I'm calling it: Gingrich/Rice in 2012

[Lambda Force]

I must admit I have soft spots for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, but my crystal ball says that Newt is the only one that can absolutely stomp Obama and throw him, his cronies, and his policies to the curb.

I predict the Republicans will win big if they nominate a conservative and lose by a small margin if they nominate an Obama Lite.

[Poldark]

The Republican establishment are doing a great job of now dividing the conservative voters so they get their man Romney in or as my buddy reckons , Obamalite !

[Tamie]

It looks more like they're trying to divide and drive away the conservative voters so Obama gets reelected.

Now why would they be doing that?

[Oldgringo]

From Newt's home state:

http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/12/05/geor ... -gingrich/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just askin'...

[RCP]

I don't like anything about Obama. I fear another Obama term in office. The media made an issue of GWB being divisive, but Obama is probably the most divisive president in history, and it's a deliberate strategy. I've become a one issue voter, an issue that is dear to me, but also I believe an indicator of moral judgement at the most fundamental level: the right to self-defense, from which follows, the right to own guns for a variety of purposes, the foremost of which is self-defense. Anyone who doesn't believe an individual has this right is a collectivist, and I consider collectivists to be my enemies. I know where Obama stands on this regardless of any media baloney to the contrary. The only question to me then is whether Newt sincerely believes in the right to self-defense and gun ownership. If he does, he will be a better choice than Obama, if he doesn't but still maintains the pretense without damaging gun rights then I guess he'll still be better --but if it's a pretense that he sheds for political reasons and facilitates a loss of gun rights, then I won't be able to see him as having been a better choice. I know Obama is anti-gun, I don't think Newt is, at least to the same degree, but I don't really know what his position is, and I fear he is one of these fine double barrel shotgun Republicans who don't see why anyone would need an "assault" rifle or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2007/04 ... et_it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Look, I think we ought to draw a clear distinction about a whole range of weapons that are explicitly military, and I have no interest in arguing or defending the right of people to randomly hold weapons that are that extraordinary, except under very, very unique circumstances."- Newt Gingrich 2007

[The Annoyed Man]

It looks more like they're trying to divide and drive away the conservative voters so Obama gets reelected.

Now why would they be doing that?

With all due respect, that doesn't make sense. "They"....meaning the party establishment....have their ideas of what a candidate ought to stand for, and they want to convince conservatives that the establishment candidate is the conservatives' best choice. Now, they're obviously not succeeding very well at convincing people; but that's a darn sight different than the accusation of deliberately dividing and driving off conservatives. The bottom line is, the party establishment wants to win; and while their political philosophy might stink, they're not dumb enough to try and deliberately chase off a segment of the party large enough to ensure that they can't win.

Assuming Romney to be the establishment favorite, they would rather convince the conservative and the libertarian wings of the GOP to support Romney in the general election, thereby maximizing the possibility of winning, than they would want to drive off the conservative and libertarian wings of the GOP and thereby assure an Obama victory by a massive margin. That's just crazy talk.

My view of Romney: Wrong on some things, right on some others, but in all things vastly superior to Obama. Romney is not (for now anyway) my favorite primary candidate. That would be Gingrich at the moment, but he troubles me too. But I can tell you that, without a doubt or a shred of regret, if Romney gets the GOP nomination.....which remains to be seen......I will vote for him in a heartbeat in the general election if the alternatives are to either A) vote for Obama; or B) help to guarantee an Obama victory by protest voting for a 3rd party or write in candidate. I don't care who the republican nominee turns out to be. I will vote for that person. In this election. The stakes are far too high not to.

Here is what more mainstream conservatives are saying in Iowa, where the governor has urged people to ignore a possible Ron Paul victory if he wins:

The Politico

What especially worries Iowa Republican regulars is the possibility that Paul could win here on January 3rd with the help of Democrats and independents who change their registration to support the libertarian-leaning Texas congressman but then don’t support the GOP nominee next November.

“I don’t think any candidate perverting the process in that fashion helps [the caucuses] in any way,” said Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, adding that he didn’t know if that’s necessarily how Paul would win.

While there’s no evidence of an organized effort, public polling shows that Paul’s lead is built in large part with the support of non-Republicans – and few party veterans think such voters would stick with the GOP in November.

“They’ll all go back and vote for Obama,” predicted Beach.

The most troubling eventuality that Iowa Republicans are bracing for is that Paul wins the caucuses only to lose the nomination and run as a third-party candidate in November — all but ensuring President Obama is re-elected.

“If we empower somebody who turns around and elects Obama, then that’s a major problem for the caucuses,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

Why would they say such a thing about Ron Paul if not for the fact that he has a demonstrated track record of having exactly that effect on the republican party? That underlined part is a fact of life whenever Ron Paul runs. He simply cannot garner enough votes to win the nomination even by a plurality. But, he can (and does) have TWO effects on the campaign:

• At the primary level, as described above, he gets a lot of democrat and independent voters, who vote outside their normal preferences so as to affect the outcome of the republican primary. So, his primary results are not indicative of how well he would run as the republican nominee.
• In the general election, three things happen to Ron Paul's primary voters:
  1. The democrats who voted for him in the primary go back to being democrats and they vote for Obama.
  2. Independents who voted for him in the primary go back to whatever their previous inclinations were. Some of those will identify with the Paulian libertarianism, and they will vote for Ron Paul as a write-in candidate. Some will vote the republican party line. Some will vote the democrat party line.
  3. The die-hard Paul supporters will protest vote and write in a Ron Paul candidacy or refuse to vote.
• #1 helps Obama. #2 helps Obama a bit, it helps Ron Paul a bit, and it helps the GOP. #3 helps Ron Paul. Only one of these options helps the republican party even remotely, but two options help the democrats, and two options help Ron Paul. Self-styled conservatives who cannot bring themselves to support the GOP nominee will do harm to the republican party, and give aid to the democrat party—whether or not that is their intent. That's just the facts of how these things play out. Here's another way of looking at it. Assign a total score possible of 3 points to each of those three items. Obama's total score is 4; Ron Paul's total score is 4; the GOP's score is 1. When Ron Paul is not a reliable member of the GOP, his candidacy ultimately helps the DNC and hurts the GOP.

Now who is being divisive? The GOP establishment, or the Ron Paul machine which actively seeks to divide and conquer the GOP?

I wouldn't have the tiniest bit of a problem with Ron Paul if he would just declare himself an independent and run accordingly..........or, come out of the closet and simply claim to be what he is: a Libertarian. One of the things that has been pretty much universally true about republican presidential primary candidates is that, when the nominee is finally chosen, the others concede the race, close ranks, endorse the winner, and work together to try and ensure a republican victory.

The exception is Ron Paul. He has yet to ever urge his supporters to back the party's nominee after having lost. He will cynically use the party and its influence to promote his own candidacy, but he never returns the favor. The only reason he runs as a republican is because it gives him a broader audience than it would if he ran as a Libertarian, which is his natural milieu. But he definitely doesn't give a crap about the GOP. Some call him an independent minded person. I call him an egotist who doesn't care what he'll have to destroy in order to gain what he wants. He is a divider. The way he plays the game encourages his followers to be happy with an Obama victory if they can't have Ron Paul. They would be happy to throw the country down the toilet if they can't have their guy in office. That's not politics. That is having a tantrum and taking your toys and going home. It is famously said that politics is the art of compromise. Well then, either compromise and quit trying to sabotage the party, or run up the Jolly Roger and declare a new party. But come out in the open and quite screwing around. This country is already pretty far gone. It simply cannot endure another four years of Obama; but that will be the result of Ron Paul splitting up the republican party.

I'm pretty tired of the nonsense.

[OldCannon]

The exception is Ron Paul. He has yet to ever urge his supporters to back the party's nominee after having lost. He will cynically use the party and its influence to promote his own candidacy, but he never returns the favor. The only reason he runs as a republican is because it gives him a broader audience than it would if he ran as a Libertarian, which is his natural milieu. But he definitely doesn't give a crap about the GOP. Some call him an independent minded person. I call him an egotist who doesn't care what he'll have to destroy in order to gain what he wants. He is a divider. The way he plays the game encourages his followers to be happy with an Obama victory if they can't have Ron Paul. They would be happy to throw the country down the toilet if they can't have their guy in office. That's not politics. That is having a tantrum and taking your toys and going home. It is famously said that politics is the art of compromise. Well then, either compromise and quit trying to sabotage the party, or run up the Jolly Roger and declare a new party. But come out in the open and quite screwing around. This country is already pretty far gone. It simply cannot endure another four years of Obama; but that will be the result of Ron Paul splitting up the republican party.

I'm pretty tired of the nonsense.

Sure, but it's politics, which means that most of the machinations and posturing are aimed at people far less-inclined to "think."

Frankly, I think Ron Paul is painted into a corner where he's trying to influence GOP planks, not so much get re-elected. He might win caucuses, but history tells us that caucuses move in ebbs and tides. As for the Libertarian side, Ron Paul hasn't shown any interest that in a LONG time, and that dance card is now full with Gary Johnson's defection the The Libertarian Party to run for president.

It's gonna be an interesting election ( /grabsPopcorn)

[RCP]

“I don’t think any candidate perverting the process in that fashion helps [the caucuses] in any way,” said Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen,

While there’s no evidence of an organized effort, public polling shows that Paul’s lead is built in large part with the support of non-Republicans – and few party veterans think such voters would stick with the GOP in November.

“They’ll all go back and vote for Obama,” predicted Beach.

Sounds like a bunch of bull to try and marginalize Ron Paul however they can EVEN if he wins Iowa to me. As I have underlined there is no evidence of any of that!

The argument being made is that the Iowa Caucus is meaningless because a bunch of "Paulbots" and Liberals will show up and hold their hands up to be counted? Can someone explain to me why that couldn't be a possibility in other States or with other candidates? If Gingrich wins in Georgia, how do we not know that the Liberals didn't jump parties to vote there?

Why are we being forced to try and believe that the world is full of a bunch of Democrats who are voting for Republicans to make it easier for Obama to get elected?

[The Annoyed Man]

Gingrich Is Making Romney Better
The most memorable campaign line so far isn't '9-9-9' or 'Oops.'
Wall Street Journal
By Peggy Noonan

Noonan seems to favor Romney in this article, but that aside, here is the money quote:

What seemed true at the start of phase one seems true now. A number of the Republicans on the debate stage could beat Mr. Obama. But if there is a serious third-party challenger the president will likely be reelected.

Predictions? The essential message of phase one was, "I am a credible candidate, and I can win." Phase two will be "I not only can win but my victory will have meaning." Phase three? There will be some "He made it worse." But watch for another argument. "In a second Obama administration he will be operating without any of the constraints that limited his actions in the first. He will never have to face the voters again. Obama unbound, with interest groups to reward. America, you don't want to go there."

This is why A) a third party vote or a protest no-vote gives Obama a boost, and B) I will be voting for whomever the republican nominee turns out to be, regardless of who that is.

[sjfcontrol]

Gingrich Is Making Romney Better
The most memorable campaign line so far isn't '9-9-9' or 'Oops.'
Wall Street Journal
By Peggy Noonan

Noonan seems to favor Romney in this article, but that aside, here is the money quote:

What seemed true at the start of phase one seems true now. A number of the Republicans on the debate stage could beat Mr. Obama. But if there is a serious third-party challenger the president will likely be reelected.

Predictions? The essential message of phase one was, "I am a credible candidate, and I can win." Phase two will be "I not only can win but my victory will have meaning." Phase three? There will be some "He made it worse." But watch for another argument. "In a second Obama administration he will be operating without any of the constraints that limited his actions in the first. He will never have to face the voters again. Obama unbound, with interest groups to reward. America, you don't want to go there."

This is why A) a third party vote or a protest no-vote gives Obama a boost, and B) I will be voting for whomever the republican nominee turns out to be, regardless of who that is.

completely!!

[Ameer]

"Of course, Rep. Ron Paul suffers from some self-inflicted problems. But for most of his critics what most matters is his stand on the issues. Especially on foreign policy. If the Republicans ignore him they deserve to lose the 2012 election." - Doug Bandow

[bikerbill]

I'm betting the liklihood of Gingrich being the nominee is about the same as my getting the nod ... how exactly is he the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama? He has more baggage than Amtrak and while he's obviously very intelligent, he also has a reputation which Obama would feast on ... Romney will be the nominee, IMHO, and would love to see one of the also-rans, like Santorum, as his running mate ... We have no idea what condition the country will be in on election day 2012; things could be just bright enough to return Obama to the WH, a horrible prospect to me but one that is certainly as likely as his being ousted ... the real problem, to me, is the circus atmosphere that has surrounded the current campaign and the huge number of hopefuls diluting the message ... read a great line somewhere recently ..."The Tea Party's been around for three years, and THIS is the best they can do?" It's time for Perry and Bachmann to hit the road home ...

[OldCannon]

I'm betting the liklihood of Gingrich being the nominee is about the same as my getting the nod ... how exactly is he the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama? He has more baggage than Amtrak and while he's obviously very intelligent, he also has a reputation which Obama would feast on ... Romney will be the nominee, IMHO, and would love to see one of the also-rans, like Santorum, as his running mate ... We have no idea what condition the country will be in on election day 2012; things could be just bright enough to return Obama to the WH, a horrible prospect to me but one that is certainly as likely as his being ousted ... the real problem, to me, is the circus atmosphere that has surrounded the current campaign and the huge number of hopefuls diluting the message ... read a great line somewhere recently ..."The Tea Party's been around for three years, and THIS is the best they can do?" It's time for Perry and Bachmann to hit the road home ...

Anybody can run if you have the money, and its up to each person to decide when to stop running (i.e., you run out of money). I agree it's all a circus, but when has it ever NOT been a circus, seriously? Just look at 2008's contestants: Mike Huckabee - 32%, Mitt Romney - 26%, John McCain - 13%, Fred Thompson - 9%, Ron Paul - 9%, Rudy Giuliani - 5%, Duncan Hunter - 1%, Alan Keyes - 1%

This is an election year, if you think it's a circus, Iowa is only the warmup act (basically: How many clowns fit into the car ).

[The Annoyed Man]

I've come to the conclusion that, unless something startling happens, Gingrich is going to fade, and the nomination is Romney's to lose. This is not a satisfying primary for me. I wish I could get 100% behind one of the primary candidates, but I just can't get there yet.

[OldCannon]

I've come to the conclusion that, unless something startling happens, Gingrich is going to fade, and the nomination is Romney's to lose. This is not a satisfying primary for me. I wish I could get 100% behind one of the primary candidates, but I just can't get there yet.

It's the first primary. It's not over for any of the candidates unless they quit.