Posted on 01/06/2012 6:17:53 AM PST by Rational Thought
At the cost of a weak defense that ended up biting us in the new millennium. If you recall, the military budget was slashed heavily and there were massive revenues coming in through the dot com bubble that were unrealistic by even the most liberal business model.
To discount the revisionist history going on here, let's look back at a Steve Moore article from the time period to see what was actually going on.
Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion. We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656
I don't recall any Conservative happy back then because of this "Balenced Budget" because it was a fraud. We all ended up paying for this house of cards in the 2000's.
I heard a video clip of Ronald Reagan sometime back and failed to keep it. However, it was important in that his statement was in favor of Newt Gingrich. At the time I heard it, my thought was, “wow, why doesn’t Newt use this clip as a huge commercial endorsement from the leader of the conservative movement?” Does anyone know what clip I am speaking of and if so, can you link it here?
And you’ve missed mine.
I’m just saying, he’s not getting that 34 percent, now that folks believe that Santorum is electable. I don’t think those numbers are coming back.
When Cain went out, Newt came to the forefront. Then the folks that came over to him have gone back to Santorum. That’s what Iowa showed. It’s not the total, but where the votes were coming from.
From rural Iowa, the most conservative areas voted Santorum. That doesnt’ bode well for South Carolina and this poll confirms my suspicions.
Newt’s support was a mile wide and an inch deep.
You don't think people understand not having a job, being underemployed or watching their investments crumble? Please. WTF country do you live in?
You and many others who don’t get it will. You need more than “conservartive” to win a general against Obama.
So, to you, we NEED Mitt Romney? There are a lot of conservatives on this website who would emphatically disagree with you. Willard does not have charisma and he isn't all that much different than Obama. Yet, here you are on a conservative site telling us we must support him or lose. Good thing you weren't around in 1979 or we would have had RINO Bush eight years earlier, or Jimmy Carter Pt. 2.
Mc Cain had neither conservatism nor charisma. No surprise there. It was over before it was over.
We were told by the likes of you that we had to support McCain because he was the one who could win in November. That lame argument won't work any longer. No president has been reelected since before WWII when the unemployment rate is higher than 7.2%. Do you think the rate of unemployment is going to plummet in the next 11 months? You may be willing to compromise because you don't have the courage of your convictions, but I don't think you'll find much support here.
Arguing for Mitt Romney on this site, and justifying it by claiming it's the only way to win -- and that most people in this country don't share or understand conservative values -- is a weak and risky argument. Just look at the FR front page for evidence. Here's what you'll find:
ObamaCare = RomneyCare = CommieCare. NO Romney! NO WAY!!
A person with values would not vote for a used car salesman like Mitt. But then, I'm at a loss to understand why you want to elect Mitt in the first place when he's not all that much different than Obama.
They said Reagan couldn't win. They said W couldn't beat Gore. I'm sure glad we don't listen to they.
You surely have seen his “problem” right here. He has been attacked from the Right as not “conservative” enough and there are enough people dumb enough to believe it. The Right is its own worst enemy. We have seen it before.
Rick Santorum who two months ago had one percent (1%) support among likely South Carolina Republican Primary voters now is running a close second there with 24% of the vote.Rick Santorum who two months ago had one percent (1%) support among likely South Carolina Republican Primary voters now is running a close second there with 24% of the vote.
“At the cost of a weak defense that ended up biting us in the new millennium. If you recall, the military budget was slashed heavily”
You are underestimating the level of domestic cuts that Kasich and Gingrich kept sending up to Clinton. They were significant cuts that were bloody Hill and partisan battles.
Moore’s flaw is that as a pundit, we needed a response to Clinton’s claiming victory in the media for the Balanced Budget.
10 Billion in Defense cuts was actually a victory for Republicans, because the Dems wanted much more.
The increased in defense spending were largely due to Entitlement aging problems that we still face, because back then it was a real Third Rail.
I remember these budget battles clearly. To say that Gingrich doesn’t deserve credit for dragging Clinton into Budget Cuts, is just sticking your head in the sand.
Hell Boehner and gang would have negotiated higher defense spending for higher domestic spending...and that is the point.
Gingrich went in the right direction and when he left, it all fell apart....Gingrich is the person who has the vision and experience to do the touch cutting.
With Cain and Bachmann out, I’ve moved onto Santorum and am satisfied with the choice that I might still get a chance to vote FOR someone and not just AGAINST someone.
As for this SC poll, when I get home from Drill and get a break from studying, I’m set to go over the 46 counties of SC.
This poll surprises me because if we are to beleive Romney is at 27%, then something is happening in SC that did NOT happen in IA. That is, Romney needs McCain primary voters from 2008 to win SC. It didn’t happen in IA. As a showed yesterday, Santorum too most if not all of the Huckabee support, while Newt and Perry fought over the Thompson/McCain supporters as evidenced by their percentage totals.
In SC, Santorum’s getting a big edge in the NW Bible Belt and Greenville/Spartanburg. Newt and Perry will get a share of some of that, but for the most part, they’ll be fighting for the Thompson/McCain voters in Myrtle Beach, Darlington, Charleston, and Columbia.
EVEN with the conservative vote split, Romney is NOT in as strong enough position as McCain was to eek out a victory. McCain had at least some conservative credentials, and was supported big by the retirees in Horry and NE SC. For Romney to even have a prayer, he has to pick up a sizeable majority 10%+ of the vote here, something I viewed as difficult, considering this would be the part of the state I’d expect Gingrich and Paul to run their best in addition to what social voters support Santorum and Perry.
The bottom line is that if this Rasmussen poll is correct, then Newt is losing his large share of McCain voters from the 08 primary. If he still had it, then it would be very much likely for Santorum and Gingrich to run 1-2 in SC with Romney in 3rd.
The problem I have is how is it that the McCain voters in IA did not move to Romney in any significant numbers (Gingrich won the largest share of it), but yet they ARE moving to Romney in SC? This doesn’t make any sense. I understand McCain endorsed Romney Wednesday, but still, this is really difficult to fathom. We’re not talking small county pluralities here. Romney’s got to get like 30%+ in places Horry, while Gingrich and Santorum get less than 20%
Let’s use Charleston County as an example, a place McCain carried with 45% of the vote thanks in part to military members and veterans. In 08, it was Huck 16%, Romney 19%, Thompson 12%, McCain 45%, Paul 4%, Rudy 4%
Based on IA, I think it’s safe to say Santorum gets about 90% of Huck’s total, and probably about 25% of Thompson’s. That would give him about 6,070 votes. Gingrich would get about 70% of Thompson folks and was pulling in over 50% of the McCain votes, but that number appears to have dropped around 30%. So Gingrich gets about 7,481 votes. Rick Perry gets the other 5% of Thompson voters, and probably no more than 5% of McCain people for 967. Ron Paul brings in his lunatic fringe like usual, but remember, his rises were always at the expense of Romney in IA and the fact military people supposedly likes him, probably sees him pick up about 3,000. Finally, assuming Romney holds his own totals from 2008, and picks up 70% of the McCain voters, he’d get about 17,125 votes.
So the voting in Charleston County would be:
Romney - 17,125 - 49%
Newt - 7,481 - 22%
Santorum - 6,070 - 18%
Paul - 3,000 - 9%
Perry - 1,000 - 3%
Total: 34,676
Thankfully, there’s not enough urban places like this in the state (Thank you NW SC) to push Romney forward like this. But these are the kind of margins he’d have to get to win in the areas McCain won. And the only way he gets that to happen is by capturing McCain voters from 2008, a block that appears to have gone to Gingrich and Perry in IA.
So the Newt people need to stop bashing Santorum here. He is not the enemy in SC. The Newt people need to go after the McCain voters that this Rasmussen poll says Romney is getting. He can do this without having any negative effect on Santorum. The SC result could easily end up being Santorum: 32%, Newt: 28%, Romney: 25%, Paul: 11%, Perry 4%.
Gingrich Budget Policy...
“On July 29, 1997, Speaker Newt Gingrich joined fellow Republican leaders on the steps of the U.S. Capitol before a large audience of onlookers and the media to celebrate the passage of the 1997 budget agreement. The balanced budget agreement contained several “Republican” tax and spending policies: constraints on domestic spending, the largest savings in Medicare in history, and the first net tax cut in sixteen years, including cuts in capital gains taxes, a child tax credit, an increase in the exemption for estate and gift taxes, and increased individual retirement accounts. Several Republican lawmakers commented that, coupled with the passage of welfare reform in 1996, the budget agreement virtually completed the major goals in the Contract with America. Such sweeping policy changes would not have occurred without a majority of Republicans in the Senate and the House, and without the leadership of Speaker Gingrich.”
“So the Newt people need to stop bashing Santorum here. He is not the enemy in SC. The Newt people need to go after the McCain voters that this Rasmussen poll says Romney is getting.”
Exactly. Thank you. The enemy is Romney and we need to go after him, not Santorum.
“Exactly. Thank you. The enemy is Romney and we need to go after him, not Santorum.”
Same can be said for not attacking Gingrich.
“What’s his problem?? - just asking!! “
well its his piss poor campaign and gaffes that destroyed him - all self inflicted. First he got in late which in and of itself is not so bad except if you can run a flawless campaign. he cant
he stunk up the debates by looking lost in most then saying “oops” because he forgot what agencies he would cut.
called conservatives who were against in state tuition for illegals “hearltess”
got the voting age wrong
had some rambling speech that made him look drunk that went viral.
he just looks like an incompetant joke
I was unaligned from the beginning and thought Perry sounded promising but was thoroughly disappointed with him and his campaign.
Let me say this about polls in SC showing Gingrich losing
25 points in a month and the liberal Romney actually leading Gingrich by 20 points.
Does anyone with a brain think that if Newt Gingrich had won
Iowa that all of the sudden he would be leading the
liberal Romney in NH? Of course not. Well its the same in SC. Gingrich has actually lead Rommey by a wider margin for months. No one has been close to him.
This polls are media driven to make the lamestream media
favorite Romney look like he is the inevitable nominee. And they also want to show Santorom as the challenger to Romney, knowing damn well Santorum has no way to beat Romney. He has no organization and no money.
Gingrich is the one the media (liberals) and RINOs are scared to death of. The RINOs that control the GOP are aligned with these left-leaning polls to attempt to show Romney with an overwhelmingly lead over Gingrich - the only man who can beat Obama. The white Obama (Romney) absolutely can not beat Obama and the media knows it, the RINOs know it. But they hate conservatives to the point that they will run a liberal candidate againt him because they know he will lose. The RINOs are scared to death a real conserative will be elected president and actually change things in big government Washington. The democrats and RINOs are one in the same.
So I ask the question again. Does anyone think that
if Gingrich would have won Iowa that he would now be ahead
of Romney in NH? The answer is absolutely not.
Romney is no more leading Gingrich in South Carolina than the man in the moon. Media driven polls, controlled by the Karl Rove wing of the republican party to make everyone think that their favorite liberal can not be beat.
“And they also want to show Santorom as the challenger to Romney, knowing damn well Santorum has no way to beat Romney. He has no organization and no money”
Which is why they managed to convince 30k Iowans that Santorum was their man?
Seems clear as day to me. Once people sat down and looked at things, they decided that Santorum was the best conservative out there.
SC is not NH. Santorum draws from the conservatives. It stands to reason if he’s drawing the conservatives in Iowa, that he would do the same in South Carolina.
And this seems to be the case so far. Santorum jumped from nothing to around 25 percent, and that shift is going to come almost solely out of Gingrich support. A 25 point shift in Iowa is likely to be seen also in South Carolina.
Saying that Santorum should drop out and quit to get behind Newt is going to get the same response.
You’re trying to oversimplify it when it’s just not that simple. And to say Perry’s “debating skills are lacking” is being kind.
“The bottom line is that if this Rasmussen poll is correct, then Newt is losing his large share of McCain voters from the 08 primary”
Hmmmm, I don’t remember Newt running in ‘08.
I never said that Santorum should drop out nitwit.
Isn’t Ohio’s in April now ?
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.