TexasCHLforum.com

Is Romney officially the Repugnant candidate already? Maybe I should vote in the Demon primaries this year. Assuming Texas is ever allowed to hold primaries.

Romney is not the nominee of the party until the party convenes to vote to do so, however he is the only one with delegates sufficient to put him at the top of the heap. Not enough delegates to win outright, just enough to make him the clear frontrunner. In terms of the Texas state primary, that is up to you. Texas is a red state, so whoever the Republican nominee is for Senator in November is guaranteed a win. You might consider that. If you live in a Democratic district you need to review the options available to you there. Texas's open primary makes for some interesting situations.

recaffeination wrote:Is Romney officially the Repugnant candidate already? Maybe I should vote in the Demon primaries this year. Assuming Texas is ever allowed to hold primaries.

The voter registration renewal cards that had been held up from last year's redistricting rigamarole have been mailed, and the Texas Primary Election is May 29, with early voting beginning May 14 and ending May 25 (http://www.votetexas.gov/when_to_vote.html#elect2012).

I still haven't seem my new card but as we all know, it is a bit useless because you don't need it to vote. Voted at lunch today in the local municipal election.

gdanaher wrote:I still haven't seem my new card but as we all know, it is a bit useless because you don't need it to vote. Voted at lunch today in the local municipal election.

I probably should have said, "...have been or are being mailed." Got mine Monday of last week. Was glad to see it finally arrive.

Some articles on why Portman wil be the pick.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ee/255515/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/05/02/rob- ... s-vp-pick/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One quote in the Horowitz article sums it up thought: "Not everyone is sold on Portman though. One of the more persistent criticisms is that he is too “boring” to drum up much enthusiasm among the GOP base."

I think this might tell us a little about Romney. While some of the other candidates might be "interesting" for media appeal, it would be nice to see if Romney is serious about fixing the mess we're in, which could very well mean he chooses a "boring" VP candidate. Frankly, I think it would be a great move, as somebody like Portman is a massive contrast to the "Clown Prince" VP we have right now.

If you're a strict conservative, you will also find Portman's record is impeccable (http://www.ontheissues.org/oh/rob_portman.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

I'll take Condi Rice for the win please Bob.

Wait. Natalie Portman?

OldCannon wrote:Based on what I understand about Romney (in no specific order)
Highly likely: Mitch Daniels, Rob Portman, Paul Ryan, or Marco Rubio.
Possible, but unlikely: Condoleeza Rice, Bobby Jindal, or Kelly Ayotte
LOL No Way: Newt Gingrich (although expect to see him get a special appointment to revise the health care challenge), Christie

I don't see Paul Ryan taking it. If he wanted in, he would've been an immeidate frontrunner as the Presidential candidate and IMO would've handily beaten Romney. Ryan continues to stress that he's content as a legislator and sees a lot of value in doing his current role well. . . and it didn't strike me as the normal, "Aw shucks, I can't tip my hand yet." diversion. You didn't mention him, but I don't think Jeb Bush is in the same camp as a guy who could've had the Presidential nomination if he wanted it and i unlikely to enter the race now as the #2.

I'm afraid a few of the heaviest hitters are sitting this one out and banking on 2016, when the Democrats will be without a presumptive nominee.

fickman wrote:. . . 2016, when the Democrats will be without a presumptive nominee.

Which reminds me. . . I don't think it'll happen, but I still wouldn't be surprised by a last-minute switch in VP candidates for the Dems. I can see a situation where Biden steps aside for personal reasons or to pursue other opportunities. . . if they did play it that way, they'd likely wait until closer to the convention.

fickman wrote:

fickman wrote:. . . 2016, when the Democrats will be without a presumptive nominee.

Which reminds me. . . I don't think it'll happen, but I still wouldn't be surprised by a last-minute switch in VP candidates for the Dems. I can see a situation where Biden steps aside for personal reasons or to pursue other opportunities. . . if they did play it that way, they'd likely wait until closer to the convention.

An Obama/Clinton ticket would be unbeatable. <shiver>
Thankfully, he's way too insecure to share the ticket with someone who's as popular as him.

The VP is always, literally, a heartbeat away, regardless of party affiliation. Clinton has demonstrated she has a set and can use them in her current job. Women are not going to vote Republican this year, but putting her on the Democratic ticket would lure the moderate women, and perhaps a number of conservative women to the Democrats. Do NOT underestimate the affect that the recent Planned parenthood issues in Texas have on the local vote, and generally the impact on women by the efforts to marry abortion to womens' health care.

gdanaher wrote:The VP is always, literally, a heartbeat away, regardless of party affiliation. Clinton has demonstrated she has a set and can use them in her current job. Women are not going to vote Republican this year, but putting her on the Democratic ticket would lure the moderate women, and perhaps a number of conservative women to the Democrats. Do NOT underestimate the affect that the recent Planned parenthood issues in Texas have on the local vote, and generally the impact on women by the efforts to marry abortion to womens' health care.

I don't see Texas becoming in-play.

airboss wrote:Allen West, anyone?

Not an establishment type, so it won't happen. You can always dream.

I have seen Allen West make some impassioned arguments that are very persuasive and well thought out,
but recently he made some crazy statement that some large number <81 maybe?> of Democrats are registered
Communists.

That moment reminded me of the drunken lout McCarthy, of Wisconsin, spouting the same super-hyperbole, in the 1950's.

Although Republicans can disagree with Dems, it should be done with logical arguments, not crazy name-calling.

Apparently the previous hyperbole that anyone you disagree with is a "Nazi" has now been switched up to "Communist."
I guess there's a '50's revival going on.

SIA

81% of Democrats are registered Communists? Makes as much sense as saying that 72% of all Republicans are polygamists. Hey, out in El Dorado, close to 100% of the Republicans really are polygamists! Instead of foolish name calling, how about sitting down and finding ways to improve the nation. Too many people on both sides of the aisle are just flat terrified of the thought of cooperating lest they be seen by their constituents as being soft and weak, but nobody has exclusive ownership of good ideas. In the mean time i'm going to listen to the radio for some more of those quality informational ads that mention wild eyes liberals and reactionary conservatives. Test to follow.