Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 07:24 PM Jan 2012

Hmmm. It has crossed my mind that the Rs are kneecapping Willard

because they don't really want him there but have no other truly electable person in the field that a majority of them can get behind and who would not be considered a loose cannon. Perhaps they would rather not get the presidency this round and gamble on getting a 2 term shot at it next round.

I don't recall Rs going after each other to draw blood in this fashion in a good number of years.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
2. Pardon me, but which one is Willard? And isn't Huntsman their stealth candidate?
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 07:33 PM
Jan 2012

I read months ago that he would suddenly come up from behind and win the election. I don't think so...

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
6. Hey, thanks. I don't do TV, so I miss some of these references.
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 09:02 PM
Jan 2012

I've always loved Sharpton, he's been in some tough battles and acted with grace and humor. The more conservatives hate 'im, the more I love 'im.

NNN0LHI

(67,190 posts)
3. They realize they aren't going to win no matter who they run against Obama
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 07:34 PM
Jan 2012

That is why they are so pissed off. Ever consider that?

Don

rocktivity

(44,577 posts)
5. They should have stood with Perry, then. Seriously.
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 08:20 PM
Jan 2012

He wouldn't have beaten Obama, of course -- Perry makes Bush seem lucid. But before Bachmann was sicced on him, he was popular with the voters. They resent being force-fed Romney so much that Santorum (who makes Perry seem lucid) got an equal number of votes in NH.


rocktivity

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
7. IMO they have not touched on the real issue with Mitt
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 09:50 PM
Jan 2012

Right now they are all focused on who is most electable and/or who is more conservative. This is pretty typical primary politics and, although there is more mudslinging than usual, not to extraordinary overall.



When considering who they want to be the President for the next four years (at least) people will need to be convinced that the person who they are voting for can be Commander In Chief. Romney can't clear that hurdle and none of the (R)s seem to be willing to go after him on this.


The fact that he gained an exemption from the draft and then was a big enough asshole to go pick up a sign and picket so that other people would be drafted will be unacceptable to many, if not most, swing voters.

IMO Romney is not a viable candidate.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083002/Mitt-Romney-19-demonstrated-favour-Vietnam-War-draft.html


^snip^

Fortunate son: Mr Romney's status as a 'Mormon missionary' meant he was exempt from the Vietnam War draft



alongside like-minded individuals, he proclaims his support for Lyndon Johnson's ever-expanding draft.


Mr Romney was one of approximately 150 conservative students who counter-picketed the sit-in.




bemildred

(90,061 posts)
10. I think they really hate each other.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:44 AM
Jan 2012

There is no evidence to indicate that some subtle strategy is at work here. These guys are not that smart, and neither are their handlers. I do understand the wish to find some rational explanation, but I don't see it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hmmm. It has crossed my ...