Up for Debate: Romney looks forward, Gingrich looks deep

Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 1:00am

Mitt Romney, following primary wins Tuesday night, turned his attention squarely toward defeating President Barack Obama this fall. Newt Gingrich told CNN that he would need to take a "deep look at what we are doing" before going on. As Romney and Obama square off, what lines of attack will come out of each camp? What are the strengths and weaknesses of both? Whose camp is better suited for the battle ahead? 

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

127 Comments on this post:

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 11:44

The TARP payments to the banks under Bush have been largely repaid with interest and subsequently respent by the Obama administration.

Nothing wrong with that statement except my spell checker doesn't like the word "respent" as much as I do.

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 11:45

I'm sorry Ben, are you asserting that the President has the authority to spend money?

By: Rasputin72 on 4/25/12 at 11:59

I suspicion that there are less than 1/2 of 1% of the people in this country who know what the heck a "dangling participle" is or care. That probably includes 100% of the 13 people who post on this board. I would not doubt that the proof readers for the Nashville Tennessean could be included in that percentage.

What do you guys think about stopping anyone from voting who is on welfare or makes less than 15,000 dollars a year? Does that not seem like leveling the playing field for the productive class?

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 12:12

That little 2 year orgy between Obama, Pelosi and Reid will likely never be overcome in our lifetimes, gd.

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 12:15

I can't agree with you on that 'right to vote element, Rasputin72. There's a wealth frame in the US just like all different kinds of elements. Some lines of work pays much more than others and there's a different caliber person for every line of work.

I believe anyone who earns money and pays taxes on it deserves the right to vote, including the minimum wage earners and part timers. But I don't believe anyone deserves the voting privilege by sitting on their ass and living off of the government's (our) monetary donation to them called welfare. I don't feel they are earning the right to vote.

In essence, why would they vote for someone whom they thought might take them off welfare? Isn't that what the "givaway" programs were put in place for; their vote?

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 12:20

Anyone else find it ironic that yogi, the self-annointed Constitutional scholar, would deprive a large section of legal citizens the right to vote based completely on income requirements?

The stupidity never ends...

By: gdiafante on 4/25/12 at 12:26

That little 2 year orgy between Obama, Pelosi and Reid will likely never be overcome in our lifetimes, gd.

I'm not worried about those two years, the previous eight have done far more harm.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 12:40

It's all in how you look at it gd.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 12:41

I definitely would recommend, again, that book, "Reckless Endangerment" in that it doesn't pull any punches at all based on political leanings.

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 1:03

Did you know you used to be required to be a property owner to have the voting privilege, gdiafante? It wasn't a right "right" until congress learned new laws could buy them votes.

Did you also know the Negroes didn't gain the right to vote when they were freed by the Civil War and that was the basic reason for the 14th Amendment?

By: jvh2b on 4/25/12 at 1:23

I hate actually responding to yogi, but him being so egregious today...

And yes women couldn't vote for a while either...maybe you'd prefer we'd go back to those 'good ole days'

"We hold these truth's to be self evident, that ALL men are created EQUAL......"

I don't recall there being anything about what one makes in that statement...

While I'll be the first person to admit I don't like certain blocks of populace being able to vote (ie fundamentalist Christians) they DO have a right to vote in a FREE country.

Your statements and those who agree with you, show Fascist/Communist tendencies. Ya know..you can only vote for the party if your a member of the party.

And yet it's the president whose a commie...GMAFB.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 1:28

I've changed my opinion on revoking the 19th. I was looking through the portraits of the presidents a month or so back and they were one UGLY lot before women got the right to vote. I think for just presentation purposes if nothing else we should continue to let the little ladies have a say.

Who's with me?

By: govskeptic on 4/25/12 at 1:38

Ben: I'm not sure what you mean in your 1:41 posting of not
recommending "Reckless Endangerment". I read it and thought
it was terrific. It was from a NY Times reporter which was rather
curious, but spelled out the financial disaster better than others
I have read on the same subject. Certainly named names.

By: brrrrk on 4/25/12 at 1:49

And here I thought stepping away from a day or two would make a difference...

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 1:54

I agree govskeptic. All the reporting I've seen focuses on the private sector side of things but this book reveals the core issues dating back to the CRA and through the use of regulatory authority to expand the sub-prime market to people who couldn't afford it, cronyism, the public/private malfeasance with Fannie and Freddie, and the push back in congress against reigning in implicit taxpayer backed loan guarantees dating back to 2003... everything.

Nobody is spared... all the dirty laundry is aired and you cannot come away from it after reading that it was just evil businesses and the capitalist system that failed. In truth the policymakers failed due to Pollyannish policy imposed on the market and their complicity with the crony graft opportunities.

By: Loner on 4/25/12 at 2:16

Welcome back, Brrrrk.

By: Loner on 4/25/12 at 2:20

It's 4:20 in New York....the Hempire State. Excelsior!

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 2:27

Sorry I left out the women voting rights, jvh2b because my mother couldn't vote in her early days of life.

On the other hand, I imagine you got the privilege to vote years before I did in my life (unless you're an old fa^t). I had to be a 21 year old "adult" before I could vote yet we "kids" could volunteer to join the services and go to war to be killed at age 17 before we could vote for the "adults" to decide to send us there.

By: Loner on 4/25/12 at 2:43

Excelsior means "Higher than" in Latin...it is the Official Motto of New York State, the Empire State...AKA: the "Hempire State"

We already have our "Uncork New York" slogan...for our NY wines & champagnes. It's a great slogan, IMO.

I'm working on analogous slogans for the herb that bears seed. If they legalize, I'm a step ahead of the pack.

Mario Cuomo's son is now our Gov.....he's a pragmatic guy....we need more tax revenues and the cops and the legal system have bigger fish to fry....if he were to consult the lone one on this, I'd recommend that he let the native tribes go into the medicinal Cannabis industry (growing and sales) ....let the tribes exercise their sovereignty, but cut a kickback deal to New York State, in the form of a NYS sales tax on the "medicine".

Relations with the tribes has been strained over gas and tobacco taxes....the shared Cannabis sales revenues could smooth the plumage, so to speak.

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 2:47

Maybe you could combine your protesting of Holy Wars to include reefer reforms too Loner. They would seem to be complimentary.

By: Moonglow1 on 4/25/12 at 2:50

Moonglow1: I am reading "The Shadow World, Inside the Global Arms Trade. ". It starts out with Saudi Prince Bandar at Crawford, TX with his good friend GW Bush. The reason for the meeting: to encourage Bush to invade Iraq. On Page xviii of Prologue: " Riggs Bank and the WH were stunned by the revelation that from 1999 money had inadvertently flowed from the account of Prince Bandar' s wife to two of the 15 Saudis among the 9\11 hijackers.

I know this: nothing has been the same in our country since 9\11 and it is getting worse (unemployment, hatred, no innovation, eliminating voting rights, multinationals purchasing our "elected officials" and more). So what's the deal? Will we ever know? As they say, "The Truth is Out There..."

By: slacker on 4/25/12 at 3:24

The truth will set you free.
-Houdini

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 3:24

You can't blame our "problems" on one man, Moonglow1. The president only sits in one chair and he can't do anything congress doesn't want him to do. He's just a suggester, not their boss. Our problems fall into the hands of congress.

Since I only got interested in politics after I became eligible to vote, I can't remember much that went on in the 30s and 40s because I wasn't interested then because I couldn't vote. But when I became eligible to vote and started "looking", I can't remember one politician that hasn't taken a handout from a "donor" or one who hasn't backed a bill for a "donor" on their campaign trail.

Stop to think about it: How many "friends" has the US had since the Revolutionary War? Only the ones we've been handing money out to.

By: yogiman on 4/25/12 at 3:26

It depends on what court you're in, slacker.

By: Loner on 4/25/12 at 4:54

Ben, re: your 3:47 post ...I dunno about that...but maybe...let's see...how about a sign that says,HOLY SMOKE, NOT HOLY WAR emblazoned over a Cannabis leaf?

By: BenDover on 4/25/12 at 5:30

I like it Loner!

By: parnell3rd on 4/26/12 at 7:03

Sure can feel the love, i mean hate in this discussion. You all make the hippies of the 60's cringe. Oh wait! the hippies of the 60's are in charge and they are haters too.
Well with Mittins or Oblunder as our President we are screwed!
We are headed for banckrupcy just like Europe. Actuallly with all the money we've printed since Bush made Bernake the fed chairman we are bankrupt!
Romney is part of the problem. All politicians lie. Even the ones you all bow down and worship morning and evening.
See you haters later! Keep them in check Yogi!