GOP POTUS Candidate Shinola Sandwich: Mustard or Ketchup?

[roo_ster]

OK, here is the question & some assumptions.

Assuming:
1. Ron Paul is not viable or gets anywhere near the nomination.
2. Newt does not have a third life this political season and continues his pseudo-intellectual self-immolation for the entertainment for those willing to parrot, "Newt is really smart, but..."
3. The GOP nominee must, eventually make nice with the Tea Party-ish elements in the GOP to get the nomination.

Who is the better pick: Romney or Santorum?

I could go on & on about how both are inadequate and not to my tastes.  Most of them are equally bad on many, many  issues, so it sort of cancels those issues out.

Trying to look on the upside, I think, hold on, <cough-retch-shudder> that the better of the two is probably Santorum.

Santorum has actually governed and defended conservative positions while in elective office.  He's won more than one political race.  He has never run to the left of Teddy Kennedy.  He can speak conservative-ese.  (Romney speaks conservative-ese like it is a second language.)  He might be bright enough to understand that just like the GOP isn't going anywhere if it jettisons the social conservatives, the social conservatives aren't going anywhere without the fiscally and constitutional conservatives.

Given a Tea-Party-tinged Congress, Santorum might be the better choice.


To be fair, Romney has the following going for him:
Great hair.
Successful business leader.
Beau coup campaign money.
Snappy dresser.
Great hair.

Of course, neither is yet willing to face the true gravity of the financial situation and propose action like Ron Paul has. Ron Paul's serious flaws (foreign piolicy, illegal immigration(1), insufficient sensitivity to Aggrieved Groups back in the 1980s & 1990s,  etc.) sort of fade in the face of Getting the Big Question Right.

My future dream team:
Rand Paul / Allen West






(1) Sure, let in millions more welfare teat suckers and un/semi-skilled wage undercutters who will vote Democrat when amnestied (while trying to reform welfare).  What could possibly go wrong? (Quoth the raven, `Nevermore California.')

[MillCreek]

I would add that in recent weeks, Mr. Santorum is not doing a lot to win the female vote.  I think the Republican party ignores female voters at their peril.  Comments from Mr. Friess about holding aspirin between your knees does not endear Mr. Santorum to many women voters.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

OK, here is the question & some assumptions.

Assuming:
1. Ron Paul is not viable or gets anywhere near the nomination.
2. Newt does not have a third life this political season and continues his pseudo-intellectual self-immolation for the entertainment for those willing to parrot, "Newt is really smart, but..."
3. The GOP nominee must, eventually make nice with the Tea Party-ish elements in the GOP to get the nomination.

Who is the better pick: Romney or Santorum?

I could go on & on about how both are inadequate and not to my tastes.  Most of them are equally bad on many, many  issues, so it sort of cancels those issues out.

Trying to look on the upside, I think, hold on, <cough-retch-shudder> that the better of the two is probably Santorum.

Santorum has actually governed and defended conservative positions while in elective office.  He's won more than one political race.  He has never run to the left of Teddy Kennedy.  He can speak conservative-ese.  (Romney speaks conservative-ese like it is a second language.)  He might be bright enough to understand that just like the GOP isn't going anywhere if it jettisons the social conservatives, the social conservatives aren't going anywhere without the fiscally and constitutional conservatives.

Given a Tea-Party-tinged Congress, Santorum might be the better choice.


To be fair, Romney has the following going for him:
Great hair.
Successful business leader.
Beau coup campaign money.
Snappy dresser.
Great hair.

Of course, neither is yet willing to face the true gravity of the financial situation and propose action like Ron Paul has. Ron Paul's serious flaws (foreign piolicy, illegal immigration(1), insufficient sensitivity to Aggrieved Groups back in the 1980s & 1990s,  etc.) sort of fade in the face of Getting the Big Question Right.

My future dream team:
Rand Paul / Allen West






(1) Sure, let in millions more welfare teat suckers and un/semi-skilled wage undercutters who will vote Democrat when amnestied (while trying to reform welfare).  What could possibly go wrong? (Quoth the raven, `Nevermore California.')

i like that  especially the "to the left of ted kennedy" bit
i think at this stage a west/paul ticket is better.  paul is still too young for me but after a term or 2 as vp? heck that could give ya 16 years

[longeyes]

Romney, because winning is our first concern (the second will be pushing Romney rightward if he gets into the White House).

Santorum's moral concerns are ultimately relevant, in fact essential--but they are premature.  He's not behind the times, he's ahead of the times.  Our society is not ready for an adult discussion of what's gone wrong with this culture.  We have the predicates of a hundred years of Progressivism informing public thought in America, like it or not.

[Fitz]

Romney, because winning is our first concern (the second will be pushing Romney rightward if he gets into the White House).

Santorum's moral concerns are ultimately relevant, in fact essential--but they are premature.  He's not behind the times, he's ahead of the times.  Our society is not ready for an adult discussion of what's gone wrong with this culture.  We have the predicates of a hundred years of Progressivism informing public thought in America, like it or not.

Ah yes, Romney because he can win.


This will not, of course, do even MORE to justify the leftward movement within the GOP, will it? No. Of course not

:rolleyes:

[roo_ster]

Ah yes, Romney because he can win.


This will not, of course, do even MORE to justify the leftward movement within the GOP, will it? No. Of course not

:rolleyes:

So, in keeping with the intent of the OP rather than kvetching on GP, you would prefer Santorum? 

[Chester32141]

As a Floridian I've already had my chance to vote and although I follow politics daily I didn't feel good enough about any of the candidates to pick one.  At this point I'd vote for a dead cat over Obama ... I like your dream team of Rand Paul / Allen West ... why can't we vote for them ?  I fear for our country during the next 11 months and I don't believe we can survive Obama winning a second term.  I am prepared for the revolution 

[roo_ster]

Romney, because winning is our first concern (the second will be pushing Romney rightward if he gets into the White House).

Santorum's moral concerns are ultimately relevant, in fact essential--but they are premature.  He's not behind the times, he's ahead of the times.  Our society is not ready for an adult discussion of what's gone wrong with this culture.  We have the predicates of a hundred years of Progressivism informing public thought in America, like it or not.

People say this like they say Newt Gingrich is super-smart.  In Gingrich's case, reading Alvin Toffler and regurgitating the wrong predictions of other futurists over four decades in a grandiose and confident manner does not a genius make.  IOW, I am not convinced Newt is any more bright than your average Speaker of the House.  "Paging Nancy Pelosi..."

In Romney's case, "electability" has been the catch phrase since 2008 when he was the GOP nominee got beat in the primaries by some old economically iliterate old coot with the charisma of a turnip.

Then, there is the inconvenient fact that he was polling in the basement near the end of his first term and elected not to be defeated for his re-election.

IMO, a Romney candidacy will kill GOP turnout.  He appeals to no broad demographic.  Nobody trusts his born-again pseudo-conservatism.  Nobody will trust him when he tacks back toward the center.  Social conservatives will stay home in droves.

In his favor, he is very, very pretty.

For my own part, I'll vote for Ron Paul in the primary and for whomever the GOP nominates on the theory that I'd vote for a syphilitic camel before I'd vote for Obama.  And that going to Hell in a handbasket at a slower pace is better than going to Hell at a faster pace.  I am NOT ready for the revolution until my kids are adults.

[Perd Hapley]

Romney is a non-starter for the simple reason that his candidacy would make all our hell-raising about Obamacare a colossal, egg-facing waste of time. So between the two unsatisfactory candidates, it's gotta be Rick.

I'm expecting another four years of Obama. 

[MillCreek]

Romney is a non-starter for the simple reason that his candidacy would make all our hell-raising about Obamacare a colossal, egg-facing waste of time. So between the two unsatisfactory candidates, it's gotta be Rick.

I'm expecting another four years of Obama. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46454352/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/#.T0LLBs2XRz0

Apparently, the stock market agrees with you.  I had always thought that if the economy recovered by the next election and there was no new significant military action, the incumbent would be a shoo-in. 

[seeker_two]

If those are the only choices on the GOP menu, I'll be going to a different restaurant....

[longeyes]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46454352/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/#.T0LLBs2XRz0

Apparently, the stock market agrees with you.  I had always thought that if the economy recovered by the next election and there was no new significant military action, the incumbent would be a shoo-in. 

Yes, but who says there will a meaningful economic recovery, and who says we won't see "significant" military action?  I think the odds are good that the economy will stall, despite the calisthenics of The Fed, and that the Middle East ignites with unpredictable consequences.

The GOP has a great bench, but our best players can't get onto the court.  Not yet anyway.  That too could change before November.

[Ron]

I can hardly see any circumstance where I would vote for Romney. Either I will vote libertarian or write in Ron Paul. It will take an awful lot of convincing to get me to a Romney vote.

That longeyes is actually advocating a vote for Romney if he is the nominee is shocking to me to say the least. Romney is the poster child for everything wrong with the Republican party.

[Jamie B]

Sadly, Fistful is correct - we need to prepare for another 4 years of obama.

Romney campaigns like someone who already expects that he is owed the office.

Santorum has not yet figured out that he has a chip in the big game, and needs to act like it.

Newt's ego has not allowed him to recognize that the rest of us are not as enamored with him as he is.

Ron Paul will never have the clout to win.

I am resolved to writing in Daffy Duck at this point.

[MillCreek]

Let me be the first to propose:

We all write in Fistful.

Then, the whole country, if not the world, can see it is truly Fistful's fault.

You saw it here first, folks.  I expect a high Cabinet position out of this. 

[Perd Hapley]

Let me be the first to propose:

We all write in Fistful.

Then, the whole country, if not the world, can see it is truly Fistful's fault.

You saw it here first, folks.  I expect a high Cabinet position out of this.  

So it is written, so let it be done. On my election you shall be created Lord Chancellor of Bacon.

[Jamie B]

Let me be the first to propose:

We all write in Fistful.

Then, the whole country, if not the world, can see it is truly Fistful's fault.

You saw it here first, folks.  I expect a high Cabinet position out of this. 

No way in Hedoublehockeysticks!

Bacon Tomahawks, bacon mortar rounds, bacon sidewinders, and bacon nukes.
The DoD budget would quintuple.

[MillCreek]

No way in Hedoublehockeysticks!

Bacon Tomahawks, bacon mortar rounds, bacon sidewinders, and bacon nukes.
The DoD budget would quintuple.

But it would be a nice and crispy budget.

[roo_ster]

So it is written, so let it be done. On my election you shall be created Lord Chancellor of Bacon.

My kids, who will not watch most non-Disney/non-cartoon video, will watch the entirety of Cecil B DeMille's Ten Comandments (Heston/Brynner version) without complaint.  Just make comments or ask questions as it goes along.

I wonder about that.  The get Bible stories at school, so know the deal with Moses.  I think that the movie is just that good, that even small children find it compelling.

[MicroBalrog]

Barack Hussein Obama.

[longeyes]

I can hardly see any circumstance where I would vote for Romney. Either I will vote libertarian or write in Ron Paul. It will take an awful lot of convincing to get me to a Romney vote.

That longeyes is actually advocating a vote for Romney if he is the nominee is shocking to me to say the least. Romney is the poster child for everything wrong with the Republican party.

Romney is not my first choice.  But I do think he has the best chance of winning.  Winning the White House is only step one; it would have to be accompanied by conservative militancy to ensure that Romney is not just one more rightwing Progressive.  I don't see Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul beating Obama, but that is not because they are bad candidates, just that Obama has the Big Mo with him.  The Big Mo is more than incumbency and a fat bankroll; he has the demographics and cultural winds behind him, and he has the media and the press largely in the bag for him.  This is why we need people like West, Rubio, Rand Paul, Jindal, and Ryan on stage, not the people we have.  But it is what it is.  A Romney "win" will not change where America is going, and that is a state of division, chaos, and basic ungovernabilty that won't be solved by politics as usual from either Party.  The coming years are going to be tumultuous and dramatic.

[RoadKingLarry]

In the long run it doesn't really matter who gets in.
The end result will be the same, the only difference will be how long it takes.
If Obama stays we'll likely see Syrian style civil unrest within 3 years brought on by an effective collapse of the economy, unemployment in the high 20% range and a curtailing of civil liberties.
If the GOP get in the results will be the same but the timeline will maybe extend out another 2-3 years, maybe.

We are probably  be going to be paying $5 a gallon of gas, $6 or more for diesel by the end of June.
Remember when we were paying $2.50 and it was because Bush and big oil were getting rich but now we pay $3.50 and you never hear a word about big oil in the mainstream media?

Inflation is going to accelerate in large part because of the higher cost of transport.
Unemployment is going to start creeping up and the real numbers will still be underreported untill Obama gets voted out then the "real" numbers will be the fault of the GOP.

I'll vote against Obama, but it doesn't matter anymore. It is too late to change the outcome. We can only delay it, maybe.

[RocketMan]

I'm expecting another four years of Obama. 

Same here.  The continuing poll numbers, when you really look at them and consider other outside factors as well, point to this.  We're stuck with him.

[Chester32141]

While the rising cost of gasoline makes any thinking voter want a change of administration I have to wonder how many of Obama's voters don't care about the cost of gas because they don't drive and the rising costs caused by transportation expense increases because they don't pay for many of life's necessities.

This same demographic may not care about unemployment or the economy since they may not feel directly affected by them.

[Ben]

While the rising cost of gasoline makes any thinking voter want a change of administration I have to wonder how many of Obama's voters don't care about the cost of gas

There is a well-populated demographic of Obama voters that wants fuel to go UP.