The problem with election Mitt is that you get the good old boy status quo. Nothing will change. We need a bomb thrower such as Newt to change things in Washington. GO NEWT!
The problem with election Mitt is that you get the good old boy status quo.Yes, and if this were truly the case I could almost bring myself to support the man. Only it isn't. The question before us is whether to support the one-term governor whose only achievement was RomneyCare with all its new rules, its new taxes, its assumptions about state power in the service of progressive goals, and its mandates, a program functionally identical to ObamaCare--and the answer has got to be no--no under any circumstances.
I’ve thouight that just as Obama is Carter’s second term, Mitt is HW’s.
The biggest problem with electing Mitt, and Congratulatons for this GOP idiot establishment, is that he DOES NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE BASE. Consequently, Republican voter turnout will be seriously depressed, causing losses in the down races in the House and Senate. I will be the first to call it. If Romney wins the nomination, we will gain only TWO of a possible 23 seats in the Senate and there is a 50/50 chance we will lose the House.
Perhaps. I'd sure take it if I could get it. The problem is newt isn't the most likable guy you'll encounter, to put it mildly. And he doesn't have good looks to counter his personality deficit, so he will never be president of his country.
Lot's of apolitical people vote in presidential elections - for the candidate they would most like to see on TV for the next four years. That isn't Newt, by a long shot. Like many here, apart from his loopy flirtations with futurism and his strange way of using leftist talking points, I would look forward to a Newt presidency. But I really can't say I like the guy. I can't doesn't often act like a petulant adolescent, because he does. I can't say he isn't whiny, because he is. He's been whining since forever. Remember the crying about having to use the rear exit on AF1?
In a country where style and flair are far more important than they should be in the general presidential election, Newt and his crybaby ways just won't cut it, no matter how correct he might be about policy and ideology. He'd be the most likely (other than Paul, of course) to squander the advantage of Obama's many failures and inadequacies.
Which makes the "Romney is not electable argument" more complicated than the author of this article wishes to acknowledge. Unelectable? Compared to who? Sanatorum? Maybe. Santorum is a decent looking, likable guy. Romney is less electable than Perry? Maybe, if Perry could ever get any traction in the nomination battle and borrow a functioning tongue from somebody. Romney is less electable than Newt? Hilarious.
Parley Baer,
you are right that a bomb thrower is appropriate about now I just am not convinced Newt would throw large enough bombs.
I think we could use about a 30 percent across the board cut in gub minttoday,
Eliminate crap and cut all else.
Mitt?