Posted on 01/11/2012 2:33:00 AM PST by sheikdetailfeather
You'll have all the ammo you need to back up your argument if you see my previous post above. :) bttt
VCR? Really? What century are you living in?
;-)
I’m sorry but I couldn’t get past the Tipper-Al Gore 5 minute slobber fest to watch his speech.
Get a room.
I like the idea too. It would allow Gingrich to really be outspoken, while Santorum could be rock steady, as a POTUS should be. Can you imagine when Oboob plays the race card, how Newt will respond? Pass the popcorn.
It is after 9AM, is the speech over?
Wow, that came at such a convenient time,
The great pile on to prove he’s the most electable.
BULL.
If Gingrich were to do this I would regain some respect for the man. If he’s the visionary some say he is, it should be clear conservatives, independents and a significant number of Pubbies want a clear choice this time around. Perhaps even a new face. Afterall, Gingrich and Paul are part of the political elite who, by what they did or did not do, facilitated the usurping of the WH by a Marxist.
I think endorsing Santorum would ultimately enshrine Gingrich as a true statesman.
As for Perry and Huntsman—it’s time they left the stage as well. America needs a clear choice and an opportunity to rally around that choice. Coalescing around Santorum will leave the national GOP no choice but to accept Santorum—thus reassuming the mantle of an opposition party to the demrat party—or be absorbed by the Demrat Party.
Good post — thanks!
A nice gesture. But Santorum is the least likely to win the general of the 3 (Perry, Gingrich, Santorum). I truly believe independents will like Gingrich and Perry more.
I have to remind myself sometimes--these are politicians...
Neo-Socialism
http://conservativewahoo.blogspot.com/2009/11/neo-socialism.html
Anyone who puts himself out there as a conservative thinker/commentator will invariably find themselves the subject of critics who hurl the phrase “neo-con” or “neo-conservative” at them, as if there is no difference in “conservatism” and “neo-conservatism”. There is. Neo-conservatism adds to a core of conservative domestic sensibility a new sense of American exceptionalism in the world and a concomitant duty to spread the benefits of democracy and liberalism (classical, not modern) throughout the world. Most who use the phrase “neo-con” these days mean it as an insult, largely code for “support for the failed policies of George Bush” or some other such drivel.
I propose that we now begin to refer to the policies of the Obama Administration as “Neo-Socialism”. Not in some childish game of tit-for-tat, but in the recognition of the fundamental differences in classic socialism and the brand practiced by President Obama and his administration.
Here are, as far as I can see it, the defining characteristics of “Neo-socialism”.
1. A belief in the concept that capitalism has failed, but can be resuscitated by a new partnership between government and business. This new partnership will be inherently more fair to more people.
2. A belief that competition isn’t necessarily bad, and that government can and should be permitted to compete with private industry.
3. A belief that big government isn’t necessarily bad; what is bad is BAD big government. Big, effective government is desirable.
4. A belief in the transcendent quality of the world community while de-valuing national interests. A sense of American relative and actual decline in the world, one that demands of us a more compliant approach to problem solving. A perception that American decline is not necessarily a bad thing.
I’m sure there’s more—but this is a good start. bttt
Agreed, if Santorum is the top of the ticket, its done.. he cannot win a general election.
I think Santorum is a reasonable VP pick, though what he brings to the VP spot for a top ticket is questionable.
However, Santorum as the candidate, = Obama 2nd term.. this guy doesn’t have the chops to handle a national campaign, let alone one that will be as well funded and nasty as this one is going to be. He couldn’t get re-elected in a statewide race as a 2 term senator against the most boring and invisible oponent on the planet, I truly don’t see him staning a prayer against the Obama machine.
Its Newt or Romney.. any other person as the Candidate equals 2nd term for Obama IMHO.
Romney is boring, and safe and should win easily with 55-45 or better. Newt will be able to make and keep a true idealolgical debate to the public, and that will easily gain another 5-10 points his way, 60/65-40/35 win.
Santorum? He’ll be painted as a radical, attacked on all sides, and easily painted as an extremist, and won’t be able to handle it. And this will allow Obama to pull out a squeaker.
I am okay with any of these guys over Obama, but I honestly watched Santorum for 12 years, he didn’t just lose an election last time, he was summarily trounced by a candidate who literally no showed the campaign as is about as exciting as watching paint dry. I don’t see how Santorum will win the general, I can list you pleanty of reasons why, but the biggest is, that I can’t see him carrying PA or OH.. and that’s his back yard. if he cant win those states, no way he can get the White House.
I see this as if we wish to actually beat Obama, we have 2 choices, Newt or Romney. Of those two I’ll take Romney anyday. I like Santorum over Romney, but not as much as I like Newt, but I just see no way Santorum will win the general if he is the nominee.
“The GOP had better do something about Iowa and NH being first and second next time around,those states are a joke. “
Since the GOP doesn’t control NH law, there isn’t much they can do about the NH problem.
State law allows “unaffiliated” voters (who are about 1/3 of the total in NH) to vote in either primary they choose on election day. So mushies like Mittens get gobs of votes from liberals.
State law also requires that the primary election be held before any other state’s primary. No matter what the national party does in other states, the NH Secretary of State will have to schedule the primary on the Tuesday before the earliest other primary.
All the national party can do is reduce NH’s delegates to something insignificant. The party can’t tell the state how to hold elections, and the state can’t tell the party how to use the results of those elections.
You’re welcome! :)
Seriously, the way things seem headed Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry will all have to drop out after SC. There will be no viable path for any of them. People in SC just ratify what NH does; they do it often, but not in 1996, when they demanded Dole.
Sooner or later, we are going to have to accept realize it: Newt is POISON with female voters. His numbers are dreadful. And this is without Debbie Wasserman-Schultz hammering him over the divorce-hospital-bed nonsense in the general campaign. He would set records for low womens' vote. Santorum does not have this problem, to say the least.
“Agreed, if Santorum is the top of the ticket, its done.. he cannot win a general election.”
YOU ARE WRONG!. SERIOUSLY WRONG.
I am listening to a livestream of Newt at a Townhall in SC. It doesn’t sound like he is dropping out at all.
Every female voter lost because of Newt (emotional - swing voter non-thinker types - not conservative womend) will be back and bring a friend when he picks Marco Rubio as VP.
is criticizing politicians for trading on inside information anti-capitalism?
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.