Lord Jim wrote:Once again, I feel compelled to be the voice of reality in this discussion...
***
As unloved as he is in many quarters, Mitt Romney will still, at the end of the day, emerge as the nominee.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:36 am
Lord Jim wrote:Anybody willing to put any money on how this will ultimately shake out, especially when you throw in the additional wild card of the elimination of the winner-take-all primaries, should have their head examined.
The Ron Paul constituency is the political equivalent of people who believe that the moon landings were staged for TV in Arizona. The only question about them is how many of them will wake up before next November.
I think Newtie's got a big challenge on his plate right now. The MSM has finally taken a look at his economic plan (first published in May, I believe), and seen that it provides for TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ELIMINATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REDUCTION OF CORPORATE INCOME TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also, a redefinition of the role of the Fed.
All good ideas, but he will have to explain it quickly in such a way as to defuse any hysterical responses from working-class Republicans.
I really don't think his remarks about the so-called, "Palestinians" will make much difference in his poll numbers.
Well Sue, I still believe, when I consider all the factors, that "Mitt Romney will still, at the end of the day, emerge as the nominee."...(in addition to the other three factors I mentioned earlier, Romney is the only candidate who can self finance effectively; so if he has a rough January, he could still recover...he's got a lot more strategic campaign depth...organization and resources...then Gingrich has...if it winds up being a marathon rather than a sprint, he's much better situated)
But given all the weird twists this has taken, I wouldn't put any money on it....
Honestly, I don't know why sensible Republicans aren't turning to Buddy Roemer as an alternative to this freak parade. The guy has a ton of experience, both executive and legislative, and a populist approach that should resonate well with voters. But I guess that would require sensible Republicans.
WTF? Buddy Roemer? Are you telling me there's yet another undeclared candidate who could join the dog an pony show?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Buddy Roemer is a former Louisiana governor and congressman, and he's been running since his official announcement back in July. I don't agree with him on much, but from what I can tell, he's not an idiot, and he certainly knows his way around politics.
Roemer's got some interesting ideas, but he's been out of politics a long time and he hasn't raised any money or gotten past asterisk level in any polls, so therefore he hasn't been invited to any debates. (He gets interviewed from time to time on the cable news channels; particularly MSNBC)
And the dynamics of this years nomination battle are such that if you don't make it into the debates, you don't exist.
Lord Jim wrote:Roemer's got some interesting ideas, but he's been out of politics a long time and he hasn't raised any money or gotten past asterisk level in any polls, so therefore he hasn't been invited to any debates. (He gets interviewed from time to time on the cable news channels; particularly MSNBC)
And the dynamics of this years nomination battle are such that if you don't make it into the debates, you don't exist.
You're just saying these things to amuse me now, aren't you?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
