If not Obama... who?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...election_2012_republican_presidential_primary
National GOP Poll: Gingrich 38% Romney 17%

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has surged to the largest national lead held by any candidate so far in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters finds Gingrich on top with 38% of the vote. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a distant second at 17%.
Click to expand...
 
Just want to give my opinion on these:
Irvinecommuter said:
Then why should people with no children have to pay taxes to fund public education?
Click to expand...
This falls under the preamble of welfare... providing something for society such that they can provide for themselves. Whether or not you have kids, as you've said, should not be an issue. I believe public schools are also largely supported by state/local tax.
Why should pacifists pay taxes to fund the military?
Click to expand...
To me, the military is not offense... it's defense. Which is also covered under the preamble of provide for a common defense. Attack a pacifist at home, he will still try to defend himself.
Why should I pay for the police and fire department when I have never called them in my life?
Click to expand...
Just because you never called them, doesn't mean you're not using their services. This also falls under common defense and the preambles of establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility and securing the blessings of liberty. And again, these services are mainly state and local.

It's not about paying for things you won't use, it's about at what level these payments are made, what type of service it is... and who will be administering those services.

Other than military, the things you mention are state/local... and more so... they are still *public* entities. That's a larger part of the issue as Liar Loan is saying, because the federal government is going to use *public" funds for *private* services.

It sounds like you prefer "big" government... why?
 
Now Mitt Romney is tied with Ron Paul for second place in Iowa.  This represents somewhat of a surge for Ron Paul and a drop off for Romney.  If that momentum continues, Romney will place third behind what another poster described as a "joke" of a candidate.  Imagine the embarrassment.  There's no way to spin that kind of loss.  It would be the first nail in Romney's coffin. 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...owa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html
 
LL is like a presidential prophet... no more Cain... Newt seems to be leading and Romney is falling.

Not looking good for the Reps.

I just hope this doesn't mean Hillary in 2016.
 
If the republicans select Newt over Romeny, they will lose for sure which I hope does not happen.  I don't want to see Obama or Newt in the white house.
 
Newt's going to pummel Guy Smiley and will likely edge out BHO but not by much.

The thing that will really spin this around is when HRC gets in the race. My guess is that she'd clean everyones clock since the fascination with BHO is pretty much over.

The worst of all scenarios IMHO.
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
Newt's going to pummel Guy Smiley and will likely edge out BHO but not by much.

The thing that will really spin this around is when HRC gets in the race. My guess is that she'd clean everyones clock since the fascination with BHO is pretty much over.

The worst of all scenarios IMHO.
Click to expand...

Shields and Brooks segment on news hour....Shields stated that that if Newt was RNC candidate, obama would cruise unchallenged to 2nd term. he actually thought this was a horrible result because he wanted obama to be seriously challenged and wake up to why so many are disappointed by his candidacy.

Brooks completely agreed. He stated he loves Newt the character but way too flawed and disorganized to win presidency.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
I just hope this doesn't mean Hillary in 2016.
Click to expand...

I think it's crucial for Hillary to have Obama re-elected in 2012.  The economy is likely to be much better in 2016, which means the party that holds power is likely to win again.  If Newt manages to get elected in 2012, then he is likely to get re-elected in 2016 due to the much improved economy for which he will get credit.  That means Hillary would be out of luck and then she will be aged out after that.

The interesting thing about the polling right now is that none of the Republican candidates, including Mitt, are leading Obama.  (The media continues to imply that Mitt is leading, but it's not true.) 

However, if you do a simple generic Republican vs Obama poll, then Obama is losing.  I guess the conclusion is that people aren't happy with Obama, but they don't like any of the Republicans either.  For many voters, it's going to be another year of choosing the least worst candidate for President.
 
Yep... that's what I was alluding to.

If the Reps don't have a candidate that can beat Obama (which it doesn't look like), Hillary is probably a shoe-in in '16... which means I need to start looking at Redfin France in 2015. :D
 
Ah... you beat me to it.  I wanted to be the first to announce that the "joke of a candidate", Ron Paul, was leading in Iowa.  I'll just say that I don't think these polls are the most accurate, but it's a safe bet that Dr. Paul and Mitt Romney are at least in a statistical tie for first, with Newt trailing by about 5%. 

If this first caucus indeed comes down to turnout, Ron Paul has a distinct advantage.  He's got the best infrastructure of any candidate in the state, while Romney has virtually no infrastructure.  You can tell the establishment is scared because their lapdog, Sean Hannity, has turned from being cordial towards Ron Paul, to all out daily attacks on him.
 
I would actually consider my political views in line with libertarianism... but Ron Paul scares me (although he's now considered "Republican").
 
If there was a crystal ball we could look into before George W Bush was elected in 2000 that said we'd be engaged in not one, but two decade long wars, a huge unfunded expansion of Medicare, the worst recession since the 1930's, and torture as a viable intelligence policy, most people would have been scared as hell.  Yet now Mitt Romney, whos views are virtually identical to those of GW Bush, is considered the "sane" choice for President.  No thank you.

If a candidate with Ron Paul's views had been elected in 2000, none of the above listed disasters would have been likely outcomes.
 
I understand your point... but like your quote says, it takes more than just a president to start a war. That's what checks and balances are for and no one can say that another president would not have done the same.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
I understand your point... but like your quote says, it takes more than just a president to start a war. That's what checks and balances are for and no one can say that another president would not have done the same.
Click to expand...
yea, it takes a VP who is crazy too.
 
All of the recent polling shows Romney leading Paul by about 1 point in Iowa.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...owa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Since this is a caucus and not a normal election, it will be interesting to see if Paul's passionate base gives him the edge over Romney's less-than-passionate supporters.  Santorum seems to be getting the evangelical vote that once belonged to Bachman and Perry.  A third place win might be enough to make him competitive nationally, especially if Bachman and Perry decide to drop out after this.
 
This single issue could tank the entire Romney campaign:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/19/romney-iras-offshore-investments-helping-his-tax-bill/

Romney IRA?s Offshore Investments: Helping His Tax Bill?

Mitt Romney?s campaign has attacked an ABC News report on the candidate?s offshore investments, saying his holdings in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere have no effect on the amount he pays in U.S. taxes.

But the campaign?s assertions may be wrong or misleading. Tax experts said some of the offshore holdings are likely intended to help Mr. Romney avoid paying an obscure but hefty tax of as much as 35% on some of those investments, held in a tax-deferred retirement account.

As The Wall Street Journal reported in Thursday?s paper, many of Mr. Romney?s offshore investments are held through his individual retirement account, which has grown to between $20.7 million and $101.6 million. IRAs are tax-deferred accounts, in which earnings accrue tax-free until the money is withdrawn during retirement.

Mr. Romney?s IRA has grown so large, it appears, due to investments in various vehicles managed by Bain Capital, the investment fund he helped found in 1984. His latest financial disclosure report, filed in August, shows that many of the IRAs assets are in Bain-affiliated entities located offshore, including one in the Cayman Islands that the report listed as having a value of between $5 million and $25 million.

In response to the ABC News report that focused on investments by Mr. Romney in a ?notorious tax haven,? Mr. Romney?s campaign said: ?ABC is flat wrong. The Romneys? investments in funds established in the Cayman Islands are taxed in the very same way they would be if those funds were established in the United States. These are not tax havens and it is false to say so.?

However, tax experts said that had Mr. Romney?s IRA invested in Bain funds in the U.S., he would likely have been forced to pay an obscure levy called the ?unrelated business income tax,? also known as UBIT.

This tax, assessed for individuals at a maximum 35% rate, is meant to discourage tax-exempt entities such as an IRA or college endowment fund from unfairly competing with for-profit, taxpaying entities by operating a business without paying taxes on it. Investing in a partnership such as a Bain Capital fund that uses debt to buy companies would trigger the tax, experts said.

For this reason, the experts said, it is very common for private-equity funds such as Bain to set up vehicles in offshore locales such as the Cayman Islands. Such a structure allows American tax-exempt entities, including IRAs, to avoid paying UBIT.
Click to expand...

Already, Romney's numbers in South Carolina are plummeting, but even more concerning, his national numbers are starting to buckle.  Romney's only real selling point with Republicans is that he can beat Obama, but a tax haven scandal would put an end to that.

Newt has picked up a surge of momentum in South Carolina, due to his double smackdown of debate moderators earlier in the week.  The tea partiers love it and are starting to envision him smacking down Obama in a similar way.

Santorum is quickly losing steam and will probably exit the race after Florida.  He's the Mike Huckabee of this election cycle -- loved by values voters but annoying to everybody else.  That's why he's polling about 3% in Nevada.

Ron Paul will keep fighting until the bitter end, but he won't win any states... maybe a few more delegates from the proportionally-split states.  Will he run 3rd party?  Doubtful.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
So is it Romney?
Click to expand...

That certainly is the storyline in the media.  After winning just 2 out of 4 contests (and now 3 out of 5)  the MSM has all but declared Romney the Republican nominee.  As long as Gingrich and Santorum continue to split the anti-Romney vote that will likely be the case.  I was wrong about Santorum dropping out after Florida.  He was able to convince some millionaire activist to fund his campaign for a little longer.  If you take the Santorum + Newt polling numbers, anti-Romney is still more popular than Romney.  That means the Republicans will nominate a candidate that they can't stand to try to beat a President they can't stand.  A lot of independent swing voters haven't looked that closely at Romney yet, and when they do, they aren't going to like what they see.  Things are looking good for Obama's reelection.

One tactical error that I think Newt made was letting Romney get off easy on immigration.  Newt had ads accusing Romney of being "anti-immigrant", but under pressure Newt later retracted those ads.  At one of the debates, Romney responded to the ads by talking about how his dad immigrated from Mexico and his wife's dad immigrated as well.  At this point, Newt had a golden opportunity to point out that Romney's family was living in Mexico so they could practice polygamy.  Maybe Newt didn't want to get that personal, but it would have allowed him to point out that Romney's ancestors had "self-deported" to Mexico to circumvent US law, and that his family engaged in practices that most Americans find reprehensible.  It would have been a dirty move on Newt's part, but given how dirty Romney is campaigning, it would have been justified and a potential knockout punch for his campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top