Mitt is nothing more than a RINO whom is now pulling a Kerry-esque Flip-Flop on Gun Control and his obvious Romney-Care is not much different than a micro version of Obamacare...
Newt albeit is not the perfect candidate but has at least been steady on his anti-socialist, anti-progressive pro-republic and pro-Constitution position.
I find it VERY alarming when the MSM picks Romney (or any of the candidates) as the front runner and doesn't attack him as they have others who are a threat to derail the Obama re-election train.
Medic624 wrote:I find it VERY alarming when the MSM picks Romney (or any of the candidates) as the front runner and doesn't attack him as they have others who are a threat to derail the Obama re-election train.
Alarming yes but I hope you're not surprised the MSM backs the Democrats' first choice of opponents for Obama.
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country
mamabearCali wrote:Gingrich/Rice Gingrich/Santorum----works for me. Let me know where to get the bumper sticker at.
Either of those tickets would guarantee Obama a second term. I, and I expect many other independents, would sit out the election rather than vote for either of those.
I don't know about that--Newt has a-lot of pluses and his negatives are well known. The MSM is simply not going to be able to pull a Perry rock on ranch bit with him. He seems to be comfortable in front of and dealing with the press and his debating skills have been beyond satisfactory. He does not seem to get flustered easily even by reporters being less than cordial. Is he perfection--- NO! Not by a long shot. But he is more solidly conservative than Romney and seems to be handling himself quite well.
Quite honestly we are not going to get Ron Paul, or even Perry. But I doubt independents would dislike Gingrich so much that they would rather take their ball and go home, and see another 4 years of rot come to our nation rather than having someone who, though not perfection, would at least be on right side of many issues.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
mamabearCali wrote:Gingrich/Rice Gingrich/Santorum----works for me. Let me know where to get the bumper sticker at.
Either of those tickets would guarantee Obama a second term. I, and I expect many other independents, would sit out the election rather than vote for either of those.
Really? I'm betting that you're gonna eat those words
I don't fear guns; I fear voters and politicians that fear guns.
mamabearCali wrote:Gingrich/Rice Gingrich/Santorum----works for me. Let me know where to get the bumper sticker at.
Either of those tickets would guarantee Obama a second term. I, and I expect many other independents, would sit out the election rather than vote for either of those.
You would rather see another Obama term than vote for the one candidate that has even a chance of beating him? Wow.
Voting for the lesser of two evils makes me feel dirty, and it lends legitimacy to a candidate I don't actually support. I voted third party in 2008, and if the Republicans don't nominate someone I can stand I'll do so again or not vote at all.
FWIW, I'm close to swearing off elections completely (at least federal) for the same reason--participation implies support of a system which I'm becoming convinced is completely out of control. Politicians have gamed the system to their advantage so much that we have a virtually permanent political overclass, where which party is in power makes virtually no difference--the system exists only to perpetuate itself.
You say that the system lacks legitimacy basically because it is broken and doesn't produce results that ideologically pure enough for your satisfaction. I have two reactions to that:
1) To not vote is to abdicate your responsibilities of citizenship. You may not like that, but it is truth. The system is broken exactly because people don't participate in it, and they haven't for years. When elections in what is still arguably the most free nation on the planet produce turnouts of less than 50% of all eligible voters, that is as shameful as it gets. Not voting as a protest is just as irresponsible as not voting out of apathy. Both have the net effect of contributing to breaking the system further.
2) Life is not squeaky clean, no matter how much we want it to be that way. When you have cancer and you're offered a choice of chemotherapy or radiation therapy, both suck, but the situation demands a response. You can opt out if you want, but that's an irresponsible choice if you have a family to support. We have a nation in need of repair. It is a hard, boots on the ground reality that there are currently only two parties that have a snowball's chance of getting their candidate elected. Supporting the third party's candidate is just as bad as opting out. Worse yet, you have one party which is the absolute bastion of leftist politics. You have the other party that is a muddle of everything from country club republican lite to rock-ribbed hard core conservatives. The democrats have more people registered. The republicans turn out to vote in higher percentages. That is the only reason that elections are even marginally close. Conservatives who opt out of voting because they cannot bring themselves to hold their noses and vote republican have the effect of helping to throw the election to the democrat candidate. Conservatives who desert the republican party to vote third party because they cannot bring themselves to hold their noses and vote republican have the effect of helping to throw the election to the democrat candidate.
If you can't do that—hold your nose and vote republican in this election cycle—then the reality of it is that makes you OK with another 4 years of Obama. Now, if you're OK with that, then just say it. If you're not OK with that, then don't be politically naive, and don't live in denial. Hold your nose and vote for the "lesser of the two evils."
BTW, I remember a poll about 6 or 8 months ago that showed something like 75% of independents who voted for Obama would NOT voted for him again. Now, things can shift over time, but Obama has not done a single thing to engender confidence among among liberals and democrats, let alone independents. Watch this recent video of Obama head cheerleader Chris Matthews:
[youtube][/youtube]
Obama is in deep kim-chee. His presidency is in the toilet. He can be beaten by a candidate who offers a clear alternative to his presidency. Romney is not that man. Romneycare, by the white house's own admission, was the pattern on which Obamacare was modeled. Of course the liberal media treat Romney with kid gloves. They want him to be the party's candidate because A) they know that he does not present a clear enough distinction from Obama; B) because his candidacy will legitimize Obamacare....no matter what Romney says about it in the republican debates; and C) if Romney were to win, he is a republican that the liberal media could give a honeymoon to. For about two weeks.
Personally, despite Gingrich's alleged "baggage," I think he's a good candidate. But here's the deal....if Romney wins the republican nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for him, because even a country club republican like Romney would be a better president than Obama. Newt Gingrich said so.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Medic624 wrote:I find it VERY alarming when the MSM picks Romney (or any of the candidates) as the front runner and doesn't attack him as they have others who are a threat to derail the Obama re-election train.
Alarming yes but I hope you're not surprised the MSM backs the Democrats' first choice of opponents for Obama.
Oh, no... Not at all... the fix is "trying to be in" but there is still, I believe, some legitimacy left in the process to eke out who the people want "overall".
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (AMDG) It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington
The Annoyed Man wrote:THIS AMERICAN THINKER ARTICLE speculates that either Rice or Rubio would be the best choices for VPOTUS.
BTW, if Newt wins, I think Huntsman is a perfect choice for Secretary of State. IMHO, he would better serve in that role than in VPOTUS.
I would have to agree. There is an interesting historic parallel here.... A while back, I read Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. The title of the book comes from the fact that three members of Lincoln's cabinet ran against him in the 1860 presidential campaign: Attorney General Edward Bates, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase and Secretary of State William H. Seward. All three were his bitter enemies before and during the campaign. None of the three thought of Lincoln as having the intellectual horsepower or dignity required of the office. All three came to deeply love Lincoln the man and were bereft at his assassination.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
mamabearCali wrote:Gingrich/Rice Gingrich/Santorum----works for me. Let me know where to get the bumper sticker at.
Either of those tickets would guarantee Obama a second term. I, and I expect many other independents, would sit out the election rather than vote for either of those.
You would rather see another Obama term than vote for the one candidate that has even a chance of beating him? Wow.
I understand that reaction to Romney, because he and Obama are both socialists, and Obama signed more pro gun bills. I don't understand that reaction to Gingrich except from false flag RINOs who want more socialism. Personally, I think Newt would make a better vp than potus but I like him a lot better than Mitt or Herman. I'm not thrilled with Santorum either for personal reasons but I would hold my nose and vote for Newt despite that choice of vp.
Yep.
Gingrich isn't perfect (bad personal history/that lovely commercial he did with Pelosi) but he'd get my vote. Though I like the idea of Gingrich/Rubio over Rice. Or even Gingrich/Cain .
74novaman wrote:
Gingrich isn't perfect (bad personal history/that lovely commercial he did with Pelosi) but he'd get my vote. Though I like the idea of Gingrich/Rubio over Rice. Or even Gingrich/Cain .
Obama got elected with NO personal history OR credentials. Maybe those silly things don't matter anymore?
74novaman wrote:
Gingrich isn't perfect (bad personal history/that lovely commercial he did with Pelosi) but he'd get my vote. Though I like the idea of Gingrich/Rubio over Rice. Or even Gingrich/Cain .
Obama got elected with NO personal history OR credentials. Maybe those silly things don't matter anymore?
He also had the support of the MSM. Gingrich won't get the gloss over, don't look too close "investigation" into his life like obama did.
But, I think he would absolutely DESTROY the teleprompter in chief in a debate. And that should more than make up for any media smears. (I hope).
Think about the last election with so many saying we need change. When asked what changes all I ever got was a deer in the head light look and a repeat of "we need change." No thought process. Might as well been trying to discuss issues with a rutabaga.
I think all seem to be underestimating the power the media has at character assassination. Weak minded sheeple eat it up and make their decisions based on it. Years ago I even heard complaints from some, about Gingrich because he wrote a book while in office. Why he shouldn't when others have and do is beyond me but he was disliked so much that anything he did was bad.
I think many people also enjoy character assassinations because it reduces these nationally known people down to their own level. Of course these sheeple must be told to enjoy it, which is where the media come in.
The system is broke, but it isn't just that people don't vote. It is just like the problems with our educational system. They are many and very complex with no simple solution.
One thing I find interesting is how the get out to vote messages have changed over the years. I like listening to old radio shows from back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. While now the media says that it is your responsibility and duty to get out and vote; these older shows say it is your responsibility and duty to get out and cast an informed vote.
Even assuming one has the reasoning skills to come to a factually supported decision, it is really hard to be informed when you are feed a steady diet of propaganda as the media now does. Frankly, from the lack of most people's ability to support their own beliefs and ideas with something more substantial than "I think" I don't think that the majority of the people in our country can make informed decisions.
Bill Harvey
License to Carry Handgun - Indiana, since Aug 1997
CHL - Texas, since Aug 2011
wharvey wrote:Years ago I even heard complaints from some, about Gingrich because he wrote a book while in office. Why he shouldn't when others have and do is beyond me but he was disliked so much that anything he did was bad.
Appropos of today's date, I wonder what those same people would have said about Jack Kennedy publishing Profiles in Courage in 1955.....while he was a sitting U.S. Senator.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
wharvey wrote:
I think all seem to be underestimating the power the media has at character assassination. Weak minded sheeple eat it up and make their decisions based on it. Years ago I even heard complaints from some, about Gingrich because he wrote a book while in office. Why he shouldn't when others have and do is beyond me but he was disliked so much that anything he did was bad.
I don't care who the repubs nominate, the MSM WILL attack them...try to dig up dirt...do whatever they have to do. Remember McCain in 08? He was supposed to have a "good relationship" with the media...how much did that help him out? They talked about his service...then in the next breath speculated that the torture he endured may have made him mentally unfit for the job of CinC.
Thankfully, with alternative media now someone who articulates his ideas clearly at least has a chance to be heard by anyone willing to do some digging.
As for those who don't bother to research...well, you can't help idiots anyway.
the fix is "trying to be in" but there is still, I believe, some legitimacy left in the process to eke out who the people want "overall".
