2011 November 26 Saturday
Razib Khan: Newt Gingrich IQ More Verbal Than Analytical
High IQ is dangerous when its concentrated in verbal skills only. Razib's take sounds right to me. But I'd say Razib's "probably" on Romney's analytical advantage is an unnecessary qualifier.
Is Newt Gingrich as smart as he thinks? He’s obviously not dumb like Rick Perry, or ignorant like Herman Cain. But I think Newt is a “high verbal” type who can impress the dull more than actually get anything done. I believe that Mitt Romney is somewhat higher in I.Q., but more critically he probably has a better practical skill set. Newt is not one known for contingency and coherency, and that’s a problem.
In politics high verbals show up more on the Left than the Right. One can say that's the major problem with the dominant liberal media. They can make better arguments than the evidence supports. So they end up being very persuasive for wrong positions. Then a bunch of grouchy right wingers listen and angrily pronounce "what a bunch of bullshit". The conservatives aren't heard much except on talk radio or in right wing blog comments.
A right winger with insufficient analytical skills and very high verbal IQ would just be a repeat of what goes wrong routinely on the Left but with all the blame getting heaped on the right wing brand by high verbal IQ lefties. Bad for the Right and bad for the country.
Tragically, our political system now favors the election of high verbals who are lacking in analytical rigor. So maybe Newt has a chance. I am reminded of something Steve Sailer posted about Newt several months ago: Newt is so convinced he knows everything that he doesn't know when to shut up and listen to people who know more than he does.
I've always kind of liked Newt, but he's a flake. I remember listening to a dinner table conversation in the 1990s about Newt between two people who were much more insiders than me, so I kept my mouth shut and paid attention. The first, who I won't name, was a woman who attained some prominence in politics in the 1990s, but struck me as a flake. She was highly enthusiastic about Newt running for President.
The other person was General William Odom, who had been Zbig's assistant for military intelligence in the Carter Administration, then head of the National Security Administration in the Reagan Administration. He was not a flake. Odom rolled his eyes at the idea of President Newt, and replied that when Gingrich had first obtained a leadership position in Congress in the 1980s, Odom had invited Gingrich over to get the two-hour NSA briefing reserved for the top few officials in Congress. When Newt showed up, however, he talked for two hours straight, giving Odom's staff Newt's two-hour tour d'horizon. Nobody left the room better informed than they had entered, except in terms of awareness of Newt's chief liability: Americans want leaders who give the impression that they know more than they are saying, but nobody could possibly know more than Newt says.
So really, Romney's the best bet for the Republicans. He's got very high analytical skills, understands finance, understands business management, and knows how to be a CEO. His Mormonism is not important. That he governed a liberal state from a moderate position was really the only choice he had as governor of Massachusetts. He's not a nut case or a dummy like some of the other Republican candidates. He harkens back to an earlier (and better) Republican party when executive competence mattered and ideological zeal was suspect.
What you say about Romney may be true, but he's the best of a bad lot. When he was running for senator from Massachusetts, he described himself as "an independent" during the Reagan-Bush years. Now he wants to be a conservative Republican so he can be president. Romney changes his positions more than he changes his magic underwear. http://mittromneyflipflops.com/
Newt's problem is not first and foremost that he lacks sufficient analytical ability - it's that he's a venal, narcissistic sociopath. Romney is also narcissistic (likewise Obama... I guess people with normal sized egos don't run for President), but he is capable of feeling embarassment, which suggests he's not the monster Gingrich is. Neither of them appears to have much of an ideology as we would understand it, but in Romney's case this looks like a mixture of pragmatism, opportunism, and cowardice, whereas with Gingrich it's because his only core conviction is that he's really great.
I don't agree that Romney is the best of a bad lot (that would be Ron Paul) but he's certainly the most likely to be able to beat Obama.
Romney will probably get the nomination, and of course, go on to lose, as he is obviously unelectable - he is in the mold of McCain and Dole. He'll never get the base out.
The annoying thing about Newt is his infintile need to include his current wife, and there have been many; in his pronouncements, policy statements, musings, rants etc..."Calista and I"...If he were really smart; he would realize that including this probably temporary wife in Team Gingrich, only emphasizes that fact that he has had more wives than most Mormans. Perhaps he is trying to tell us this time is for keeps. I think he has ADD. He would probably get bored with the Presidency, just like the wives. He should continue cranking out the books and he and Calista can open an Immigration Mill for Ilegals.
Once upon a time, I wrote an essay on possible approaches to life extension. A friend of mine, who for some unGodly reason also happened to hang out with Newt, show it to him.
Newt read it. His first reaction: "This would sure bankrupt Social Security."
He's a pinhead.
I think it’s not verbal IQ vs. analytic IQ that matters. People have fundamentally different natures. A lot of research has gone into the thinking patterns of people, roughly, their personality types. People fit into four categories: expressive, analytic, amiable, or driver. It’s better to use two categories as a person’s descriptor. For example, a person can be an amiable-analytic. Or they can be an analytic-analytic.
Analytic types tend to be engineers. Expressive types tend to be in marketing. Drivers tend to be managers. Each type of personality has strengths and weaknesses and usefulness to organizations.
The way I see it, your basic personality type will completely overwhelm your verbal vs. analytic IQ differences. For example, an expressive-expressive type person will simply not be analytical, or as little of the time as they can get away with. Expressive types heads will explode if they have to do too much analysis. They want to express themselves, not spend too much time analyzing things.
Anyhow, many politicians are not analytic types. But this is not related to whether they have a high analytic IQ. People are more complex than their IQ numbers.
For more info on personality types, see here:
Verbal IQ evolved for the purpose of deception.
bbartlog, your description of Gingrich (which I don't disagree with) is almost exactly how I think of Romney. What evidence is there that he has any core conviction other than that he's really great, or that he's capable experiencing embarrassment? He is as insouciant a liar as any politician I've seen since Clinton.
Romney may be a smart guy, but there is nothing in his policies (you can DL his book for free) that suggests that he can solve America's problems. In fact his book suggests that he is hemmed in by special interests to the extent that he will not make any bold moves. Ron Paul's budget plan is truly bold, but he is unlikely to win because the Republican Establishment hates him.
>"bbartlog, your description of Gingrich (which I don't disagree with) is almost exactly how I think of Romney. What evidence is there that he has any core conviction other than that he's really great"
What is this obsession which some people have with "core convictions" in a politician? I don't want my politicians to have core convictions, I want them to represent the people. America is so screwed up at present because our political class is full to over-flowing with core convictions, and that's the negation of representative democracy.
George W Bush had "core convictions" out the wazoo, and that was a big part of the reason why he was such a terrible President.
'I don't want my politicians to have core convictions, I want them to represent the people.'
People are unreasonable, though. They want things for free and they want them now. They don't want taxes. If you look at the financial trainwreck in California, you can see the hand of direct democracy at work: first people made it hard to raise taxes, then they made it impossible to reign in public employee unions.
The people who wrote the Constitution were aware of the problems with direct democracy, which is why they devised a republican form of government. And under that system, the character and beliefs of the elected representatives matter a lot, as intended.
'George W Bush had "core convictions" out the wazoo'
Such as? It looks to me like he had a big dose of maudlin pro-military sentiment and a few helpings of politically correct beliefs, along with loyalty to his friends. Not much else.
Loyalty to his friends is one of GW Bush's few good qualities. Pity he didn't consider white Americans in general his friends.
I do not mean to suggest I think Romney will be a good president. But he will certainly be less bad than Gingrich or Obama.
What do you think of Michele Bachman?
First time visitor here...
Really disappointed in the Newt/Mitt 2 horse race.
No way this is happening. :(
"That [Romney] governed a liberal state from a moderate position was really the only choice he had as governor of Massachusetts."
RomneyCare cannot be considered even remotely moderate.
So Razib Khan evaluates Gingrich's cognitive abilities based on...what again, other than speculation?
"But I think Newt is a “high verbal” type who can impress the dull more than actually get anything done."
I guess that depends how you view Romney's and Gingrich's records. I think Razib Khan is a high IQ guy too - he's simply ignorant and facile in this area of history and politics.
Both Gingrich and Romney are high IQ guys. They're simply different temperaments (Gingrich is an extravert.)
the best analogy i could give...
this is game seven of the world series. the gop is down by 3, two outs, with bases loaded.
I'd rather go with a power hitter, with a high strikeout number, than a guy who simply doesn't have the power to hit past the infield.
in easier terms:
which candidate will cut more from the budget, for his term?
strangely enough, newt's 'devil may care' attitude is precisely the quality that would have to exist in a cost cutter. who ever comes in will be the 'gop devil' to the libs. go with the 'experienced' candidate.
"ideological zeal"? What you call idealogical zeal used to be the standard position most conservatives took with respect to government's role in the lives of people. Really. What is considered moderate is what used to be called liberal.
Perhaps managerial competance is more important than the ability to inspire, but then how do you explain Reagans success? He obviously had great verbal inspirational skills, but also was a very good president. Maybe Reagan had both great verbal and non-verbal analytical skills, or maybe he knew how to pick advisors with great non-verbal skills, and listen to them. But in any event, it would be much better to have a prez who can both inspire, and competantly lead. And Bush 1 had the managerial competance and steadiness you love, but was not very inspirational, and ended up losing to a more inspirational Clinton.
I agree that Romney can competantly lead, but he is not very inspiring. Newt is inspiring, but you may be right that he cant competantly lead (He did do some very good things in the 90's, but also ended up alienating a lot of people and ended up getting voted out of house leadership). Not sure which one would be best, although it is clear either would be better than Obama, who can neither inspire nor lead (Obama could inspire in 2008, but only by lying and promissing what he could not or would not deliver, we are on to him now).
I think Romney would be good if repubs hold congress, since he can competantly lead the exec branch, and the repub congress would drive the conservative agenda (Which Romney would generally support). But if Romney faced a dem dominated congress, I fear he would cave into them too much seeking compromise, like both Bush 1 and Bush 2 did.
Newt would be more likely to be a Reaganesque transformational figure, but also has a larger possibility to crash and burn through his hubris and inability to listen to his advisors. Newt would also be better at fighting a dem congress, and using the bully pulpit to pass a conservative agenda anyway, as Reagan did.
I think deciding which to go with depends on whether we want a safe, competent, but lukewarm choice, or whether we want to take a lot more risk, for a possibly greater reward. I can live with either Newt or Romney, and have not yet decided which I prefer. Both are miles ahead of Obama.
I have another analogy. Think of Romney as Bill Gates, and Newt as Steve Jobs. Gates was stable and competant, and founded a large stable competant company. Steve Jobs was more exciting, and over the long run achieved a lot more, but also had a period of serious instability that almost bankrupted Apple and himself.
"...not a dummy or a nut case..."
But...haven't you heard? EVERY Republican presidential candidate (and President) since Lincoln is/was a dummy AND a nut case. Reagan...the amiable dunce. W...well, he didn't go to Harvard (oops), okay he didn't go to Yale (oops)...well, he's just dumb because, uhm, he's not a Democrat. Bush41--he's so clueless he didn't know what a grocery store checkout scanner was. Nixon...Emmanuel Goldstein by another name. Ike...played golf because governing was too hard.
I take ALL media analyses of ANY Republican as "dumb" "stupid" or "nutcase" with a giant 4 ton boulder of salt. The people constructing the narrative would prefer all Republicans die in a fire, so ignore them (similarly, the Beltway GOP would prefer all conservatives die in a fire, so long as their corpses continue to vote). After that, 50 seconds of "oops I forgot #3" looks more like the kind of simple brainfreeze that even intelligent people succumb to on occasion. (And, for that matter, so does Obama's "It's great to be in Texas" or "57 states" gaffes).
On the other hand, I really don't want someone who will competently ensure the Leviathan State operates at peak efficiency and cost effectiveness (Mussolini's govt was probably the most organized and efficient Italian government in history, although that's not saying much). I want someone who will competently take a frakkin' chainsaw to it. Republicans far too often act as the "tax collector for the welfare state". What in Romney's record (forget rhetoric) makes him any different than a standard pre-1968 Democrat?
Leadership is the national problem right now, not management. The famous problem of keeping order amongst the deck chairs on the Titanic is suitable work for a manager. We have much more dire needs at the moment.
For the Republicans, Romneycare is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Unlike Obamacare it was relatively carefully planned, rather than being thrown together under cover of darkness by legislative arm-twisters, but it's still widely believed (by its victims, among others) to be a train wreck. Unless the Romney camp can find someone else to blame Romenycare on, Romney saddled with that colossal faux pas cannot realistically run as anything other than Obama Lite.
Newt, for all his glaring shortcomings, has two overriding virtues. He's not Obama, and he's not Obama Lite.
High IQ is always dangerous. Human intelligence is much more often used to charm, or to rationalize vice and folly, than it's used to acquire wisdom or accomplish good. (In the same vein, tall guys are a million times more likely to bump their heads on the overhead compartment that they are to be offered an NBA contract.)
An IQ90 fellow who believes in the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule will make a much better Senator than an IQ140 fellow who thinks it's a dog-eat-dog world. And yet our society venerates IQ, as we can see on this blog.
Perry's a dummy? Please. His IQ's well above average, as are Barbara Boxer's, Dan Quayle's, and Barack Obama's. So what?
Now tell us about the "nut cases", yawn. I'll support Mitt if he's the nominee, but I won't be enthusiastic - mostly because supporters like this blog argue for him like a bunch of Dems with their panties in a bunch.
You guys are missing something. The people who didn't like working with Newt in the 90's, many of them, were establishment republicans who didn't want the kind of transformational change he has always been trying to bring. Newt Gingrich is anathema to the ESTABLISHMENT of both parties.
So when the democrats went after him when he was speaker, many of the republicans hung him out to dry. The news media, in its typical biased fashion, joined the chorus of democrats and tried to destroy his career. There was no NEWMEDIA to tell his story, as there is now.
He may have also been difficult to work with, and I get the impression that he sometimes was impatient with people, maybe people he felt couldn't keep up, couldn't see the big picture as he saw it.
I have the impression from his current speeches and interviews that he has learned a lot, gone through a spiritual awakening and chastening, and made a spiritual connection that gives him help to be patient, and do his best while giving the outcomes to a Higher Power. He doesn't say exactly that, but that's what I think I see.
I think he has changed a lot since those days. I don't know him personally, but that's how he looks to me.
The question today is whether the American people will like the POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC transformational change Newt is proposing, and team up with him, and then push Congress to make improvements.
We want a more transparent government, less spending, returning power to the local level, modern managerial practices as exemplified by Lean Six Sigma, dispensing with departments that are duplicating services or making problems worse ... et cetera.
If the American people like these ideas and join him, which is what he is asking in his speeches, the ESTABLISHMENT of both parties will be OUT OF LUCK.
This is why you see the supposedly conservative talking heads on TV saying he's unelectable or has too much baggage or whatever. They will be disintermediated by the changes. (Actually, this is happening in any case -- see Gelnn Reynolds' Army of Davids.) Everybody's sweet ride will be creatively disrupted. Nobody in the ESTABLISHMENT wants that.
I am watching with great interest to see if Newt really catches on with the American people. That's what happened with Reagan. IT's the American people saying, we have a vision of America that we love, and is endangered by current policies, and we want to set the country back on the right track. Because this is a great country that gives opportunity to the regular person, who is not politically connected.
If the American people decide they are with Newt, it's going to be a very interesting and exciting campaign and a terrifically interesting 8 years if he gets elected and re-elected.
We can take our country back to its founding principles. We can genuinely reach out to ALL Americans so everyone has a chance to work out his or her dream of happiness and freedom. That's what I'd like to see. That's what he's proposing. Find out for yourself.
Right now, it's like watching the federal government put a noose around everyone's neck. The current administration wants everyone to owe them, wants to be able to reward their friends and punish their enemies, using public resources. It's a scandal, and it must be stopped.
I support Newt 100%. I think he is a visionary and he is asking for help at every level and he is not refusing to listen; he's ENGINEERING IN the listening; he's ASKING.
If you want to know if you can support him, you've got to go and learn for yourself what he's proposing.
He says why he's running at the Polk County Iowa speech from early December 2011 -- (I would say, skip the first 2 minutes of chitchat - at 2:04, he begins to talk about why he's running).
Ciao for now.
Something I've not heard Gingrich or Romney nailed on that needs to be asked:
As Governor Romney pushed for, signed, and bragged about some of the worst anti-gun-ownership laws in the country; even said they'd be wonderful for the whole country. And he's said or done nothing to make us believe he wouldn't want to push the same on the federal level if he gets in the Oval Office; so why should we believe he won't?
Gingrich has somehow skated on his past actions in this matter, as well:
and he hasn't been asked about this, that I've heard at least.
I guarantee that this will cause/is causing a lot of people to consider the two of them and say "If it's this clown or Obama, I may just stay home."
Ok. Romney's a competent, not an idealogue. Nixon was too. And disregarding Watergate, he expanded government more during hiw four years than any President before or since, perhaps even including the current officeholder. I'll pass on the competent Republican who believes that government is a solution.
Romney is without a doubt the best offering. He is a serious Private Sector product with a sound CEO record of accomplishment. Newt Gringrich? Are you kidding? Why not simply give the General Election to the Democratic Party right now? Newt Gingrich will lose any National Election he is entered in, period. He is not only a truly tainted Political Icon, he is the ultimate Beltway Insider. His offering is even worse than the doomed to lose John McCain. Gingrich is so entrenched with ripping off the taxpayer via Washington, he even swiped 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie. For years he would appear on Hannity every two weeks, and blast what he himself was profiting from - another double life, playing Our Base. Romney on the other hand, besides his stellar work in Our Free Market, balanced the budget deficit he inherited in MASS (some 3 Billion), turned around a disastrous anti-business climate with tax/regulation reduction, passed a desperately needed drunk driver law, offered no patrons of any kind, empowered local law enforcement to deal with illegal immigrants, vetoed endless Democratic Partisan sophistry such as minimum wage increases - gay marriage, etc. Romney has received a bad rap, merely via some mindless bias against a "rich" success, the ugly bigotry against Mormons, and a growing fashion amongst us which pushes a superficial identity game. We have to get serious again, and Newt Gingrich is begging for another 4 years with Obama in the White House. Judging by the record, Romney has serious potential.
Read Joe Scarborough on Newt's unsuitability for high office. More by Joe on Newt here. Also see more here. Check out George Will on Newt.
I think it is bizarre that an admitted serial adulterer can be front runner for the Republican nomination.
Mark Steyn catches the key points on what is wrong with Newt:
But there are consequences for this change, he said. With Gingrich, Steyn argued you get the worst of Republican candidates — a “big government” compromiser branded as a right-wing extremist.
“I think this is the worst of all worlds for Republicans,” he said. “He is someone whose inclination — he’s got this progressive big government streak. He’s sort of like Teddy Roosevelt mixed with some sort of novelty-crazed futurologist. He has a big government progressivism sort of inside him, yet combined with the reputation of some sort of ruthless right-wing extremist.”
No, Steve Jobs co-founded Apple and then he saved Apple twice. First he saved it with the Mac. Then he came back and saved it again after John Sculley et. al. almost ran it into the ground. Apple almost went bankrupt during his absence and was in deep trouble by the time he returned. He turned it around after making Pixar into a big success and starting Next.
Newt is not of the same caliber as Steve Jobs, not even close.
Ideological zeal: Really, Republicans never would have thought running deficits was a good idea back in the 1950s. The idea of running deficits to try to starve the beast came much later. This idea is probably wrong. Lower tax rates and higher spending make people less opposed to the spending because they aren't feeling the higher tax rates needed to pay for it.
Michele Bachmann has said a number of silly and ignorant things. She doesn't seem up the Presidency.
I note Tom Coburn's take on Newt from last Sunday's interview with Chris Wallace. Coburn wanted to avoid speaking ill of Newt, but it was clear that Newt had rubbed Coburn the wrong way when he served in the House while Newt was Speaker. It is also clear that the GOP majority had had enough of Newt by the time they pushed him out of the Speaker's chair. Coburn's verdict was that Newt's leadership skills are deficient.
"Newt Gingrich is begging for another 4 years with Obama in the White House. Judging by the record, Romney has serious potential."
And that's all you've got. "Vote for my guy, cuz your guy can't win." Anybody can win, Beltway Boy.
Saw a poll a few months back that indicated Conservatives would be willing to support an Establishment nominee in higher numbers than Establishment GOPers would be willing to support a Conservative nominee. Is this so? Will you support Bachmann or Gingrich if one of them is nominated, Old Fan?
Or will you make "your guy can't win" a self-fulfilling prophecy, like you guys did with Christine O'Donnell?
This is an interesting discussion, which of the Republican candidates would be the one which would have the best chance of beating Obama. Everyone on the Republican side is concentrating on skills that this or that person brings to the table, forgetting the chief important factoid here: Obama's friends in the news media are going to decide what this campaign is going to be about. Since Obama can't run on his accomplishments or the skills he's displayed in his first term, clearly he's going to run on contrasting personalities. It's the only way he has a chance. If you contrast his personality and background with each of the Republican candidates, it becomes clear which of the Republicans he'd *like* to run against, and that explains a lot of what's happened the last couple of months.
Think about it. If you were Obama, would you like to run against a fiery, independant tea party candidate who happens to be female? How about a self-made and very successful black businessman? A scrappy Texas governor who's been creating thousands of new jobs since he got into office (no fair noting that Texas is benefitting from an oil boom; it would work here in California to an extent also, but Arnie and Jerry have managed to strangle that baby in the crib#. What about the famous ideologue former speaker of the house, who's a champion debater and--whatever else his flaws--is famously a champion of ethics investigations and throwing crooked politicians out of office? If I was Obama, and I had my choice among all the Republican candidates, the Mormon trust-fund baby with the daddy who'd been governor and the flexible political positions would be my choice for my opponent. He can hardly run against Obama on the Health Care reform thing--his own health care plan was a virtual copy of Obama's, at the state level. He may be a skilled administratory, but that's not going to be an issue. It'll be evil rich vs virtuous poor, racist white vs. tolerant black, crazy Mormon vs. reasonable mainstream Christian #they'll tie and gag Rev. Wright in a closet somewhere til after the election). After they're done spending triple or quadruple Romney's money telling you to ignore the last 4 years and concentrate on stereotypes that don't mean anything, Obama will at least have a chance to win...does anyone else see this the way I do?
"Michele Bachmann has said a number of silly and ignorant things. She doesn't seem up the Presidency." Mitt Romney has said silly and ignorant things about matters of real substance, like the climate change hoax. And he DID a lot of silly and ignorant things as governor. I won't say that he doesn't seem up to the presidency because of it because I may have to support him in the general.
Every public figure puts her foot in her mouth sometimes - the way to counter this is to talk about 57 states and the Austrian language.
Bachmann is reliably Conservative in her views - THAT'S what you dislike about her, Parker.
Who cares what MSNBC says about Newt? And Trump was right about Will being a third-rater: don't he ever get tired of being Cokey's second banana?
As for being an "admitted serial adulterer", gimme a break. 25 books make for lots of book signings, and hot chicks dig authors, dude. His foot slipped twice, not "serially". And he's a romantic - put your head on his pillow, and he's likely to fall in love and buy you diamonds. (Clinton will buy you a paperback copy of lousy verse and call you a bimbo if you kick.)
Mitt carries some baggage that I rarely see mentioned. He had a decent shot at dethroning Ted Kennedy in 1994. The Kennedy campaign then produced a series of ads showing the employee "victims" of Mitt's M&A leadership at Bain Capital. Dozens of employees who had lost health benefits, suffered wage cuts or were simply downsized were shown on the screens of Mass. TV's that Fall. Cain was a business manager from the ground up: from the burger stand to managerial and then executive authority in a single business. Mitt's long career involved top down financial analysis, breaking up companies and squeezing out operating costs (read: labor costs) and then selling out at a profit. As the OWS/income gap/fat cat banker campaign rolls out for Obama, I think Mitt will be an easy target for this meme.
>"Obama will at least have a chance to win...does anyone else see this the way I do?"
Well .... no.
You do make one good point - that "Obama's friends in the news media are going to decide what this campaign is going to be about". But then you then engage in flights of fancy in which e.g. Cain will be able to run as 'a self-made and very successful black businessman", or Perry as "a scrappy Texas governor who's been creating thousands of new jobs since he got into office". In your imagination these candidates will somehow escape the attention of the media and the attention of the public on their well known problems and will be able to portray themselves to the nation in a positive light.
>"He can hardly run against Obama on the Health Care reform thing--his own health care plan was a virtual copy of Obama's"
A virtual copy of Obama's! Leaving aside the remarkable stupidity of that statement, the fact is that Obamacare is not going to be a decisive election year issue. If the GOP picks up seats in the Senate, they can pass legislation repealing Obamacare. If they don't, they can't. The name of the potential Republican president does not matter, unless you think that a GOP Congress would pass a repeal but that Romney would veto it. And if you think THAT then it's a waste of time talking to you.
>"Saw a poll a few months back that indicated Conservatives would be willing to support an Establishment nominee in higher numbers than Establishment GOPers would be willing to support a Conservative nominee. Is this so? Will you support Bachmann or Gingrich if one of them is nominated, Old Fan?"
Now hold on thar ... are you seriously under the impression that Gingrich is a Conservative candidate? If so then you need to start paying a lot more attention to politics. Gingrich makes Romney look like Reagan.
"Now hold on thar ... are you seriously under the impression that Gingrich is a Conservative candidate? If so then you need to start paying a lot more attention to politics. Gingrich makes Romney look like Reagan."
Dodging the question, Solyndra.
Will you support Bachmann or Gingrich if one of them is nominated?
>"People are unreasonable, though. They want things for free and they want them now. They don't want taxes. If you look at the financial trainwreck in California, you can see the hand of direct democracy at work: first people made it hard to raise taxes, then they made it impossible to reign in public employee unions."
Oh, balls, Libertarian bafflegab. "The people" did not screw up California. Powerful elites - very much including libertarian elites - screwed up California. Go look up the history of Prop 187 and try to displace some of the stupid theories in your head with some facts about how the world actually works. California is a socialist s**thole because people who think just like you made it that way.
Just once before I die, I'd like to see one libertarian admit "we screwed up" about one thing. A guy can dream, can't he?
"Leaving aside the remarkable stupidity of that statement..."
Way to win guys over to your candidate, Solyndra! Everybody loves to be talked down to.
Or are you a Dem playing Alinsky games from the computer in Mom's rec room? Quick, Star Trek's coming on!
>"Way to win guys over to your candidate, Solyndra! Everybody loves to be talked down to"
I don't want a person who is under the impression that Romneycare was copied from Obamacare to be on my side.
>"Dodging the question, Solyndra."
Learn how to spell my handle, cocksucker.
>"Will you support Bachmann or Gingrich if one of them is nominated?"
Bachmann, yes. Gingrich, no.
"I don't want a person who is under the impression that Romneycare was copied from Obamacare to be on my side."
Actually, ObamaCare came after RomneyCare and was modeled on it. It takes a willful flight from reality to pretend otherwise.
"...the fact is that Obamacare is not going to be a decisive election year issue."
Dream on. The ObamaCare/RomneyCare debate will sink Romney, as Obama will point out (correctly for once) that Romney was for government-run health care before he was against it. Nor is that Mitt's only major flip-flop.
With SEUI voting corruption and a GOP base that is repulsed by it left-wing Presidential nominee, get ready for Mitt to be on the short end of a 57-state landslide next November.
Absolutely! Believe it or not as you choose, there are huge swaths of the teaparty out there for whom Obamacare is THE major issue. Romney will not motivate these folks, although we can hope they will still work on down ticket elections. These are not dedicated Republicans, they are conservatives - I believe that Romney's nomination will make a third party organization more likely, taking a number of disgusted conservative and active Republiccans with it.
"He harkens back to an earlier (and better) Republican party when executive competence mattered and ideological zeal was suspect."
You mean the era of the me-too Eisenhower-Rockefeller Republicans, who were not only no threat to the Plantation, but helped build and protect it.
"Ideological zeal:" New Toryspeak for showing the slightest devotion to liberty.
"That he governed a liberal state from a moderate position was really the only choice he had as governor of Massachusetts."
That we was WILLING and ABLE to govern Massachusetts from a (relatively) moderate position (for Massachusetts) means he is WAY WAY WAY too far to the left. He would be better than Obama... but so would a syphilitic camel (to borrow a phrase from IntaPundit). Romney is the WORST choice of the field... though he would be more electable than, say, Bachman.
Honestly, I wish Cain would get the nomination. As you said, his problem is ignorance, and that's EASILY the most fixable problem of any in the field. (I'd say he's less ignorant than Obama was when he was elected... but again, that's not saying anything.)