The Democrat's favorite GOP candidate lost of SC. Obama, the end is nigh.Denny Schlesinger
Sorry--I've been avoiding the political posts, but Newt Gingrich, the Georgian, won in his backyard. He talks the primary voters' talk. I don't see how that translates into anything resembling a Gingrich presidency. If he wins, his polarizing past seems like it would offset Obama's polarizing past...I certainly appreciate hearing alternative thought processes...nomes
Are you suggesting that GOP victory is more likely with Gingrich as the candidate?
I certainly appreciate hearing alternative thought processes...nomes With the flip-flops in the GOP primary so far anyone making firm predictions has a very high chance of being wrong.From my perspective, well south of the border, I see two things:On the Democrat side: They know they have a high probability of losing and would prefer to lose to a RINO which would be Romney. The other three remaining candidates are far right of Romney.On the GOP side: They just might be tired enough of ineffective RINOs (like McCain and Romney) that they might prefer someone less brainy and more brawny. In any case, I don't think Wall St. types are loved all that much by either side. It's easy to accuse Romney of destroying jobs because that is part of creative destruction. You destroy inefficient jobs and create efficient ones. People who lose their jobs don't like that -- for good reason -- but that is how capitalism and the economy work.SC makes it look like the "Anyone but Romney" is gaining strength. With too many candidates in the race, it was hard to pick the Romney replacement but as the field narrows it becomes easier. I doubt that Ron Paul is a real contender so it's Gingrich/Santorum vs. Romney. After listening to a Santorum speech recently, I started liking the guy and I also like Newt's confrontational style. He is a good debater, has good stage presence.Will any of them make a good president? I prefer a leader (Truman/Reagan) to a doer (Nixon/Carter). I have often said that Reagan accomplished more falling asleep in the Oval Office than Carter working his butt off. For me, Romney is the doer, Gingrich the leader and Santorum somewhere in between.My view from well south of the border.Denny Schlesinger
Are you suggesting that GOP victory is more likely with Gingrich as the candidate?Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm quite capable of choosing my own words. Thank you.I'm not suggesting, for two years I have been saying that Obama is a one termer. That is a foregone conclusion, Americans don't forgive poor presidents.What I said is that Democrats would prefer to lose to Romney than to lose to Gingrich since lose they will.None of that is a suggestion. It's an opinion base on visible evidence. Visible to those who want to see. Good presidents don't cause grass roots political movements like the Tea Party. When everything works as it should, people prefer to live their lives without paying too much attention to politics. Nixon begat one termer Carter. Bush begat one termer Obama. Obama, Reid, Pelosi are getting the GOP reelected.Denny Schlesinger
Denny,I agree that the "anyone but Romney" movement is picking up steam now that the field has shrunk. I personally voted for Newt today. Surprisingly, my wife did as well. I did not ask her until we were walking home. When asked why, she replied "our country needs a leader."Mason
Funny because with all of this budget balancing and deficit reducing and job creating, sounds like we need a technocrat more than a leader.
On the GOP side: They just might be tired enough of ineffective RINOs (like McCain and Romney) that they might prefer someone less brainy Wow. I've heard Newt called all sorts of stuff, but never "less brainy".Nevertheless, I'm sure he'll be called "dumb" an awful lot if he wins the nomination. For the only two attacks leftist seem to have are "racist" and "dumb"; since they only have those two, I'm sure they'll use both. (I'm not saying you're either leftist or calling him dumb. Just making an observation)
SC makes it look like the "Anyone but Romney" is gaining strength. With too many candidates in the race, it was hard to pick the Romney replacement but as the field narrows it becomes easier. I doubt that Ron Paul is a real contender so it's Gingrich/Santorum vs. Romney. After listening to a Santorum speech recently, I started liking the guy and I also like Newt's confrontational style. He is a good debater, has good stage presence.I have a theory. I don't think Paul cares too much for Newt or Romney. He should be the next one out of the race and for good reason. The question is when. When/if that happens, his rabid followers will largely go to whomever he supports. I believe that is likely to be Santorum. This would likely vault him in front of the pack, and of the three, he is the cleanest.Newt is great in debates, but you are counting on Obama actually debating him. I would not put it past Obama to not debate Newt since he knows he'll be destroyed. He certainly won't get any Lincoln-Douglas style debates out of Obama. The debate format would be a highly controlled environment at best for Newt. If Newt got the nomination, my bet is Obama hides behind the "I don't have time for debates because I'm too busy governing" mantra. I don't think Newt has the ability to stay on message in a campaign anyway, something Romney has been superb at doing.All theories, of course...:-)
I'm certainly not calling Newt dumb! What I'm stressing is his brawniness in facing down the media elite. Compare how well he handled the marriage/fidelity issue compared to Herman Cain. Compare how well he handled the issue compared to Romney on tax returns. The electorate dislikes weak denials and weakness in general. Compare to Truman's sign: "The buck stops here" or to Reagan taking responsibility for Iran/Contra. As soon as he did the issue fizzled. Or compare to Clinton brazing out the Monica issue. Weakness kills campaigns, people vote for winners.Denny Schlesinger
Funny because with all of this budget balancing and deficit reducing and job creating, sounds like we need a technocrat more than a leader.The trust in the elite and in technocrats is often misplaced. The leader can and should surround himself with technocrats but the technocrat without leadership qualities will be a dud: e.g. Carter.From February 2000Take a look at presidents and heads of state. I believe that Jimmy Carter is a much more intelligent man than Ronald Reagan but Reagan was certainly the more efficient president. I recall two articles on the front page of the English language newspaper in Caracas (The Daily Journal) during the Iranian hostage crisis. The top article talked about Jimmy Carter agonizing about what to do about the hostages, going to Camp David with many trusted advisors to debate the situation. The bottom article was headed: "Maggie says 'Yes.'" Iranian terrorists had taken hostage the Iranian Embassy in London. The head of the British anti terrorist forces asked Thatcher if they should blast the terrorist to kingdom come. The simple answer: "Yes." Thatcher was the longest governing Prime Minister in the history of England, outlasting even Winston Churchill, who, by most accounts, was the better man. Carter only had one four year term. Reagan might have slept on the job but he didn't dawdle while awake.http://softwaretimes.com/files/right%20and%20wrong.htmlDenny Schlesinger
On the Democrat side: They know they have a high probability of losing and would prefer to lose to a RINO which would be Romney.You don't think there is some impact on the probability of a win depending on whom the GOP nominates? I would think there were no small number of people who might vote for Romney, but who would never vote for Gingrich or Santorum.
Stop putting words in my mouth.Asking you a question to clarify whether this is what you mean is not putting words in your mouth.
Huh? I haven't heard anyone on either side say anything other than that Gingrich is obviously very intelligent. Sometimes he lacks judgement, but that is quite a different quality.
I would be surprised to see Paul drop out, especially in favor of someone else. As long as he can place a respectable third, I think he will hang on and try to use those delegates as a lever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcYF5aNwUeIthis is the best media slap down- Obummer never had these types of questions
Obummer never had these types of questionsIt is a stupid and irrelevant line of question, to be sure.One must admit, however, that Gingrich has led a life that provides ample material for questions like this and he is not alone. I agree that what happens in the bedroom should not be a topic for a presidential debate, but it would be false to suggest that Gingrich is getting this kind of question because of media bias in favor of Obama. The media has been just as sensationalistic on lots of equally stupid questions about Obama.
there you go again
The CNN guy just asked to be kicked again and again He got his wish! LOLThis question and answer probably got Gingrich the 40% win in SC. It was brawny. For those who don't seem to understand the comparative but only speak in absolutes, when I say "prefer brawny to brainy" I'm not saying Newt is stupid. I'm saying that at this point in time no other candidate has had the gonads to take on the media elite like Newt Gingrich has. The right is sick and tired of the elite MSM socialist bias. Now they have an outspoken champion who kicked the living daylights out of the MSM guy.Denny SchlesingerExample for the slow witted: When you say Everest is taller than Matterhorn you are not saying Matterhorn is low. You don't need to be an Einstein to understand this kind of relativity! LOLMatterhorn: 4,478 metres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MatterhornEverest: 8,848 metres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverestGet it yet?
Now they have an outspoken champion who kicked the living daylights out of the MSM guy.Which, as likely as not, will lead to the Republican party getting the living daylights kicked out it come November.Sweet Justice :<)B
this is the best media slap down- Obummer never had these types of questionsYa see...this is what makes America great!Where you perceive a media "slap down" by Gingrich, I see a pasty weasel squealing like a stuck pig because he can dish it out but can't take it and he is backed up by a roaring crowd of similarly pasty people that loves them some Fox channel 'cause it's fair and balanced (whatever that means).Where were you when Clinton was getting the same treatment over Gennifer Flowers? How about Gary Hart over Donna Whositswhat? I'm sure your heart bled "liberal media" tears over those poor souls!And really, do you believe "Obummer" would never be asked such questions if it were discovered he had been schtouping his assistant?Puhleeze! The needle on the right-wing persecution meter is beyond the red-line!
The CNN guy just asked to be kicked again and again He got his wish! LOL --- DennyI can't resist.Random musings :* I haven't read all the posts in this thread yet. For heaven's sake, how could I.* I was never impressed by that guy (JK). IMO, he is just brawn. Last year, when I saw him as an anchor in "State of the Union", I had an instant dislike, talking fast with no touch.Indeed, he was soon replaced.* IIRC, the Obama camp said they would like to run again Newt best. Think Sun Tzu, think "The Art Of War", think deception, The Obama camp might get their wish.IMHO, Newt is a risk candidate, he might not be able to be graceful under pressure in the future. But looking at Romney after NC, boy, I think he lost his composure in front of the camera and that is not a good thing. Wait till he has to confront all the thugs around the world if he is elected.* BTW, when I first saw Santorum in his IOWA "acceptance" speech, I opined in the RB Board "No Politics Please" that he had star quality. They show their talents early, like a quarterback performing under pressure. Romney had too many runs already.Now, Santorum needs to take speech and acting class. Have more chrisma man.George
I'm not suggesting, for two years I have been saying that Obama is a one termer. That is a foregone conclusion, Americans don't forgive poor presidents.How's that working out?Merry Christmas!
How's that working out? Either Americans are becoming more forgiving of poor presidents or they now prefer Obama Money instead of hard earned money.And a Happy New Year!Denny Schlesinger
ah the 47% crowd.....got some bad news for you statistically......the highest concentration of the 47% is in the deep Romney south......Dave
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |