The most important characteristic of the 2012 Republican nominee for President

[Little-Acorn]

Aside from being able to defeat Obama in November (pretty much guaranteed by the condition of the economy, unemployment, and O's record of socialist legislation and financial irresponsibility), what is the most important characteristic the Republican nominee must have?

It's not whether he's had affairs, or even lied about them, or whether he feels your pain... and it's not even "how conservative he is" - all the current Republican candidates are conservative enough for the reversal of trends we need in the next four years, though obviously none is perfect.

What's the most important characteristic?

It's the ability to get conservative legislation INTRODUCED AND PASSED so he can sign it into law as President.

I know, introducing and passing legislation is Congress's job, not the President's. In fact the President has a relatively minor "official" part in making laws - he simply signs (or vetos) what Congress sends him.

But a President has the ability to exert major influence on what Congress sends him, in part through meeting with Congressmen and explaining what he will and won't veto while working out packages with them. And the biggest part of his influence, is through the Bully Pulpit.

Notice the fits of screaming hysteria that country has gone through for the last year or so, not in trying to CUT the Federal budget, but simply in trying to reduce its rate of increase a little. And the effort has had ZERO results so far - just some "automatic" cuts" in the rate of increase, which it looks like will be quietly legislated away before they go into effect in Jan. 2013.

Have you ever wondered how President Reagan managed to get a ***33 PERCENT*** cut in the Income Tax Rate, in his very first year in office? (When he took office the top rate was 75%, he cut it to 50% and cut all the other rates proportionately. Then he did it again later, finally winding up at 28%, less than HALF the rate he started with). In today's Congress, it would be a feat impossible to even imagine.

He did it by using the Bully Pulpit. Reagan would go on national TV and say to people directly, "Here's what I want to happen, here are the advantages and disadvantages, I think you as Americans deserve this an can handle the responsibility etc., SO PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND TELL HIM TO VOTE FOR THIS." The speech, given many times for different agenda items, was longer than that, but that was the gist. Having a Republican-majority Senate helped, but even the Dem-majority House caved when huge public pressure fell on them.

The most important characteristic the Republican nominee for President in 2012, isn't just to be conservative. It's to be able to get his conservatism INTRODUCED AND PASSED thru the Congress so he can then sign it into law.

At this point, looks like it will be either Romney or Newt. Both have extensive baggage, both have noteable conservative achievements, both have major liberal black marks on their records. And all that stuff is far less important than CAN HE GET CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATION PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW.

Part of it depends on what Congress he gets, of course. Republicans will likely keep the House, hopefully with at least the same majority they have now, and there's a good chance they will get a Senate majority (do you believe the liberal pundits, in both parties, who scream it isn't so?). And hopefully there will be a higher percentage of no-tax-increases-and-CUT-the-budget newcomers, as happened in 2010. If so, that will make it a lot easier for the Republican President to actually legislate conservatism (REDUCED govt spending and regulation) into law.

But there will be several more Congressional elections between now and when the Republican president leaves office in 2021, and leftists (in both parties) gaining a majority in one house is always possible. If that happens, then between Newt and Romney, whihc is more likely to be able to get conservative legislation through Congress and onto his desk for signature?

Between Newt and Romney, which of them is more able to persuade members of Congress to vote for his conservatives policies, in enough numbers to get it passed? Which is more able to persuade the American people that NOW IS THE TIME to call or write your Congressman and tell him to pass this legislation?

The most important characteristic the Republican nominee will bring to the White House is NOT promises or perfect hair or a pixie smile or even "I stick strictly to the Constitution". It's "After 8 years with me in office this country will be a lot closer to obeying the Constitution, and I can make that happen better than my opponent for the nomination."

Which candidate can get Congress to pass more conservative legislation even if/when they don't want to?

Newt or Romney?

 

[dogtowner]

the premise is valid and it highlights some flaws it the rest of the field who would have issues here.

both have the ability to explain things succinctly, something the left has constant trouble with. may have to give Noot the edge here as he did kick arse as speaker in this regard.

both have legitimate demonstrated chops at important challenges facing the country. may have to give Mitt the edge here as he has proven success at making lemonade from lemons not because he relied on good advice but by his own thinking.

both are smart guys, both have flaws, both would do a vastly superior job than the opposition candidate.

the only thing left I can find to separate the two in the stated context is that Noot thinks a little too much of himself at times. Mitt does a bit better at projecting humility and I think people like a little humility at times.

 

[GenSeneca]

What's the most important characteristic?

Opposition to Progressivism.

Newt or Romney?

Both are Right Wing Progressives. We don't need another GWB any more than we need 4 more years of the Bamster... I know the "lesser evil" argument is enough to persuade most voters to go with the candidate seen to be the least ruinous but if it does come down to Newt or Romney vs. Obama, we're still screwed. Whether we ride on a really fast bullet train or a slightly slower bullet train doesn't really matter much, total fiscal insovlency is still the inevitable destination.

 

[Dr.Who]

Newts experience as Speaker would clearly be an asset in this regard. I would assume that a Governor would also have experience getting legislation passed.

Either one should kick butt against Obama as either one of them would be a hundred times better.

Newt is the one most likely to repeal the abomination called obamacare.
Newt has tons of books out, he has been investigated by the house and they pursued nothing - he has been vetted which is more than we can say for the treatment that was given to Obama while he was a candidate. I don't think any more dirt could come out on him.

 

[Little-Acorn]

A friend of mine brought up another important point that I had missed.

Once a Republican gets elected President, he will be subject to literally the weight of the whole world, trying to get him to change his policies. At least it will seem that way to him - the media will present a 100% united front, both to him and to the rest of the world, saying that he is cruel, heartless, completely at odds with what the American people want, none of his policies will work and he is completely insane for even trying them.

Newt, at least, has had direct experience with that little tupperware party. When Republicans were voted into majorities in the House and Senate in 1994 and Newt became Speaker, that entire circus swung into action against them. And Newt's support among congressional Republicans melted away like butter on a hot stove. He was left to bear the brunt of the task of getting tax cuts passed (he managed to get the Cap Gains cut through in the face of repeated vetos from Clinton). But as he tried to keep Republicans on the smaller-govt course they had started on, more and more of his fellow Repubs stopped cooperating with him, and rapidly turned into big spenders fully as liberal as the Democrats they replaced, and the so-called "Republican Revolution" collapsed.

So another important characteristic the Republican nominee this year must have is: He must be able to stand up to the haranguing, pressure, smears, and lies of a full-court press from the media and other leftist Democrats, that will often appear as a united front against him and his agenda.

Newt has gotten a good taste of this already, though that doesn't mean he knows how to defeat it. Romney hasn't really had such a taste yet, except vicariously by watching what has happened to other Republicans.

So, who will be better able to get conservative legislation thru Congress, AND be able to stay the course in the face of the inevitable media-led eight-year gauntlet of attacks, smears, and vilification?

Newt or Romney?

 

[Gipper]

A friend of mine brought up another important point that I had missed.

Once a Republican gets elected President, he will be subject to literally the weight of the whole world, trying to get him to change his policies. At least it will seem that way to him - the media will present a 100% united front, both to him and to the rest of the world, saying that he is cruel, heartless, completely at odds with what the American people want, none of his policies will work and he is completely insane for even trying them.

Newt, at least, has had direct experience with that little tupperware party. When Republicans were voted into majorities in the House and Senate in 1994 and Newt became Speaker, that entire circus swung into action against them. And Newt's support among congressional Republicans melted away like butter on a hot stove. He was left to bear the brunt of the task of getting tax cuts passed (he managed to get the Cap Gains cut through in the face of repeated vetos from Clinton). But as he tried to keep Republicans on the smaller-govt course they had started on, more and more of his fellow Repubs stopped cooperating with him, and rapidly turned into big spenders fully as liberal as the Democrats they replaced, and the so-called "Republican Revolution" collapsed.

So another important characteristic the Republican nominee this year must have is: He must be able to stand up to the haranguing, pressure, smears, and lies of a full-court press from the media and other leftist Democrats, that will often appear as a united front against him and his agenda.

Newt has gotten a good taste of this already, though that doesn't mean he knows how to defeat it. Romney hasn't really had such a taste yet, except vicariously by watching what has happened to other Republicans.

So, who will be better able to get conservative legislation thru Congress, AND be able to stay the course in the face of the inevitable media-led eight-year gauntlet of attacks, smears, and vilification?

Newt or Romney?

I think the premise of your question is incorrect. I do not believe either Newt or Mitt will work hard to push through 'conservative legislation,' since both men are progressives.

I have never been a big Ron Paul fan, that is until now. He is really the only true conservative/libertarian in the race. He is completely honest and down with the true meaning of the Constitution. And, there is no way the left and their media will influence him. He is right on nearly all the issues, but his foreign policy is a bit wacky. I think at this time, I can accept that bit wackiness to get the best of the rest.

 

[dogtowner]

I think the premise of your question is incorrect. I do not believe either Newt or Mitt will work hard to push through 'conservative legislation,' since both men are progressives.

I have never been a big Ron Paul fan, that is until now. He is really the only true conservative/libertarian in the race. He is completely honest and down with the true meaning of the Constitution. And, there is no way the left and their media will influence him. He is right on nearly all the issues, but his foreign policy is a bit wacky. I think at this time, I can accept that bit wackiness to get the best of the rest.

and for this reason he'll get nothing accomplished other than what Congress decides to send him. maybe if he can channel Perot to connect to the average Joe but I dont see that happening.

 

[Gipper]

and for this reason he'll get nothing accomplished other than what Congress decides to send him. maybe if he can channel Perot to connect to the average Joe but I dont see that happening.

I think not. It is likely the Rs will have control of both houses next year. If an R wins the WH, he/she will get much of what they want.

Reagan won huge in 1980 and got much of what he wanted from a D congress. So, Paul could get much done. Paul like Reagan is considered an outsider by the R establishment.

Another thought is if the Rs win both houses with comfortable majorities and BO wins re-election, BO won't get much through Congress. So, four more years of the Skinny Socialist, while hard to take, will not destroy our republic.

 

[dogtowner]

I think not. It is likely the Rs will have control of both houses next year. If an R wins the WH, he/she will get much of what they want.

Reagan won huge in 1980 and got much of what he wanted from a D congress. So, Paul could get much done. Paul like Reagan is considered an outsider by the R establishment.

Another thought is if the Rs win both houses with comfortable majorities and BO wins re-election, BO won't get much through Congress. So, four more years of the Skinny Socialist, while hard to take, will not destroy our republic.

Reagan got things done because he
a. could connect with the citizenry very well
b. compromised too much

while b may not be necessary I don't feel Paul has the same ability.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Another thought is if the Rs win both houses with comfortable majorities and BO wins re-election, BO won't get much through Congress. So, four more years of the Skinny Socialist, while hard to take, will not destroy our republic.

Normally, the idea that not much will get through Congress, is a good one. The Founders designed this government to make it difficult to pass laws - four very different groups (Prez, House, Senate which was different then, Supreme Court) have to approve before anything becomes law and stays. They did this deliberately, on the theory that ordinary people don't need much governing, and would do best if left free to make their own decisions and run their own lives.

However, now we have had such huge, intrusive governments (from both sides of the aisle) that we desperately need MORE legislation: Legislation that repeals things and eliminates bureaucracy. If Congress simply "doesn't do much", then govt will continue to automatically grow, and Executive Orders and alphabet agencies will keep adding to govt rules, regulations, and intrusiveness.

We need Republicans in all three areas (House, Senate, Prez), so that the dismantling of the huge, unconstitutional structures that have been put in place for the last 80-plus years, can begin. Obamacare must be repealed, OSHA, ATF, Dept of Education etc. done away with, Social Security and Medicare put on a path toward elimination without breaking promises made to people living now, etc. etc.

And not just any Republicans in all three areas. We had that in 2000-2006, and government simply kept growing anyway. We need the kind of Republicans who were elected in 2010 - Republicans determined not to let govt grow ANY more, and with the guts to stand up to all the usual pressure and lies from the left, and stay on the course they were put in office to follow.

That's why the second point brought up late in this thread (The Pres must be able to stick to conservatism in the face of eight years of pressure, abuse, smears etc.) is fully as important as the first (Pres must be able to get conservative legislation thru Congress).

Who will be better at those two things? Newt or Romney?

 

[BigRob]

The idea that a Republican is going to simply waltz into the White House because there is an R behind there name is naive in my opinion.

This is going to be a tough campaign, and it is entirely possible that we lose it.

 

[dogtowner]

The idea that a Republican is going to simply waltz into the White House because there is an R behind there name is naive in my opinion.

This is going to be a tough campaign, and it is entirely possible that we lose it.

yes. people have to be shown why Obama is wrong on policy. McCain failed at this simple task so you bet its possible.

 

[Gipper]

Normally, the idea that not much will get through Congress, is a good one. The Founders designed this government to make it difficult to pass laws - four very different groups (Prez, House, Senate which was different then, Supreme Court) have to approve before anything becomes law and stays. They did this deliberately, on the theory that ordinary people don't need much governing, and would do best if left free to make their own decisions and run their own lives.

However, now we have had such huge, intrusive governments (from both sides of the aisle) that we desperately need MORE legislation: Legislation that repeals things and eliminates bureaucracy. If Congress simply "doesn't do much", then govt will continue to automatically grow, and Executive Orders and alphabet agencies will keep adding to govt rules, regulations, and intrusiveness.

We need Republicans in all three areas (House, Senate, Prez), so that the dismantling of the huge, unconstitutional structures that have been put in place for the last 80-plus years, can begin. Obamacare must be repealed, OSHA, ATF, Dept of Education etc. done away with, Social Security and Medicare put on a path toward elimination without breaking promises made to people living now, etc. etc.

And not just any Republicans in all three areas. We had that in 2000-2006, and government simply kept growing anyway. We need the kind of Republicans who were elected in 2010 - Republicans determined not to let govt grow ANY more, and with the guts to stand up to all the usual pressure and lies from the left, and stay on the course they were put in office to follow.

That's why the second point brought up late in this thread (The Pres must be able to stick to conservatism in the face of eight years of pressure, abuse, smears etc.) is fully as important as the first (Pres must be able to get conservative legislation thru Congress).

Who will be better at those two things? Newt or Romney?

Newt would be better. He has a very nasty side to him that Romney does not. Newt knows what the Left will do to him and he will fight. Romney is likely to be another W type who just sits there like a dummy and takes it.

However I do not think for one second that either Newt or Romney will reduce the size of government significantly. But I know Ron Paul will.

 

[dogtowner]

Newt would be better. He has a very nasty side to him that Romney does not. Newt knows what the Left will do to him and he will fight. Romney is likely to be another W type who just sits there like a dummy and takes it.

However I do not think for one second that either Newt or Romney will reduce the size of government significantly. But I know Ron Paul will.

not sure he can rally the 53% up enough to do it but it would certainly be nice.

 

[Dr.Who]

Normally, the idea that not much will get through Congress, is a good one. The Founders designed this government to make it difficult to pass laws - four very different groups (Prez, House, Senate which was different then, Supreme Court) have to approve before anything becomes law and stays. They did this deliberately, on the theory that ordinary people don't need much governing, and would do best if left free to make their own decisions and run their own lives.

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.