Printable View
Santorum could never be Romney's VP. Think about how many Republican brains that would fry.....
Romney can't pick Perry, either, because that's no better than having Palin one heart beat away from the Presidency. He also couldn't choose someone like Christie who'd seem stronger and more principled. My guess would be someone like Mitch Daniels (guv of IN). Not too well known by the majority of voters, but also a Republican "team player". Dan Quayle v 2.0?
Republicans consistently get over a third of the Hispanic vote, and Cubans don't make up a third of all American Hispanics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Christie has many accomplishments beyond union busting. It's the reason he's pretty popular in New Jersey, a left-wing state.
As I said, I'm not very familiar with the man, but do you disagree that he wouldn't appeal to the fundie whackjobs?
I think he'd appeal to a considerable part of the electorate, which is why he'd be a good choice. He has a reputation for getting things done, even if it means attacking either party's holy cows. The only reason why he might not be nominated is because he's not much of a follower and probably stands to gain more from remaining governor.
I didn't say Perry was the best choice, I said he was the natural choice if Romney was going to pick from among his rivals, i.e. people who actually showed up in the race for nominee.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I'm not really familiar enough with the GOP light and middle-weight pool to feel comfortable trying to make a pick from there, there are too many valid factors Romney could choose to emphasize in selecting a running mate. I do agree that I don't think it could/would be Christie. He doesn't bring anywhere near enough balance to the ticket and at this point I'm convinced that "no" doesn't really mean "yes," at least for the 2012 race.
I could see Christie more wanting to stay aloof and view himself as a contender in 2016 after Obama's term limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yep...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Why is TronPaul even in the Republican Party rather than the libertarians, btw?
Because he likes getting elected.
Seems he has his own fanbase which is separate and distinct from regular Republicans.
That doesn't get you 50% of the vote.
How about a children's toy?
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-...cash--20120323
Looks like Paul might not be so high-minded after all.
Er, yeah. You've got your smoking gun, right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No, his campaign manager was lying. :noob:
This is it, folks. This is the dirt on Ron Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Is he the god idol to replace Obama? All criticism out of bounds, even when not meant to criticize?
No, but I don't see how looking into a VP nod somehow would negate a candidates principles. Maybe you can connect those dots for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It was in reference to Cain's earlier remark that Paul is too principled to run as VP.
Sure does. But that doesn't help much in bumfuck Texas, where his congressional district is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
So, in addition to :bulb: to the rest (a campaign manager saying someone could "potentially" be "looking" for something is about as non-committal a statement as you can make), what is it you think Ron Paul's goals and principles are?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not on issues but in case of the way his fan base works he's like UKIP or BOO (Better Off Out) Tories at home. A bunch of hardcore fanatics spread out across the country (and making a ton of noise on the Internet). But in reality never that many in an individual place and despite a number of false dawns no real chance of getting a plurality of the votes to get elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Excluding the crazy loser-takes-most PR system we use in Europe elections obviously. Or that's equivalent to winning a few delegates as they're not winner takes all anymore, but still no chance of getting a majority.
Read the comments on Loki's link LOL. Either Paul's going to win on delegates or he's cheated out of it. Read the comments on British political sides and you'd think everyone was UKIP/BOO.
It's interesting that Lewk's "public transit is socialism" analysis has gained such traction.
Rubio has been rumored to be a likely candidate for months now. Many Hispanic groups are a natural base for Republicans in lots of ways, were it not for their unfortunate inability to take the right stand on expanding immigration (EG the Hispanic quadrant of my family would fits demo/political profile very well).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Except that the Democrats aren't any better in their stance on immigration when it comes right down to it (can't have a bunch of wetbacks mooching off their cherished social programs), so it's kind of a given that immigrants are gonna get screwed, so the Republican platform really is better aligned with the interests of immigrants than the Democratic one, hence the strong Latino base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
How do you figure that? Democrats, as a group, are more supportive of the Dream Act. They're also more likely to support things like public education and healthcare for everyone, regardless of proven citizenship, or ability to pay in private markets. Those are the things that attract immigration to the USA in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Yeah because that's what America should want to do... attract moochers.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
With my twin super-human abilities of cognition and ability to observe events.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
What actual steps or results have Democrats taken to make immigration (or the life of immigrants already in this country) easier in the last 20 years or so? Contrast with the consequences of their policies that have made immigration a great deal more difficult, and you end up with the knowledge that if anything, the Democrats have made immigration and being an immigrant more difficult and more miserable.
The Republicans don't articulate their position well —*they seem to be unable to credibly say they want to defend the border and encourage immigration with sane immigration policies. They tend to focus on the border patrols and less on how important immigrants are to our society. Not to mention getting into fights over "official languages".Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Then again, many Democrats aren't able to credibly say they want to protect the border. And their hope is the newcomers get hooked on big-state social programs and see government as a tool of advancement, much like the left-wing sees government service/programs as tools for African-American advancement (instead of the private sector).
It simply doesn't matter what the Democrats do or don't do as long as the GOP remains its own worst enemy in dealing with minorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
No argument there, but the point that Democrats don't do anything either (and are probably worse, long-run) shouldn't be ignored, nor should it be overlooked as the cause of why Latinos offer substantial electoral support to the minority-bashing GOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0406234458.htm
I think this is relevant to Santorum. :o
pfft, it's probably relevant to a majority of US men in powerful positions. Older men have great difficulty accepting anything remotely homo-erotic, and "try too hard to prove" their heterosexual orientation. Sometimes by trying to enact laws like DADT or DOMA. Or it's "thinly veiled" in religious doctrine, and perpetuated by the Vatican, even though the Roman Catholic Church has been exposed as a cesspool of pedophilia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:rolleyes:
I don't think a majority of powerful US older men are self-loathing homosexuals :rolleyes:. I think they're just dinosaurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
But according to latest research, dinosaurs were fabulous, dahhling. Dunno about the self-loathing, though
The T-Rex was full of self-loathing...kingly name, those little gay hands...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
To paraphrase Chris Keller, you don't need hands to be gay, just a mouth to suck with...
Bah...that's SO one dimensional.
Santorum is finally out.
Must have been the gay study that drove him out. :o
Good riddance.
This is the day the magic died :(