Originally Posted by dklassen

It will be fun to watch the lefties this year spin, whine, defame, lie and smear only to see their anointed one go down in a crushing defeat. Now that's entertainment.

Remember when ABC News anchor Peter Jennings famously declared that the voters had a "temper tantrum" when they handed then President Bill Clinton a smashing rebuke 2 years into his term by throwing out enough Democrats and electing enough Republicans to reward both Houses to the Republicans?

This put (OMG) Newt Gingrich on the map as the majority leader in which he shaped the recovery of our economy with a newly contrite President who recognized the winds of change. (Yes, yes, welfare reform, now I get it Newt; OK let's go with it!!)

History has a way of repeating itself when one forgets it's lessons.

Well folks again better than 40% of SC evangelicals and women voters voted for Newt. This in spite of the fact that the ex-governor (Sanford's) wife made sure everyone knew she was voting for Mitt.

Repeal of ObamaCare is high on my list and Romney won't repeal it and he won't admit RomneyCare was a failed experiment. He is in my preception a RINO and apparently others. Florida will be a real test. Irrespective of who wins the primary my next vote is for the republican candidate.

Finally I do wish we had better choices but the reality is that we don't. Its like when I use to interview had to pick the best candidate from a bad lot. But it could be worse, I mean the Democrats have only one candidate and he's really bad!

Rubicon, specifically what is it about "Obamacare" that you really do not like? Is it that up to 32 million uninsured Americans will be able to get health insurance?

Ever since I had my first job, I took out health insurance just in case I needed it. I think everyone should have health insurance. Didn't you buy health insurance at your first option?

Do you not like the fact insurance companies will have to insure those with pre-existing conditions?

By the way, repeal of a Federal law is not possible with an Executive Order. It is a long Congressional process and would probably fail in this case.

I don't think the first 3 states' results are all that indicative of a predicted winner of the nomination. In the other 3 states that already voted, anyone including Obama fans can go in and vote on the Republican primary ticket.

"Unlike the other early-vote states, Florida’s primary is closed meaning that only Republicans can cast ballots.

“We actually have Republicans choosing the Republican nominees,” said Brian Hughes, a veteran political operative and current Republican Party of Florida spokesman.

“A Cuban-American voter in South Florida and a Dixiecrat party switcher are vastly different people,” Hughes said. To be successful, the candidates have to communicate to them across 10 media markets and the vast geography of Florida while competing for more than 2 million votes. So winning that contest — winning Florida — means something.”

But even if Gingrich won Florida — and that’s a big if, considering Romney’s organization — his viability as a candidate who can go the distance is unclear. Gingrich’s name isn’t on ballots in some states such as Virginia.

That can be a killer for Gingrich and a plus for Romney if the election drags on because the nominee will ultimately be decided by the delegates won in each state’s election. It takes 1,144 to wrap up the nomination."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/2...tt-romney.html

Originally Posted by buggyone

Rubicon, specifically what is it about "Obamacare" that you really do not like? Is it that up to 32 million uninsured Americans will be able to get health insurance?

Ever since I had my first job, I took out health insurance just in case I needed it. I think everyone should have health insurance. Didn't you buy health insurance at your first option?

Do you not like the fact insurance companies will have to insure those with pre-existing conditions?

By the way, repeal of a Federal law is not possible with an Executive Order. It is a long Congressional process and would probably fail in this case.

Hey buggyone: To start with ObamaCare will afford the government control of one sixth of our economy. It will increase the government agencies and hence payroll. In just three years Obama has increased government employment by over 13% while the rest of America is negative 17%.

ObamaCare is RomneyCare on steroids. RomneyCare has created higher insurance premiums, more people uninsured and created a backlog of services. It taks 48 days o get an appoint with a family doctor. Family doctors byt the way that stopped taking on new patients.

IMHO we need only to allow health carriers to compete across state lines
and let the market take its course. Liberals sem to be upset regarding their freedoms under the Patriot Act but not so concerned regarding the individual mandate which by law directly removes their right to decide, a right they claim they are entitled to under the cover of Roe v Wade.

ObamaCare in essence is one more policy allowing Obama to move toward a european Style government...and we know how that worked out for them

there is not a perfect health system but we by far have done exceedlingly better than just about any other nation. Let's not fix something that ain't broke and ony needs a little adjusting. That is my position and no doubt you will differ in yours...I certainly am open to listen to your thoughts

Personal Best Regards

Rubicon
An Insurance Guy

Rubicon-Might I respectfully add?
If there truly are in fact 32 million uninsured Americans, why didn't he just address them? It has been implied that these 32 million are folks who are just above the poverty level, working jobs where healthcare is either not offered or they cannot afford their portion of the premium cost, and yet making too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Why then, not lower the requirement standards of Medicaid to encompass these folks...? Obamacare is one of the greatest bait and switch con jobs of all time!

To get back to the subject at hand, and that’s the subject of Newt Gingrich’s big S.C. primary victory. The liberals here would like you to believe they’re gleeful at this happenstance, and maybe they are. I’d be wary of thinking along this line if I were them, but it disturbs me none.

Newt Gingrich will be able to handle any scripted Obama debate attack against him in his usual eloquent easy to understand style, while at the same time he throws the gauntlet back at Obama’s feet. This might be hard for Obama to handle in an impromptu manner as has been evidenced in the past when he has to adlib. (uuuhhhhh, aaahhhhh, eerrrr, uuuummm)

Romney is not quite as adept at spontaneously defending himself, and often is too ready to concede a point, giving his opposition great soundbites which he then has to defend also leading to awkward moments.

I don't think Obama is chomping on the bit to debate Gingrich. In fact, it might be the first time a president has refused to debate if Gingrich is indeed the eventual winner.

Right now it is Gingrich who is saying what the electorate has been waiting to hear, and in his inimitable way, of conveying that he both understands the probem and is confident in the way to confront it.

The liberal media is blowing it big time. If that’s where you liberals are getting your news, it’s no wonder your thinking is skewed. In S.C. 54% of those who voted had a favorable opinion on Gingrich while 14% had a favorable opinion on the media.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ging...carolina-54-14

SC conservatives do NOT reflect the electorate in any way whatsoever.

Mitt will be the nominee.

Here are the thoughts of one, and only one, independent voter. I will very likely vote for Romney if he is the republican nominee. I would not be likely to vote for Santorum, though I would be willing to read more about him and listen to his case. Newt is an absolute non-starter for me (please note - FOR ME), and I would consider a Ron Paul third party candidate if newt is the nominee. Newt does not, in my opinion, possess the necessary moral or ethical character to be POTUS. I simply cannot imagine a president who was censured, disgraced, and run out of the congress, by his peers, including most republicans. By the way, gingrich has never won even a statewide election.

I have friends of both right and left leanings as well as others who self-identify as independents. My unscientific, no link FEELING is that some democrats and most independents would vote for Romney, while few democrats and independents would vote for Newt. It seems unlikely in that event, that newt could prevail in the general. Again, this is personal opinion and may be entirely wrong, but my insticts have been pretty good in the past, for example when I predicted an Obama victory the moment after watching McCain name Pallin as his running mate.

Originally Posted by coralway

SC conservatives do NOT reflect the electorate in any way whatsoever.

Mitt will be the nominee.

Glad to have your cogent analysis. The points you make are well worth reviewing.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Here are the thoughts of one, and only one, independent voter. I will very likely vote for Romney if he is the republican nominee. I would not be likely to vote for Santorum, though I would be willing to read more about him and listen to his case. Newt is an absolute non-starter for me (please note - FOR ME), and I would consider a Ron Paul third party candidate if newt is the nominee. Newt does not, in my opinion, possess the necessary moral or ethical character to be POTUS. I simply cannot imagine a president who was censured, disgraced, and run out of the congress, by his peers, including most republicans. By the way, gingrich has never won even a statewide election.

I have friends of both right and left leanings as well as others who self-identify as independents. My unscientific, no link FEELING is that some democrats and most independents would vote for Romney, while few democrats and independents would vote for Newt. It seems unlikely in that event, that newt could prevail in the general. Again, this is personal opinion and may be entirely wrong, but my insticts have been pretty good in the past, for example when I predicted an Obama victory the moment after watching McCain name Pallin as his running mate.

Really?; the "moment" Palin was named? yeah.......ok.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Really?; the "moment" Palin was named? yeah.......ok.

That would be hurtful, if I valued your opinion.

I think McPain would have lost by a lot more if he hadn't picked Palin.

I would not agree with Eweissenbach about it being "the moment" that Snowshoe Sarah was named as VP Candidate. For me, it took at least 30 seconds. I had to carefully survey all possibilities and that took 10 seconds and then I had to open the bottle of ice-cold Yeungling for another 20 seconds.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

That would be hurtful, if I valued your opinion.

Originally Posted by buggyone

I would not agree with Eweissenbach about it being "the moment" that Snowshoe Sarah was named as VP Candidate. For me, it took at least 30 seconds. I had to carefully survey all possibilities and that took 10 seconds and then I had to open the bottle of ice-cold Yeungling for another 20 seconds.

You're both full of it because until that moment when she was picked Sarah Palin was the liberal media's darling due to her role as governor of Alaska of going after the corrupt Republican politicians in her state and going after the oil companies and their money.

When she was picked McCain's numbers jumped through the ceiling, and it was at that point that the liberal media went in their attack dog mode and sent an unprecedented search and destroy team to Alaska to dig up anything and anyone to destroy the popular Ms. Palin.

You guys are rewriting your history for your own aggrandizement, and I ain't buying any of it. You guys must have some great fish stories also.