Can You Hear Us Now?
As much as Rick Santorum deserves credit for his tremendous victories last night in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado, what do you think the results mean? Isn't it true that many of the contests thus far have really been the electorate saying, repeatedly, "I don't like the frontrunner!"?
When Gingrich won South Carolina, we can certainly point to his articulate defenses of freedom and his savvy campaign performances. But we can also see the electorate saying "Don't tell us Romney is sufficiently good."
When things moved to Florida, voters said "But don't tell us Gingrich is up to snuff either. He's awful."
And now we're back to folks saying, "No, really, we have serious problems with Romney."
Gingrich did well in South Carolina because Romney had shown himself surprisingly inarticulate in defense of liberty and mumbling during debates. Romney was rewarded in Florida for putting up a great fight without having all the ex-wives of Gingrich (and running more negative ads than was thought possible). And Santorum is faring well now because conservatives still don't trust Romney and part of that is his weakness on social and economic issues. On all issues, I guess.
But what's the solution? Certainly not for anyone to get out of the race, is it? If the electorate is truly dissatisfied with this slate, this needs to continue to be messy all the way to the convention. That way, we either get a brokered convention -- to dream the impossible dream! -- or we get a candidate who becomes good enough to take on Obama.
Got that? Nobody drop out. Ron Paul, keep doing what you're doing, picking up a few delegates here and there. Santorum, work your magic in the midwest, ok? Romney, keep winning coastal states. Gingrich, do you think you could rally and pick some southern states up?
- Comment (85)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
...Delegates are bound to vote for their candidate only on first ballot. After that, they can vote for anyone they want. Including, you know, Paul Ryan.
In 2008, there was talk of Ron Paul followers trying to become delegates in big numbers, for just such a scenario as this. I'm not sure if they are still up to these shenanigans in 2012.
How would you like it if we got to a brokered convention and Ron Paul came out on top?
May '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
raycon:
But, of course, we all acknowledge that it's the economy, stupid.
Or is it??· 24 minutes ago
It's everything, stupid, not just the economy.
As a social conservative, I never look at the economy alone, because it's my strong conviction that many of the long-term problems with the economy are rooted in social problems. Getting in someone who's only good on economic matters may help temporarily with some of the superficial issues, and get the budget back on track, although that is increasingly difficult due to the strong undertow caused by social breakdown.
Edited on Feb 8 at 10:04amRe: Can You Hear Us Now?
Chris Deleon
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
...Delegates are bound to vote for their candidate only on first ballot. After that, they can vote for anyone they want. Including, you know, Paul Ryan.
In 2008, there was talk of Ron Paul followers trying to become delegates in big numbers, for just such a scenario as this. I'm not sure if they are still up to these shenanigans in 2012.
How would you like it if we got to a brokered convention and Ron Paul came out on top? · 15 minutes ago
You're asking me? Ricochet's token libertarian? Sounds great!
In all seriousness, I've heard these rumors, too. I don't quite buy them ...
Aug '11
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
"Don't tell us Romney is sufficiently good."
Mollie, you couldn't have said it any better....
Dec '11
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
Now we'll see if Santorum can stand up to the onslaught.
In my judgment, Santorum has three problems.
The first and most important is likability. He needs to be overly reasonable, modest, composed and unruffled in making his arguments and avoid appearing overwrought, angry, self-righteous, preachy and self-praising.
Second, many believe that he would ban contraceptives and put cameras in every bedroom. This is a deal breaker for many libertarians and moderates who don't want anyone, especially government, judging them or telling them what to do. Santorum should make clear that his remedy is to appoint conservative judges that would rule that these issues should be decided by the citizens and by state legislatures rather than by federal judges.
Third, he should state that he has leaned in talking with voters that they want government spending cut and, tax preferences and subsides eliminated. Thus, he should propose freezing government spending at the '08 level and support tax reform that improves on Reagan's '86 tax reform.
These midcourse corrections would allow libertarians to "settle" for him and soothe the delicate sensibilities of the RINOs and moderates.
Aug '11
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
Chris Deleon
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
...Delegates are bound to vote for their candidate only on first ballot. After that, they can vote for anyone they want. Including, you know, Paul Ryan.
In 2008, there was talk of Ron Paul followers trying to become delegates in big numbers, for just such a scenario as this. I'm not sure if they are still up to these shenanigans in 2012.
How would you like it if we got to a brokered convention and Ron Paul came out on top? · 21 minutes ago
My son (a RP devotee) assures me that is exactly what they are up to in 2012. They are pushing for RP to be either a VP candidate or a brokered convention.
Oct '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
He does say (to quote his website):
I have to say, though, that I find his grab-gab of bits and pieces approach to setting out his policy pretty impenetrable.
And then there's the whole magical thinking about manufacturing:
May '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
genferei
And then there's the whole magical thinking about manufacturing:
What's "magical" about that? Sounds like pretty standard economics to me. Cut taxes and the industry grows.
Are you talking about the "job multiplier effect" phrase? Yes, that kind of phrase is a little mis-used from time to time, especially by Democrats, but wouldn't more domestic jobs in the manufacturing sector boost employment in other areas as well? I think that's what he means.
Jun '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
I disagree. It certainly means that Romney hasn't made the sale to the conservatives yet.
Neither has Newt. After Nevada and his disaster last night [Newt's night was way worse than Romney's] he's going down for the last time (not as a candidate, but as a viable candidate).
Paul will have his 20% in caucuses and his 10% in primaries.
I believe we're coming down to a Romney/Santorum battle. Santorum had a fantastic night last night, but then Mitt had fantastic nights in NH, Florida and Nevada.
The bottom line is that neither Romney nor Santorum have yet made the sale. Just as there are very conservatives who blanch at Mitt, there are fiscal conservative Republicans who blanch at Santorum's social conservatism. And then there are the independents--I think they're up for grabs. I've fallen into the trap of believing the pundits who say it's over (e.g., for Mitt after Florida).
It's a long road, but I believe that either Romney or Santorum can make the sale. That's not a bad set of choices.
Sep '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
genferei
He does say (to quote his website):
And then there's the whole magical thinking about manufacturing:
In one of the Senator's Ricochet posts, he claimed he would reduce federal spending by $5 Trillion in 5 years. Even though these are "cuts" against current projections, it is still a bolder proposal than either Newt or Mitt, from what I have seen.
I don't like the special tax exemption for manufacturing. If he is going that far, he should eliminate all corporate taxes.
May '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
Ralph Baskett:
The first and most important is likability.
My guess is that his likability factor will go way up now that the concrete alternative are an "inauthentic" or plastic Romney and an erratic Gingrich. Voters like that he's a real human being with a genuine core. They'll deal with his short-comings.
This is just too dumb to be appreciable in terms of votes, I hope and pray.
May '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
tabula rasa
The bottom line is that neither Romney nor Santorum have yet made the sale. Just as there are very conservatives who blanch at Mitt, there are fiscal conservative Republicans who blanch at Santorum's social conservatism. And then there are the independents--I think they're up for grabs. I've fallen into the trap of believing the pundits who say it's over (e.g., for Mitt after Florida).
It's a long road, but I believe that either Romney or Santorum can make the sale. That's not a bad set of choices. · 7 minutes ago
Well said, TR. My thoughts exactly.
May '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
Mark Belling Fan
I don't like the special tax exemption for manufacturing. If he is going that far, he should eliminate all corporate taxes. · 4 minutes ago
To me, it makes sense. Bolster a lagging sector with tax incentives.
Apr '11
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
I don't know that any of it matters anymore. Obama now up in Virginia, according to Quinipiac. Beats Mitt by 4, Rick by 8, and Newt by 14 (Clearly, Newt is our man this year!).
If Virginia is going to start being a solidly democratic state, the electoral map gets harder and harder for us for the forseable future. Democrats have won the popular vote in four of the last five Presidential contests, and have many different routes to get to 270. We have to thread the needle ever more delicately with each passing election.
Edited on Feb 8 at 9:46amOct '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
katievs
Mark Belling Fan
I don't like the special tax exemption for manufacturing. If he is going that far, he should eliminate all corporate taxes. · 4 minutes ago
To me, it makes sense. Bolster a lagging sector with tax incentives. · 3 minutes ago
But why is it lagging? (If, in fact, it is, except on the perverse measure of employment.) Will tax incentives work? Why 'bolster' it? What won't get done because capital is now used for factories that might have been used for something else - a new hospital, a better day-care facility, a breakthrough (private) spacecraft, Ricochet 2.0 'This Time It's Personal'?
Sep '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
katievs
Mark Belling Fan
I don't like the special tax exemption for manufacturing. If he is going that far, he should eliminate all corporate taxes. · 4 minutes ago
To me, it makes sense. Bolster a lagging sector with tax incentives. · 4 minutes ago
I don't want the government, certainly not the federal government, using the tax code to engineer their own ideal economy.
Why not eliminate corporate income tax for all sectors? Or at least reduce it to 10-15% for all sectors?
May '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
Mark Belling Fan
I don't want the government, certainly not the federal government, using the tax code to engineer their own ideal economy.
Why not eliminate corporate income tax for all sectors? Or at least reduce it to 10-15% for all sectors? · 8 minutes ago
Yes, ideally.
I think the reason for focusing on the manufacturing sector is to counter the steep losses in that sector, particularly given the unfair competition from countries like China, who also favor certain industries with subsidies, tax policy, and so on.
The decline in manufacturing has deeper roots, though, including over-unionization, too much regulation, a culture that places less and less value on honest hard work, and more.
I'm in favor of fixing all of the above, to the extent possible, but tax policy is a start.
May '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
genferei
But why is it lagging?...Why 'bolster' it?
It's lagging because of onerous regulation and competition from abroad, I think mainly.
We should bolster it because it's in our national interest to bolster it, including our national security interests.
Wait, what? Isn't this a zero-sum argument? Profitable business create capital to use for other things, don't they? I'm not talking about federal handouts; I'm talking about tax incentives.
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
Part of the problem, of course, is that the population trends in Virginia are making its electoral votes an extension of Washington D.C.'s. The DC suburbs in Northern Virginia (where I used to live) are the big growth areas and they are populated by Beltway types who have a vested interested in growing government. Drive half an hour west and you start finding Waffle Houses, Cracker Barrels, and authentic southern conservatives -- who are becoming steeply outnumbered.
wmartin:
If Virginia is going to start being a solidly democratic state, the electoral map gets harder and harder for us for the forseable future.
Edited 30 minutes ago
May '10
Re: Can You Hear Us Now?
Mark Belling Fan
I don't want the government, certainly not the federal government, using the tax code to engineer their own ideal economy.
Why not eliminate corporate income tax for all sectors? Or at least reduce it to 10-15% for all sectors? · 23 minutes ago
The question isn't whether the government uses the tax code, it's how it uses it. Is it using it in the service of the common good and national interest, or is it using it to profit special interests or to force wealth redistribution?
I wouldn't mind getting rid of corporate taxes eventually, but we have bills to pay. It's a question of prioritizing.