Insiders Pick Romney Over Perry To Beat Obama

[Max E.]

In my opinion, any problems he would have with the hardcore social conservatives, would be trumped by the medias love affair with him. He basically has the Obama effect with right wing media. He is one of the few politicians who just says things bluntly, as opposed to sugarcoating it with political speak, thats what people desire right now from politicians. Plus he would absolutely decimate anyone who debated him. I think he would be a shoe in.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I don't believe christie could step in and walk off with the nomination. He would have far more issues to explain away than Perry or Romney. He seems conservative because he faced down the teachers' unions, and I give him tons of credit for that, but I doubt he would resonate with the southern, evangelical base of the GOP. They have probably done polling that confirms that, which is why he is reluctant to jump in.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

In my opinion, any problems he would have with the hardcore social conservatives, would be trumped by the medias love affair with him. He basically has the Obama effect with right wing media. He is one of the few politicians who just says things bluntly, as opposed to sugarcoating it with political speak, thats what people desire right now from politicians. Plus he would absolutely decimate anyone who debated him. I think he would be a shoe in.

You may be right. I don't know enough about his positions on various hot button issues to say. If he was shaky on something like gun rights or supported abortion, amnesty for illegals or the radical gay agenda, he would be a tough sell.

In any case, he has been emphatic that he is not running, so let's not waste time pining for him when we have three excellent candidates that for once, we can be proud of and don't have to make excuses for. Romney, Perry and Bachmann may not be perfect, but they are head and shoulders above what we have had since Ronnie Reagan went home to California. Any combination of two of them would make a formidable ticket.

It's ironic how a few months ago the mainstream media were full of stories and commentary pieces ridiculing the republican field as a collection of kooks and losers who would not stand a chance against the obama. Don't see much of that these days, do we?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:


It's ironic how a few months ago the mainstream media were full of stories and commentary pieces ridiculing the republican field as a collection of kooks and losers who would not stand a chance against the obama....

Technically that's not irony. Anyway, they're still kooks (perhaps not losers, they are all 1%'rs, right?), it's just that voters are getting real tired of our economy, so now the kooks look plausible next to Obama.

 

[Max E.]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:


It's ironic how a few months ago the mainstream media were full of stories and commentary pieces ridiculing the republican field as a collection of kooks and losers who would not stand a chance against the obama. Don't see much of that these days, do we?

Its been funny watching MSNBC progress over time with this. 6 months ago they were all just laughing and ridiculing the republican party over what a joke it was, when all the early goobers like Pawlenty jumped in, and Obama had a 10 point lead over everyone.

Now that the race has tightened up, they have went into full on rabid animal attack mode on Perry, Bachmann, and Romney.

 

[Max E.]

Quote from Ricter:

Technically that's not irony. Anyway, they're still kooks (perhaps not losers, they are all 1%'rs, right?), it's just that voters are getting real tired of our economy, so now the kooks look plausible next to Obama.

None of them are any crazier than Obama.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

.... so now the kooks look plausible next to Obama.

Obama IS one of the "kooks".

 

[pspr]

Quote from Lucrum:

Obama IS one of the "kooks".

Obama is the "Chief Kook". Look to Pelosi, Reed, et al for the kookets.

 

[rew]

Perry and Romney both suck. If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination (more than likely, unfortunately) I will once again be voting for a third party candidate as a protest vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

 

[geostrathmore]

Quote from Ricter:

Obviously his weight would be an issue, too.

For jumping, I mean.

; )

Haha

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from rew:

Perry and Romney both suck. If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination (more than likely, unfortunately) I will once again be voting for a third party candidate as a protest vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

This is the dilemma a lot of us face every election. It was particularly acute in 2008, when Ann Coulter started her memorable website"get drunk and vote for McCain." She said that was the only way she could make herself vote for McCain, yet voting for obama was so unspeakable she had to do something.

I do sympathize with you over voting for the lesser of two evils, but that's our system and casting a symbolic vote only helps the more loathsome candidate.

Anyway, I would vote for Charlie Sheen over obama, so there's no dilemma for me this time.