Posted on 02/05/2008 9:31:52 PM PST by mngran2
Just reported on tv. Also said Romney to meet at campaign headquarters tomorrow to have "frank discussion" about future of campaign.
You'd be surprised about Ron Paul. I know of a just a person I met last night who was leaning toward Paul but switched @ the last second to vote for Huckabee. That kind of thing is replicated all over.
It wouldn't surprise me that if folks truly voted their conscience, Paul could have doubled his vote tally. But folks wanted their vote to "count"--as if a switch over to a #2 candidate or a #3 candidate is going to "count more" than a vote for a #4 candidate. That's the lunacy in this reasoning.
If all folks are concerned about is making their vote "count" and electibility, well then they should just vote for the front-runner no matter who it is. They should just let the polls dictate their vote.
I don't understand your reasoning.
My reasoning is two-fold:
(1) Folks support a lot of different NFL teams. If they're only going to be fair-weather fans & pull for the front-runners, well they should just drop their support for their fave team. (But they don't). Why? Because surprisingly, an NFL fan has more passion & commitment & loyalty to his 2-14 NFL team than politically minded folks, who are into compromise.
According to the logic of the "wasted vote syndrome," any fan pulling for the (previously) unbeaten New England Patriots "wasted" their support. Why? 'Cause they lost! To hear these folks tell it, it's somehow "better" that someone support the '07-'08 Patriots, who lost the SuperBowl by 3 points, than the '01-'02 Broncos, who lost the SuperBowl by 45 points. What difference does it make if you support a team that closed the gap by 42 points? Both the '08 Pats and the '02 Broncos were equally losers!
According to the logic of the "wasted vote syndrome," anybody who voted for Dole in '96 "wasted their vote" 'cause he lost; anybody who voted for George I in '92 "wasted their vote" 'cause he lost.
(2) What folks forget is the power of the vote beyond the immediate race. Every vote is geared to a candidate yes...but candidates aren't just impersonal entities. They stand for certain issues, positions, and they stand for character, and they stand for both this-worldly as well as other-worldly commitments. In this way, every vote also has a message of identification and solidarity with it. And sometimes, these vote-messages need to go beyond the candidate. Sometimes, it needs to go to the party, and then have further ripple effects to the MSM.
To bring this back to the Ron Paul vote. What would happen if all those who really wanted to vote for Paul did so? (Disclaimer: I'm not a Paul supporter). What if he got 20% in many states instead of his seeming "cap" of 10%? What if then that 20% "confidence level" in him steamrolled him over into running third party, where he would pick up additional independent and Democratic & Libertarian votes? He could have been more of a force than even a Ross Perot.
My sentiments exactly........
Besides that...my guess is 2 out of 3 rank and file GOP sheeple couldn't even tell you if he was a mormon.
Strange that MSNBC makes it sound like Romney is giving up. Not even five minutes ago the word from Romney was that the campaign goes on. :)
What's the difference?
I have from the beginning thought that Mitt would make a top notch chief executive, but I have worried that he was not as gifted as a candidate as may be necessary. I voted for him yesterday in any case.
Juan McQueeg will self-destruct sooner, hopefully before the convention, and Huck will destroy the party and the country later.
Kind of a random thought, but I wonder if in time, in light of what has happened yesterday, Limbaugh may regret that he didn’t do much much more, when he had the time and the resources to push the conservative candidate.
“After America Cuts & Runs from the Persian Gulf, I am sure that the Islamist nutjobs in Iran will leave the ripe fruit of military control of 70% of the World’s known oil reserves right on the silver platter we left it on, that they will no longer seek to acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems and that they will also change their religious beliefs that suicide will bring them Paradise for all Eternity as long as they kill the Great Satan.
Sweet dreams, or nightmares, in the years to come.”
Send Lawyers,Guns and Money.
The day of 9/11 my brother-in-law said “this changes everything”. I said “no it does not in a year the people will not care about any of it”.
If this election proves anything it proves how powerful the MSM still is. The average Joe still just turns on the TV and followes the talking head. This is the true power of the MSM, the power to control the MOOD of the country.
Our mood has been controlled perfectly for over three years.
For a few years fear helped the GOP stay together to face a common foe. That fear is gone.
We have never had 60 conservative votes in the US Senate, until we do there will be no real change in the law or taxes or spending. We have a liberal government and press and it is getting more liberal not less.
With 90% of collage and high school graduates being brainwashed by the left and the MSM we have to face the fact that we are loosing the battle. When over half of collage grads believe in lower taxes and smaller government then I will believe we are winning.
The city of Detroit or LA county should teach us a lesson but it has not.
We have been in a rather great 20 years of prosperity yet the government is broke and most Americans have no savings and are in debt.
If we look at Detroit and LA, just having high crime and loosing jobs is not enough to get people to vote conservative.
Perhaps having 10% to 15% unemployment and people dying in the streets at the hands of AQ might be enough. If AQ thinks we will be behave like Spain then they will give us the Spain treatment.
LOL. I hear ya!
Philippians 4
11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
Zechariah 4:
Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
I agree with you that Obama would beat McCain in a landslide. I still think, however, that the Clinton machine will get Hillary the nomination. A Slick Hillie/Obama ticket is a given if she gets the nomination.
Wow...the ignorance on here is astounding...the plan will be run by the individual states, the FedGov is only providing incentives and tax breaks.
Mitt Romney, expected to roll out his healthcare plan in Florida today, will call for a combination of federal tax breaks and incentives to states to help the uninsured afford coverage, while offering strategies to rein in health costs, such as capping punitive damages in malpractice cases.
Drawing on some aspects of the Massachusetts health coverage law he helped enact as governor, Romney will urge states to redirect federal money that is now spent on expensive emergency room care for people without insurance, putting it instead toward helping low-income people pay for health insurance.
But unlike the Massachusetts law, Romney's proposal would not penalize anyone for failing to buy insurance, nor would it sanction businesses that do not provide it for their employees. Individual states could set such rules, but the federal government would stay out of such requirements.
Much more info at:
Romney to detail his healthcare Rx
You are even wrong about his plan in MA, from my files:
On healthcare, his proposed plan was substantially better than the one enacted in Massachusetts. The liberal legislature overrode eight of his vetoes altering his original plan:
The Democrat-controlled Legislature of Massachusetts degraded the original proposal from Gov. Romney by adding an employer fee mandate, and by adding fines for individuals who refuse to buy healthcare coverage; the original proposal required them to “self insure” by posting a $10,000 bond for hospital care they might use and not be able to afford. Furthermore, the Legislature expanded Medicaid coverage to a larger base of children in low-income families and restored funding for public health programs which were not part of Gov. Romney’s original proposal. The Legislature rejected Governor Romney's proposal to permit high-deductible, low benefit health plans.His current plan is not a Federal plan but a plan that will be run by the states. Here are some who support it:Governor Romney vetoed eight sections of the healthcare legislation, including the employer fee mandate. He also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. The Legislature overrode all of the eight vetoes.
The Heritage Foundation: "In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there." (Edmund F. Haislmaier, "Mitt's Fit," The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 1/28/07)FR Thread with this infoMassachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation: "Romney's plan also got a thumbs up from an unlikely source yesterday – Barbara Anderson, head of Citizens for Limited Taxation, a group that often looks with deep suspicion on government mandates and programs. … The tax activist said that Romney is proposing universal insurance, not universal health care – which Anderson said society effectively already has, as almost no one is denied care even if they can't pay for it. 'Let's just face that reality and deal with it,' Anderson said, adding that covering more people will reduce costs to taxpayers." (Jay Fitzgerald, "Romney Wins Health-Y Reviews," Boston Herald, June 23, 2005)
Conservative Ethan Allen Institute: "John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute spoke about personal responsibility in health insurance. He praised the Massachusetts plan because it deals with the uninsured by sending them out into the market, thus reinforcing personal responsibility. Each individual has to decide his own risk level and can purchase insurance to meet his own needs." ("The Massachusetts Health Plan: A Model For The States?" AEI Newsletter, 2/1/07)
Then-Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman: "[Mehlman] singled out an effort by outgoing Gov. Mitt Romney, another 2008 prospect, to expand health-care coverage to all Massachusetts residents. 'That is the kind of innovation we need at the state level, and in Washington,' Mehlman said." (Shailagh Murray, "GOP Must Correct Its Mistakes, Mehlman Says," The Washington Post, 12/1/06)
Absolutely right. And then all those one issue Evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for a Morman in a one man race. Can spend the next 8 years watching their little causes being picked off one by one by the new Clinton/Obama supreme court. I for one don’t want to hear the whining from the Christian Right as Gay marriage becomes the law of the land, abortion is enshrined as law and your guns are taken away. You wanted Hillary, whether you will admit it or not, and now your going to get her. Good riddance. We can only hope that there is a country to save in 8 years, don’t bet on it. Verlo más tarde bebe’.
McCain is a disaster. McCain winning makes you feel swell.
OK, I'm not going to get into an "ignorant-for-ignorant" name-calling escalation here. I'm just going to say that you in your assessment you have failed to realize that time has three dimensions: Past (what he did in Mass.); present (his current healthcare plan); future (the power that can be wielded by a Democratically controlled Congress).
My first question: Based upon your own acknowledged awareness of what happened to Romney's past plan in a liberal Bay State with a liberal legislature, what makes you so cocky (cocky enough to label another as having "astounding...ignorance") that his current plan would remain as pristine if passed at the fed level as you claim it would?
Is not the current Congressional body leaning to the liberal left (like the Bay State)? Is not the future Congressional body likely to remain leaning to the liberal left? If MA's legislative body could override eight of his vetoes there, what assurances can you in your "astounding...prescience" give us all that the Dem-controlled legislature wouldn't also override key vetoes...or worse, join hands with Romney from the get-go to settle on a "compromise" plan?
Somehow for you, the pristine present overrides all your past knowledge about what happened in Massachusetts--and keeps you from applying that knowledge and sensibilities to the future.
Hahahah Huck is way way way way more frightening that McCain.. Thank God that guys nothing more than an also ran.
Tanc and Hunter went nowhere, and the idea that Fred was “Reaganesque” was far more PR than reality.... lots of projection on him, very little reality... which is why he never got anywhere.
Romney most likely looked at his personal financial portfolio investments and figured it was better to cut his losses than throw it all in the toilet on a lost cause.
That’s a happy thought.
Why is huck more frightening than McCain. Huck’s record on the the 2A is sterling. He has at least one conservative credential. McCain has none.
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.