Rock v. hard place
Rock v. hard place
If someone stuck a gun to your head and forced you to vote for either Newton Leroy or Willard Mittens, who would be your choice and why? Death, not voting, and immigration are not options
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Rock v. hard place
I assume that you are talking about voting to actually make President and not just for the Republican nomination ?
(I ask for this clarification, because otherwise we'll have Democrats here voting for Gingrich because he would be the weaker candidate)
Also, as of this writing, I notice no votes in the poll have been recorded...
Which mean that you haven't voted...
(I ask for this clarification, because otherwise we'll have Democrats here voting for Gingrich because he would be the weaker candidate)
Also, as of this writing, I notice no votes in the poll have been recorded...
Which mean that you haven't voted...
Re: Rock v. hard place
Good question LJ, I suppose President. What I meant was if you had to make a forced choice between the two -- which of course is not a real world situation.
And no, I haven't voted yet. I've got an idea how I will vote, but I was waiting to see if there was an argument that could sway me to change my mind.
Edited to add: Not really" waiting to see", more curious if someone came up with an interesting rationale.
And no, I haven't voted yet. I've got an idea how I will vote, but I was waiting to see if there was an argument that could sway me to change my mind.
Edited to add: Not really" waiting to see", more curious if someone came up with an interesting rationale.
Last edited by Guinevere on Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Rock v. hard place
If someone was holding a bazooka to my head, had a noose around my neck and I was clamped into a guillotine and the only thing I could do to save myself was vote for Newt or Mitt for president, I'd choose Mitt, which would actually be a vote against Newt rather than for Mitt.
Re: Rock v. hard place
Hmmm, tough one. A choice between the whore of corporate America, and the whore of the religious right.
The only body with less integrity than corporate America is the religious right, so I guess I'd go for Romney. Like Joe, it's not so much a vote for one as it is a vote against the other.
The only body with less integrity than corporate America is the religious right, so I guess I'd go for Romney. Like Joe, it's not so much a vote for one as it is a vote against the other.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Rock v. hard place
My extremely asute and invariably wrong sense is that the latest round of blather has shown a couple rather conspicuous problems for the Mitt-ster.
First, when a Major Question is looming and he has many days to prepare an answer, he usually fails to come up with a satisfying one. This shortcoming became even more apparent on Thursday, when we could compare Newt's relative Home Run in answering the totally appropriate question that led off the debate, with Mitt's rather tepid responses to questions concerning his personal earnings and taxes.
Take for example even the simple question of when or whether he is going to release a copy of his most recent tax return. I think it would be OK to say, I'm not going to do it. Then give three or four simple reasons concerning privacy and whatever. But he didn't even answer the question definitively, which I think is strategically much weaker than simply saying something that might put a few people off. Jesus Christ, he's a rich guy who makes most of his money through investments, and most of his investment income is taxed at 15%. So what? And I bet he paid enough taxes to choke a horse. Don't these two factors make for a definitive, satisfactory answer?
Second, it is as obvious as can be that the President and the entire MSM are going to be campaigning on Envy of the "One Percenters." Mitt is a One Percenter, but doesn't seem comfortable defending that fact. I think he might beat Barry one-on-one, but he can't beat Barry, plus all of the media and all of the other government-teat-sucking constituencies that are going to be joined against him over the final four months.
With all of Newt's negatives, mainly,
-> a Lot of people hate him,
-> he can easily be portrayed as a dirtbag,
-> he has a lot of loose talk in his background that can be brought out to embarrass him,
he will still be running up against a President who is a demonstrable, total failure, and Newt has a good answer for every question. And at the end of the day, this is not a Welfare State and most voters don't want it to become a Welfare State, and nobody is better than Newt at explaining how American became a great nation, and pointing out where the Dems are fucking up, and how things can be restored to sanity.
Newt is my man.
First, when a Major Question is looming and he has many days to prepare an answer, he usually fails to come up with a satisfying one. This shortcoming became even more apparent on Thursday, when we could compare Newt's relative Home Run in answering the totally appropriate question that led off the debate, with Mitt's rather tepid responses to questions concerning his personal earnings and taxes.
Take for example even the simple question of when or whether he is going to release a copy of his most recent tax return. I think it would be OK to say, I'm not going to do it. Then give three or four simple reasons concerning privacy and whatever. But he didn't even answer the question definitively, which I think is strategically much weaker than simply saying something that might put a few people off. Jesus Christ, he's a rich guy who makes most of his money through investments, and most of his investment income is taxed at 15%. So what? And I bet he paid enough taxes to choke a horse. Don't these two factors make for a definitive, satisfactory answer?
Second, it is as obvious as can be that the President and the entire MSM are going to be campaigning on Envy of the "One Percenters." Mitt is a One Percenter, but doesn't seem comfortable defending that fact. I think he might beat Barry one-on-one, but he can't beat Barry, plus all of the media and all of the other government-teat-sucking constituencies that are going to be joined against him over the final four months.
With all of Newt's negatives, mainly,
-> a Lot of people hate him,
-> he can easily be portrayed as a dirtbag,
-> he has a lot of loose talk in his background that can be brought out to embarrass him,
he will still be running up against a President who is a demonstrable, total failure, and Newt has a good answer for every question. And at the end of the day, this is not a Welfare State and most voters don't want it to become a Welfare State, and nobody is better than Newt at explaining how American became a great nation, and pointing out where the Dems are fucking up, and how things can be restored to sanity.
Newt is my man.
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9100
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: Rock v. hard place
Neither Gingrich nor Romney has any principles, but Gingrich is just obnoxiously self-important. I certainly hope he is the Republican nominee!
Gingrich/Palin 2012!!!!!11!!!!!!!1!
Gingrich/Palin 2012!!!!!11!!!!!!!1!
GAH!
Re: Rock v. hard place
I pretty much agree with most of Dave's analysis there, with the exception of course of the last sentence. (And part of the last paragraph; whether or not American's want a "welfare state" depends entirely on how you define it; polls consistently indicate they want an "entitlement state")
I particularly agree with a couple of things:
Now he's made this tax thing even worse by deciding to do exactly what he said he wouldn't do; make releases piecemeal that so that it becomes a long running drip, drip, drip, issue...he's announced that he's going to release his 2010 returns and a "projection" for his 2011 taxes this Tuesday, which is probably the worst possible timing for him....
He virtually guarantees that the last week of the campaign before the critical Florida primary will be largely dominated by the media tearing his tax returns apart; how low a rate he paid, how many foreign investments he has (though he paid US taxes on those investments) how much he gives to the Mormon Church, etc., etc., etc...
And then, to make matters even worse, he will have to answer any questions the press asks about the returns, and given his record on that to date, that is almost certain to be a painful display to watch....
He had an array of options before him, and he managed to select the absolute worst one possible.
"You can't vote for Mitt Romney because he's a rich guy and you don't like rich guys"
Never mind that the man made his money completely by following the rules; The Obama forces are going to try to capitalize on the public mood that resents successful people; the message will be: "If you don't like bankers, you don't like Wall Street, you don't like rich people, you can express your dislike by voting against Mitt Romney because he embodies all these things"
It's cynical, it's demagogic, and essentially it's unfair, but that's politics in The Big Leagues; they know they can't run on their record, they realize that if the election is a referendum on Obama's performance that they're sunk, so they need to get folks motivated to vote against the GOP nominee. It's their only path to victory.
The initial Obama game plan was to try and use GWB's re-election strategy as the template, and run against "Romney the flip flopper". But the Obama folks are nothing if not nimble, and when they saw the way this envy strategy could work as a wedge for them, and then also saw Romney's tone-deaf ineptitude at dealing with anything related to his wealth, (his latest boneheaded comment was when he referred to the $364,000 he made in speakers fees last year as "not much money"
) they switched gears.
As I said, if I were advising them, this is the strategy I would embrace if Romney is the nominee. It's their best shot. As I never tire of pointing out, politics ain't bean bag.
Now, here' the even bigger and more fundamental problem that all of this creates for Romney. (Yes, believe it or not, there's an even worse problem here for Mitt) What is the key element, the fundamental factor that has been the basis for Romney's support, and rationale for his nomination?
It's not a trick question, the answer is "electability"...
And Romney's chronic inability to effectively handle (indeed, every time he says something he seems to make it worse) what I will call " the top hat and monocle factor" does severe damage to his credibility on the "electability" claim; and if he loses that, then his candidacy for the nomination will rapidly collapse.
Now of course, none of this does anything to enhance the electability of Newt Gingrich, who, given the high level of negatives he has, and the persona he projects, I remain convinced is virtually unelectable under nearly any scenario one can rationally imagine. (I suppose if unemployment goes north of 10% or there's another major terrorist attack in the US, he might have a slender chance)
So for Republicans like myself, who are interested in nominating a candidate who might actually be able to win the election, suffice it to say these are not the happiest of times...
And given how highly vulnerable Obama would be to even a half way decent campaign, this situation is doubly depressing...
My understanding is that if Mitt loses Florida, there will be a enormous amount of pressure to either get another candidate into the race (possibly Jeb Bush) or to get him to bow out in order to give Santorum a clean shot at Gingrich (Gingrich is viewed by many in the party establishment the same way I see him; vitually unelectable. Santorum would have a better chance, and frankly if Romney doesn't act together quickly on the Top Hat and Monocle stuff, Santorum will emerge as more electable than Mitt)
I particularly agree with a couple of things:
That is absolutely spot on. He did it with the Bain Capital strawman, and he's done it now again with his tax returns. In both cases there were good answers to give, (Romney has done absolutely nothing illegal or unethical) and Romney failed to give them.First, when a Major Question is looming and he has many days to prepare an answer, he usually fails to come up with a satisfying one.
Now he's made this tax thing even worse by deciding to do exactly what he said he wouldn't do; make releases piecemeal that so that it becomes a long running drip, drip, drip, issue...he's announced that he's going to release his 2010 returns and a "projection" for his 2011 taxes this Tuesday, which is probably the worst possible timing for him....
He virtually guarantees that the last week of the campaign before the critical Florida primary will be largely dominated by the media tearing his tax returns apart; how low a rate he paid, how many foreign investments he has (though he paid US taxes on those investments) how much he gives to the Mormon Church, etc., etc., etc...
And then, to make matters even worse, he will have to answer any questions the press asks about the returns, and given his record on that to date, that is almost certain to be a painful display to watch....
He had an array of options before him, and he managed to select the absolute worst one possible.
That is absolutely 100% correct, and if I were advising Obama, it is the strategy I would recommend if Romney is the nominee. If you listen to what is coming from Team Obama and the DNC from David Axelrod and Debbie Wassermann-Schultz on down, it quite clear that the main campaign message is going to be:it is as obvious as can be that the President and the entire MSM are going to be campaigning on Envy of the "One Percenters." Mitt is a One Percenter
"You can't vote for Mitt Romney because he's a rich guy and you don't like rich guys"
Never mind that the man made his money completely by following the rules; The Obama forces are going to try to capitalize on the public mood that resents successful people; the message will be: "If you don't like bankers, you don't like Wall Street, you don't like rich people, you can express your dislike by voting against Mitt Romney because he embodies all these things"
It's cynical, it's demagogic, and essentially it's unfair, but that's politics in The Big Leagues; they know they can't run on their record, they realize that if the election is a referendum on Obama's performance that they're sunk, so they need to get folks motivated to vote against the GOP nominee. It's their only path to victory.
The initial Obama game plan was to try and use GWB's re-election strategy as the template, and run against "Romney the flip flopper". But the Obama folks are nothing if not nimble, and when they saw the way this envy strategy could work as a wedge for them, and then also saw Romney's tone-deaf ineptitude at dealing with anything related to his wealth, (his latest boneheaded comment was when he referred to the $364,000 he made in speakers fees last year as "not much money"
) they switched gears.As I said, if I were advising them, this is the strategy I would embrace if Romney is the nominee. It's their best shot. As I never tire of pointing out, politics ain't bean bag.
Now, here' the even bigger and more fundamental problem that all of this creates for Romney. (Yes, believe it or not, there's an even worse problem here for Mitt) What is the key element, the fundamental factor that has been the basis for Romney's support, and rationale for his nomination?
It's not a trick question, the answer is "electability"...
And Romney's chronic inability to effectively handle (indeed, every time he says something he seems to make it worse) what I will call " the top hat and monocle factor" does severe damage to his credibility on the "electability" claim; and if he loses that, then his candidacy for the nomination will rapidly collapse.
Now of course, none of this does anything to enhance the electability of Newt Gingrich, who, given the high level of negatives he has, and the persona he projects, I remain convinced is virtually unelectable under nearly any scenario one can rationally imagine. (I suppose if unemployment goes north of 10% or there's another major terrorist attack in the US, he might have a slender chance)
So for Republicans like myself, who are interested in nominating a candidate who might actually be able to win the election, suffice it to say these are not the happiest of times...
And given how highly vulnerable Obama would be to even a half way decent campaign, this situation is doubly depressing...
My understanding is that if Mitt loses Florida, there will be a enormous amount of pressure to either get another candidate into the race (possibly Jeb Bush) or to get him to bow out in order to give Santorum a clean shot at Gingrich (Gingrich is viewed by many in the party establishment the same way I see him; vitually unelectable. Santorum would have a better chance, and frankly if Romney doesn't act together quickly on the Top Hat and Monocle stuff, Santorum will emerge as more electable than Mitt)
Re: Rock v. hard place
"Electability" is both a blessing to Mittens and his curse. As I've said before, his entire raison d'être is entitlement, he will say anything to get elected, and he has no deep convictions except his own belief of his entitlement to the President. When you dig beyond the surface of Mitt -- who absolutely makes a better 10-second candidate than Newton Leroy -- you don't find much to like. He isn't evil, but he is thin, flat, and makes you say "meh."
Obviously I won't be voting for either of the two (or Santorum, or Jeb Bush -- and oh what a comedy *that* would be), but all that being said, Newt is far more of a despicable human being, far more capable of doing harm to policies and programs I believe in, and far more sneaky and evil than poor Mittens. In fact he makes Mittens look like a mewing kitten.
So push/shove, I dislike them both, but I'd vote for Mittens, because I think he could be contained, and I don't think he's capable of doing much harm. Newton is pure evil, I could never vote for him. He is a despicable, self-centered, lying fraud.
A couple of things I've been thinking about: according to the exit polling, Newt did better with SC women than Mitt (and I listened to two of those dingbats interviewed on NPR this morning). I don't get that at all, the man has demonstrated nothing but contempt for women and families. I tremble for my sisters who see anything positive in that man.
And if Mittens does end up getting the nomination, what will the Rs do when they can no longer sneer at Obama's Harvard credentials and claim he (and the Dems generally) is some intellectual "elite", since Mittens has two Harvard degrees of his own.
Obviously I won't be voting for either of the two (or Santorum, or Jeb Bush -- and oh what a comedy *that* would be), but all that being said, Newt is far more of a despicable human being, far more capable of doing harm to policies and programs I believe in, and far more sneaky and evil than poor Mittens. In fact he makes Mittens look like a mewing kitten.
So push/shove, I dislike them both, but I'd vote for Mittens, because I think he could be contained, and I don't think he's capable of doing much harm. Newton is pure evil, I could never vote for him. He is a despicable, self-centered, lying fraud.
A couple of things I've been thinking about: according to the exit polling, Newt did better with SC women than Mitt (and I listened to two of those dingbats interviewed on NPR this morning). I don't get that at all, the man has demonstrated nothing but contempt for women and families. I tremble for my sisters who see anything positive in that man.
And if Mittens does end up getting the nomination, what will the Rs do when they can no longer sneer at Obama's Harvard credentials and claim he (and the Dems generally) is some intellectual "elite", since Mittens has two Harvard degrees of his own.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: Rock v. hard place
I was tempted to choose Newt for entertainment value alone...but I think that for all his faults, Mitt has much less potential to cause real harm to the nation. I suspect Romney would be the Republican equivalent of Jimmy Carter, and would be gone after four years (probably replaced by Hillary Clinton, but that's a whole 'nother thread...)
And that's the problem: he also has several BAD answers to that same question.dgs49 wrote:Newt has a good answer for every question.
Well, yeah, there's that, too....Guinevere wrote:Newton is pure evil, I could never vote for him. He is a despicable, self-centered, lying fraud.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: Rock v. hard place
Gee Econo, you must really want to turn me into a Gingrich supporter....I suspect Romney would be the Republican equivalent of Jimmy Carter,
Re: Rock v. hard place
I'd end up choosing Mitt on the appearance that his extraordinarily huge ego doesn't drift into the "Mad Scientist" realm as much as Newts does. I don't think Mitt is anywhere near likely enough to destroy the nation/world by sheer acts of hubris as Newt is.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Rock v. hard place
I voted for Mitt.
But now my dog is pissed at me!
But now my dog is pissed at me!
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: Rock v. hard place
The Best scenario for R's is probably the infamous "brokered convention," in which somebody like Chris Christy emerges as the nominee. Maybe Paul Ryan.
But I have to say that the MSM's and the Left's almost apoplectic hate of Newt will generally work in his favor. In their eagerness to tar and feather him at every turn, the public will - just like the S. Carolinians - rally around him.
But I have to say that the MSM's and the Left's almost apoplectic hate of Newt will generally work in his favor. In their eagerness to tar and feather him at every turn, the public will - just like the S. Carolinians - rally around him.
Re: Rock v. hard place
Jenny's new favorite webpage:
She's actually secretly hoping for a Romney nomination, which will ensure a longer time in the political limelight for her ilk.
She's actually secretly hoping for a Romney nomination, which will ensure a longer time in the political limelight for her ilk.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: Rock v. hard place
Both are amazingly dishonest, more than most presidential pretenders, Mitt is less so.
Neither will win the general election.
yrs,
rubato
Neither will win the general election.
yrs,
rubato
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9100
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: Rock v. hard place
Looks like Florida -- and the GOP nom -- are slipping away from Mitt.
Go Newt! Gingrich/Gingrich 2012 (his ego is big enough for both spots on the ticket)!!!!11!!!1!!1!!!!!!!
Looks like this may be the year the Republican Party picks to commit suicide.
Go Newt! Gingrich/Gingrich 2012 (his ego is big enough for both spots on the ticket)!!!!11!!!1!!1!!!!!!!
Looks like this may be the year the Republican Party picks to commit suicide.
GAH!
Re: Rock v. hard place
The desperate flailing of some Republicans notwithstanding, the public mood is not one of "resent[ing] successful people". It is one of resenting (1) the fact that the system is rigged in favor of those who are already wealthy and (2) the fact that the system is rigged in favor of those who are already wealthy, because those who are already wealthy get to make the rules.
Americans, on the whole, do not resent successful people. They want to become successful people.
But when they see that billionaires pay lower tax rates than do ordinary working stiffs, they get angry. And rightly so. And when they see that billionaires pay lower tax rates than do ordinary working stiffs, because billionaires get to decide who pays what, they understand perfectly well whom to get angry at.
Americans do not resent successful people. They resent being screwed out of their fair chance to become successful people. And as long as they remain cognizant that they are getting screwed, and cognizant of who is screwing them, the Republicans are in deep -- and long overdue -- shit.
Americans, on the whole, do not resent successful people. They want to become successful people.
But when they see that billionaires pay lower tax rates than do ordinary working stiffs, they get angry. And rightly so. And when they see that billionaires pay lower tax rates than do ordinary working stiffs, because billionaires get to decide who pays what, they understand perfectly well whom to get angry at.
Americans do not resent successful people. They resent being screwed out of their fair chance to become successful people. And as long as they remain cognizant that they are getting screwed, and cognizant of who is screwing them, the Republicans are in deep -- and long overdue -- shit.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Rock v. hard place
Newt did better with SC women than Mitt
That was surprising to me as well, though a couple of things should be said about that. First, while Gingrich did win a plurality among women (36% to 32% for Romney) there was still about a five point gender gap versus the percentage Newt got among men; and second the number also means that 64% of women voted for someone other than Gingrich.
The other really eye-popping and discouraging exit poll number I saw was that among those voters who rated the ability to defeat Obama as their number one criteria for picking a nominee, (about 50% of the total voters) a majority 51%...voted for Gingrich....
Political analysts have a technical term for that...
"Nuts"....
Perhaps, but his own mouth, personality, and history will be working against him....But I have to say that the MSM's and the Left's almost apoplectic hate of Newt will generally work in his favor.
That might be true Dave, if the general election electorate mirrored the South Carolina GOP primary electorate. It doesn't.the public will - just like the S. Carolinians - rally around him.