PDA

View Full Version : Really good analysis by Newt



m00
11-07-2012, 02:48 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_rr_7#/video/bestoftv/2012/11/07/exp-point-newt-gingrich-wrong.cnn

Bailey
11-07-2012, 02:56 PM
Yes we have to run a campaign like american idol.

m00
11-07-2012, 02:59 PM
Yes we have to run a campaign like american idol.

Including people who you want to vote for you in the conversation isn't the same as running a campaign like american idol.

Zeus
11-07-2012, 03:05 PM
Including people who you want to vote for you in the conversation isn't the same as running a campaign like american idol.

On the face of it I agree with inclusion in the conversation. The trouble is treating someone or a group of people as special only gets them to thinking as they are special and then the demands come. Somewhat like all the free stuff that got us to the point we are at now.

m00
11-07-2012, 03:23 PM
On the face of it I agree with inclusion in the conversation. The trouble is treating someone or a group of people as special only gets them to thinking as they are special and then the demands come. Somewhat like all the free stuff that got us to the point we are at now.

Getting the Paul people on board wouldn't have been hard, and there wouldn't have been any real concessions from a Conservative standpoint. But let's be honest... you don't want Paubots for their votes, you want to use them for their tireless activism and grassroots organization, and the fact that organization reaches deeply across the aisle. Romney would have just needed to appear serious about personal liberty and auditing the Federal Reserve (neither of which are bad ideas). This is how you get the youth vote.

The real group that was important to include are hispanic voters and young, single women. Hispanics that come to this country have a very high incidence of small-business ownership and small-business participation. There's common ground there. As I said elsewhere George W Bush managed to pick up 40% of the hispanic vote... Romney only picked up 20%. This is to Bush's credit.

I highly doubt young single women actually care about whether the government picks up their $15/mo birth control tab. Republicans just have to stop using dumbass/insulting language when talking about the issue.

You know, Reagan wasn't some magic prophet. He was just a really sincere guy who considered liberals his "friends" and worked with them where there was common ground, and had a "I strongly believe in my convictions, but reasonable people can disagree" approach where there wasn't. Reagan didn't demonize other Americans. He didn't insult people's intelligence. Romney (and lets expand this to the RNC beltway elite crowd) on the other hand couldn't even work with people who were supposed to be in his own party. His campaign considered other Republicans his enemies, but still demanded their vote. It doesn't work like that.

Newt when he was speaker worked with a Democrat president to balance the budget. All the politics aside, when it came down to the wire, Newt and Clinton worked together on economic issues where they could agree (aka... we have to balance this budget, somehow). Romney worked together with democrats when he was Governor and was quite successfully, so I had high hopes in the early primaries. But he seriously burned some important bridges throughout his campaign. And those bridges had voters on them.

"Campaign Mitt" was like the worst of both worlds -- a moderate that couldn't reach across the aisle, or even deeply appeal to anyone other than a narrow segment of Republicans (coincidentally, the Republicans that are the beltway elite crowd).

Just my take.

Zeus
11-07-2012, 03:50 PM
Getting the Paul people on board wouldn't have been hard, and there wouldn't have been any real concessions from a Conservative standpoint. But let's be honest... you don't want Paubots for their votes, you want to use them for their tireless activism and grassroots organization, and the fact that organization reaches deeply across the aisle. Romney would have just needed to appear serious about personal liberty and auditing the Federal Reserve (neither of which are bad ideas). This is how you get the youth vote.

The real group that was important to include are hispanic voters and young, single women. Hispanics that come to this country have a very high incidence of small-business ownership and small-business participation. There's common ground there. As I said elsewhere George W Bush managed to pick up 40% of the hispanic vote... Romney only picked up 20%. This is to Bush's credit.

I highly doubt young single women actually care about whether the government picks up their $15/mo birth control tab. Republicans just have to stop using dumbass/insulting language when talking about the issue.

You know, Reagan wasn't some magic prophet. He was just a really sincere guy who considered liberals his "friends" and worked with them where there was common ground, and had a "I strongly believe in my convictions, but reasonable people can disagree" approach where there wasn't. Reagan didn't demonize other Americans. He didn't insult people's intelligence. Romney (and lets expand this to the RNC beltway elite crowd) on the other hand couldn't even work with people who were supposed to be in his own party. His campaign considered other Republicans his enemies, but still demanded their vote. It doesn't work like that.

Newt when he was speaker worked with a Democrat president to balance the budget. All the politics aside, when it came down to the wire, Newt and Clinton worked together on economic issues where they could agree (aka... we have to balance this budget, somehow). Romney worked together with democrats when he was Governor and was quite successfully, so I had high hopes in the early primaries. But he seriously burned some important bridges throughout his campaign. And those bridges had voters on them.

"Campaign Mitt" was like the worst of both worlds -- a moderate that couldn't reach across the aisle, or even deeply appeal to anyone other than a narrow segment of Republicans (coincidentally, the Republicans that are the beltway elite crowd).

Just my take.

Well you rather emphasized my point. The ronbots were unwilling to bend/give,as evidence by their behavior on this and multiple other boards) but more than willing to take/make demands.

With the hispanics I don't know if it was the Brother from a different mother complex that helped Obama and hurt Romney.

As shallow as it seems I do believe the female vote was more emotional than intellectual.

I don't see not kissing someones ass as demonizing them, it's just more of the "I'm special so what you got for me"

I think there are way to many "Republicans" insisting they are standing on principle while they insist others abandon theirs.

In many aspects of life are instances calling for give and take, this can be done without compromising principle, those not willing to give are takers. 10% of something will always be more than 100% of nothing.

Politicians the likes of Reagan , Tip O'Neill or a Gingrich will not be elected in today's political atmosphere.

Unreconstructed Reb
11-09-2012, 10:24 AM
Getting the Paul people on board wouldn't have been hard

And nobody could have done that any better than Paul himself. Where was he?

m00
11-09-2012, 10:49 AM
And nobody could have done that any better than Paul himself. Where was he?

This isn't true, actually. I think this is a common misconception about people. Endorsements don't matter, adopting positions do. If Paul endorsed Romney, and Romney didn't add a few key points to his stump speech not only would it not have made a difference, but the Paul people would have dropped Paul. If Romney really wanted that vote, he'd just have to work in 5 minutes worth of "auditing the fed" and "personal liberty" whenever he gave an interview (and seemed genuine).

Unreconstructed Reb
11-09-2012, 11:38 AM
This isn't true, actually. I think this is a common misconception about people. Endorsements don't matter, adopting positions do. If Paul endorsed Romney, and Romney didn't add a few key points to his stump speech not only would it not have made a difference, but the Paul people would have dropped Paul. If Romney really wanted that vote, he'd just have to work in 5 minutes worth of "auditing the fed" and "personal liberty" whenever he gave an interview (and seemed genuine).

Bullshit. Paul could have easily gotten enough Paulbots on board to have made a difference. Personal liberty would certainly have a better chance under Romney than the marxist leaning Bronco Bama but either Paul is too stupid to know that or he's an arrogant, self centered SOB. Perhaps he's both........................

m00
11-09-2012, 11:40 AM
Bullshit. Paul could have easily gotten enough Paulbots on board to have made a difference. Personal liberty would certainly have a better chance under Romney than the marxist leaning Bronco Bama but either Paul is too stupid to know that or he's an arrogant, self centered SOB. Perhaps he's both........................

You don't think it would have cost Romney nothing not to make them feel like second-class Republicans?

Novaheart
11-09-2012, 11:43 AM
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_rr_7#/video/bestoftv/2012/11/07/exp-point-newt-gingrich-wrong.cnn

I have long thought that Newt Gingrich was a pig, and I don't say that as a comment on his body. But through the GOP primary, he grew on me. BY the time things were winding up, I thought that Gingrich (warts and all) might just be the best candidate for president in my lifetime. My mother said it was impossible, that his baggage was too much and that women would never vote for him because of his personal life. I disagreed, because I thought that America would rather have an imperfect man doing a good job than a Sears model and 1950's TV stereotype who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the wall. I was wrong.

I will be studying up on Chris Christie. I think he might just be the smartest man out there right now. For some reason he comes off like an up from the streets union boss, but his actual credentials are pretty upper crusty- what a combination! Somehow, he came through all of this leaving me with the impression that he should have been on the ticket. If I'm taken in, I have to assume that others are as well. He needs to lose some weight, Americans can be very shallow and his weight is into the health risk category which some consider relevant to serving as President. Truth is, Ryan will probably hit the dirt before Christie, but that's not the popular perception.

NJCardFan
11-09-2012, 01:57 PM
Getting the Paul people on board wouldn't have been hard,

You're absolutely right. All Ron Paul had to do after the convention is throw his support behind Romney. After it was apparent that Paul wasn't going to get the nomination, like the rest of the candidates, he should have thrown his support behind the winning candidate. What Paul did by acting like he was in the hunt was fracture the party. Whatever he was trying to accomplish failed miserable. The moment when the delegates were being rattled off and some states were giving their votes to Paul, I started to get a feeling that Romney was in trouble. As I keep saying, say what you want about the Democrats but you would never see that garbage at their convention. They threw their support behind Obama 100% and the end result is, well, you see what the end result was. Same goes for the Tea Party.

NJCardFan
11-09-2012, 02:00 PM
You don't think it would have cost Romney nothing not to make them feel like second-class Republicans?

Now you're making the Paulbots sound like LaRouche Democrats. Remember how that turned out?

Madisonian
11-09-2012, 07:22 PM
This is hilarious.
Most of the so-called Paulbots probably voted for Romney anyway but now it will be turned so that it's not the fault of the GOP for advancing a candidate that snatched defeat from the jaws of what should have been a gimme election victory, it's Paul's fault for not backing Romney enough.

Face it. They (the GOP power brokers) gave us the same old shit, we held our collective noses and swallowed the same old shit, 4 years from now it will again be the same old shit and if we don't bend over, grasp our ankles while chanting "thank you sir, may I have another", we will hear the same old shit.

Well folks, I am fucking done with the GOP if they start sucking Obama's schwanz on the fiscal cliff issue and cannot provide a credible candidate for 2016 . The party over principle locksteppers can call me anything they want because at this point I could not care any less than I do right now. If the Dem's run a Grayson/Kucinich ticket vowing free health care for all and 90% tax rates, I will write in Mickey Fucking Mouse before I vote for the next reincarnation of the Dole / McCain / Romney offerings.

It has been said we get the government we deserve. Based on the last 2 elections and what the GOP has dug from the cat box as competition, we, as Conservatives that have allowed it to happen, certainly did.

Swampfox
11-09-2012, 07:31 PM
You don't think it would have cost Romney nothing not to make them feel like second-class Republicans? It would have helped, but it's more complicated than that. Ron Paul supporters tend to support a wide range of issues, some of which would require the Republican party to change their stances on a few issues in order to get them in the fold. For what it's worth anecdotedly of the five people I know who voted for Gary Johnson, if he wasn't running/there was no libertarian candidate, 2 would not have voted, 1 would have voted for another third party, 1 would have voted for Obama and 1 would have voted for Romney.

JB
11-09-2012, 07:37 PM
Face it. They (the GOP power brokers) gave us the same old shit...How so?

JB
11-09-2012, 07:41 PM
Endorsements don't matter, adopting positions do. If Paul endorsed Romney, and Romney didn't add a few key points to his stump speech not only would it not have made a difference, but the Paul people would have dropped Paul. If Romney really wanted that vote, he'd just have to work in 5 minutes worth of "auditing the fed" and "personal liberty" whenever he gave an interview (and seemed genuine).So what? His political career is over. He could have come out for Romney.

Rand Paul came out for Romney. Are the Paul people going to drop him?

Rockntractor
11-09-2012, 08:17 PM
So what? His political career is over. He could have come out for Romney.

Rand Paul came out for Romney. Are the Paul people going to drop him?

The moonbat Ron Paul Coast to Coast crowd would never have voted for republicans, if we have to start bending political stances to appease them we are just as well off with democrats. I'm not sure what these libertine freaks got, but I don't think it was any over 2 %.
We ought to run a campaign aggressively as actual conservatives once just for kicks.

m00
11-10-2012, 12:12 AM
The moonbat Ron Paul Coast to Coast crowd would never have voted for republicans, if we have to start bending political stances to appease them we are just as well off with democrats.

Yeah if the Republican Party can't "bend its stances" to accommodate small government, civil liberties, and a reduction of executive authority... we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

Rockntractor
11-10-2012, 12:49 AM
Yeah if the Republican Party can't "bend its stances" to accommodate small government, civil liberties, and a reduction of executive authority... we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

When you really start looking into Ron Paul he is a lot more than that, I question whether he would even stick to those tenants, Ron Paul is not the Tea Party even though He may think he is.

I think it's time to turn the Tea Party into an actual political party, the republican party has run it's course and all things eventually end.
The Republican party right now reminds me of when you watch a western and the gunfighter get's shot in the chest but he doesn't die instantly, he puts his hand to his chest and stares at the blood on his hand in disbelief, he then falls to the ground. The Republicans are at the stage of disbelief staring at their hand, waiting only to fall over.