Friday, March 22, 2013
Gingrich and Santorum
Today, Bloomberg reports that were it not for egos, Mitt Romney could have been toppled by a conservative "unity ticket" featuring Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Had the two united, there would have been a real possibility that Romney wouldn't have made it past the primary process and 2012 would have been truly different race. The idea failed because neither would concede to being VP. What would their chances be against Obama?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
They would have lost. While Santorum seems to live what he preaches, Newt is the epitome of indulgence and moral failure. Newt may have been able to shout down a CNN moderator in a debate for asking about his married life, but that would not have been ignored by voters. As for Santorum, I think he would have garnered some respect as a person, but would not be able to avoid Aikenisms on the campaign trail. Just my take anyway.
ReplyDeleteSantorum was not a leader. He did not come across as a fighter or aggressive as he came across as the kid that never fought back.
ReplyDeleteGingrich on the other hand is by fare the best debater I have ever seen. He is always well armed and can effortlessness destroy his competition but there is the issue of his "indiscretion". This is just too much for a true conservation ticket. Yet to be honest, I favored Gingrich over all others who were running - except maybe Cain who I did like...
As an honest question though, isn't Santorum a more real conservative then Newt? Newt may be the better candidate, but from the outside at least, Santorum looks to me to be the better conservative.
DeleteWhat you say about Gingrich though is eerily reminiscent of things I heard left leaning people say back when Obama was running for his first term. Left or right, we vote for wrapping paper in this country, not the person who best exemplifies what they are running on.
In the final analysis, elections are decided by the moderates, not by the comitted lefties and righties. As long as the GOP fields condidates who can't appeal to moderate voters, they will lose. That's not so hard to understand, is it? Gingrich and Santorum are weak candidates as has been noted above. Even if they won the primaries, they couldn't beat Obama. As George Will noted in this morning's editorial, the GOP can't win as long as we field weak candidates. That's true regardless of moral or doctrinal arguments.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how either Gingrich or Santorum, or both, would have gotten votes from those who ended up voting for Obama. There was just too much pandering and promises of goodies. I think Romney's undoing was being factual about his proposed tax policies not being attractive to those who pay little to no federal income tax.
ReplyDeleteGingrich is, indeed, an excellent debater. And very intelligent. I just don't see him in any future political campaigns. Santorum? His presence merely helped the Obama campaign.
Jean
" There was just too much pandering and promises of goodies."
DeleteThis has become an updated verse in the gospel of victimhood of the right. Mitt was right, HIS and Ryan's plan had nothing to offer anyone who was not making a lot of money. However, what people heard was, "You people have no value to me". With few exceptions, those of you here on the right cannot have a discussion about economics without clinging to a belief that if people are doing worse then they were a few years ago, it is entirely their fault. What's perfect about the comment Jean posted, in a Frank Lunz kinda way, is that it accomplishes several goals at one time.
First and foremost, it creates an enemy, namely the entirety of everybody who voted for Obama who obviously have done so because they believe something free is coming. Once the enemy is established, it then creates a victim status for the small segment of America who believes it was born to be wealthy and owes nothing to the many generations who came before and left much for them to work with. Lastly, it provides the right with the cover needed to completely dodge talking about why so many people have done stunningly and consistently worse year after year while the teeniest slice of America has done stunningly well.
As a liberal, I see little the Democrats have done to help the middle class. Rather then fight against the predatory policies that have destroyed the middle class, they have instead mostly supported them. They expand some programs to help those truly in need like children and seniors, but they have largely been bystanders for 30 odd years as the country de industrialized and cast aside anyone not connected to wealth. Collectively, workers may not have done much to make themselves for valuable, but by the same token, neither have the uber rich,
I didn't vote for Obama Jean because I want a hand out and I'm sick (to put it politely) of the arrogance your comment implies. The owners of capital in this country have, through their buying of the government, created a near risk free rate of return for themselves at the expense of everyone else. When I hear a Republican some day return who tells the wealthy it is time for them to stop sucking off everyone else and actually take some risk for the returns they are getting, that is the day I will abandon the Democratic party.
"This has become an updated verse in the gospel of victimhood of the right."
DeleteWell, there's a similar gospel from the left, isn't there?
'Mitt was right, HIS and Ryan's plan had nothing to offer anyone who was not making a lot of money. However, what people heard was, "You people have no value to me".'
No, he was "right" in that his plans involving lower federal income tax wouldn't help those who didn't pay any. Or very little. I agree that between his use of words and the media efforts, the message many heard was as you phrased it.
"First and foremost, it creates an enemy, namely the entirety of everybody who voted for Obama who obviously have done so because they believe something free is coming."
Not correct. I could have added that Gingrich and Santorum were and were perceived as rightwing, whereas Romney was more moderate, so they would have fared worse. In addition, there was just . . .
I could also have gone on to say that of the 60+ million who voted for Obama, many quite probably believe that was the better way to help those less fortunate (whether by accident or by choice), or for a host of other reasons besides getting something for free.
"why so many people have done stunningly and consistently worse year after year while the teeniest slice of America has done stunningly well."
I question that statement. If you want to accuse the right of a dodge, I think it would be more to the point to ask, using your premise, why so few have done so stunningly well, year after year, and why so many have not. A slightly different take. And, I'm not sure how long a timeline you had in mind.
"As a liberal, I see little the Democrats have done to help the middle class."
Hmmm. Ya think?
"I didn't vote for Obama Jean because I want a hand out and I'm sick (to put it politely) of the arrogance your comment implies."
I think I addressed that.
"that is the day I will abandon the Democratic party. "
I'd been expressing the totally unrealsitic wish that all 537 in the DC circle could have been magically flushed in 2012, even if the replacements were from the same party.
I think I have you by a mile on being cynical. Not that I find that anything of which I should be proud.
And stop ridiculing the way I write. You are insufferable and obnoxious that way.
Jean
Yes, you do have me beat on cynicism by a mile. I'm not sure what you mean by ridiculing. If you are talking about me being a child and mocking your habit of ending sentences with a yes or no rhetorical question, then you have a point. It sounds dismissive, but I guess that's my issue to I'll try to stop it. I have no illusions what I post will appear to some as very pompous. But I try to back up my train of thoughts with something concrete. Your statement about the freebies is arrogant and ignorant but my anger is less at you personally then it is at a bigger majority of right leaning people who have come to believe that statement to be unquestionable truth. I appreciate your clarity about the wider audience who voted for Obama but again, I personally believe that there are countless people who would not agree with your nuanced point.
DeleteAs for the left and their victim beliefs, I'm not going to deny that. There are always extremes and my only problem with extreme left or right types is when their small voice begins to dominate the discussion. Obama promised plenty of things, but like Clinton and Bush before him, he seems rather content to keep the revolving door to Wall Street open, and he is willing to cut social programs simply to give the impression he is cooperating. You rephrased my comment about who is doing better and worse and ask a fair question, so here goes.
I can clog up a post with a bunch of links you won't want to read to support my points, but I'll spare that for now. If we set aside for one minute the desire to blame left or right, I see several objective facts. Our eduction system has gotten worse but more important, access to GOOD education has become tougher for the poor. Higher eduction has gotten much more expensive and access to that for the poor has also gotten tougher. Yes, there are blatently unfair race quota's. However, this is not remotely harming an entire class of people, nor is it helping them in a big scale. Without good education, it is not likely the poor will do any social climbing.
As for jobs, as I said before, we have de industrialized and there isn't much for unskilled labor to do. How do you get skills? Get better educated. How do you get educated? See point number one. This is a general view and you can find stories that buck the trend but do not do so in a statistically meaningful way. With our trade policies, we are an open market to the world with few restrictions. Until our working class collapses to the point of workers in China, we are not competitive.
Compared to probably any point before the late 70's we have massively deregulated. People like Lou have been strangled by regulations, people like the Kochs and the Waltons have not. Instead of looking at which regulations truly hampered business, we instead (IMO) went on a rampage to remove all regulations that hampered big business from creating monopolies. Objectively, I see a correlation between falling wages, falling jobs, falling benefits at a time when profit has increased substantially, top executive pay has skyrocketed and in general, every tax bracket below the top 1% has made less money. One other constant in this that there has been a constant downward pressure on taxes.
This is already long, but in short Jean, I believe these things are all related. I don't think it's any accident that as we have deregulated, detaxed and removed trade barriers, the working class has been crushed while the investor class has seen their wealth explode. This paragraph is opinion, the preceding paragraphs are not. As for flushing them all way and replacing them all with other wealthy white men, I think that's like switching seats on the Titanic.
Max,
DeleteFrom what i've read and heard, education (K-12) has gotten worse, and I see it, sadly, in the kids, as well as young (even older) adults. Apparently it started going downhill in the '70s (?). Why is that? I grew up in a family with, ok, it's corny, but anyway, 'family values.' Not that I want to sound like we were sooooo much above our neighbors. On top of that, we were poor. But my sibs and I managed to deal with that. Where am I going with that? I think one of the biggest reasons primary and secondary ed have degenerated is the lack of family values and the importance attached to them. Out of wedlock children, single parent families, that kind of thing. Taking a village to raise a child hasn't done so well, no? I don't think so.
The cost of higher education has gone thru the roof. Understatement. That cost has eclipsed inflation and just about everything else. Why do you think, Max?
Gotta go.
Your last sentence? Good metaphor, yes ( ;-) )?
Jean