from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt. [Archive] - Page 2

alanmolstad

01-06-2012, 04:33 AM

Mitt's goal in NH?

To win, and win big!

Mitt needs to totally destroy all the rest of the field in NH.
This will cause all the sources of money to all the other people left in the race to dry up.

This would also give Mitt a very good chance to go into SC and win there too.

A clean victory in both NH and SC would get Mitt to his real goal of having the nomination all wrapped up by Florida.

And lets not overlook this fact.
Mitt's goal is to have this all over by Florida so that from that point on he will not have to spend one dime running against any other Republicans.
After Florida Mitt wants this election to be "Mitt against Obama"
Not "Mitt against Rick and Ron"

So to make this as painless as he can, Mitt needs to win in NH next week, and win big.

Mitt needs to win big to be able to sweep into Sc and have that State not become a problem for him.

right now, Rick is just praying to get enough money to make a "last stand " in SC.
Rick known that his only real chance of overcoming Mitt's lead in this election is to beat Mitt in SC.

If Rick can win SC he can force this game into extras innings and perhaps all the way to the convention.

So this is why Mitt really needs to destroy the whole rest of the field in NH.
A big victory for Mitt in NH next week will be the signal that he is unstoppable, and that any money given to the other guy is a pointless.

alanmolstad

01-06-2012, 04:58 AM

In most elections you win the Republican spot on the ticket by appealing to the far right, and then in the general election moving to the center.

Mitt is going at this in a different way.

Mitt is already to the center, and Mitt has done this because the way he thinks, he does not need the conservative wing of the Republican Party to come out to support him.

Mitt's idea is that he can write-off the conservative Christians, and make up for this loss of their support by drawing more liberal/undecided voters.

Has any person in modern history ever won doing this?...nope.
But we shall see....we shall see....

The answer might come for us early in SC.
For in SC we will get our first real clear answer about the depth of support Mitt can count on from the Republican conservatives.
If Mitt can win in NH and turn around and use this to get him another victory in SC, it would prove more or less to the whole Party that Mitt is getting the "Christian Vote"

In a very real way, Rick's "Last Stand" is going to be SC.
That is the only chance Rick has in this election...
Does Rick have to win in SC?.....yes

On a side note...even if Rick does lose in SC, he needs to yet make a strong showing to force Mitt to late pick him as the VP.

a strong showing by Rick in SC would lead the party to put the screws on Mitt to make sure he picks a VP like Rick that will draw the needed Christian/conservatives to vote for him.

a weak showing of Rick in SC would on the other hand show that Mitt's plan is actually working, and there is a chance ........
Do I believe Mitt has a chance against Obama without strong support of Christians like myself?....no.

I think that in the end, there will be a unspoken deal made between Mitt and guys like myself as to what we will expect from each other to beat Obama.

But, we shall see.

alanmolstad

01-07-2012, 07:10 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/07/us-usa-campaign-huntsman-idUSTRE80601720120107

The only time I actually get real mad during an election is when I see someone attempting to drag in kids into the issue....

BigJulie

01-07-2012, 11:57 PM

Mitt's idea is that he can write-off the conservative Christians, and make up for this loss of their support by drawing more liberal/undecided voters.

I don't think that Mitt has written off conservative Christians---I just think he has read the writing on the wall of "anyone but Mitt" at***ude that is going on and so not wasting money were it will do little good---but I think what he is counting on is that if he can win over the rest of the party, these anti-Mitt conservative Christians will come around.

alanmolstad

01-08-2012, 08:05 AM

Time to tell you my views on the "Newt" issue.

Ever ask, "Why is Newt in this race?"

I mean lets look at what Newt has been up to from the start of this.
Newt has never once taken the steps a guy needs to take to raise the type of cash a guy needs to have if he wanted to make a serious run for the White House.

Newt has never once tried to raise that type of money...

In fact, remember his own staff actually walked out the door on Newt when it became clear to them all that Newt was not in this to win.
Newts staff would try their best to get things lined up, they would make the phone calls, and get things ready for Newt to step up, and then.....?.....Newt would stay home and not show up....

Newt left his own staff hanging time after time until they had had enough and walked out the door to join a different person's staff.

Newt made only a few appearances in Iowa, and the results show his lack of effort.

So why is he still hanging around?

Newt can read as good as the next person.
Newt can count.....
Newt knows he don't have a chance to knock out Mitt.

So why is Newt still acting as if he was tied for the lead?

The answer I have come up with is that Newt is using the Primary as a means to pump-up his name value.
Newt wants to get out of this the ability to have a higher price to attend one of his speeches.
Newt wants his future appearances on TV's Sunday talk shows to be more of a big deal.

and.......

Newt knows that if he just stays in the news for a while, he might outlive Rick's popularity with Conservatives too.

Yes, there is a chance that if Newt sticks around long enough, that Rick's poll numbers might sink the way Cain's did....and that would leave Newt as the last Conservative standing to carry the flag against Mitt.

So......this is all that I see behind Newt's actions in this election when everyone knows he has not a chance in Hell of beating Mitt in a normal stand-up fight.

Newt's in this to raise his stock with conservatives in the future.
Newt's in this because he understands if Rick falls that he would be the last conservative guy left standing to go up against Mitt.

alanmolstad

01-08-2012, 08:42 AM

So what does Newt want?

I would guess that Newt wants Rick to drop out of the race...LOL

What do the other guys want?
I would guess that Rick wants Newt to drop out of the race after NH and before SC.
Rick knows he will need a strong showing in SC if he can have any real future dream of lasting until Florida.
Rick knows also that if Newt is still in the race by the time SC rolls around that the two of them will be splitting the conservative vote, and this will only work to make Mitt's numbers look all the better.

That is why Rick needs Newt to drop out after next week, and so clear the field for all the conservatives in Sc to only have one name to pick from to go against Mitt.

Mitt on the other hand?

Mitt clearly wants Newt to stick around and mess up the polling numbers in both NH and SC for the conservatives.

Mitt knows that he is actually getting less than 24% support no matter what poll you look at of Republican voters, and so while this is a rather low percent if you think about it, it yet will be enough to win the ticket as long as everyone else polls lower than Mitt does.

So Mitt knows he can's break past the low 20% numbers in the polls, and so he needs to keep Newt in the race drawing people away from all ganging up to support Rick.

BigJulie

01-09-2012, 05:33 PM

So,I am watching the debate and I am thinking to myself--Newt brings up some really good points---Newt is a good debater. Than the last question of the night--would both Newt and Mitt drop their PAC ads--and the way Newt responded about the video regarding Bain Capitol, well, I thought--what a hypocritic--what a scum. Any points he won were toast. Now I find out his 5 million dollar backer is a casino capitolist and I think, I am not surprised at all. Newt is not a politician. Ultimately, he is a lobbyist. That has become obvious. So, what do I think about his "video expose" of Mitt? Hmmm, going after capitolism to beat the Republican base...why not just run as a Democrat? So, I wonder how many people will weep and cry for the capitolist tactics of a venture capitolist company? How many people will weep and cry that union members whose company was going under did not keep their union *** and pay as Bain reshaped their companies? I guess that is the argument right now in the country. Do we innovate and keep up so we can compete or do we try to keep our typewriters and our steel company employees with their union paychecks and pensions?

alanmolstad

01-09-2012, 06:39 PM

Want to know who did the best in the debate?

This guy did.....

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/08/10056061-huntsman-capitalizes-on-romney-attack?ocid=ansmsnbc11

I could not believe that Mitt said the silly thing that he said...

Im going to have to take a 2nd look at this Jon Huntsman.
What I saw was a guy handle an attack the way I would have expected a true leader would handle it.

Up to this last debate I never really gave Jon Huntsman a real look.
But Im thinking now that this guy might actually be the real deal.

Mitt on the other hand?
confirmed my views about him being just a shell......an empty shell...that ****s back and forth in the wind.

alanmolstad

01-09-2012, 06:47 PM

i remember now....

I remember what I thought of the moment I heard Mitt make this regrettable and un-American attack against Jon Huntsman.

There was a TV show I loved a while ago called The West Wing....and on that show once there was a similar attack made against a Republican for serving a Democratic President that was just like what Mitt tried to do against Jon Huntsman in the last debate.

I will do a search and see if I can find that clip.......

alanmolstad

01-09-2012, 06:49 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udIUWa56_0I&feature=related

and......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3owlMdxls

Mitt's comment calls to mind this episode of West Wing, where 2 a__holes attack the lone Republican working for a Liberal Dem president..

alanmolstad

01-09-2012, 07:06 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZq7DN4g3Ro

compare this moment in the debate to this moment on West Wing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk5NwLr3OmQ

alanmolstad

01-09-2012, 07:14 PM

So Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman did very good in the last debate..

Mitt showed he really is an a__hole for attacking a guy who would serve his country...

and so who lost the debate?
Rick did......no question about it.

Rick had his big moment in the limelight to shine,,,he needed to show that he deserves to carry the flag for the conservatives.
and.........
well....

he kinda showed he was not really what the conservatives were looking for.

Im not saying that Rick is finished..
But I am saying that Rick needed to impress....Rick needed to take control...Rick needed people to forget about Mitt.
But...

But Rick sorta looked like a trainee up there.....

alanmolstad

01-10-2012, 07:57 AM

Today "IS" the day!

Today we have the first real test of the true deep-down view that Republicans have of Mitt, and we will know if later in the general election against Obama if Mitt has the type of support he needs to count on to win.

Today will show us all the answers to all the questions i have been tossing out into this conversation.

I will go over the many ideas I have about what this day will mean to the people in this race as this day goes on, but right now I just wanted to say that it will be so much fun tonight to learn the real answers and not just have to guess how things stand.

We will know....

We will know how Mitt stands and who supports him and who does not.

We will know where Mitt has done a good *** and where he needs to work harder yet.

We will know if Mitt has this all wrapped up, or will this drag on into SC?

alanmolstad

01-10-2012, 08:20 AM

What Does Mitt Need To Happen Today?

Mitt needs to destroy his compe***ion today.
Mitt knows that today is the whole primary in one day for his race to the White House.

Mitt needs to show that he is not just the front runner, but is already in the race against Obama.

So what does this mean Mitt needs?
it means that Mitt knows full well that he cant draw less than around 30% of the NH vote today.

Mitt knows also that he has to get out of his being stuck at the mid-20s% of the Republican vote.
He knows that to be a serious contender against Obama he will need to show right here today for all to see that he has this wrapped up with the needed Conservative support of his Party to take on the Dems.

26% - 28% today for Mitt is a loss for him....
No matter that the other guys finish will less.
Mitt has to finish with a 30% vote total or higher to be able to claim a victory in NH .

What Mitt is likely looking to receive today is around a 36% to about 56% of the vote....But the higher the better!

a win at 36% would be death for all the others in the race that had a hope if making a close game of it next week in SC.

a 40% vote for Mitt would cause everyone except for the die-hards to swing to support him.
if he gets 40% then everyone will start to turn and start asking "Who will Mitt pack as his VP?"

I think a 40% or better result for Mitt tonight will grab the attention of the country, and will have everyone looking.
I think all the others would suddenly start to find things of merit in Mitt, as they all start to let Mitt know they would be interested in joining him on the ticket.
It's going to be fun to watch how people that had nothing good to say about each other and each other's supporters, now suddenly find all kinds of nice things to say about each other...LOL

a 50% or better vote tonight to support Mitt would likely cause even the guys in 2nd and 3rd place to reconsider going on to Sc and Florida.

Mitt not only needs a higher percent to say he won in NH, he also needs Rick to fall apart.

Mitt would love to see the headline in tomorrow's paper to be talking about what a disappointment Rick is following the results of the NH primary.

Mitt needs all the talk of Rick's rise in the polls to now be replaced with talk of Rick's fall in the polls.

After today Mitt would like Rick to be a non-issue in the election..

BigJulie

01-10-2012, 11:53 AM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;111082]So Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman did very good in the last debate..

Mitt showed he really is an a__hole for attacking a guy who would serve his country... An interesting point of view. I saw the debate and saw it differently. What is happening is China right now is destroying our country. They are keeping the value of their money purposely low which enables them to export and undercut our at-home prices. They are stealing our intellectual property at rapid rates. This isn't just something Romney is saying, this is fact. The fact is---if we get tough on them about trade, they stand as much (if not more) to lose than we do. What Romney attacked Huntsman on was that fact that not only was he perpetuating bad policy under this administration, Huntsman continues to defend it. China is the Russia of our new global economy. Huntsman wants to go soft, Romney doesn't. Huntsman twisted his continuing support (during the campaign) of Obama's policy into being a "servant of the country."

Obviously, you fell for this. I guess I can add Huntsman to your long list of who you have supported over this time period---Cain, to Newt, to Huntsman. I guess now you can at least pat yourself on the back that your "any one but Mitt" mentality includes another Mormon....even if you know there is no chance of him winning. ;)

alanmolstad

01-10-2012, 02:04 PM

When the President calls on you to serve your country,,,,you serve and feel honored to do so.

I find not even the hint of something wrong in the actionas and statements of Huntsman.

If Mitt cant see this fact,,,,if Mitt cant see this as doing your duty to this country...Then I could never vote for Mitt....no matter he wins the primary or not.

What we see in Mitt's at***ude is the complete foolishness of putting Party loyalty ahead of Patriotism.

I think we may see the recording played a lot over this next year of Mitt attempting to use Huntsman's patriotism against him.
This might be one of the things that points us to the conclusion that the undecided voter went with Obama over Mitt in the general election.

Im going to have to BOOKMARK this part of this topic so I can refer back to it over the next year and point out that it was right "HERE" where we saw the first sign that Mitt's plan to abandon the Conservatives in hope of attracting the Independents was going to fall apart.

alanmolstad

01-10-2012, 03:49 PM

I have been keeping track of how things are going today as they vote in NH,...

And I must say that Newt sure has gotten a lot of mileage off of his last appearance in the debate.

I really didn't think he was one of the winners of that last debate, but from all the talk on the radio and Tv and on the different political websites , it does seem clear that the last debate has put Newt back in the hunt....

BigJulie

01-10-2012, 03:51 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;111208]When the President calls on you to serve your country,,,,you serve and feel honored to do so. And then do you continue to promote bad policy under that administration that is hurting our country. The fact is, China is manipulating their currency. The fact is that China is stealing intellectual property rights at a scary pace. So, I heard Romney stating that Huntsman's defending of this type of policy is exactly what is huritng our country. It is one thing to serve---it is another thing to defend bad policy which is what Huntsman has been doing.

I find not even the hint of something wrong in the actionas and statements of Huntsman. Then you haven't been paying attention to why we are losing ***s to China. China is not taking our ***s because of cheap labor. The law of comparative advantages would say that we should be able to export to their growing economy. We are not because of their unfair trade practices. If you think Huntsman is a "servant" for defending this type of practice--well, let's just keep giving up our economic well-being to China.

If Mitt cant see this fact,,,,if Mitt cant see this as doing your duty to this country Do you realize that Mitt was making a point about Huntsman's political point of view and why he was doing what he was doing. Huntsman continued to defend this view throughout the debate. How do you get up as a candidate and go against the very thing you have been doing as a "servant"--the very thing that has been hurting our country because you have been doing it? Huntsman can't take a strong stance against China because he has been supporting the very policies that have been hurting us. You can go ahead and call that American. Some would just say "no thank you" when asked to do something that is economically hurtful to their country.

Then I could never vote for Mitt Alan, there is nothing at this point that could convince me that you have ever had an unbiased eye toward Mitt. You shouldn't says "then I could never"---when you never would have in the first place.

Im going to have to BOOKMARK this part of this topic so I can refer back to it over the next year and point out that it was right "HERE" where we saw the first sign that Mitt's plan to abandon the Conservatives in hope of attracting the Independents was going to fall apart. So, I stopped ever listening to Rush the minute he started defending Herman Cain. As a woman, I cannot join in with a bunch of woman-bashers. Then today I read on the news that Rush is pointing out that if the Republicans are all going after capitolism as the "evil" of this country, then there is no hope. Ron Paul is also addressing the fact that Newt going after capitolism is a divisive move that will destroy any hope the republican base has in restoring a free market against socialism. Wow, I never thought I would be thanking Rush for stating the obvious or Ron Paul for understanding how the American economy works.

The way it is going, if Newt keeps it up, and if people like you keep believing that supporting China is "serving" our country and capitolism is the enemy--well, we have four more years of Obama because there is nothing else.

alanmolstad

01-10-2012, 04:01 PM

So lets review my views on tonight's outcome and what things may mean for Mitt?

If Mitt stomps on the rest of the field, then this race is over.
To truly end this here and now Mitt would need to get more percent of the vote than all the rest added up together.

This would mean over 50% for Mitt tonight would spell the end of everyone's dreams this time around.

On the flip side.....Whats a loss of Mitt?

I would say that anything under 30% to around 36% tonight for Mitt would be seen as a loss for Mitt.

Mitt needs to make a clear showing that he is the leader tonight.
a less than 30% total for him is just going to invite people to start looking for someone else to get into this race.

a 20-30% outcome would be a lot of trouble....
It depends on how things pan out, but if Mitt actually comes in 2nd?...then all bets are off!

What if Mitt came in 3rd?
If Mitt came in 3rd tonight there would be a calling within the Party for him to get out of the race now, and make room for someone else to step up.

So the best thing for Mitt to do tonight is finish with around 40% of the vote, and far ahead of the pack.

The worst thing to do tonight is get less than 30% as that would mean he clearly is not going to win this without a long dragged-out fight into the spring.

we shall see...

So if Mitt gets above 36% tonight it would mean that no one else has a chance...and that this is mostly all over.

30% to 36% tonight would mean that people would be still saying that Mitt is unable to carry the conservatives and that he is in a lot of trouble even within his own Party, let alone thinking he can take on a sitting President.

24% to 30% for Mitt tonight would mean to everyone in the Party that Mitt just is not the guy.......and that the Party better pick someone else fast.
.....and....

and if Mitt gets less than 24% tonight regardless of where that puts him in the ranking, the Party leadership would start to ease him out of the race before Florida.

alanmolstad

01-10-2012, 04:18 PM

BigJulie

01-10-2012, 04:53 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udIUW...eature=related

and......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3owlMdxls

So far this moment in the election still means the most to me....
This is the moment I think I saw Mitt's appeal to the undecided voter fail...

but we shall see.....

I guess I don't make my political decision based on a T.V. show but rather my education regarding the world, economics, and our history/cons***ution. ;)

alanmolstad

01-10-2012, 05:12 PM

I think what that one moment showed me was the true measure of the man...

Huntsman came forth and spoke the words that I think needed saying.

I have members of my family that have went off to serve this country in Iraq over the last few years.
I enjoyed hearing Huntsman's views that serving this country, even if you might disagree with it or not, is the most important thing a patriotic American can do.

How sad to hear a Republican say what I heard said against Huntsman's ability of looking past ideology and only asking, "What can I do?"

Serving the United States when the President calls you and tells you that "The country needs you" is an thing that is a credit to any American.

Im proud to say I find much in agreement with Huntsman's views on that issue.

It is very nice to find that there still are people in this race that seem to have views that are in agreement with my own.

BigJulie

01-10-2012, 05:37 PM

alanmolstad

01-11-2012, 04:59 AM

This morning Drudge had Mitt at 39% as i write this.

The 39% is very close to the 40% I talked about was key to this election's future, so I should now go back and see what my projections were that I made about such an outcome?,
and what I also projected this means for the people in the race going into SC?

alanmolstad

01-11-2012, 05:07 AM

Mitt's goal in NH?

To win, and win big!

Mitt needs to totally destroy all the rest of the field in NH.
This will cause all the sources of money to all the other people left in the race to dry up.

This would also give Mitt a very good chance to go into SC and win there too.

................"

So to make this as painless as he can, Mitt needs to win in NH next week, and win big.

Mitt needs to win big to be able to sweep into Sc and have that State not become a problem for him.

right now, Rick is just praying to get enough money to make a "last stand " in SC.
Rick known that his only real chance of overcoming Mitt's lead in this election is to beat Mitt in SC.

If Rick can win SC he can force this game into extras innings and perhaps all the way to the convention.

So this is why Mitt really needs to destroy the whole rest of the field in NH.
A big victory for Mitt in NH next week will be the signal that he is unstoppable, and that any money given to the other guy is a pointless.

I wrote the above what seems like a year ago, but was really just last week...LOL

My idea at the time is that Mitt needed to win big to stop Rick, and that seems to have went just as I was talking about.

Rick's downfall came in the last debate that happened after I wrote the above quote, and going out of that debate Rick lost his position in the race to Jon and Paul.

Jon and Paul came out of the last debate on fire, and it really did spark their supporters to get out their vote.

At this point I have projected that this outcome for Mitt and near 40% will cause all the money to suddenly dry up for all the people in the race.
Republicans dont like to bet on a lame horse, and right now the field looks full of horses that dont have a chance.

alanmolstad

01-11-2012, 05:20 AM

In a very real way, Rick's "Last Stand" is going to be SC.
That is the only chance Rick has in this election...
Does Rick have to win in SC?.....yes

On a side note...even if Rick does lose in SC, he needs to yet make a strong showing to force Mitt to late pick him as the VP.

.

What would have to happen right now is for people to cut a few deals and get others to drop out of the race before SC.

Rick has positioned himself to really be the go-to guy for Mitt to pick if he needs a VP that can draw the conservatives.
I think that over the last few days when it was clear that Rick was sinking fast in the polls that Rick started to change his direction, and started to act like a guy applying for the VP ***.

I believe in the next few days Rick will receive a call from Mitt about dropping out and swinging his supporters over to Mitt.

This morning I find that Ron Paul is already demanding that everyone that finished lower than he did drop out.....
So that part of my projections going out of NH have proved true.

But as I write this on the morning after the NH primary so far none have agreed to drop out of the race.

Someone has to drop out in the next few days...

Right now the pack of lower names in the race are all pinning their last hope on SC and its silly for all of them to try to make their "Last Stand" there...

Too many names to vote for in SC make it look like a bunch of fools all stuck in a doorway when they all tried to go though at the same time...LOL

The field has to get smaller in the next few days....

I expect Perry to drop out in a few hours.
I expect Rick and Newt to spend the rest of this week attempting to justify their going on with the lower number coming out of NH....

However I also expect both Newt and Rick to run out of money in the next week.
I have read on-line that both Rick and Newt saved a lot of their remaining cash to spend in one final shot in SC....and this will be tempting for both of them to do.

However I also expect that both Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul will be very direct both on the phone and in speeches over the next few days that Rick and Newt should drop out...

we shall see....

alanmolstad

01-11-2012, 05:29 AM

Newt ......Newt on the other hand seems aimed at doing a little pay-back before he drops out.

BigJulie

01-11-2012, 09:30 AM

Newt...well, Newt in his anger has decided to become a democrat and portray "business" as the enemy.

Newt is destroying his last thread of reputation in the Republican world and I wonder if he will then swing to the other side in name as well.

alanmolstad

01-11-2012, 10:33 AM

One thing you have to say for Newt....

Newt does know how to live off the land in the political field.

All of the attention in the lest few days before NH voted was all centered around Newt's attacks against Mitt.

I watched CNN before the vote and the only time they showed a clip of Mitt is when he was responding to Newt's words.

One thing for sure, Newt knows how to counter-punch.

However in the real world...
In the real world Newt is getting a lot of calls to drop out of the race today.
What would help Newt get out is if there was someone else that Newt could stand by and fully support. The trouble is that right now that's a lot to ask of anyone.

Mitt wants Newt to stay in the race until after SC votes next week. But Ron Paul wants Newt out so bad he may be tempted to say what he needs to say to get Newt to step aside.

The weird thing I have noticed is that Perry and Bachman have not been pushed to endorse anyone yet.
I felt sure that both of them would try to play their only card that have left before the others start to get out.

we shall see....

Now today i read that Newt is going to make an appearence with a Dem at some stort of "houseing" function.

I think this has all the makings of a truly big media event....perhaps the biggest media event of the election so far.

By sending this message, Newt is actually applying to become the voice of the "Occupy Movement" should Mitt get elected.
We shall have to see how this works out.
But I think Newt sees the handwriting on the wall, and knows that the "Occupy movement" was kept in check only because the big money behind it were all Dems, and that if Mitt gets into the White House the chains will come off that dog.

I think Newt thinks it will be a lot better to be the most well known voice to speak out against a President Mitt, rather than getting the call only a few times to come on TV to defend Mitt's programs.

BigJulie

01-11-2012, 11:38 AM

LOL--yes, Newt is for business until he is against it. Well, I guess I like how you clarify that Newt's pro-business stance is the business that will make him the most money.

alanmolstad

01-11-2012, 03:43 PM

http://www.examiner.com/pet-photography-in-st-petersburg/mitt-romney-did-what-photo

alanmolstad

01-12-2012, 12:33 PM

any news today ?

BigJulie

01-12-2012, 12:34 PM

From Business Week

"Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, another Romney rival, was also critical of Gingrich at an event last night in West Columbia, South Carolina. American business has suffered because of “hostile” rhetoric, Santorum said.

“It’s bad enough for Barack Obama to blame folks in business for causing problems in this country. It’s a whole other thing for Republicans to join in on it,” he said."

Okay---so, I don't like all the earmarks this guy has had---but overall, I like him. He seems like he has a head on his shoulder. I hope he is considered for VP---or give him a few more years experience both in leadership and in elections, if Romney doesn't get it this year--I think he may be the one we are seeing in the future.

I hope Ron Paul piddles out. He has a lot of support from younger voters, but I think anyone with experience (age) realizes that he is more radical than this country needs.

alanmolstad

01-12-2012, 02:08 PM

From Business Week

"Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum .....

well.....yes and no....

This is not actually Rick's idea.
Rick more or less stayed out of this issue until someone else came in and really took control of the topic for conservatives.
and.....the person who actually is calling the signals is Rush.....

If you have paying attention to this issue over the last week you have known how Rush took on Newt, and how Newt is backing away from his own statements today.

This points us to just how much sway Rush has at this point in the election.

alanmolstad

01-12-2012, 02:14 PM

Okay---so, I don't like all the earmarks this guy has had---.....

When my home State of North Dakota sends someone to Washington DC, we expect them to stick up for our little State, and do what he needs to do to bring back to us the money we need to do anything around here.

The over-all correctness of earmarks is a question that Congress can address.
But because each State is so much bigger than my own, I expect the people we send to Washington get real good , real fast at cutting deals, horse -trading, and doing whatever they have to do to bring something back home.

So when I hear a conservative all upset over some 'earmarks" I dont actually consider that a real problem....

In my whole State there are fewer people than in most cities in other States..
Without earmarks, we would have few tar roads here....

alanmolstad

01-12-2012, 02:17 PM

I hope Ron Paul piddles out..

Everyone but Mitt is in agreement with you on that!

They all want Ron Paul to pack up and go back home.
All except for Mitt,,,

Paul is helping Mitt each day he is still in the lineup.

BigJulie

01-12-2012, 05:06 PM

When my home State of North Dakota sends someone to Washington DC, we expect them to stick up for our little State, and do what he needs to do to bring back to us the money we need to do anything around here.

The over-all correctness of earmarks is a question that Congress can address.
But because each State is so much bigger than my own, I expect the people we send to Washington get real good , real fast at cutting deals, horse -trading, and doing whatever they have to do to bring something back home.

So when I hear a conservative all upset over some 'earmarks" I dont actually consider that a real problem....

In my whole State there are fewer people than in most cities in other States..
Without earmarks, we would have few tar roads here....

I see your point.

In my state, where I live, our mall is way off the main highway. I think---ugh, what poor planning. You see, the highway is part of the federal system while the city roads are not. What do we get? A lot of people driving on the highway, then onto the city road (quite a ways) to get to the mall. I have often thought---who in the right mind would allow someone to build where it is going to cost the city so much in road maintanance (as the road to the mall is very trafficked).

BigJulie

01-12-2012, 05:07 PM

Everyone but Mitt is in agreement with you on that!

They all want Ron Paul to pack up and go back home.
All except for Mitt,,,

Paul is helping Mitt each day he is still in the lineup.

So, you see Ron Paul is doing for Mitt Romney what Ross Perot did for Clinton? Interesting point.

alanmolstad

01-12-2012, 08:06 PM

BigJulie

01-13-2012, 09:00 AM

I think the following...

Going into Iowa Newt was all set to come in a nice 2nd place.

Then Mitt's attack dogs got into the fight, and newt got hurt bad.

There is one thing to keep in mind however....

Newt's ****ed...and Newt is better at this game than Mitt's attack dogs.

Newt clearly is out to do as much damage to Mitt as he can...
and, more importantly, if Mitt actually beats Obama in the general election, Newt is going to position himself in such a way as to be both Republican - AND - anti-Mitt.......

This would get Newt invited to every talk show for the next 4 years...
Newt would not have to defend Mitt at all....
That is the real beauty of this plan!
Remember, for most of the time when the President comes out with a new plan the talk shows in Sunday morning will invite one Republican and one Dem to debate the merits of the President's plan.

Newt wants to mess that system up ....

I think Newt wants to be both a highly respected Republican who carries the flag for the conservatives AND an anti-Mitt speaker as well.

The best of both worlds....

Yes, that is the problem with Newt---he seems to care more about himself then the country....when push comes to shove, ultimately, he serves Newt.

Here is an article worth reading:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/01/12/the-worst-economic-recovery-since-the-great-depression/

Here is a quote from it...

"Most people do not know that already enacted in current law for 2013 are increases in the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. That is because the tax increases of Obamacare become effective that year, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which Obama has refused to renew for singles reporting income over $200,000 per year, or couples reporting over $250,000 per year (in other words, the nation’s small businesses, *** creators and investors, in plain English)....

As a result, if the Bush tax cuts just expire for these upper income taxpayers, along with the Obamacare taxes, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will jump nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, the tax on corporate dividends will nearly triple, and the Medicare payroll tax will leap by 62% for those disfavored taxpayers.

This is on top of the U.S. corporate income tax rate, which is virtually the highest in the industrialized world. The federal rate is 35%, with state corporate rates taking it close to 40% on average. But even Communist China has a 25% rate. The average rate in the social welfare states of the European Union is less than that. Formerly socialist Canada has a 16.5% rate going down to 15% next year.

These U.S. corporate tax rates leave American companies uncompe***ive in the global economy. Yet under President Obama there is no relief in sight. Instead, he has spent the past year barnstorming the country calling for still further tax increases on American business, large and small, investors, and *** creators....

In addition, the Obama administration is in the process of imposing a blizzard of new regulatory costs and barriers that will be building to a crescendo by 2013 as well. Academic studies estimate the total costs of regulation in the economy to be rapidly rising towards $2 trillion per year, or $8,000 per employee. That is close to 10 times the corporate income tax burden, and double the individual income tax. When the resulting effects on the economy are considered, the total losses due to regulatory burdens may total $3 trillion, or one fifth of our entire economy."

This article notes that the recession was officially ended in June of 2009, but that we have seen the lack of growth we have because of this administrations failed policy.

I guess, what I am saying, is that if Newt effectively destroys the GOP by becoming the main voice against capitolization, he may serve himself, but will destroy many dreams for many Americans.

alanmolstad

01-13-2012, 10:46 AM

My view of this situation is this :

It''s a ****ing contest now....

not just between Mitt and Newt....But also between Newt and Rush.

Over the last few days Newt had to back-off from a few things he said about Mitt's past going into the NH primary.

The reason for this?
The only reason Newt had to back-off of his more wild attacks, is that Newt ticked-off Rush.

Rush was hammering on Newt very hard for a few days there, and this showed up in the lower and lower polling numbers that Newt saw happening to him.

So My view is that Newt's lower polling right now is the direct result of being hammered on by Rush.

and.....
Mitt's people have seen this, and so this has been noticed at the top of Mitt's campaign ..

The lesson there was real clear for everyone to learn from.

......Now, why did Rush get upset?
Rush has correctly seen something in the future debates between Obama and Mitt that is a very big problem.

I believe that Rush sees that the economy will be recovering by this time next year, and all the credit will be going to Obama.
So all of the advantage Mitt's supporters always wanted to use to brag up Mitt (Mitt'''s past of turning things around in business), is going to be moot.

Now we all know that Obama is going to attack Mitt on some of the business deals that Mitt made in the past....thats a given.

That also is something that Mitt can and has defended himself over easy enough.

The different now is that Obama can say, "Even members of your own party declared your actions as being wrong!"
and "Let me quote to you what high members of your own party have said about your actions..."

There is no way around this ....

The moment someone points out that even members of your own Party think you are wrong, you more or less have ended the argument and proven your point to the people listening.

Rush knows all this...

Rush knows that Newt is not only supporting the Dem's current argument, Newt is actually building up a far better future argument that Obama can use.

alanmolstad

01-13-2012, 03:03 PM

Today's news....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/13/fred-thompson-denies-huckabee-vote-splitting-claim/

It seems that we are not the only ones talking about such a story....

BigJulie

01-13-2012, 07:00 PM

Today's news....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/13/fred-thompson-denies-huckabee-vote-splitting-claim/

It seems that we are not the only ones talking about such a story....

Yeah, but it appears from this article not to support the idea that people stay in the race to help another candidate. I don't think Huckabee had it right as both others deny it. I think Thompson stayed in the race because there was a small hope he could still win. I think that is what the candidates are doing now.

Mitt stays in because he is in the lead.

Paul stays in because he has come in second or third both times.

Santorum stays in because in one state he had a good showing.

Huntsman stays in because in one state he had a good showing.

Rick Perry should be out, but it is believed he is one that has enough $$ to get through and so he may have a good showing in S.C. and thereby, be in as good as position as Santorum or Huntsman.

Newt stays in because of his ego. LOL! :D

alanmolstad

01-15-2012, 12:39 PM

The way it seems to work is like this....

You stall an investigation into presidential wrongdoing when asked , and you get to ride in the Space Shuttle.

You drop out of a primary when asked and you get to become Sec of State.

You stay in a primary to split a vote when asked and you get named an Amb***ador.

BigJulie

01-15-2012, 12:51 PM

alanmolstad

01-15-2012, 08:21 PM

Ahhh, so you don't believe either McCain or Thompson when they both deny that they conversed to split the vote?

I would not believe any of them guys should they be standing on a stack of bibles a mile high.

alanmolstad

01-15-2012, 08:37 PM

BigJulie

01-15-2012, 09:43 PM

here is a website from 4 years ago that shows us that our topic is not new, and that even back at the time there was this feeling among conservatives that Fred was in it just to split the vote....

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/fred_thompson_should_stay_in_the_race/

go down and check out posts numbered #15 and #16

where you see that what we are talking about today actually was a real concern at the time back then too..

What??? Just because people are talking about it, does not in any way support that Fred stayed in the race to help McCain. Both of them denied it. Your only support really is that you think they are l.iars?????

I say, men have bigger egos then that and do not go into a race to lose. Show me that man who gives up the first chance he has and I will show you someone who never entered the race to begin with.

alanmolstad

01-16-2012, 06:37 AM

We are not talking about guys who know this is their only chance...

The guys we speak of know full well they have no chance.

I mean, theses guys can count like the rest of us...

There is not the slightest doubt in their minds that staying in the race at this point is pointless, and will serve to only split the conservative vote.

This is nothing new to them....
As I have pointed out, this is how we ended up with McCain last time too.

4 years ago at this moment in the race the concern the conservatives had going into the SC primary was that because there were several conservatives in the race to pick from, and only one liberal, that the conservatives would split up their votes, and the one lone liberal would be able to sneak-out a win in SC and at that point no one will be able to catch up.

This is why Mitt lost 4 years ago against McCain,
And why we ended up with a guy leading the ticket that was not supported by the conservatives of the party, and so was not able to get elected.

The same concerns that the conservatives had 4 years ago are still around.

The conservatives have too many names in the race going into the SC primary, The vote is going to be split, and a more liberal guy will once again sneak-out a victory without the support of the whole conservative wing of the Party

BigJulie

01-16-2012, 10:28 AM

I don't agree with your consensus. The number of people in the race does not decide who wins the race---the person with the most votes wins the race. You ***UME that if there was fewer "conservatives" to vote for, then YOUR conservative would win the race, but there is nothing to support that. Who is most conservative now? Ron Paul? Santorum? Romney? It all depends on how you define conservative. Ron Paul is cons***utionally very conservative. Romney is very conservative regarding business well-being and foreign policy. Santorum is very conservative socially. I don't support the idea that a bunch of conservatives could not get their act together and therefore, a non-conservative (McCain) won. McCain won because he had the most votes. There could be as much divide for McCain with other candidates and if another person won, McCain could have claimed that if someone else had dropped out of the race, than more votes would have gone to him. Just because people talk about something, does not make it true.

All I hear is whining---why aren't all you conservatives following who is the "best" conservative. I think that is the attempt with this meeting in Texas with a bunch of evangelical pastors---to try and get everyone on the same page to vote for a "not-Mitt" candidate. I try to think of what comments would come out of the wood work if the LDS church did that. I also wonder about their tax protected status when they come out campaigning for a specific candidate. Regardless, we will see what happens. I do not think that Santorum has the machine in place to beat a person such as Obama. The fact that he didn't get his ducks in a row for Virginia is just the tip of the iceberg, I think.

When the SBC put Huckabee up for their "anti-Mitt" candidate, all I thought was---well, if that is what the GOP wants is "not Mitt"...then that is what they will get. And sure enough--McCain did not have a chance against Obama because he had no economic answers. I am not sure Romney would have had a chance either as the country was so anything-but-a-Republican at***ude, but I think someone who at least had a modicum of understanding of how business works would have had the best chance. Huckabee would have had none because he came across as a joke provided by the SBC as a way to combat "a Mormon" rather than a way to solve the real problems America was facing.

That said, even if Romney wins it---then the question will be, do Americans see strong businesses as a way to combat poverty or government solutions as a way to combat poverty? That will be the question answered in 2012. If Santorum wins, then it will be a sure win for Obama as the question will be, do Americans see government as the solution to poverty or do they see abortion and family rights as their main issue.

Personally, I do think we need to strengthen the family in America, but I don't see that as the role of the government, but the role of religion. The government needs to step out of the homes and free up parents to actually parent and one absolute way to do that is to take the financial stress out of the home.

"Psychologists, in particular, argue that family economic hardship affects youths’ outcomes by creating perceptions of economic pressure, weakening family relationships, and disrupting positive parenting practices (see Conger et al. 2002; Mistry et al. 2009)."

alanmolstad

01-16-2012, 10:38 AM

There is an answer i hear from many of the strongest Mitt supporters that when they are faced with the total rejection of Mitt by the conservatives, that they p*** it off with the answer, "The conservatives will come around later and support Mitt"

The problem with this answer?

it's wrong.

The past elections where I have heard this answer given to justify the lack of outreach to conservatives have more than proved to me that "Conservatives just don't come around"

I first listened to the answer "The conservatives will come around" when a supporter of Bob Dole was defending the poor relationship that Dole had with the conservatives within his own Party compared to a guy like Pat Buchanan.

The idea that the people that supported Bob Dole had was that in the general election and when faced with a choice of Bob Dole or Bill Clinton, that all the conservatives will race to vote for Dole.

They took it for granted that conservatives will overlook the fact that Bob Dole was never their choice.

They were wrong.

Its the same later in another election when McCain and his supporters took it for granted that conservatives would overlook the distance there was between them and McCain, and come out to vote for him over Obama.

They were wrong again then too.

The track record over the last few elections has given us a very good idea what to expect.

George Bush jr was supported strongly by conservatives, and did come out in the type of numbers that mattered and swung the election for Bush's win.

Bob Dole never had the support of conservatives in the primary's, he won the nomination because the greater number of names on the ballot that were good conservatives split the vote.
And because there was no close relationship between conservatives and Bob Dole, they never came out to vote for him, and he lost.

McCain had a long history of stabbing every conservative issue in the back during his time in Congress.
So when the supporters of McCain were saying to the media "The conservatives will come around to support McCain" they were just dreaming

The truth is, that the past elections have shown us clearly that unless the republican candidate has strong support from the Republican conservatives, they will lose in the general election.

Conservatives just dont come out in the numbers needed to swing to them the victory.

and without the conservatives in your corner, you dont have a chance of winning anything.

So the answer to my opening question then is?

"No, they do not come around later"

BigJulie

01-16-2012, 10:48 AM

Well then, if you are right, Obama will win the next four years. Santorum is most conservative on social issues (religious issues) and less conservative on fiscal issues.

BUT more importantly, he has not had the time to get his political machine up and running and will not be ready to face Obama as can be seen in small part that he was not even ready to meet the demands of the Virginia law with regards to their primaries.

So, if conservatives will not get around Romney (should he win as he has the most preparation in place), then we will have four more years of Obama and his failed policies.

You are just solidifying the opinion I am beginning to form regarding evangelicals who seem to want to cut off their nose to spite their face. It appears that in this election cycle, the biggest winner may be bigotry after all.

alanmolstad

01-16-2012, 10:53 AM

..... You ***UME that if there was fewer "conservatives" to vote for, "

When I was a kid I saw this same situation work out this in real life one time at church.

Im my youth group we were picking names of kids to break up into Bible teams to do study questions over.

There was about a 50-/50 split between the guys and the girls in the room, and after the first vote it became clear that we were voting that way.

Boys were voting for boys
Girls were voting for girls.

the problem was that there was 4 boys names to pick from, and one girl.

Guess who got the greatest number of votes?

I think I was all of only 8 years old at the time, but I learned an important lesson that day on how easy it is to swing an election if you just pack the other side of the ballot with names.
30 kids voted,,,,12 girls and 18 boys.
5 names on the ballot, 4 of them boys, one a girl.

the lone girl got 12 vote every time we voted.

the boys split evenly the other 18 votes.

the boys lost, but only because when the names were being saught as to who should be on the ballot all the boys at the time felt it was way better to have the ballot be mostly boys.

I remember how when they were picking names to be on the ballot all the other boys were so happy that we had so many names listed, and the girls only had one.

I think a lot of guys learned a thing or two about the real hard truth of winning an election that day...LOL

So yes.....If I were a Republican Liberal about to be in the SC Primary, I would want to be the ONLY liberal on the ballot, and I would want all the conservative names in the race on the ballot too.

I dont have to beat anyone then to win the primary...all i need to happen is that the conservatives split up their vote until each total is smaller than mine....and I win!

alanmolstad

01-16-2012, 11:06 AM

Well then, if you are right, .

"if"....?

The past has shown anyone who looks the same results.
When people start to '***ume" that conservatives will come around....they have shown just how under-educated they are as to the true history of such things really happening.

When I hear someone say to justify the lack of outreach to conservatives by their guy by saying - "Oh the conservatives will come around"

I got to ask back,,,,"Based on what?"

Based on what historical recent national election can you support the claim that "Conservatives will come around"????

It does not matter a hoot that Bob Dole got got 70% of the conservative vote in the election, if 40% of true conservatives voters stayed home!

The VP Matter?

Oh, and the old stand by answer of picking a conservative VP to try to draw the conservatives to vote for someone for President that they never supported...remember that idea?

Does that actually work?

nope.

That is always listed as a means to draw the conservatives to someone they never supported by giving them the VP pick they do want ....
It happens all the time.
Every election where the guy who wins the nomination has no support among the conservatives they always drag out a very conservative VP.

It always sounds like it should work....

But it never does....

The fact is......no one votes for a VP.

No one runs down to vote because they want to make someone the VP....

alanmolstad

01-16-2012, 11:29 AM

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/226711/

alanmolstad

01-16-2012, 11:53 AM

The Republican party is a Conservative Party.

most of the voting Republicans will vote for a conservative and will likely vote for ONLY a conservative.

In response to this a lot of conservatives who want to be President are tempted to jump into the election.

This is to be expected.
A conservative Party would naturally mean you draw conservative candidates.

The problem is that too many cooks spoil the soup.

What has happened over recent elections is that a strong conservative membership has pushed many good conservative names into the primary, only to see the conservative vote getting split up and the election going to more the liberal names in the race.

It happened big time in the last few elections and has really come to burn the conservatives.

Whats The Answer?

The problem would be gone if by Iowa we conservatives had already cut down the list of names to pick from.

But just moving the Iowa primary to a different date is not the answer.
Nor is the answer some type of non-binding official Republican straw pole to use to cut the field down to one name.

what is the answer?

Im not sure, but I think the Tea Party might be the way conservatives are attempting to find an answer to this situation.

election after election goes by with conservatives being in the majority of the party voters in the primary, yet election after elections goes by without a strong conservative candidate being named the winner.

Take the issue of Abortion for example
Going back to the very start of this election, back before anyone was offically in it yet, you had many names being tossed around in the media as people who might get into the race in the future.

take a look at the names and their long history with the topic of Abortion....
Palin
Chris Christie
Gingrich
Bachmann
Huntsman
Pawlenty
Huckabee
Limbaugh
Bush

This is only the short list of the people that were being talked about getting into the 2012 Republican Primary.

Now, as a conservative, you might think this list would end you up a year later with a person leading the ticket that has an un-questionable lifetime history of being anti-abortion rights correct?

But the system we have in place right now leads us in the oppsite direction.
The current system of promoting a split of the conservative vote means you will end up with a winner of the republican Primary that is not at all the person conservatives will vote to supprt in the general election.

This is just the way it works out.

I think the answer might be the rise of purely true conservative mini-parties....like the Tea Party.

That can serve as a means to weed-out the list of names on the Republican conservative Ballot before we get to Iowa.

alanmolstad

01-16-2012, 12:22 PM

the question will be, do Americans see strong businesses as a way to combat poverty or government solutions as a way to combat poverty? That will be the question answered in 2012.
As I have said...

I dont think the economy will be the big issue that many supporters of Mitt seem to hope it will be.

I see the media pushing the idea of the "Obama Recovery" by this time next year, and so the issue of changing the economy will be off the table.

So, if Im right, and the issue of the economy is off the table...I got to ask...

What else does Mitt got?

Is there some issue that will draw the conservatives to Mitt?
Has there been any outreach to the conservatives by Mitt?

in this election?

ever?

nope?

BigJulie

01-16-2012, 01:59 PM

As I have said...

I dont think the economy will be the big issue that many supporters of Mitt seem to hope it will be.

I see the media pushing the idea of the "Obama Recovery" by this time next year, and so the issue of changing the economy will be off the table.

So, if Im right, and the issue of the economy is off the table...I got to ask...

What else does Mitt got?

Is there some issue that will draw the conservatives to Mitt?
Has there been any outreach to the conservatives by Mitt?

in this election?

ever?

nope?

If you don't think the economy is the issue, but abortion in 2012, you may be right. I like studying economics. I am in another cl*** right now.

The reason we appear to be having a boom is because the Fed as well as the administration is dumping a lot of cash into the system right now---but that comes at the price of debt (and lots of it). The Tea Party folk are not just concerned with ***s, but with debt as well.

The problem with the "christian right' is that they keep thinking this election is about abortion and gay marriage which EVERY SINGLE candidate has said that they will stand to perserve marriage and pro-life.

Here is an article for you to read if you think our economy is going to be doing swimmingly.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/01/12/the-worst-economic-recovery-since-the-great-depression/

"Most people do not know that already enacted in current law for 2013 are increases in the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. That is because the tax increases of Obamacare become effective that year, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which Obama has refused to renew for singles reporting income over $200,000 per year, or couples reporting over $250,000 per year (in other words, the nation’s small businesses, *** creators and investors, in plain English).

As a result, if the Bush tax cuts just expire for these upper income taxpayers, along with the Obamacare taxes, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will jump nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, the tax on corporate dividends will nearly triple, and the Medicare payroll tax will leap by 62% for those disfavored taxpayers.

This is on top of the U.S. corporate income tax rate, which is virtually the highest in the industrialized world. The federal rate is 35%, with state corporate rates taking it close to 40% on average. But even Communist China has a 25% rate. The average rate in the social welfare states of the European Union is less than that. Formerly socialist Canada has a 16.5% rate going down to 15% next year.

These U.S. corporate tax rates leave American companies uncompe***ive in the global economy. Yet under President Obama there is no relief in sight. Instead, he has spent the past year barnstorming the country calling for still further tax increases on American business, large and small, investors, and *** creators."

If you are paying attention, right now, Obama is attempting to give companies (tax breaks) for in-sourcing to America. Sounds good right? It isn't. Think of it more in a small term way. Let's say that you (as a family) decide you are not going to do business with others. You farm, grow your own cotton, etc. Some people think this is the best way to live and it maybe is, but it does not increase your living standard. In fact, if everyone did this, we could throw our economy back to third world standards. Protectism was already attempted during the Depression and has actually been proven to be harmful to the economy it is attempting to protect--the gains are short term and the harm is long-term and far worse.

Your comments lead me to understand why opinion articles often speak of the "uneducated christian right" when it comes to matters of economics.

alanmolstad

01-16-2012, 09:21 PM

anyone who thinks that running on taxes will get much support is fooling themselves.

You are never going to hear a room full of people shouting, "Dont tax the rich!...Dont tax the rich!"

and I don't even believe the economy will be an issue by this time next year...

Dole and McCain tried to run by taking the concerns of the Republican conservative base for granted...
They just never were known as strong conservatives, and so never reached out before the election to address the concerns of the conservatives.

The idea that Dole and McCain had was that in a national election the conservatives will flock to their side, no matter their past differences or lack of a close relationship...

They soon found out that you have to draw people to your side....You just cant get people to vote for you by telling them - "The Other guy is worse"

People need to be drawn.

BigJulie

01-16-2012, 11:41 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;112105]anyone who thinks that running on taxes will get much support is fooling themselves.

You are never going to hear a room full of people shouting, "Dont tax the rich!...Dont tax the rich!"

And those same people are crying because their high paying ***s are being outsourced. *sigh*---I wish everyone had to take a basic economics cl*** before theywere allowed to vote.

and I don't even believe the economy will be an issue by this time next year... I know you don't. We will see. But you can rest ***ured that the money we're spending was specifically put in the bills by the Dems to be spent now and the taxes are to come after the election. That is how Obamacare and other bills have been written. What can you say "ignorance is bliss."

Dole and McCain tried to run by taking the concerns of the Republican conservative base for granted...
They just never were known as strong conservatives, and so never reached out before the election to address the concerns of the conservatives. Or everyone was soooo unhappy with the GOP at the time that the general population RAN to the Democratic side.

The idea that Dole and McCain had was that in a national election the conservatives will flock to their side, no matter their past differences or lack of a close relationship... You are egocentric if you think these elections were decided by the conservatives rather than the swing votes.

Read the Forbes article I gave you and then we'll talk. :)

alanmolstad

01-17-2012, 05:25 AM

[QUOTE]
You are egocentric if you think these elections were decided by the conservatives rather than the swing votes.

The facts are, that no person from the Republican side will win a national election without strong support of the core conservatives of the Party.

Thats just a fact of life.....This has nothing to do with my personal views.

What this means is that if you are a Republican and running for President you got to have lined up some strong support from the conservatives of your Party, or, your efforts are doomed.

What we have seen in the last few elections (when talking about men who never had this type of connection to the very core of their own Party) is that they felt that could Kiss-off the Conservatives and win by attracting the Independent voters.

This never works...

The conservatives when moved to vote do swing the election.

On the other hand, when the conservatives dont feel they have a dog in the fight tend to stay home....

So lets again look at the outreach Mitt has made to the core conservative base of his own party.....

Umm........ok.....that didnt take long.

There has been no outreach to the conservatives!

Now I cant read Mitt's mind, but it sure seems like to me that Mitt has not even once attempted to reach out to conservatives and inspire them to support himself.

Why not?.....beats me....

My guess is that Mitt dont think he needs them?
Could be.

But history shows us that unless you have the strong support of the conservatives you dont win.

BigJulie

01-17-2012, 03:54 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;112127][QUOTE=BigJulie;112120]The facts are, that no person from the Republican side will win a national election without strong support of the core conservatives of the Party.

Thats just a fact of life.....This has nothing to do with my personal views. And if someone is not willing to vote for a conservative because they are not conservative enough, then they are giving tacit approval to keep in Obama who is very liberal. Does that make sense to you?

Now I cant read Mitt's mind, but it sure seems like to me that Mitt has not even once attempted to reach out to conservatives and inspire them to support himself. I can tell you what the problem with Mitt is. He has too much education to make absolute statements. I can tell you exactly why he supported TARP and the fed bailout of banks---because without it, our banks would cease to work. Under the laws, there had to be so many reserves for a bank to do business. TARP and the fed's made sure there was enough money to do business. Every comment Mitt makes strikes me as someone who knows both sides and even why he believes in the side he does. Why I like this is this speaks to me of someone who can fix the problems because he understands both sides of the problem.

Why I see him as conservative is because he believes in limited government as means to solve problems, but not as having no government (as Ron Paul seems to think) as a way to solve problems. He doesn't say--let's not tax cooperations at all--he says, let's tax them at a rate that they can be compe***ive globally. He also doesn't do what Obama does and says "lets give a tax loop-hole to those who hire here"---(read as more red tape and more hoops to jump through.)

Here is one of the ways Mitt solved a problem and saved money in M*** while governor. One of the problems they had was a huge homeless bill. If someone was homeless in M***. and the homeless shelters were full, they were put up in a hotel-hence, a huge bill for the tax payers. Romney didn't come in and make some positive very conservative statement of people need to fend for themselves, rather he said, how do we solve the problem. See, the solution to Mitt wasn't to put homeless people on the street. He ****yzed it and came up with a solution of first one in first one out, meaning, that if you are in a homeless shelter and someone came who needed a bed, the first person who was in the shelter was the one moved to the hotel. The end result is that the number of people showing up to get a "free hotel" for the night went away. That solved the problem and dropped the cost substantially. I see that as a problem solver who works with what they have to make the government less expensive and yet address the real problem of homelessness.

alanmolstad

01-17-2012, 05:35 PM

BigJulie

01-18-2012, 08:00 PM

Like I said...Mitt does not really appeal to the social issues that he needs to in order to get the support of conservatives....

If Mitt actually did start to understand what I'm saying, that without the conservatives he dont have a chance of beating Obama, then I believe one of the first ways he could start to draw closer to the conservatives is to agree to work to tear down some of the Abortion clinics he helped build..

That would be a step in the right direction.

I suppose that if Mitt is not conservative enough (I don't think Mitt built any abortion clinics by the way)...the "christian right" would prefer Obama. As I said, that does not make sense to me---but it it makes sense to you...well, then---if Mitt wins the nomination you can embrace Obama as your president for four more years all because Mitt hasn't "appealed to your social issues."

alanmolstad

01-19-2012, 06:31 AM

.... Mitt hasn't "appealed to your social issues."....

Not only has he FAILED to address the issues that he actually needs to in order to get the conservatives of his own Party to support him,,,

Mitt seems to go out of his way to insult the Pro-Life movement....

Like what he did last night......it's insulting to conservatives....

How can he expect Conservatives to support him?

You dont draw people to vote for Mitt by saying that unless you do you get 4 more years of Obama....

You got to inspire, you got to draw people to you.

Relying on a story of the bogyman to do your work for you is not going to cut it.

alanmolstad

01-19-2012, 12:47 PM

Talk about Bad timing for Mitt!!!

The news on the Drudge report has all the people on TV saying that Newt might be really hurt in the next week with his ex-wife doing a little 'pay-back" on her own.

This was the Last thing Mitt needed to see happen right now.

I understand the people that went after the ex-wife and got her to tell her story are all are Obama supporters, but they are not the people that leaked the story to Drudge.

My guess is that the person who leaked the story was a supporter of Rick or Ron Paul.

Im not sure Rick has friends on the inside with the media, so that does hint that it was one of the many Ron Paul supporters that leaked the story to Drudge .

This is not want Mitt needed right now.
Mitt wanted a nice divided conservative vote in SC...
The last thing Mitt wanted was for one last conservative to go against him head to head in SC.....

Im not sure of how much damage the news story will cause Newt.
Im not sure if its enough to end his chances of getting good numbers out of Sc or not..

But as it stands now, I suddenly see a way for Rick to make a real race out of this for the next month....

But the future is unknown,,,so many things can change.
But I do know this was the last thing Mitt wanted to happen right now....

BigJulie

01-19-2012, 02:38 PM

alanmolstad

01-19-2012, 03:59 PM

.... Are you now thinking this is giving a better chance to Santorum?

All I know for sure is that it had to be the Obama people that pushed the x-wife to tell her story,,,

BUT.....

But there is no way in the world that the Obama people wanted this story to come out now!

The story is like a "Get out of jail free" card....you dont use it right away, you save it.....you hold on to the story untill that one moment comes when you may need it.

Had Newt done really good in the upcoming SC Primary, then "that" would have been the moment to spring this story on him.

Right now Newt is just one guy in a pack of 4 or 5 guys ....so all this news has little real "shock" value to it...

This means that if it was not the Obama people that leaked the story....and we know right away it was not the Mitt people that leaked the story, that this points us to the 2 other guys who actually might get a lift in the polls from this story.

Ron Paul's or Rick Santorum's supporters both look very guilty right about now to me...

Im not sure who leaked the story, but there are many Libertarian Ron Paul supporters in the media that would LOVE to knock-out Newt in the next few days.

as for my personal views about the question, will this hurt Newt in the Primary?
The next 24 hours will tell us that ....I have a feeling that being that it is an ex-wife, and that the media is painting her as getting some "pay back" ....that chances are that this will not have all that much effect on the Newt voter.

Newt might drop a few points, but it sure does not appear to right now to me to be much more than just a bitter ex-wife looking for revenge....

Everyone already knows Newt was fooling around on his wife, so it's not really a shock to anyone is it?

alanmolstad

01-19-2012, 04:40 PM

giving a better chance to Santorum?

.

Here are my pre-SC Primary views on how things look.

Mitt, really needs Rick to drop off the map.

Mitt knows that in the real world, the only person left who can give him trouble is Rick.
Ron Paul has a cult-like following, but in real terms of support he is a minor player in the Party.
Newt is loved by conservatives, but is just too volatile to trust in the long run.

So while everyone knows that Mitt is going to win, what Mitt needs is for Rick to not come in 2nd.

Mitt knows that if Rick comes in 2nd that this race goes into next month undecided....

Mitt would also know that if Rick comes in 2nd that this would mean that the conservatives have official not come around to Mitt at all
, and so this is the most trouble for Mitt right now over all other concerns.

Mitt knows that the best way for Rick to not come in 1st or 2nd is for there to be plenty of other people in the race to vote for.

Now, what does Rick need?

Rick needs to come in 1st or 2nd in SC or it's all over.
Rick knows that if he finished behind Ron Paul again that he will never get enough money to keep the race going.

Rick has to beat Ron Paul and Newt in SC to stay in this race.

The best thing for Rick to have happen is a few more bad stories about Newt to appear in the media, and then another statement by Ron Paul that is crazy.

If Rick could see the polling numbers of both Newt and Paul drop in the SC Primary he might be in a position to get them to drop out and leave him alone going into Florida....

Im not sure who Paul will support in the end, but I can guess that Newt would support Rick when it comes down to it.

But no matter what happens.....going into Florida there is only real room on the ballot for 2 names....So in the next few days we are going to see the knives come out

BigJulie

01-19-2012, 09:00 PM

What did you think of the debate tonight?

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 05:41 AM

What did you think of the debate tonight?
I was at the gym so I did not watch it.

However the media reports I have checked so far this morning have Newt looking very good in how he handled himself.

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 05:52 AM

After more checking, you would have to say that out of the last debate there are two issues that stand out.

#1 - Ron Paul?.....His name is not talked about out of this last debate.
It seems that Ron Paul had a bad night and did nothing to get any press today.

#2 - Mitt's tax return.
I do not understand why a guy decides to run for President and yet has this "thing" about showing the world his own tax return?

It always come off looking bad.
It always seems like you got something to hide.
It casts doubt over all you say later in people's minds.

There should be a rule that if you ever plan to run for President they you get your tax return handy to turn in so be listed on the ballot.

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 06:39 AM

BigJulie

01-20-2012, 08:14 AM

The overall winner of the debate?

Mitt.

Not because he did the best speaking during the debate,(He actually had a so-so debate) but rather Mitt needed Newt to do really good so that there would be 2 strong conservatives in the SC race.

Mitt got what he needed from Newt, a solid performance.

Because Rick and Newt both turned in what might be their best debate, it adds up that Mitt should be able to sweep to an easy victory in the SC primary.

Newt did just what he needed to do to really drag this out and provide him with a chance to head to Florida.

Rick did his best, and if you just score the debate then Rick might actually have scored the best debate performance, but Rick needed Newt to fail, and that did not happen.

Ron Paul seems to have dropped off the media radar today.
Thats not a real big deal for him at this point as Ron Paul is from the West and so he still thinks he will do a lot better in western Primarys

Ron Paul actually did great, the audience even jeered King for not giving him a question. I think the media just ignores him.

I actually thought Santorum was weak until the final comments. He was very aggressive, but came across like a school kid being bullied at school and trying to make a point with the teacher rather than a leader.

Romney had his weakest moment when he forgot a question from King regarding Newt. He could have answered it more ***ertively when he remembered.

The tax thing, that people seem to be hung up on, was an embarr***ing moment for Romney because he was asked if he would release 12 years like his dad, he sheepishly smiled and said "I don't know." (He should have been prepared for that one---someone on his consulting team missed the obvious...or those who should be playing devils advocate to prepare him for the debate.) I personally wonder if his income will be somewhat shocking and so that is why he doesn't want to release any more than he has to---but as a venture capitolist, you have to have a lot of money to even be able to invest in certain types of companies(under the rules of our government.)

Newt always does really well in debates---it is a strong point of his---but I think people (like me) will always wonder about him. He comes across to me somewhere between a megalomaniac and a narcissist. (So does Obama, btw).

Ron Paul actually was fine and his usual self His following has grown from the last election and it has shown in the primaries. I believe his votes will be steady. He is the only one on the stage who is completely free from any financial pulls, even if some of his ideas are out there.

BigJulie

01-20-2012, 10:01 AM

I thought you might be interested in this from CNN's fact checker:

Mitt Romney defends his record on abortion

The statement: "What came to my desk was a piece of legislation that said, 'We're going to redefine when life begins.' In our state, we said life began at conception. The Legislature wanted to change that to say, 'no, we're going to do that at implantation.' I vetoed that. The Legislature also said, 'We want to allow cloning for purposes of creating new embryos of testing.' I vetoed that. They didn't want abstinence education; I pursued abstinence education. There was an effort to have a morning-after pill provided to young women in their teens; I vetoed that. I stood as a pro-life governor."

The facts: Romney ran two statewide campaigns in M***achusetts - an unsuccessful bid for Senate in 1994 and a winning one for governor in 2002 - as a supporter of abortion rights. But in 2005, he vetoed an emergency contraception bill and declared in the pages of the Boston Globe that he was an opponent of abortion, though he "respected the state's democratically held view" in favor of abortion rights.

Romney went on to veto the other bills he mentioned as well, though state lawmakers overrode his veto of a bill that would have allowed the creation of embryos for stem-cell research.
In April 2006, he announced $800,000 in grants for abstinence education programs, which are supported by many religious conservatives as an alternative to sex education.

The verdict: True. Romney's opposition to abortion is still viewed suspiciously by many conservatives, but his record supports the claims he made Thursday night.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/20/truth-squad-3-checks-on-thursdays-gop-debate/?hpt=hp_t1

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 10:47 AM

he sheepishly smiled and said "I don't know." .

I never watched the debate so i will have to look that one up.

But just looking at it as you have presented it here , I got to say that is the most weird thing he could have said.

Im not really sure what the deal is with him and his tax returns?
Why not have them ready to go when you head to Iowa at the start?
Whats the big deal?
We all have tax returns right?

6 months before Iowa you announce you are running for President on a Monday....get all the free press and media hype all week long, and then just as the news guys are going home on Friday night you send out your tax return statement....By Monday morning when everyone goes back to work it's "old news' and a non-issue.

If you are running for President you got to be able to lay your financial cards on the table...

The "I dont know" quote makes it seem like he was hiding something...like there is something in the tax returns that he has hidden from his wife or something?...

Or was his math bad back in 2010 and he got a bigger return that he should have?..

Or will we find out that his real name is "Mitt The Dude, Romney" ?

Putting out their tax return is one of the basic things the people running for President have to do.
It's expected.

The "I dont know" answer does point back to Mitt's staff as you say, and it does show that 'something is very wrong there"...if all the better answer he had for the "Tax return issue" is an answer you expect from a juvenile.

To me it's like Mitt's staff had him so well ready to give the next campaign speech that they opened up the door to the bus and told Mitt to "Go get em boss!" ....before they had made sure the bus was stopped and Mitt fell flat on his face.

I expect that the person getting Mitt ready next time will have the tax return "issue" answered in a far better manner.

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 11:04 AM

As for the "Facts" and Mitt on Abortion?

Mitt once again insulted conservatives within the week on the issue of abortion, when he ONCE AGAIN claimed he had a "scheduling conflict" and could not attend the Pro-Life forum.

All the other guys in the race were there.

All the other guys showed the pro-Life movement the respect for this important conservative issue we are looking for in a candidate.

This what?...the 2nd or 3rd time the Pro-Life movement has open it's doors to Mitt , only to see him pretend to be just "too busy".

so sad.....

Or did Mitt just forget to show up at the pro-life forum...just like he seems to have forgot he showed up at a Planned Parenthood meeting?
(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/12/romney-attended/)

Is he so forgetful?

Or.....

Is this claim to have "forgotten" about as fake as the switch in his views?
all of this stuff, based only on political need, rather than on core views?

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 11:25 AM

See that's the thing.

I lot of supporters of Mitt get angry at the conservatives like myself when we speak up and tell others we just don't trust Mitt.

I just don't really trust that Mitt shares my views on many core conservative issues.

I get called names by Mitt's supporters.

Im accused of being a Bigot.

I get accused of being bigoted against Mormons.

But the real problem here is with Mitt actions!

Im not the problem here, Mitt is!
I keep telling people that mitt can NOT WIN without the conservatives behind him .
He needs guys like me and other republicans if he wants to beat Obama.

And yet every time there is a door open to Mitt that he could use to open up the lines of conversations between himself and conservatives what does he do?

He walks....

This last week's pro-Life forum was a golden opportunity for Mitt to show every conservative that he can be there for us...he could have spoken to the whole pro-life movement and put to rest any doubt over his personal views.

and what did he do?

What was he interested in doing?....I don't know but it sure had nothing to do with reaching out to pro-Life conservatives.

So My doubts about Mitt at this point have nothing to do with his religion.
I have already had to defend my view that religion is not an issue for me, regardless of the faith of the person it makes no difference to me in the voting booth.

But i do have an issue with Mitt over what i see is a lack of outreach to conservatives, and the fact that I don't believe many of the things he says about his views.

And, top that off with the fact that mitt seems to not be interested at all in changing my views about him, well.....all this points to the conclusion that Mitt thinks he can ignore the conservatives during the election and then can count on them to "come around" to support him later in November.

This is what Bob Dole thought
This is what McCain thought....

and it seems to be the playbook that Mitt is using this time around too.

BigJulie

01-20-2012, 10:19 PM

I never watched the debate so i will have to look that one up.

But just looking at it as you have presented it here , I got to say that is the most weird thing he could have said.

Im not really sure what the deal is with him and his tax returns?
Why not have them ready to go when you head to Iowa at the start?
Whats the big deal?
We all have tax returns right?

6 months before Iowa you announce you are running for President on a Monday....get all the free press and media hype all week long, and then just as the news guys are going home on Friday night you send out your tax return statement....By Monday morning when everyone goes back to work it's "old news' and a non-issue.

If you are running for President you got to be able to lay your financial cards on the table...

The "I dont know" quote makes it seem like he was hiding something...like there is something in the tax returns that he has hidden from his wife or something?...

Or was his math bad back in 2010 and he got a bigger return that he should have?..

Or will we find out that his real name is "Mitt The Dude, Romney" ?

Putting out their tax return is one of the basic things the people running for President have to do.
It's expected.

The "I dont know" answer does point back to Mitt's staff as you say, and it does show that 'something is very wrong there"...if all the better answer he had for the "Tax return issue" is an answer you expect from a juvenile.

To me it's like Mitt's staff had him so well ready to give the next campaign speech that they opened up the door to the bus and told Mitt to "Go get em boss!" ....before they had made sure the bus was stopped and Mitt fell flat on his face.

I expect that the person getting Mitt ready next time will have the tax return "issue" answered in a far better manner.

I should have pointed out that his "I don't know" answer was in response to whether or not he would release his last TWELVE years of tax returns like his dad did when he ran.

Romney did say that he would release his tax records when they are done in April. I guess this is a common practice among candidates to release them when they have the current year as well. Romney explained that the reason for this is not to release tax records and then release them again. It sounded plausible. I think Newt released his because Romney is getting such flack. I guess Romney's comeback is now asking Newt to release what he was fined for for his ethics violations.

BigJulie

01-20-2012, 10:21 PM

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 10:53 PM

But you seem to trust Newt who not only has cheated on two wives,

Its like this,,,,,
Now this is all connected so follow me here...

I have no problem voting for a Mormon for President.

"But you are a strong Christian Alan, how can you vote for a person who believes in a false god?"

I can vote for him for president,
I can hire him to fix my roof,
I can allow a Mormon doctor to fix my heart,

BECAUSE they can do it.....
because they have merit to do the *** based on the criteria needed to do that ***.

If the Mormon heart doctor knows how to operate on my heart, then he gets the ***.

If the Mormon roofer knows how to fix the water leak in my roof, then he gets the ***.

If the Mormon politician knows how to be a good president, then he gets the ***.

Remember, Im not hiring them, or voting for them, to become my religious teachers...

Their religion is not an issue....
I not going to decide this just on this sideline issue of what direction they face when they spend a moment in private prayer.

Now as for Newt being a ****py husband?

My answer is that if i were deciding who in the race was the best husband?...then Newt would not have a chance of that trophy.

But Im not deciding who is the best husband, nor who is the best theology teacher.....Im only interested in the question of who represents my own views the strongest?.....

Newt does represent my views stronger than a lot of others,,,,

But do i really trust newt to be there when needed?...
No!, not for a moment.

Newts only problem is Newt.

Newt blames the media....
Newt blames the media for all this stuff with his ex-wife...(and while its true that the relationship a man has with his wife should be off limits)....the real truth is that Newt should have been a far better husband and this whole issue would not be dumped on him now....

so I don't consider Newt's past failure as a husband to be important when considering who to support for President.

Yet Im not going to say that all this media hype about his "Open Marriage' is all the media's fault...

Im not discounting Mitt because he is lost....
Im not discounting Newt because he is a ****...

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 11:03 PM

he appears to have cheated on his *** as a representative (hence the ethics violations)

House rules are not worth the time it takes to talk about them.

The truth is that they are not laws...it's not like you break a house rule its the same as robbing a bank, or even failing to stop at a stop sign.

as far as i know any legal problems Newt had are behind him.....if there is something I dont know of, or something new that would be different.
But if all there is to this is a bunch of house rule violations?...then its moot.

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 11:05 PM

.... and took 1.6 million from Freddie. .

I dont hold people that land good ***s as being somehow in the wrong.

If people land a *** like that thay pays as good, all i can say is, "Nicely done"

I dont blame rich people for my own situation

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 11:10 PM

..... you can't trust Mitt,.....

I dont judge my ablity to trust him by the god he worships, or the women he sleeps with, or the number of times he does other personal things i would never do...

I dont trust his political leadership, and this lack of trust I have for him is based only on his own past political fip-flops.....

Mitt's personal life is a moot point.

the fact that Mitt's dog wags his tail whenever Mitt walks into the room is moot...it's nice, but moot to the question of Who would I trust the most as President to strongly represent my views?

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 11:17 PM

Romney did say that he would release .......

"would release"?

Thats where he gets into trouble......

the fact is, that this sort of thing is expected now from the people running for president...more so when they have lots of money....

The real truth is, that for some unknown reason no one on Mitt's staff has spoke up and demanded the Mitt come clean and get this issue in the past.

Mitt's staff....that the unknown question Im starting to have right now.
are they just a bunch of hero-worshiping "yes" men?

I would love to know what they are saying to each other now.

A President has to have men around him that he trusts enough to listen to,...and they got to be smart enough to know a right way and a wrong way to do things to protect the president.....

someone dropped the ball....

alanmolstad

01-20-2012, 11:23 PM

the correct way?

During the last debate, when Newt demands, "When will Mitt Romney show us his tax return?"

all eyes turn to Mitt ,who opens a envelope...looks up at the camera, smiles and says

"You mean this?" and throws his tax returns for the last 12 years across the floor in front of Newt, while he says...

"There you go Newt, my tax returns,, the only ones you will ever get to see...So if you want to know how much I made last year?...Pick them off the floor!"

and....the issue fades away.....

alanmolstad

01-21-2012, 12:22 AM

Now.....time to talk about the upcoming Sc primary and the outcomes that may arrive and their meanings.

Everyone thinks Mitt will win big.
and Mitt would love to win, and win big in SC.

So if Mitt wins big what does it mean?
it means the end of the line for most of the people in this.

Oh a few might hang on untill Florida, but the truth is, if Mitt wins big it means that the conservatives in enough numbers do support him, and the race is all but over.

what if Mitt wins, but its close?
Then, Mitt is still in good shape going into Florida, but it will be more fun to watch.

What if Newt wins?
Good lord that would make this a fun race.
If Newt wins, even if its only by one vote, it would shift things, and all of the sudden the conservatives would have 'the guy" they were looking for......or close enough to him anyway.

if newt wins, it would kick this race not only into Florida, but could then drag out to next month, and perhaps even longer...its all up to how long newt could keep his big mouth shut...

What if Rick wins or comes in a close 2nd?
Then it might spark a bit of hope for him, but its still a long road he would have a head of himself.

What if Ron paul wins?
Then suddenly Sc becomes a moot point, and EVERYONE gets to do this again in Florida.

what would it take to get Rick out of the race?
3rd place will end Rick's run.

What will it take to get Ron out of the race?
4th place will really hurt Ron paul...but we would still have to go out to the western primarys to see how he does there?

What will it take to get Newt out of the race?
again,,,newt can finish in Sc in 1st, 2nd, 3rd....but if he is in 4th its going to be hard to see the point in going on from there.

so the real race now is to get out of 3rd and 4th place....

Mitt would love to win big.
mitt would love this to be more of less the end of the republican primary, and after this is all be a victory tour for him.

Mitt would Love...LOVE to see Ron and Rick and Newt all get about 12% of the vote.....and he picks up the rest.

Rick needs to finish above Newt.....with luck above Ron Paul too,,,But Rick has to finish above Newt to make it to Florida.

Newt needs to make a challenge in Sc to Mitt.
Newt needs to win...he needs to win, or be a close 2nd.

Ron Paul would love to win, love to come in 2nd...needs to be a close 3rd...and will have a hard time going on if he lands in 4th and is sinking.

alanmolstad

01-21-2012, 12:53 AM

My predictions?

I don't know the future.
I never predicted for a moment that rick had actually won Iowa...but it turns out he did.

So Im just as much in the dark as to who will win in Sc as anyone else.

But i can make two different types of predictions -
I can predict the most likely winner, and the most fun out come of the primary.

The most likely winner at this point is Mitt.
it is very likely based only on the polls I have seen that Mitt will win, and win big.
It is also likely that in 2nd place will be Ron Paul. followed by Newt a with Rick a distant 4th.

In the last 24 hours I have seen other polls, but I just dont trust them all that much.

Should it be Mitt-Ron-Newt-Rick in the Sc primary it would be about the end of the line for Rick and likely also for Newt.

so right now thats the most likely result in SC

But what result would be the most fun?
It would be the most fun if Newt actually came in 1st place.
That type of thing would open up this for another good month or two.

The most fun would be, Newt in 1st....and that that point who really cares who came in 2nd 3rd and 4th?

what if Ron or Rick wins?
then I never saw that coming....

but it would be fun to see...

alanmolstad

01-21-2012, 03:33 AM

so....the media expects Mitt to win...

But the most fun thing to happen would be if Newt wins in SC.

and, if on the odd chance Newt were to win, what would that mean to Mitt?

Mostly it would mean that the race turns to Florida and a real shoot out there.

But underneath that simple fact, there would also be the understanding that the conservatives are simply never going to come around to Mitt....

and thats trouble, for even if Mitt wins the nomination he still needs the core republican conservatives to beat Obama....

a Newt win would be the signal that Mitt will never have the needed core of the Party.

alanmolstad

01-21-2012, 09:39 AM

Julie......on a side note:

recently I noticed an odd thing that involved me and 2 of my posts.

People used 2 of my posts in such a way as had not happened here before, and Im not really sure how i feel about it.

Im also not sure i have cause to complain about it, or even if I should feel good about this whole thing or not?

I seek your views as to what do YOU think are the proper manners?

The issue is this:
On topic (A) I posted a nice mid-size comment on the topic we were dealing with.
I worked hard on my comment, (as you know I always try to do) and sent it out onto the forum once I looked at it a while and felt it said and even looked the way I wanted it to.

You know my posts are not just jotted down ideas to me, I actually care how they look on your computer screen.
I dress them up to look good, before i send them off to the dance.
So I guess in that way my posts take on something as close to being a form of "art" in my eyes.

I care what they say.

I care what they look like.

They are like my little warriors that I get ready and send off to battle on the internet.

I try to write my comments to look their best, be easy to read, and cause the reader to want to write back to me, so that i can keep the conversation going and write back to them too.

Except something new happened yesterday
.....when someone reads my comments, and feels the need to answer them, BUT rather than just answering my comment with another comment right below it, they instead copy the text of my comment, then go off and start another whole new topic with it that I know nothing about!

There they start this topic with my quoted words at the very top of the new page, and then add their own attacks ripping my ideas and all this without me knowing anything about it.

I just think that .....well.....I just think that if I had lifted your words in the same manner, that I think I would owe you a "heads-up" to the fact that your words are way over on another new topic and being talked about without you knowing ahead of time.

I just think it would be nice to let a guy know his words that he took so long to write in order to keep a conversation going, have appeared on another topic and are the reason for that other new topic...

I feel happy that my words are out there giving people ideas for new topics.

yet, I also a bit offended because I wish they would tell me about it.

Julie, your input on the matter?

BigJulie

01-21-2012, 12:54 PM

Julie, your input on the matter?

I have seen this type of thing too. I am not sure what to think about it. It seems as if they just want your comment as a jumping point. I personally don't like it when someone says "BJ thinks this"---let alone quoting me and then bashing on to something else.

I can say that there are people I ignore on this thread; so then they can just rip me and I don't even see it. *sigh*

My own personal opinion is that anyone who really reads up in this place can see the personalities of those posting. Those who just stop in and read may have to go back and read up to get a better feel of what is going on. I hope that is what happens anyway.

I look at the way I look at stuff on the web. One time I was just looking for a pair of gloves that I like and came across a blog. It captured my interest enough that I started to read up--who was this person, what was she like. Well, I spent most of the night reading up on her and then finally came across that she had died a few months earlier from cancer. I didn't know her and other than her blog knew very little about her. She had young children and an obvious love of life. So, here I sat in my office, crying my eyes out for someone I never met and knew very little about---and yet, there was enough that I wanted to understand more.

So, i guess my hope is that who ever reads your posts in this light, will do as I do---dig around a little, read up a little more on what you think and how you think.

I guess what I am ultimately saying is--don't sweat it. It may peak someone's curiousity enough to read a few more of your posts. For the rest, they will probably forget what they read the next day.

P.S. Newt is surging in S.C.!!!! Acckkk. While you don't worry about his marriage morals or his ethical violations, I see a pattern of a man who is very selfish and does what he wants regardless of how it affects others. Please, let it be Mitt or Rick! I would even go for Ron Paul over him and I see Ron Paul as radical, but at least honest and cares about others.

alanmolstad

01-21-2012, 04:24 PM

I
P.S. Newt is surging in S.C.!!!! Acckkk. .....

while this is "interesting" and will likely add to the fun of watching Florida, its not enough to start a "panic" yet for the Mitt supporters.

Lets just remember, Mitt is from the north, and he is not really all that reflective of the typical SC conservative voter.
So, even if Mitt were to lose the SC Primary, its not like he lost New York , or California or something.

So the race goes on if Newt wins.

BUT, not for everyone.

Rick has to have a big night, or its the end of the road.
I dont care the Rick says he will push on to other states, i just dont see him getting any cash with less than a 2nd place finish in SC.

Ron Paul will go on no matter what place he comes in.
From Ron Paul's point of view we have not even gotten to the States he will poll the best in.

Newt seems to maybe actually have a chance of winning SC.
Hard to believe, be the early polls seem to suggest this.

While this is not all that bad of news for Mitt, it is nonetheless a very big sign to everyone in the race that "Mitt cant get the conservatives to back him.

That is going to really fire up Newt if Newt takes 1st or a close 2nd.
It would also tempt Rick to stay in the race until Florida....

Should be an interesting night!

Come back when its over and share your views....

alanmolstad

01-21-2012, 04:31 PM

......
So, i guess my hope is that who ever reads your posts in this light, will do as I do---dig around a little, read up a little more on what you think and how you think.

I guess what I am ultimately saying is--don't sweat it. ....

I shall listen to your advice on this matter.

I have some issues with not being told my post that i felt I defended on one topic, now appears on a different topic where the same guy rips it apart and Im not there to defend it....

But, well.......who cares?

I cant do anything about it,
its not against the rules,
and whats the heck, it actually may be a form of a compliment to find that my words are so easy to read that they can cause new topics to start all on their own.

Im going to just smile ......

BigJulie

01-21-2012, 06:03 PM

Should be an interesting night!

Come back when its over and share your views....

Yes, it should be an interesting night. I am surprised that the conservatives are going toward Newt instead of Rick. As I said---acckkk. I don't know how anyone can see Newt a conservative. He debates well, but that is about it. His politics are less than desirable. I don't think I could vote for him personally.

That said, I turned on "rush" on the radio to see if he was reporting any results. The ten minutes I listened to while making dinner---he announced that Mitt Romney gave away all the money he inherited from his father (to the BYU MBA school) and then made an excuse that he needed to get away from his father's success. Yeah right---who gives away money and is looked down on? Only from Rush I guess.

BigJulie

01-21-2012, 06:03 PM

I shall listen to your advice on this matter.

I have some issues with not being told my post that i felt I defended on one topic, now appears on a different topic where the same guy rips it apart and Im not there to defend it....

But, well.......who cares?

I cant do anything about it,
its not against the rules,
and whats the heck, it actually may be a form of a compliment to find that my words are so easy to read that they can cause new topics to start all on their own.

Im going to just smile ......

Yeah, I see my words misquoted, my ideas mispresented all of the time here. There is not a lot to be done. *sigh*. It is good you can look at it with a smile.

alanmolstad

01-21-2012, 10:08 PM

BigJulie

01-21-2012, 11:21 PM

Newt wins in SC.

I like to allow a little time to p*** before I comment too much on an election.
But there are some clear lessons learned from tonight's results.

1st.- we now have the final answer about the conservatives backing Mitt in the national election...They will not!

It seems very clear to us now that Conservative Republicans and Christians like myself will vote for ANYONE other than Mitt.

The fact the Newt won tonight I think has less to do with Conservatives love of Newt, and more to do with a serious and very deep lack of trust in Mitt.

2nd - tonight showed us that this election is not going to be over the question "Who would do the best at fixing the economy?"
Tonight we saw the issue of the 'economy" taken off the table.

The rest of this election is going to be about social issues from here on out!

It is amazing to me that "christians and conservatives" do not trust Mitt because of his pro-abortion stance years back and yet they will trust...

a man who has committed ethical violations, cheated on not one, but two wives, and has taken 1.6 million from an organization that spelled the doom for the American economy AND has been liberal on many issues in the past as well. *sigh*

alanmolstad

01-21-2012, 11:53 PM

It is amazing to me that "christians and conservatives" do not trust Mitt because of his pro-abortion stance years back and yet they will trust...

a man who has committed ethical violations, cheated on not one, but two wives, and has taken 1.6 million from an organization that spelled the doom for the American economy AND has been liberal on many issues in the past as well. *sigh*

The topic of "abortion" is seen as political.

Yes its also social, but we are electing a President and that is a political office.

So to judge a person in this election on that topic I would look to what they say, and what type of track record they have on the issue.

that is how a person should judge people on political questions.

Im not really interested in his women now or ex-wives of the past or stuff like that.

any of the stuff that is not connected to the political issue of abortion is more or less a moot point.

This is why conservatives just look at Mitt and just dont see his views as "real"........
Mitt sometimes says the right things, but there is this dry "calculating" way he seems to address conservative issues that casts a doubt over his words...

Remember we are NOT picking out the guy who is the best husband.
If we were Mitt would win easy....

What we are doing is picking out a guy to represent our political views in the national election.

Newt was never the conservative's 1st choice...but he is looking like he is the last guy standing.

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 09:50 AM

Where did Rick fail?

lets review:
Rick came in a very close 2nd place in Iowa, Yes we learned this week that Rick actually won, but at the time we all were told he came in 2nd.

This was GREAT news for Rick!
Finally he had broken free of the rest of the pack and was now on center stage with Mitt.

So what went wrong?

How did he go from being the star of the show, to now needed to find the best way to walk off the stage?

I think I have the answer to that question.

It was in the debate after Iowa where i think all of the nation's conservatives had a real serious look at Rick, and it was due to the way he presented himself in that debate that Conservatives decided they were not done looking at the other names on the list yet.

To tell the truth, i watched that debate and I remember at the time thinking that Rick is coming off like he is just not at the same level as the other guys in the debate.

Almost like rick should have a name tag that says "TRAINEE" under his name.

This was kinda like what happened to Rick Perry too.

Perry had all the conservative hype going into the debates before Iowa, but then the first debate happens, and Perry just seemed "Not ready" to play in the big leagues.

Perry seemed to me to almost present himself to the world as someone who a moment ago was sleeping in the audience, and was only drafted to come up and debating because the real guy could not make it.

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 11:07 AM

Where did Mitt fail?

Lets review:
Mitt out spent everyone, and after a solid performance in NH Mitt came into the Sc Primary ready to make it 3 in a row and end this right here and now.

The only guy that was close to Mitt in the polls had just been dragged in the mud by his ex-wife, and the whole country was talking about what a **** husband he was...

So, how did Mitt end up getting so spanked?

I think it came down to 2 moments over the past week where we can see Mitt **** his lead though incompetence.

#1 - the debate.
Newt did ok in the debate handling the "open marriage/ex-wife " issue, and Mitt cant do anything about that.

But where Mitt totally screwed up during the debate was over the question of his own tax returns.
When challenged to follow in his own father's footsteps and act in the same manner with the tax return issue, Mitt dropped the ball.

It had to make even his strongest supporters groan when they watched Mitt act like he had something to hide with his income tax return.

This just was a game-changing moment in the SC primary.

#2 - The other moment when Mitt failed, was when Mitt once again refused to be part of the pro-Life forum.

Mitt ended up being represented by an "empty chair" at the one place where he could have stood up for himself and gotten the conservatives to hear him out.

All the other guys in the race where there.
Newt used the pro-life forum to brag about his own history supporting the pro-life cause.

Mitt's names was dragged in the mud, and because Mitt had decided to not be there to defend himself, the attacks made against him sunk in in the minds of the conservatives there.

Mitt's lack of participation once again pointed out that Mitt simply does not share in our conservative views the way we do.

So the debate, and the empty chair are what caused Mitt to drop in the polls.

Time will tell now how this is handled by Mitt's staff in Florida?
Will changes be made?
Will the things that caused Mitt to drop down in SC be fixed in Florida?

BigJulie

01-22-2012, 12:42 PM

Alan,

This has been interesting for me to watch as well. I agree that the two Rick's looked like they were in training. I like Santorum enough that I hope he comes back in another election. I think more time and more experience is going to be his friend.

That said, let's look at the other two candidates---Mitt and Newt. This is how I see them stacking up.

Mitt
Pros:
Good leadership abilities
Proven record of turning things around
Good education and understands financial/economical issues
Is able to work in a state of democrats and get things moving
Good values
Proven tract record of conservative voting when it comes to pro-life and gay marriage.
Has made money in the business sector and therefore understands the business sector and how employers employ and why--what helps, what hurts.

Cons:
More moderate when it comes to economical/financial issues. (This is looked at as a pro in some people's minds.)
Doesn't see taxes as the great evil.
Hasn't released his tax records yet.
Used to stand for pro-abortion and then changed.
Used to stand for climate change and then changed.

Now, I look at Newt:

Pros:
He is a really good debater.
Knows his history well.
Has been in leadership and been successful at times.
Stands for conservative issues at times.

Cons:
Was sited for ethics violations and fined (but the books have not been opened as to why and legally can't be leaving everyone in question for what he did.)
Was speaker of the house but booted by his own party for poor leadership.
Has been liberal on several issues and then changed including climate change.
Is morally corrupt in regards to his personal life.
Lobbied for Freddie Mac when Freddie Mac was in the process of destroying our fnancial sector.
Does not think before he speaks.

Now, it appears to me that those who do not trust Mitt, do not trust him on two issues---his past pro-abortion stance and his lack of giving his tax records when they were asked for.

And those who trust Newt have been able to overlook his unethical behavior in the House, his unethical behavior in his personal life, his unethical behavior after he left congress, his flip-flopping on liberal issues as well, and his lack of personal restraint in his comments.

Does this seem rational to you?

To me it reminds me too much of this comment "better that one man should perish than a whole nation dwindle in unbelief."

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 01:59 PM

So now the election turns to Florida...

Everyone has this idea that Florida might end this one way or the other...

it might.
I have always felt that Mitt wants this to be totally finished by Florida, but right now we are looking into a way longer election.

Mitt is only 1 for 3 right now...and his polling numbers get lower and lower every time I check.

Lets face it....Mitt is on a sinking ship.

And the Republican Party as a whole is starting to look way down range to the chance it might have to do this whole thing over at an "Open Convention" .

An Open Convention, where all the names on the ballot are chucked out the window and we pick someone who is not even talked about right now!

In SC what we learned for sure is that regardless of the weakness of his opponent, Mitt will NEVER in a million years get the kind of support from the conservatives he would need to take on Obama in the fall.

at this point it's too late for Mitt do do anything about this.
That ship has sailed,
The conservatives have spoken loudly

Now add to this something to keep in the back of your mind...
The winner of the SC primary always wins the ticket.

and....

Every Republican that gets elected President always wins SC in his Primary.

This means that history and tradition are now solidly behind Newt!

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 02:06 PM

so Newt is all set to take the nomination away from Mitt.

Now I think we all know that putting all our hopes for getting rid of Obama onto Newt to carry is , well,,,,almost crazy of us, so I suspect that the SC victory of Newt is just a "Stop Mitt" victory.

yet the party is starting to see clearly now that Mitt lacks the needed Party support he has to have to beat Obama.

so what to do?.....what to do?

This is why the leadership of both the liberal republicans and the conservatives are all talking about perhaps starting over and picking a new guy at the convention.

I think everyone knew from the start that Mitt/Perry/Newt/Paul were not the best team we should have fielded into the primary, and an Open Convention might be a way to make sure a new guy leads the ticket that all the conservatives can support, that don't also come with the baggage of a real big mouth.

BigJulie

01-22-2012, 06:48 PM

Someone completely new? But who??

This I know---I will never vote for Newt. He is way to corrupt for my taking and is not better than Obama. As I said, I would be replacing a union thug for a lobbying crook. I then have to toss a coin on which would be better and personally, if we can't have a politician that even somewhat cares about the people, maybe one who has a marriage in tact is at least a role model.

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 07:10 PM

Someone completely new? But who??

I have no clue....

but trust me, if.....and its a big IF it works out that newt actually gets enough votes in a few of the next State primaries, then I got to tell you right now......

Names will start to be dropped around the Republican media and republican leadership.

heres the thing....
The Party is not crazy. Everyone knows putting all our hopes onto Newt is more like playing Political Russian Roulette than we care to admit.

The next State to vote is Florida.
Mitt has sunk million$ into beating the field in Florida.
Mitt knows now he has to come up with a knock-out punch in Florida.

If Mitt wins big?
Then because of the way the States line up for the next few primaries to vote, Mitt is going to be on his "Home turf"
After Florida and into the next month we go to a lot of States that have huge Mormon populations....so Mitt should do well.

But doing well in a Mormon State is going to be pointless if Mitt has a loss in Florida.

if mitt has another loss in Florida, that from then on he will be seen as just "The Mormon guy" and there simply are very few reasons to think he has a chance to beat Obama after that.

Mitt needs Florida.

If he gets a big win, you can relax....its in the bag at that point.

If Mitt comes in 2nd?
Then get ready to start hearing more about an Open Convention, and also that names we never heard of before will then suddenly start turning up in the conversation...

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 07:32 PM

Julie, check mail

BigJulie

01-22-2012, 07:36 PM

I am wondering if Mitt represents a divide that is occuring in the conservative side of the ticket.

The south is heavy with evangelicals, but I think a lot of people are getting sick of their holier than thou at***udes while they show no sign of rationalism in their pick. Anyone paying attention can see that Newt is a ticking time bomb. When your own party kicks you to the curb, it is hard to think that he would be able to lead them effectively...this does not even start to address the ethics violations, etc.

The other side is less socially conservative, but more fiscally conservative. This might be where the blue dogs and the conservative middles are starting to meet. They are like me and would rather see someone who is more go than show (as Newt is.)

The problem then for conservatives is that the "christian right" no longer represents the rest of us.

BigJulie

01-22-2012, 07:38 PM

Julie, check mail

I have and will wait to see what happens in that thread. :)

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 07:48 PM

I am wondering if Mitt represents a divide .

oh yes...big time.
But this divide has always been around my Party for as long as i can remember.

there is the - Economic Conservative.
and then there is the - Social Conservative.

and at times the party has not been big enough for the both of them.

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 07:56 PM

I have and will wait to see what happens in that thread. :)
By the way, Im a big supporter as you know for not getting lost in endless bickering around here by use of the IGNORE list.

I always suggest people, regardless of their religion, make use of the ignore list when they bump into people that dont know how to post right.

so on one or two of the other topics running, you may see that Im not responding to many of the posters then and there, and reason is I can no longer see their comments on my computer screen because I have added their names long ago to my Ignore list....LOL:D

BigJulie

01-22-2012, 08:16 PM

oh yes...big time.
But this divide has always been around my Party for as long as i can remember.

there is the - Economic Conservative.
and then there is the - Social Conservative.

and at times the party has not been big enough for the both of them.

Okay---so my point is, that the evangelical right represents the "social conservative" and that Mitt Romney represents the "economic conservative"---but then why on earth woud the "social conservatives" back someone like Newt who is a chameleon and who everyone I talk to sees a somewhat of a sociopath. He seems to do whatever he wants whenever he wants and leaves people in his wake. Are they so flattered by his talk that they completely overlook who he is not only personally, but politically?

BigJulie

01-22-2012, 08:17 PM

By the way, Im a big supporter as you know for not getting lost in endless bickering around here by use of the IGNORE list.

I always suggest people, regardless of their religion, make use of the ignore list when they bump into people that dont know how to post right.

so on one or two of the other topics running, you may see that Im not responding to many of the posters then and there, and reason is I can no longer see their comments on my computer screen because I have added their names long ago to my Ignore list....LOL:D

I've had Russ on ignore forever. I should put Brian there just for the number of insults he gives per post. :rolleyes:

BigJulie

01-22-2012, 08:51 PM

One last question. Why would a social conservative vote for Newt---someone who speaks of social conservatism, but has never lived it--in their personal life, their public life, etc. I mean, even the democrats got rid of John Edwards based on infidelity alone. I think they learned they do not want another Clinton in the house.

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 09:50 PM

-but then why on earth woud the "social conservatives" back someone like Newt ?

slow down.....think back.....think back to what this race has been known for more than anything else....

The conservatives have not raced over to support Newt from the start remember?

first the conservatives were behind one person, then the next...then the next..

Every name in this race cant say that they never had a chance to get the support of the conservatives.

They all had their chance!

They all had a chance to step up when the bright lights turned on them.

But the problem in this election is that while we had a nice big cl*** of good conservatives running , none managed to rise to the calling when the time came.

It turned out to be not the best team of conservatives to pick from.

They each had their moment to impress because Mitt had already burned a lot of bridges between him and conservatives.

From the beginning Mitt was in trouble with the conservatives.
His flip-flops on abortion
health care mandates
his religion
His money
his clear distance to the lives of normal people (The $10,000 bet).

now add the fact that during this election, the pro-Life movement had had two huge forums, where all the other people in the race showed up to answer questions, and both times Mitt's empty chair was there to show what he thinks.....

So from the beginning Mitt was in trouble with the conservatives, and he has only made things worse for himself as the race went along.

So why are the conservatives gathering around Newt now when everyone in the Party knows Newt has so many flaws?

Why Newt of all people?

With all his known flaws, and the real likelihood that he has other problems that are yet to come out, why go with Newt now?

that's an easy answer....

Newt is the last man standing.

BigJulie

01-22-2012, 10:10 PM

From the beginning Mitt was in trouble with the conservatives.
His flip-flops on abortion
health care mandates
his religion
His money
his clear distance to the lives of normal people (The $10,000 bet).

Newt is the last man standing.

Okay, let's compare apples to apples:

Newt flip-flops on many issues and even more recently.
Newt has supported health care mandates.
Newt changed from evanglical to catholic--but what does his religion matter as he obviously does not live it.
Newt took 1.6 million from Freddie Mac
Newt has a clear distance from normal people as most people do not live the way he does morally or financially.

Add to this his ethical violations, the fact that his own party booted him, and the fact that he makes John Edwards look like a social conservative

and now, answer me honestly, why do people support Newt? It makes not rational sense at all.

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 10:20 PM

and now, answer me honestly, why do people support Newt? It makes not rational sense at all.

again...
Newt is the last man standing.....

Rick needed to come in 2nd to stay in this hunt....
But Rick was 3rd I think?....and 3rd in the one state you were counting on to win is not good enough to have any reason at all to stick around.

ron Paul is going to be sticking around for a while as his stronger States are not coming up in line for a while...so paul will be in the news off and on for a while yet.

Newt is simply the last man standing.
Newt had a great debate, right at the time that Mitt had a bad debate...

all the flaws with newt are a moot point.
the only thing Newt has to be from now on to win it all, is "Not Mitt"

Nothing else matters at this point...all the flaws people might see in him are not revelant to why he is going to get their vote...

Newt is going to get votes because he is simply not Mitt at this point....so listing his flaws is not addressing the reason for his win.

Newt won SC, (and no one gets to be President without winning SC ), and he won SC because he was simply the last guy standing.

and THAT also is the reason that the same people who have voted for him in SC, also would support an Open Convention where all these guys could be dumped, and a whole new list of names picked to lead the ticket.

BigJulie

01-22-2012, 10:22 PM

again...
Newt is the last man standing.....

Rick needed to come in 2nd to stay in this hunt....
But Rick was 3rd I think?....and 3rd in the one state you were counting on to win is not good enough to have any reason at all to stick around.

ron Paul is going to be sticking around for a while as his stronger States are not coming up in line for a while...so paul will be in the news off and on for a while yet.

Newt is simply the last man standing.
Newt had a great debate, right at the time that Mitt had a bad debate...

all the flaws with newt are a moot point.
the only thing Newt has to be from now on to win it all, is "Not Mitt"

Nothing else matters at this point...all the flaws people might see in him are not revelant to why he is going to get their vote...

Newt is going to get votes because he is simply not Mitt at this point....so listing his flaws is not addressing the reason for his win.

Newt won SC, (and no one gets to be President without winning SC ), and he won SC because he was simply the last guy standing.

and THAT also is the reason that the same people who have voted for him in SC, also would support an Open Convention where all these guys could be dumped, and a whole new list of names picked to lead the ticket.

But Newt makes Mitt look like saint. That is why I don't get it. Newt has done all the things that Mitt is accused of and worse.

The last guy standing?? He fell a long time ago. To me, it appears that S.C. likes what it hears more than what it sees. He sounds good, therefore he must be good.

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 10:24 PM

Newt is the last guy left to vote for.

all the others have had their moment to shine...

Newt is just the last guy left after all the others turned out to not be the guy the conservatives were willing to vote for.

You can go right down the list, and there just was something that didnt 'set' right with them.

No matter how conservative they were, we have watched each of them turn out to have just not what it takes to get the conservatives to support them in the numbers needed..

newt?........Newt is just the last name on the list after all the others have been rejected.

simply put, There is no one left to vote for.

alanmolstad

01-22-2012, 11:15 PM

look at this from a conservative point of view...

go over the list of names we had to pick from...looking for someone who seem to connect with conservative concerns that we were looking to see.

Jon Huntsman....never caught on, and had some non-conservative views...did poorly in the debates.
Did not seem ready to be on the stage.

Michele Bachmann, started out looking good, but was just not able to connect with people..ran the worst race in Iowa, seemed to not want to run at all near the end...
Very poor in the debates,,,

Cain.....mostly was just fun to listen to,,but never was on anyone's list for long.

Rick Perry....said good things when someone woke him up , but mostly just was not ready to run...worst debate ever I think.

Ron Paul...crazy

Mitt Romney,... flipped, and the empty chair...

Rick Santorum....might make a good president, in about 20 years...

so guess who is the last man standing?......

We may not like this situation, but when you go down the list from a conservative point of view, the one thing you notice is that this was not the best team to pick from....

alanmolstad

01-23-2012, 05:35 AM

So what Im saying is that you can get a clear idea as to why Newt won SC by just remembering that Newt was never the 1st pick of the Republican Conservatives.

From the point of view of a true Conservatives, when you looked at this team of players at the start of this election you just didnt see the type of quality you would have liked to have seen.

But as the election has went along, each player on our team has had their moment to carry the ball.
Every name on the list has had their time at being number 1 or 2 in the polls.
No name on our list can claim we never gave them a chance.
They all have had their chance to impress people.

But lets face it, from a conservative voter's point of view, they all just didnt have what they needed .
go down the list and one by one they got checked off our list for one reason or another.

They are all good people Im sure.
But they just seemed to conservatives to be missing something.

so we checked them off the list until we finally come down to it in the SC primary.

The SC Primary is where the Conservatives were going to finally speak.

For we have always known that in SC we are going to find out what name on our list can get the needed conservatives to support them in the general election against Obama?

That name now in known.

Newt is the guy.
Newt is the guy that the conservatives will support against Obama in the fall, not so much based on Newt, as it is based on the fact that there is no one left in the game to pick from at this point.

For the republican conservatives, Newt is the last guy standing out there on the field to vote for.

History has shown us that you cant win the Republican nomination without winning the SC primary
.Newt won the SC Primary, so Newt can be expected to have the needed support of conservatives should he lead the ticket against Obama.

alanmolstad

01-23-2012, 08:54 AM

Todays news....

I see that within the next few hours that Mitt will put out his tax returns....

a little late, but it should get that whole issue off the table.
The "I dont know" answer was one of the main reasons he lost in SC.....

BigJulie

01-24-2012, 06:15 PM

I have been reading the news---how much Mitt makes to how much Obama makes to how much Newt makes. When you get into the millions, it seems that all are in the top .01% or so.

That said, here is an interesting Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNJZrJVDpbY&feature=share

alanmolstad

01-24-2012, 06:54 PM

BigJulie

01-24-2012, 07:03 PM

a very good video.

Did they get the stump out?....sorta stops a bit early...LOL

I bet they did--as the pictures show it on the verge of being out. As noted, it was just a person who lived at he house with a cheap camera.

What did you think of the last debate?

alanmolstad

01-24-2012, 07:08 PM

What did you think of the last debate?
Im at either Kumdo cl***, kettelbell cl***, or Kendo cl***.....so I am going to be relying on the drudge report to keep me up to speed on the build-up to the Florida primary.

so far.....Im getting that it was a sleeper....

Im also amused that Newt now says he will no longer be in a debate if the audience can't cheer.....

alanmolstad

01-24-2012, 07:39 PM

I think the sun flare is messing up my internet tonight...

BigJulie

01-25-2012, 10:17 AM

The more I learn of Newt, the more I know I will never vote for him. Should it come down to Obama or Newt, I will sit out the election. How can I vote in someone who is as corrupt as he is, or as narcissistic as he is. FDR was a socialist and we recovered---but would we ever recover from someone so morally corrupt?

alanmolstad

01-25-2012, 10:35 AM

The more I learn of Newt,...

I noticed that the Dems leadership is saying that Newt will never be president.
That "They know things" about Newt.

To me this is a rather interesting thing to say.

I mean, from the dem's point of view, if they had some killer information on Newt, would they not want Newt to win the nomination?.....then later in the general election spring their trap?

Telling the republicans now that we "Better not elect Newt" almost seems like they would rather run against Mitt than run against Newt.

It smells funny to me....

It's like if two teams were playing football, would one team tell the other team that "You better not run play number 7 because we know how to beat that play"

If the other team really did know how to beat play number 7, would they not hope that is the play that gets called the most?

alanmolstad

01-25-2012, 10:54 AM

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/23/the_gop_establishment_in_abject_panic_they_don_t_u nderstand_their_own_base

One of the best things Rush has come up with in a while.

Rush really understands the conservatives and our current mood.

alanmolstad

01-26-2012, 04:14 PM

as we get close to the Florida vote, I think I should drop back to some of the first things I wrote on what Florida might mean, to see how my views now compare?

BigJulie

01-28-2012, 01:31 PM

One of the best things Rush has come up with in a while.

Rush really understands the conservatives and our current mood.

My own conclusions regarding Rush Limbaugh--

the way he has ademantly been backing Newt and how he defended Herman Cain---I think Rush must believe there is a separation between the way they live in their personal life and the way you live in your public life. So, a man can lie point blank to his wife regarding what he is doing, etc. but be an "good" politician. He also defended Cain and saw the woman accusing Cain as a "bimbo" etc.

What I finally came away with (and I admit I may be wrong) is that Rush Limbaugh is an adulterer as well. He therefore does not see a problem with this---he can be a great radio show commentator and adulterer, why not Newt be a great president and adulterer.

Now, before you go on about all the great men in the world who have been adulterers---that is not my point. My point is that it seems that adulterers tend to defend each other.

So, how do the women feel about this in my circles? They are sick of listening to these men make excuses for each other. Women's suffrage may mean more than just the right to vote, but also the right to vote for something other then the typical "old boys club."

BigJulie

01-28-2012, 01:42 PM

After writing my last post, I decided to investigate a little to see if I was right regarding my "hunch" about Rush Limbaugh. What I found is that he has been married four times. Case closed. Rush has a crush on Newt because they are like kind.

alanmolstad

01-29-2012, 06:15 AM

If we were electing a person for "Husband of the year", then Newt would not get my vote...

If were were electing "Bible teacher of the year", then Mitt would have to drop out.

If we were electing
"Woman of the year" then all the men in this race would have to drop out.

If we were electing "The guy the most like Alan" then none of these guys would be even close.

But we are not doing such...

In the Republican Primary elections we conservatives are voting on the voice that reflects our views the best, the strongest, the most clearly reflective of our own views.

The only reason Newt has the spotlight is that he is the last person standing that can hold the conservative flag.

There is simply no one left.

Newt has outlived the pack of conservatives in this election.

But Newt has also about run out of cash.
Mitt has millions left in the bank and is going into a part of this election where loads of cash will make it all but impossible for anyone to catch him.

This is why for Newt it all comes down to Florida.
If Newt wins or comes in a close 2nd he will be in a position to hold on all the way to the convention.
If on the other hand, Newt has a big loss in Florida then it will not look good for him long, and over the next month it may be hard for Newt to win anything more.

From Mitt's point of view, if Mitt can win BIG in Florida he will have this in the bag.
A big win would cause all the money in the Party to come flowing in to him.
A big win in Florida will close the door to Newt and bring all of the Party to swing over to support him.

however, a loss in Florida will cause the Party as a whole to finally start to take serious the idea that none of the people in this race have a chance against Obama in the fall, and so we are going to need someone else to get into this race....at that point the need for an "Open Convention" may be so clear to everyone in the Party that this whole Primary Election up until now might be forgotten.

alanmolstad

01-29-2012, 06:23 AM

The Open Con...?
so what might happen is this:

If Newt wins Florida there will be a push to "Free the delegates" and allow all of the people at the Republican convention to vote for whomever they wanted to and not be stuck voting for the person who won their State primary.

This would me that anyone could enter this election and get the Party Nomination.

This is why Newt just has to be close in Florida or over the next month.....just get close enough to show everyone that the Party is not going to ever support Mitt strong enough to beat Obama.

a close 2nd would do that for Newt.

a close 2nd place over the next month in a few States would cause people to see that we should 'free the delegates" and allow the convention to pick the person to lead the ticket.
It's called the "Open Convention" and it would be the most fun thing to watch in my lifetime!

alanmolstad

01-29-2012, 06:37 AM

From my own point of view, it has always been a poor field of names to pick from from the start.

Before even iowa I looked at the list of names in this election and i did not see anyone I wanted to support.

I looked at the list and I not only did not see a person that i felt had a chance against Obama, but I also did not see a name that I was all that excited to vote for at all.

all the names on the list look like good people to run for VP,,,,but not to actually lead the ticket.

This is why right now I can see the merit of an Open Convention...
It might allow a name to enter this race that i felt had a real chance of getting the needed support of the conservatives like myself and also beating Obama in the fall.

We shall have to see what happens in Florida and in the month after Florida.

If Mitt comes on strong in Florida and over the next month then all the talk of an Open Convention will dry up and go away.
But if Mitt again stumbles in Florida then at that point even if Newt drops out of the race later , there might be a strong push to open up the convention to everyone.

The weird thing is....Mitt has destroyed the chance that Rick has of winning anything....But I think Rick is staying in this election to see what happens out of Florida.
Rick knows at this point he dont have a chance, but also knows that if Mitt has a bad finish in Florida it could mean an "Open Convention"...and that would mean Rick still could win this in the end and get the nomination of the Party.

Rick just has to stay in the hunt for another week or so.....

So it's all up to the Florida vote, and how that looks to everyone later.
If Mitt shows poorly in Florida, then i expect Rick to be the first to suggest the open convention idea.

alanmolstad

01-30-2012, 05:39 AM

it all comes down to the next few hours before Florida votes...

Now is the moment when if you got the cash you got to spend it.
and if you don't got the cash its going to show.

after Florida we will have a name to lead the ticket, or we will have the biggest push to open the convention up like we have never seen in the country in a long-long time!

Right now, there are no names being suggested to take Mitt's place.

If Mitt wins, then you never will hear a squeak out of the Party about the convention, or about other names being put up to lead the ticket.

But if Mitt should lose, or if Mitt wins but it just too close for comfort, then its going to be shocking how a new name is going to be on the lips of everyone a day or so later...LOL

I dont know the future, so i cant say right now if Mitt can win big in Florida or not....

The polls suggest the Mitt is going to win by about 10 points, but we shall see.

BigJulie

01-30-2012, 09:45 AM

If we were electing a person for "Husband of the year", then Newt would not get my vote...

I wasn't looking at his record as only a husband---although, for a woman, it is disturbing to think that this man could be such an out-right, bold face l.iar (as you would have to be to have an affair on your wife) and that not send up any red flags for anyone.

No, his lack of moral values does not stop in the home--he also was cited for ethical violations, etc.

So, I think to myself---usually, Rush would be ripping up such a candidate---and yet he is not. That is why I decided to do a little investigating. As Rush has gone from one wife to another, I can see that Newt is just justification for his own failed life.

The similiarities between Rush and Newt are astounding...both men married multiple times, both men have an arrogance that is unusual--big egos is an understatement, etc.

alanmolstad

01-30-2012, 10:55 AM

--he also was cited for ethical violations, etc.

.
So far the so-called ethical violations have all been about house rules all dealing with a cl*** he was teaching to students and if that cl*** should be under once set of tax schedule or a different one.

I remember they investigated him for a long-long time and ended up giving him a fine that simply helped pay for the money it took to investigate him.

Now if there was ever a real crime?.....something like running a stop sign, parking in a tow-away area, etc, then I never heard about that.'

This is why no one actually cares what Newt did on that score.

Breaking a House rule on such a minor matter is a moot point and has nothing to do with why a conservative might seek to vote for him.

Lets remember, the ONLY REASON that Newt is still kicking is that he is the "Last man standing"

Simply put, there is no one else the conservatives have left to pick from.

This is also why if the conservatives once again come out in numbers in Florida to support Newt they way that did in SC, that this would fire-up talk Radio on shows like Rush into being all about dumping this whole primary election so far, and opening up the convention to new names.

This is why the next 24 hours are the whole game for Newt and Mitt.

If Newt wins, or comes in a close 2nd, then Mitt is going to have to face the facts that he will never get the support from the conservatives that he needs to beat Obama. So there would be no point to his going on in this election.

AND....that the Leadership of the Republican Party will start to come up with a PLAN-"B" where they ask both Mitt and Newt to step aside at the convention.

OR..... If Mitt wins in Florida and wins big, then Newt will be shown the door by the Party leadership, and even Rush would start to look down the road to the fall and helping Mitt in beating Obama.

I dont know what is going to happen.
SC gave us a strong sign that Mitt simply never warmed up to the conservatives of his own Party and that without their support he might as well give up right now.

According to tradition, the person who had won in SC (Newt) will win the nomination.
This tradition is not by accident.
The reason this is always so is that SC is a very good way to see what person actually stands a chance?

Right now, it looks like the only real person in this race that actually might have a chance of beating Obama is Newt...

Even with all the baggage that Newt has with him in his past, Newt still has what it takes to beat Obama, and clearly Mitt lacks it.

alanmolstad

01-30-2012, 11:12 AM

From the beginning of this topic I have been talking about how this all has to come to an ending at Florida.

Florida was always the end on the line for the people in this race.

At the beginning of this topic I pointed out how I predicted that Mitt would win in Florida, and needed to win in Florida.
i believed from the start that Mitt would build his whole election around the goal of winning Florida and thus ending the race for the nomination here.

Lets review:
I said that mitt could lose Iowa and it would not matter.
Mitt won, then LOST in Iowa , but I was correct in that it did not matter.

I said that Mitt needed to win in NH and he did win there.

I said that given his religion and past fip-flops that while he still needed to win in SC, all he really needed to do was come in a close 2nd.
However Mitt got SPANKED in Sc and that is the real problem here.

The results of SC were to push all the chips into Florida from both sides.

Had SC been close, had Mitt done a bit better there, then Florida would be a moot point and Newt would be not even an issue right now.
But SC gave us the wake-up call that the Conservatives are never going to support Mitt.

My predictions as to what the different results of Florida may mean:
If Mitt wins big?.....then Newt is doomed.
If Mitt wins and it's close?....Then other names will start to be talked about getting into this race. And that there is going to be a month or two where the results of different state primaries well be never really enough to even tell who is in the lead or not?
We could look at the next two months of bitter fighting with no hint if anyone is actually winning or not?
If Mitt comes in 2nd?....Then Mitt is going to face a call for an Open Convention.

I cant predict the future, I dont know what name on our list will be called the 'winner" in Florida.

But I can say that I have been paying attention to the hints dropped by the Republican Leadership over the last 24 hours, and there is a plan already in place if Newt wins or comes in a close 2nd in Florida.

That plan will call for a lot of IOU's to be cashed in.....
Phone calls to be made by even both President Bush's ......
and to all the conservative Talk Radio guys......
and to the big money donators to both Mitt and Newt.

At that point I think we are going to see things happen we don't even dream about right now as possible.

alanmolstad

01-30-2012, 11:37 AM

right now the polls Im looking at have Mitt winning in Florida by 11%

This 11% now becomes the guidline we will use to deciude who is actually the winner or not?

If Mitt gets a win by way more than 11% we can say he really "won"

If Mitt gets just a win by the expected 11% then while we can say he "won", it's really more or less even to what was expected, and therefore a wash.

If Mitt gets less than 11% then even if he gets the win, he still will look like he lost and that Newt won.

So Julie, I know you want Mitt to come out of Florida without Newt hanging around anymore, so I would look for about a 17% or higher victory over Newt as being what you are looking for.

a 20% - 25% or better victory by Mitt would doom Newt.

But if Mitt wins with say 11% to 15%?.....then this is going to last another 2 months easy.

I do not expect Mitt to lose in Florida, and I never have.
But I dont know the future too, so there is Newt's 'chance' to consider.

If you are watching the results of Florida come in and they show Mitt behind?....then get ready for this election going for another 2 months the same way it has been going....and that Mitt might be asked to step aside at some point.

However even if Newt wins in Florida, I would not expect him to lead the ticket against Obama in the fall....

alanmolstad

01-30-2012, 01:09 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHpCI4dwVRQ&feature=g-all-u&context=G21a11c9FAAAAAAAAGAA

BigJulie

01-31-2012, 03:06 PM

alanmolstad

01-31-2012, 09:43 PM

If Mitt gets a win by way more than 11% we can say he really "won"

So Julie, I know you want Mitt to come out of Florida without Newt hanging around anymore, so I would look for about a 17% or higher victory over Newt as being what you are looking for.

But if Mitt wins with say 11% to 15%?.....then this is going to last another 2 months easy.

.

as the returns come in it looks like Mitt will beat Newt by around 15%

This is a clear victory for Mitt, but not enough to end Newt's run...

However it is more than enough to end Rick's run.
I expect to hear that Rick is suspending his run in the next few days.

As for Ron Paul?
Ron never tried to do anything in Florida, and so he likely will stay in it until we can get to some States where he expects to do better.

Newt is likely going to stay in this for another month or so now.
He lost big in Florida, but just not by enough to drive him out of the race yet.

BigJulie

01-31-2012, 10:02 PM

as the returns come in it looks like Mitt will beat Newt by around 15%

This is a clear victory for Mitt, but not enough to end Newt's run...

However it is more than enough to end Rick's run.
I expect to hear that Rick is suspending his run in the next few days.

As for Ron Paul?
Ron never tried to do anything in Florida, and so he likely will stay in it until we can get to some States where he expects to do better.

Newt is likely going to stay in this for another month or so now.
He lost big in Florida, but just not by enough to drive him out of the race yet.

I think even if Newt lost by 17%, his ego would prevent him from exiting the race--his concession speech almost sounded like he is planning on running as a third man in the race if he doesn't get the GOP.

I am not surprised that women are leaving him in droves. Men may think that a man is worth his salt after cheating on a wife, but women tend to know that the man you know at home is the true view of a man and if the woman ain't happy--then no one is going to be happy.

This country isn't a "good old boys" club anymore where the women are happy to let the men fool around and pretend that all is well.

alanmolstad

02-01-2012, 05:37 AM

There are now 2 things left in doubt in this election....

Ron Paul has always been planning on a making his real showing in the 2nd half of the Primary, and so we are now just at the beginning of his actually run for the White House.

and....

Rick seems willing to try to out-live Newt.

I do not know where rick gets his money, but he has hung on now for a long time with really no hope of winning anything more.

at first I was thinking that it was just that he had a 'dream" of beating Mitt in Florida, but when we came out of SC with Rick clearly fading, i was a bit stumped as to why Rick would want to even show up in Florida?

But given the way Newt had now fell off the pace, I think Rick has spotted a opportunity for himself to jump in line ahead of Newt.

It comes down to raw money at this point.
Rick and New were out spent by Mitt's people from between 5 to 1, to in some markets 10 to 1....

In many of the next States headed to Super Tuesday (When I get to vote) we see that it only Mitt and Ron Paul have any boots-on-the-ground right now. This is a sign that regardless of the current battle between Newt and Rick for 2nd place, its not really going to matter much in the long run.

at this point,,,,,,the only last story to learn is what actually is the deal with Ron Paul in this election?

How much support does he actually have in the Western States?

Will he be able to bring his 'believers" to the polls in numbers that give him a real shot?

and.....at what point will Newt and Rick give it up?

oh, and one more thing....given the results of Florida I do not expect much more talk of an Open Convention at this point....

BigJulie

02-01-2012, 11:37 AM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;114565]There are now 2 things left in doubt in this election....

Ron Paul has always been planning on a making his real showing in the 2nd half of the Primary, and so we are now just at the beginning of his actually run for the White House.

and....

Rick seems willing to try to out-live Newt.

I do not know where rick gets his money, but he has hung on now for a long time with really no hope of winning anything more.

at first I was thinking that it was just that he had a 'dream" of beating Mitt in Florida, but when we came out of SC with Rick clearly fading, i was a bit stumped as to why Rick would want to even show up in Florida? I am considering sending money to Rick---I like him as my number two choice. I hope he sticks in there.

But given the way Newt had now fell off the pace, I think Rick has spotted a opportunity for himself to jump in line ahead of Newt.

It comes down to raw money at this point.
Rick and New were out spent by Mitt's people from between 5 to 1, to in some markets 10 to 1.... Yup, running for President takes years of preparation and financial support. If you don't have that--then there is no way you have a chance against Obama and his union machine.

In many of the next States headed to Super Tuesday (When I get to vote) we see that it only Mitt and Ron Paul have any boots-on-the-ground right now. This is a sign that regardless of the current battle between Newt and Rick for 2nd place, its not really going to matter much in the long run.

at this point,,,,,,the only last story to learn is what actually is the deal with Ron Paul in this election?

How much support does he actually have in the Western States? He has a lot of support here and I am out West.

oh, and one more thing....given the results of Florida I do not expect much more talk of an Open Convention at this point.... It would be foolish to bring in a new-comer that late in the game.

alanmolstad

02-01-2012, 11:49 AM

Yup, running for President takes years of preparation and financial support. .
...

This is how Bush 1 and 2 and Dole and McCain and now Mitt have got the nomination....they all tried and came in 2nd, and then in the next election they had an organization up and running and a lot of names willing to send in cash.

This points us to both Newt and Rick....
They both seem now to be getting into a position to be in the lead at the start of the next election the way Mitt was in the lead at the start of this one.

Right now the whole Republican Primary has taught us one very clear thing....The Conservatives will not support Mitt....no matter what.

Everyone in the Party now sees this.
We all know that when it comes right down to it, the conservatives would vote for a lump of coal before they would vote for Mitt.

The other thing we know is that no Republican can win the White House without the full support of Conservatives.

so.....Knowing all this....we can look at Newt and Rick and see how they are both looking down the road to 4 years from now, and really wanting to be in the lead going into that election where there is no incumbent President.

So, from both Newt's and Rick's point of view....the best thing to happen is for them to try to set themselves up for 4 years from now, knowing that Mitt will lose to Obama because Mitt lacks conservative support .

BigJulie

02-01-2012, 02:27 PM

...

Right now the whole Republican Primary has taught us one very clear thing....The Conservatives will not support Mitt....no matter what.

Yes, I get this---those ever faithful conservatives would rather have four more years of Obama than vote for someone who is not conservative enough. Yeah---that makes a lot of sense to me. :eek:

alanmolstad

02-01-2012, 10:28 PM

Over the last 12 hours I have been reading a lot of comments by leading Republican Conservatives. and there is something afoot.

I think there is about to organize a push from many leading conservative media sources to get Newt to drop out...

No one can force Newt to drop out,,,but I think we are about to see a more united conservative front approach Newt....grab Newt's hat and coat, and point the way to the exit...
The truth is that from now on Newt really can do a lot of harm to the Party.
Newt has to start thinking about 4 years from now if Mitt should lose to Obama, and so Newt does not want to start burning the bridges he will need to cross later.

I think in the next few days some major Conservative voices like Rush will be dropping the hint that "Right now" would be a great time for Newt to thank everyone for supporting him, and calling a cab.

BigJulie

02-02-2012, 10:51 AM

Rush has been a huge Newt supporter and talking to my women friends---this has done nothing but hurt Rush's reputation. I stopped listening to him when he supported Cain...I thought, four women state that he has harr***ed them and you really question not one, not two, but FOUR women? So, every once in a while I will turn on the radio while I am doing dishes to listen to Rush support Newt and then, the radio is off again. I just can't stomach it. To me, it is one set of out of control hormones supporting another set of out of control hormones. Men, if they want to understand women, should learn that they are not really keen on men backing men doing this type of thing.

Anyway, so it would be really interesting if Rush is finally reading the writing on the wall and coming to terms that when you support someone who "talks" conservative, but then acts like a narcissist, well---we all don't believe just the talk.

alanmolstad

02-02-2012, 11:17 AM

Thats very silly.......

we are not voting for "husband of the year" and men and women who are serious about the office of the Presidency understand this.

Remember if we were voting on "Who is the most moral?" then Mitt would have to drop out of this election as he is a member of a well-known anti-christian CULT...

When I started this topic I pointed out that when I vote for someone for president I do not take into account personal things like :
who they worship,
what secret undies they wear,
what direction they kneel when they pray,
who they marry,
who they cheat on their wife with,
who they think should win the Super Bowl.......etc, etc, etc.

all that type of personal stuff I think should be off the table...

It's not relevant to the *** they are applying for.

I think it should be like when I hire a guy work at my roofing company

Do I care if he is a Christian?....no

Do I care that he is married or single?....no

Do I care he is a good husband?....no

Do I care that he has kids?....no

Do I care that he has 3 ex-wives?....no

Do I care when he prays he kneels to Mecca?...no

Do I care if he has always been a loyal husband?...no

Do I care if he is a Mormon?...no

so what do I care about?
I only care that he knows how to fix a roof....

BigJulie

02-02-2012, 01:29 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;114686]Thats very silly.......

we are not voting for "husband of the year" and men and women who are serious about the office of the Presidency understand this. But his "husband" behavior seems consistent with his other behavior and I say, if you will lie to your wife, who else will you lie to? Newt's isnt' a case of divorce, it is a case of multiple affairs. This speaks to some basic lack of morals.

Remember if we were voting on "Who is the most moral?" then Mitt would have to drop out of this election as he is a member of a well-known anti-christian CULT... Yes, I am beginning to understand more fully that "evangelical christians' care more about what you say than what you do. Hence, unchristian to them is defined by belief and not behavior. Someone who follows Christ, to evangelicals, appears to be more of just lip service---give the right lip service and your good.

When I started this topic I pointed out that when I vote for someone for president I do not take into account personal things like :
who they worship,
what secret undies they wear,
what direction they kneel when they pray,
who they marry,
who they cheat on their wife with,
who they think should win the Super Bowl.......etc, etc, etc. Interesting that you would put what type of underwear someone wears right up there with cheating on their wife. Hmmm.

so what do I care about?
I only care that he knows how to fix a roof.... So, you don't think that this cheating, lying husband might translate to a cheating lying roofer? Do you really think that men separate themselves like that...that they are one way to their wife and another to their business ***ociates? My experience says that people are the same across the board--if he will cheat on his wife, he will cheat you as well.

alanmolstad

02-02-2012, 01:49 PM

[QUOTE]
So, you don't think that this cheating, lying husband might translate to a cheating lying roofer.

Go find me a roofer's *** application that includes a the question "Have you ever cheated on your wife?" and you may have a point.

But until then......sorry, your point is moot.

alanmolstad

02-02-2012, 01:52 PM

lets just look at this question from my point of view using your logic.....

If Mitt is so messed up in the head,(Not my original phrasing) that he does not even know the right God to worship....why would I trust him to run the whole country?

I mean really...come on!

If Mitt cant even figure out that Joe Smith was a big fat lie-telling freak, (something I expect my own little children to understand) than why would i expect him to be smart enough to run this country?

BigJulie

02-02-2012, 01:58 PM

[QUOTE=BigJulie;114708]

Go find me a roofer's *** application that includes a the question "Have you ever cheated on your wife?" and you may have a point.

But until then......sorry, your point is moot.

Show me the person who knows this information about their roofer that doesn't think twice about getting another roofer.

alanmolstad

02-02-2012, 01:59 PM

do you see how there is a wisdom in allowing people to have a private life?

Dont you see the wisdom in pushing personal/private things , like the personal relationship a man has with his wife, off the table and to try to keep an election about political issues .....you know, the stuff the President will actually need to know how to do?

alanmolstad

02-02-2012, 02:01 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;114715]

Show me the person who knows this information about their roofer that doesn't think twice about getting another roofer.

No one ever.....ever...ever asks such questions..

Do you not even understand the trouble with the law a person could have for even bringing up such a topic...

It would be like asking a women if she was still a virgin?....and then basing her hiring and her pay on her answer.

alanmolstad

02-02-2012, 02:02 PM

Does a man have a right to know if his cleaning help is a virgin?

alanmolstad

02-02-2012, 02:06 PM

I once went in to apply for a *** at the Artic Cat factory.
I was in a room doing my interview with one other person (a lady my age) who also was up for the same ***.

On paper we had about the same work experience, but did I have a right to point out that we should find out of the girl is still a virgin?

Or perhaps had a black grand father.....?

Would that not be a great way to get the *** by showing how perhaps a non-virgin at some point in the past was a trouble maker...or that all black people steal?

alanmolstad

02-02-2012, 02:09 PM

The only answer, the only correct answer...the only Christian answer is to take all that personal stuff off the table,

and let the person apply for the *** based ONLY on their merit at doing the ***.

and never allow our own person feelings about the other person's private life effect our hiring or our voting.

if I decide, or if we as a country decide to only vote for people we agree with on personal/private issues, (faith., marriage etc), then you can forget right now of ever seeing Mitt win anything outside of Utah.....

BigJulie

02-02-2012, 08:25 PM

[QUOTE=BigJulie;114719]

No one ever.....ever...ever asks such questions..

Do you not even understand the trouble with the law a person could have for even bringing up such a topic...

It would be like asking a women if she was still a virgin?....and then basing her hiring and her pay on her answer.

I am not saying you asked the question, rather---that you already know the answer.

BigJulie

02-02-2012, 08:26 PM

Does a man have a right to know if his cleaning help is a virgin?

Cheating on your spouse is not in the same ball-park as whether or not someone is a virgin. Losing your virginity does not require being deceitful in both thought, action, and words to a trusted companion.

If I was creating a business partnership---which a president is---then I would certainly be leerly regarding if I knew he was known to lie.

The thing that is interesting to me in this whole discussion is that you seem to think a person's professed beliefs are more important than their behaviors and actions when it comes to whether or not you would trust them with your well-being.

alanmolstad

02-02-2012, 08:43 PM

Cheating on your spouse is not in the same ball-park as whether or not someone is a virgin.

thats your point of view...LOL

What Im saying is that you would get your **** in a law suit if you start to use person and private things like marriage, or girl friends, or religion as a way to hand out ***s ....

The best answer is to understand that people have a right to have a private life that is no **** business of the boss.......

BigJulie

02-02-2012, 08:55 PM

thats your point of view...LOL

What Im saying is that you would get your **** in a law suit if you start to use person and private things like marriage, or girl friends, or religion as a way to hand out ***s ....

The best answer is to understand that people have a right to have a private life that is no **** business of the boss.......

Well---the fact that Newt has had multiple affairs IS KNOWN---whether or not you think it is right.

So, how is it you excuse someone who is KNOWN to have lied to his partner in every way? I mean, personally, we had a neighbor across the street who cheated on his wife and left her. I liked the guy---but would I trust him with our country's well-being and as such, my well-being and my family's well-being? NO WAY!

alanmolstad

02-03-2012, 11:50 AM

So, how is it you excuse someone who is KNOWN to have lied to his partner .......The same way i would not hold a person's different faith against them.

such things are personal matters between him and his wife,,,,or between him and his Lord.

and none of my business.

If Mitt were applying for the position of bible teacher at my church I would ban him because he does not have a clue who God is..

But he is not applying for the *** of a bible teacher.

BigJulie

02-03-2012, 12:08 PM

...The same way i would not hold a person's different faith against them.

such things are personal matters between him and his wife,,,,or between him and his Lord.

and none of my business.

If Mitt were applying for the position of bible teacher at my church I would ban him because he does not have a clue who God is..

But he is not applying for the *** of a bible teacher.

Hmmm, this is an interesting difference between you and me. As far as a person's religion or beliefs, when it comes to a matter of politics, it is not important to me. What I care about is what someone DOES. What does it matter what they say they believe if they do something different?

This is being born out right now with our current president. He will get up and state one thing and then do something completely different. Do you remember how much he spoke of transparency and how he was going to be a transparent president? And yet what he has done has been just the opposite; even to the extreme of secretive. Do you remember how he talked of letting everyone have a certain amount of time before he would sign a bill into law? But, he did just the oppposite.

So, to you, you seem to think what a person beliefs is more important than what they do. If they say they believe in Mormonism, than that is more important then how they behave.

I am just the opposite. What a person professes to believe (when I am looking at them for an office) is less important to me than what they do. For to me, is is the doing that really tells what the person believes. I can say that I believe in being transparent, but if I am not--what does it matter what I say?

So, to me, to hold up a persons faith against a persons actions and state that they are the same---well, to me, they are not--what someone does has always been most important to judge their character by.

What you express does make more sense as to why evangelicals would support someone based on what they say (in a debate for instance) rather than what they did while in and out of office. Those of us who are paying more attention to the doing rather than the saying would never dream of putting someone in who has shown to be so problematic by his behavior.

alanmolstad

02-06-2012, 05:55 AM

evangelicals would support someone based on what they say (in a debate for instance) rather than what they did while in and out of office. r.
Yes....
It is the only correct path for me to walk in.

To judge others by the standard I would want them to use to judge me by.

Not by digging up dirt...

Not by listening to gossip.

But judge me by how I do in a debate...how I have done the *** in the past...how I raise my voice to support your views .

In other words, judge me for a political office by my politics.

BigJulie

02-06-2012, 08:07 PM

Yes....
It is the only correct path for me to walk in.

To judge others by the standard I would want them to use to judge me by.

Not by digging up dirt...

Not by listening to gossip.

But judge me by how I do in a debate...how I have done the *** in the past...how I raise my voice to support your views .

In other words, judge me for a political office by my politics.

This is fascinating to me---because it appears that when it comes to my own religion, you would prefer that I listen to he "gossip" "dirt" etc rather than what I hear at church. Why the double standard?

alanmolstad

02-06-2012, 09:54 PM

This is fascinating to me---because it appears that when it comes to my own religion, you would prefer that I listen to he "gossip" "dirt" etc rather than what I hear at church. Why the double standard?If Joe Smith were running for President, I would never raise an issue of his personal marriage, sex life, or religious views.

All that stuff would be off the table if he were running for office as far as Im concerned.

I would judge J Smith only on his politics, he ability to give a voice to my views, and other things directly connected to being president.

So if J Smith were running for president, I would not care about his personal life.....the fact they he slept around would be none of my business

That is different than if J Smith were running for a position in my church .
Then I would go over his personal life with a microscope!

I would look for the slightest error in his personal conduct, his sex life, or his religious teachings......all that stuff is MOST important!

So when you say i want you to judge j Smith in a different manner than hiring a roofer, or a guy to fix your car tires, or Obama?...you are correct.

I want you to understand that guys like Mitt and Newt and Rick and Obama are not in the running to be "Husband of the year" or "Religious teacher of the year"...

They are running for President.
the office of President is a political ***.
therefore we have to judge people on how well they do political ***s.

if we were hiring a roofer, we would have to judge who we will hire on roofing ability...

If we were hiring a guy to fix a car tire, we would have to judge who to hire on how well they do fixing tires....

it does not matter a hoot if the guy you hire to fix your car tire is a great husband, loved by his children, and a well respected Bible teacher, if he dont have a clue how to fix a tire correctly.

So yes Julie,,,any spiritual authority has to live a life above reproach...

alanmolstad

02-08-2012, 05:35 AM

Rick seems willing to try to out-live Newt.

I do not know where rick gets his money, but he has hung on now for a long time with really no hope of winning anything more.

at first I was thinking that it was just that he had a 'dream" of beating Mitt in Florida, but when we came out of SC with Rick clearly fading, i was a bit stumped as to why Rick would want to even show up in Florida?

But given the way Newt had now fell off the pace, I think Rick has spotted a opportunity for himself to jump in line ahead of Newt.

This morning i hear that Rick kicked **** over Newt....

Suddenly we may see the race switch to being with only one conservative voice going up against Mitt.

The results from even liberal Minnesota (next to where I live) show us that Mitt simply has little support amoung real conservatives , and that the party seems to now understand that without the support of the Republican conservative base Mitt has no chance of beating Obama in the fall.

Once again, Im hearing that Super Tuesday might not even be the end of this, and that the leadership of the party might have to start looking for another name to come in at an "Open Convention".

alanmolstad

02-08-2012, 11:31 PM

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/08/2005_romney_flip_flopped_forced_catholic_hospitals _to_distribute_morning_after_pill

alanmolstad

02-09-2012, 11:08 AM

alanmolstad

02-10-2012, 10:12 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/9/conservatives-fancy-idea-long-nomination-fight/

The talk of an Open Convention is starting to work its way into every conversation about this election....

alanmolstad

02-10-2012, 07:22 PM

http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/02/top-republican-at-cpac-jeb-bush-could-emerge-as-nominee-at-a-brokered-convention-.html

The first serious name to rise in connection to the idea that we are headed to an open convention

BigJulie

02-11-2012, 07:24 PM

On Rush's radio show I heard played a lot of recordings of Rick speaking on the social issues that loom so importantly in the mind's of conservatives.

Listening to him speak, is there any wonder that the conservatives have clearly abandoned Mitt in favor of Rick?

The p***ion in Rick's voice, the heartfelt tone that he can speak to this topic with,,,,there simply is no one else in this election who can come close to Rick's testimony.

I don't know the future, I don't know who will lead the Republican ticket.
But I do know that Rick brings a voice to the issues that I care about.

Long ago in this topic I suggested a little prediction that once Newt were to begin to fade in the polling numbers that the conservatives would likely all gather around Rick, and this seems to now be happening as we finally pick the guy we want to lead the ticket.

Rick is very conservative on social issues. That said---when making a decision, for me, it is far more than just the social issues.

Mitt Romney to me will not only support social issues, but will help this economy get back on track. Right now I am taking an international economics cl***. If we are slaved economically, then social issues will go the way side as well. We can see this already happening.

alanmolstad

02-13-2012, 10:24 AM

BigJulie

02-13-2012, 03:01 PM

What conservatives like about Rick over Mitt is the total consistency of Rick's life in supporting his political views.

You know where Rick stands because you can see where he has stood.

Take any conservative issue like Abortion and the right to life for example.
Rick's is a life of always supporting the right of the unborn child to live.

Mitt on the other hand is a flip-flopper and on this issue of abortion he has a flip-flopper's history with it.

That is what concerns conservatives, the fact that Mitt cant be trusted...you just never can be sure what his next flip-flop on the issue of abortion might be?..

Who knows what he might support next week?.....

What we have seen over the last week as well as going back to the SC Primary is the clear sign that Mitt is never going to get the support of the conservatives he would need to win the White House.

I also see going on in the Republican leadership is a much more open move to dump Mitt even if it looks like he has the votes to win the nomination.

Clearly this surge by Rick over the last 2 weeks has caused the whole Party to come to the understanding that "Mitt is just not the guy we want".....

now the only question is...."How to ask Mitt to step aside?"

You know what is interesting---I know two people who personally know Mitt Romney very well....and they have both said unequivobally, he is one of the best people they know.

It is sad to me that if he wins the nomination that there are those like you who seem to think that there are those who won't vote for him because he is a "flip-flopper". To me, this is just a label from those who speak of repentence for people like Newt, but don't believe in it for a person like Mitt.

I personally believe Mitt is a fixer. Those who know him state that he doesn't see a problem without looking for solutions. Rick has his strengths in his strong convictions as a Catholic....but as you said, we are not electing a pastor.

alanmolstad

02-13-2012, 06:49 PM

You know what is interesting---I know two people who personally know Mitt Romney very well....and they have both said unequivobally, he is one of the best people they know.

Im sure they all are nice people.
But we are not electing someone to be "Nice person of the year"......

alanmolstad

02-13-2012, 06:51 PM

Rick has his strengths in his strong convictions as a Catholic...I did not know he was Catholic....
It does not matter to me, but I did not know it anyway....

alanmolstad

02-13-2012, 06:53 PM

I think that the phone is ringing for Newt to step aside and let Rick have all the attention now.

Im also hearing about many in the Republican leadership starting to talk about when to talk to Mitt about dropping out too....

alanmolstad

02-13-2012, 06:56 PM

More proof that the Republican Leadership is now clearly trying to get rid of Mitt and to push Rick into center stage...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290895/santorum-s-turn-editors

alanmolstad

02-13-2012, 06:59 PM

a quote from the link I posted above...

"So far Romney has been running mostly on his biography: Republicans are supposed to vote for him because he is a family man and shrewd businessman.
And Republicans, even the many who are well disposed to him, have been saying as loud as they can: It isn’t enough."

that's what i have been saying for a long time now....

alanmolstad

02-13-2012, 07:04 PM

"Rick Santorum Has Conservatism in His Bodily Fluids"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/13/rick_santorum_has_conservatism_in_his_bodily_fluid s

BigJulie

02-13-2012, 07:46 PM

"Rick Santorum Has Conservatism in His Bodily Fluids"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/13/rick_santorum_has_conservatism_in_his_bodily_fluid s

Yes, I actually heard that on Rush today. I thought to myself---is he one of these "radio" personalities the group of pastors who got together in Texas were using to promote Rick Santorum?

alanmolstad

02-14-2012, 03:59 AM

I think if we check we will not find any real strong support for Mitt among any Conservative talk radio...

Mitt does have support, mostly from the establishment Republicans like George Will who are well known on TV but not so much on radio.

Also the dems who post on internet blogs and do Tv commentary are all in Mitt's camp and ready to run agauinst him in the fall.

The Liberals want Mitt to beat Rick because running against Mitt later means so much is off the table.
Healthcare, social issues, Abortion, personal faith, all the core issues to Conservatives would be left out of the debate.

Rick's stumbling block is in debates.
I watch Rick in each debate and he just seems about another 10 years from being ready to be up there on the stage.

Mitt is a way better in the debates.

The counter for me in that is that there is just something about Rick that says at all times "Genuine" ....as in "What you see is what you get"

The only gut feeling many conservatives get when they watch Mitt is, "artificial"

There is talk that the money is finally running out for Newt, and that his rich supporter is not all excited to toss more Newt's way.
If Newt runs out of cash then it does not matter if he stays in the race or not.
There is some suggestion in the media that Newt might want to stay in the race just to have a soapbox to stand on to hurt Mitt all the way to the general election.

we shall see.

alanmolstad

02-14-2012, 04:10 AM

Because Florida gave Mitt a victory that just short of what he needed to drive others out of the race, they all are now headed to the big show-down on Super Tuesday. (on March 6th)

On that day we will see 10 States take their turn at picking the winner of this race...
We here in ND also get to vote that day!

I used to think that it would be 'all over' by the time I got to vote, but that is just not true this year.

The fact is that this year my vote will actually matter.
So few of us vote here, that each vote has the ability to cause a swing at times, so we shall see how we do?

At the current time I would have no problem voting for Mitt over Obama, but right now I also would have no problem voting for Rick over Mitt.

But no matter how it ends up here, the truth is that the real telling States will be coming up on Feb 28 .
Arizona...will show us all if Ron Paul should get out?
Michigan ...will show us how strong Mitt's support still is ?
........

BigJulie

02-14-2012, 12:35 PM

So, I have liked Rick--and when I think about whether or not I want a candidate---I go to their voting record.

This is what I can see from Rick. He is very conservative on social issues. He is very liberal on the size and scope of government. He knows nothing about economics or how growth is obtained and works. He knows nothing about national security when it comes to economics.

alanmolstad

02-14-2012, 02:03 PM

This is what I can see from Rick. He is very conservative on social issues.
I think the general election will center on the social issues for conservatives.

I dont really think the economy will really be all that much of a big deal by then.

What i want is a guy to stand up to Obama on social issues, and be able to put his record up against Obama's ...

At the current time I dont see Mitt being able to act in a manner that Im looking for in the leader of the ticket.

Im not sure what ranking Rick has by the leading conservatives for ranking people?....but that might be learned later.

Right now Im glad that Rick is stepping up into the bright lights and saying the things that Mitt was not saying and I wanted said by someone!

Rick still seems not really all that ready to out-debate Obama, but thats what getting a good staff is for I guess.

The future is unknown to me, so i dont really know who will lead the ticket at this point.

But I do see a lot of conservatives like myself looking at Rick and being "ok" with him leading the ticket.

What I see when i look at Rick is a guy who has truly lived a life that reflects a life-long , deep conservatism that I expect out of a good Republican president.

Rick is genuine...
Rick is real....
Rick does not have the "baggage" that Mitt and Newt have....

BigJulie

02-14-2012, 02:09 PM

Rick has plenty of baggage--it is not hard to find blogs or articles written about his baggage when one does a little looking into Rick.

So, you think this election will be about social issues and not the economy. Well, as someone who has been studying economics for the past couple of years--I guess, we can all put our heads in the sand and think that a rise in the stock market is enough to satisfy.

I, on the other hand, know that some key components of our economy have been on the downhill slide since 1983. I know that our debt level is unsustainable and how we address it will be key to not only our prosperity, but our freedom. I know that if we continue on this trend, our children will suffer greatly and their children more so after them.

So, you go ahead and vote for social issues. I will vote for someone who I think will get not only get our economy on the right track, but do so with conservative underlying principles, the ability to see both sides of the issue, and the ability to work with all kinds of people.

And what became aparently obvious from looking at Rick's voting record is that other than strong Catholic values, Rick does not understand our world from an educated viewpoint. In fact, I think I am going to go look at what his degree is in. I will be surprised if it is in business because he doesn't vote as if he understands it.

Okay, I just looked it up---he has an MBA and a JD---he's a lawyer. But I am shocked he has an MBA because his voting record seems to show a lack of insight into economics and you usually have to have at least basic economic cl***es for an MBA. It makes me wonder why he voted the way he did.

alanmolstad

02-14-2012, 05:12 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/santorums-favorability-advances-matches-romney-among-republicans/

I think we can no longer maintain the myth that Mitt is the front-runner...

Clearly despite Rick being outspent in every state and in every county he has now proved to be Mitt's equal in the eyes of Republicans.

we can only imagine what this race would be like had Rick been given the same built-in advantage that Mitt has enjoyed from the beginning.

Chances are that had Rick the money of Mitt at the start, that by now we would be saying "Mitt? ... Mitt who?

I think that Rick now stands at a very important point in his race to the White House....
What Rick needs is to beat Mitt in a State that represents the Party.

I think that the next big test to see what future Rick has will come in AZ.........

Should Rick do well in AZ we may be talking about only a short matter of time before Mitt drops out....

alanmolstad

02-14-2012, 05:18 PM

BigJulie

02-14-2012, 09:45 PM

I did a little checking with how Rick rates with conservatives, and with Christians, and with gun owners...

http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054

hard to find a place to find fault with Rick's ratings.....

My kinda guy!

Yup, now---that all your pastors have gotten together and decided that for you. I guess you couldn' t have figured that out two months ago. :rolleyes:

alanmolstad

02-15-2012, 03:46 AM

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000073023

The media is now saying that Michigan is starting to loom bigger and bigger in this election.

from this link Im getting the idea that Mitt is tossing a lot of chips into this State because he knows that not doing well there will only lead to more talk about an open convention.

I cant predict the future , but should Mitt get into trouble in Michigan its going to really kick this down the road and we will clearly end up at the convention with a lot of talk about dropping Mitt no matter how many votes he has at the con.

On the other hand, if Rick does poorly it will not really be all that bad for him in the long run...
It will slow him down for sure, but the main battle Rick and Newt is in right now is all about Super Tuesday...

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 09:29 AM

So, they published Rick's tax records for the past four years---hmmm, he gave 2.2% in 2011 of his 3 plus million to charity--dropped to 1.7% before that---why am I not surprised that he does not put his money where his mouth is?

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 10:58 AM

So, they published Rick's tax records ...Is there even the slightest hint that there is a legal problem with his taxes?

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 10:59 AM

I also would like to ask how much money compared to others does Rick make?

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 11:31 AM

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 11:36 AM

Has everyone seen the newest polling numbers coming out of Ohio?....

Very interesting....
It appears that the election now has a new front runner in Rick!

http://www.syracuse.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/poll-santorum-jumps-in-front-of-romney-in-ohio/adb0aca685314cd785367e06f0510970

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 01:39 PM

I also would like to ask how much money compared to others does Rick make?

The bigger question is where does Rick make his money? The fact that he only gives such a meager amount to charity while making millions speaks to his real beliefs about charitable giving in the U.S.---at the same time, he is a huge supporter of foreign aid which has been shown to aid corruption in this country as well as the country given to while statistically proven that it hurts the poor in aid-country. Sheesh---I swear, I would love to find any evidence that this guy actually learned something in school.

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 01:40 PM

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 01:43 PM

Now to the issue of tax returns, why is this such a big deal?

The answer is that it is a valid concern to know where someone is getting their money.
This helps us all know where a person's heart is...what they are up to.

Knowing where a guy is getting the most money helps us all be able to trust that the person is not working for China, or other foreign governments, or in the pocket of special interests.

As to what the people do with their money?...thats more a personal issue.

As long as they dont spend it doing something against the law its not really any of our business what a guy spends his money on.

We all know that all these guys are giving to different causes out of their great abundance, and that none of us is saying that Mitt, Newt, Rick or Paul , gave so much money away they ended up in the poor house.

Im sure a guy who is worth around 300 million can get a nice reputation for cutting checks for different needy causes over the years...
and if we were deciding who was to be president on the question of who gave more of their money away?, then this question would not be moot.

But we are not deciding who gave the most money away, so the question as to what Mitt and Rick do with their wealth is moot.

The only issue with getting the tax returns out is that we all can know where they "earn" their money.

I dont actually care if they spend most of it on buying ice cream and cigarettes.

The bigger question is where does Rick make his money? The fact that he only gives such a meager amount to charity while making millions speaks to his real beliefs about charitable giving in the U.S.---at the same time, he is a huge supporter of foreign aid which has been shown to aid corruption in this country as well as the country given to while statistically proven that it hurts the poor in aid-country. Sheesh---I swear, I would love to find any evidence that this guy actually learned something in school.

I don't think the amount of money you have dictates the amount of aid you give. I give well over 10%--more than just ***he, and I am in no way close to being a millionaire.
__________________

And yes, you have made it clear that the character of the candidate is of no concern to you...but rather what the cult following of evangelicals are doing at the moment---are they supporting Perry---Cain---Newt---Santorum? Jump on board the lemming express!

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 02:09 PM

The bigger question is where does Rick make his money?

Yes, the idea behind the need to ask about all the tax returns is that it is important to know where I guy has made his money over the last few years?

Its not really any of our business as to what people do with their money, being thats a very personal issue and none of our business.

But knowing how a person has earned his money over the last 10 years or so is a very good thing to ask about of any person running for President.

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 02:16 PM

... I give well over ....

Im reminded of the story of the rich man who gave, and the poor widow,,,

The rich do get a lot of the headlines in this world when they give their millions to this or than cause.

But lets face the real facts as outlined by Jesus to us, and the FACT is = that the rich give out of their great abundance....

They dont get any credit with God for all this giving on their part,,,,because God already knows they do so out of their greater abundance...

Now as for a general rule about giving:
Giving is a personal decision that is between the person and their Lord.
It's none of my business that this or that forum member gives more that this or that other forum member....

The best thing to do is not to tell anyone what you give, (Let it be always done in secret).....and to not be concerned with how your giving looks to others, nor how their giving looks to you.

Dont let your right hand know what your left hand is doing....

Now this puts me at odds with many Christians and members of CULTS that seek to not just 'suggest" a target percent% is to be given, but they also belong to churches or CULTS that ask at times for proof.

To me there is no more clear sign that a person has joined a Christian church or non-Christian CULT that is far too preoccupied with money than when they ask you to bring in your income tax forms to check.
The moment you find yourself asked to bring in a tax form, or to automatically sign-over a percent of your income for the church in order to obtain some type of admission to higher church positions, or a secret church rite, or anything like that, you should pack up and get out of that church in a hurry.....

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 02:34 PM

i knew a friend that was so proud that his church was a '***hing church"
He would point out that every member of the paid church leadership would give a min of 10% back to the church.

To me this was a moot point.
It's like, if you knew your wadges were going to be lowered by 10% you allow for this in what you are asking for at the start.

An example is:
That if the going rate of pay for a guy to cut the gr*** at the church is $10.00 an hour, and that you know its a requirement that you give back to the church $1 , then you can simply adjust for this by asking for $11.00 per hour,....

On paper , it works and everyone is happy.
But in real life is all just a joke that does not fool God...

Now as for Mitt's gift?

The other thing Im not impressed with at all are rich who are members of CULTS that require a paying of a ***he just to enter into positions within the CULT or to b e allowed to go to different CULT functions.

To me their giving is moot, as its giving to a known EVIL, and therefor is rejected by God, and in the eyes of the church.

So in other words....any donations to a CULT like the Mormon church is a moot point.
It's seen as spreading EVIL in God's eyes, and is looked on with disgust by His church...

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 02:43 PM

And yes, you have made it clear .....

I hope I have made it clear that I do not hold the personal views on things like religion, or how rich or poor a guy is, or his color, or if he is married or not against a person when i vote.

I find the Mormonism of Mitt to be totally insulting to God, and a disgusting false , hopeless, faith that will in the end, condemn him and all other Mormons to an ever-burning HELL....

and If I considered that important to the office of President, then I would never vote for Mitt.

The same is true for the many wives and girlfriends of Newt...
I find much of their personal lives to be disgusting,,,yet not important when looking at who would make a good voice for my views in the White House.

Im very sure that the Mitt army of attack dogs will dig up some type of personal dirt on Rick soon....and My guess is that people will try to use that as a way to undercut support for him.

But I just dont look at who im going to vote for like that.

I dont care about the purely personal issues.
I could not care less what type of marriage the guy fixing my roof has...or what color he is, or if he is a Mormon or not...

All i care about is if he can fix my roof?

From my stand point, my views on this matter are the only correct ones, and are in-line with being a true Christian and free American.

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 04:35 PM

Yes, the idea behind the need to ask about all the tax returns is that it is important to know where I guy has made his money over the last few years?

Its not really any of our business as to what people do with their money, being thats a very personal issue and none of our business.

But knowing how a person has earned his money over the last 10 years or so is a very good thing to ask about of any person running for President.

I have not seen any reports on how Rick has made his money--I have been told is through lobbying; not great--it means he left government only to make his money off of government.

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 04:42 PM

Im reminded of the story of the rich man who gave, and the poor widow,,,

The rich do get a lot of the headlines in this world when they give their millions to this or than cause.

But lets face the real facts as outlined by Jesus to us, and the FACT is = that the rich give out of their great abundance.... Yes, but what does it say about a person's heart if they have a lot of money and give very little---it is like the rich giving the widow's mite. And then that same person being willing to vote for a lot of your money being spent via the government as Rick did---that doesn't sit well with me.

[QUOTE]Now as for a general rule about giving:
Giving is a personal decision that is between the person and their Lord.
It's none of my business that this or that forum member gives more that this or that other forum member.... Actually, the insistence of the need to see our possible president's tax returns said that this is an important issue to donors.

The best thing to do is not to tell anyone what you give, (Let it be always done in secret).....and to not be concerned with how your giving looks to others, nor how their giving looks to you.

Dont let your right hand know what your left hand is doing.... Yeah, yeah--and the person who donates to charity but does not take advantage of it on tax records so that he has less to give is just plain s.tupid.

Now this puts me at odds with many Christians and members of CULTS that seek to not just 'suggest" a target percent% is to be given, but they also belong to churches or CULTS that ask at times for proof. My church does not ask for proof. Whenever you say the word "cult" I am reminded it is the evangelicals that seem to be more lead on "who to vote for" by their leaders, than any Mormon is. By this definition--it appears that the only cult here is the one you perscribe to.

To me there is no more clear sign that a person has joined a Christian church or non-Christian CULT that is far too preoccupied with money than when they ask you to bring in your income tax forms to check.
The moment you find yourself asked to bring in a tax form, or to automatically sign-over a percent of your income for the church in order to obtain some type of admission to higher church positions, or a secret church rite, or anything like that, you should pack up and get out of that church in a hurry..... You have no idea what you are talking about.

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 04:48 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;116060]I hope I have made it clear that I do not hold the personal views on things like religion, or how rich or poor a guy is, or his color, or if he is married or not against a person when i vote. Actually, talking to you over the past few months have made it clear that you do hold things like religion against a person when you vote. This is quite transparent---or somewhere in your fleeing from one candidate to the next, Mitt would have been in there. THis was far too dangerous a position, though, as he has been the front-runner too many times IF you hold a person's religion against them.

I find the Mormonism of Mitt to be totally insulting to God, and a disgusting false , hopeless, faith that will in the end, condemn him and all other Mormons to an ever-burning HELL.... Yes, I understand that when it comes to matters of the heart, your cult decides who offends God and who doesn't and deems who will go to hell and who won't based on the arbitrary way in which you read the Bible. My God looks to the heart of a man--yours look to the professed belief.

All i care about is if he can fix my roof? Yes, but the obvious thing in this election is that only Mitt Romney has the qualifications and experience of how to get our economy back on track---and if you say that you don't see our economy as a problem, then you are either uneducated to the realities of what happens when you over-regulate the finance sector, etc. or centralized health care, or you just don't care or are too i.gnorant to care. This is very frustrating to me that the evangelical right are voting out of emotion rather than brains on this issue.

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 07:20 PM

t means he left government....
I thought he lost an election and had to find a ***....

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 07:25 PM

Actually, the insistence of the need to see our possible president's tax returns said that this is an important issue to donors.

why?
who says that?

as far as I know the public need for all tax returns is just concerned with where the person had been making money.

The idea is that we dont want to elect a person that has ties to the mob, or to running drugs, or other things against the law...

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 07:29 PM

Yeah, yeah--and the person who donates to charity but does not take advantage of it on tax records so that he has less to give is just plain s.tupid.

.

Thats between the person and their accountant...

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 07:34 PM

My church does not ask for proof. Whenever you say the word "cult"......

It's not only the world of the CULTS where the request to see a person's tax return is found.

In many good Christian churches you do find a clear over-interest in the money of other people...

My advice is to stay clear of such churches , as they tend to have other requirements that just take the mission of the church way, way off target.

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 07:44 PM

[QUOTE] Actually, talking to you over the past few months have made it clear that you do hold things like religion against a person when you vote..

Nope, you are completely wrong.

I look forward to voting for Mitt against Obama.

I have no issues in voting for Mitt, and I would vote for Mitt with a clear conscience against Obama right now.

However I would vote for Newt or Rick over Mitt any day of the week.

This is because Mitt is not a trustworthy voice of my views.
Mitt has shown by his past actions that he cant be trusted compared to Rick....

This is the reason Rick and Newt are still in the race.

The fact is that at the SC primary we learned that Mitt will never get the needed support from conservatives because of this clear lack of trustworthiness that he would need to get that support.

At best, Mitt will likely end up in the same pile of losers with Bob Dole and McCain who also were just bad at getting the conservative vote.

It has nothing to do with the religion of Mitt, or Dole or McCain.

The 3 guys just are not able to attract conservatives, nor even seem to understand the need to do so....

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 07:51 PM

.....and if you say that you don't see our economy as a problem, ....

I said that I dont see the economy being an issue in the next election.

I believe by then we will be reading about the "Obama Recovery"

This means that the liberal media will likely have taken the issue of the economy off the table, and that will leave them free to talk about the things Obama is strongest at....

alanmolstad

02-17-2012, 08:08 PM

talk of the open con grows stronger each day...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-usa-campaign-convention-idUSTRE81G1ZF20120217

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 10:07 PM

I thought he lost an election and had to find a ***....

by hanging around government and lobbying.

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 10:08 PM

why?
who says that?

as far as I know the public need for all tax returns is just concerned with where the person had been making money.

The idea is that we dont want to elect a person that has ties to the mob, or to running drugs, or other things against the law...

Everyone who had a fit that Mitt wouldn't show his tax returns---it made it so all GOP candidates had to put theres out there.

Yeah, that's what we need---tax returns...that will show whether someone has ties to the mob...yeah, right.

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 10:10 PM

Thats between the person and their accountant...

Rick states he did his own taxes----you make more than a million a year and you do your own taxes---that is just plain s.tupid!!! Someone should have been teaching Rick a thing or two about money. What that told me is that I don't want him running things financiallly in this country--he doesn' t have a clue. I don't even do my own taxes and I make no where near that...but I am smart enough to know that there are few people that are worth the money---a good doctor, a good lawyer if needed, and a good accountant.

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 10:12 PM

It's not only the world of the CULTS where the request to see a person's tax return is found.

In many good Christian churches you do find a clear over-interest in the money of other people...

My advice is to stay clear of such churches , as they tend to have other requirements that just take the mission of the church way, way off target.

My church never asks for a tax return. Where on earth do you come up with the ideas that you do. One of the things I like about my church is that my ***hes do not go to my direct leaders---therefore, there is no conflict of interest. My advice is to stay away from churches that your ***hes go into the pocket of your pastor---as this takes your church way off target.

BigJulie

02-17-2012, 10:14 PM

[QUOTE=BigJulie;116063]

Nope, you are completely wrong.

I look forward to voting for Mitt against Obama.

I have no issues in voting for Mitt, and I would vote for Mitt with a clear conscience against Obama right now.

However I would vote for Newt or Rick over Mitt any day of the week.

This is because Mitt is not a trustworthy voice of my views.
Mitt has shown by his past actions that he cant be trusted compared to Rick....

This is the reason Rick and Newt are still in the race.

The fact is that at the SC primary we learned that Mitt will never get the needed support from conservatives because of this clear lack of trustworthiness that he would need to get that support.

At best, Mitt will likely end up in the same pile of losers with Bob Dole and McCain who also were just bad at getting the conservative vote.

It has nothing to do with the religion of Mitt, or Dole or McCain.

The 3 guys just are not able to attract conservatives, nor even seem to understand the need to do so....

Mitt is not trustworthy precisely because he is mormon--when you excuse Newt for ethics violations, but then accuse Mitt because his stance on some issues have changed, you are clear in your biases--whether you see them or not.

After having taken a few economics cl***es, I clearly see Mitt as the best choice. He obviously understands why our economy is sinking and what needs to be done about it. I wish that everyone had to take a basic econ course before voting. Evangelicals emotional leanings and jumping from one candidate to the next show that the majority of them are not educated on such issues and have not had a clear cut idea of who to vote for until their "cult" leaders told them who to vote for.

alanmolstad

02-18-2012, 09:07 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/16/if-santorum-wins-michigan-all-bets-are-off-for-romney/

The media is now pointing to Michigan as the State to watch.

It looks like suddenly that we have a State that might give us a result that will color the whole rest of the election.

we shall see....

alanmolstad

02-18-2012, 09:12 AM

Everyone who had a fit that Mitt wouldn't show his tax returns--.

Yes....it was a huge error on Mitt's part, and the results of that error in how he handled that question are still with us to this very day.

Had Mitt been more forthcoming with his income tax records chances are that he would still be sitting in the Number#1 spot in this election.

I think that when this election is all over and done with, that we will find that Mitt will write in his book that his "I dont know" answer during the debate was the result of his staff dropping the ball....and that he left the stage after that debate and had to kick some ****s with his staff

alanmolstad

02-18-2012, 09:18 AM

Rick states he did his own taxes....

If you remember his answer during the debate, he said that his tax returns were on his home PC and that he would go get them.

Then later the press did follow Rick on a short trip back home and he was able to get the tax returns.

I also would guess that before a guy, (actually anyone) lets the press see their private tax returns you would have to go over them to block out all the SS numbers, and Phone numbers....or any other stuff that they ask for on the IRS forms....

Im not sure if you have printed on the forms your checking account numbers?

But it likely has home address and stuff that a guy would not put out.

But in the end Rick did work on it and got it put out as he said he would...

alanmolstad

02-18-2012, 09:26 AM

this rise of Michigan into turning out to be such a key state for Mitt to win is a surprise to me.

Given it takes place before Super Tuesday you would think that Mitt and Rick would fighting it out in all the big Super Tuesday States...

But the thing important with Michigan is that of all the States in the country, Michigan is the best representation of the country as a whole.

The unemployment rate in Michigan is high, the trouble with the car industry is clearly connected to everyone in Michigan.

So it looks like what we are seeing is a test for the Republican voters as to what man do they think is going to be the best at fixing the economy?

I lot of supporters on Mitt always push the idea that Mitt is the best on the topic of fix this economy.

Well now we are going to put that to the test and see what the voters thing?....

Mitt has every advantage going into Michigan he would want.
He is from there...
His dad was a 3-term gov.
He has strong family connections there.
and the Mormon church is strong there.

So Mitt has every advantage going into this Michigan primary.

Rick on the other hand?
About all i can find in Rick's favor with the voters in Michigan is his stand on the social issues.

aside from that, what else does Rick got going for him in Michigan?

alanmolstad

02-18-2012, 09:36 AM

My predictions for the Michigan primary?

I dont know the future, but i can guess what different results may mean.

If Mitt wins big?......Then Mitt is in a good position to win big on Super Tuesday and knock a name or two out of this election .

if Mitt wins close?......Then Things will switch to Super Tuesday and we are on-track for a real battle that day for all the chips.

If Rick wins close?.....Then Rick might be able to pull off the needed Super Tuesday victories that he needs to drive someone (Newt or Paul) out of this election.

If Rick wins Big!?..........then Mitt is in deep-deep-deep trouble going into Super Tuesday....and from then on in this election we will have a lot more open talk about other names getting into this election, and everyone in the Mitt camp starting to talk about a VP spot for Mitt to take under a guy like Rick or Jeb Bush.......

BigJulie

02-18-2012, 10:21 AM

So, I've liked Rick--liked how he has come across---so, as usual, I start looking at his voting record to see if he is someone I could support. If he wins, I would vote for him, but ONLY for his stand on the family. His stand on birth control is a little backwards (no birth control even in marrige---really?) He says that there should always be consequences to sex--okay??

I don't know---after being married for years, I see birth control as a gift. I can't even imagine what it would have been like to have child after child with no say. My body gave out after three children and I had some pretty serious health stuff. It appears this happened with Rick's wife as well, but rather than abort, the doctor gave her large quan***ies of a drug that caused a natural abortion (if you can call that natural).

I don't know---it seems conflicted to me to say you don't believe in birth control or abortion on one hand, but when faced with the dilemma of your wife's death, you do the smart thing. I think that would have taught him that some decisions just have to be between the family and their doctor. *sigh*

Economically---the guys record shows no insight or even that his education was worth its cost. He voted to let China have a super-computer. Okay---s.tupid, s.tupid---China is KNOWN for stealing intellectual property. Companies that off-shore there are very likely to get their technology stolen and pirated. That is the sad truth of the matter. That is why Romney has been so adament about addressing their behavior with the WTO. China was admitted in the WTO in 2001 and that needs a serious look at. Rick hasn't really addressed that.

Rick has also voted against open trade policies with good countries and for subsidies in our country. Anyone who has had a modicum of understanding knows that the net effect of that is to cause downward pressure on the GDP---a basic history of the Great Depression shows that.

But alas, it appears that the lemmings of the evangelical cults are falling into line with their cult leaders and are not doing their own research into who they are voting for...which is why they have jumped from one candidate to another depending on the "non-Mormon" de jour.

alanmolstad

02-18-2012, 10:37 AM

alanmolstad

02-18-2012, 10:43 AM

I believe Rick's position on birth control is in-line with the Catholic church position.

and the Catholic position is in-line with the tenancy of things like birth control pills and IUDs to cause the fertilized egg to be rejected by the body...thus they are a form of destruction of a conceived human life.....a form of abortion.

a lot of women dont know this fact, and it is the hope of many in the prolife movement that a more open discussion about how the pill works might cause people to understand that it can cause abortions in the normal manner it was designed to work....

The news reports as of late are centered around the catholic church being forced under Obamacare to pay for their church employees to be give the pill.

as the pill can cause an abortion as part of how it normally ends a pregnancy, this goes totally against the Catholic church teachings that all unborn life must be respected.

alanmolstad

02-18-2012, 11:01 AM

BigJulie

02-18-2012, 05:56 PM

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111229153159AAnWRwx

I do not talk about such personal issues....

But I do try to point people away from myths when I can...

I will say that I do not find even the slightest fault with the way Rick handled this moment in his past.
His is an example of how a good husband and good father should act under this type of stress...

Yes, the drug was admininstered that would save his wife's life and end his childs. That was a smart move---but as noted, there are something left to the family. I personally think Rick Santorum puts his nose a little too far into other's people's business with his opinions on this and needs to trust that like him, people will choose what is best for their circumstances.

BigJulie

02-18-2012, 05:58 PM

BigJulie

02-18-2012, 06:04 PM

What i do think is going to happen in the next few weeks, is that the supporters of Mitt will understand that Mitt has lost to Rick on the social issues...and so they will attack him on them.

This means they will dig up dirt,
spread rumor
invent stories.
connect the dirtiest stories with Rick or his family.

This is just the same as when Clinton got caught with that girl in the oral office.
Remember how the supporters of Clinton never said that Clinton was in the wrong?

what the supporters of Clinton did was to dig up the dirt on other presidents....they would go on talk shows and when asked about Clinton;s sex life would quickly point to President Jefferson's sex life, or to the many girl friends of Kennedy.

The idea the Clinton supports had was that by making the bigger flaws of other presidents the topic, then you make the flaws of Clinton appear smaller.

My own view of this is as follows:

All of us know some type of Hitler we can compare ourselves to.

All of us know that if we wanted to we could think of any number of people that most people would consider as worse than us by a long shot.

But this is a moot point.

If you try to make your own sins appear minor by always pointing to Hitler's sins, then you will NEVER find a reason to imporve yourself.

Your standard on behavior should not be set by the very worst person who ever lived!

If you want to compare yourself to someone, compare yourself to someone far better than yourself....

In this election, there are people in it that will show that sooner or later that all got their personal flaws.

If we were electing a person who never made a single mistake, we are going to be disappointed.

They all got flaws, and that is why it is so important to make a hiring decision based on the things needed to do the ***..

The office of the president is a political leadership/administration position.
A president has to have the ability to speak and promote a line of thinking that will gather to him the needed support to get things done.

Im a conservative, so what I look for in a president is someone I feel will have a strong voice for my conservative point of view.

So i listen to what each person has to say and how they say it....and based on a gut feeling , I vote on the guy i think is the most clear voice for my views.

I know this person might turn out to have a past history where he might have had trouble with the law, or got mixed up with the wrong people at times....

I understand that none of us lead pure lives.

But I dont have to dig up dirt about the other guys in the race to make my own guy's flaws appear smaller....

To me, Rick's flaws are minor on the social issues and huge on the economic issues--which is why I said that if I support him, it will be based on his stance with the family (in spite of his over-reaching on women's issues) and NOT on his economic issues.

Right now, Obama is dumping as much as he can into the economy to give us the sense that things are improving---but look at a couple of things--inflated commodity prices on top of a dead housing market.

My husband and I went to buy a property in the last couple of weeks. We had everything in line and then guess what? Because of federal rules, we could not buy an investment property of this sort unless we had CASH or were willing to pay for a private loan (can you say shark interest rates?) I can tell you why the housing sector is still going bust in spite of the Fed Res putting in 7.7 trillion (yes that was trillion) dollars into the economy---bad bills, the reversing of liberalization of the finance sector---this is precisely how you kill an economy.

Mitt, by the way he talks understands this---even Ron Paul has a better grasp of this. Santorum speaks of nothing but family issues and he is the opposite of a blue dog democrat---he is a red cat republican (he spends and spends and seems to have no concept of how to increase GDP.)

alanmolstad

02-18-2012, 06:15 PM

.... And as far as I am concerned, men should stay out of this discussion c....

if a man should speak, let him speak up for the one in this discussion that is too little to speak on their own...

We are never more in-line with the will of God when we defend the most innocent.....

If we must be found guilty of something, let us be found guilty of defending the rights of they who who have proved to easily overlooked by the liberal media.,

alanmolstad

02-18-2012, 06:22 PM

Mostly I think all the finger pointing by Mitt's sad supporters is because they have their own demons to deal with.

We shall see that happens in the Michigan primary, but right now the thing is shaping up to be a moment of truth in this election.

The favored son comes home, and finds that he is several polling points behind someone else????....this bodes ill for Mitt on Super Tuesday...

I cant predict the future, but I do understand that Michigan is the final stop before Super Tuesday, and that a win for Mitt in Michigan will help him greatly on Super Tuesday.

On the other hand, any type of loss for Mitt in Michigan will have me and a lot of other conservatives demanding he pull out of the race if he cant do any better on Super Tuesday.

BigJulie

02-18-2012, 11:28 PM

if a man should speak, let him speak up for the one in this discussion that is too little to speak on their own...

We are never more in-line with the will of God when we defend the most innocent.....

If we must be found guilty of something, let us be found guilty of defending the rights of they who who have proved to easily overlooked by the liberal media.,

I have never known a man to jump in front of a bus for his children the way a women would. If you want to see suffering for the love of a child--look to the women. When you go through 9 months of morning sickness and 20 hours of labor, stretch marks, painful nursing, when you have a child sit on your lap when you are sick and you still care for them----or as I did--when you are p***ing a kidney stone and you still make your kids lunch--THEN, you have anything to say to me.

So, please get off your high horse about this. If anything, the only women I have ever met to get an abortion of convenience, it was at the insistence of the man in her life. So please, your diatribe on this rings hollow. That said, for Rick to stick his nose into the issue of birth control is beyond me.

BigJulie

02-18-2012, 11:29 PM

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;116104]Mostly I think all the finger pointing by Mitt's sad supporters is because they have their own demons to deal with Baloney---running for president is always a vetting process and you guys have been finger pointing at Mitt throughout this whole process---so, once again, get off your hypocritcal high horse.

On the other hand, any type of loss for Mitt in Michigan will have me and a lot of other conservatives demanding he pull out of the race if he cant do any better on Super Tuesday. This line of reasoning if rediculous and I think even you know it.

alanmolstad

02-19-2012, 06:08 AM

orse.

This line of reasoning if ridiculous and I think even you know it.
Allow me to show you how this is actually very logical...and likely to happen if given the right situations.

I cant predict the future...
I dont know who will win what primary.

But looking forward I can make a guess as to what things would mean if they happen.

If Rick has a loss before the Super Tuesday Primary, then it does not set him up well for later.
On the other hand, if Mitt has any loss at all before Super Tuesday it will mean he is in big trouble later.
And when Super Tuesday is over if Mitt does not look strong enough to sweep the rest of the States then I got to tell you right now he will not be allowed to lead the ticket.

The Republican leadership will step in and open the convention and that will be it for Mitt and he will be done for this election..

Once the Con is opened, and everyone is allowed to vote for anyone they want, Rick has a good chance of leading the ticket, and Mitt has a good chance of being shown the door.

The tell-tail moment seems to be working out to be Michigan.

The media has put a pin in Michigan and informed us that even here on what is clearly Mitt's home turf he is in trouble.
Even out spending Rick by (in some cases) 10 to 1, he is still dropping in the polling.

My guess is that should we see Rick do well this next week, that it will change the conversation totally....
And that at that moment Mitt will know that he has to go "All-in" on Super Tuesday and spend all his cash because there is no point in pretending to go on after Super Tuesday if he comes in 2nd.

Mitt has to come in 1st on Super Tuesday, or he becomes "Dead Man Walking"

The Party leadership can do many things to ease a person off the stage.
They can open the convention and allow people to vote for anyone they want.
Or they can suspend the rules, and simply invent new rules so that all of this election so far becomes a moot point...

My guess is this:
The way I see a chance of Mitt not getting the lead spot on the ticket comes down to Michigan and Super Tuesday.
Should Mitt come in 2nd in Michigan it's going to cause an earthquake in party Leadership and it would be the signal that Mitt will not carry the mid-west and central RED STATES.

Heres the thing with the Republican leadership that you have to understand.
The leadership, while it would 'like" to have Mitt win, they are way, way, way, more concerned with getting control of Congress.
Thats means keeping their vote count in the House, and getting one or two more seats in the Senate .

The leadership is also very concerned with the States, and knows that in many red States they are in danger of losing control.
Thus what the Leadership wants is a guy at the top of the ticket that has coattails, and can help sweep the party as a whole to victories in key Blue states.

The LAST THING the party leadership wants is a Presidential ticket that has no ability to help keep congress.

The Republican leadership was counting on the ticket to have all the central and western states in the bag so as to not need to spend money there.
A loss in Michigan means that Obama can move in and do some damage there....all the way down to the local level.
That would mean that rather than spending the money on the BLUE STATES with the idea of getting a few victories there, the Republicans will need to switch to full "defense mode"...and just try to hang on to what they got because of a known weak Presidential ticket.

I think this is why that suddenly Michigan has come to be seen as so important to the republicans:
It shows everyone if the Republicans will be playing Offense and taking the fight to Obama in the fall?

or

Will the Republicans be dropping back and playing defense and hoping to just hang on to the Red States they got?

and so trust me....If Michigan shows the party Leadership that we might lose the Red State advantage because Mitt cant automatically carry his own home State, then the leadership is going to start openly saying that "Mitt has got to go"

Simply put, the Rep leaders will not allow the top spot on the ticket to go to a guy who cant show he can bring home the Red states....

The SC primary results showed us that Mitt will never get the support of the conservatives to beat Obama
The Michigan primary results will show us if Mitt can expect to get the support of the Central and mid-west Red States?

But all this just in the unknown future, so I cant say for sure it will happen....but should Michigan not go Mitt's way, then you can bet what i have just posted is likely to play out next.

alanmolstad

02-19-2012, 06:51 AM

oh....and as always, a little checking will prove that really nothing Im saying here is all that different...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/211549-for-santorum-skeptics-and-supporters-its-all-about-michigan

"“It is very hard to see Santorum getting to 1,144 delegates,” Geoff Skelley of the University of Virginia’s Center of Politics said, referring to the number of delegates required to win the nomination.

“A brokered convention? There is the possibility for that to happen. "

"Romney displays “an astounding inability to provide voters with a rationale to support him”

alanmolstad

02-19-2012, 06:55 AM

In real terms....when you hear someone in the media or the Party start to talk of a "brokered convention" what they are really saying is "Get rid of Mitt"

Thats the point of a brokered convention.

That is the reason so many people now are listing it up there with the other things that might happen.

They are saying that in thew future the Party might need to "Get rid of Mitt"

Even if Mitt wins enough Primary votes the win the nomination, the brokered convention is how the Party would get rid of Mitt no matter what.

That is the thinking behind all the talk in conservative Talk Radio now.

Everyone knows that it is not really very likely that Rick will win enough Primary votes to beat Mitt, and so that is why as the date for the convention draws ever more near, you also start to hear more and more voices talking about a "brokered convention".

a brokered convention is the same thing as saying "Get rid of Mitt"

alanmolstad

02-19-2012, 08:04 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/top-gop-senator-says-if-romney-loses-michigan-we-need-a-new-candidate/

"A prominent Republican senator just told me that if Romney can’t win in Michigan, the Republican Party needs to go back to the drawing board and convince somebody new to get into the race.

“If Romney cannot win Michigan, we need a new candidate,” said the senator,

alanmolstad

02-19-2012, 12:51 PM

I think what we are seeing in the media reports of leading Republicans talking about different ways to get rid of Mitt, supports what i have been talking about for a while now.

The fact is that Mitt clearly is never going to get enough support from the Republican conservative base to beat Obama.

No one is disagreeing with that conclusion now...
The lessons learned in the SC Primary were very clear...

The leadership of the Party now clearly sees the danger Mitt's lack of support within his own party could have on the rest of the election where many States will be up for grabs.

The Party is clearly looking for a way to ease Mitt off the stage should he prove on Super Tuesday that he just dont have what it takes to draw voters of his own Party to himself.

This Michigan Primary has ended up being the key State to watch for this season.

Michigan will tell us if the Republicans have any chance at all with Mitt or not?

If Mitt does good in Michigan?, then the fight moves to Super Tuesday where Mitt really has to put this away to save his race against Obama later.

If Mitt finishes 2nd in Michigan?....then look for everyone to start talking about "Someone else", if Super Tuesday proves to be the disaster for Mitt that Rick is aiming at.

Rick wants to win big in Michigan.
If Rick does win big in Michigan he can turn around and use that victory to gain ground on Mitt on Super Tuesday.
Rick can claim the number one position in this election at that point and conservatives love to support the guy in the lead...

Rick wants to win in Michigan because of how much that would make Mitt look bad to the people voting on Super Tuesday...

Rick does not "need" to win Michigan as much as Mitt really needs to win there.
But if Rick does win, then at that point I believe we will see a lot of people who have been sitting on the fence in this election start to line up behind Rick.

BigJulie

02-19-2012, 01:38 PM

"Romney displays “an astounding inability to provide voters with a rationale to support him” [/COLOR][/I][/B]

This is a biased opinion---the proof is that Romney has the backing of 17 senators---Rick, none.

BigJulie

02-19-2012, 03:09 PM

"Paul said the focus on social issues is a fundamental problem and an unwise fight for the GOP.

"I think it's a losing position," he said. "I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how these problems are to be solved," on a state-specific level, he said."

I agree with Ron Paul on this---the focus on social issues is an unwise fight for the GOP.

BigJulie

02-19-2012, 08:18 PM

Maybe you can verify for me if this is legite. I was actually reading an article about Newt on Drudge and someone posted this:

In 2006, Rick Santorum, less than two months before suffering one of the worst losses in Senate history, was named one of three “most corrupt” Senators by CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

According to CREW:

“The officials named in this report have chosen to enrich themselves and their families and friends by abusing the power of their office, rather than work for the public good. Their collective corruption affects all Americans,” stated the executive director of CREW, Melanie Sloan.”

“Sen. Santorum’s ethics issues stem from the manner in which he funded his children’s education and his misuse of legislative position in exchange for contributions to his political action committee and his re-election campaign,” CREW notes, on page 207 of their exhaustive report (PDF), which delves into deep detail across eleven extensively-footnoted pages.

In February of 2006, CREW had filed an ethics complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Santorum, “alleging that Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) violated the Senate Gift Rule by accepting a mortgage from The Philadelphia Trust Company, a bank that serves affluent clients.”

Charging that “ethical tresp***es have become the norm for Sen. Santorum,” CREW’s Melanie Sloan cited Santorum’s “contempt for the rules” as “particularly ironic given that Sen. Santorum has long attempted to position himself as the poster child for public morality.”

alanmolstad

02-19-2012, 08:51 PM

http://www.undueinfluence.com/citizens-for-responsibility-and-ethics.htm

"a far-left Democrat social-change attack group targeting Republicans and centrist Democrats in Congress and conservative non-profit groups."

They attack Republicans...that make charges...they get money from other Liberals to attack Republicans.
I bet they really hate the pro-life stand of Rick, so its to be expected that they would make charges against him...

Rick stands up and speaks out for a way of thinking that goes against everything these people support.

Liberal Republicans dont really become their target

alanmolstad

02-19-2012, 09:19 PM

alanmolstad

02-19-2012, 09:30 PM

"Paul said the focus on social issues is a fundamental problem and an unwise fight for the GOP.
.

The guys like Ron Paul were the very ones suggesting the same advice to our ticket when Dole ran and when McCain ran.

Both Dole and McCain were guys who the Dems loved, as they never tried to run on social issues...

McCain pointed out that he would not support the conservative agenda at all....
Dole refused to speak up in support of conservatives issues ....

Both Dole and Mccain, believed that they would just get the vote of all the conservatives, so they never tried to move closer to their positions...they never tried to draw the conservative voter.

Dole and McCain were thinking at the time, "Who else will the Christians vote for?

Both guys said that making an appeal to the country to consider social issues would be an error and would push people away.

Both were wrong!

The way to bring people to you is to take a moral stand!

Thats how you get people motivated to get out to vote for you....You frame the debate as being good against evil....

pro-life against pro-murder...

Im not surprised that Ron Paul thinks different than i do...after all Paul is not actually a Republican, he is a "Libertarian"....

So he is not reflective of the party, nor has he shown in any National election that his views are held by many people at all......

Ron Paul is what he is and always will be.....a side-issue guy...a protest vote...a pro-drug use vote....

In other words.....he is moot

alanmolstad

02-19-2012, 09:38 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9091984/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-hopes-would-be-fatally-damaged-if-he-lost-Michigan.html

another voice that is saying now what i have been saying for a while...

"Mitt Romney's hopes of winning the Republican presidential nomination would be fatally wounded should he fail to win the primary in his home state of Michigan, both his rivals and senior party figures have warned."

Did you notice that now the story about what another loss by Mitt will mean are now starting to quote "senior party figures"?

As I was saying on another post, I believe that if Mitt were to do baddy this week, and it set things up for Super Tuesday where Mitt again does poorly?, that the republican Leadership will start to push Mitt out of this election.

I think the leadership is warning Mitt that he has to win this week, and on Super Tuesday, or he will face a call by the leadership for a "Open Convention"

and remember, the only reason for an Open Convention is to "get rid of Mitt" no matter how many votes he has won in the primaries.

So basically, everything I have been talking about from my own private point of view, is being confirmed as how things actually are panning out.....
My conclusions are being fulfilled....