Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Rick Santorum is a nice guy who has done remarkably well in this race, but he would not be an ideal nominee. There is something about him that makes me think he would lose badly. Then again I am supporting Newt Gingrich, and do not particularly like Mitt Romney. They all have flaws, but in my opinion Gingrich has the most to offer as a nominee. He can "think on his feet," has an impressive record and is enough of an "outsider" now that he can blast the Republican establishment as well as the Democrat nominee President Barack Obama at the same time. Santorum comes across as a bit pious to a lot of people. He believes sincerely in what he says, and I respect that he won't give in to compromising his principles. However there is a difference between standing up for principle and "my way or the highway." Santorum may not really understand the difference and may be too difficult to work with as president. To some extent any GOP nominee is going to fight the Democrat agenda, of course, but Gingrich knows better how to negotiate with Congress. He did the opposite as Speaker of the House while Bill Clinton was president. And, as has been pointed out, Santorum doesn't have a lot of money (though his fundraising dramatically improved after his trio of wins last week). Many of the delegates he's won so far are "non-binding," leading to the question of how strong his position really is. Also, Gingrich will, I believe, be successful in making the GOP leadership honor their rules regarding Florida's delagate count, which should be proportional according to those rules since the contest was held before April 1. There is one debate on February 22, before Arizona votes, and that may give Gingrich a chance to gain some support on Super Tuesday, March 6th.

What is fascinating is the prospect of a brokered convention! There is a real possibility that, if all four stay in, Romney will not have the required 1144 to win the nomination by convention time. This hasn't happened since 1976, when Ronald Reagan mounted a major challenge to incumbent Gerald Ford.

He would be a fantastic nominee. We might just see a Reagan-era sweep of electoral votes. You talk about getting liberal voters fired up...dyed in the wool conservative nutjob will do it...of course, there's no way Santorum holds out till the end. Romney is still the logical choice. He'll win the bigger states where the electoral votes are more important. And right now, all the electors are proportionally assigned. Some time in March, they become winner take all. Santorum doesn't have the money to stick it out.

Apparently, there is yet another frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, Rick Santorum.

Sabin wrote:I fear Newt Gingrich as the nominee. This is going to end up being the most negative Presidential campaign of my conscious lifetime. And unless Barack Obama starts to up his game and start acting like the President, Newt could end up winning.

What I like about Newt as the nominee is this: the base of the right is in fractions right now.In an age where Rick Perry aired his "Strong" advertisement, where Rick Santorum's (how shall I put this?) "private thoughts" are actually said without fear in the public forum, demonstrates how far to the right the base is moving. That Santorum is at all seen as halfway viable is pretty staggering. And yet, in the age of the Tea Party, Mitt Romeny is now just barely losing grip of the nomination. A total moderate at, well, not the height of the Tea Party zeitgeist but a year or two past it. Were they to run Mitt and he were to lose, the lesson they would learn is "Go crazier." The problem was that they didn't have a candidate Church-y and hate-y enough. And the next guy would be a piece of work. That dialogue is still going to happen when Newt Gingrich loses, but right now? The Right needs to lose for being a Republican, not Mitt Romney.

I know I'm not a typical Republican, but I have never seriously considered voting for Rick Santorum, or Michele Bachmann for that matter. Santorum seems sincere but also condescending. At least when President Bush pushed social issues he did it with a certain (folksy) style that endeared him to people willing to listen to what he had to say. On the other hand, I do not view Newt Gingrich as "crazy." It seems like anyone with a strong conservative agenda is called "insane" by the left. But there is no denying he has had a checkered personal past. Despite this, I don't buy the argument that Gingrich can't win in November. He may not be Reagan, but he has the backing of his more conservative son. He also can legitimately say he was "there" when Reagan rose to prominence. That counts for a lot with Republicans. When he says he has succeeded in areas where his fellow candidates have not, it is the truth. It is also true that he stumbled a bit in the late 1990s, but his resurgence owes as much to his record of accomplishment as to his popular debate performances. Because President Obama can't tout a resoundingly better record, it would be foolish to think no one will listen to the former Speaker. At least Gingrich is eager to hear new ideas, has worked effectively with his opponents in the past and is really a fighter. These are things that Mitt Romney, the ever-safe don't-rock-the-boat say-anything candidate who has lost more elections than he's won, cannot claim. In the general election Gingrich can point to several areas where he was not in lock step, while still showing a clear contrast to Obama. That could be enough if things stay relatively the same in the national mood.

Big Magilla wrote:Gingrich is an opportunist who speaks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. The problem isn't so much that the general populace is too dumb to see past him or too ignorant to figure it out but that they are as fooled by his "mad as hell and not going ot take it anymore" showboating. They think this will somehow translate to "getting things done".

I doubt they're being so far-sighted about it. They're angry at Obama and want a candidate who will yell at him for a few months.

In other New Developments, I was very happy yesterday to see the Supreme Court unanimously tell the Obama administration to stop acting like the Bush administration. Would that they did it more often for the Bush administration.

Gingrich is an opportunist who speaks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. The problem isn't so much that the general populace is too dumb to see past him or too ignorant to figure it out but that they are as fooled by his "mad as hell and not going ot take it anymore" showboating. They think this will somehow translate to "getting things done".

On the other hand, alarge part of the electorate will grant that Obama has accomplished a lot, but that he hasn't done anything for them. In the end, though, I think he'll be re-elected, but will the Democrats be able to take back the House of Representatives and will they ever get their act together and work as a bloc the way the Republicans do to get things done without a lot of foolish self-defeating compromises?

They couldn't get behind Perry because he was too dumb. They couldn't get behind Cain because he was too ignorant. So the Republicans will settle for Gingrich, whose incoherency is capable of fooling the dumb and ignorant into thinking he's brilliant. I was considering voting third-party this election year. But if Gingrich is the nominee, I'll be forced to vote for Obama.

I still think Romney will win out in the end. The Republicans need him as much as they don't. I've been hoping for a collapse/split of the Republican party for years but it still hasn't materialized. If only the Tea Party were an actual third party and not an arm of the religious right, it might be more interesting.

I fear Newt Gingrich as the nominee. This is going to end up being the most negative Presidential campaign of my conscious lifetime. And unless Barack Obama starts to up his game and start acting like the President, Newt could end up winning.

What I like about Newt as the nominee is this: the base of the right is in fractions right now.In an age where Rick Perry aired his "Strong" advertisement, where Rick Santorum's (how shall I put this?) "private thoughts" are actually said without fear in the public forum, demonstrates how far to the right the base is moving. That Santorum is at all seen as halfway viable is pretty staggering. And yet, in the age of the Tea Party, Mitt Romeny is now just barely losing grip of the nomination. A total moderate at, well, not the height of the Tea Party zeitgeist but a year or two past it. Were they to run Mitt and he were to lose, the lesson they would learn is "Go crazier." The problem was that they didn't have a candidate Church-y and hate-y enough. And the next guy would be a piece of work. That dialogue is still going to happen when Newt Gingrich loses, but right now? The Right needs to lose for being a Republican, not Mitt Romney.

Big Magilla wrote:As the pundits keep reminding us, the Democrats hoped Reagan would win the Republican nomination in 1980 because he couldn't win the general election. Be careful what you wish for.

Yeah, but Gingrich is no Reagan and Obama certainly is not Carter.

As the pundits keep reminding us, the Democrats hoped Reagan would win the Republican nomination in 1980 because he couldn't win the general election. Be careful what you wish for.

Gingrich is the best and worst thing that could happen to the Republican party. Having a right wing idealogue on the top of your ticket will show the Republican National Convention just how unelectable someone like that is on a national level.

Fresh off of his big win in the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich is now leading in the most recent polls in Florida.

Are Republicans really going to nominate Newt Gingrich? If they do so, then Obama will officially be the luckiest man alive.

It happened during A Separation's win.

How will this affect A Separation's chances for Best Foreign Language film at the Oscars? I say it's a bad sign.