Posted on 08/16/2011 7:20:47 AM PDT by Scythian
I was listening to him last night as I was driving my son to his boy scout "Court of Honor". He's really starting to take an interest in these things.
Anyway, my favorite is Bachmann as many of you know. Well Boortz starts off with "Bachmann and Palin and Santorim have ZERO chance of winning the election, and here's why ..." I'm open minded, always willing to listen to anyones argument. And so he goes on ...
He stated that 42% of democrats will vote for the democrat no matter what, and 38% of republicans will vote for the republican no matter what. The battle is for those that vote independent. And there's no way a big "pro-life or pro-christian or pro-flag waving candidate is going to make a person who voted for Obama now vote for a republican, it ain't going to happen.
He wen't on to layout the argument that the only two candidates in the race that could win these more or less semi-liberal independents were Romney and Perry. Boortz didn't say he liked that or that it was he choice, but that if anybody else wins the nomination for the GOP then Obama wins, hands down.
As much as I hate to admit it, he's probably right, and this is why we keep winding up with these middle of the road types.
My candidate is Bachmann, but I think Boortz is right, independents will not vote for somebody who protested at abortion clinics, it's jobs and economy and nothing more. The conservative values are great for the base, but then the base almost always votes for the eventual candidate no matter what anyway.
What do you guys think? I can't relay what he said well, but it was well said.
I heard the (re)broadcast too. Boortz actually quickly added Mr. Cain after (reluctantly) naming Romney and Perry.
See my post above.
I’m with you, does that mean the other 64 percent of Republicans vote for Obama or “third party”? I don’t believe it. The author needs to go back to the drawing board.
Bingo
When the TEA Party movement started, I tried to point out that many of those in the movement did not have a well thought out conservative philosophy. Those who went to the rallies had three things in common: We are taxed too much, our tax money was spent unwisely, and our politicians would not listen to us.
Abortion, Gay Marriage, and other “social” issues were not cohesive issues for the TEA Party.
Financial responsibility and good stewardship are ideas that fit squarely into being a “conservative”, but that label carries a lot of baggage for people. The good news is a lot of these people who started off screaming “We are Taxed Enough Already!” have come to realize they ARE conservatives. They just may not agree on every issue.
Whoever the Republican nominee will be will win in a walk if they come out directly and say “The government takes too much money in taxes, the money they do take is poorly spent, and if elected you the taxpayer will have priority in deciding how your money is spent.”
Social issues would fade to nothing.
Boortz is right.
The only other candidate currently in the race that can beat Romney for the nomination is Perry.
The only candidate that could beat _Perry_ for the nomination is Palin. (I’m not saying that Palin could beat Obama, but she could win the nomination)
All the rest — including Michelle Bachmann — don’t have a chance.
It will be Romney, Perry, or Palin.
BTW, reverse the order above, and you have my preference.
Just sayin’....
Red Badger: “For the primaries go as far to the right as necessary. For the general, run back to the middle as fast as you can...”
In other words, intentionally deceive voters to get elected, then screw them once in office. Offer them a political bait and switch, eh? Yeah, that’s EXACTLY the kind of leader I’m hoping for...
Did you learn that from President Goldwater? Maybe Senator Angle?
I don’t think most independents are as rabidly pro-abortion as Boortz.
This is funny -- from The New York Daily news, no less:
Who would make the strongest GOP presidential candidate to run against President Obama?
| Michele Bachmann | 7% |
| Herman Cain | 9% |
| Newt Gingrich | 2% |
| John Huntsman | 1% |
| Sarah Palin | 52% |
| Ron Paul | 3% |
| Rick Perry | 4% |
| Mitt Romney | 3% |
| Rick Santorum | 17% |
| None of the above | 3% |
That would make a great bumper sticker!
That would make a great bumper sticker!
Expect a lot of those folks to sit this one out or vote for the GOP. He's alienated a big part of his far left base and he's disgusted the 'white guilt' moderates who voted for him only because he was young, black and spoke better than Bush. He was also 'The One' in 2008 and millions voted for him as if they were voting for American Idol. All that emotion driven mush mindedness will be gone this time around. He's brought the country to the brink of econoic collapse and seems hell bent on pushing us over the brink. I think nearly anyone we nominate can beat him.
I do not believe the blacks will turn out in the numbers they did in 08.
Well, they better hope those precious clinics are inside the fence of the work camp, because Zer0's buddy, Bill Ayres, thinks that they'll have to kill 25 million Americans in the camps to get compliance from the other 150 million.
An that's the "jobs" and "economy" that an another Obama vote will get 'em. If they are too stupid to see that coming, then they deserve it.
A spineless, stoneless RINO big government statist, will just assist as a one term placeholder for the Marxist Rat machine to install more groundwork in the bureaucracies, and take the blame for the worsening depression.
If the people, for any reason, fail to elect a serious, consistent, across the board Conservative to the Presidency and many slots in Congress, then the die is cast, and the Nation will fail.
Disagree
An majority of voters would choose someone that would clearly and honestly present a plan for prosperity through freedom.
Unfortunately all of the candidates talk in phoney sound bites, and play to that middle 20% (AKA the people too stupid to have an opinion).
The real problem is that 30% of the electorate are non-productive sponges that will try to vote themselves as much as they can.
They may have been stupid enough to vote for him once but many of them will not vote for him again or even vote.
This brother is pissed: http://www.youtube.com/embed/-McpNtHet3w (language warning!)
These premises are wrong. Independent/swing voters are not liberal. They're not conservative. They're not even really moderate, in any ideological sense. What they are is incredibly dumb, and the vote on the basis of dumb things like how good-looking the candidate is, the mood they're in, or how their personal financial situation is. 95% of 'independent' voters couldn't pick Bachmann or Santorum out of a lineup, and they certainly couldn't tell you anything about them.
The same dumb argument could have been made by Democrats in 2008... "There's no way a big tax-and-spend, socialized-medicine wealth redistributor with Marxist associations is going to make a person who voted for George Bush now vote for a Democrat, it ain't going to happen. We better nominate Zell Miller." Didn't happen, because Democrats aren't that stupid.
...One thing that we all can agree on. BHO and 75% of Congress must be defeated or thrown out in 2012...
I don’t know how this guy Paul Ryan sits on many issues, but I bet he could beat Obama hands down.
The person would have to be a good articulate speaker, a financial whiz, and energetic and male.
He is all of those. I am not pushing him, but there is talk out there.
No matter what, I don’t think the situation is dire.
A third party would give Obungho a second term.
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.