Bush medicare prescription benefit which is outrageously unfunded. Never happen.
So you don’t think half the population should be allowed to vote because of your unsubstantiated claims? Besides its irrelevant whether its true or not - You cannot protect the people from themselves. Considering how laughable your “reasoning” is, I would make a better case for screening voters based on intelligence and you are probably not going to make the cut.
“Besides its irrelevant whether its true or not - You cannot protect the people from themselves.”
It is true, there have been a few studies that have looked at the issue of women voting and socialist trends and they correlate quite well with one another. You can’t deny basic human nature (next thing you’ll be espousing that men and women are really the same and that the differences are just social constructs, just like a true feminist) and the fundamental differences in how men and women think and behave. However, you are correct in that we cannot protect people from their own choices and men made a bad choice when they decided to give women the right to vote. We are where we are because of that.
Of course it does. Women are different from men in very specific ways, which mainly correlate to bearing children and maintaining a safe family environment. These concepts are THE main selling points for socialism, especially during a time when marriage percentages are dropping like crazy. It doesn't matter that socialism doesn't actually provide for these needs - it is marketed as doing so, and refined through research to get the effect it seeks - votes.
Applied mathematics includes such soft variables, as I'm sure you know. And as I'm also sure you know, such variables completely dictate the hard numbers that result.
Sheesh.
The socialists infiltrated the republicans. Call it a mix of Cultural marxism, Statism and progressivism that ruined the republican party. There is no such thing as moderates. It is all a joke to further socialism.
They why are there conservative women? You can’t just pigeon hole a whole gender. There are various types of people and thus different kinds of women. IT is not like there are not conservative women. There would be no Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann if both of you were right. You would be denying conservative women a right to vote as well.
Correct. The GOP is not what it pretends to be. Political parties come and go, and when they fall apart, it is usually quickly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.