Replies

Winning in politics requires a superb politician! Someone who is able to persuade all class of voters on benefits of free market capitalism.

I think we have a basic disagreement of what a presidential candidate must be to win a presidential election. I come from New England but have spent the last 15 years living in the rust belt states of Illinois and Wisconsin.

The assumption is made that the voters that are in play (that is those who don't come out every election and vote straight party line) do so based on a straight issues calculus, and going towards the middle where possible gets the most votes because those who are more cpnservative will take the lesser evil. Of course the candidate has to be competant and, as you put it telegenic.

Romney actually was telegenic. It didn't help enough. He RAN the kind of campaign you want.

The fact is, our government is already intruding all over the place, and broad bromides about the free market aren't going to play well unless it has the populist tinge that Palin, for example, brings. When Bob Dole or Mitt Romney or George W. Bush talks free market, when the dust settles we have TARP and more H1B visas. No one questions Palin's free market credentials, but she explicitly seeks out those union voters who aren't happy with their representation.

A lot of people who won't vote Republican or won't vote at all, including in the industrial states, but also in pockets of the northeast, think the system itself has been compromised, that those running do not have the country's interests in heart, and will do the bidding of either the Chamber of Commerce (which in turn is largely steered by the very large businesses at the state level) or the Unions and the full spectrum hard left groups that Obama effectively mobilizes.

The candidate who fits your profile best is Marco Rubio. Telegenic, optimistic, articulate, intelligent, energetic. He has also flipped on the immigration issue in a way that has made folks wary of him.

I'm not a hard liner who wants to deport them all, nor particularly anti-immigration, but the "comprehensive immigration reform" that the Chamber of Commerce and Establishment types offer are so nakedly disingenuous, it makes people doubt their motivations on almost everything else. How they are making this an issue in this year shows how completely out of the loop they really are. Yet the drum beat continues, as it has with climate change on the other side.

Voters, especially those who are not doctrinaire, vote for the whole man. Ross Perot attracted a lot of people who didn't agree with his policies (if they even knew them) but bought the persona. Talking just about economics and brushing aside everything else does not make for a mandate.

On immigration reform...
I keep posting what I saw in Singapore a few months ago.
2 year work permits if there is a job offer,
and if no Singapore citizen is available to do the job.
After 2 years expire, must re-apply .
Very simple, very effective.
They know exactly who is there and what they are doing and where they live.
In USA we know nothing about illegals.

Romnet’s fatal mistake was 47% and not calling out Obummer’s lies boldly on camera. Too mild mannered against a thug from south side of Chicago. I lived on south side of Chicago for 30 years...I know Obummer like the back of hand.

On the issue of immigration...

The issue has to be addressed one way or another. We simply can not ignore millions of illegals operating in the country. We do not know who is here, what they are doing or where in fact they live.

My solution is to place any one who has no criminal record, at the back of the line of all legal applicants. That will separate the criminals from the law abiding. Those who do not come out of the shadows to go to the back of the waiting line legally, should all be deported pronto.

As a legal immigrant myself, who had to jump through hoops to acquire US citizenship, I am totally against placing illegals ahead of the legal immigration applicants, which is what amnesty basically is.