[bethere]

Bob Dole: Newt Gingrich Will Ruin GOP's 2012 Prospects Like He Did In 1996

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...4750?ref=fpblg

lol.

[majorspark]

It would have been worse for Newt if Bob Dole endorsed him.

[Lancer '65]

I think that Bob Dole isn't totally inaccurate about the impact of a Newt Gingrich candidacy. The thing is though, that I don't think a moderate Republican can win either. Tonight's headline in the Toledo Blade also doesn't help the Republicans. The economy is starting to heal and if this continues to evolve as we get closer to the actual election, jobs and money coming in has been the bottom line in many American presidential elections and I think that ultimately, those things will decide the 2012 election. And.....the Prersident's campaign hasn't even gotten in gear as yet. I think the Dems are waiting patiently to see who wins the Republican presidential nomination and then they will come after that person very hard.

[bethere]

Originally Posted by Lancer '65

And.....the Prersident's campaign hasn't even gotten in gear as yet. I think the Dems are waiting patiently to see who wins the Republican presidential nomination and then they will come after that person very hard.

actually, it is up and running. a minimum of two-hundred staffers already in place in chicago doing op research, polling, planning... and, dems feel--as do i--that it doesn't matter who they put up. that's because the world watches normal men say foolish things as they cater to the tea party. that will only get worse as november approacheth.

"we tried," we have already said, "but they are determined to make the government not function. they actually take pride in it."

all we have to do is look as reasonable as we can, and we win by 8%--if things get bad for the gop and the economy continues to perk up, who knows? 20%. obama at his worst is out polling congress 4-to-1, right now.

not one gop can claim the same numbers WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY.

'nuff said.

oh yeah--$1.5 billion will be in the war chest. there might not be enough media available on which to spend all of that cash.

a point of diminishing returns if you will.

[Lancer '65]

You are actually correct bethere, about the campaigning starting for the Democrats, but I was referring to the media blitz that will dwarf the Republican effort by a large margin. The bad thing for the Republicans is that they remain stubbornly in lock-step with the Tea Party, which I still can't believe can possibly carry the majority of this country in a free and open election. There are still a lot more middle class and lower folks out there and they will be heard regardless of those who keep telling us that conservatives far outnumber liberals due to some poll taken God knows where. It reminds me of the Republican poll taken shortly before the first FDR victory in 1932. It showed the Republicans far in front and headed for an easy victory. The poll was horribly inaccurate. Does anyone remember their American history as to why this poll was so inaccurate? It was really quite simple. The poll was taken exclusively by telephone and by late 1932, about the only folks who still had phones were Republicans. I think they are still using bad information to predict this upcoming election. it seems to be a habit. Either that or the Republicans think that by simply saying something totally unsubstantiated, it will automatically come true. Sort of like the Easter Bunny.

[HistoryBuff]

Nearly all of the Republican "Senior Leaders" have come out against Newt.. Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Trent Lott, Dan Quayle, John McCain. They know that he can't win a General Election.

If only Nancy Reagan would come out against Newt, that would put an end to this silliness.

The Republican party is about to throw away their best chance to unseat an incumbant Democrat since Jimmy Carter....and they are being torn apart by the Tea Party and their unelectable agenda.

Santorum is all but done, Paul is no longer a factor but that will just allow the far right conservatives to rally behind Gingrich and drag this thing out even further.

If Gingrich wins or seriously wounds Romney in Florida, then the Republican establishment needs to get a new serious candidate on the ballots before Super Tuesday. Mike Huckabee or Chris Christie needs to jump in and quick.

[docthehun]

The old Repo here. I wouldn't argue with my two "across the aisle" friends, but I take a little different perspective. This election is in the hands of the moderates. The far fringes from both sides can tug all they want. It makes great headlines and keeps us all in the fray. It's like Coke and Pepsi. Neither company much cares which one you really like, as long as it's either one of them. In the end, most of us drink one or the other and they both prosper.

But this isn't Coke and Pepsi. Ignoring virtually every poll, the Demo's and Repo's seem not to realize there's a lot of us that are sick of cola, period. They both can spend as much as they want, attack and counter-attack, but many of us are are actually thinking on our own. Imagine that!

The moderates include many Repos and Demos. Amongst the ranks are all the independents and, dare I say, a fair number of people who associate themselves with either the Tea Party or the "Occupy Wall St." movements.
The moderates are going into this coming election speaking softly, but carrying a damn big stick.

No matter how much bloodshed between now and November, it's all going to come down to how a person feels when they step up to vote. You're either feeling good at the time or not. It'll be interesting to see how many Americans actually turn out to vote. That's the key to this whole deal!

[Lancer '65]

I think you make some very astute observations, docthehun. I do think you are right on the button with your point concerning voter turn-out being a major issue. If the voter turn-out is high, I think it favors Obama. If it is really low, I think the advantage swings to the Republican candidate. I personally can't imagine anything but a huge turn-out in 2012. There are too many Americans directly effected by the programs going forward as we speak. I guess we will just see what transpires from now until November.

[NapRover]

Personally I disagree that the economy is improving. Despite the facts & figures, I can't accept that there is improvement when the debt continues to increase, government continues to expand, tax increases are sought for the sole purpose of increasing the spending (please don't buy the line that it's needed for deficit reduction). Costs are going up, inflation is being artificially shunted, money continues to lose value. Most still are in agreement that we are going down the wrong path (gee, ya think?). If the republicans win the senate and keep the house, both of which are plausible scenarios, a re-elected Obama will be forced to learn a new word-compromise. HE is the problem, not the congress.

[Lancer '65]

This president has had a first hand lesson in Republican "compromise" for going on four years. It hasn't changed. Compromise to the Tea Party is spelled NO. President Obama has asked for compromise his entire term with absolutely no results. Now and in the last year or so, he has decided that he needs to go forward and he has waited long enough for the other party to come join him in an effort to make things better through reason and compromise. To expect this president to compromise with the folks that hi-jacked the Republican Party in 2008 or so, and have not budged an inch from their "Fox News version" of what this country needs to do, seems to me to be more than the president should do. I actually think he would still sit down with the republicans, but not if the same old song and dance came from the Tea Party, who in my opinion, are still controlling much of what the republicans are doing.

There is no question that a lot of work still needs to be done to get the country back to where it needs to be, but I don't think we need to go all the way back to 1860.

[docthehun]

The state of the economy isn't about the numbers as a whole. Like the election, it's all about your personal perspective. Unless I missed something (not totally out of the question), I don't recall any bonfires where large sums of money were burned. Every dollar each of us has spent, has ended up in somebody's hand. They didn't go away!

Just like during the Great Depression, a number of people have accumulated even greater wealth during this Great Recession. If you qualify as a member of that group, things are pretty good. Too often we judge wealth based on how much a guy earns in a year. I've got friends who've made a lot of money over the years, but accumulated little wealth in relation to those earnings. Vice-versa, I have friends who faired much better, earning less.

Even if we agree that the real unemployment number is 20% (including un-employed, under employed or not looking), that's still a lot of workers. Many people are just glad they have a job, so at least for now, things are okay, even if they've had to accept a lower standard of living. It's like a cold shower. When you first get in, you think it's going to kill you. Once you've been there a while, it becomes the new norm.

Many people simply aren't returning to the old norm and if they haven't accepted that fact, the economy will always be lousy. I'm back to thinking it all rests in the number of voters who actually show up.

[NapRover]

Originally Posted by Lancer '65

This president has had a first hand lesson in Republican "compromise" for going on four years. It hasn't changed. Compromise to the Tea Party is spelled NO. President Obama has asked for compromise his entire term with absolutely no results. Now and in the last year or so, he has decided that he needs to go forward and he has waited long enough for the other party to come join him in an effort to make things better through reason and compromise. To expect this president to compromise with the folks that hi-jacked the Republican Party in 2008 or so, and have not budged an inch from their "Fox News version" of what this country needs to do, seems to me to be more than the president should do. I actually think he would still sit down with the republicans, but not if the same old song and dance came from the Tea Party, who in my opinion, are still controlling much of what the republicans are doing.

There is no question that a lot of work still needs to be done to get the country back to where it needs to be, but I don't think we need to go all the way back to 1860.

The first 2 years of this term, there was no need (and no request) to compromise. The dems just used a plunger to jam everything they wanted down our throats. This being unacceptable to a large group, the 2010 election ushered in people who listened to those of us who demanded a plug in the dyke of government growth and spending. It's not uncommon for the incumbent party to lose seats in the mid-term elections. But I thought in this case the reason was obvious. The dems dismissed what I thought was the obvious reasons, and continued to uncompromisingly drive home their unchanged agenda and began labeling the tea party as extremist, racist obstructionists. I don't believe anything can be further from the truth. The elected representatives are merely carrying out our wishes. What will cause the incumbents to compromise is the carrying of the Senate in 2012, or the presidency. Both are possible regardless of who the rep nominee is for POTUS.

[wisdome]

You guys you know what is funny...that nobody knows who will win until election day. To me the Prez has not done what he said he was going to do...therfore is not better than several of the Repo candidates so I will take my chances. Prez needs to go!

[wisdome]

Originally Posted by Lancer '65

This president has had a first hand lesson in Republican "compromise" for going on four years. It hasn't changed. Compromise to the Tea Party is spelled NO. President Obama has asked for compromise his entire term with absolutely no results. Now and in the last year or so, he has decided that he needs to go forward and he has waited long enough for the other party to come join him in an effort to make things better through reason and compromise. To expect this president to compromise with the folks that hi-jacked the Republican Party in 2008 or so, and have not budged an inch from their "Fox News version" of what this country needs to do, seems to me to be more than the president should do. I actually think he would still sit down with the republicans, but not if the same old song and dance came from the Tea Party, who in my opinion, are still controlling much of what the republicans are doing.

There is no question that a lot of work still needs to be done to get the country back to where it needs to be, but I don't think we need to go all the way back to 1860.

Lance,
the Prez had two years without the Tea Party...so to me that first point is non-suportable. You can throw in the Filibuster word and that does not fly eather.

As you have stated you are telling us that only way that a party can comprimise with the Prez if they agree with him. If not the Tea Pary is the party of NO. Why can't it be said the other way araound? The main call form the Tea Party was to BALANCE THE BUDGET, BE MORE RESPOSIBLE. Is that unreasonable?

I do know that they only way it can be done if the PREZ first says...NO MORE increase in spending (which to this point he has not). I do agree with an increase in taxes....but not only on the wealthy...lets have everybody throw their stuff in the pot... and last lets make some cuts besides the ones that do take votes away from him.

That is what a REAL PREZ should do and to this point he is not!

[majorspark]

Originally Posted by HistoryBuff

Nearly all of the Republican "Senior Leaders" have come out against Newt.. Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Trent Lott, Dan Quayle, John McCain. They know that he can't win a General Election.

Everyone of these guys you list has finished their national party leadership roles a loser. Including Newturd. Perhaps its because losers can spot losers. Its more than that. These guys support an agenda that just can't win. Unprincipled solutions to the issues. More of the same continued growth of big government. More continued spending on what people want instead of what they need.

Originally Posted by HistoryBuff

If only Nancy Reagan would come out against Newt, that would put an end to this silliness.

Its the electoral process. Its only silly because you don't like that a certain candidate that is making a solid game of it early on. Perhaps we should just for go the whole process and have the stellar republican elite leadership hand pick a candidate. It be a lot easier and there would be more money in the coffers to take on the democrats.

Originally Posted by HistoryBuff

The Republican party is about to throw away their best chance to unseat an incumbant Democrat since Jimmy Carter....

If you think Willard is the best chance he is just another big government republican willing to spend trillions we do not have to placate the masses and supply the powers feeding at Washingtons trough. He will govern by sticking his finger into the wind to see which way the masses are blowing, all the while making sure the trough remains full.

Reagan was a known limited goverment conservative. He defeated Carter on that platform. He campaigned on eliminating the whole federal department of education. Unfortunately he was unable to govern accordingly. Political realities took hold and he left his hard core conservative principles. And the party has continued to leave them ever since.

Originally Posted by HistoryBuff

they are being torn apart by the Tea Party and their unelectable agenda.

Santorum is all but done, Paul is no longer a factor but that will just allow the far right conservatives to rally behind Gingrich and drag this thing out even further.

Why is it only the so called tea party nuts that are tearing the party apart and not the big government establishment republicans? I guess its just the perspective of what side you are on.

There is an element of the republican party that is sick of the out of control spending and growth of the federal bureaucracy that seeks to bring the federal govenment back to its constitutional limits. I do not think they will be rallying behind Gingrich.

Originally Posted by HistoryBuff

If Gingrich wins or seriously wounds Romney in Florida, then the Republican establishment needs to get a new serious candidate on the ballots before Super Tuesday. Mike Huckabee or Chris Christie needs to jump in and quick.

Adding more sticks to the fire at that juncture would likely assure a brokered convention. Where the cigar chomping republican elite can make a few back room deals and hand pick a candidate for us.

[bethere]

Originally Posted by Lancer '65

You are actually correct bethere, about the campaigning starting for the Democrats, but I was referring to the media blitz that will dwarf the Republican effort by a large margin. The bad thing for the Republicans is that they remain stubbornly in lock-step with the Tea Party, which I still can't believe can possibly carry the majority of this country in a free and open election. There are still a lot more middle class and lower folks out there and they will be heard regardless of those who keep telling us that conservatives far outnumber liberals due to some poll taken God knows where. It reminds me of the Republican poll taken shortly before the first FDR victory in 1932. It showed the Republicans far in front and headed for an easy victory. The poll was horribly inaccurate. Does anyone remember their American history as to why this poll was so inaccurate? It was really quite simple. The poll was taken exclusively by telephone and by late 1932, about the only folks who still had phones were Republicans. I think they are still using bad information to predict this upcoming election. it seems to be a habit. Either that or the Republicans think that by simply saying something totally unsubstantiated, it will automatically come true. Sort of like the Easter Bunny.

actually your anecdotal evidence is about dewey-truman, not hoover-fdr... but the gist is the same: the sample was neither random nor representative and it showed in the final results big time.

[bethere]

Originally Posted by docthehun

Many people simply aren't returning to the old norm and if they haven't accepted that fact, the economy will always be lousy. I'm back to thinking it all rests in the number of voters who actually show up.

this is false, dude. the economy can be fixed pretty easily. we already know that with the proper tax rate the government's part in this will EASILY fall into balance--ask Bill "i found the point of diminishing returns" Clinton.

as for the economy as a whole? get interest rates up so that you can make more money doing things rather than trading dollar bills for other currency or gold and we are off to the races.

[docthehun]

Originally Posted by bethere

this is false, dude. the economy can be fixed pretty easily. we already know that with the proper tax rate the government's part in this will EASILY fall into balance--ask Bill "i found the point of diminishing returns" Clinton.

as for the economy as a whole? get interest rates up so that you can make more money doing things rather than trading dollar bills for other currency or gold and we are off to the races.

I think the day when a high school education would land you a middle class job, are all but over, especially in manufacturing. Many of those old $60-80,000 jobs are gone for ever. The economy as a whole will grow, but many individuals will be left behind. It's a situation the government couldn't fix if it had to. Only those who can't or won't do it for themselves would want the government to try.

[wisdome]

Originally Posted by docthehun

I think the day when a high school education would land you a middle class job, are all but over, especially in manufacturing. Many of those old $60-80,000 jobs are gone for ever. The economy as a whole will grow, but many individuals will be left behind. It's a situation the government couldn't fix if it had to. Only those who can't or won't do it for themselves would want the government to try.

Very good point specially shown in Ohio when you have over 80,000 jobs not being filled because there are not enough qualified job seekers to take care of the jobs offered. Now when the goverment offers special training those folks without jobs are not willing to take the training...the want the job served on a silver platter with no work behind it.

[docthehun]

Just last week, I read or heard that last year in Ohio, 23,000 kids dropped out of school. In 10 years, that becomes a city bigger than Dayton of unskilled workers. As Ted Knight said in Caddyshack, "The world needs ditch diggers too." I'd say we're filling that slot nicely.......