You guys know I’ve been weighing the Newt and Mitt thing ever since Newt got serious. I’ve been thinking about this a lot.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Newt, while he would make for a decent president, the man is just not electible. There is little chance he could win. I really think that if Newt gets the nomination, Obama will win reelection.
When Dr. Savage offers Newt a million bucks to drop out… That shows us the crest of a huge Anti-Newt wave that’s only just starting to form. The push against Newt is going to get a lot worse. Those that are in the middle, the fence sitters – those that tip election scales, are not going to pull the lever for Newt. He is obnoxious and disliked.
This leaves us with Mitt as the only tangible candidate that has any hope in Hell of winning against The Great Halfrican. Like it or not, that’s the situation. I’m saying this, knowing full well that Romney is as likeable as… something that’s not very likeable. I also hate the fact that he goes to the same church that I do. But he could run and win against Bamma. Newt can’t.
So here’s my prediction…
If Newt gets the nomination, we get 4 more years of Obama. I also predict that if we do… there will be blood. Armed unrest across the country… and this Nation will fracture. I think Mitt will be able to hold it together. Just my opinion.
Okay, now a lot of guys are on an “I Hate Mitt” kick. That’s fine. But you have to look at Mitt on all the issues. Take some time and actually look at the real information instead of what the Media and Bloggers (like me) are telling you about Mitt. Seriously, take a couple minutes. Okay, now look at Mitt’s biggest FUBAR. “Romney Care”. Now ask yourself this. “What is worse… Mitt signing a Bill that the Mass State House and Senate passed… Or Newt’s pocketing of money from the bailed out Freddie Mac?” Which one is the more Conservative?
59 thoughts on “Newt vs Mitt again. Content Added”
Romney can’t beat Obama. If either of them wins the nomination, Obama wins the election.
my thoughts exactly. we have to get out and vote to keep the house in conservative favor and win back the senate.
Romney’s history makes him a Democrat. I can never bring myself to vote for him. I may have to place a Ron Paul protest vote.
Actually that’s not true. He’s been very Conservative through his life… Before he was Governor of Mass. Successful businessman… starting and running them. In Mass, he just signed into law what the Mass State House and Senate passed. He saved the Utah Winter Olympics. The man knows how to run things. Simple as that.
He also pushed for them to pass certain laws. Like Romney-care.
Except that he refers to himself as a “moderate” – and calls his views “progressive”……
Newt will shred Obama when they debate.
History tells us that an unpolished person cannot be elected. It also tells us that a mormon will have trouble being elected in the bible belt.
Hopefully Newt is enough of an a-hole to get elected. Tell’m like it is! Romney is like Huntsman to me,….greesy polititian.
Actually, that’s not quite true. Abe Lincoln was not polished… in fact he was rather hated. But he was a great debator. A Master Debator.
Take that as you will. I’m not a fan of Lincoln.
I don’t recall G.W. Bush ever being described as “polished” either.
“honest Abe” was actually a derisive, sarcastic label given to Lincoln by the papers. It wasn’t because he was really honest. He was kind of devious, and expanded Presidential power way beyond any point that it had been before.
And straight up murdered States Rights.
I think your take on Newt is probably pretty close to the mark but unfortunately M has a point about Mitt’s religious persuasion. As bad as I hate to admit it a lot of folks will not vote for a Mormon and that’s damned shame because it will almost certainly give the current disaster four more years to fester.
Ogre is right on this one… Newt is not electable. Just because he’s not afraid to stick it to the liberals, does not mean he will defeat Obama. He is one sound byte from a lonely bar or a self-titled show on Fox. At least with Romney you have a shot. With Newt we know how he handles power. He went from a good idea of Contract with America to a impeachment witch hunt that crippled congress. He lost all credibility, then with ethic charges, resigned before being booted. So, how he has ascended back to this level, speaks to how quickly people forgive, or is it forget?
This election will be decided by the Middle, not the liberals, nor folks reading this blog. 🙂
Romney’s record is right down the centrist middle. Not good for primaries, but good for generals.
If Obama is to sail through, he needs Hilary as first mate. Almost undefeatable.
For Romney to have a shot, he needs a strong veep on the ticket. Romney / Christie would be very compelling.
I don’t like Romney. I like him better than Obama, but that ain’t saying much. I won’t even mention Newt, as he is as unelectable. Ogre is right on that.
Look at Romney’s 2A stance: he “supports” the 2A, but favors gun control (the AWB). Don’t you think that is just a little bit bogus? He’s trying to play to two separate audiences, ie,
burning the candle at both ends. He is a political snake (just like the rest of them) and he
WILL bite you sooner or later~~~because that is his nature.
The only one I even halfway admire is Ron Paul. No, he is certainly not electable. But he is a
man who stands by his word, his word is his bond, and if you don’t agree with him he won’t change his stance just to make you happy and get your vote. That’s integrity.
Romney’s actually /done/ more against guns rights than Obama.
The only reason Paul is not electable, is because folks who should be voting for him are instead saying that he’s not electable.
Paul has never been more electable. All it takes is for a few folks to stand up for what’s right, instead of “the lesser of two evils.” Demand victory, not merely a smaller defeat.
Paul isn’t electible because few people are really taking him seriously and he’s become a punchline.
That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. The point is that folks need to start taking him seriously, instead of just deciding which evil will hurt slightly less.
The HOLY NEWS MEDIA sez only ROMNEY can be elected!
Uhh..aren’t these guys the ones who PUT OBAMARAMADINGDONG in office?
Who is old gray and cynical today.
I don’t think I’ll use the term Romney any more.
Who is really po’d this AM, I’m getting my wife a knock sensor for Christmas…sigh.
Regardless of which party you normally support, thumb your nose at both — they have FAILED miserably. Anyone else would be fired for this kind of performance (and rightfully so!). It’s unbelievable that we’re actually talking about electing any of these supposed conservatives.
Mitt? His pro-choice/pro-life flip-flop AND RomneyCare clearly shows he’ll say and do anything to get elected. But the Right won’t back him. He’ll lose to BHO.
Newt? Too polarizing and too corrupt to win. Talk about unelectable!
Give Ron Paul a chance.
God will take care of Israel. He always has.
Anyone is better than Obama, but no one is better than Ron Paul. Unelectable, my hairy butt. He’ll win in a LANDSLIDE against the incumbent.
You just have to want liberty, and then get behind him and vote. THAT is the truth.
God bless America.
Of course you are right… But what we have in place is a Two Party System. We can pontificate on the system that we want… but come November we are going to have a National Election and someone from one of these two parties is going to become our President.
All the more reason to make Ron Paul the Republican candidate for President.
Ron Paul’s record is unassailable — and not because there isn’t one, but because he has consistently voted for liberty and small, non-intrusive government. 30 years.
Ron Paul destroys Obama in the general election — if he’s the Republican candidate.
Mitt loses. Newt loses.
So let’s make Ron Paul the Republican candidate. It’s not as radical a thought as the MSM — and Fox News — would have us believe.
Ron Paul is fake to me. He says he’s for small government but he always puts earmarks in all of the bills. He votes against so he can have it both ways, but that doesn’t fly.
Where’d you hear that?
Paul explained last night that he always votes against the existence of ANY earmarks, but when his colleagues vote to have them he feels it’s his job to reclaim some of the taxes his constituents have payed in.
Tony G: I certainly hope so, for his constituents’ sake! They’re not going to be the only ones without a chair when the music stops! Would you pay in and not take out? And pay in and not take out? And pay in and not take out?
Are we talkin’ about the Mitt who has only won ONE election in his life-long quest for offices? And that win was with less than 50% of the votes. The Mitt who didn’t run for re-election as MA gov because he knew he wouldn’t win? The Mitt who has ZERO concern for the second amendment? The Mitt who hasn’t gotten over 23% in ANY poll against ANY repub contender? The Mitt whose major positions are virtually the same as the standard NE demo/repub lib positions?
Yeah, I thought so. Good luck with that horse.
By your standards then… Obama was more experienced to lead the nation. See… THAT is why I seriously prefer Mitt over most of the others. Because most of his career wasn’t being a Politician, but an Actual Executive. One election? I’d be fine with someone with No Election Wins – that only means a guy can Campaign and make pretty speeches and promises.
Mitt’s Track Record is in actual Private Sector Leadership. He didn’t get to where he is by tanking businesses – but by creating wealth and jobs and actually making things happen.
Yes, the Second Amendment is important. But so is the whole farking economy and Mitt is the Only candidate that seems to have any clear understanding of what it takes to actually fix it.
I am uncomfortable with Mitt Romney because of his 2nd Amendment failure in Mass.
Don’t like his medical failure there either.
However, I will vote for him if he is the Republican nominee.
Obama Must Go!
In one of the debates, Romney made it clear he believes the government has the power to force citizens to purchase health insurance. I’m sorry, but I think that’s un-Constitutional and I just can’t support the man because of it.
So if he gets the GOP nomination you’d vote for Obama?
Romney /is/ Obama. There’d be no reason to vote, if it’s between those two. You’d be selecting between two identical candidates.
And enough other folks realize it, that if Romney gets the nomination, they won’t bother going in to vote, or they’re going to write in NOTA or themselves or something else in protest. A Romney nomination means Obama is guaranteed a second term.
Whoops, I meant to say “in the primaries.” In a choice between Romney and Obama unchecked in a second term, I’d most certainly hold my nose and vote for Romney. It doesn’t mean I’d like it, but the alternative is far, far worse.
Yes. I can’t see Romney doing anything different from what Obama’s doing now, but at least BHO won’t do irreparable damage to the GOP’s image. Elect Romney and not only are you getting four years of socialism, you’re also guaranteeing that the libs win in 2016.
I say vote for Paul. Beats selling out your principles for a socialist toad.
You’re really going to vote for a big city east coast hypocrite? Look at how he has lied about his ideas on gun control and public health.
He’s more dangerous than Obama is because he’s a bullshit, pussy political suck up. He doesn’t deserve to run greasy spoon, much less our country.
I’m writing in for Cthulhu, I’m sick of the lesser evil.
If it is Gingrich or Romney, the GOP will lose. This is McCain all over again.
It’s not that Newt isn’t an old school Washington guy, he certainly is, and “more of the same” really isn’t the right answer. But, my two problems with Romney aren’t (so much) the consistent mind-changing, subdued state economy, health care crap that I’m positive would sink our nation further into the abyss.
First it’s that if he does sink us further (and I’m sure he would) he’s a Republican and a (pseudo)Conservative which means that after four years of him, our fellow citizens would have no counter-argument to the liberals and it wouldn’t be to difficult for Marx himself to beat any GOP candidate. Second, and perhaps more importantly, like many of you here I use a candidates stance on the 2nd amendment as a litmus test to determine just how sacred our individual rights are to them. “I support the 2nd, but…” is an outright promise that they WILL work to reduce our individual rights because they “know” that rights are subject to some “greater-good” argument, no matter how fallacious the argument.
I’m done with politics. Seriously the republicans can’t pull their heads out of their asses long enough to consider reality.
Yes as of right now I believe I will cast a vote for Romney. If someone comes along better before then I’d be happy to make a switch. But I believe a fiscal base is most important at this point. My frustration stems from republicans who hate the msm using actual msm screeds against Romney as their avenue of attack. If a person came back with a well considered thought out response of who is the best candidate WHO CAN WIN I would gladly listen. Instead its just bitching about how “the republicans need a real damn conservative in the election in order to win!”
Well guess what – Republicans voted for G.W. who advertised as a conservative. You run anyone claiming to be a conservative and the moderates will run away in terror.
“Screw them!” you say. Screw you – the votes say. Obama beat McCain due to Moderate support. GW won because of motivation of his base & – wait for it – moderate support. Bill Clinton won because of…??? HW Bush same thing. Reagan? God not Reagan? Surely Reagan won without needing those smelly hypocritical spineless moderates. Well guess fucking what? He needed them.
Even better – every one of these presidents except GW ran as a Centrist a moderate a run of the mill D or R.
Moderates and energized bases decide elections. Obama’s base is shaken and he’s on the ropes and the Repubs aren’t energized because we’re in the middle of a political 5’oclock shadow right now. We don’t know who and what we are and what we want to be.
The fiscal conservatives are pulling their hair out. The evangelicals just sold their souls to Newt in a backalley act that can only be described as “offensively dirty mormon hate”. The Libertarians have their thumbs up their butts. The constitutionalists have disappeared under a rock until its time for a protest vote and the tea party is at the store right now please leave a message after the beep.
So many Republicans say “elect a REAL leader – Elect Ron Paul!” But he’s not a leader – he’s a speech maker. He is a talker. In fact he’s all talk. Steve’s comment about the earmarks – damn right. He appeals to the extreme libertarians who are all “rah rah isolationism rah rah” without realizing just how damaging that would be to our country. You want to know how inept Ron Paul is? In the all the years he’s been in office – his son in just a few months has eclipsed him as far as things ACTUALLY getting done. Thats the joke. Thats the tragedy. He’s not the best idea for America – hell I wager he’s not even the best idea for Texas.
But here’s the thing. People are so fatigued with Obama hate or politics or the black eyed peas that they are latching onto whatever idea sparks something, anything and they are surrendering the vote to Obama.
Politics in America has become choppy water – with the shift going back and forth like a crazy drunk tide. The problem is we elect a radical “conservative” to counter the previous president who was a moderate Dem (Clinton played the political game for the last 6 years with a Republican Congress) GW shifts us into war and racks up an enourmous debt and further polarizes the political process. The John Kerry election fractures it even further. Then we get Obama v McCain who battle in the most half assed Republican since Bob Dole and Left McLefterson playacting the Moderate. This disenfranchises the Right and even more toxic battlefield is expanded. Then the Tea Party (which is played dramatically by the media) and then the OWS dumbasses (which is dramatically DOWNplayed by the media) and here we are. The problems is we rock back and forth too much further we will end up with blood shed. We will have a shooting war on our own soil.
I sometimes wonder if some people want that. They’ll live in fantasy land until they decide tis time to lock n load.
And thats why I’m done with politics – because at this point every conversation I’ve heard – the majority of them are soundbyte exchanges repeated and hyperbolized and no one does any research anymore. They buy the hype and wait for the hangover tomorrow.
Obama is the Change.
Newt is the Man
Romney will take charge.
Paul will reLOVE/VOLEution
Yes Romney is not my ideal candidate but frankly I hope he can sway the boat a little, calm the damn storm. Bring peace and calm the extremists. Not by being a dem. But by being Joe America. Leading to the middle. Be the dad to OWS and the Brother to the Tea Party thats what we need. Less fracture not more. Someone to say “hey I get that your angry.” The fix may not make anyone happy but lend a bit of credence that they have a voice. That its heard.
I’m waiting for the President is Libertarian Armor to stride into view. But until that happens I feel like we’ll survive with a moderate Republican with a House controlled by the Repubs and the Senate the Dems. Because anything that has to get through that meat grinder of a political process isn’t likely to hurt us.
But the Repubs will vote for Ron Paul. Fuck it. Lets dance.
“I’m waiting for the President is Libertarian Armor to stride into view. But until that happens I feel like we’ll survive with a moderate Republican with a House controlled by the Repubs and the Senate the Dems. Because anything that has to get through that meat grinder of a political process isn’t likely to hurt us.”
Exactly why I’m voting for Perry.
I found the following poll results from December 8th:
I find it interesting. Not so much the part where the graph suggests that Romney is the kid voted “most likely to succeed”, but the number of respondents that chose “Other” (from 3% to 19%, depending upon the GOP candidate), in an automated and apparently unbiased telephone poll…..compared with the number of actual VOTERS who CHOSE “Other” in the ACTUAL 2008 Presidential election (You’ll note that’s 1%).
So, APPARENTLY, the vast majority of people who say that if their personal Candidate Golden Child doesn’t get the nomination, they’ll vote for “Other”……are full of something that don’t smell too good.
Let’s assume for a moment that 2012 will be no better for “Other” than 2008, and that the vast majority of pre-primary “Other” voters end up voting for whatever stuffed suit ends up on the ballot followed by (R).
Here’s how that would play out:
Romney 53, Obama 46 (Romney wins)
Gingrich 49, Obama 49 (Close election)
Paul 52, Obama 47 (Paul wins)
Perry 50, Obama 50 (VERY close election)
Does anyone remember the saying, “If it isn’t close, they can’t cheat”?
Now, at this point, it looks like Romney’s “most likely to succeed”, with a 2% lead on Paul in terms of the point spread.
But, wait, let’s go back to those “Other” voters and think about who they are. Who are Romney supporters? Who are Paul supporters? I strongly suspect that there are a WHOLE helluva lot more Independent, Libertarian and even DEMOCRAT folks who support Paul than Romney.
I therefore believe that many more Paul supporters would defect to “Other” than Romney supporters. And some Independent and most Democrat supporters might even swing (D).
Romney’s “Other” contingent is 8% Some of those are Paul supporters. Perhaps most. I do not believe that all but that last 1% of them will cast a vote for Romney just because there’s an (R) after his name.
Paul’s “Other” contingent is 11%. MOST of these are supporters of other GOP candidates. I DO believe that most of these, let’s face it, mainstream Republicans, WILL vote for Paul just because there’s an (R) after his name.
Remember the “F%ck it! McCain!” banners from 2008?
So much for Ron Paul being “unelectable”.
5% to 13% “Other”, depending on the candidate.
With Gingrich at 5 and Cain at 13.
Bad memory. The other numbers, I wrote down because I had to do the math. LoL
Ron Paul IS 100% certain to lose to his grace,the chosen one(by Soros).The Romney bashers are just ignorant about the man.He is not “obama lite”.He is more conservative than Newt,if one really LOOKS.
All the numbers say that Paul beats Obama. Just like they did, four years ago. Paul was the only candidate who could beat Obama, but folks decided to nominate McCain, which won Obama the election.
Living in NH, I’ve seen what Romney did in Mass for years. He’s not a new name, here. He’s no different than Obama. Obamacare, for example, was designed by Romney. He’s severely anti-gun. He could not be called “conservative” in any place other than Taxachusetts.
That’s very true.
Being more conservative than Newt is not exactly difficult, when one really LOOKS. Nor is it good enough. For me, anyway.
I’m just going to hope and pray for the best, but continue to prepare for the worst.
Best wishes —
Paul will get killed on national defense. Even Obama has a better record.
I like quite a few things Pauls says until you get to that area.
Still not buying a Romney win. I think it will be a crushing defeat. Mostly because a big chunk of the country isn’t going to see much of a change between an ‘East Coast Republican’ (lol, a liberal by any other name. . .) vs Obama.
Then again this next election will probably boil down to which side is the LEAST apathetic.
A Romney / Christie ticket will insure I leave the top of the ballet unmarked. No way will I support 2 Northeast “moderates.”
And the theory that we must get as many conservative Representatives and Senators elected as possible to “contain” a possible second Obama term is ridiculous. Teh One has proven he and his minions don’t give a damn for the Balance of Powers and Constitutional limits.
We are no longer a Constitutional Republic.
I just don’t know if next year will produce a Concord Bridge or a Fort Sumter.
If you’ll excuse me I’ve dried food and canned goods to buy.
And yes, ammo too.
Pardon the downer but I put too much Cynic Powder on my Grumpy Flakes. I still stand by my statement.
So you are saying you’d rather have another four years of Obama.
No, he’s saying that the lesser of two evils is STILL evil.
But it’s a tough call, that’s for sure.
You can go with the lesser evil under the theory that the crocodile will eat you last.
Or you can go with the LEAST evil and/or the ideal candidate, regardless of his “electability”.
Or you can abstain, as he’s suggesting. If there were such a thing as a quorum in an election, this could be a highly effective solution. Sadly, there isn’t.
Compared to four years of Obama-light, followed by eight years of some commie nutcase who will make Obama look like the best friend of the free market? Yes, four more years of Obama would be preferable to that.
It’s about winning the war, not just winning the battle.
I’m as ready as I’ll ever be. Put it off another 4+ years and who knows what kind of shape I’ll be in? Hopefully better, but not likely — mid-40’s plus then…
With the economic picture getting steadily worse (maybe not steadily — maybe the fits and spurts and continued huge bubble crashes we’ve been living out the last few decades), will surviving the SHTF get easier then? Or more difficult?
So, yes, if I have to hold my nose to vote for the Republican candidate in 2012, I’m writing in Ron Paul (or voting for the Libertarian, if that’s him).
I’m not naive: I know Ron Paul is not perfect — there’s only been one perfect man that I know of. And I certainly ain’t him.
I don’t look to the POTUS — or any other man — to be the answer to all my concerns.
But Ron is on the right track. Not ONE of the others is.
If it’s Obama or [insert non-Paul Republican candidate here], REPUBLICANS, WAKE THE F UP, we’re NOT voting for your unconservative freedom-grabbing douchebag candidate. We’ll take our chances.
It’s almost go time, folks. Get ready.
Sorry — I really want to avoid using the ALL CAPS drama, the insinuated F bomb, and the “douchebag” personal insults. But I, too, get caught up in the passion of it. My apologies.
Records speak for themselves, as do books, speeches, and other self-produced media throughout the personal, professional, political and business careers of each candidate. Only one candidate on either ticket has consistency across the board. It’s so dramatically different.
Best wishes —
Ted Nugent as the write in candidate of choices
I wanted to be for Perry,inspite of some iffy things.Bachman is just,sorry,too far right.She is such a zealot on too many things.Plus being married to the very strange man worries me. Ron Paul is so repulsive AND so wrong on foreign policy.Newt is so suspicious on so many things in his past.A SERIAL nasty man,and a total failurew as speaker when it all shoke out.Too many forget how he slunk away in shame.The men who served WITH him,almost universally despise him.That should be all one needs to hear. We are back to Romney. A fun little hatchet job in a UK paper today kinda backfires and actually makes young Romney look like a super talent. Perfect?Far from it,but we could do worse.He’s no Christie,but he is the best,if you look closely.
Yeah, ORomney, that’s just what will bring the conservative base back, obumble-lite. The NE rinos have already forgotten the lesson of 2006 as if they had learned anything from it in the first place.
Me, after bush, dole, bush, and mccain, I’m done forever voting for rockerfeller repubs.
Let’s just let the nitwh and his friends really drive the country into the ground and be done. The country-club repubs AND dmos will begin to have problems when there ain’t no gas or food available except at the point of a gun.