I'm calling it: Gingrich/Rice in 2012

[tbrown]

The President's skin color doesn't bother me. What bothers me are his policies and his lack of respect for the constitution.

Wrapping up Obama's policies in the package of some rich White guy isn't hope. It isn't real change. It's "4-more-years of Obama" with a different paint job.

I'm voting against Obama's policies this year, no matter what party tries to push unconstitutional big government down my throat.

[Oldgringo]

Only problem with the flat tax scheme is that it will hit Seniors who are already on a fixed income (most less than enough to pay any tax at all now). Unless there is a minimum (as now) to pay any tax at all, thereby continuing no tax at all for most Seniors, it will not be received favorably by Seniors who are a large voting group.

That's why it's so tough fixing the problem. The people who pay little or no taxes outnumber the people paying the bills, and the freeloaders will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying their fair share.

To be clear -- are you calling seniors "freeloaders"?

(Especially since I see you're 102)

I was wonderin' the same thing.

[texasmusic]

Third party here I come!

So you're voting for the spoiler?

Voting for a conservative, regardless of party affiliation, is the best chance to spoil their plan to have four more years of Obama's policies.

Voting in a fresh face with the same policies (e.g. government talking away health care choices) is like reupholstering the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need real hope and real change.

That's a fine attitude for the primaries -- but -- in the final election, the choice is going to be between Obama, and some Republican (to be named later). Voting for some other conservative because he's more conservative than the Republican candidate is a pretty good recipe for 4-more-years of Obama.

The point being: who is going to be able to tell the difference? Put Romney in a "Obama Mask". Let him run the country for 4 years and everyone would think it's obama up there. Now think of the same scenario but take away the mask.

[sjfcontrol]

Third party here I come!

So you're voting for the spoiler?

Voting for a conservative, regardless of party affiliation, is the best chance to spoil their plan to have four more years of Obama's policies.

Voting in a fresh face with the same policies (e.g. government talking away health care choices) is like reupholstering the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need real hope and real change.

That's a fine attitude for the primaries -- but -- in the final election, the choice is going to be between Obama, and some Republican (to be named later). Voting for some other conservative because he's more conservative than the Republican candidate is a pretty good recipe for 4-more-years of Obama.

The point being: who is going to be able to tell the difference? Put Romney in a "Obama Mask". Let him run the country for 4 years and everyone would think it's obama up there. Now think of the same scenario but take away the mask.

There is no way I'll ever believe that a Romney presidency, or ANY Republican presidency would be as damaging as another Obama term.

[Liberty]

Voting for a conservative, regardless of party affiliation, is the best chance to spoil their plan to have four more years of Obama's policies.

I don't what alternatives there will be. But as a card carrying Libertarian, we don't claim to be conservative. The Green party isn't conservative. Who is left for you, other than the Republican?

While I intend to vote for a Libertarian, I don't expect to be voting for a conservative.

[bizarrenormality]

Only problem with the flat tax scheme is that it will hit Seniors who are already on a fixed income (most less than enough to pay any tax at all now). Unless there is a minimum (as now) to pay any tax at all, thereby continuing no tax at all for most Seniors, it will not be received favorably by Seniors who are a large voting group.

That's why it's so tough fixing the problem. The people who pay little or no taxes outnumber the people paying the bills, and the freeloaders will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying their fair share.

To be clear -- are you calling seniors "freeloaders"?

I said freeloaders who pay no taxes will object to paying their fair share. The other guy said there's a lot of seniors in that category.

A simple flat tax with no loopholes is the most fair tax to everyone, even the ones who are slacking now.

[sjfcontrol]

Only problem with the flat tax scheme is that it will hit Seniors who are already on a fixed income (most less than enough to pay any tax at all now). Unless there is a minimum (as now) to pay any tax at all, thereby continuing no tax at all for most Seniors, it will not be received favorably by Seniors who are a large voting group.

That's why it's so tough fixing the problem. The people who pay little or no taxes outnumber the people paying the bills, and the freeloaders will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying their fair share.

To be clear -- are you calling seniors "freeloaders"?

I said freeloaders who pay no taxes will object to paying their fair share. The other guy said there's a lot of seniors in that category.

A simple flat tax with no loopholes is the most fair tax to everyone, even the ones who are slacking now.

No, the other guy talked about seniors, and you equated that to freeloaders. Is that the way you feel, or not?

(and judging by the your last line, I gather that IS how you feel.)

[Bullwhip]

There is no way I'll ever believe that a Romney presidency, or ANY Republican presidency would be as damaging as another Obama term.

The house is GOP, senate very close split. Obama has to fight the house GOP to get what he wants, Romney wouldnt'.

Romney might be worse because the house would pass his bills.

[sjfcontrol]

There is no way I'll ever believe that a Romney presidency, or ANY Republican presidency would be as damaging as another Obama term.

The house is GOP, senate very close split. Obama has to fight the house GOP to get what he wants, Romney wouldnt'.

Romney might be worse because the house would pass his bills.

You convinced me. I'm voting for Obama...

[VMI77]

There is no way I'll ever believe that a Romney presidency, or ANY Republican presidency would be as damaging as another Obama term.

The house is GOP, senate very close split. Obama has to fight the house GOP to get what he wants, Romney wouldnt'.

Romney might be worse because the house would pass his bills.

Maybe, but the difference is in the bills each may try to pass. Obama is much more likely to attempt an attack on 2nd amendment rights because his base demands it....Ronmey has no such demand from his base.

[OldCannon]

There is no way I'll ever believe that a Romney presidency, or ANY Republican presidency would be as damaging as another Obama term.

The house is GOP, senate very close split. Obama has to fight the house GOP to get what he wants, Romney wouldnt'.

Romney might be worse because the house would pass his bills.

Maybe, but the difference is in the bills each may try to pass. Obama is much more likely to attempt an attack on 2nd amendment rights because his base demands it....Ronmey has no such demand from his base.

I think this is an excellent point, although not as strong as you might think. There are FAR too many Democrats that know their voters will throw them out of they support anything anti-2A. It's only the east and west coast Dems that have a majority of idiots...er...libtards...um...constitutionally-challenged voters.

[The Annoyed Man]

There is no way I'll ever believe that a Romney presidency, or ANY Republican presidency would be as damaging as another Obama term.

The house is GOP, senate very close split. Obama has to fight the house GOP to get what he wants, Romney wouldnt'.

Romney might be worse because the house would pass his bills.

Well first of all, if Romney were elected, he might still have to face a democrat majority in the Senate, which would essentially put him in the same position as Obama is with the House. Remember, it takes passage in both the Senate and the House to send a bill to a president's desk for his/her signature.

Secondly, republican presidential candidates have been giving the media lots of negative quotes about one another to use against whomever the nominee turns out to be, so there is a very strong possibility that Obama will be reelected. If the republican nominee is actually elected, it will be a miracle.

Third, and I don't have the cite for this at hand but I saw it a couple of years ago on RealClearPolitics.com, but a couple of years go, 75% (or thereabouts) of independents who had voted for Obama would NOT vote for his reelection if he were running then. I saw an article just a couple of days ago that said that Obama had been making significant gains among independents recently. In case you had forgotten, it isn't republicans or democrats who decide presidential elections anymore. It's the independents. Why would Obama be making headway recently among independents, you ask, when just two years ago they wouldn't have elected him dog-catcher? It is because over the last 6 months or so, not two, not three, but as many as seven or eight republican primary candidates were telling the nation why they should not support any of the other candidates. And now that it has gotten down to four and the REALLY negative campaign ads have been brewing for a bit, independents are starting to shy away from the apparent intemperance and florid language of the republicans. This campaign, contrary to what some might believe, has been the greatest debacle in conservative history in recent memory.

It has gotten so that I don't believe what any of them say about the others, and the only thing I can look at is what I can know or glean from their individual characters outside of their political lives. And that, for better or for worse, eliminates Gingrich for me. I think that Ron Paul is intellectually dishonest. I don't think he cares about getting elected as much as he cares about the destruction of the republican party—his mission in life—and his ignorance about world affairs is positively frightening. And honestly? I don't think that Santorum has the intellectual horsepower to be a good chief executive. I mean, we're talking about a guy who, as an attorney in private life, argued in court that the use of anabolic steroids in professional wrestling should be permitted on the grounds that it is entertainment, and not really a sport. REALLY??? Anabolic steroids? That's the kind of judgement you want in a president? And that, by the way, does not harmonize with "family values," which Santorum lays claims to.

OK, here is where I'm going to make my pitch for Romney........

Some of you may have gotten a version of the following mass-circulated email in your inbox at some point or other:

Sometimes, this facet of Romney's personality isn't so subtle. In July 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, had disappeared. She had attended a rave party in New York City and gotten high on ecstasy.

Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was. Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to help find Gay's daughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hired a private detective firm to assist with the search. He established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and went through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York, and asked them to help find his friend's missing daughter. Romney's accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles, while cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put fliers in the bag of every shopper. Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part of New York and talked with everyone they could — prostitutes, drug addicts — anyone.

That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of the girl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boy phoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPD traced the call to a home in New Jersey, where they found the girl in the basement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose. Doctors later said the girl might not have survived another day. Romney’s former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughter's life, saying, "It was the most amazing thing, and I’ll never forget this to the day I die."

So, here's my epiphany: Mitt Romney simply can't help himself. He sees a problem, and his mind immediately sets to work solving it, sometimes consciously, and sometimes not-so-consciously. He doesn't do it for self-aggrandizement, or for personal gain. He does it because that's just how he's wired.

OK, so I NEVER take these kinds of emails seriously unless they can be verified. So I went to SNOPES.com:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp
Claim:   Mitt Romney assisted in the search for his business partner's missing daughter.
TRUE

At the end of that page, the following YouTube video is embedded:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=hS1DvuLE2is[/youtube]

Now, I really wanted to quote the whole story, but I urge all of you to actually read the SNOPES page. When his partner's daughter went missing, Romney dropped everything and enlisted his firm's employees and resources in trying to find her. He didn't have to do that. Most business owners wouldn't.

Next, let's look at the kinds of public conservative voices who support Romney....

Is ANN COULTER conservative enough for some of you?
Ann Coulter's Archives are just chock full of Romney support. Check them out.

Is Jonah Goldberg conservative enough?
The Case for Romney

Let me try to offer some solace. Even if Romney is a Potemkin conservative (a claim I think has merit but is also exaggerated), there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you.

A President Romney would be on a very short leash. A President Gingrich would probably chew through his leash in the first 10 minutes of his presidency and wander off into trouble. If elected, Romney must follow through for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal ObamaCare, implement Rep. Paul Ryan's agenda, and stay true to his pro-life commitments.

Moreover, Romney is not a man of vision. He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to "fix" health care in ways Massachusetts would like. He was told to fix the 2002 Olympics. He was told to create Bain Capital. He did it all. The man does his assignments. [emphasis mine—TAM]

In this light, voting for Romney isn't a betrayal, it's a transaction. No, that's not very exciting or reassuring for those who'd sooner see monkeys fly out their nethers than compromise again. But such a bargain may just be necessary before judgment day comes.

How about Suzanne Fields? She reminds us that half or more of all voters (liberal or conservative) are women.
Family Values without the Wink

There are others. I just picked these three at random.

Romney, love him or hate him, is a man of character, as evidence by what he did to help find his partner's daughter. That also means that when it comes to family values, HE WALKS THE WALK. He is 100% a capitalist. He signed legislation, which is unpopular with conservatives, into law as Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly liberal voter base, and an overwhelmingly liberal legislature. He could have refused to sign the bills, and they would have passed anyway. By staying in the game instead of taking his toys and going home (the Ronulan formula), he remained in a position to be able to exert some modifying or moderating influences over the inevitable. That is called "Leadership," and it is something of which the more strident members of the conservative base are either simply ignorant, or wilfully ignore through intellectual dishonesty. And by the way, don't make the mistake of thinking that more stridency = more conservative. That simply isn't true. There are plenty of hard core conservatives who don't think that SHOUTING is a good way to make their case.

Yes, I am concerned about Romney's views on the 2nd Amendment. Yes, he has some 'splainin' to do about Romneycare.

Here is the explanation about RKBA: the bill he signed into law which offends some gun rights activists did not happen in a vacuum. It happened in the context of an 80% liberal democrat legislature and an overwhelmingly democrat vote. Before putting his signature to the bill—which would have been overwhelmingly passed by veto override if he had vetoed it—he ensured that the bill wasn't a complete disaster for Massachusetts gun owners. Without his moderating influence in the process, it most surely would have been, as Massachusetts has some of the most repressive gun laws in the nation. What he did is called "Leadership." If you want to know where Romney really stands on the 2nd Amendment, go to http://aboutmittromney.com/gun_rights.htm, where he has the endorsments of people like Craig Sandler, former executive director of the NRA for 10 years.

Here's that healthcare explanation: "Romneycare" was going to pass whether or not he liked it. By staying in the game, even when the chips were down, he remained in a position to exert some influence over it. The bad side of that is that his name is linked with it. The good part of that is that had he refused to engage with his 80% liberal democrat legislature, it would have been far worse. That is called leadership.

All in all, Romney has character in spades. He is the steadiest of the candidates we have to choose from. He will be, as the above Jonah Goldberg article points out, owned by conservatives and will do what they tell him to do—unlike Obama, who owns his base, and is not particularly responsive to them. Romney will be predictable in a way that Gingrich could never emulate. Romney will be A) more acceptable to independents than Santorum could ever hope for, and B) not be morally conflicted about things like trying to argue for the use of anabolic steriods for entertainment purposes. Romney has a better grasp of how economies work than does Paul, has employed more people than Paul, and has had more exective experience than Paul, and he sees a bigger picture than Paul does.

I've pretty much decided that I'm going to vote for Romney in both the primary and the general, for the above reasons.

[sjfcontrol]

A President Gingrich would probably chew through his leash in the first 10 minutes of his presidency and wander off into trouble.

[drjoker]

gingrich / rice wouldn't have a chance against obama because this ticket cannot win independents and soft core liberals. although i am a republican, most of my soft core liberal friends will consider ron paul. independents like ron paul, too. however, ron paul is not favored in the republican party by the party machine so he won't win the presidential nomination. however, if he is chosen as newt's running mate, then i just KNOW for SURE that the gingrich/paul ticket would win. gingrich would win all the hard core republican and conservative votes while ron paul would win all the soft core democrat, soft republicans, libertarian, and independent votes.

[Oldgringo]

TAM wrote, among other things:
...I've pretty much decided that I'm going to vote for Romney in both the primary and the general, for the above reasons.

Me too. A couple of days in Temple Square this past September was a most enlightening and uplifting experience.