Posted on 01/16/2012 11:27:01 AM PST by VinL
Well, part of it depends on asking the question, "Which group finds Candidate X unpopular ?" Newt remains a polarizing figure within the GOP, but for differing reasons. First of all, I don't consider him a reliable Conservative, he has spent many years attempting to kiss up to the elitists (it's why I have a hard time not considering him as part of the political establishment -- the latter may be for Willard, but that doesn't mean Newt isn't with them). He carries personal baggage that were he a Democrat, we would skewer them over. He is also for all practical purposes, a lifetime politician, having run for office and remaining in the public eye since 1974. His personal demeanor leaves a lot to be desired. At least one FReeper I know met him face to face and was thoroughly repulsed. No one doubts he is a smart man, but that's about as far as it goes.
With respect to Palin, the "unpopularity" could be attributed almost exclusively to the media/left/pop culture. Within the party/grassroots, she remains the biggest superstar without equal. Because she was curtailed by McCain in 2008, we have no idea how she herself would run a campaign in an unfettered way (but we do know it would be unconventional and exclusively done HER way). Given that she also received the baptism by fire, it has given her added experience to make such a race that none of the current candidates have. I think her folksy, optomistic demeanor would also have great appeal (again, in contrast to the current field). Few would have as little difficulty in holding party support together as she.
"It seems that presidents either build on their support from their last election, or they just don’t win (I’m excluding FDR’s third and fourth term elections, as no president can run for them any more). Given that, is it really likely Obama could beat even an unpopular opponent like Gingrich? (I’m not counting the whackjobs like Ron Paul)."
Well, look at Clinton. By all accounts in 1994, it looked like he would be a fluke one-termer. Thanks in large part to Newt Gingrich, Clinton managed one of the most remarkable political comebacks in the modern era. In less than two years, Gingrich became the most unpopular national figure and Dole got saddled with the image as well (and most likely, so would just about any GOP candidate, even if they weren't Dole -- remember the alternative was Colin Powell, and we all ought to be grateful that bullet was dodged. He would've combined the worst aspects of Jerry Ford, Slick Willard, LBJ and, yup, Zero).
Zero has got to know he is in bad shape right now. He doesn't have the skilled political touch of Bill Clinton (Bubba had already perfected triangulation within a year of the GOP taking Congress). What he does have is a few things, he has the media/pop culture to assist him (and the unions, etc.), and he has the race card (doesn't matter if it's maxed out, it ain't like he's ever gonna pay that bill). If he faces Willard, he will rely on the media to attack him on the front of not being a Conservative (to depress GOP turnout), and he will also go after him on the race issue because of the internal problem of the Mormon church and denying Blacks high office within until the 1970s. It will be the three-pronged approach of ginning up Black turnout (painting Willard as a racist or member of a racist church), depressing the GOP turnout and also amongst White Indys and Democrats on being "unsympathetic" to the working stiff during our economic slump. I think it will work.
With Newt, a slightly different approach. Although damaged, Newt has a better standing amongst Republicans (but not great) than Willard. Zero will have to conduct a very personal attack on him, and it will center largely on his marriages and infidelity (and dredging up all manner and sort of rumors, true or false -- including the very damaging one of filing for divorce from the first wife while she was dying in the hospital. Now we know it's false, since wife #1 is still alive these 3 decades later, but it doesn't matter. People continue to repeat untrue claims all the time -- look at the folks on FR that claim MLK, Jr. was a Republican). Zero will turn it into a personal referendum on Newt. Newt, an almost 70-year old career politician with a spouse who looks like a Stepford Wife, corpulent and arrogant, will be a very ugly face for the party to put forth. Zero needs only to have Newt's negatives driven up higher than his, even while the economy tanks, and he might "apologize" that his programs haven't worked, but to stick with him and not entrust the country to someone of questionable moral character and unlikeability like Newt. Again, I think this will work (even if Newt runs rings around Zero in debates... plus add to that, Newt will be called mean-spirited and inferred racist for doing so). Folks here think Newt can win solely on his debating skills. Tell that to Dick Nixon of 1960. Appearances do matter, substance, sadly, is too frequently secondary.
PLEASE! Somebody land a strong knock out punch tonight on that phony RINO. Lord, please kindly tangle Elder Romney's tongue and lead him unto a major verbal gaffe tonight, exposing his true side of RINOism in a solid conservative state like South Carolina, for the sake of the Republic and for unseating this current President, Amen. Amen.
Big mistake for insurgent outsider candidates... never cozy up to the establishment. They’ll use you up and spit you out. Always bring your message straight to the people and the voters.
What’s sad is seeing a party I’ve been in for 26 years (since I was a teenager) becoming the enemy of my belief system, scarcely but an echo of the profoundly corrupt Democrat party (what Goldwater warned us about in 1964). One that claims to stand for “smaller government” and “Conservatism”, but in reality is anything but. The very wrong people are in charge of the GOP, and if that doesn’t change or they don’t change direction, this party can just as easily head the way of its predecessor, the Whigs. As I’ve said, it’s not that America needs a third party... we need a second. Break the back of the big-government Demopublican/Republicrat Combine.
If it’s Willard vs. Zero, we just don’t have a dog in that hunt.
“Some businesses are not economically viable. We are all better off if they are shut down, and the assets are liquidated so that they can be used in more productive businesses. The workers, similarly, should be sent out to seek more productive employment
True. But one would think a business that’s not economically viable is perfectly capable of going out of business by itself without paying a hefty management fee to achieve that end! ;-)”
Ha Ha. Touche. You do know that I didn’t Write those words you are replying to don’t you?
Barack Obama’s record is such a failure that even a badly flawed Republican could defeat him if he played his cards right. I think that barring something unexpected, we’ve got about 45% of the popular vote locked up. That doesn’t mean we should put forward such a badly flawed candidate.
Newt, for all his impressive knowlege of history and public policy, would be a very weak general election candidate for all the reasons you mentioned. I do give him credit for the Contract With America, which helped eliminate the deficit for a while. But he comes off as an overbearing know-it-all and certainly the liberal media and its synchophants would have a field day with his marital history. He’s like a conservative version of the Kennedys, only without their wealth, charm, charisma, or good looks. His negatives are so high, he would probably lose barring a 1929-style collapse of the economy.
Mitt’s flaws are very different, but still very serious. The radical pop culture you mention wouldn’t be as passionate about defeating him as it would a more conservative candidate. Even with the Mormon thing, I think that the self-appointed media/academia types would just not be all that worked up over him. The downside is that our own grass roots could not possibly be strongly for him even if they were to nominally support him. Nominal support doesn’t man phone banks and visit prospective voters’ homes. Certainly some Evangelical voters would be hard-pressed to support someone who in the 1990’s opposed them on issues they passionately support. Also, think of the socially conservative working stiffs. Would they support someone who is the embodiment of a country club corporate raiding stiff with inherited wealth who owns six mansions and flip flopped on things that matter to them? A good conservative running mate would help up to a point, but in the end it’s the top of the ticket that decides the election.
Can you imagine a DemocRAT version of Romney being his party’s nominee? Could the late Bob Casey have gotten this far within his party?
I know. I had a very insignificant website for for her in 2008-09, wegotsarah.com— But, then she went to the Alfafa dinner- then hooked up with McCains money men, then made a serious pitch for hillary women, named a liberal female to the Alaskan Supreme Court—as you say, cozying up to the establishment. I know why she was trying—but I knew it wouldn’t work for her.
It wasn’t until Iowa this year, that she attacked the Dem/Pub coalition that you inveigh against. That should always have been her message- but too late.
Nonetheless, I agree wholly with everything you said in your missive.
— We’re kindred spirits, my friend.
If we ran the late Bob Casey in 2012 we would win.
The closest thing we have is Santorum, so hopefully he can get the nomination.
Newt has been embarassing, and gotten support from misplaced nostalgia for the 90's.
LOL! Gave me a start at first glance, but all became clear! ;-)
‘Absolutely. That is the essence of capitalism, really. It’s survival of the fittest. If you start with the idea that the government should ordain that you can’t shut down a company that is doing poorly, then you have socialism, and it’s clear that socialism has been a failure. That is precisely why I can’t support a candidate that ascribes to those views, as apparently Newt does.’
You are missing the point -
Gingrich is not attacking capitalism or saying what a private co. can or can’t do. He is questioning:
can we trust some one who was operating in such an unethical/predatory manner, to be the president? Will he survive the brutal obama smear machine painting him to be the worst of the 1% oppressing the 99%?
“Newt has been embarassing, and gotten support from misplaced nostalgia for the 90’s.”
Very true. I acknowlege and commend Newt’s accomplishments and intelligence, but realists know that he’s probably unelectable, not because of his stances on the issues but due to personality traits. He did do well in the South Carolina debate last night, though.
He keeps saying “unethical” and “predatory” though, and it’s not. Buying a failing business and shutting it down so that the assets can be used in a more productive way is not “unethical” and it’s certainly not “predatory.” After all, the people who own that business must sell it to you before you can buy it. Presumably they think they are getting a good deal or they wouldn’t be doing it. No one is forcing them to sell.
But the truth is that Bain Capital was not in that business anyway. They did not buy businesses to shut them down. They bought businesses to rehabilitate them. Some of them did not make it in the end, but that does not negate the fact that they tried to rehabilitate them.
Newt’s argument is based on a false characterization of what Bain did, and also is based on a false statement that these so-called “vulture capital” firms are somehow unethical and predatory.
I expect Obama to badmouth traditional capitalism, but I don’t support Obama either. When Newt starts to do it, that’s when I bail out on him.
If you think of capitalism as “anarchy” then so be it. I call it “freedom.” “Rules of competitive behavior” are fine with me to a degree... Namely to the degree that they enforce the assumptions of the free market system, such as perfect knowledge, competition, mobility of resources, etc. But there is no assumption in the free market system that businessmen will refrain from buying a failing business for cheap, fire the workers, and then sell off its assets for more than what he paid. If you think that is “unethical,” then you are not a capitalist.
I have to tell you, ordinarily this is one thing I hammer Governors over. Some states give the Governor a free hand to appoint, others are constrained by preexisting laws. For example, in Texas, Rick Perry appointed a radical left-wing Democrat La Raza type to the state Supreme Court (Xavier Rodriguez). Rodriguez had no prior judicial experience, zero credentials, and Perry appointed the guy as a Republican. You want to see the Perrybots on FR get upset ? Mention this guy's name.
Anyway, what does this have to do with Palin ? In Alaska, Governors don't have a free hand to appoint members of the court. We have a similar problem in Tennessee (despite it being blatantly against our state constitution). You have an elitist group of leftist lawyers that "pre-select" a group of leftist jurists that the Governor must choose from. Palin was forced to pick the applicant that was the least leftist. I can't hold such situations against her as a result. You can only judge them when they have a free hand. That's why Rick Perry was an instant disqualifier, because he had no excuse (and that scumbag jurist is now on the federal bench wreaking havoc).
I never saw anyone get a standing ovation at a debate before, and good for Newt.
But I was disappointed in Newt for telling Rick Santorum that he should get out, especially since Rick did better than Newt in the first two contests.
Because they are idiot children and personally attacking you is much easier than trying to think up reasoned arguments.
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.