1 first!11111111111

2 My theory is that Romney is not conservative or progressive but actually is the fabled Dragonborn.

3 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

4 Of course, objectively, so is Mitt Romney.

5 So what is this a face off Ace vs Drew? I'll take Green Bay and the points

6 You realize, Drew (as I pointed out on Twitter): If conservatives had spent time trying to bring Romney down instead of aiming at whoever the current !Romney was, we wouldn't be in this position today.

7 As I said yesterday if it boils down to a choice between Newt and Mutt we have already lost. The key then will be getting complete conservative control of the House and at least Republican control of the Senate.

I think that I will still get to vote for Perry but I am in one of the early States.

8 The question is simple. 
1) Nominate Romney and probably win
2) Nominate Newt and reelect Obama 

Everything else is irrelevant.

9 Ouch!

10 I have my Blue State You Don't Have to Vote for Mitt Card at the ready. If I do have to vote for Mitt, a two week hookers and blow vacation should straighten me out. Maybe.

11 I hate defeatist talk

12 we wouldn't be in this position today

But we are.  Time to deal with it.

13 Someone above me turned on italic in the name box trying to do that flashing shit and not turned it off.

14 I'd really like to see Perry make a comeback.  I know he's not perfect but he seems more in line with "Republican" positions than the others (I use the quote marks advisedly).

Of course, now that Newt is the front-runner, the Media have their long knives out. 

I still think the Media will double-down on praising Obama and he'll get re-elected.  After all, our side is picking people by how good they are on television, and Obama is good on television.

15 If I may be so bold.

16

Gee, interesting.

17 Stop putting HTML in your nics, folks.  Someone always screws up and breaks the blog.

18 The question is simple. 1) Nominate Romney and probably win 2) Nominate Newt and reelect Obama Everything else is irrelevant. Posted by: pep at December 13, 2011 09:59 AM (YXmuI) Win what? The curtains?

19 are we all typing with an accent?

20 I have reluctantly come to the realization I will have to vote for whatever asshole the Republicans nominate.  Obama and his appointees/czars/cronies have done and are doing so much damage to this country that another four years would be fatal.  (And we're pretty much on life support now, as it is.)

A third party candidate would just give Obama another four years, so that's not an option for me.

Damn!

21

Since the word "Progressive" really is a good word, I say we call real progressives "regressives".  The “progressive” leftistÂ’s true goals are to force failed leftwing ideologies down our collective throats. ThatÂ’s not progress.

Take back the word progressive!

22 Just flippin great!  More "compassionate conservatism".  Just what this country needs.

Wake me up when we're finally a banana republic please.  I got a hankerin for a banana.

23 But we are.  Time to deal with it.

And the way to deal with it is to realize two things:  1) Romney isn't invincible.  2) Not a single vote has yet been cast.

Perry 2012: 45% of New Jobs in the last 2 years.

24

A moderate whose views are progressive--in a conservative sort of way!  That is, unless you'd like them to be something else, in which case I can be that, too.

"A republic...if you can keep it."

25 The question is simple. 
1) Nominate Romney and probably win reelect Obama 
2) Nominate Newt and reelect Obama

Fixed, for tragic truth.

26 Win what?

The chance to stay in the game.

27 Newt may not be as conservative as i think he is but Romney is absolutely soulless.

28 Every person I talk to (obviously a small circle) is supporting Perry.  I'm really surprised he's not getting traction.

29 @8 The question is simple. 1) Nominate Romney and probably win 2) Nominate Newt and reelect Obama Everything else is irrelevant. Posted by: pep at December 13, 2011 09:59 AM (YXmuI) --- So the magical mittens (who almost reaches 25% in Repub polls) will somehow sweep ahead of Oba?

30 Fixed, for tragic truth.

Did you see CAC's map yesterday.  Romney likely wins.  Newt likely loses. 

31 Perry can outlast Mitt because Perry is expected to lose primaries. Perry just needs decent third place outcomes and he can stay while Mitt must leave if he doesn't win enough.

32 The question is simple. 
1) Nominate Romney and probably win
2) Nominate Newt and reelect Obama 

Everything else is irrelevant.

Posted by: pep at December 13, 2011 09:59 AM (YXmuI)

disagree I believe both are electable against Obama, my fear is both can also trigger a 3rd party candidate that hands it to Obama

33 Did you see CAC's map yesterday.  Romney likely wins.  Newt likely loses. 

Posted by: pep at December 13, 2011 10:06 AM (YXmuI)

well I agreed w/ both maps and I saw it diff. Romney likely wins, Gingrich could win. I saw no Likely lose for either.

34 Perry can outlast Mitt because Perry is expected to lose primaries.

Perry just needs decent third place outcomes and he can stay while Mitt must leave if he doesn't win enough.

Posted by: eman at December 13, 2011 10:06 AM (kEKwc)

I can see that as a possibility

35 The chance to stay in the game. Posted by: pep at December 13, 2011 10:05 AM (YXmuI) The chance to fall into the Abyss with better music on the radio. That is all Mitt will ever get us.

36 Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are both big-government Republicans.  They believe that Government is the Answer to all things.  Look at Newt's current rhetoric, and it boils down to "My big brain, plus the power of the Federal government, can solve everything!"

But he did get welfare reform passed, and got a balanced budget.

Mitt is almost as bad- still defending MassCare as a success- despite empirical evidence to the contrary, and still "Like mandates [because] mandates work."  Oh, and was liberal enough to be elected in a state-wide election (you know who else win state wide elections? Senators) in MA.

I can't think of any of the other candidates who would actively be worse, and I can think of at least two who would be better.

Iowa- please vote on substance.

37 8 The question is simple. 
1) Nominate Romney and probably win
2) Nominate Newt and reelect Obama

The science is settled? There is a consensus?

38 7 As I said yesterday if it boils down to a choice between Newt and Mutt we have already lost. The key then will be getting complete conservative control of the House and at least Republican control of the Senate.

That's been more or less my calculation since the Perry implosion.  To my view Newt is the better of the two in terms of holding the house and picking up the senate.  Those things depend on enthusiastic base turn out in red states.  Which to my mind Romney is the weaker of the two.

39 Did you see CAC's map yesterday.  Romney likely wins.  Newt likely loses.

And this is set in stone 11 months before the election. Nothing can possibly change.

40 I would love for Perry to go win but you cant just win Iowa like Schmuckabee. Plus, he is using religion in his big ads when he should stick to economics!!!

41 Iowa- please vote on substance.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 13, 2011 10:08 AM (8y9MW)

I wanna live in a world where substance matters, sadly we don't

42 Don't forget the Iowa rule, whoever wins Iowa is disqualified.

43 75% of the Republican Party hates Romney. Based on polls here and at Hot Air I would say that between 90 and 95% of the conservative base hates him.

If he gets it through the McCain plurality mechanism we will repeat 2008.  States like NC and VA that are close will go to Obama because a small percentage of that conservative base will stay at home.

This will be made even worse if the prediction made by Rasmusen comes about with a 3rd party candidate supported by local Tea Parties comes about.

44 I'm really surprised he's not getting traction.

Actually, he apparently is in Iowa.  He's moved back up to 4th (for what that's worth) but 5 points of that came straight from Newt support.

No, no link- heard from an on-the-campaign-trail reporter this morning on the radio.

45 I am in one of the early States.

All the dates are in the Wiki link in my name. I'm March 24.

46 Iowa- please vote on substance.

Glad I didn't have a mouth full of coffee when I read that.

47
What Noot said about Mitt and Bain is bad, really bad.

I mean, come on, that kinda talk should be setting off all kinds of alarm bells.

48 How much worse the economy can/will get over the next 10 months is the x factor not built into the polls. I think either Romney or Newt can win. Short of an implosion, which worries me with Newt.

49 The science is settled? There is a consensus?

Posted by: real joe at December 13, 2011 10:08 AM (w7Lv+)

THIS, Newt was a backbencher before he surged, Obama was sure to lose to Hillary, Romney was inevitable, i'll pimp polls more then anyone out there but you can win minds and hearts

50 Everyone believes that the economy is recovering... I believe the economy will tank before the election and Obama will be voted out. He will be the most despised POTUS. We should pick the most conservative candidate and he will win.

51 yeah yeah yeah the magic eight-ball says Romney wins. the guy with a ceiling of 20% in his own party is going to automatically beat one of the worlds nastiest demagogues who happens to have about 1 billion dollars behind him. what am i missing?

52 Time to get behind Perry we don't need another progressive liberal republican canidate like we had in McCain or a eye of Newt who is a socialist.

53 Perry can win this thing, if he stops being a completely incompetent campaigner (which hints to voters that he'll be an incompetent President), buckles down to do his homework (like memorizing all the Cabinet Secretaries and Supreme Court Justices), and... oh, yeah: erases the last four months from the minds of the voters. As Newt has demonstrated, the last of those three tasks may indeed be the easiest for Perry. The first two may prove utterly impossible.

54 I wanna live in a world where substance matters, sadly we don't

Sure we do.  The substance of Obama matters (that is: the fact he's a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure)- as proven by "real" UE of 11%+, U6 ~20%, an ever-shrinking workforce, and a national debt which now exceeds 100% of GDP.

The fact that people may not vote on substance is completely separate, if tragically linked, to whether or not substance matters.

55 Perry/Puppies '12! 

56

Posted by: stuiec at December 13, 2011 10:12 AM (aSN7Z)

I agree

57 Oh gawd, another Mitt hit piece.

Okay look.  If the goal *really is* ABO, then Romney is your guy, no matter how much you or I may loathe him.  The polls show consistently that he has the best shot at beating Obama.  That is pretty undeniable at this point.

But it's hit pieces like this which make me question whether the goal really is ABO.  Perhaps it is "sure I'd like to get rid of Obama, but if it means having to vote for a LIBERAL SOCIALIST COMMUNIST RINO SELLOUT like MITTENS, then yeah I'll put up with Obama fully implementing ObamaCare in 2013, I'll put up with Obama blocking the Keystone XL pipeline permanently, I'll put up with Obama nominating Scalia's replacement on SCOTUS...."

Or you think the polls are wrong.

Or maybe both.

So which is it?

And FTR, I am not in the "Romney Camp" or any of the others.  I am in the "ABO and Solid Conservative Congress Camp".

58 30:  I saw the map and I'll repeat the comment--I don't buy it.  The electability argument has no basis in reality that I can discern from studying Romney's career in its full context and trajectory.  And the worst part is, I am far from convinced any of the alternatives are much better.

Eleven months to prove me wrong.  Unless someone steps up in a hurry, I'm not optimistic.

59 I'll go with door number 3.

60

I'm voting Perry, but I'm in a late state. If he has dropped out by then and it's between Newt and Romney, then I'm voting for Romney.

 

Romney has a much better chance of winning in 2012 and they are essentially the same person. So I might as well go with the winner.

61 23 But we are. Time to deal with it. And the way to deal with it is to realize two things: 1) Romney isn't invincible. 2) Not a single vote has yet been cast. Perry 2012: 45% of New Jobs in the last 2 years. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 13, 2011 10:03 AM (8y9MW) Texas has grown economically because they have a state government set up to limit government power. Rick Perry didn't wave a magic wand and make it happen. The problem with Perry is that he's an idiot. I don't have any faith in him actually winning a debate if he's the nominee. He'd be demolished by Obama and all the mushy independents would decide to give Liberal Jesus a second shot at whatever he's promising that month. Romney and Gingrich aren't the conservatives any of us want, but each is at least smart and articulate enough to make the case for the free market.

62

...I'd comment more, but I'm busy working @ my above minimum wage job here in TEXAS.

Rick Perry / Condi Rice 2012

 

63 romney dropped out before the last primary ... i was actually going to vote for him!!!!!!

64 Mitt will try to "fix" ObamaCare, "save" SS and Medicare, and "sensibly balance" the budget with a "carefully targeted mixture of spending reductions and revenue enhancements". Just the Tip Mitt is not our friend.

65 I keep trying to explain to people that the white house is like the King on a chessboard.  Its the part that people who know nothing focus on but any of the players all know if you are attacking/defending with your king then loss is a forgone conclusion.  Its all the rooks and knights is really your most important pieces and people don't notice them which is how the left took control of a country that rarely agrees with them.

66

>>What Noot said about Mitt and Bain is bad, really bad.

>>I mean, come on, that kinda talk should be setting off all kinds of alarm bells.

 

Both Brit Hume and Charles Krauthammer took him to task for that.

Newt's comments really pissed me off. I think now that he's the front runner, people are going to remember why they didn't like him in the first place. Also, he lacks discipline. He says whatever comes to mind, no matter how stupid.

 

Newt is a great speaker, I enjoy watching him in debates, but I do not want him to be our candidate.

67

Posted by: chemjeff at December 13, 2011 10:13 AM (s7mIC)

I come from the perspective I want someone who can win but I want the most right-center guy who can win. I think that's Newt now, Perry still has a chance to change my mind that he can win but we'll see, as for Romney if it's b/w him or Obama i'll vote for Romney proudly.

68 The question is simple. 
1) Nominate Romney and probably win
2) Nominate Newt and reelect Obama 

Everything else is irrelevant.

Posted by: pep at December 13, 2011 09:59 AM (YXmuI)

Romney wouldn't win.  His loss is a foregone conclusion.

As for relevance...Romney is John Kerry.

69

Newt's comments really pissed me off.

Newt guy here and I had to raise an eyebrow at those comments, it's as bad as Mitt churning out lefty talking points on Social Security

70 [Opens enormous trench coat] Psssst. Anybody want a used tuba? I opened the spit valve and everything.

71

And FTR, I am not in the "Romney Camp" or any of the others.  I am in the "ABO and Solid Conservative Congress Camp".

Me too. After Jugears' speech in Kansas last week I have far fewer qualms about Mittens or Newt getting the nomination. Neither one of them is my ideal choice, but this disaster of a presidency must end.

72

After Jugears' speech in Kansas last week

you mean Texas right?

73 Okay look.  If the goal *really is* ABO, then Romney is your guy, no matter how much you or I may loathe him.  The polls show consistently that he has the best shot at beating Obama.  That is pretty undeniable at this point.

What good are polls taken before the guy's glass jaw is revealed? 

We saw it with the whining at that earlier debate when Perry went after him, we saw it really badly with the Baier interview, and then there was Saturday, which by almost all accounts (except for folks like Althouse and some NRO types) was a bad performance by Mitt. 

Really, poll results are a type of data, but they are data that is highly dependent on conditions and those conditions keep changing.  It's foolish, imho, to place much weight on them except in a qualitative sense on trends. 

74

Who can win the general election? Newt lost me with his Pelosi love and his anti Paul Ryan "right wing engineering" comments. Newt is the ultimate right wing engineer. Yeah yeah I'll support him,tho.

75

Romney has a much better chance of winning in 2012 and they are essentially the same person. So I might as well go with the winner.

Posted by: Ben at December 13, 2011 10:14 AM (wuv1c)

I disagree, as a PA voter like you I think Newt would beat Obama in debates while Mitt "mehs" at them. Debates have mattered a lot since they were televised. Not to mention, liberal moderators poking at Romney all the time, who has really thin skin.

76

Newt's comments really pissed me off. I think now that he's the front runner, people are going to remember why they didn't like him in the first place. Also, he lacks discipline. He says whatever comes to mind, no matter how stupid.

Both Mittens and Newt were wrong to say what they said.

77 Perry doesn't have a chance.

It's between Newt & Mittens, and Mittens has the backing of the party.

It's over, the fat lady has sung, stick a fork in it, blah, blah, blah...

78 28 Every person I talk to (obviously a small circle) is supporting Perry.  I'm really surprised he's not getting traction.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at December 13, 2011 10:05 AM (jx2j9)

Me too, and I'm in NY to boot. That said, all my friends and family know I'm the guy to talk to about politics and ask about the pros and cons of the various candidates, so I've probably had an undue influence on their Perry support.

79
He says whatever comes to mind, no matter how stupid.

It's more than that. Newt showed us how he reacts when his back was up against the wall.

Mitt saying Noot should return the Freddi $$ was a low-blow, too. Mitt should've stopped at the Noot/Fannie/prison comment.

But Mitt said it and Newt did a lousy job of responding to it.

80 If Mitt doesn't win the nomination then we can sit back and say that this time the media did not pick the candidate. And if Newt wins, we can sit back and say the Democrats picked the candidate to run against Obama.

Either way, I'm out of it.

81

>>Both Mittens and Newt were wrong to say what they said.

Indeed, but Mittens was prompted by someone asking if Newt should give back the money he got from a Fannie and Freddie. It was a dumb answer, but it wasn't an attack from the left.

 

Whereas Newt's answer was the typical left wing attack you always here. That capitalists who lay people off or make money for their investors should apologize.

 

82 so where's war and JeffB? they only pop up in threads about Romney after all

83

you mean Texas right?

No, the Kansas speech when he was channeling Teddy Roosevelt. The one in which he said that capitalism has never worked.

It's funny how Obama is always trying to compare himself to some other president but doesn't want to talk about his own record.

84 Mitt Romney Is "A Moderate Whose Views Are Progressive"

85

Progressive makes really good soup.  Oh.  Wait.  Crap.

 

 

 

86

Both Mittens and Newt were wrong to say what they said.

Yep. They're both a coupla assholes.

87
italics, you bastards, you

88

I watched the video hoping that Mitt was going to try and co-opt the word "progressive" the way so-called Progressives have.  The left's idea of progress is warped beyond all recognition and has perverted the very meaning of that plain word.  Their use of it is purely conceited.

Sadly, Rombley seemed to use it in the lefty sense just to appease lefties.  I'd love to see a Republican use that word to his advantage.

<sigh>

89 Jeff B hardest hit

90 Texas has grown economically because they have a state government set up to limit government power. Rick Perry didn't wave a magic wand and make it happen.

Let's take a look at this, shall we? 

Rick Perry has a great deal of power in the state of Texas- politically speaking.  If he had wanted to increase government reach and scope here, he could have.  Instead, he (virtually always) looked for ways to address the actual needs of Texas without giving the government any more power.  Even the Tardisil decision was not an increase in the size or scope of government, but an exercise of power the State already had.

Indeed, government employment per capita has gone down under Rick Perry.  All the while, businesses big, little, and in between are flocking to the state.

Rick Perry championed tort reform legislation which led to a boom in doctors moving to Texas.  He also championed for (too recently to measure success) just passed Loser Pays tort reform.  Given how much the Trial Lawyers hate it, though, I'm going with "provisional success."

Rick Perry championed a tax code change which, while raising nominal taxes on businesses, actually simplified and streamlined the process so that most (if, regrettably, not all) businesses actually saw a net reduction in their tax compliance costs (actual taxes plus book-keeping and such).

That doesn't even begin to get into the balanced budgets he's signed, including the first real cut in government expenditures in something like 50 years.

Rick Perry is good for business.  Not because he loves business so much (he does, though) but because he believes the best government is one with as little power as it can possibly have and still fulfill its actual duties.

The problem with Perry is that he's an idiot. I don't have any faith in him actually winning a debate if he's the nominee. He'd be demolished by Obama and all the mushy independents would decide to give Liberal Jesus a second shot at whatever he's promising that month.

I've said before (and probably will again) it won't matter who our candidate is in the debates.  Go back and watch the 2008 debates.  McCain may not have knocked them out of the park, but he beat Obama by any objective measure.  And that won't matter, because- no matter the outcome- Obama will be said to be the winner by the Media Gatekeepers, and most people (even during a Presidential election) don't actually watch the debates.

Where our candidate will win or lose (and where Obama won in 200 is on the Campaign trail.  There (ask the folks in Iowa, who are warming back up to Perry) Rick Perry is solid.

91 Hmm. So Obama gets reelected. I'm sure America will be just fine. Just as a friendly reminder: Still plenty of positions available in my Death's Head Legions, and next week I hold the drawing for Pleasure Battalion Supervisor. Bonus brown liquor ration for referring a friend.

92 Whereas Newt's answer was the typical left wing attack you always here. That capitalists who lay people off or make money for their investors should apologize.

I don't think that's what Newt believes, and I think his whole point was that Romney was being a ridiculous hypocrite.

93 Debates have mattered a lot since they were televised. Obama will duck debates if he's afraid they will make him look bad. Obama can wag the dog with his little finger from his chair in the oval office.

94 Fuckitol, I'm voting for Perry.

95 Jeff B hardest hit

Posted by: Mr Pink at December 13, 2011 10:24 AM (wVmwP)

hold on a sec, he'll be here anytime now to tell us Romney is more electable then Jesus Christ. War of the Undead States will then join in, sock Jesus Christ and claim Jesus couldnt win Alabama like Romney can.

96
Another thing that pissed me off:

All the candidates taking the bait on that irrelevant "fidelity" question. That was a low-blow aimed at Newt.

The other candidates stooped down to respond to that question and made themselves, Newt, and the entire party look like dopes.

97 Kill the 'Mittens is Super Electable' meme already. It was always wrong. It's the GOP PR/consultant CW nonsense. You know, the same nonsense that says the moderate will win the center. That it's best to not offend independents with principles and ideas.

It's bullshit.

98 remember McCain was the "most electable" too.

99 And the Paul juggernaut rolls onwards toward Iowa...

100

>>I disagree, as a PA voter like you I think Newt would beat Obama in debates while Mitt "mehs" at them. Debates have mattered a lot since they were televised. Not to mention, liberal moderators poking at Romney all the time, who has really thin skin.

I disagree on two issues. One, debates don't win you an election. They can help. A bad debate can hurt your chances, ask Perry, but that's often self inflicted. None of the other primary candidates forced Perry to flub, he did it on his own. I don't see how Newt would force Obama to screw up. 

Two, you don't win Pennsylvania by winning the Republican vote. Whoever the candidate is will get the Republican vote. You win it by getting the moderate Democratic vote in Allegheny county, in the counties surrounding Philadelphia, and in Philadelphia.  Look at Corbett's path in 2010. He won Allegheny county outright, but Pat Toomey lost Allegheny county in that same election.  Corbett won it because he got a lot of crossover Democrat votes.

That is how we win PA in 2012. 

I don't like Mitt either, but I would put Mitt's chances of winning at well above 50% in 2012.  He's no John Kerry. I may dislike him ideologically, but he's a smart and capable man.

101 Another thing that pissed me off:

All the candidates taking the bait on that irrelevant "fidelity" question. That was a low-blow aimed at Newt.

The other candidates stooped down to respond to that question and made themselves, Newt, and the entire party look like dopes.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 13, 2011 10:26 AM (sqkOB)

+1

102 Posted by: chemjeff at December 13, 2011 10:13 AM (s7mIC)

Playing a video of a guy="hit piece".

Got it.

103 srsly, depressing. maybe i will need to become a drinker, hell no, that not an option that also costs money .
fcol

104 Fuckitol, I'm voting for Perry

Ditto, if he's still on the ballot come March.

Then probably ABO in the general.

105 's

106 And the Paul juggernaut rolls onwards toward Iowa...

Posted by: Entropy at December 13, 2011 10:27 AM (UmXRO)

thanks for the laugh, I needed it

107 but ELECTABILITY!

108 It's been my experience that the tv debates are about the only thing non-political types pay any attention to during the election. It's on tv and hyped so it must be important, I guess is te thinking. YMMV

109 That was a low-blow aimed at Newt.

Well, Newt kind of walked into it with that "fidelity pledge" or whatever it was.  His correct answer on that was, "I took one.  It was called my marriage vows.  As a converted Catholic, I take those every bit as seriously as my oath, as Speaker of the House, to uphold and defend the Constitution."

110 I'm kind of in the "It Just Doesn't Matter" Camp. You all have convinced be that none of our candidates can... or deserves to... beat the SCOAMF.

111

Playing a video of a guy="hit piece".

Using your TARDIS technology to force poor mittens to debate himself across space and time is NOT FAIR!

112
Every time there's a post about a GOP candidate the He-Haw song gets stuck in my head:

Gloom, despair, and agony on me Deep, dark depression, excessive misery If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all Gloom, despair, and agony on me

113 Obama will duck debates if he's afraid they will make him look bad. Obama can wag the dog with his little finger from his chair in the oval office.

If Obama refuses the debates, he will lose the election.  Being able to call Obama an imperious jerk who is hiding from a debate is worth 10x more in votes than watching Gingrich (or anybody else) rip him apart.

And why should he skip them?  So long as he doesn't scream 'Death to America! and has a moderator friendly to him, he will have his side declaring him a winner no matter what happens.

114 Oh no, see, I've been told on good authority that if Newt is the nominee there simply won't be any debates.

115

Wake me up when we're finally a banana republic please.  I got a hankerin for a banana.

 

By my calculations, this should happen on September 2nd, 1990.

116 Gloom, despair, and agony on me Deep, dark depression, excessive misery If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all Gloom, despair, and agony on me

I sing that in my head at least once a week in this crappy office arrangement.

117 Wake me up when we're finally a banana republic please.  I got a hankerin for a banana.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at December 13, 2011 10:03 AM

We have one now.

Anyone who doesn't think the stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure is less of a tin-pot third-world tyrant than Li'l Kim -- or a less-bloodthirsty Robert Mugabe -- is wasting too much time watching Chelsea Clinton in her new "news reporter" gig.

Wouldn't surprise me if '12 brings on the death of the Republican Party, though. When a golden opportunity to dethrone America's first traitor-president is squandered by a choice between The Mutt and The Newt, failure can only ensue.

118 Gregory, i sympathise, but i've been told this is what the primaries are.
hell maybe the primaries should be limited to 60 days or so.
anyway, it certainly is harsh.

119 Can we just be pragmatic and admit that we're not picking a soul mate here? 

If there was someone to the Right of Romney that I thought could win, he'd have my vote.  The problem is, we don't, the rest of the field is a joke, and we'd likely lose the House in a tsunami if anyone else is nominated.

Newt nomination =Obama's landslide 2nd term, face carved on Mt. Rushmore

Romney nomination= Obama gets evicted, primary threat for Mitt keeps him in line

Just getting rid of Obama is a worthy conservative cause, even if his replacement is not the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.

120 I dislike both Mitt and Newt but they are both better than Obama.

121 Speaking of debates... Why is Mr. Electable afraid to have a civilized sit down debate with Newt?

122 When will morality and religion stop dancing, jab-jab-bob-weave, in their corners and come out to the center of the ring to get their final instructions? I want a clean fight gentlemen. I know that there is no point in warning you about low blows, since that is the only punch that is going to score in this fight, and I know that you will both disregard my commands to keep it clean. And besides, the red-meat media is down there leaning into the ring, drooling and screaming KILL HIM, and that is going to be hard to resist! I am sorry but I have forgotten what a neutral corner is, so just touch gloves and wait for the bell ... let's get ready to self-destruct (rumble!). And the winner is the SCFoaMF sitting at ringside.

123

>>If Obama refuses the debates, he will lose the election.

I agree.

That's just crazy conspiracy talk. Obama will be at the debates.

The only potential wild card you might see Obama play if he's really down in the polls is replacing Joe Biden.

 

124

And why should he skip them?  So long as he doesn't scream 'Death to America!

Now see, that's a problem right there.  Because I taught him to believe that.

125 Hussein, but I don't like bananas.... wail

126 the GOP, eat your bananas and shut up and sit down.

127

Newt nomination =Obama's landslide 2nd term, face carved on Mt. Rushmore

Romney nomination= Obama gets evicted, primary threat for Mitt keeps him in line

Assertion monkey asserts you must listen to him.

128

I don't like Mitt either, but I would put Mitt's chances of winning at well above 50% in 2012.  He's no John Kerry. I may dislike him ideologically, but he's a smart and capable man.

Posted by: Ben at December 13, 2011 10:27 AM (wuv1c)

Mitt aint winning PA or Newt in 2012. Mitt is just tied with Obama here according to polls. Toomey was around 5 points ahead of sestak in 2010 and came out with a squeaker. And knowing Mitt's newly revealed glass jaw, it is not pretty.

129 Perry is the only hope...... Perry will really makes the dems scramble. And you watch how many will drop out when Perry is nominated. They will play Perry's debate gaffes over & over.... Well, we have plenty of Obama's gaffes to play. My the best gaffer win.

130 Unless they go with that whole "let's just not have elections" card that's been floated already.

That's just crazy conspiracy talk. Obama will be at the debates.

The only potential wild card you might see Obama play if he's really down in the polls is replacing Joe Biden.

131 Obama is going to play the FDR 1936 strategy to the hilt, and he will have ALL of the MFM media helping him. Consider this:

1. He is already pushing lying economy and unemployment numbers which will get visibly better as we closer to the election. None of these numbers will be questioned by the MFM.

2. He still has a vast sum of the "stimulus" money that has not been spent. Even while he keeps screaming for more stumilus the MFM will not mention this.  When he finally gets around to spending that money it will not be spent in States like CA (completely blue) or SC (completely red). It will be spent in States like VA and OH which are always nail biters and the winner is the one who can deliver their voters to the poll with enthusiasm and a certain amount of zombie voters.  He will spend like crazy in those States and clueless drones will stream to the polls.

3. And he will campaign hard with many many visits to these State and lie like a lying SOB in a most outrageous manner.  None of these lies will be questioned by anyone in the media. A certtain percentage of clueless idiots in those close Sates will believe him because of that.

FDR won by a landslide in 1936.

132 125 Speaking of debates... Why is Mr. Electable afraid to have a civilized sit down debate with Newt?

Yep.

We were told the reason before was that the front-runner doesn't need to stoop to that, but now even Mitt is calling Newt the front-runner (and predicting a primary season that extends to June).  If Mitt is so superior, he should put us all out of our misery and show it. 


I'm still voting Perry... because I love puppies. 

At least, I hope I'm voting for him.  We've have a weird system here in Utah that I don't really understand.  My choices may be Huntsman or Romney (or Paul), in which case I may vote Huntsman. 

133

I have a few "bellweather" people in my social circle, and I see them possibly coming around to seeing Perry as a viable option.  They may think he's dumb, but at least he's not Mitt Gingrich or Newt Romney. 

I don't happen to think he's dumb, but if they do, and it's not enough of a barrier to keep them from voting for him, I'm not going to argue that point with them. 

134

So when the bombastic RINO flake-on-the-rake is pulling away with the election, you promote Perry by attacking . . . the rich RINO flip-flopping stiff?

Go Stupid Party.

135 He's no John Kerry.

He's not John Kerry, but he's running on John Kerry's election platform, minus the Vietnam thing.

136 Don't worry. Perry supports a Constitutional Amendment making all gaffes pleasant and endearing.

137 obama and the dems are the enemy. Just thought I'd mention that

138

They will play Perry's debate gaffes over & over....
Well, we have plenty of Obama's gaffes to play.

We sure do.  Too bad the MFM will never play them.

In which case your argument completely falls apart.

It really would be better if Rick Perry could think on his feet and didn't grin like a hyena when he knows he's fumbling.

139 he's not orange either

140 John Kerry's Election Strategy - Vietnam = 1 - 1 = 0.

141 Bah.  /off sock

142 Obama gets evicted, primary threat for Mitt keeps him in line

And there's the 'kick-the-can' attitude that has made the GOP what it is today.  Next time, we'll go with principle.  Just you watch.

And in ten years, we'll cut a trillion dollars.  Easy.  Just watch.  This year?  We'll cut one billion.

I don't think the people telling us that 'everything else is irrelevant' will suddenly be on-board with a primary challenge to a sitting president.

143 Mitt-Newt-Mitt-Newt...  Second look at Alvin Greene?  Seriously, with this economy and with all the audio and video of the SCOAMF to use in the advertising, if even Alvin can't beat him it's game over.

144 he doesn't have a horse face either

145 Reason #1, stop wishing for a great conservative savior.

America is a bunch of jug ear followers too stupid to change course.

(I've invented a time machine that will send me back in time to the 70s, where I will meet up with Obama's commie momma. I will slap the bitch. It won't change the course of history, but it will give me ample satisfaction.)

146 DrewM, it's the dredging it up from 9 years ago that constitutes the hit.  Oh and I question the timing.

All I ask is that we use a little bit of strategery in deciding who should face Obama.

147 I dislike both Mitt and Newt but they are both better than Obama.

Posted by: Miss'80s at December 13, 2011 10:33 AM (d6QMz) 

i was left with nothing to say.

148

And in ten years, we'll cut a trillion dollars. Easy. Just watch. This year? We'll cut one billion in record-setting spending increases.

FIFY.

149 Gotta go to work, so you get the last word.

150 Absolutely: PERRY 2012

151 depressing

152 chem, word.

153

Posted by: willow at December 13, 2011 10:41 AM (TomZ9)

Cheer up, willow.  It's only crucifixion.

154 obama is a progressive who's views are communistic and ruining this Country

155

you get the last word.

Well I'm glad you decided to stop being a terrorist and love America.

156 It really would be better if Rick Perry could think on his feet and didn't grin like a hyena when he knows he's fumbling.

I have to say, Perry can think on his feet.  He fields audience questions very well.  He field interview questions well.  He had some unforced errors in debates, but apparently George Will's wife knows her stuff because his debates are improving.  Only the most die-hard Perry opponents say he placed worse than second in Saturday's debate. 

I am an accomplished public speaker.  I had a radio show in college and then gave a lot of talks when I was doing the science thing -- talks in small venues and very large ones.  I'm good at it.  But I was not ever comfortable fielding questions in front of an audience.  I was great at it in small settings, but not at seminars.  So I just accept that someone can know their stuff, but be weak at one or two areas of communications.  It just doesn't bother me. 

157 HOLD   FAST

158 Look, here's how Romney loses to Obama - "Since Romney and I share the same views, the only reason you'd vote for him is because he's white."

Bang! Obama wins.

We need someone other than Newt or Romney that has never supported the idea of forcing the citizens to buy health insurance, nor has ever supported the idea that government ought to run the insurance game.

Otherwise, Obama wins, and we don't repeal Obamacare.

(of course, more important than getting rid of SCOAMF is getting rid of Dingy Harry, but you knew that, right? Right?)

159 Moderate. Eeek how sacry. I know Rush Limbaugh hates the idea and the word "moderate", but it doesn't change the fact that moderates, swing voters, and so called "independents" are where elections are won and lost. Just ask Obama who  lied and pretended to be a fiscal hawk in 2008.

160 It's been my experience that the tv debates are about the only thing non-political types pay any attention to during the election.

Yeh, but the media claimed Biden was AWESOME against Palin...when we are still telling jokes about Katie's and other completely bogus stuff he said.

If they are going to claim the Democrat won no matter what...

161 I'll vote for any republican nominee. I kind of hope it's Perry, but I don't care anymore. Just need to stop the SCOAMF.

162 brian......have you been listening to beck?

163 Dearest Calista, I pledge to never commit adultery, my love. Just as soon as I'm done fucking the Republican Party on top of this pinball machine. Your loving, Newton

164 Lotsa Perry denial in here.

165 ok, so what do we do at this point with a candidate we don't like, but likely to get the nod?
do we start on senate and strengthening the house? and do we have a good chance to be successsful there? do we have Time ?
see this is where i become flustered is doom real, how close is it?

166 WAR GAMES: IRAN TO CLOSE STRAIT OF HORMUZ ???But obama would ask them nice not to do that right?

167

it doesn't change the fact that moderates, swing voters, and so called "independents" are where elections are won and lost

Libertarians are independants.

168 If a red-assed, syphilitic, shit-flinging howler monkey is the GOP nominee, I will crawl naked over broken glass and then swim through lemon juice to vote for the howler monkey, all the while accosting passers-by and saying to them "Are you familiar with Mr. Shit-Flinging Howler Monkey's economic proposals? They're quite impressive." I will do what must be done to elect ABO. That should be our candidate: Anybody But Obama.

169 151 DrewM, it's the dredging it up from 9 years ago that constitutes the hit.  Oh and I question the timing.

All I ask is that we use a little bit of strategery in deciding who should face Obama.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 13, 2011 10:39 AM (s7mIC)

---

We have to dredge up things from >3 years ago because the guy has been "unemployed" for quite a while.

Doesn't it bother you that a fellow who has only served in office for one term and who has only won one election has more position changes than guys like Newt and Perry who were in office for many many years and ran (and won) a lot of campaigns?

It does me.

Mitt has a relatively sparse resume compared to the other two, so his rhetoric matters more. 

170 167 brian......have you been listening to beck?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 13, 2011 10:44 AM (Ho2rs)

Who?

171 nevergiveup link?

172 The Media must be destroyed.

173

I have to say, Perry can think on his feet.   

That is demonstrably false.

What you're saying is he is better in some forums than others.  Stipulated.  I agree.  Obama is the same way.  Give him his TelePrompTer and he is the next Pericles.  Without it, not so much.

But the MFM isn't going to cut any Republican any slack.  To use a cliche, Perry is going to have to be twice as good as Obama just to be thought of as being at the same level.  That means he has to be better in all forums just to break through the media noise.

So far, he fails.

And that's the problem.

174 joncelli, brings the laughter, ok, maybe you're right , but at least greet the rep voting stragglers with a coctail, with a cute bartender. (male, thanks)

175 Posted by: chemjeff at December 13, 2011 10:39 AM (s7mIC)

So what's the time limit? Because a lot of stuff Newt did back in the day better be off limits too.

Of course nothing is off limits. 2002 was the only successful campaign Mitt has ever run so it's perfectly reasonable to look at what he said during that campaign and how he presented himself.

176 The Media must be destroyed.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm
soon (wishcasting)

177

Look, here's how Romney loses to Obama - "Since Romney and I share the same views, the only reason you'd vote for him is because he's white."

That is sooooooooo not gonna play this time around.

Whitey be tired a gettin' told he a racist cracka.

(I denounce myself.)

178 Lotsa Perry denial in here.

Posted by: meemeeemeeeee at December 13, 2011 10:44 AM (O7ksG)

you think?

179

I have to say, Perry can think on his feet.   

That is demonstrably false.

What you're saying is he is better in some forums than others.  Stipulated.  I agree.
-----
You assert that it's false, but then agree he is better than some forums than others.  Honestly, what's your point?  Is your point that his "better" is still "bad"?  If so, please back you claim. 

What I've seen is that when he does Q&As after his speeches he does very well.  And that is also what is widely reported, even by his critics, when they refer to his strength at "retail politics." 

180 Lotsa Perry denial in here.

Posted by: meemeeemeeeee at December 13, 2011 10:44 AM (O7ksG)

----

Yeah, because Perry is so far behind in electoral votes.  Oh... wait... no votes have been cast. 

181

You assert that it's false, but then agree he is better than some forums than others.  Honestly, what's your point?

My point was contained in the same post.

That means he has to be better in all forums just to break through the media noise.

And he's not.

182 Of course nothing is off limits. 2002 was the only successful campaign Mitt has ever run so it's perfectly reasonable to look at what he said during that campaign and how he presented himself.
-----
^This.

183

Yeah, because Perry is so far behind in electoral votes.

Let's face facts.

Only Mitt Romney can get us Massachusetts and Utah.

 

 

 

 

What?

184

My point was contained in the same post.

That means he has to be better in all forums just to break through the media noise.

And he's not.

--

I think your reasoning is circular.  He is a bad presenter because the media says he is a bad presenter and his improvements in the debates (which you did not refute) does not matter because the media says it doesn't matter.

Just like Newt was an unserious candidate until he wasn't.

Perry did very well in Saturday's debate which was also the debate Mitt stumbled at and the one with the highest audience to date. 

He is strong in retail politics.  Nothing you say has contrasted that.  Until we see how he is received on state levels, which is dependent to some extent on how he is presented in local media, I see little value in worrying about what his polling is nationally. 

185 >>Only Mitt Romney can get us Massachusetts and Utah.

heh.  I'm sure Mitt will win Utah, but there is not a lot of enthusiasm for him here.  I hear a lot of complaints about him being too liberal and folks who donated to him last time saying they won't this time. 

186 I see little value in worrying about what his polling is nationally

Darn tootin

187 152 I am still voting for Perry in the primary. As for the general, ABO.

188

I think your reasoning is circular.  He is a bad presenter because the media says he is a bad presenter and his improvements in the debates (which you did not refute) does not matter because the media says it doesn't matter.

His improvement in the debates????

His improvement in one debate you mean.  He was a diaster in the majority of them.  Sorry, Rick Perry doesn't get graded on a curve because he's RICK PERRY!!!!11!!

He is a bad presenter because he is a bad presenter.  Period.  It has nothing to do with what the media says about him.  Hell, scroll through the threads here after every debate and you'll find even Perrykrishnas lamenting his performance.

He is strong in retail politics.  I agree.  And if Rick Perry could personally talk to every single voter in the country...he's win.

Not gonna happen.

A lot of voters - a LOT of voters - make up their minds based only on debate performance.  That's their only chance to get to see the candidate.  Less than a fraction of 1% of voters actually ever get to talk to candidates (read that "retail politics") in a meaningful way.  Oh, and Rick Perry is used to retail politics in Texas.  He's good at it there.  What he hasn't demonstrated, is that he's good at it on a national level. 

As shocking as it is for Texans to admit, the rest of the country doesn't see the world the way they do.  (Yes, shocking, I know...).  So that means that what works in Texas politics at the retail level doesn't de facto mean it's going to work anywhere and everywhere.  In fact, it's likely not to.

What you're saying is that Rick Perry does well in the one area that very few voters get to see, and marginally better in the area that most voters get to see.

That does not sound like a recipe for victory to me.

189 So, when is someone going to buy me a "Spanish speaking newspaper"?

190 but Mormon!

191 GOP= Starving Guppies feeding on each-other.  The Oscar (obama) is just waiting for the tired, battered "winner".  itshay

Mitt or Next, egads!

192 Why is everyone convinced Newt can't win?

Is it because the media is telling everyone that? Didn't the Republicans choose McCain because he was moderate and "electable?" And how did that work out?

Pollsters aren't always correct.

And running a moderate candidate that appeals to the media isn't the answer either.

/FYI, I don't like any of the  candidates, and instead, support the KFC cheezy bacon bowl/ DQ blizzard ticket.

193
Romney - A Moderate Whose Views Are Progressive




Well, I was really hoping Romney would turn out to be a Progressive whose views are Moderate, but I guess you can't have everything....

194 Completely agree re: Perry.

195 Speaking of old videos, how about running a video from 2007/2008 back when Presidential candidate Romney was running around promising to bail out the entire state of Michigan.. because his daddy was from there. I haven't heard him called to account for those sleazy promises in any of the debates

196

The funny thing is that the Perry Krishnas are making this sort of attack while just a few days ago the Rombot himself want after Perry on Social Security AGAIN.

Newt, the flake-on-the-rake, is running away with the election and the also-rans are desperately attacking . . . other also rans.  Pretty hilarious if you don't care about democracy or 2012 or stuff.

197 The question is simple. 1) Nominate Romney and probably win thus electing an R-Progressive 2) Nominate Newt and reelect Obama Once the Progs are in charge, Everything else is irrelevant.

198 "The question is simple.
1) Nominate Romney and probably win thus electing an R-Progressive"

It gets old hearing Romney's fans just assert Romney is super.  The guy is so obviously a phony.  He lost so many elections.  He's got a horrible record for endorsed candidates losing.

Maybe he'd beat Obama, but the idea he alone can do this is pretty silly.  Is that really the only argument for Romney? 

He's a progressive.  Not that we didn't already know it because he spearheaded a socialist policy for MA.  IF you make MA more liberal, you're pretty damn liberal.

That is what's wrong with our government, and so people need to rally to Perry if there's any hope of reform in the near future.

199

Newt, the flake-on-the-rake, is running away with the election and the also-rans are desperately attacking . . . other also rans. Pretty hilarious if you don't care about democracy or 2012 or stuff.

Better Gingrich than Romney.

I've heard of newts getting better, never a mitten.

200 For me, Perry is 90% ideologically right, with a 95% good record in his decision making.   I think he's made three calls I actually object to, in over twenty  years.

I wish we could do better, but we cannot in this primary, and if he's rejected, we will wind up with someone who is a progressive in a time that is so critical for us to be led by a conservative.

This is a pivotal time for the country, so I hope people rally to Perry.

201

Moderate in a progressive kind of way.  Did he mean Newt, Perry or Romney.  Can't be Ron Paul, he's a full time Harold Stassen.

 

We don't need any RINOs.  Its getting so bad I'd vote for Ron Paul before either Romney or Newt and then would probably burn in hell.

202 Perry 2012. Mitt Gingrich is not conservative. We need a radical reform-minded president with conservative track record, executive governing experience. I also like it that Perry has twice exposed the petulent condescension of Romney. The first time, it was admittedly ham-handed. The second time, Romney ended up losing the debate because of it. Pretty fair practice for taking on the SkinnyLittleFreak in my book.

You people who move to Newt have no testicular fortitude. As for Romney, we've been down this road once already. He ran against McCain and lost. I rest my case.

203 Mitt Romney is a Chuck Woolery clone.

204

He was running in Mass., WTF was he supposed to say?

Has anybody seen clips of Christie's campaign in 2009? If not, go look at some.

Gee, why aren't all of the pure conservatives that frequently attack Romney not backing Ron Paul? From a purity standpoint, he is by far the purest of the candidates; however, every time his name comes up "conservatives" cringe.

 

 

205 " Gee, why aren't all of the pure conservatives that frequently attack Romney not backing Ron Paul? " Are you stupid? Paul is pro return to the Gold standard return, has antisemitic overtones in his rhetoric and associations, and supports pacifist isolationism. how the FUCK is that pure conservative? Pure conservative? Exactly how the fuck is advocating for the election of a left center big government Republican who was semi-popular in a left wing state and legitimized the health care mandate with his Romney care program that became the model for national healthcare (and Romney actually went on Meet the Press saying he supports a national version of Romneycare) at ALL conservative ? It's not. Wanting a slower boat to move the country left less rapidly than the democrats would is NOT conservative. Wanting an actual conservative to lead the conservative party is not a quest for purity. It's a quest for a guy who actually wants a smaller government not a larger government that's not quite as large was as the Democrats want. We want a good instread of a lesser evil.

206 @2 - Best post here!  Thank you - a Romney fan.

207

 Cockfinger:

 

"Wanting an actual conservative to lead the conservative party is not a quest for purity. It's a quest for a guy who actually wants a smaller government not a larger government that's not quite as large was as the Democrats want. We want a good instread of a lesser evil."

 

Thanks for making my point.

208 As the article says ....I really enjoy your blog. Intelligent and to the point.