Page 12 of 55 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 1098
  1. #221
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Corey View Post
    That whisper campaign was about McCain's adopted child, Bridget, who is Bangladeshi and has been a member of the McCain family since 1991. Bridget was living in a Bangladeshi orphanage when Mrs. McCain met her.

    Machiavellian tactics have served some candidates better than others. Here, it "worked" for Mr. Bush.
    Speaking of McCain, he is endorsing Romney today.
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    Nasty indeed. I wonder, however, if this time it will be different. The governor has already endorsed Mitt and the two senators have said they will not or probably not endorse any candidate. Certainly Newt will take his shots, but he is still pledging not to go gotcha negative, Bachman has no money to do damage even if she stays in, and it appears Perry will drop out.

    If Mitt is the target of a nasty undercurrent, expect it to focus on Mormonism being a cult, not true Christian, etc.
    We shall see. Nikki Haley is in a bit of a firestorm herself, and I don't think her endorsement carries much weight. The fact that the Senators are sitting this one out probably gives a message of open hunting season, as I would think that if they both endorsed the same candidate it would lessen the effectiveness of negative ads.

    Newt pledged not to go negative, but in the same breath he "reserved the right to tell the truth" about the "Massachusetts Moderate." Newt speaks in incendiary tones whether he means to or not, it's just his style/nature. His biggest problem is that, without a lot of surrogates, he does not have anyone to do the dirty work at arms length. I cannot imagine after getting "Romney-boated" (Newt's term) in Iowa that Newt will play nice. It was an experiment (again, his word) that failed.

    So, I would like to think it will be different this time but you're never disappointed if you expect the worst.

    Agree on the religion, although Santorum and Gingrich are both Catholic. As a Catholic living in the South, I can tell you that many don't view us as Christians either. Perry has been the only one whose supporters have openly questioned Mitt's religion, and it looks like Perry may not stick around long enough to do it. But there are not a lot of LDS tabernacles down here either, so I am afraid you are correct that such an attack will come.

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Bachmann vows to move on, saying that "she is the only true conservative in this race". That's an interesting strategy she keeps pushing, since touting herself as the only one has landed her near last place.
    Remember those tickets to South Carolina MB said she bought? I hope she got a refund.
    Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann is canceling her campaign trip to South Carolina after a dismal showing in the Iowa caucuses.
    Campaign manager Keith Nahigan tells The Associated Press that the Minnesota congresswoman plans a news conference in Iowa later Wednesday morning. Nahigan would not say whether Bachmann intends to drop out.
    http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/A...136655473.html
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    And thus an alliance emerges:

    Ingraham: Can you see a scenario under which the two of you would align together to try to defeat the establishment candidate, Mitt Romney?

    Gingrich: Absolutely. Of course. I mean Rick and I have a 20-year friendship, we are both rebels, we both came into this business as reformers, we both dislike deeply the degree to which the establishment sells out the American people. We both think Washington has to be changed in very fundamental ways, and we have lots of things that fit together. And the thing that's interesting is if you take the votes, you add to that Perry and Bachmann, you begin to see the size of the conservative vote compared to Romney...if you take, you know, Santorum and Perry and Bachmann and Gingrich you get some sense of what a small minority Romney really represents.

    (Source, Andrew Sullivan but without further sourcing as best I can tell. Not sure who "Ingraham" is).

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    And thus an alliance emerges:

    (Source, Andrew Sullivan but without further sourcing as best I can tell. Not sure who "Ingraham" is).
    Laura Ingraham, presumably. Probably a radio interview.

    I had not realized Gingrich and Santorum were so zealous in standing up for the people against the establishment.

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Laura Ingraham, presumably. Probably a radio interview.

    I had not realized Gingrich and Santorum were so zealous in standing up for the people against the establishment.
    Thanks, I am sure you're right about LAura.

    Yeah, odd quote from Newt considering how much money he made on K Street after leaving office (" . . . the establishment that sells out the American people"). But it sounds like the two candidates may have made a pact to take down Romney and cease fire between themselves. Or, Newt is signalling that desire in the hopes that Santorum will act likewise. I had never heard Newt describe this great friendship until last night although I will admit I do not spend a lot of time listening to him.

    Santorum-Gingrich ticket? Or President Santorum giving Gingrich a plum appointment? At winnowing time, it's time to start seeing what deals are available.

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    That's a good point, we often see better showings the second time around..Romney is a great example. I heard a great comment on NPR this morning, they were interviewing a guy who was going in to the caucus to vote. He was in Desmoines, and said that Iowa is used as a test market by lots of companies. "If it is liked in Iowa, it might fly for the rest of the country, but if we don't like it then it won't sell in America. The Iowa caucuses are not about winning, it's about weeding out the guys who shouldn't have run."
    That comment is just so much hooey. Look at some of the candidates over the last 5 or 6 election cycles that have won or at least finished in the top tier of candidates in the caucuses -- and this is just on the GOP side -- whom Iowa failed to "weed out" but who then quickly faded from relevance: Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanon, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, and to a lesser degree Mike Huckabee. Iowa is a very white, very conservative farm state, not "representative" of much of the rest of the country.

    And I wouldn't say that Romney made a better showing this time around. I was looking at some voter demographics from last night, and not only did Romney get almost the exact same % of the vote, but the demographics of those who voted for him were almost exactly the same as they were four years ago. It's kind of like the same people who voted for him four years ago came out again last night and did the same thing. Didn't lose anybody, didn't gain anybody. It's just that the competition was weaker, and more splintered, so he finished at the top rather than the 9 points behind Huckabee that he finished.

    By the way, McCain, the ultimate nominee, finished fourth last time in Iowa.

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Perry says he's pressing on to South Carolina. (I assume he plans to participate in the debate Saturday too).

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    That comment is just so much hooey. Look at some of the candidates over the last 5 or 6 election cycles that have won or at least finished in the top tier of candidates in the caucuses -- and this is just on the GOP side -- whom Iowa failed to "weed out" but who then quickly faded from relevance: Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanon, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, and to a lesser degree Mike Huckabee. Iowa is a very white, very conservative farm state, not "representative" of much of the rest of the country.

    And I wouldn't say that Romney made a better showing this time around. I was looking at some voter demographics from last night, and not only did Romney get almost the exact same % of the vote, but the demographics of those who voted for him were almost exactly the same as they were four years ago. It's kind of like the same people who voted for him four years ago came out again last night and did the same thing. Didn't lose anybody, didn't gain anybody. It's just that the competition was weaker, and more splintered, so he finished at the top rather than the 9 points behind Huckabee that he finished.

    By the way, McCain, the ultimate nominee, finished fourth last time in Iowa.
    Hooey or not, it still made me laugh. Solid points from you though.
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Perry has cancelled/postponed his trip to Western SC set for today:

    http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-...d?v=1325648124

    Not a good sign.
    These goofy kids! Bachmann bows out, Perry jumps back in.

    "And the next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State...Here we come South Carolina!!!" Perry said on Twitter on Wednesday morning.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...709/?hpt=hp_t2
    t1larg.perry.running.jan4.jpg
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  11. #231
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Laura Ingraham, presumably. Probably a radio interview.

    I had not realized Gingrich and Santorum were so zealous in standing up for the people against the establishment.
    Isn't it ironic that two former congressmen who spent 16 and 20 years in office, and afterwards worked the political revolving door are trying to position themselves as anti Washington establishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Thanks, I am sure you're right about LAura.

    Yeah, odd quote from Newt considering how much money he made on K Street after leaving office (" . . . the establishment that sells out the American people"). But it sounds like the two candidates may have made a pact to take down Romney and cease fire between themselves. Or, Newt is signalling that desire in the hopes that Santorum will act likewise. I had never heard Newt describe this great friendship until last night although I will admit I do not spend a lot of time listening to him.

    Santorum-Gingrich ticket? Or President Santorum giving Gingrich a plum appointment? At winnowing time, it's time to start seeing what deals are available.
    Politics can make for strange bed fellows in times of expediency. It was only last week that Santorum was beating up Newt by contrasting his 20 year marriage and family values to Newt's personal profile.

    I am truly surprised by Perry's tweet that he is going to SC after seeing his speech last night about heading home to Texas for a walk in the woods.

    Never a dull moment.

  12. #232
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    Isn't it ironic that two former congressmen who spent 16 and 20 years in office, and afterwards worked the political revolving door are trying to position themselves as anti Washington establishment.



    Politics can make for strange bed fellows in times of expediency. It was only last week that Santorum was beating up Newt by contrasting his 20 year marriage and family values to Newt's personal profile.

    I am truly surprised by Perry's tweet that he is going to SC after seeing his speech last night about heading home to Texas for a walk in the woods.

    Never a dull moment.
    Wonder if Perry is participating in the two debates this weekend in NH.


    Edit to add: answered the question myself, he does plan to participate. Will be interesting to see who he targets.

    Quote from his SC Chairman:

    South Carolina campaign chairman Katon Dawson told NBC News, "Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks campaigns' pockets, and South Carolina picks Republican presidents and we are ready to rumble."
    Last edited by OldPhiKap; 01-04-2012 at 01:39 PM.

  13. #233
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs

    Next Stop, Granite!

    It will take a couple days to see how the results last night impact the New Hampshire race. There are some political watchers out there who think that once Ron Paul gets on the ground and really engaging with NH voters, he will connect nicely with them. They seems to share an independent streak and many of Paul's messages about what government should and should not do have been winning ideas with NH voters in the past.

    Now, I don't for a minute expect Paul to beat Romney in NH, but the margin is currently Romney by about 20-25 points (Romney in mid-40s, Paul in upper teens- low 20s). I think that by election day that margin may be down to 10 or so points. I am not sure how much more upside Romney has in NH beyond his current polling numbers. He is well-known in the state and he been there a loooong time campaigning already. As folks like Perry and Bachman drop out, I have a hard time seeing their supporters going to Romney.

    I won't be surprised if Newt joins Perry in just moving all into South Carolina and all but ignoring New Hampshire. That might result in Santorum or perhaps Paul or even Huntsman getting a surge of support in New Hampshire.

    The real question in the GOP race is whether Romney has a ceiling and if that ceiling is well below 50%. As more and more pretenders drop out, the "anti-Romney" vote becomes consolidated into one or maybe two candidates, not the 5-way split we currently see. Can Mitt win a 1-on-1 or 1-on-2 race, that is the question right now.

    -Jason "I am not ready to call this thing for Mitt... not yet... if only because I am enjoying watching the mild chaos going on" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    The real question in the GOP race is whether Romney has a ceiling and if that ceiling is well below 50%. As more and more pretenders drop out, the "anti-Romney" vote becomes consolidated into one or maybe two candidates, not the 5-way split we currently see. Can Mitt win a 1-on-1 or 1-on-2 race, that is the question right now.
    Another question is whether any of the other candidates can make this a 1-on-1 race before money turns it into a 1-on-none race.

  15. #235
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Well, the caucusing in the caucausus has been completed, and I think the winner was . . . Barack Obama.

    None of the GOP candidates really either exceeded or fell short of expectations
    last night. But Romney now appears to have a more difficult road than he would
    have had he shown stronger, or Santorum weaker. Yes, Santorum is still to be
    "vetted" like the other flavors of the month were. But unless Romney was to
    have swept Iowa and clinched this thing right out of the gate, which he didn't
    do obviously, it seems to me that the more candidates that drop out after Iowa
    and certainly after New Hampshire, the worse it is for Romney. He wants that
    super-conservative vote to be split, rather than consolidate behind one
    candidate like Santorum. He wants Huntsman in, so he, Romney, seems less
    moderate by comparison.

    So Bachman is out and Perry is for all intents and purposes out. Huntsman's
    numbers are still pretty weak in New Hampshire, which is do or die for him.
    With Santorum and Gingrich both continuing, this forces Romney to continue to
    try to pretend he's a real conservative, and forces him to take ever more
    extreme positions to "keep up" with what guys like Santorum are saying on the
    far right. This is not good for Romney down the road, as everybody sees right
    through what he's trying to do. This explains why his 25% in Iowa is the same
    as he got four years ago, and it came from almost exactly the same demographic.
    The same people who voted for him in 2008 voted for him again, because they
    thought he could win, not because they actually liked him. That does not bode
    well.

    It is also not good for Romney in South Carolina. The Mormon thing is going to
    be big there, as is the fact that he's not perceived as a true conservative.
    Gingrich will be making his big stand there. Being from neighboring Georgia and, as another poster pointed out, the only one of the three who is a Christian (Santorum is a Catholic, which a
    lot of good ole boys think is non-Christian), Gingrich may make things very
    uncomfortable for Romney there, especially if he pulls out of New Hampshire (as
    he should) and saves all his ammo for South Carolina. If he does OK there, he
    can hang in for Florida, which is the big kahuna and also neighbors Georgia.

    So I say it was a good result for Obama because, while the presumption that
    Romney will be the ultimate nominee still stands, he's going to have to fight
    longer, with more resources, in tougher terrain than he would've liked, and is
    going to have to move even further to his right in order to ensure he wins.
    Santorum doesn't have the money or organization to win, and Gingrich doesn't
    have the personality or temperament or the ability to survive close scrutiny of
    his background, and neither of course does Paul -- who I agree is going to jump
    up in New Hampshire, by the way -- so ultimately I think Romney will win it, but
    he'll be a weaker general election candidate than he could've been with
    different results last night.

  16. #236
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Well, the caucusing in the caucausus has been completed, and I think the winner was . . . Barack Obama.

    None of the GOP candidates really either exceeded or fell short of expectations
    last night. But Romney now appears to have a more difficult road than he would
    have had he shown stronger, or Santorum weaker. Yes, Santorum is still to be
    "vetted" like the other flavors of the month were. But unless Romney was to
    have swept Iowa and clinched this thing right out of the gate, which he didn't
    do obviously, it seems to me that the more candidates that drop out after Iowa
    and certainly after New Hampshire, the worse it is for Romney. He wants that
    super-conservative vote to be split, rather than consolidate behind one
    candidate like Santorum. He wants Huntsman in, so he, Romney, seems less
    moderate by comparison.

    So Bachman is out and Perry is for all intents and purposes out. Huntsman's
    numbers are still pretty weak in New Hampshire, which is do or die for him.
    With Santorum and Gingrich both continuing, this forces Romney to continue to
    try to pretend he's a real conservative, and forces him to take ever more
    extreme positions to "keep up" with what guys like Santorum are saying on the
    far right. This is not good for Romney down the road, as everybody sees right
    through what he's trying to do. This explains why his 25% in Iowa is the same
    as he got four years ago, and it came from almost exactly the same demographic.
    The same people who voted for him in 2008 voted for him again, because they
    thought he could win, not because they actually liked him. That does not bode
    well.

    It is also not good for Romney in South Carolina. The Mormon thing is going to
    be big there, as is the fact that he's not perceived as a true conservative.
    Gingrich will be making his big stand there. Being from neighboring Georgia and, as another poster pointed out, the only one of the three who is a Christian (Santorum is a Catholic, which a
    lot of good ole boys think is non-Christian), Gingrich may make things very
    uncomfortable for Romney there, especially if he pulls out of New Hampshire (as
    he should) and saves all his ammo for South Carolina. If he does OK there, he
    can hang in for Florida, which is the big kahuna and also neighbors Georgia.

    So I say it was a good result for Obama because, while the presumption that
    Romney will be the ultimate nominee still stands, he's going to have to fight
    longer, with more resources, in tougher terrain than he would've liked, and is
    going to have to move even further to his right in order to ensure he wins.
    Santorum doesn't have the money or organization to win, and Gingrich doesn't
    have the personality or temperament or the ability to survive close scrutiny of
    his background, and neither of course does Paul -- who I agree is going to jump
    up in New Hampshire, by the way -- so ultimately I think Romney will win it, but
    he'll be a weaker general election candidate than he could've been with
    different results last night.
    Gingrich became a Catholic a few years ago. I'm not sure if he is one of the "three" to whom you refer.

  17. #237
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Another question is whether any of the other candidates can make this a 1-on-1 race before money turns it into a 1-on-none race.
    As they say in my church, "Bingo!"

  18. #238
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    Let me just quickly throw a counter-argument to tommy's excellent analysis.

    Is it really all that bad for Romney to be in a somewhat long battle for the nomination? After all, it keeps attention on him for longer than if he wrapped things up early. It allows him to get plenty of media attention while actively campaigning in multiple states/regions across the country. This is not a sitting Senator who already has an extensive national profile. My bet is that there are a lot of Americans who will vote in the fall who have very little idea who Mitt Romney is other than "that guy who ran but lost 4 years ago." Plus, much like Barak Obama in 2008, the continued media attention and rigors of a long campaign can help a candidate hone their message and their campaign style.

    I am not so sure that a long campaign does not help Romney.

    -Jason "now, if there is so much party division that it makes for an awkward convention or disenchanted members of the base, that is a different story" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  19. #239
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    The biggest thing to happen in the campaign today is that Perry has decided to stick around through South Carolina. Many pundits think this is a huge break for Romney as it continues to fracture the anti-Romney voting block. You have to think that at least 4 out of every 5 Perry voters in SC will be folks who would have otherwise likely voted for Santorum or perhaps Gingrich. If Perry gets even 5 or 10% in South Carolina (and he might do even better than that), then it is a major boost to Romney.

    -Jason "I'm rooting for Gingrich and Santorum to finish 1/2 in SC with Romney in 3rd-- that would extend this thing at least through Super Tuesday" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  20. #240
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Is anyone else just a little surprised O didn't have to endure a primary challenge? (R 1992, D 1980, D 1968).

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

Similar Threads

  1. Politics of Preschool
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 02:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •