2012 GOP Nomination

Man it must bug the crap out of Obama to have to look back at how Bush ran his campaign as guidance.

Or look back at the Bush economy in envy... Libs still want to lie but the facts are plain as day. Bush responded to his early recession that libs and the media called "the worst economy in 40 years" with across the board tax cuts. The economy added jobs. New businesses sprung up... and as conservatives predicted... revenues to the federal gov't went up significantly. Only Bush's domestic spending excesses and the GOP establishment's cowardice on "cuts" to the baseline made deficits possible.

The tax cuts were effective and almost immediate in their impact.

Obama's expansion of gov't payrolls, expansion of gov't spending, stimulus pkgs, bail outs, sweet heart deals for supporters, etc have left us worse off after 3 years than we were to start with.

One way has proven to work (supply side). The other way has utterly failed.
 
Has Perry explained why he went from D to R in the late 80s? My concern is that he may have switched when it became politically expedient, rather than because his beliefs truly align with the GOP. I suppose his track record as Governor indicates that he's pretty solid R.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
It is underreported but the Dems alienated their conservative wing. Many conservatives no longer had a home in the Dem party by the 80's.
 
It is underreported but the Dems alienated their conservative wing. Many conservatives no longer had a home in the Dem party by the 80's.
yep . . . It's a very familiar story among former southern Democrats. When the House finally flipped in 1994 the floodgates opened.
 
Poll: Romney Keeps the Lead - Washington Wire - WSJ

Although chatter this week will continue to focus on Texas Gov. Rick Perry reshaping the presidential race, a new poll from USA Today and Gallup shows that, for now, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is still the Republican front-runner to take on President Barack Obama next year

Mr. Romney led the field with 24% support, according to the poll, the only Republican candidate to top 20%. Mr. Perry took 17%, Texas Rep. Ron Paul came in third at 14% and Rep. Michele Bachmann came in fourth at 13%.
 
Rick Perry has a very "Howard Dean" feel about him

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy... But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same policies".

-- Carroll Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope", 1966, p. 1247-48

Quigley was one of the most profound and scholarly commentators on twentieth century politics, both domestically and internationally.

Instead of a discussion about the next GOP nominee I expected when I opened this thread, I find a discussion on wedge issues.

Wedge issues are one of the main things the political establishment uses to motivate the public to cast ballots.

What if the electorate didn't show up to vote at all or they all wrote in Tom, Dick or Harry instead of the sorry excuses we generally have from which to select??

Would they get the idea or just ignore it?

Bottom line is that Sarah Palin is the only candidate that could possibly lead to any profound policy changes of which this country is so sorely in need.

Romney and Perry won't do the trick and I don't trust Bachman who has a rino campaign coordinator.
 
Keep crossing your fingers for Palin.

As far as Palin being the only advocate for real change? huh? Paul's whole platform is policy change.
 
Keep crossing your fingers for Palin.

As far as Palin being the only advocate for real change? huh? Paul's whole platform is policy change.

I think you are probably right on Palin. I agree with much of what she has to say. I am not bothered by the twisted portrait of her painted by the MSM.

I AM concerned about her ability (among many others) to represent the country in the world. I don't think Obama is taken serious. IMHO, Reagan is the last one who was and even that could have been partially a product of the times. Right now... I see a whole bunch of lesser than life characters out there across the whole political spectrum.
 
You honestly believe that the Indy voters in places where it truely matters (Northern VA, suburbs of Philly/Charrlotte, Ohio, etc) would want Perry over Romney? They will take one look at Perry and think "Texas Blaggo"
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
You honestly believe that the Indy voters in places where it truely matters (Northern VA, suburbs of Philly/Charrlotte, Ohio, etc) would want Perry over Romney? They will take one look at Perry and think "Texas Blaggo"
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yes I do.

Independent voters will go for a well run campaign more than ideology. Perry's record in Texas compares well to Obama. His policies are distinct from BO. Romney does not provide a real choice... he's basically another extension of the Bush/Obama presidency.

I am trying to put myself in BO's shoes. Would I rather run against someone whose policies as governor were almost indistinguishable from my own... knowing that I am more personally appealing than he is and that he will struggle to pull his base together? OR, would I rather run against someone who was successful as a governor and will have no problem pulling his base together?
 
Last edited:
doesn't really matter what your opinion of the man is.

the fact of the matter is that Romney has a better chance at winning the general election than Perry does
 
The field is an abortion. And throwing Obama in as the opponent just makes everything worse for the country.
 
doesn't really matter what your opinion of the man is.

the fact of the matter is that Romney has a better chance at winning the general election than Perry does

No. He doesn't. Any marginal gain he made with the "independents" would be lost from the base.

I will not vote for him. Period. If he is the nominee then I am voting 3rd party. I may vote that way anyway but I am DONE voting for the "lesser of two evils".

That's not to say someone has to line up "perfectly". But they have to convince me that they really stand for something rather than being "politicians".

The longer we vote for one side because he's not the other side... the longer both sides get to give us Barack Obamas, Bushes (both of them), Doles, Kerrys, Gores,... To the best of my ability, I am going to vote "for" people going forward and not simply against.
 
I would say that Romney is running his campaign pretty well, while Perry has made a couple of rookie mistakes. The ads Romney are putting out are top notch.

Perry, IMO is too easy of a target for the east coast media. They will chew him up. I dont see how the media can attack Romney as easily as Perry. What are they going to do? Call him a flop-flopper and make fun of his religion?

Both can/will win, I just think one wins in a landslide


Also I will add that I dont think winning the GOP base is all that important because Obama isnt winning those states where the base is anyway
 
The field is an abortion. And throwing Obama in as the opponent just makes everything worse for the country.

The only advice I would give is to not let the MSM limit your decisions through biased reporting. Listen to what they say in context and make up your own mind.

I'm not convinced any of them are right either... I am still listening. If the primary were held today, I would likely issue a GOP protest vote for Paul.
 

VN Store



Back
Top