Posted on 12/26/2011 6:05:58 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Again this is my opinion; based on observing a few folks I have heard speak.
Again this is my opinion; based on observing a few folks I have heard speak.
You might be on to something.
My opinion is also based on observations and knowledge.
I believe you are incorrect in your analysis.
What is also true about that “voting block”, these young and restless people you outlined, never put their money, OR their time where their mouth is. They talk a good and noble fight, but never deliver.
Any poll that includes this group as a major factor, never proves accurate on election day. Perhaps for the reasons I mentioned above.
I still think that Ron Paul will lose Iowa to Newt when it comes down to it. There are way too many “undecided” voters out there who do have a brain, and when they even think of the possibility that the most dangerous candidate in our history threatens to win, they will come out in droves for Newt, in the name of logical restraint.
My take on Iowa Paultards: They’re wanting to flip a political bird to the Iowa so-cons that make up a large part of the Iowa Republican establishment... the so-cons have their issues, and once their litmus tests are met, their minds glaze over... How do you think Huckster won the think last time???
On the Fox News Sunday panel they were asked their predictions for next year. 3 out of 3 who answered the question about specific candidates predicted Romney would win the nomination. 2 out of the 3 said Obama would win the general election. It just lends credence to the idea that people don’t really believe Romney is the “one candidate who can beat Obama” no matter what they say.
I believe they’re right about some things. Their rationale was mainly that the economy will keep improving, thus voters will warm up to Obama. Considering we’re in the doldrums now and half the voters still want him reelected, I find that hard to argue with. Any uptick could put Barry over the top. Not to mention many people think the Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare. That alone could get the economy and jobs roaring again and totally shift the issues this campaign is going to have to be run on.
That’s why I think Mitt is a terrible candidate. Despite his lack of charisma, we’re being told he’s the guy to make the case on the economy, because he turned things around as a businessman. I don’t think we can trust the economy will be the main issue in November and I don’t think we can trust we’ll have any obvious issue at all. That’s why I think we need a “bomb-thrower” like Newt. With a traditional campaign, we will probably lose. Newt is the one guy who can flip the conversation around on a dime to any issue he wants, social, economic, national security, constitutional. It may come down to making the philosophical case for conservatism vs. socialism and I believe only Newt has the clarity and command to pull that off.
Then they must be ignorant of what Ron Paul believes and has said.
If they were thinking voters they could see that Rick Perry has the consistent SOCIAL and FISCAL bonafides.
If voting is now a tit for tat, we’re sunk.
If they want a leader they'll vote for Rick Perry. This is a jobs election and Perry has it in spades. And they can relax because he's pro-America, pro-strong military, pro-strong family, pro-shrink government, anti-green socialism AND NOT a big-ideas central planner, like Gingrich.
Americans might like hearing Newt blast Obama during the campaign but they won't like Newt insulting them --- and he will -- if you disagree with him (and it will be difficult to know which position he is taking as he moves from one to another so quickly) it will be you who are too stupid to see the logic in his brilliant leadership and insight about solutions.
I love to listen to Newt and will continue to throw him a few bucks when I get the chance. We need to take out bimbo and I am hoping he has the balls to do it.
We must remember that Iowa is a caucus state where people show up as a group and vote on site rather than going to the polls throughout the day whenever it is most convenient. As a result, the most organized political effort usually wins by getting the most people to the precinct sites. That is how Obama beat Hillary in some key states.
Also, Iowa is far overblown by the media as are NH, SC and Fla. There is still plenty of meat on the bone after those primaries.
“Fox News - the place where nobody knows your name (if it’s Perry)”
No kidding! This morning I turned on Fox, hoping to hear about Perry and the rumor that he may take legal action in response to this fiasco in Virginia. But I never heard a single word.
>>I sincerely hope Ron Paul sinks before he sinks the country<<
You mean further than Bush sr., Clinton, Bush jr. and O-bozo already have?
I thought I heard’ja right.
What makes Palin/Reagan more of an ideal conservative than Bachmann, Santorum, Newt or Perry? I would say all of them have a better command of the issues than Palin. And if we’re looking for conservative “purism,” Reagan violated it many times both in his history and as president (when he raised taxes and did amnesty). Palin in her brief tenure as governor extended domestic partner benefits to government employees and pushed to get more money out of the oil companies for the government.
People need to realize there is no ideal, pure conservative in a high government position. They can exist on paper or in the pundit world, but reality’s far too messy for that to happen.
I can see an argument for any of the 4 mentioned above as a good, conservative choice. I put Bachmann last and Newt first, but that’s just me. I also think the REAL story here is how all those good, conservative choices are SPLITTING the vote, allowing the “RomPaul” oddballs to seem like they’re polling higher. Add those 4 up and you get 43% in Iowa, double what Paul or Romney is getting.
Oh my garsh, folks that would immediately hop on board with Palin that are supposedly now on board with RP are the folks who had had enough with the current perverted, deeply corrupt two party system we now enjoy.
We saw it back in the Perot day’z. For crying out loud, if the republicans want independents to vote for their candidates, FIX the damn candidates.
We are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Worn out voting for “The Maverick for Change”, “Compassionate Conservatism”.
We want statesman, constitutionalists, America first, duty/honor not...gimmie wanna gotta have candidates that tell ya what your itchy ears wanna hear.
We better fix this perverted two party system while we still can. Stop listening to the grandiose lies the mainstream candidates are spewing. It is just that, lies.
Aren't you guys tired of the Dems and Pubs putting America second to enrich themselves?
Without a doubt. They don't care.
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.