PDA

View Full Version : Do Republicans really want to defeat Obama?



cheguevara
04-03-2012, 08:57 AM
I think not. As someone said, GOP is just picking the fall guy. You don't beat an incumbent with guys like Romney/Gingrich who are too similar to Obama or Santorum who is a radical polarizer, and in the end still similar to Obama.


TAMPA, Fl., April 2, 2012 —The Republican Party has energized its base around the idea that Barack Obama must be defeated to save America from “socialism.” They won a majority in the House in 2010 by focusing on Obamacare. They claim that this election is a turning point. Obama must be defeated or America will be “fundamentally changed.”

There is only one problem. All of the candidates they are running will lose to Obama, with the exception of Ron Paul.

In order to win the general election, the Republicans need independents and Democrats. They also need a media narrative that shows a clear contrast between their candidate and Obama. They get all of this with Paul and none of it with Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich.

During the 2010 elections, Republicans pulled off a rhetorical coup. They successfully labeled Obamacare as “socialism” while at the same time mobilizing millions of senior citizens against the program because it would hurt Medicare. Hats off to their spin doctors. It won’t be that easy this year. If they want to attack Obama on Obamacare, they can’t run a candidate who signed the same program into law in Massachusetts (Romney), who supported its individual mandate for twenty years (Gingrich), or who voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit (Santorum).

Santorum hasn’t endorsed the individual mandate, but Obama can argue that he’s all for government healthcare and “spreading the wealth around” because of Medicare Part D. The Republican base might swallow Santorum’s rebuttals, but for the rest Obamacare gets neutralized.

In contrast, Ron Paul can hammer Obama from both directions. He can argue the traditional conservative position that Medicare shouldn’t exist at all, but that he has the only plan that won’t cut off current beneficiaries. He can offer something new by allowing young people to opt out of Medicare and finish with the rejoinder “as long as we don’t start new government programs, as you have done, President Obama.” Ron Paul wins that debate by knockout. The other candidates lose.

Republicans have a short memory. John McCain lost to Obama in 2008 because he was perceived as another George W. Bush. Bush was reviled by voters for nation-building in the Middle East, for spying on Americans, and for being too cozy with Wall Street. Obama campaigned against all of that, but once in office he’s been Bush III.

Mitt Romney said that he would have signed the last NDAA bill, empowering the president to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without due process. Santorum is on the record supporting the new power Obama has assumed to assassinate American citizens. Newt Gingrich says not only that the Patriot Act has to be strengthened, but that Americans must accept it for the rest of their lives. None of these candidates can attack Obama on civil liberties.

Ron Paul can. Voters can watch videos of Paul’s resistance to the Patriot Act before it was passed and review Paul’s numerous speeches, op-eds, and congressional votes against Bush’s policies. Only Ron Paul wants to repeal the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and the controversial provisions of the NDAA. He can excoriate Obama as Bush III and convince independents and Democrats to vote for him.

Only Paul can attack Obama for filling up his cabinet with Wall Street insiders. Obviously, that argument won’t fly with Mitt Romney. Santorum and Gingrich have both been lobbyists out of public office. Obama will point that out. Paul has a long history of opposing corporatism and again adds something new, his oppositions to the Federal Reserve. Paul can point to the trillions in bailouts of foreign banks by the Fed and hammer Obama for not doing anything about it.

After running as a peace candidate and collecting a Nobel Prize, Obama has started new wars and expanded existing ones. He has deployed troops in Australia and may yet get more involved in Syria. Romney, Santorum and Gingrich cannot attack Obama on this. They have all eliminated that possibility with their unrelenting hawkishness during their campaigns.

Paul’s foreign policy is not only what got Obama elected in 2008; it is what got George W. Bush elected in 2000. Bush ran on a “humble foreign policy” and won. When he broke that promise, his party was routed in 2006 and 2008. Obama won on an anti-war platform in 2008. He broke that promise and his party lost big in 2010. Only Ron Paul can capitalize on this in 2012. He’s the only one proposing less war. He’s the only one that can cite a consistent anti-war record.

If nothing else, Republicans should be able to attack Obama on spending, but Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich can’t win this fight either. None of them propose any spending cuts. Their supposed “cuts” merely reduce proposed increases in federal spending in future years. Obama can argue that those proposals amount to endorsement of his spending now and he’d be correct.

Ron Paul already has already released his first year budget and it cuts $1 trillion. Combined with Obama’s proposed 2013 deficit, Paul can argue that electing Obama will cost Americans over $2 trillion dollars in one year. Now, that is a contrast that makes good headlines and will play with voters.

If defeating Obama is truly important, Republicans have to offer someone different. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum propose only to tweak Obama’s policies. Voters don’t want to hear that. They want to hear about fundamental change, remember? Only Ron Paul can pull it off in 2012.

It isn’t too late. New York, California, Texas and other states still haven’t held their primaries. If the Republican Party could catapult Gingrich and Santorum into the lead when their campaigns had no money and no ground game, they could do the same for Paul now. Wins in any of the big states can still result in a brokered convention which Paul can win. The Republican Party must learn from its mistakes during the Bush years or they will be defeated again. Only Ron Paul can beat Obama in 2012.

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/apr/2/do-republicans-really-want-defeat-obama/

BlairForceDejuan
04-03-2012, 12:24 PM
Rep candidates suck. Obama really sucks. It's pretty simple and should not be that hard to defeat the incumbent. The ones harping on how bad the reps appear are usually the ones incapable of comprehending the reality of Obama's suckage.

cheguevara
04-03-2012, 12:33 PM
Rep candidates suck. Obama really sucks. It's pretty simple and should not be that hard to defeat the incumbent. The ones harping on how bad the reps appear are usually the ones incapable of comprehending the reality of Obama's suckage.

It is hard apparently. They couldn't even take off incumbent Dubya, the worst president in modern times.

admiralsnackbar
04-03-2012, 12:56 PM
Rep candidates suck. Obama really sucks. It's pretty simple and should not be that hard to defeat the incumbent. The ones harping on how bad the reps appear are usually the ones incapable of comprehending the reality of Obama's suckage.

Swing voters win elections.

Swing voters tend to be moderate/centrist.

The GOP is fielding:



a militant Catholic moral chauvinist with seemingly hawkish tendencies.
a Mormon with (like Obama) more ambition than integrity who (unlike Obama) has no charisma and often comes off like a little bitch.
a pandering, hypocritical egomaniac whose history of jack-assery and ghoulish wife rendered him unelectable long before the primaries.

The GOP knows Chris Christie is their best bet for taking the white house again, but even they know that Obama would eat Christie's lunch: CC is a charming guy, but he's got too much of a temper for debate. He's sitting this one out because the Dems have nobody after Obama besides (:lol) Hillary.



For better or worse, it's going to be Obama, because the GOP has painted themselves into an ideological corner, and because they tried to use the same strategy during Obama's term as they did during Clinton's -- that obstructionism and brinksmanship really damaged their brand among swing voters, I think.

CosmicCowboy
04-03-2012, 01:04 PM
I'm not so convinced that Romney can't beat Obama.

ElNono
04-03-2012, 01:11 PM
The only candidate that can be competitive with Obama is Romney...

lol Ron Paul

cheguevara
04-03-2012, 01:33 PM
Romney = Kerry

ChumpDumper
04-03-2012, 01:38 PM
Paul = nonfactor

admiralsnackbar
04-03-2012, 01:43 PM
I'm not so convinced that Romney can't beat Obama.

Maybe so, but his Mormonism is divisive among the Catholic/WASPy GOP base, his birth control policy alienates women voters, he doesn't seem to know how to connect with blue collar people, and his about-face on many substantive issues rings about as convincingly as McCain's did in '08 IMO.

He's definitely a smart guy, but he's still failing the "guy you'd drink a beer with" test Clinton, Obama and W. rode to victory. Kinda reminds me of Kerry that way.

admiralsnackbar
04-03-2012, 01:44 PM
Romney = Kerry
Beat me to it. :lol

Is this a meme going around, or just coincidence?

CosmicCowboy
04-03-2012, 01:47 PM
Still a long way until the general election. Obama's not exactly winning any popularity contests himself.

admiralsnackbar
04-03-2012, 02:00 PM
Still a long way until the general election. Obama's not exactly winning any popularity contests himself.

Neither was W before his 2nd term -- Kerry was just that lame.

I'm guessing Obama is saving a few positive news items to put into action come the summer -- prosecution of securities fraudsters seems like a likely one. But you're right... far too early to pick a winner.

cheguevara
04-03-2012, 02:15 PM
simliarities are way too crazy

Heinz/Frankenstein/Botox

Bain Capital/Frankenstein/Botox

EVAY
04-03-2012, 02:34 PM
The only candidate that can be competitive with Obama is Romney...

lol Ron Paul

I think this is right. And I think that the Karl Rove/Koch Brothers tv ads will rip Obama in ways we haven't seen since Kerry ran.

Don't underestimate the level of Hatred for Obama that is out there even among people who hate Mormons, rich people, etc. etc. They hate Obama more.

And the youth vote that went so strongly for Obama the last time is probably going to go back to sleep, where they usually are in elections. The youth vote has been disillusioned.

Even Oprah says she plans to be too busy this year to campaign for Obama.

elbamba
04-03-2012, 02:56 PM
I have decided that I no longer want a president I can drink a beer with. I want someone who I believe is smarter than me. I think both Obama and Romney work in this case. Either way, my life will be the same come December 2012.

elbamba
04-03-2012, 02:57 PM
Oh and lol at Ron Paul.

I like him, but he never had a chance and still has no chance.

cheguevara
04-03-2012, 03:13 PM
I think this is right. And I think that the Karl Rove/Koch Brothers tv ads will rip Obama in ways we haven't seen since Kerry ran.

Don't underestimate the level of Hatred for Obama that is out there even among people who hate Mormons, rich people, etc. etc. They hate Obama more.


agree and been saying this but, the actuall ppl that truly hate Obama and want him out are a vocal minority in the country.

It's gonna be a close one with the incumbent probably protecting home court.

CosmicCowboy
04-03-2012, 03:23 PM
agree and been saying this but, the actuall ppl that truly hate Obama and want him out are a vocal minority in the country.

It's gonna be a close one with the incumbent probably protecting home court.

There are a lot more that dislike Obama than you realize.

clambake
04-03-2012, 03:43 PM
There are a lot more that dislike Obama than you realize.

how many more?

and what do you think we realize?

you have numbers.......huh...do ya!!!

numbers that ain't generated by the vrwc/mic bitches?





gfy

DarrinS
04-03-2012, 03:47 PM
There are some good people out there, but they are not currently running for president.

Wild Cobra
04-03-2012, 04:03 PM
Romney = Kerry

No....

He isn't that bad.

coyotes_geek
04-03-2012, 04:07 PM
I'm not so convinced that Romney can't beat Obama.

Romney is the only one on the GOP side with a shot, but even he's going to need something external to fire up some new dislike at Obama to be able to pull it off. The economy taking a nosedive is the only chance I think Romney has.

TheSkeptic
04-03-2012, 04:24 PM
Swing voters win elections.

Swing voters tend to be moderate/centrist.

The GOP is fielding:



a militant Catholic moral chauvinist with seemingly hawkish tendencies.
a Mormon with (like Obama) more ambition than integrity who (unlike Obama) has no charisma and often comes off like a little bitch.
a pandering, hypocritical egomaniac whose history of jack-assery and ghoulish wife rendered him unelectable long before the primaries.

The GOP knows Chris Christie is their best bet for taking the white house again, but even they know that Obama would eat Christie's lunch: CC is a charming guy, but he's got too much of a temper for debate. He's sitting this one out because the Dems have nobody after Obama besides (:lol) Hillary.



For better or worse, it's going to be Obama, because the GOP has painted themselves into an ideological corner, and because they tried to use the same strategy during Obama's term as they did during Clinton's -- that obstructionism and brinksmanship really damaged their brand among swing voters, I think.

Excuse me. "Seemingly hawkish"? Seemingly?

Otherwise I agree with this one. I think someone like Santorum might work with a few of the super-radical Republicans but I think many of these candidates will force sensible conservatives out as well as many of the swing voters.

I'm not particularly a fan of Obama's policies but given America's other options I'm not sure I'd even vote. Or if I did it would have to be for the incumbent.

To be honest, a field like this one makes me feel like the Republicans/Democrats are good cop-bad copping Americans. :lol

ElNono
04-03-2012, 04:43 PM
Romney is simply the guy that could potentially capture votes from disenchanted democrats... none of the other conservatives and their witch hunts are appealing.

Frankly, Romey or Obama is the basically the same turd going forward. I think more interesting will be to see a shakeup in Congress again, seeing this one isn't any better than the last one.

boutons_deux
04-03-2012, 05:38 PM
Willard Gecko and Barry aren't the same turd.

Gecko would gut the ACA if the SCOTUS lets it stand, Gecko would gut/defund/kneecap the regulatory agencies in favor of the 1%, esp allowing the financial sector to inflate the next bubble, continue its criminal predations on Human-Americans, etc, etc, etc.

Nbadan
04-03-2012, 10:34 PM
From2006-2010 wing-nuts kept saying that Hillary would be the Democratic candidate for President in 2010, liberals were not so sure....

Forward to 2011-2012, Democrats kept saying that Willard would be the GOP candidate in 2012, the wing-nuts, still not so sure...

:lol

SA210
04-04-2012, 01:42 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5Jdl0gAhrJw/TxvqhRZNhkI/AAAAAAAADV0/n-M-E_D6UTc/s1600/obomney.png

SA210
04-04-2012, 02:01 AM
Mitt Romney

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/8D8VVsRuRxXtd45FuYY3Mg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/romney-florence.jpg




Ron Paul (with the msm ignoring him)

http://www.thelibertyvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ron-paul-crowd.png

ChumpDumper
04-04-2012, 02:23 AM
Mitt Romney

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/8D8VVsRuRxXtd45FuYY3Mg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/romney-florence.jpg




Ron Paul (with the msm ignoring him)

http://www.thelibertyvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ron-paul-crowd.pngSo you're saying there are more people in Minneapolis, Minnesota than Florence, South Carolina.

:tu

Wild Cobra
04-04-2012, 03:28 AM
From2006-2010 wing-nuts kept saying that Hillary would be the Democratic candidate for President in 2010, liberals were not so sure....

Forward to 2011-2012, Democrats kept saying that Willard would be the GOP candidate in 2012, the wing-nuts, still not so sure...

:lol
There were so-called wing-nuts that said the opposite in each case also.

Your point?

cheguevara
04-04-2012, 08:54 AM
So you're saying there are more people in Minneapolis, Minnesota than Florence, South Carolina.

:tu

what a stupid conclusion based on the pictures provided