GOP's Circular Firing Squad: National Edition - None of these guys are beyond reproach
Marc Comtois
I haven't committed strongly to any of the GOP presidential hopefuls, mainly because they're all different flavors of meh. But one of them is going to win and run against Obama. It's up to the GOP to figure out who has the "best chance" of beating the President. The one thing that has annoyed me the most, though, are the various supporters of each candidate getting all "holier than thou" when it comes to defending their pick vs. the others. None of these guys are "all that." Just take the three front-runners.
Mitt Romney has flip-flopped enough to warrant a website devoted to chronicling the pattern. His ideology seems to be "I'm running for President". He seems wooden and too-perfect & it doesn't "feel" like he can relate to the average person.
But before you Gingrich-ites or Paulians get all self-righteous, be careful. Gingrich was for Romney's health care reform before he was against it.
“The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system,” said an April 2006 newsletter published by Mr. Gingrich’s former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation.
Except now, apparently, Gingrich's people are claiming that Newt didn't really write that endorsement. Uh. Yeah. That's kinda what
Newt called Ron Paul out on when
Paul disavowed the racist stuff in Paul's own newsletters, saying he didn't write them (
which is probably correct...
or maybe not.). So, memo to self--newsletters written under your own name aren't your responsibility.
As for Paul....his either an isolationist or a non-interventionist, depending on how you interpret his foreign policy stances. But it seems he doesn't let such things as moral imperatives instruct his decision-making. He said he wouldn't have fought WWII if it "only" meant saving the Jews from the Holocaust. And he thought that Lincoln fighting the Civil War to free the slaves was a mistake. 'Cause the slaves would have been freed eventually, anyway. (Of course, the fact that the South kinda started it with that whole secession thing....). Those are two pretty big, albeit theoretical, "take a pass" items.
All of them have good ideas. Despite his flipping and apparent lack of an ideological touchstone, Romney would be competent. Gingrich is a big ideas guy. Paul makes sense in some fiscal areas and when it comes to cutting government. It's just a matter of how much of the negative baggage you think the voting public can take along with the good ideas. Maybe there's some acceptable ratio. Or maybe it will just come down to media spin and "optics." Just like last time. Great.
Regarding the Ron Paul newsletters, I would be far more surprised if he had actually written them. Congress members today write virtually nothing that goes out in their name and don't read the vast majority of it - doubtful much has changed in that way in 20 years, or even 50. I've personally had the "privilege" of ghost-writing executive correspondence that I'm sure no executive ever laid eyes upon, often in response to Congressional ingquiries that were certainly not written or read by any member of Congress. If it were a Patrick Kennedy-like figure, there would be a 0% chance of any involvement, but since Paul is a more consciencious and involved Representative, there is a small chance. The contents aren't even all that horrible - insensitive and politically incorrect at worst. CNN makes it sound like white supremacist ravings.
Obviously, I'm biased in Paul's favor, but I consider him far too controversial to win. Most people just want a pretty face and a catchy slogan (think 2008); they don't want to ask hard questions of themselves or their country. Paul's biggest advantage - that he doesn't act like your typical carboard cutout politician - is also his biggest disadvantage in that he talks openly about topics that the Romneys of the world know that you don't touch with a 10-foot pole. Of course it's true that practically nobody in 1941 America would have supported going to war to stop the Holocaust. The Holocaust wasn't even a consideration when the decision was made. This revisionist version of history is the central reason why WW2 is considered "the good war," but a more guarded politician would have known to dodge the question. The same goes for his "Al Qaeda didn't attack us because they hate our freedom" statements. Of course it's true, but you don't say it.
There has never been a more ridiculous parade of clowns spouting nonsense in the history of this country than the GOP primaries of 2012
There has never been a more ridiculous parade of clowns spouting nonsense in the history of this country than the GOP primaries of 2012
Posted by Sammy in Arizona at December 27, 2011 12:58 PM
Yes there is. Biden and the White House Skunk (half white half black and stinks up everything he touches) who have created a country within 5 years of a Greek style economic collapse;
15 trillion in debt...and counting.
Downgraded credit rating...for first time ever.
Debt-GDP ratio over 100%...for the first time in peacetime.
To be elected President, a Republican has to be able to appeal to the "persuadable middle" seven or so percent of voters in about seven or eight key states . . .
Look at this crop and tell me which one is most likely to be able to do that?
Not Rep. Paul or Rep. Bachman, certainly, and nearly as certainly not former Speaker Gingrich.
Of the remaining candidates, former Sen. Santorum seems too extreme to have that appeal. Former Governors Romney and Huntsman and Gov. Perry seemed most likely to appeal to those essential middle voters. Perry, who obviously enjoyed very broad appeal in Texas, has stumbled so badly that it seems unlikely he can recover.
That leaves Huntsman and Romney. Huntsman must emerge from Iowa as the "anti-Romney" in order to break into the top tier, and that seems unlikely one week out.
Romney's not perfect, but he's worlds better than Pres. Obama!
"There has never been a more ridiculous parade of clowns spouting nonsense in the history of this country than the GOP primaries of 2012"
Sammy the troll
No worse than the clown that kept telling us he was 'driving the car out of the ditch.' I guess he had to stop using that line once he realized he was spinning his wheels.
"There has never been a more ridiculous parade of clowns spouting nonsense in the history of this country than the GOP primaries of 2012"
Ladies and Gentlemen: Sammy the Democratic Troll.
Let's hop in our time machine and revisit the 2004 Democratic Primary, shall we?
John Kerry
John Edwards
Howard Dean
Dennis Kucinich
Joe Lieberman
Al Sharpton
Yeah, you can stop talking now, Sammy.
Republicans, myself included, have to make a determination. Do we want to defeat Obama, or do we want the candidate of our choice.
I don't see a bland candidate defeating Obama. I also see a firebrand alienating the "middle" (I wish they would get off the pot).
For myself,I favor Gingrich. Perhaps it is because he is an historian. He knows there is nothing new under the sun,and can make the appropriate analogies. He is also the last politician to balance the budget. I think he can actually feel those things which annoy the average American.
His lifestyle does taint him in my opinion. He would scare the bejesus out of the "middle".Perhaps we have to concentrate on taking the Senate.
"John Kerry
John Edwards
Howard Dean
Dennis Kucinich
Joe Lieberman
Al Sharpton"
Yeepers. Did you have to, Dan??? The flashbacks had just started to subside ...
Hey, and Dan forgot Hillary Clinton too. The one who claimed to be best suited for the office because she is married to a former president. Yeah, so if I'm married to a pilot for Delta airlines, you want me flying you around? If I'm married to a heart surgeon, you want me cutting you open?
Nice logic, Hills, nice.
Patrick,
I jumped back to 2004 because it had the most memorable field of fools in recent political history, but 2008 had its own laughing stock to be sure.
For every Michelle Bachmann on the right there is an Al Sharpton on the left. For every Newt Gingrich on the right there is a John Edwards on the left. Both parties generally suck. Everyone except Sammy the Democratic Troll can agree on that much.
'04, '08, eventually they all just blend in together.
Posted by Patrick
"Hey, and Dan forgot Hillary Clinton too. The one who claimed to be best suited for the office because she is married to a former president."
Yeah, I still shudder at "My eight years in the White House"
"Yeah, I still shudder at "My eight years in the White House""
Well, we're just lucky she's still around - it sure was a close call when she landed in Bosnia under heavy fire ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
Regarding the Ron Paul newsletters, I would be far more surprised if he had actually written them. Congress members today write virtually nothing that goes out in their name and don't read the vast majority of it - doubtful much has changed in that way in 20 years, or even 50. I've personally had the "privilege" of ghost-writing executive correspondence that I'm sure no executive ever laid eyes upon, often in response to Congressional ingquiries that were certainly not written or read by any member of Congress. If it were a Patrick Kennedy-like figure, there would be a 0% chance of any involvement, but since Paul is a more consciencious and involved Representative, there is a small chance. The contents aren't even all that horrible - insensitive and politically incorrect at worst. CNN makes it sound like white supremacist ravings.
Obviously, I'm biased in Paul's favor, but I consider him far too controversial to win. Most people just want a pretty face and a catchy slogan (think 2008); they don't want to ask hard questions of themselves or their country. Paul's biggest advantage - that he doesn't act like your typical carboard cutout politician - is also his biggest disadvantage in that he talks openly about topics that the Romneys of the world know that you don't touch with a 10-foot pole. Of course it's true that practically nobody in 1941 America would have supported going to war to stop the Holocaust. The Holocaust wasn't even a consideration when the decision was made. This revisionist version of history is the central reason why WW2 is considered "the good war," but a more guarded politician would have known to dodge the question. The same goes for his "Al Qaeda didn't attack us because they hate our freedom" statements. Of course it's true, but you don't say it.
Posted by: Dan at December 27, 2011 11:52 AMThere has never been a more ridiculous parade of clowns spouting nonsense in the history of this country than the GOP primaries of 2012
Posted by: Sammy in Arizona at December 27, 2011 12:58 PMThere has never been a more ridiculous parade of clowns spouting nonsense in the history of this country than the GOP primaries of 2012
Posted by Sammy in Arizona at December 27, 2011 12:58 PM
Yes there is. Biden and the White House Skunk (half white half black and stinks up everything he touches) who have created a country within 5 years of a Greek style economic collapse;
Posted by: Tommy Cranston at December 27, 2011 1:16 PM15 trillion in debt...and counting.
Downgraded credit rating...for first time ever.
Debt-GDP ratio over 100%...for the first time in peacetime.
To be elected President, a Republican has to be able to appeal to the "persuadable middle" seven or so percent of voters in about seven or eight key states . . .
Look at this crop and tell me which one is most likely to be able to do that?
Not Rep. Paul or Rep. Bachman, certainly, and nearly as certainly not former Speaker Gingrich.
Of the remaining candidates, former Sen. Santorum seems too extreme to have that appeal. Former Governors Romney and Huntsman and Gov. Perry seemed most likely to appeal to those essential middle voters. Perry, who obviously enjoyed very broad appeal in Texas, has stumbled so badly that it seems unlikely he can recover.
That leaves Huntsman and Romney. Huntsman must emerge from Iowa as the "anti-Romney" in order to break into the top tier, and that seems unlikely one week out.
Romney's not perfect, but he's worlds better than Pres. Obama!
Posted by: brassband at December 27, 2011 1:44 PM"There has never been a more ridiculous parade of clowns spouting nonsense in the history of this country than the GOP primaries of 2012"
Sammy the troll
No worse than the clown that kept telling us he was 'driving the car out of the ditch.' I guess he had to stop using that line once he realized he was spinning his wheels.
Posted by: Max D. at December 27, 2011 3:20 PM"There has never been a more ridiculous parade of clowns spouting nonsense in the history of this country than the GOP primaries of 2012"
Ladies and Gentlemen: Sammy the Democratic Troll.
Let's hop in our time machine and revisit the 2004 Democratic Primary, shall we?
John Kerry
John Edwards
Howard Dean
Dennis Kucinich
Joe Lieberman
Al Sharpton
Yeah, you can stop talking now, Sammy.
Posted by: Dan at December 27, 2011 4:04 PMRepublicans, myself included, have to make a determination. Do we want to defeat Obama, or do we want the candidate of our choice.
I don't see a bland candidate defeating Obama. I also see a firebrand alienating the "middle" (I wish they would get off the pot).
For myself,I favor Gingrich. Perhaps it is because he is an historian. He knows there is nothing new under the sun,and can make the appropriate analogies. He is also the last politician to balance the budget. I think he can actually feel those things which annoy the average American.
His lifestyle does taint him in my opinion. He would scare the bejesus out of the "middle".Perhaps we have to concentrate on taking the Senate.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at December 27, 2011 8:18 PM"John Kerry
John Edwards
Howard Dean
Dennis Kucinich
Joe Lieberman
Al Sharpton"
Yeepers. Did you have to, Dan??? The flashbacks had just started to subside ...
Posted by: Monique at December 27, 2011 8:28 PMHey, and Dan forgot Hillary Clinton too. The one who claimed to be best suited for the office because she is married to a former president. Yeah, so if I'm married to a pilot for Delta airlines, you want me flying you around? If I'm married to a heart surgeon, you want me cutting you open?
Nice logic, Hills, nice.
Posted by: Patrick at December 27, 2011 10:18 PMPatrick,
I jumped back to 2004 because it had the most memorable field of fools in recent political history, but 2008 had its own laughing stock to be sure.
For every Michelle Bachmann on the right there is an Al Sharpton on the left. For every Newt Gingrich on the right there is a John Edwards on the left. Both parties generally suck. Everyone except Sammy the Democratic Troll can agree on that much.
Posted by: Dan at December 27, 2011 11:03 PM'04, '08, eventually they all just blend in together.
Posted by: Patrick at December 28, 2011 12:01 AMPosted by Patrick
"Hey, and Dan forgot Hillary Clinton too. The one who claimed to be best suited for the office because she is married to a former president."
Yeah, I still shudder at "My eight years in the White House"
Posted by: Warrington Faust at December 28, 2011 7:43 AM"Yeah, I still shudder at "My eight years in the White House""
Well, we're just lucky she's still around - it sure was a close call when she landed in Bosnia under heavy fire ...
Posted by: Monique at December 28, 2011 10:32 PMwww.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html