conservativeguy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 405
- Location
- ATL
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I think Johnson is just as libertarian as Paul.
Romney has won only one election is his political career. He lost 2 and avoided defeat by not running in another. He ran for the senate in Massachuesetts and lost. He ran for governor and won. He didn't run for a second term as governor since he would lose. He ran for the republican nomination for president and lost. It seems to me every other republican candidate has won considerably more races than Mittens......why is this turkey considered to be the most electable in the crowd? He has alienated the conservative base and he is an Epic flip flopper. I think the democrats know he is about as personable as BO, which means the more people see him the less they like him.......which is why they are trying to push Romney as the most electable when that could not be any further from the truth. Thoughts?
I've never believed that Romney was electable, He will say anything to anyone when he thinks that is what they want to hear.
I believe that Obama cannot win in 12, but the Republicans can figure out a way to lose. From what I am seeing, the present crop of candidates is proving me right.
I used to think Romney was electable, but now I think all the real talent in the GOP has been ignored - Huntsman and Johnson are worthy GOP candidates. Paul is a worthy candidate, but he is not a GOP, he is a Libertarian. The rest of the GOP field are just placeholders IMO. YMMV
..I think so too, for the most part.I think Johnson is just as libertarian as Paul.
The ability to be a Rorschach is what makes him electable to the general public (not necessarily GOP primary voters).
And therein lies the problem. To become president in the US you have to win two elections, and the two are not necessarily mutually compatible.
I think Johnson is just as libertarian as Paul.
I used to think Romney was electable, but now I think all the real talent in the GOP has been ignored - Huntsman and Johnson are worthy GOP candidates. Paul is a worthy candidate, but he is not a GOP, he is a Libertarian. The rest of the GOP field are just placeholders IMO. YMMV
Romney has won only one election is his political career. He lost 2 and avoided defeat by not running in another. He ran for the senate in Massachuesetts and lost. He ran for governor and won. He didn't run for a second term as governor since he would lose. He ran for the republican nomination for president and lost. It seems to me every other republican candidate has won considerably more races than Mittens......why is this turkey considered to be the most electable in the crowd? He has alienated the conservative base and he is an Epic flip flopper. I think the democrats know he is about as personable as BO, which means the more people see him the less they like him.......which is why they are trying to push Romney as the most electable when that could not be any further from the truth. Thoughts?
It's not so much that Romney is an amazing candidate; I think that win or lose, he'll perform respectably in the election...but not much more than that. He simply has the benefit of being one of the few electable candidates in an otherwise weak Republican field. With the exception of Jon Huntsman, the other candidates have proven themselves to be either too amateurish and/or too extreme to win the presidency. Someone like Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry looks pretty good on paper, but they are far too undisciplined to ever run a serious presidential campaign. All of the other candidates are vanity candidates, and the fact that any of them ever rose in the polls in the first place is a testament to how weak the current field is.
Compare that with 2008, when the Republicans had at least three candidates who could perform respectably well in the general election (Romney, McCain, Huckabee) and a couple others who at least looked good on paper (Thompson, Giuliani). In such a field, Romney didn't stand out as anything special. The political landscape in 2012 will probably not be as tilted against the Republicans as it was in 2008, so a respectable Republican candidate may very well be able to win.
Romney is like the Kerry of the Republican Party. No one really likes him, but he is the "safe" choice and he will probably lose because he instills no passion into the race.
Kerry's whole campaign was to not stand for or do anything to piss anyone off and run as "not Bush." He was a total milquetoast. I haven't paid a ton of attention to Romney's campaign, but is he similar in that regard?
I think johnson is more libertarian. He is pro-choice and paul is pro-life.
Both positions can be in line with libertarian principles depending on other factors of the persons views
Can you expand on how the government telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body can be in line with libertarian principles?
Sure .. by telling the woman what she can and cannot do with the person-to-be's body.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?