National Review picks Romney

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Jeb Bush would probably be the best candidate, if he wasn?t related to George.
He is a great speaker, bi-lingual, is very charismatic, has a Latino wife, was a popular governor and would most likely guarantee the Republicans take Florida.

Funny that PJs qualifications for "best" have nothing to do with policy or beliefs. He just wants someone with a nice haircut and a tan. No wonder he loves Romney.

Do us all a favor and don't vote.

Did you miss the part about being a popular governor? He has the qualifications to be President.
All the other stuff is the politcal stuff that helps him win the election.

You may not like it, but a large part of picking a candidate comes down to who can win the election.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Jeb Bush would probably be the best candidate, if he wasn?t related to George.
He is a great speaker, bi-lingual, is very charismatic, has a Latino wife, was a popular governor and would most likely guarantee the Republicans take Florida.

Funny that PJs qualifications for "best" have nothing to do with policy or beliefs. He just wants someone with a nice haircut and a tan. No wonder he loves Romney.

Do us all a favor and don't vote.

Did you miss the part about being a popular governor? He has the qualifications to be President.
All the other stuff is the politcal stuff that helps him win the election.

You may not like it, but a large part of picking a candidate comes down to who can win the election.

Then why would you vote for Romney?

 

[Thump553]

Calling Romney a popular governor of Massachusetts is an uniformed joke. I live near MA, know many people from there (from all ends of the political spectrum) and the only thing consistent is that they ALL vehemently despise Romney. The Big Dig fiasco (shoddy work, huge cost overruns)-his watch. Health care reform? Forced down his throat, then when it was inevitable, Romney claims all the credit (typical politico behavior, but still despicable).

Reading the editorial exerpted in the original post, I was overcome with a feeling of sadness how far the National Review has fallen. It used to be a lively, intellectually driven journal. Now they accept the concept of "sociially conservatives" (ie, authoritarians) as being some variation of true conservatives, which they definately are not. Like Rolling Stone, National Review's heyday was a few decades ago and both are pale shadows of their former glory.

What reason, if any, did National Review give for rejecting Ron Paul? He should have been right up their alley.

 

[jonks]

Romney doesn't have any freckles because they slide off.

 

[Moonbeam]

A vote for Romney is a vote for the United Mormon States of America and a religious oligarchy.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Lemon, what is the chance that you vote for ANY Republican?

This article is not meant for people like you or other left wing liberals around here. It is for the people who will or might vote Republican.

:thumbsup:

As if Lemon would actually vote for a (gasp!) Republican.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: jman19
Anyone who votes for Giuliani is a fool as far as I am concerned.

This we can agree on 100%. :thumbsup:

 

[dahunan]

Anyone who votes for a candidate that wants to continue war.. then thank you for fcking America and our soldiers and their families and our future generations

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Beyond him though I don't think there is a Republican 'A-list' star sitting out there, just like I don't think the Democrats have one either.

Actually, the democrats DO have one, and I am glad they never nominated him, because I think he would blow away the competition on both sides. He is moderate, charismatic, seems to be an honest down-to-earth guy...

Evan Bayh

I thought you were going to say Al Gore - he certainly qualifies as A-list, arguably the most A-list non-former-president candidate the nation has had.

Former VP, former winner of the vote for the presidency, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, leader of the government funding the creation of the most significant new technology of the last 25 years (the one you're using to read this), and leader of what the world's scientists and politicians have come to regards as perhaps the most important threat to human beings (especially in Africa) in the 21st century, many years before it became a popular issue, largely due to his work to make it a public issue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Calling Romney a popular governor of Massachusetts is an uniformed joke. I live near MA, know many people from there (from all ends of the political spectrum) and the only thing consistent is that they ALL vehemently despise Romney. The Big Dig fiasco (shoddy work, huge cost overruns)-his watch. Health care reform? Forced down his throat, then when it was inevitable, Romney claims all the credit (typical politico behavior, but still despicable).

Reading the editorial exerpted in the original post, I was overcome with a feeling of sadness how far the National Review has fallen. It used to be a lively, intellectually driven journal. Now they accept the concept of "sociially conservatives" (ie, authoritarians) as being some variation of true conservatives, which they definately are not. Like Rolling Stone, National Review's heyday was a few decades ago and both are pale shadows of their former glory.

What reason, if any, did National Review give for rejecting Ron Paul? He should have been right up their alley.

Terrible governor misrepresented as a good governor - sounds familiar, re Governor Bush of Texas...

I disagree on Rolling Stone - their political commentary of the last few years has had examples of being among the best of any popular publication, far better than I recall in earlier years. Really - Read the following link on the previous republican congress, and see i fyou don't agree with me that it said what needed to be said better than any other mainstream media outlet: link

Didn't you answer your own question on Ron Paul by noting how the NR has come to embrace the social right-wing agenda?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Anyone who votes for a candidate that wants to continue war.. then thank you for fcking America and our soldiers and their families and our future generations

And the Iraqis. We need to remember the victims of unnecessary war outside the ranks of our own citizens - what if the US military could do the Iraq war with unmanned technology?

Would the illegal nature of the war, the incompetence that has created the chaos in their nation and left it with such problems, be 'ok' if not for the 4,000 US soldiers killed?

It reminds me of those who cite the 58,000 US killed in Vietnam as why the war was bad, as if the invasion of their country on misguided grounds, killing 2 million, wasn't the issue.

When I see the military's move to ever-increasing unmanned technologies - and they could move to more and more privatized forces using other nation's people - I worry about the US public losing virtually any sense of restraint, more than we already have, regarding the use of force for our own empire interests.

 

[Zedtom]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Jeb Bush would probably be the best candidate, if he wasn?t related to George.
He is a great speaker, bi-lingual, is very charismatic, has a Latino wife, was a popular governor and would most likely guarantee the Republicans take Florida.
All that goes out the window because of George and the mess he has made.

Since you brought his name up...Jeb Bush could still get the inside track if the Vice President's office were to become vacant.

 

[FoBoT]

i am voting for Romney in the Missouri primary

 

[Stoneburner]

Is this a surprise? The republican machine picked romney some time ago. Look at where the key bush players have gone... to romney. The idealist and foot soldiers bush had went to mccain.

Regardless, romney is a bigger flip flopper than kerry and if any republican supports him they are filthy hypocrites.


GO HUCKABEE!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Is this a surprise? The republican machine picked romney some time ago. Look at where the key bush players have gone... to romney. The idealist and foot soldiers bush had went to mccain.

Regardless, romney is a bigger flip flopper than kerry and if any republican supports him they are filthy hypocrites.

GO HUCKABEE!

In other words, Romney is going to win?

P.S. Kerry was not a 'flip flopper' in any notable way, IMO. Look at the facts, not the marketing lies.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Beyond him though I don't think there is a Republican 'A-list' star sitting out there, just like I don't think the Democrats have one either.

Actually, the democrats DO have one, and I am glad they never nominated him, because I think he would blow away the competition on both sides. He is moderate, charismatic, seems to be an honest down-to-earth guy...

Evan Bayh

He looks like a pretty good candidate too bad hes not running.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Anyone who votes for a candidate that wants to continue war.. then thank you for fcking America and our soldiers and their families and our future generations

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, that list is extremely long.

IIRC, only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would bring the troops home.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The only group on this forum who is happy with a candidate are the Ron Paul boosters.

Is the Republican A-list of potential candidates staying out of the race?

This happened for the Democrats in 1992. The best bet was that
George H W Bush was a shoo-in and people like Gore* stayed out of the race for the presidential nominee.

A question for the forum's Republicans:

Is there anyone you would like to see running who isn't?

That question probably deserves a thread of its own

*Yeah I know he has been demonized. But at the time, early 1990's, he was in the top ten of Democratic potentials.

Newt, but I don't think he would be able to win.

Jeb Bush would probably be the best candidate, if he wasn?t related to George.
He is a great speaker, bi-lingual, is very charismatic, has a Latino wife, was a popular governor and would most likely guarantee the Republicans take Florida.
All that goes out the window because of George and the mess he has made.

Beyond him though I don't think there is a Republican 'A-list' star sitting out there, just like I don't think the Democrats have one either.
Hillary and Rudy are most likely the only a-list candidates in the country right now. Everyone else has had to work their to the top with hard work and effort, Rudy and Hillary were at the top the day they entered the race.

Those are qualifications for somebody to hang out with and drink beer with, not to be president. Yikes.

National Review's reasoning behind dismissing Fred Thompson makes no sense to me. He shouldn't be president because he doesn't want it enough . . . huh?

Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee are too much W in their tendency to spend the people's money. I don't agree with Rudy or Romney's positions on immigration.

To me, Thompson is the only guy epousing fical responsibility, the defense of our nation, securing our borders, and trying to fix the problems - Social Security first and foremost. If Ron Paul weren't a pacifist I'd give him strong consideration as well.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: XMan
If Ron Paul weren't a pacifist I'd give him strong consideration as well.

You need to learn the difference between defense and offense, security and empire, punching a mugger and being a mugger - between pacifism and opposing empire.

I'm a pacifist to the extent that pacifism requires appreciating the great harm violence does more than most recognize it today, and being cnservative in using force - rather than the ego-based casual call for its use against others by those far and safe from the consequences in a bubble called America, a bubble with a tiny ding called '9/11'. I'm not a pacifist where our 'real' defense needs are involved.

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter beyond some narrow truth-telling he does regarding the war in Iraq, our debt, and a few other things.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: XMan
If Ron Paul weren't a pacifist I'd give him strong consideration as well.

You need to learn the difference between defense and offense, security and empire, punching a mugger and being a mugger - between pacifism and opposing empire.

I'm a pacifist to the extent that pacifism requires appreciating the great harm violence does more than most recognize it today, and being cnservative in using force - rather than the ego-based casual call for its use against others by those far and safe from the consequences in a bubble called America, a bubble with a tiny ding called '9/11'. I'm not a pacifist where our 'real' defense needs are involved.

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter beyond some narrow truth-telling he does regarding the war in Iraq, our debt, and a few other things.

I don't think I'm ever going to learn any of those things, because our viewpoints are diametrically opposed. You see the United States as an empire-builder; I do not. I don't see much common ground between those two positions.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: XMan
To me, Thompson is the only guy epousing fical responsibility, the defense of our nation, securing our borders, and trying to fix the problems - Social Security first and foremost. If Ron Paul weren't a pacifist I'd give him strong consideration as well.

Go Fred Go! :thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: XMan
If Ron Paul weren't a pacifist I'd give him strong consideration as well.

You need to learn the difference between defense and offense, security and empire, punching a mugger and being a mugger - between pacifism and opposing empire.

I'm a pacifist to the extent that pacifism requires appreciating the great harm violence does more than most recognize it today, and being cnservative in using force - rather than the ego-based casual call for its use against others by those far and safe from the consequences in a bubble called America, a bubble with a tiny ding called '9/11'. I'm not a pacifist where our 'real' defense needs are involved.

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter beyond some narrow truth-telling he does regarding the war in Iraq, our debt, and a few other things.

I don't think I'm ever going to learn any of those things, because our viewpoints are diametrically opposed. You see the United States as an empire-builder; I do not. I don't see much common ground between those two positions.

It may not be empire-building, but it is certainly nation building. It's policing the world. It doesn't work. It costs too much money, and it goes against our constitution.

Bush even ran his 2000 campaign AGAINST nation building, and of course we found out that he wanted in Iraq day one of his administration. So, it's not just about what the candidates say, it's much more important that we trust them. I trust Ron Paul.

 

[Phokus]

I'm absolutely SHOCKED that NR would pick the flip flopper from Massachusetts, call him the 'most conservative' candidate, despite the presence of Ron Paul.

 

[StageLeft]

Sweet, now some mindless clowns who lack the intelligence to pick their own candidate can go with romney because a magazine they like said to. We need more of those kinds of people voting *groan*

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: dahunan
Anyone who votes for a candidate that wants to continue war.. then thank you for fcking America and our soldiers and their families and our future generations

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, that list is extremely long.

IIRC, only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would bring the troops home.

And Bill Richardson.