I have been reading your posts over the past few weeks and until this post, I couldn’t determine which candidate you supported. Perhaps I wasn’t on the threads where you posted a preference, I don’t know.
That being said, there are choices we make beyond the facts based upon intangibles, a gut feeling, a vibe, whatever.
That’s my issue with Santorum. I just don’t like his look. It’s quite like nObama’s in a way. He looks down his nose in the way nObama lift’s his chin. People have used the word “petulant” to describe him. I’ll go one further and say he’s a snot, in plain English.
On the other hand, Speaker Gingrich has done some controversial things. That doesn’t bother me. Thinkers do controversial things. Cowards shrink from controversy. For every RINO deed performed, 10 bold Conservative initiatives were introduced.
America needs bold if we are to survive.
Heavy turnout means the tea party is coming out.
Bears repeating. bttt
And until America gets over this intangle, American Idol BS in picking a candidate, we’re screwed. What matters to me are conservative principles and people that not only promote them, but abide by them.
Santorum’s basically the only one left I would personally consider settling on. Originally, I was for Bachmann, and I still admire her greatly despite the amount of negativity she got around here. Then I was a firm supporter of the Cain Train, but as the false accusation continued to amount and people began to label him as stupid for how he handled reporters, they pushed a good man out. That left Santorum and Perry, two of which I could support. But Perry also got the “moron” label applied to him by people of this forum who expect the 2012 Election to be decided by the debates, ultimately forcing him out.
I live in Realville (as Rush puts it, and has also stated the fall debates won’t play as large a role as everyone expects). Newt will disappoint. In fact, not only will he disappoint, but when he strays off the conservative reservation, he will lecture us on why we (the conservatives) are wrong and he is right. Example was this attack on Capitalism that Rush called “indefensible”. Notice, Newt has never backed down off of this attack, he just diverted the subject to another strength (calling for the release of Romney’s tax returns). Whenever he knows he is wrong, he diverts off of it to a strength. Good debate tactic. But the more you get used to it, the more you start to see through it.
It will start with the running mate discussion. I guarantee you 99% an Establishment RINO will be on that ticket. And while I try to say “See I told you so”, people here are already working on defending the choice and comparing it to Reagan’s selection of Bush I. It’s going to happen.
Lastly, because I understand the Election is decided by the Electoral College, I know that essentially any of our nominees has just as much a chance to win the Election. All of them will carry the McCain states from 2008. All of them will most likely carry IN and NC. Each has about the same shot in FL, VA, and OH. That’s 266 Electoral Votes. Add in another toss-up state, and it’s game over. I reject the argument that Newt can only accomplish this and Santorum can’t because I’ve looked at the county by county data for each of these states and will continue to do so as the Election approaches. We had a chance to put a real conservative in, and are laying a major egg.
On the other hand, Speaker Gingrich has done some controversial things. That doesn't bother me. Thinkers do controversial things. Cowards shrink from controversy.
Yep. "Risk is the price you pay for opportunity."
Newt's a risk, but a smart one. The very fact that he has exhibited in front of God and everybody the courage and humility to 'fess up to past transgressions and try to make them right, both politically AND in his personal life -- things I haven't seen Santorum do -- makes him the better risk of the two.
Romney, on the other hand, is a zero-risk candidate, and hear me out on this. With Newt (or with Santorum), there'd be a risk that they'd go sideways and implement statism, the thing we're fighting so hard against. That risk is very real, and it's behind a lot of people's leeriness of both Newt and Santorum.
There is complete certainty that Romney would drive things toward statism on both sides of the aisle. There's no risk at all, because it's certain that Romney would make liberalism and the forces of statism more powerful in both the Republican and the Democrat parties, if he won. The risk of him losing is moot -- the forces working to drive back government and statism would lose either way. With Romney, we're trying to create opportunity without paying the price of risk -- hence either way a race against Obama ended up, we'd be sacrificing any opportunity to make the nation move away from Statism. Indeed, because conservatism would grow STRONGER in the Republican party if Romney lost to Obama, we'd have MORE opportunity, though it's up in the air as to whether it would be enough, and in time.
Romney MOST LOSE if we want to give America a fighting chance -- the opportunity -- to win back its Constitutional liberties. Romney is a zero-risk candidate, hence presents zero opportunity for conservatism.