There's A Presumptive GOP Candidate...Now The Question
 

It certainly looks like Mitt Romney will be the Republican presidential candidate.

Now the $64,000 question...will all the fractured, single issue, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives get behind this candidate to try to unseat Barack Obama from election to a second term? Will the religious right swallow hard and vote for a Mormon? Will the 'right to lifers' support someone whose position on that question is not quite clear cut? Will the Tea Party buckle up and support a candidate less fiscally conservative than they would like? Will those viciously opposing ObamaCare back Romney, who got a very similar program passed in Massachusetts?

Basically, will the entirety of the Republican Party come together to back a candidate to replace President Obama? Will the GOP electorate do what the Congress has been unable to do...compromise on a candidate that might not be all they had wished for, but who is better than the incumbent?

Very simply, if Republicans don't come together, there's little doubt that Barack Obama will be a two-term president.

What do you think? What will you do? How will you vote?

Why, you in a real rush here. Your crystal ball much be very busy lately. It's too early for this discussion.

I agree Richie but any of the remaining GOP candidates would be better than what we currently have in the White House.

That being said, I would love to see the field whittle down to Romney and either Santorum or Gingrich to see who the GOP voters really throw their support behind.

Romney will get the nomination.............. Obama will bring out some new programs that impress the voters and he will win the election by a small margin. So everyone can go on to new topics as I have spoken and given you the outcome of the upcoming election. There is no need to speculate any longer. Your welcome.

The Villager II

Villager II is pretty close but the margin of Obama's win will not be close but sizable.

We have spoken. "Nuff said.

You crack me up. Maybe if Obama gets his plan through to access 1.3 Trillion Dollars or so to pay off the populace with mortgage deductions, as he's trying to do, which has been reported. That might give him his margin of victory by the buying of votes. We'll see.

"Pay off the populace with mortgage deductions"? I honestly don't understand that statement. Aren't mortgage interests deductible right now?

I do see that you are beginning to believe that President Obama probably will win in November and you are starting very early to rationalize (downplay) that winning.

This is what I was talking about. I skimmed it earlier this week on one of my scouting missions for another story and forgot the specifics of it. Obama wnts to spend upwards of a Trillion Dollars to refinance mortgages IN HIS REELECTION YEAR. It's a great grandstanding ploy which I'm sure he hopes gets his reelection votes from all who are helped by this plan which amounts to a tax cut of long duration. It would affect 30 million borrowers, and of course their families.

I know you're going to be "over the moon" on how this helps so many people and why am i against it and blah blah blah blah blah.

Anyway, this trillion dollar scheme is what I was talking about.

Good thing he forced in his new Treasury Secretary, who he claims has full powers even before a Senate confirmation hearing.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2828828/posts

you gotta admire the loyalty to their man and belief (I think)....no matter what!

btk

It's ALL Politics!
 

Holy cats! And Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan wasn't grandstanding to get votes from a segment of the population? Or the plan by Ron Paul and Rick Perry to simply disband several departments of the government? Or any of the many plans and strategies put forth day after day by Newtie? Or if you want to go back a few years, how about the Bush tax cuts? That was about 3-4 times as expensive as the plan you've described that Obama has proposed.

And none of this stuff isn't politically driven...designed to get more votes to assure election or re-election? Of course it is, that's what politics are all about.

Just lets not try to convince one another that if these kinds of plans are proposed by the candidates of one party they're solid, well thought out steps that are part of a broader and valid economic plan, while if the other guys do it, it's irresponsible spending driven only by politics.

ALL this stuff is driven by politics!

Interesting
 

It's interesting that not one single poster seems to have addressed my original question...will the various single issue factions of the GOP come together and compromise with one another to support Mitt Romney in his campaign to displace Barack Obama?

Everyone says that Obama should be replaced, but no one has addressed the possibility or probability that it might happen, and more importantly what's necessary in order that it can happen.

Very simply (the arithmetic being my opinion, of course), if any faction of narrow interest Republicans refuse to support Romney, or any other GOP candidate for that matter, it's game-set-match to Obama in an easy win. The only other factor that could come into play is if there are enough centrist Democrats willing to switch over and vote for the GOP candidate than there are narrow interest defectors from whichever candidate is finally selected. (That's a development only likely to come into play if Romney, a centrist Republican who has proven a willingness to compromise, is the candidate finally chosen.)

This election would be close if somehow the Republicans could suddenly pull their act together and throw all their support and lots of money behind one single GOP candidate. If that candidate is out on the fringe somewhere, like Santorum, Paul or Perry, then the GOP centrists would have to swallow hard, compromise, and back one of them totally. If the candidate is Romney, then the Tea Party, ObamaCare haters, right-to-lifers and Christian conservatives are going to have to line up in lock step behind him. If there are GOP defectors in either circumstance, like I said...it's a really easy re-election for President Obama.

So again the questions: What's going to happen? Where do you stand on the question? Will you enthusiastically support and vote for the Republican candidate, whomever that might be and wherever he might stand on the conservative spectrum?

I don't think an effective Republican consensus will be built. At nomination time there might even appear to be an enthusiastic endorsement of one candidate, but I think it will collapse by November. Why? First because the divisions within the GOP ranks are too deep. A variety of social and fiscal conservative groups will perhaps give half-hearted support, but not be willing to really work for a Romney, or pull the lever for him. Gingrich was right. Only 25% of Iowans liked Romney. Every other potential candidate has a similar or larger faction opposed to him. Compromising their principles to support their party's choice will in the end seem as unacceptable as an Obama win.
Secondly, the superPACS will deepen divisions and make compromise far more difficult. The Iowa experience is a bit of a political science phenomenon. In just a few days Gingrich was ripped to shreds. You could say he's an easy mark, but it's time we recognize what a large portion of the public are swayed by these powerful messages. Opinions and support will shift at warp speed all year. At election time I think many Republicans will be so disillusioned by their party's 'chosen one', that they will stay home. That will be the deciding factor, especially in the swing states.

hold your nose
 

all the conservatives i know have one desire! get Pres Obama out of office...no matter who wins the nomination, and that is by far not a done deal, we will support them and consider our vote as a vote AGAINST obama, and we certainly know that every vote counts....and i am a member of the Tea Party so i know of what i speak!

I won't buy your premise on what constitutes a "fringe" candidate. The thinking behind that is seriously flawed in my opinion. So I must ignore the rest of your post which is dependent on this flaw.

There's no way on God's green earth you can make a case for Santorum or Perry being some kind of fringe candidate. Paul, only if you are of the opinion that his foreign policy ideas are bonkers, as I do. But otherwise even Paul on Domestic Economic Issues makes everyone in the Democrat Party the "fringe".

Right now, the biggest obstacle the GOP faces is the fact that unemployment is ticking down. Even the U6 number is down (the number still unemployed but no longer receiving benefits).

That's the one thing the Republicans could hang their hat on that affects Americans in a more immediate mode as opposed to something further on down the road.

TeaPartiers will vote straight ticket for GNopers no matter who is running! Great idea. Kind of the mentality that is used on the playground.

socialism or freedom
 

yes, tea partiers will vote for any GOP candidate because the choice is between a socialist european style government which we can see is not working in europe and will not work here, or a return to free enterprise, less govt interference, capitalism and values which have made this country great and will again if given this one important opportunity....as i have asked before, Is there a French dream? Is there a British dream? NO! there is an American Dream because of our unique republic, our constituion, and our freedoms which are being threatened by leftist ideas. make up your minds, people! it is now or never....

Yeah; the real unemployment rate of 15.6% is really a feather in Obama's hat......woo hoo!

(Anaylysis provided by the American Enterprise Institute)

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2780...-rate-15-6.htm

Wow....it must be a fairly important election coming up if the future of the USA as we know it hangs in the balance. VOTE OBAMA. :laugh:

I think the loyal democrats who continue to rave that Obama will pull the same ethnic groups in the very same percentages as he did in 2008 are extremely loyal (no matter what) or hopeful or optomistic.

He most certainly will not. Many will state he has not delivered to their group as promised. Many will view him more a talker than a walker. Then there are those that were not voting for Obama but against Macain. The independents and youth of America who bought the hope and change message and are not satisfied with the results to date. And lastly those who felt the economy was going south because of the Republicans will be unhappy that the trip not only did not end with Obama but continued further south.

For all the above there will be a substantial number who cast their vote for Obama (VS voting FOR Obama) who will not do so again this time.

I will not pretend to know that there will be sufficient to cause him to lose...the facts of the matter are there are a goodly number who will not buy his rhetoric a second time.

For me it is very simple, the American people, all colors, religions and political persuasions will view it from their perspective....did they get what they expected. I happen to believe there are very many who think not. And they are not as loyally obligated as some who to continue hammering away that he is a slam dunk...thank GOD!

btk

How are those tea party candidates working out for you?

Scott Walker - being recalled
John Casich - had his union busting bill overturned
Rick Scott - most disliked governor in the country at 26%
Nikki Haley - approval rating 34%

Not to mention the tea partiers that cost the republican party control of the US senate: Sharon Angle NV, Christine O'Donnell DE, John Raese WV, Ken Buck CO, Carlie Fiorini, CA, Joe Miller AK

Not to mention that nut case that ran for governor of NY (name escapes me)

Seems like lots of people have buyer's remorse. Keep up the good work.

you forgot to list the like kinds of folks on your side of the aisle. Same style as the network news presenting only that which is good for the party of that which belittles the opposition.

Most sentient beings (R or D or black or indian or what ever) are past that.

btk

scott walker
 

scott walker has saved the state of wisconsin millions by getting rid of union owned insurance for teachers...those who are trying to recall him are big union thugs and i hope they are not successful....there are probably similar stories behind the others...rick scott is doing good things for florida such as attempting to get drug testing for welfare recipients, and as usual is thwarted by left leaning, criminal defending ACLU and that ilk....it is THEY who cost the state millions to defend this bill and caused it to be killed. if those are the kind of groups you support, you and the tea party would never see eye to eye....

I always thought the tea party supported the constitution. Guess what, Federal Judge Mary Scriben, a George W Bush appointee, ruled that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Constitutions 4th Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure. Sounds like a real left leaner.

I love it when the Tea Party darling, Christine O'Donnell's name comes up.

Besides her famous witchcraft experiences, she was quoted as saying:

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." --Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell, discussing cloning with Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1997

How could a party actually support a person like that?

What's the link between the Tea Party and Federal Judge Mary Scriben?

She was appointed by Bush?;............so what. Does anyone really know a person?

Just because she made a ruling doesn't mean she's correct in her thinking. Rulings can be overturned. Maybe this is one of those that will.

Personally, I feel that was a wrong decision on the judge's part. I feel as though welfare recepients should be drug tested at random times - but the testing would be paid for by the state and not the testees.

While this program was in effect, 2% of welfare recipients tested positive for drug use, while the program was estimated to cost the state $187,000,000 by some analysts. Way to go Rick Scott. Who will get the kiss-of-death Rick Scott endorsement, and when will the GOP schedule him to speak at the convention in Tampa? I'm guessing maybe the 2:00am hour.

I wonder if Romney will ask O'Donnell to campaign with him....???

random drug tests
 

since random drug tests are required for many jobs, i do not see why it is unconstitional to require them for receiving welfare. can you explain?

And how about explaining why they want drug-addicted welfare recipients' CHILDREN to be forced to live with drugged out "parents" who are ENABLED by a continuing stream of welfare money??

You didn't answer one question relating to your previous post.

Why are your asking Chachacha this question? I'm sure she never advocated what you're implying here.

I was adding onto her question. I agree with her!

Writings without hearing tone of voice nor seeing facial expression....leads to misunderstandings sometimes.

Funny how *I* am still subject to drug testing to get the check I WORK for.

I have no idea what your occupation is. I also was subject to years of drug testing, but only after my union agreed to it.

Most jobs now require the workplace to be drug free. I was also subject to random drug testing at my job.

So why are so many liberal groups against recipients of public assistance to be verified drug free? They will need to be if ever they are to be gainfully employed again, and so it is logical to nip it in the bud and to make it a requirement for anyone who is requesting a "hand up" in the manner of public funds.

If people need their "privacy", then by all means they can remain private, and also privately support themselves. If they have dependents, then they may have to forgo stewardship of them until they get their drug addled selves together.

Seems logical to me.

Why are so many liberal groups against recipients of public assistance to be verified drug free? Maybe because it is unconstitutional?

The Fourth Amendment puts strict limits on what kind of searches the state can carry out, and drug tests are considered to be a search. In 1997, in Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to strike down a Georgia law requiring candidates for state offices to pass a drug test.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the drug testing was an unreasonable search. The state can impose drug tests in exceptional cases, when there is a public-safety need for them (as with bus and train operators, for instance). But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish “personal privacy for a symbol’s sake,” the court said.


Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/08/29/dru...#ixzz1j4yFeY3G

most of us are in favor of a drug free workplace or any other public venue.

So how do the law waving, don't violate my privacy supporters suggest we make that happen? The invasion of privacy is no more prevalent in drug testing than it is for being asked to take your clothes off to validate the security of flying.

If one is not in violation what's the problem? If one is in violation then we all hope they get caught!!

btk