The most important characteristic of the 2012 Republican nominee for President

[dogtowner]

And in support of PLC's concept that partisanship has grown too strong:

We have four different groups but within each of them there are just two strong parties. The parties get things done.

historically speaking, the animosity is only middlin' strong. and who says it's bad ?

 

[Dr.Who]

historically speaking, the animosity is only middlin' strong. and who says it's bad ?

I was using this definition:

par·ti·san 1 (pärt-zn)
n.
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.

George Washington said it was bad.


Though I completely understand the definition I presume you were using that desribes animosity and bickering between the parties. The bickering has become synonymous with the parties themselves. It is the only thing that keep them from ganging up against us even more than they do.

 

[dogtowner]

I was using this definition:

par·ti·san 1 (pärt-zn)
n.
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.

George Washington said it was bad.


Though I completely understand the definition I presume you were using that desribes animosity and bickering between the parties. The bickering has become synonymous with the parties themselves. It is the only thing that keep them from ganging up against us even more than they do.

well George was correct in theory but when matters of money cloudthe political I'll take doing the4 right thing every time. I suspect he would as well. that was the essence of his greatness. IMO of course.

and you make a great point as its mainly a matter of which winners there are and which are a little closer to what we're supposed to be about.

 

[Gipper]

He makes a lot of sense....

​

At 76, this former obstetrician has seven years on the oldest man ever to take office as president, Ronald Reagan. But where Reagan was the genial conservative, Paul is an evangelical libertarian – a prophet who preaches that the United States is flat broke, foundering under the too-great weight of a bloated bureaucracy and its imperial – albeit generally well-intentioned – foreign interventionism.​

These are not the planks of a mainstream candidate's platform. But Paul rolls along, attracting a hard-core following and collecting millions in contributions.This is a man who would eliminate five of the 15 cabinet-level departments (Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior – he has no problem reciting them all); recall American troops from all foreign lands, not just war zones; repeal the 16th Amendment, which created the federal income tax; reduce his own presidential salary from $400,000 to $39,336 – the median salary of an American worker.​

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/10/ron-paul-proposes-interes_n_1140723.html?ref=mostpopular​

​

​

 

[Little-Acorn]

He makes a lot of sense....

Yes, except for the places where he doesn't make sense. Mostly this is in foreign policy, where he shows traits that are close to insane. For this reason, he is not and never has been a serious candidate.

Back to the subject: The most important characteristics of the Republican nominee are (a) the ability to get conservative legislation introduced and passed in Congress, and (b) the steadfastness to stick to his conservative principles in the face of huge and strident pressure to change or abandon them.

These two points assume, of course, that he is conservative to start with. Red flags have been raised for both Newt and Romney: Newt for his tendency to experiment with "new" ideas that can too easily morph into modern liberalism, Romney for Romneycare and his statements that, while such universal health care is not good for the nati0on, it IS good for Massachusetts. Being half right in this instance, is NOT a good thing. At best Romney's adventure with Romneycare shows a possible tendency to NOT stick to conservative roots; at worst, it shows a streak of liberalism.

Any Republican from the last 10+ years is suspect, of course, since the Republicans of 2000-2006 spent like big-govt liberals and approved more than one liberal program. So for any Republican from that period (including Newt and Romney), we have to assume they will change. Unfortunately this itself violates Rule (b) above - the steadfastness to stick to his guns. And assuming that ANY politician will change (as Reagan did) is chancy at best.

In other words, we have two flawed candidates in Newt and Romney, and no other real possibilities for President in 2012.

Whch one of them should we nominate? Newt or Romney? Which will fulfill better (however shakily) the two requirements above?

 

[Gipper]

Yes, except for the places where he doesn't make sense. Mostly this is in foreign policy, where he shows traits that are close to insane. For this reason, he is not and never has been a serious candidate.

Back to the subject: The most important characteristics of the Republican nominee are (a) the ability to get conservative legislation introduced and passed in Congress, and (b) the steadfastness to stick to his conservative principles in the face of huge and strident pressure to change or abandon them.

These two points assume, of course, that he is conservative to start with. Red flags have been raised for both Newt and Romney: Newt for his tendency to experiment with "new" ideas that can too easily morph into modern liberalism, Romney for Romneycare and his statements that, while such universal health care is not good for the nati0on, it IS good for Massachusetts. Being half right in this instance, is NOT a good thing. At best Romney's adventure with Romneycare shows a possible tendency to NOT stick to conservative roots; at worst, it shows a streak of liberalism.

Any Republican from the last 10+ years is suspect, of course, since the Republicans of 2000-2006 spent like big-govt liberals and approved more than one liberal program. So for any Republican from that period (including Newt and Romney), we have to assume they will change. Unfortunately this itself violates Rule (b) above - the steadfastness to stick to his guns. And assuming that ANY politician will change (as Reagan did) is chancy at best.

In other words, we have two flawed candidates in Newt and Romney, and no other real possibilities for President in 2012.

Whch one of them should we nominate? Newt or Romney? Which will fulfill better (however shakily) the two requirements above?

If the choice is between Mitt, Newt, and Ron Paul. I will take Ron Paul every time.

Yes some of his foreign policy positions are unusual, but he is far and way the better candidate than the other two. We know Paul is a true conservative and will fight for conservative change. Newt and Mitt are both big government moderate progressives. So thinking those two will push hard for conservative legislation, is like wishing on a star.

On the big issues of the day, Ron Paul is the one. The other two are merely returning to the Bush style of government.