Posted on 10/11/2011 6:58:43 PM PDT by DeskCaptain
"Who won the latest Republican debate? Going into the debate, Mitt Romney was the frontrunner. After the debate, he remains the frontrunner. Of all the candidates, Romney appeared the most presidential. He is becoming increasingly skilled in debates. Other candidates attempted to challenge Romney on a number of occasions, but he used them as opportunities to promote his candidacy. In some ways, Herman Cain was in the center of the debate. The crowd enjoyed Cain, but he runs the risk of becoming a one-note candidate, known only for his "9-9-9" plan. As for Rick Perry, he was not harmed as he was in previous debates, but he was flat. He seemed afraid of hurting himself. Romney and Cain were comfortable.
The Republican debate this evening had an unusual format. Rather than having each candidate at his own podium, as in all the previous debates, the candidates were seated at one big table. In the past, this format has been known to encourage the candidates to be a bit more civil. For some reason, candidates are less comfortable attacking each other when seated together...."
(Excerpt) Read more at elephantwatcher.com ...
Very simple. Ron Paul is not a Conservative. Ron Paul is not a Republican. Ron Paul is barely a libertarian. He’s as vile at gets in American politics.
Very simple. Ron Paul is not a Conservative. Ron Paul is not a Republican. Ron Paul is barely a libertarian. He’s as vile at gets in American politics.
Very simple. Ron Paul is not a Conservative. Ron Paul is not a Republican. Ron Paul is barely a libertarian. He’s as vile at gets in American politics.
Haha, no. Mittens is an empty suit.
Then you deserve Obama....
Thanks.
On the streets? No, I have to go to work and I don't feel the need to take a dump on police cars.
Romneycare is a perfect example of corporate fascism, i.e. the government directed production (and mandated purchase) of private goods.
Anyone who doesn't understand individual freedom has no business being president.
Just like Obama, Romney (just like McCain) would keep us on the highway to hell. He may move us into the slow lane, but the destination is still the same.
Does it really make much difference if you get a few more years before the house of cards comes crashing down? In fact it may be better to get it over and done with sooner rather than later.
Ah, I get your drift now...
But, I am not interested in debating you. Too old, too tired, and too disappointed in our present state of affairs.
Hope you get my drift, if you ‘ken” it.
If you don’t, here it is plain and simple. I am not interested in a ‘net fight over ideology.
Voting for Romney isn’t much different than Obama. Is Romney going to roll back Obamacare? He’s going to smooth talk it down our throats with the “business sense” of it and then what the GOP stands for becomes indistinguishable from left. If Romney is the nominee I will not vote for him. Better to let the Obama monster stay in the White House and have the scared populace vote more and more Tea Party for Senate and House.
Sit this one out Dansong...I’ll bet you stayed home instead of voting McCain/Palin...how’s it workin’ out for you, buddy?
If the current tax system is scrapped, I like the concept. I actually think it could lead to job creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q18jMzTWJ9A
Perry speaks well enough....certainly as well as any number of Presidents in the past.
We aren’t electing a debater-in-chief or a mediagenic-guy-in-chief. Obamalini won on that basis last time and look where it has taken us. Mittens does well on television, but he is just a somewhat less extreme, vastly more intelligent (and dangerous) version of Obamalini. Romney sided strongly with the sodomites, feminists, environmentalists, and abortionists in MA, and he created Romneycare, as everyone knows.
Americans are destroying this country thropugh their lack of character and shallowness. If it’s Romney, I’ll vote third party.
I see your point.
We are headed for a real economic crash. Romney is probably less bad than Obama (not a hell of a lot, IMO) but he is way far removed from what we need to even have a small chance of not crashing and burning.
A Romney type will not, can not, stop or even slow the coming crash. And after it happens, what will all the takers do? They will put another despot like Obama in, potentially even a Hitler type of character; that promises everything for nothing and serves up the appropriate scapegoats. It can’t happen here? There is very little people won’t go along with when they are cold and starving. I mean for real, not like the cold and starving the liberals say we have so many of right now.
No, it has to be all the marbles this time around. Because I think this has the real possibility of being the last time around. We are looking into the abyss.
for me these were my plans
Plan A - Palin
Plan B - Cain
Plan C - any republican
Plan D - Panama
If zero gets 4 more years we won’t have the United States of America any longer. Over 200 years to build - only 8 to destroy.
Given current reproductive rates and how fast they are racing across the border, I'd say that is a foregone conclusion.
“Vote your heart in the primary, and your mind in the General.”
My mind tells me that as long as we keep saying this, there is no reason for the established party machine to offer us anyone other than Romney. After all, we have told them we will vote for him if we have to.
Right now, I have more hope in a Republican supermajority in the house and senate and a Democrat in the oval office than in a Republican in that office who will essentially govern as a democrat.
Do we seriously think that Romney would even try to replace SCOTUS justices with those who might see more individual rights to keep and bear arms (to pick a subject) than he has?
Unfortunately, you are trying to educate the invincibly ignorant. They know very little about Perry and don’t want to know. Their political “analysis” is really nothing more than an expression of the catharsis of a “Two Minute Hate” periodically triggered by some deceptive, distorted, or completely false claim about Perry from the MSM or the R Establishment. These people are part of the tribe of easily manipulated rubes who will very likely hand the nomination to Mittens.
Perry isn’t the perfect candidate, but his record - even on immigration - is far more conservative than he is given credit for. Moreover, the Perry of Fed Up is the most radical consitutional conservative we have seen in a long time (I am excluding RP because of his occasional flashes of insanity).
Herman Cain, notwithstanding a few wobbles, is becoming more and more the real leader here; Perry is becoming a disappointment as he seems to have forgotten to bring all of his campaigning skills with him.
Romney is an absolute and utter disaster in the making; other than his continued, obstinate support for Romneycare, which has been just another curse on Massachusetts, his second worse flaw is the fact that, for all that his business experience is touted, he never used that experience to guide him in developing and defending more business-friendly laws and regulations while he was governor of Massachusetts. Instead, he was nothing more than an efficient manager; he applied his skills to running the Massachusetts government like a business - a business that was in direct competition with all of private enterprise. His biggest achievement was in reorganizing the state government’s departments and divisions - which was mostly what he did for private businesses in the first part of his career. He then spent the rest of his governorship efficiently enforcing all of the laws and liberal, anti-business, policies that were in effect when he was elected governor.
That is what Mr. Romney’s governing style is like: he doesn’t concern himself with policy - he certainly doesn’t apply what he learned in private enterprise to the project of developing business-friendly policy - instead, he concerns himself with being just a good manager, rationalizing the organization of the government’s departments and divisions, and then efficiently enforcing and implementing the pre-existing laws, without ever raising any real policy or philosophical issues with the laws he’s enforcing.
And his “promise” to give everyone waivers from Obamacare? More mirage than reality. Why? Because Romney’s governing style was shot through with the view that no one should be allowed to “get away” with something, which is why he so zealously enforced all of the pre-existing, liberal, anti-business laws as governor of Massachusetts. Underlying this is the conceptual view that the law, as written, must be enforced as such, and the consequences be damned.
This necessarily undercuts his “promise” that he will grant waivers to all and sundry from Obamacare because the democrats will then start to shriek about how he’s trying to become emperor, a law unto himself, usurping the role of Congress and making the law up to suit his own tastes. As he demonstrated in Massachusetts, Romney will not be able to withstand this sort of attack, in large part because it plays to his natural sympathies that all laws on the books, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the liberal, must be enforced as such, with no real room for executive discretion.
In other words, unless the Supreme Court holds Obamacare to be unconstitutional, or the GOP wins sufficient control over Congress to repeal Obamacare without the vote of a single democrat, Mitt Romney, if elected President, will enforce Obamacare as written, right down to the individual mandate.
The only thing I can offer is the Murkowski Factor. I think there are a couple candidates that have that, but it is hard to gauge whether that strategy will work.
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.