Which candidate should be the Republican nominee?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlum

I would vote for Romney with no problem if he's the nominee. If Ron Paul is the nominee, then Barack Obama is going to be re-elected. I think that Romney is a better debater than you may think. He's certainly more cerebral than McCain. I also think that anyone who won't vote for him because he's "not a Christian" is simply an ignorant person who cannot be very educated.

And in '08 Obama had the thinnest of resumes and record for an opponent to "mine". That is certainly not the case now. Romney also has earned a paycheck in the private sector, which the President has not done.

Is Romney the tea party's ideal? No. He's a person who was elected as a Republican in one of the very bluest states and if he were any more right of center he would have had no chance. That said, I think that if the Republicans hold the house and can take the Senate, it won't matter because voters are so upset there will be some major shifting in Washington, and Romney's feet will be held to the fire. At least, I hope so.

I hope Rubio or even Christie would be considered for VP. That would be an attractive choice for those who are ready for strong and effective speeches on the trail.

Ron Paul will not be the nominee. He's like Al Sharpton... has his own cult following, brings up some interesting points and adds flavor to the mix, but totally polarizing and unelectable.

I will also be quite surprised if Christie doesn't end up on the ticket for VP. The guy's a shoo-in. His huge media event to announce that he wasn't going to run in 2012 set the stage for VP IMO.

[SWTXBelle]

If Romney gets the nod, it won't be Christie. (See above "pandering" discussion). No way they are going to have two east coasters on the ticket.

[DubaiSis]

Happy Iowa Caucuses day. As a "thinks Obama isn't liberal enough" lefty, I'm interested to see how this plays out. Instinctively I think it will be Romney. My parents, Republicans god help them, are and have been Mitt fans and since I don't think they're COMPLETE wingnuts, I'll trust them to that extent. I think the tea-partiers should be beating down doors to be Ron Paul fans but I think when the rubber hits the road they don't want strict constitutionalism to the extent he proscribes. They like to TALK about less taxes but not where it butts up against shrinking our military to the extent he thinks it should be. I do think a general between true fiscal conservatism (Paul) and what will have to pass for liberalism would be an interesting fight and really force people to think about what they believe.

And I want to believe the era of religion over any sort of common sense or rights for anyone who doesn't believe just like you is on the wane. That cuts out a couple of candidates. And although I think there will be people who won't support Mitt just because of his religion, I don't think it should affect most voters. I personally think the religion is goofy but he's not going to be looking at any peepstones for decisions so I think we're safe.

I have a feeling Perry will fail because of how he chose to position himself, not how he actually believes. But then that's true of SOOOOO many politicians. Why oh why can't you campaign on your actual beliefs and plans and let the chips fall where they may?

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

Why oh why can't you campaign on your actual beliefs and plans and let the chips fall where they may?

I hear ya. I think it would be more about beliefs and plans if Presidents were limited to one term. Since they're already looking ahead to the next election though, they're too afraid to do what they believe until re-election is off the table. We've got it all backwards, I think. I'd like to see the POTUS term go from a maximum of two 4-year terms to only one 6-year term.

Regarding those who want a talented debater, I can't help but wonder why that is important in the grand scheme of things. I realize that this year, for a republican to win they'll have to outshine Obama, so I guess I'm asking a general question about why debating is important. It's not like POTUSes have to actually debate once they're in office. And they have all kinds of speech writers to make sure that what they deliver on camera comes out as antiseptic as possible. I just don't get why debating is such a crucial thing. It seems to me that it's crucial to a candidate's success in the election, but not crucial to the person who is actually elected. Like we're more interested in who can put on a good show instead of who can run a good show.

[DubaiSis]

I would contend that the president has to be an excellent debater because all of his/her real work is done in the oval office one on one with other world leaders, congressional leaders, lobbyists, etc. THIS is why I want my president to be the smartest person in the room and I could care less if I could sit around drinking a beer with him. I don't need him to be able to talk to ME; I want him to be able to talk to a third world dictator. And I'm right and god's going to strike you down isn't going to get that conversation done.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I hear ya. I think it would be more about beliefs and plans if Presidents were limited to one term. Since they're already looking ahead to the next election though, they're too afraid to do what they believe until re-election is off the table. We've got it all backwards, I think. I'd like to see the POTUS term go from a maximum of two 4-year terms to only one 6-year term.

Regarding those who want a talented debater, I can't help but wonder why that is important in the grand scheme of things. I realize that this year, for a republican to win they'll have to outshine Obama, so I guess I'm asking a general question about why debating is important. It's not like POTUSes have to actually debate once they're in office. And they have all kinds of speech writers to make sure that what they deliver on camera comes out as antiseptic as possible. I just don't get why debating is such a crucial thing. It seems to me that it's crucial to a candidate's success in the election, but not crucial to the person who is actually elected. Like we're more interested in who can put on a good show instead of who can run a good show.

Because presidential campaigns are highly scripted and controlled, the debates are among the few opportunities to see candidates forced to react to occassional unforseen moments. In these moments voters sometimes get a glimpse behind the mask, to see how a candidate thinks on their feet, unprotected by media handlers or strategy.

Look back to Gerald Ford "no soviet domination in the eastern (European) block" comment in his 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter. Or George H.W. Bush
(41)'s perceived "can't be bothered with this" when the camera caught him looking at his watch in a somewhat annoyed manner during his '92 debate with Bill Clinton.

Not to say that debates definitely provide game changing moments, but the media drama attendant to such events tends to set the story/campaign narriative going forward -- particularly for voters who are only casually, or more likely, minimially informed on the issues in the first place.


...I think a single, 6-year presidential term is an interesting idea also, but the office/process will obviously never be free of "politics."

[AGDee]

Romney by 8 points in Iowa. That's not much of a win. Gingrich sounded pretty bitter in his speech. Ron Paul 3rd...

Ron Paul on the Today show "The top two were so close that it was more like they were tied for first and we were second" Um, when two tie for first, there is no second and third is still third. Sorry.

[SWTXBelle]

Place isn't as important as percentage - and the top three are amazingly close.
Argument that Santorum won - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ampshire_.html

On the plus side - looks like Texas will get its governor back - oh, wait . . .

[moe.ron]

If politics were the NFL, then the upcoming Republican primaries would be the playoffs. So, let’s take a look at the top remaining GOP presidential contenders through the lens of NFL teams and players.

1. Rick Santorum is Tim Tebow

Much like Denver Broncos QB Tim Tebow, Rick Santorum’s primary chances have come alive in the fourth quarter. Furthermore, they have been ignited to a large extent by his Christian conservatism. Sound familiar? One man in Iowa told ABC News Monday that Santorum “is basically a Christ follower and that is important to me.” Similarly, an Iowan woman attributed her support for Santorum Monday to the fact that ”he is clearly a moral man with high integrity.” So, if you see any Santorum supporters around Iowa or New Hampshire down on their knees with their foreheads pressed to their fists in the upcoming days, don’t be surprised. They’re just Tebowing.

2. Ron Paul is the Cincinnati Bengals

Yes, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has been around as a Republican presidential hopeful for years, but this time something is different. Much like the Bengals, Paul now has a young offensive line, and he has enjoyed late-surging success in Iowa because of it. It’s called Youth for Ron Paul, and it’s taking Iowa, Facebook and college campuses across the country by storm. It seems many of Paul’s libertarian ideas appeal to members of the millennial generation, who are anti-war, noninterventionist and believe marriage rights should be decided by the states. So, many college kids descended upon Iowa this winter, opting for a winter break of politics over skiing and bar hopping, as part of an initiative called Christmas Break with Ron Paul. A December Fox News Poll found that Paul had twice as much support in voters under 50 than over.

3. Rick Perry is the Philadelphia Eagles

Here, the comparison is about hype. At the start of the 2011 season, Eagles players began heavily hyping their team and its playoff chances. Backup quarterback Vince Young hailed Philadelphia’s 2011 squad as the “dream team.” Then, come January, the Eagles did not even make the playoffs. Hype can be a curse, if it attracts exaggerated expectations and an unapologetic spotlight; something the Rick Perry campaign knows a thing or two about. And there is only one word to describe Rick Perry’s debate performances under that intense spotlight: “oops.”

4. Newt Gingrich is the New York Jets

If Rick Perry is the Eagles, then Newt Gingrich is the Jets. His is also a story about the curse of hype. In December, a confident Newt Gingrich told ABC’s Jon Karl, “I’m going to be the nominee. It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee.” Does that premature boasting sound a little bit like Rex Ryan? Like Mark Sanchez? Since then, Gingrich has fallen steadily in the polls and the Jets will not be repeating its stint in the playoffs.

5. Mitt Romney is Aaron Rodgers

Much like Aaron Rodgers, who sat behind Brett Favre in Green Bay for years waiting for his turn in the big seat, Mitt Romney had to sit on the bench and watch Sen. John McCain clinch the nomination in 2008. Now, of all the quarterbacks in the league, Rodgers has the fewest interceptions and the most touchdowns. His Green Bay Packers, then, are akin to Romney’s 2012 campaign this primary season: steady and still with a good chance to win this thing.

6. Romney PAC, on the other hand, is the New England Patriots

While Mitt Romney gets to remain the smiling, steady face of a largely positive official campaign (the Aaron Rodgers of the NFL), there is a strong force behind him with the ability to carry out his dirty work and demolish his opponents. (Full disclosure: This article was not written by a Patriots fan.) Like the Patriots, Romney’s super PAC Restore Our Future has the money, the talent and the ability to effectively defeat foes. Take, for example, Newt Gingrich’s fleeting lead in the polls. The solution was simple: Romney’s super PAC quietly went to work and, in no time at all, nearly half of the political ads on Iowa television were anti-Newt.

Sorry don't have the original link. got this from another board.

[DubaiSis]

That's a fabulous story! And AGDee, that's 8 VOTES, not 8 points. But the important thing for people to remember is the candidates all take their delegates with them, so top 3 (or 4 if it's close which in this case it wasn't) can hold their heads high moving forward.

As a person with no horse in this race, I was reasonably happy with the outcome. I don't like Santorum AT ALL, but knowing caucus goers are generally blue-hairs, it's not a surprise he did well. Paul was the big surprise to me, and the scariest for the Democrats in my opinion because he provides the clearest counterpoint to the president. Romney may be the most sane of the bunch, but like Kerry, (is everyone from MA boring?) it's hard to get very excited about someone who's such a yawnfest. And you need exciting to get out the vote. "I think he'll do an ok job and not run the country into the crapper" is no way to get frenzied voters beating down the doors on November 6th.

[AlphaFrog]

With all of the disenchanted former Obama lovers, six months ago I would have though that this is the GOP's race to lose...I see they're doing a pretty good job of it.

[steveg]

Sad to say, the GOP has no real winner running.

Mitt, is a hot air balloon. No substance.
Newt, to much bagage.
Ron Paul, to old and to far out.
Perry, should hang it up.
Bachman, well, she is gone.
Santorum, to smiley and meely mouth. Talks a lot and says nothing.
Huntsman, gone.

Possibles?

Christie, size will kill him.
Jeb Busch, a Busch, country not ready for another one. He could be a good one. Hope he is sane enough to stay retired and live like a human being.
Trump, well he is The Donald.

GOP is in trouble, no new Ronald Reagan to come forward on his white horse. Heck, the whole country is in trouble!

[MysticCat]

Hi Tom.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Hi Tom.

He did manage to hold off on using emoticons. I know it had to have been hard for him!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

He did manage to hold off on using emoticons. I know it had to have been hard for him!

I know. Ironic, given this:

Originally Posted by steveg

Santorum, to smiley . . . .

I liked the part about another Busch in the White House, though.