• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gingrich? Seriously?

RandFan said:
[rank speculation]The powers behind the GOP curtain don't want a principled candidate. They only want those who have shown either a lack of autonomous thought and action with an air of leadership capability or someone who is corrupt (corruptible). If that were true then this is the field of candidates you would get. The problem is that you can't always depend on the general public to swallow every cynical attempt to run the country counter to the best interests of the electorate. Democracy can be a bitch for plutocrats at times. Especially when the rank and file forget their part in the play.[/rank speculation]
Click to expand...

Personally, I hold to the view that the smart ones simply aren't interested in being a proper candidate for 2012, but instead waiting until 2016.

Why? Well, because the odds are against them. A sitting president has a 75% chance of being re-elected (even Bush jr. got a second term), and I have a feeling that this is at least partially because people likes dealing with a known variable, even when they're not that content with said variable. And when all's said and done, they will be up against one damn smooth talker whose major flaw is doing a lot of the same things that they all do after promising some real change (as if that has never happened in politics before). And since you more or less only get one shot at being the actual presidental candidate (how often does someone who loses the actual election show up again?), you'd rather make that shot count. I mean, would you risk fighting a battle you're likely to lose, that will quite likely end your political career should you lose?

And since the smart ones are biding their times, that allows for "candidates" that aren't ever interested in actually becoming a president, but just use this as an excuse to toot their own horn and advertise their brand (again), because they know the media will be obliged to pay attention to them. Hey, they even get donations to sponsor the free advertising they get! Stumped may be a horrible businessman and with the ethics of a weasel, but at least he knows how to make them jump and pay attention to his little "I'm going to be president" show (mostly by suing them if they don't).
 
Last edited:
Hawk one said:
Personally, I hold to the view that the smart ones simply aren't interested in being a proper candidate for 2012, but instead waiting until 2016.

Why? Well, because the odds are against them. A sitting president has a 75% chance of being re-elected (even Bush jr. got a second term), and I have a feeling that this is at least partially because people likes dealing with a known variable, even when they're not that content with said variable. And when all's said and done, they will be up against one damn smooth talker whose major flaw is doing a lot of the same things that they all do after promising some real change (as if that has never happened in politics before). And since you more or less only get one shot at being the actual presidental candidate (how often does someone who loses the actual election show up again?), you'd rather make that shot count. I mean, would you risk fighting a battle you're likely to lose, that will quite likely end your political career should you lose?

And since the smart ones are biding their times, that allows for "candidates" that aren't ever interested in actually becoming a president, but just use this as an excuse to toot their own horn and advertise their brand (again), because they know the media will be obliged to pay attention to them. Hey, they even get donations to sponsor the free advertising they get! Stumped may be a horrible businessman and with the ethics of a weasel, but at least he knows how to make them jump and pay attention to his little "I'm going to be president" show (mostly by suing them if they don't).
Click to expand...
Okay, well, there's that also.
 
It seems, to me, that the current Republican party faces a catch-22. A candidate able to win the nomination would be unlikely to win the election, and a candidate able to win the election would be unlikely to win the nomination.
 
Stomatopoda said:
It seems, to me, that the current Republican party faces a catch-22. A candidate able to win the nomination would be unlikely to win the election, and a candidate able to win the election would be unlikely to win the nomination.
Click to expand...
It looked that way for a while, but when the dust settles, it will probably be Romney getting the nomination, and most polls show him to be the most electable of major GOP contenders.
 
Cleon said:
I really don't think that's a fair criticism; Gingrich is saying that he got a sucker-punch with Virginia's decision, but they'll find a way to keep going to what he laughingly thinks will be victory. He's not calling them fascists or saying it's an act of war.

Dammit, I need a shower now.
Click to expand...
He 'got a sucker punch' because he couldn't raise 10,000 valid signatures in a state the size of Virginia?

Sucker punch from whom? Nixon's ghost?
 
crimresearch said:
He 'got a sucker punch' because he couldn't raise 10,000 valid signatures in a state the size of Virginia?

Sucker punch from whom? Nixon's ghost?
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, they raised the number from 10K to 15K. with at least 400 from each voting district.

That requires a degree of organization that the Newt does not have.
 
Stomatopoda said:
It seems, to me, that the current Republican party faces a catch-22. A candidate able to win the nomination would be unlikely to win the election, and a candidate able to win the election would be unlikely to win the nomination.
Click to expand...
There has always been a disparity. However, in this case I think there is far more of a gulf than ever before. Yeah, and given that the candidates rising and falling in the polls they are being forced to play up far right conservative positions and attack the opponents as leftys. Not a pretty sight if you are GOP and understand what it will take to win the general election.
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
If I'm not mistaken, they raised the number from 10K to 15K. with at least 400 from each voting district.

That requires a degree of organization that the Newt does not have.
Click to expand...

He didn't make it onto the ballots in Ohio or Missouri either. And he doesn't have a full slate of delegates for New Hampshire.
 
BenBurch said:
Most electable still doesn't equal electable. Sort of like how being the tallest Munchkin still doesn't get you on an NBA team.
Click to expand...
It's still almost a year until the election. Lots of stuff can happen. Because the American voting public has a chronic case of attention deficit disorder, stuff that happens a month before the election is more important in determining who wins than all of the previous 3 years and 11 months. At least, in a close election.
 
Spindrift said:
Not necessarily. Israel is supposed to have the bomb and I don't think they've done a test.
Click to expand...
I'm confused, "supposed" isn't a definitive confirmation, right? I didn't follow the entire thread so if I missed something then I apologize.

Not sure how we can definitively confirm whether or not Iran develops a bomb.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
[rank speculation]The powers behind the GOP curtain don't want a principled candidate. They only want those who have shown either a lack of autonomous thought and action with an air of leadership capability or someone who is corrupt (corruptible). If that were true then this is the field of candidates you would get. The problem is that you can't always depend on the general public to swallow every cynical attempt to run the country counter to the best interests of the electorate. Democracy can be a bitch for plutocrats at times. Especially when the rank and file forget their part in the play.[/rank speculation]
Click to expand...

I agree. The PTB of the the GOP do not appear to want to win in 2012.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom