Barring a come-from behind victory in Florida, Giuliani is finished. So is Huckabee. So is Thompson. That leaves McCain and Romney to fight it out for the Republican nomination. In this regard, Romney has the edge in two distinct ways. First, he has an endless supply of cash, while McCain is just about broke. The second and, perhaps, the greater advantage Romney has over McCain is that he is not McCain. While being a “Maverick” might endear you to the press, it doesnt help him with Republicans. Maverick in this context means that McCain bucks his party at critical moments to follow his own inclinations. He seems to love the attention his splits with his party brings him. Republicans have long ago learned that they cannot count on McCain at crucial moments, and the consequences for that type of behavior is that McCain will not be able to count on Republicans at this crucial moment. So for my money, the race is over.
Not only do I think that Romney will be the Republican nominee, I think he will beat Clinton in November. Republicans can unite around Romney and moderates will not support Hillary. Plus, I think the Clinton tag team attacks on Obama will work but leave a bad taste in the mouths of liberal black voters. I suspect many of them will stay home in November handing the presidency to Romney.
Well, I pretty much agree that Romney is the evident elephant candidate, barring something bizarre in the next two weeks. If Billary wins today, that would be really good news for them and not so good for Mr. O’bama. I don’t see that it’s possible to read anything into an Obama win, although I do think that the odds are slightly against him now. So if the asses grasp the fact that they will probably lose in a Romney - Clinton contest, then they may go for option 2 which is a Romney - Obama fight where their odds would be somewhat better.
In considering the religionazi problem of the elephants, it occurs to me that Romney could actually be safer. Being a member of a bizarro cult, I suspect he doesn’t want people to be too acutely aware of his religion, so I expect religion to not inform his policies very much at all. Now the question is, what about his policies? I know he’s a friggin epistemological moron, based on his death penalty proposal in Mass, but that hardly distinguishes him from his competitors. So IMO we ought to be paying some attention to George’s son, to see whether he is a better socialist than Onyango or O’Clinton.
I agree that Romney is good in the manner that we don’t have to worry too much about his religious principals being incorporated into government (He’s no Huckabee). However, me being a recent Guiliani converter, I’m still sad that Guiliani’s doing so awfull. Ron Paul is ok too, but I can’t stand his typical Libertarian Pacifist views mixed with religion. My only major problem with Romney is his lack of consistency. I hate flip-floppers, and I really find it funny that Mccain has recently accused Romney of flip-flopping. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I agree that Romney is good in the manner that we don’t have to worry too much about his religious principals being incorporated into government (He’s no Huckabee). However, me being a recent Guiliani converter, I’m still sad that Guiliani’s doing so awfull. Ron Paul is ok too, but I can’t stand his typical Libertarian Pacifist views mixed with religion. My only major problem with Romney is his lack of consistency. I hate flip-floppers, and I really find it funny that Mccain has recently accused Romney of flip-flopping. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I hate the word flip-floping. I think it’s a stupid concept, “You must have the same exact views all the time, never changing them, you’re not allowed to be persuaded!” I think it’s a term made up to confuse stupid people and get them to not vote for Kerry. Also, you’re probably going to get flamed for your comment about Paul. I’m going to start a “Paul Countdown” on every thread from now on to count down to the post where the thread turns into a Ron Paul debate.
I hate the word flip-floping. I think it’s a stupid concept, “You must have the same exact views all the time, never changing them, you’re not allowed to be persuaded!” I think it’s a term made up to confuse stupid people and get them to not vote for Kerry. Also, you’re probably going to get flamed for your comment about Paul. I’m going to start a “Paul Countdown” on every thread from now on to count down to the post where the thread turns into a Ron Paul debate.
I don’t like “turnaround” presidents typically because you can’t trust them. I’m not talking about presidents that change their opinion once in a while (for good or for worse), I’m speaking of the ones that constantly go awol on the parties platform (Bush’s no child left behind act). John Mccain is being referred to as a “Maverick” because he changes positions so much. I typically like a president with stability and I do believe that Romney’s stable enough, however Mccain is a whole another story. As for Ron Paul, I love his fiscal policy but his foreign and social policies flat out suck.
*** Mod’s note: Ron Paul related replies have been moved tothe Ron Paul topic. - sN ***
I think it’s a term made up to confuse stupid people and get them to not vote for Kerry.
It doesn’t take a stupid person not to want to support someone who “voted for a bill before he voted against it.” That’s not changing one’s opinion by being persuaded; that’s flipping and flopping between A and non-A depending on which you think will be better for your polls.
Romney hasn’t been flip-flopping; he’s just flipped once and stuck with it.
Romney hasn’t been flip-flopping; he’s just flipped once and stuck with it.
My only concern before was wether he might flip flop again since he’s already done it recently, but I doubt it. I trust Romney for the most part but again, Mccain is another story. Frankly, I don’t trust Mccain as far as I can throw him.
I almost hope Romney gets the Republican ticket simply because it provides the opportunity to repeatedly bring up the absurd aspects of his religion and ask the public if they are willing to vote for someone with such bizarre beliefs. How many people can definitely say their beliefs are represented by someone who claims that an angel gave an American a gold-plated book explaining the origins of the Native Americans - a book that only he could translate with the use of two magic stones?
Of course, Christianity is no better, but by exposing the absurdity of one religion, one can hope that some of the believers of other religions will realize their own dogma is no less ridiculous.
Then again, anyone bringing up a candidate’s religion in a negative sense will be seen as intolerate, so the debate is not likely to become widespread.
I actually really hope Romney gets the nomination. Compared to all the other candidates, he’s got the best credentials. Being a businessman, he’s got experience of leadership and Bains & Company got rated by Consulting Magazine as the best company to work for. Also, his weird religion would only piss people off if he began to incorporate it into goverment. Romney is now my #1 choice for president.
I actually really hope Romney gets the nomination. Compared to all the other candidates, he’s got the best credentials. Being a businessman, he’s got experience of leadership and Bains & Company got rated by Consulting Magazine as the best company to work for. Also, his weird religion would only piss people off if he began to incorporate it into goverment. Romney is now my #1 choice for president.
I think it’s a term made up to confuse stupid people and get them to not vote for Kerry.
Actually I think Bush Senior used it first on Clinton if I remember correctly. They continue to use it though. Must work politically, to get someone in that category.
I disagree that the concept is stupid. While it is entirely possible that someone can have a view and be convinced otherwise it is usually the case that these particular folks are “changing their mind” out of political expediency. Assuming that they ever actually held the view in the first place, they are most likely pretending to change their mind.
Otherwise, when asked a question they answered differently before, they would likely respond that “I intitially believed A, but now that I understand X,Y, and Z I believe B is the correct answer.” If they just have a new answer, I’d give 10 to 1 odds they don’t believe it or never believed the original.
Or has he? CNN.com reports “Mitt Romney suspend’s campaign.” Or at least, they were reporting so from about 12:42-12:49pm EST today, until someone apparently caught the problem. Now they report “Mitt Romney to announce he will suspend his campaign” instead, a sentence that contains neither plurals nor apostrophes.