Why take advice from Rachel Maddow on who the best Republican is? I find it seriously messed up that basically the reason conservatives vote for him is because the liberal media has everyone convinced he's the best candidate. Well, not hard to see why when you try and find meaningful differences between his policies and Obama's.
But look at what they pulled recently with they push to support Santorum. From one source I follow, and it has some good points.
Backassward Democratic Endorsements
In a way, Democrats have tipped their hand regarding who they would rather see running against Obama…anybody but Romney.
From Gateway Pundit, the Lefty website Daily Kos sent out an email blast telling Michigan Democrats to vote for Santorum in that State’s open primary. (Assuming Twitter is a legit source in these modern times.)
It was also reported today in the Detroit News that Santorum is appealing to Michigan Democrats as well. Romney fired back saying that was a sleazy move, which is how I’m leaning on it as well.
Santorum defended it by saying he is trying to win over Michigan Democrats not only to win the primary, but to also retain them in a race against Obama. Is that realistic?
Given his propensity to drag out his agenda of Conservative social issues, I highly doubt Santorum is capable of wooing more Dems or Moderates over to his side than could Romney.
Romney’s message focuses more on the economy, the debt, the budget and repealing Obamacare. All issues that most people agree are paramount this election season.
Apparently, Democrats have seen the latest polling data that puts Romney ahead in a head-to-head match-up with Obama. Dems backing Santorum for the primary should serve as an endorsement for Romney…they aren’t going to help defeat Obama. They want to prolong the Republican primary battle and possibly help bring forward a Republican they believe they can defeat.
I think focusing on "who can beat Obama" is the wrong thing. As I said earlier, I think it's tantamount to a "vote for Stalin unless you want Hitler to win" argument. All the remaining candidates "can" beat Obama, and nobody can predict how the pendulum swings in political campaigns. I personally think both Newt and Paul probably have a far better shot in the general against Obama than Romney. But then again, I don't listen to the MSM for my voting advice (and not saying you do, but the liberals set the tone and framework of political discussions).
But in my mind the important thing is that Obama is beaten by someone who will enact positive change for the country. And Republican voters have different ideas on what that is - Santorum for the social conservatives that care about principles and values, and also evangelical wing of the party. Paul for the small government, pro-freedom / libertarian wing. Gingrinch for the.. I was tempted to make a joke and say "reality wing," but what I really should say is pre-neocon Reagan wing. These are valid discussions, in terms of what should the Republican platform be. What's the soul of the party.
Romney? Yeah, if you want the platform to be "three inches to the right of Obama." I just think it's incredibly short term logic.
Last edited by m00; 03-09-2012 at 02:30 AM.
Obama is too dangerous. I don't like Romney, but there's nothing in his past to suggest that he hung out with radicals or had a possible hidden agenda to radicalize the country and push it ever closer to a European style philosophy. I don't like his Massachusetts health care plan, but if he pledges to stop Obama care, we have to take a chance. We know that darned plan will not be stopped if Obama is president again.
The destination is that in my lifetime, every candidate since Reagan has gotten progressively worse, in both parties. I think we're at a point where liberal and conservative doesn't even mean anything anymore in a general election. We have really really bad and really really really bad. Every election both parties add another "really" and argue about who is worse. I went back and watched the Reagan/Mondale debates recently, and good lord both those guys are head and shoulders above everyone that has ended up winning a nomination in recent memory.
Bush '41 was kinda meh
Dole and Clinton were okay, but I wouldn't call either great or either terrible (on edit: Clinton and Gingrich worked together to balance the budget. Can you imagine how bizarre that would sound today - John Boehner and Obama work together to balance the budget)
Gore was worse AND Bush '43 was worse
Kerry? I thought we hit a low point but no.
McCain? Okay, now you're killing me. Obama?
What's next? You can chart this on a graph. Every-time I think we can't do worse, we do worse. Republicans are probably an election behind on the "bad" scale. McCain was a Gore, and Romney is a Kerry. So we're in this cycle where the times are always abnormal, and we're always told to hold our nose. But if you compare Romney to say Bill Clinton (who came out and supported the oil pipeline by the way), Clinton is more conservative and solidly a better leader and president than Romney would ever be. That's madness.
Last edited by m00; 03-09-2012 at 03:01 AM.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|