from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt.

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.

http://www.examiner.com/pet-photogra...did-what-photo

any news today ?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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.

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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/peterfer...at-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.

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.

Today's news....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...litting-claim/



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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Today's news....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...litting-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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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.

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/...y_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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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/...y_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.

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

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)."

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"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

..... 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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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....

http://www.grandforksherald.com/even...cle/id/226711/

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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.

Quote:

---

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...at-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.

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.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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.

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :)

[QUOTE=BigJulie;112120]

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.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=alanmolstad;112127]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

.... 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.

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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....

---

I am not sure the ex-wife is hurting Newt---the story is already old. The lurid details of his affair should not come as a surprise. Are you now thinking this is giving a better chance to Santorum?

P.S. It is good to see you are reading Drudge (I read it every day).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

.... 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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