Page 13 of 27 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 661

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

  1. #301
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    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)."
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  2. #302
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default Do they come around later?

    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"

  3. #303
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    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.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  4. #304
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    ..... 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!
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 01-16-2012 at 11:18 AM.

  5. #305
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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....
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 01-16-2012 at 11:21 AM.

  6. #306

  7. #307
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default The answer...

    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.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 01-16-2012 at 11:58 AM.

  8. #308
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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?

  9. #309
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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/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.
    Last edited by BigJulie; 01-16-2012 at 02:04 PM.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  10. #310
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  11. #311
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  12. #312
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    [QUOTE=BigJulie;112120]
    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.

  13. #313
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE][QUOTE=alanmolstad;112127]
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  14. #314
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 01-17-2012 at 05:50 PM.

  15. #315
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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."
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  16. #316
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    .... 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.

  17. #317
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    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....

  18. #318
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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).
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  19. #319
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    .... 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?

  20. #320
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 01-19-2012 at 04:46 PM.

  21. #321
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    What did you think of the debate tonight?
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  22. #322
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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.

  23. #323
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  24. #324
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    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

  25. #325
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •