Posted on 04/10/2010 3:56:34 PM PDT by speciallybland
Mitt Romney: 439 votes
Ron Paul: 438 votes
Sarah Palin: 330 votes
Newt Gingrich: 321
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If Pence succeeds, fine. I am saying however that he is not terribly impressive in person in a small group.
What I'm talking about is that, if there had been balanced coverage, with all the positives and victories being publicized, the war would not have been "unpopular" and neither would George Bush. (Remember that they were at the same time lying about the economy....worst economy since Hoover, when unemployment was below 5%........)
The Iraq war was not the reason for the Republican losses in 06 and 08, the lies from the media and the spinelessness of the Republicans to speak out for our troops and for the President was a greater part of the reason.
LIES, truth. LIES. They should make a difference to you, considering your screenname.....
We need to be on our toes and make sure this liberal faction doesn't get a grip on the GOP. We have enough work to do without having to fight them too!
Where is his love of country? Frankly, the guy scares me.
I understand that sentiment completely. I never liked
the senior Ron Paul. He does not understand the mentality
of jihadists. But if it came down to Obama Vs Paul, I would have to hold my nose real tight and vote against the proven socialist, muslim sympathizer, wealth distributor, job killer, Obama.
This is the kind of nonsense that got us McCain in 2008. The people involved in this poll are far from where the newly revived conservative Republican Party is at. Ron Paul is an absolute fruitcake who has no business being anywhere near the Republican Party, much less being considered a serious contender for the presidency. We conservatives must reject this foolishness and make sure that every conservative makes their voice heard early in the process and to beat these kooks at the primary.
The media hates the military a lot more when there is a Republican President.
I’m not making any argument at all about why the Iraq War was unpopular.
I’m not saying that the Iraq War was bad and should’ve been unpopular.
I’m just saying that it was unpopular.
I will say that it was foreseeable that the media would try to turn people against the war. The media does not like Republicans and wants to hurt them. That was the case back in 2000, and Bush should’ve known that.
It’s a lot harder for the media to lie about something that people personally experience day to day. The Iraq War was taking place on the other side of the globe. Most people have very little understanding about what was actually taking place there. When people have no way to really experience the truth of the matter, it’s easier for the media to lie about it. Bush should’ve known this as well.
How about doing the right thing because it was his responsibility to defend America against its enemies?
That's one of the reasons I admire Bush the most, and one of the reasons why I have no respect for Ron Paul. He wouldn't protect us against an infestation of fleas if it cost money and required the military to get it done.
I don’t think I said what Bush should have done.
Maybe the war in Iraq was so important that in exchange it was worth it to have Obama as President.
There are probably a lot of different things that Bush could have done that he believed very strongly in, things that he thought would be good for the country, things that would be unpopular, things that would cause Republicans to lose in 2006 and 2008 because Republicans would have to defend Bush’s unpopular policy, things that would cause Obama to be elected.
The war in Iraq did not result in Obama.
btw, I can't believe how many peaceniks are hanging around FR these days.
If I didn't know better, I'd think I got sucked into a time machine and ended up in Haight Ashbury in 1969........
Wow, did I even say I was against the war? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
The number 1 thing that George Bush did that made the most people dislike him was the Iraq War.
I could tell you that I feel bad about that. But it doesn’t matter what my feelings are. It’s a fact that people did not like the Iraq War. By November 2006, Bush and the Iraq War were very unpopular. Republicans lost seats in the House and Senate. In November 2008, Bush was still unpopular, the Iraq War was still unpopular, and Obama won.
I am not arguing that the economy was not a factor. But the Iraq War did not help the Republicans in 2008, and they did a lot of losing in 2008.
In Height Ashbury in 1969, you’d probably find people that would tell you that the war was bad. I’m not telling you the war was bad. I’m pointing out the simple fact that the Iraq War was unpopular, and it caused a lot of Republicans to lose their jobs.
I would recommend that Republicans think twice about embracing unpopular war policies if they want to keep their jobs. Time and time again, for Republicans at least, war means losing your job.
No thought regarding whether they are necessary to our national security, or the right thing to do, but only whether or not they are "popular."
It's faulty reasoning, and I don't accept it.
If it means saving American lives, then the popularity of a war is completely irrelevant.
Besides which, I make the point again. The war in Iraq did not lead to Obama's election. The lies of the press, money from overseas, white guilt, election fraud, and a host of other things did.
You do the right thing, truthfreedom. You do the right thing, not the "popular" thing.
Did I say that, though?
Did I say that “unpopular wars should be avoided so that Republicans can win”?
I said that IF Republicans want to win, they should avoid unpopular wars. Maybe they feel it is more important to get involved in unpopular wars than it is to keep their jobs.
There is really no way for either me or you to really prove what caused the election defeats of Republicans in 2006 or 2008. Lies of the press and election fraud are factors that always exist and always benefit Democrats. White guilt was a factor specific to Obama, as was money from overseas. The economy is always a huge factor in Presidential elections.
The overall negativity toward the Republicans in 2006 (primarily) and also 2008 was due mostly to the Iraq war.
I had a hard time getting anything specific out of anybody who was anti Bush besides Iraq War when asking why they didn’t like him. Conservatives who were disappointed with Bush had more specifics to complain about.
Many Democrats know that they’re going to lose in November for voting for things that Obama wants that the people do not want. Many of those Democrats aren’t running for reelection.
As I see it from this post, there is absolutely no purpose to the points you have been trying to make. No thought from you as to what the logical consequence of your words meant.
Let me say one last time.........IF the Republicans in Congress had not run away like scared little children from the War in Iraq in 2006........IF the Republicans in Congress (and on the street for that matter) had defended our troops' mission and the Commander in Chief against the incessant lies of the media and leftist politicians, THEN the war would not have been "unpopular."
Your entire point that Republicans should avoid "unpopular wars" to win elections is based on a false assumption that the Republicans in Congress behaved corrected regarding the support of that war, which they did not.
The war in Iraq is part of the reason we did not have another terrorist attack on US soil under George W. Bush. The enemy gathered in Iraq and fought our military there and did not attack us here because they were being killed in Iraq.
It was a necessary war, and the spineless Republicans only lost Congress in 2006 because they were cowards. NOT because the war was "unpopular."
2008 had a whole other set of complications, including some of the things I have already listed, but having very little to do with Iraq.
At any rate, avoiding foreign wars is not an acceptable position for a commander in chief, and therefore Ron Paul cannot be our President on that fact alone. He won't do his Constitutional duty and protect us.
Besides which, he is only supported by a small minority of rabid internet, poll-happy, sometimes paid groupies, and could never get more than a percent or two of the vote.
It would be best to give up on the guy. He's not presidential material by any standard.
You have made a fairly decent argument there.
Since we’ve done about 3 or 4 versions of this, I will
admit that I don’t really want to think through whether or not my argument is based on a false assumption that Republicans acted correctly.
I kind of recall that you earlier blamed the media for the unpopularity of the war, not the Republicans.
I could argue that there was nothing the Republicans could
do to make the war popular. If I were to make that argument, my argument wouldn’t rest on the behavior of Republicans to make the war popular. (I don’t think it does anyway).
My argument really doesn’t require the detailed, thoughtful analysis that you’re giving it. I’m simply saying unpopular wars make Republicans lose when they’re the ones pushing them. And the Iraq war was a war we won. It was still unpopular. That should tell you something.
If I was arguing against me, I’d add that the election 6 years in is typically bad for the incument party. The non-ideological folks out there usually get tired of the incumbent party after a while and vote for change. The Iraq War was simply the issue of the day. Those would be the arguments I’d use against me. Can’t prove it either way,
and there is some data to support it.
Personally, if the Conservatives are going to do something that might be unpopular, I, personally, just opinion, would want it to be cutting goverment programs that some people might like. That’s just me. I want smaller government. And Conservatives, year in and year out, vote for someone they hope will actually shrink government, and it NEVER happens. NEVER. The #1 thing that the Conservatives want (smaller goverment) NEVER happens. And Conservatives are the biggest group in the US. 40% consider themselves Conservative. War - ALWAYS. Shrinking Government - NEVER.
I honestly don’t care either way about these wars. If people were drafted, these wars would be much much more unpopular. It’s just the unpopular thing that the Republicans do instead of cutting government.
We disagree, obviously, on Ron Paul. Ron Paul wouldn’t be “spending his political capital” on unpopular wars. It would be cuts cuts and more cuts. And that’s exactly what I want. BTW, Ron Paul did over 15% in the Pennsylvania Primary. And he’s starting 2012 much better known, he’ll make money right away instead of having to wait for Guy Fawkes Day and the Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. He didn’t get any votes at SRLC in 2006 (Romney was 2nd then as I recall).
If you ask me who I think’ll get the nod, I’d say Palin. And I like Palin for the most part, but I’m pretty sure that she’ll say she’s for smaller goverment, but there will be a war instead and she’ll say she’s sorry, but our important allies interests are threatened so everything good and cutting spending will have to go. Or she’ll give a half hearted attempt to do something, and won’t twist any arms. She’ll save that for the war votes. Like it always happens.
But I do like her. It’s possible that she’s as canny as people say she is. She should stop using a cell phone to talk to Fox. Maybe she has. I was watching Fox the night Brown won. Here’s Sarah Palin calling from Alaska on a cell phone. There should be a kickass studio in Palin’s house with better TV cameras than there are in Fox’s studio. Less of Palin, but better quality. Why is Palin being asked questions? She was on with Glenn Beck that time. Who are your favorite founding fathers? She answered that question like she had never heard it before. And she probably hadn’t. Why? Is Sarah Palin not popular enough to get a TV job that makes her look super great always? Since Palin started with Fox, it seems like it’s been screw up after screw up after screw up? What about Sarah Palin’s Alaska? Does she need to be on Discovery or whatever minor cable channel that’s on? Does she think that people don’t know who she is? Does she want people to get sick of looking at her on TV? Very few TV appearances, slick production values. Something that allows her to get her message out perfectly. But, nope. She was beaten by Ron Paul at SRLC.
What was that about? I don’t know if she can pull out of it. What’s next, 7th place and QVC? 10th place and public access? She is a superstar. In music, a superstar can make a bad record, make a series of bad decisions, and destroy their career, even if they are the most compelling personality, with the best voice. I mean, it’s cool if, like, Britney Spears (I dunno) sings backup for Animal Collective. But if Britney Spears never made a hit record it isn’t particularly cool, she’s just a backup singer for Animal Collective. Sarah Palin needs to stop singing backup and make a hit record (not a hit book, something like a massive victory at one of these straw polls, or something that firmly establishes her at the top, as the clear front-runner, which she really should be).
I liked Gingrich in the 90’s. He knows that dying wives can be a drag. And he’s bipartisan on the most important fictional problem of our times.
But Gingrich is better than Romney. How mad do the Romney fans get when you point out the gay marriage thing? A conservative would’ve said “you will have to throw me out of office before I authorize town clerks to perform gay marriages” And Romneycare? The fact that Romney really really really wants to be President is not a good reason to support him. It kinda arouses suspicion.
Don’t even think about Cheney. No more Bushes. Is Liz Dole under 80? How about Dan Quayle? What are Tom Ridges positions on the issues? Unacceptable on abortion I hear, but compared to Romney’s first set of positions as Governor of Massachusetts? Ridge would likely carry Pennsylvania. There might be something truly awful on Ridges resume like Gingrich and Romney have, but I don’t know what it is offhand. US Rep, popular PA Governor, Homeland Security (no terror on his watch), Vietnam Vet.
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.