May 17, 2011
— Ace Raising 10 million in 8 hours.
And Cindy Crawford making calls for him?
On Monday, Mitt Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom tweeted: “Cindy Crawford appears in a demonstration video at Romney call day to show people how to use ComMitt fundraising software.”
10 million dollars? Check.
Supermodel? Check?
"ComMitt" pun? Checkedy-check-check-check.
In related news: At Hot Air, Krauthammer and especially Brit Hume rip Gingrich on his mandate/right-wing social engineering comments.
Hume calls it "vintage Gingrich," and sums up: "He's a provocative thinker and a promiscuous talker."
Krauthammer notes that every Democrat will run an ad against his opponent running Gingrich's "right wing social engineering" and "radical" quotes, a deadly charge, and one that might just end any support for the Ryan plan. He sums it up as a "capital offense."
Posted by: Ace at
08:21 AM
| Comments (240)
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: joncelli at May 17, 2011 08:23 AM (RD7QR)
Its his turn!
Posted by: The Republican Establishment at May 17, 2011 08:24 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2011 08:24 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 17, 2011 08:24 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: maddogg at May 17, 2011 08:24 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Typical perverted moron at May 17, 2011 08:25 AM (LH6ir)
Only people who actually pay attention understand his distinction of "Mandates okay in States, bad Nationally" and I'd say 90% of us say that's hogwash anyway.
Now- before you ask- Yes, if God wills that Mittens Romney is the GOP candidate for President, I will vote for him. Until then, I'll fight that candidacy as much as I'm able.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 17, 2011 08:25 AM (8y9MW)
Best we could nominate? No.
Concur. Not even willing to listen to him anymore after his complete inability to say, "I was wrong."
But the only thing Romney has going for him if he wins is...he's more likely to appoint actual adults to run things than Obama.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 17, 2011 08:26 AM (sbV1u)
Mitt's going to win the nomination and not have to repudiate Obamacare, which means he won't be under any pressure to repeal it when/if he were to win the presidency.
I do think Romney would beat Obama should he get the nomination, but I would rather take a chance on a Ryan or Christie, but neither appear to be running.
Posted by: Ben at May 17, 2011 08:27 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: joncelli at May 17, 2011 08:27 AM (RD7QR)
But not worse than Obama.
I hate to agree with you here b/c Mitt has so many downsides, but you're right.
With the great white Huck out, the soft-socialist God-botherer niche is wide open for Mitt to corner.
Posted by: s'moron at May 17, 2011 08:27 AM (UaxA0)
Posted by: Kensington at May 17, 2011 08:28 AM (mEyVv)
But not worse than Obama.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 17, 2011 12:24 PM (sbV1u)
The problem, however, is that we've been on this arc for a long time now.
Far leftwing Democrats drag the country hard left. Republicans get elected on a platform to undo what the Democrats did, but never quite get around to it. And then evetually the electorate gives the hard left control again...wash, rinse, repeat.
We are so far gone that we are at the point where it isn't clear another status quo establishment Republican will really be any better then a far left Democrat.
Look at how we did under Bush 43...and the man is almost certainly more conservative then Romney...
Posted by: 18-1 at May 17, 2011 08:28 AM (7BU4a)
Sure is looking more and more each day like it is indeed, his turn. And given the fact that the party doesn't nominate "untested" candidates, I'm close to suggesting our only hope is Sarah.
Like it or not.
Posted by: Mr. Fire at May 17, 2011 08:28 AM (TOk1P)
Here's the No You Can't poster from the movie.
Posted by: momma at May 17, 2011 08:28 AM (penCf)
You know that, once president, Mitt will betray your "principles"?
These are really dark days for standard-issue knuckleheads.
Posted by: Lucifer, John Ashcroft's personal savior at May 17, 2011 08:29 AM (BHSVg)
No matter who out candidate is, the entire base will turn out in 2012.
Evangelicals, fiscal cons, social cons, defense cons. The motivating factor of a second Obama term will get the turnout from the base.
The candidate will then spend his/her time wooing the undecideds and squishes.
Posted by: Ben at May 17, 2011 08:29 AM (wuv1c)
Romney has had more than 4 years to figure out that "It was right for Massachusetts!" isn't selling: so why hasn't he dropped that? Gingrich is supposed to have some big brain (I haven't seen evidence. Vocabulary != Intellect) and didn't realize that calling the only serious proposal to deal with spending- especially entitlement spending- "radical" and "right-wing social engineering" was stupid?
Come on Herman Cain. Or somebody who actually understands what Conservatives want and need.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 17, 2011 08:29 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 17, 2011 08:29 AM (i6RpT)
Well if he has a supermodel calling for him that changes EVERYTHING!!!!!!, I have changed my mind. I Love me teh Mittens!!!!!!!
John Effing Kerry had alot of money too and he got to bang Dana Delany for a while (something I'll never understand)
At the end of the day they have two things in common. They are both liberals and are both Massholes.
Posted by: BruceTheRobert at May 17, 2011 08:29 AM (re6ik)
Posted by: ErikW at May 17, 2011 08:30 AM (7KrHw)
A vote for Romney assures that if he wins the nod all those former red States that turned blue in 2008 with McCain will stay blue and a few more in the South will turn blue.
A vote for Romney is the final gasp of the Republican Party and the formation of a new Tea Party party.
Which in turn means at least a decade of Democrat Presidents,
But that last one will not matter because with 4 more years of Obama......
A vote for Romney will be a vote for complete collapse of the U.S.A.
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2011 08:30 AM (M9Ie6)
OT: Sorry but this is important. The Chinese Military Industrial Complex is becoming unstoppable and sneaky. They have invented a new exploding watermellon! They haven't got it perfected yet as these prematurely detonated while still growing in the field but once they do we are doomed. Think about it, 4th of July with your family and BOOM!
Posted by: robtr at May 17, 2011 08:31 AM (MtwBb)
Guess the higher gas prices are cutting into their mommies' ability to fund their WoW subscriptions.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 17, 2011 08:31 AM (9hSKh)
They are both liberals and are both Massholes.
Mittens is from Michigan. He just impersonates a Masshole
Posted by: Native Masshole at May 17, 2011 08:32 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Bob Saget at May 17, 2011 08:32 AM (F/4zf)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 17, 2011 08:33 AM (eOXTH)
I think it is the Washington/State Media bubble. When 90% of the people you are in contact with are hard left liberals it is easy to lose sight of what a conservative is.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 17, 2011 08:33 AM (7BU4a)
You know... I don't normally bother to respond to your puerile incoherence, but this one I just have to: What part of Ace's post was any endorsement of anybody? I think it's been made pretty clear that Ace is not Mitten's #1 Fan in other posts.
Which leads me to believe that your only purpose here is insult our host- not even to drop trollish comments for any discord they may foment, nor any effect they might have on opinions or morale.
And, if your only purpose here is disdain for your host, I think you should probably leave.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 17, 2011 08:34 AM (8y9MW)
Contrary to what the right honorable gentleman from South Carolina says, Mitt Romney will not be that bad when he is president.
I've always believed that even the worst Republican is far better than the best Democrat.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 08:34 AM (gM4zK)
Posted by: robtr at May 17, 2011 12:31 PM (MtwBb)
Liu said he was unable to sleep because he could not shake the image of the fruit bursting
THE HORROR!!!!
Posted by: ErikW at May 17, 2011 08:34 AM (7KrHw)
Posted by: Lucifer, John Ashcroft's personal savior at May 17, 2011 08:34 AM (BHSVg)
Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at May 17, 2011 08:35 AM (+lsX1)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 17, 2011 08:35 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Bean Blossom at May 17, 2011 08:35 AM (T1d4e)
10 million dollars? Check.
Supermodel? Check?
"ComMitt" pun? Checkedy-check-check-check.
Personality? Ooops I hope that's optional.
Conservative views and values? Damn! Maybe they won't notice.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 17, 2011 08:36 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Sub-tard Goober at May 17, 2011 08:36 AM (Q5+Og)
Washington DC and the MFM are like the Pet Sematary - what you get back isn't what you put in.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 17, 2011 08:36 AM (9hSKh)
Mitt is UNELECTABLE.
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2011 08:36 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 12:34 PM (gM4zK)
And the problem with that philosophy is that we can a lot of Specters and Jeffords....
Posted by: 18-1 at May 17, 2011 08:37 AM (7BU4a)
There is only one thing I like about Obama.
He drives the left further and further into waves of incoherence defending him.
They spend their days running in increasingly smaller concentric circles just trying to spin his bullshit. Any day now they'll disappear up their own assholes.
Posted by: Native Masshole at May 17, 2011 08:37 AM (sbV1u)
Well, there's turn out and there's turn out. I might at the last minute be willing to debase myself on election day by voting for Romney, but I will not campaign for him. I won't go door to door. I won't work the phones. I won't donate. Those days ended with McCain. I'll debase myself somewhat, but there are limits.
This is why I really wish there was a voting system that would allow you to vote for a candidate or against a candidate. I'd gladly vote against Obama.
Under my fantasy system, the winner could theoretically be the candidate with the highest negative tally. (i.e., Romney beats Obama -30,000,000 to -40,000,000)
I'd like to see some jackass crow about their mandate when they've won with a negative number.
Posted by: Kensington at May 17, 2011 08:37 AM (mEyVv)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 17, 2011 08:38 AM (TATbF)
Posted by: Cicero at May 17, 2011 08:38 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Lucifer, John Ashcroft's personal savior at May 17, 2011 12:34 PM (BHSVg)
Hey, 20% real unemployment is indeed quite a record to run on. Unprecedented you might even say.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 17, 2011 08:38 AM (7BU4a)
I think the bigger news is that she felt safe jumping off of the Obama bandwagon. That's huge. Can't be understated.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 17, 2011 08:39 AM (T0NGe)
And the problem with that philosophy is that we can a lot of Specters and Jeffords....
I hate it as much as you all. But this is what we have.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 08:39 AM (gM4zK)
Posted by: Typical perverted moron
About $10 million. In under 8 hours.
Posted by: Rombneys' fundraising manager at May 17, 2011 08:39 AM (Gzv/o)
Posted by: Sub-tard Goober at May 17, 2011 08:39 AM (Q5+Og)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 17, 2011 08:40 AM (CLYmB)
Waterboarding KSM is a war crime! IMPEACH IMPEACH!!! 2007
Shooting unarmed Osama in the head was A-W-E-S-O-M-E DUDE! Obama is da man!!! 2011
Posted by: A Survey of Liberal "Thoughts" on the issues of the day at May 17, 2011 08:40 AM (7BU4a)
No, of course he can't. ObamaCare could be one of the best weapons with which to bludgeon Obama, and Romney won't even be able to use it.
This is ridiculous.
Posted by: Kensington at May 17, 2011 08:40 AM (mEyVv)
Hume calls it "vintage Gingrich," and sums up: "He's a provocative thinker and a promiscuous talker."
In addition, his mere visual presence has been scientifically proven to exponentially increase the impact of smarm on those exposed to him.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 17, 2011 08:40 AM (jx2j9)
Hey, 20% real unemployment is indeed quite a record to run on. Unprecedented you might even say.
Not unpreceented. The last Democrat who ran on that record won. See Roosevelt, Franklin Delano.
Of course, Barky ain't no Roosevelt.
Posted by: Native Masshole at May 17, 2011 08:40 AM (sbV1u)
For which statement, he has a damned nerve.
Posted by: Ken at May 17, 2011 08:40 AM (7yb9x)
Hey, 20% real unemployment is indeed quite a record to run on. Unprecedented you might even say.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 17, 2011 12:38 PM (7BU4a)
Historic!
Posted by: President Wormburner McDroopyshoulders at May 17, 2011 08:40 AM (7KrHw)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 17, 2011 08:41 AM (+61wI)
As bad as Arlen Specter was, and he really sucked, he was still better Lieberman.
Take Byron Dorgan, for example. Dorgan is probably the least worst Democrat in the Senate, and he's still to the left of Specter...barely.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 08:41 AM (gM4zK)
In either direction.
Think about it: this means that a) Obama's image is not as well viewed as once it was and b) that Romney is enough like obama that she feels comfortable supporting him for the nomination.
Either that, or she wants him to get the nomination because she believes he'd lose to Obama. Either way, it's not actually good for Romney.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 17, 2011 08:41 AM (8y9MW)
As another supermodel, if Cindy is in, so am I; charter member of the Kick-JEF-Preening Peeswhank-To-The-Curb Party.
Do I want someone else that is not a retread? Yes. But I prefer Mitt to anyone else this nanosecond in time. "I want to be clear,"as the problem is "fluid" and could change any moment (as this WH likes to say).
Should Paul Ryan or Chris Christie or my beloved Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal jump in at any time, with any of them including West or Cain as VP in any combination with Daniels or Pawlenty, I will change my allegiance as quickly as I do my swimsuits in the Sports Illustrated old editions.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at May 17, 2011 08:41 AM (FnRYN)
Posted by: Sub-tard Goober at May 17, 2011 08:41 AM (Q5+Og)
Posted by: Kensington
I bragged out the need for oil prices to rise and then blamed everyone else when what I wanted to happen happened. Lying about a mandate? I can do that better than Jim McGreevey.
Posted by: The Manufactured Messiah at May 17, 2011 08:42 AM (Gzv/o)
If Republicans go with Newt.....they lose....that simple. Every man woman and child should be shouting down Newt right now, and telling him to go hide in cave for the two years.
Newt is the Nanci Pelosi and Joe Biden of the Republicans.....a flat out disgrace!
Posted by: Jimi at May 17, 2011 08:42 AM (JMsOK)
Maybe. But if he wants a 2nd term, and he will, then this will be the thing on which he is judged. Remember, '16 is when we have a whole crop of new and very appealing candidates coming on line who will be itching for a primary fight. In the meantime, a Romney caretaker could limit the damage from a 2nd O term.
Yeah, I know we're all tired of the "wait til next time" thing, but Romney, whatever his faults, isn't stupid.
Posted by: pep at May 17, 2011 08:42 AM (GMG6W)
Posted by: Bob Dole at May 17, 2011 08:43 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 17, 2011 08:43 AM (CLYmB)
Posted by: Marcus at May 17, 2011 08:44 AM (CHrmZ)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 17, 2011 08:44 AM (sbV1u)
Mitt. Yeah, go for it, ace. Morning in fucking America.
Posted by: Lucifer, John Ashcroft's personal savior at May 17, 2011 08:44 AM (BHSVg)
Posted by: Lindsey Graham at May 17, 2011 08:44 AM (EL+OC)
65
As bad as Arlen Specter was, and he really sucked, he was still better Lieberman.
Lieberman was solid on Defense. Other than that both were men who almost did something brave once, but chose not to risk it.
Posted by: Sub-tard Goober at May 17, 2011 08:44 AM (Q5+Og)
I give up trying to vote for someone who can or will actually do anything. The only people who get any significant levels of support are worthless retreads that lie to us about "making hard choices", then fold like a cheap suit (cough*Boehner*cough).
I am just throwing gasoline on the fire now, in the hope that we can burn everything down and start over sooner.
Bring on the Apocalypse, baby! A zombie in ever living room! A hippie in every pot!
Posted by: Damiano at May 17, 2011 08:44 AM (3nrx7)
Well except for Mormonland - Utah, Nevada and Idaho. Gee that must be 9 whole electoral votes there.
Posted by: Jeannie at May 17, 2011 08:44 AM (GdalM)
My self-loathing conservative bro is a Romney guy, but i'm working on him.
Romney is not my guy, and frankly no one who's announced gets me fired up to get me out in the FL primary and vote for them. I hope we can come up with a better nominee, but I'll be voting for him over Obama w/ no regrets.
Posted by: YRM (Go Bolts!) at May 17, 2011 08:44 AM (UzBwz)
I think the bigger news is that she felt safe jumping off of the Obama bandwagon. That's huge. Can't be understated.
BTW - hubby is in Chicago and I dared him to go into every t-shirt shop and ask if they had any 'Hopey, Changey NO-Boma 2012' shirts.
Quite a few sales clerks said they wished because they would sell like hotcakes.
Another told him that she is asked questions similar to his several times a day.
He asked one why, if the love for BO is fading, why Emanuel won, their answer - unions.
Posted by: momma at May 17, 2011 08:45 AM (penCf)
Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at May 17, 2011 08:45 AM (+lsX1)
I'll give Mitt a donation.
If Cindy Crawford comes to collect it.
And yes, she's going to have to earn it.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at May 17, 2011 08:45 AM (1hM1d)
Romney is sort of like oatmeal in the morning...
I wonder if Slublog can make a campaign poster out of that. Sorta like the Quaker Oats dude.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 17, 2011 08:45 AM (sbV1u)
John Effing Kerry had alot of money too and he got to bang Dana Delany for a while (something I'll never understand)
Posted by: BruceTheRobert
Wait what? Any pictures?
What the Hell am I saying? pictures that would include Lurch? But would have Dana Delany
Posted by: conflicted moron at May 17, 2011 08:45 AM (Gzv/o)
In the alternate universe where that happens? Find a way back to the real world.
Perry has stated, repeatedly to the point he gets testy about it: he has no interest in running for President. I wish he would. I don't even know that he'd win the nomination (too much GWB baggage might hurt him) but he'd certainly pull the debate in a right-ward direction.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 17, 2011 08:46 AM (8y9MW)
I give up trying to vote for someone who can or will actually do anything. The only people who get any significant levels of support are worthless retreads that lie to us about "making hard choices", then fold like a cheap suit (cough*Boehner*cough).
I am just throwing gasoline on the fire now, in the hope that we can burn everything down and start over sooner.
Bring on the Apocalypse, baby! A zombie in ever living room! A hippie in every pot!
Posted by: Damiano at May 17, 2011 12:44 PM (3nrx7)
Preach it.
Posted by: Pyro Lobby at May 17, 2011 08:46 AM (EL+OC)
Oh my God, is he really trying to sell that?
I'll always be grateful for the masterful broadcasts Hugh did on election night 2004 managing the hysteria and poking holes in the "KERRY'S WINNING!!!!1!!" conspiracy the MFM attempted that night to convince people not to bother voting for Bush.
But 2004 was 7 years ago, and Hugh's been largely useless ever since he fell in love with Romney.
Posted by: Kensington at May 17, 2011 08:46 AM (mEyVv)
My Eggmcmuffin Barometertm is showing high degrees of Fear and Loathing.
Obama must be in deep shit.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 08:46 AM (gM4zK)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 17, 2011 08:47 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 12:39 PM (gM4zK)
Well...yes and no.
Looking only at the presidency, in 1964 we chose an "unelectable", "far-rightwing", "extremist" and we did lose big time. But it invigorated a movement that had been moribund since the 30s.
Since that time we've nominated one conservative (Reagan), three liberals (Nixon, Ford, McCain), and two squishes (both Bushes).
Outside of 1981-89 we've seen the country continue to slide left.
If the choice is taking a 50/50 gamble (do we get the Reagan landslide...or the Goldwater one) on actually stopping the progress of the left or slightly better odds on merely slowing the leftwing slide with liberal Republicans and squishes, I know which option I want to take.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 17, 2011 08:47 AM (7BU4a)
OT: Sorry but this is important. The Chinese Military Industrial Complex is becoming unstoppable and sneaky. They have invented a new exploding watermellon! They haven't got it perfected yet as these prematurely detonated while still growing in the field but once they do we are doomed. Think about it, 4th of July with your family and BOOM!
Cue Dan Rather/Obama joke.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 17, 2011 08:47 AM (UOM48)
If he gets the nod, will I campaign for him? In a New York Minute.
Now if he had the Supermodel of the Day on the campaign, that would really make my "interest" rise. IYKWIMAITTYD
Posted by: Barack Obama, Preznit/JEF at May 17, 2011 08:47 AM (UOcNk)
Boggles.The.Mind.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 17, 2011 08:47 AM (pLTLS)
The entire country is on the ledge, not just me. We will not make it to '16.
Romney IS unelectable. Blue States will stay blue and Red States will go purple/blue as Republicans sit it out.
Personally if he gets the nod I will be selling my house in this crowded county and moving to Wyoming or Montana and will be at least 20 miles from a voting booth so I probably will not be voting either.
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2011 08:47 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: garrett at May 17, 2011 12:45 PM (eyY0c)
that's not nice to say about two women, who between them gave birth to ten children and still have careers and marriages.
Posted by: curious at May 17, 2011 08:47 AM (k1rwm)
I'll give Mitt a donation.
If Cindy Crawford comes to collect it.
And yes, she's going to have to earn it.
And she should bring a menu explaining the different levels of support.
Posted by: Cicero at May 17, 2011 08:47 AM (QKKT0)
Screw it. I am voting for Obama in 2012 if Mittens and the rest are the best that the Republicans can field.
*facepalm*
Posted by: YRM (Go Bolts!) at May 17, 2011 08:48 AM (UzBwz)
84 Screw it. I am voting for Obama in 2012 if Mittens and the rest are the best that the Republicans can field.
There's something to this, I'm afraid...
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at May 17, 2011 08:48 AM (1hM1d)
Bob, I thought you were dead.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 17, 2011 12:44 PM (sbV1u)
Bob Dole is just a bit stiff.
Posted by: Bob Dole at May 17, 2011 08:48 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 17, 2011 08:48 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: maddogg at May 17, 2011 08:49 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Jean at May 17, 2011 08:49 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: momma at May 17, 2011 08:49 AM (penCf)
Posted by: curious at May 17, 2011 08:50 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 12:39 PM (gM4zK)
who are you and what did you do to soothsayer?
Posted by: YRM (Go Bolts!) at May 17, 2011 08:50 AM (UzBwz)
that's not nice to say about two women, who between them gave birth to ten children and still have careers and marriages.
Posted by: curious at May 17, 2011 12:47 PM (k1rwm)
I'd rather they made a sandwich out of me. Or do that thing where they both bend over the back of the couch in front of me...
but that would be a stretch for the Presidential Bumpersticker Format.
So I went with the '69 thing.
I stand behind my disposition as well as my choice.
Posted by: garrett at May 17, 2011 08:50 AM (eyY0c)
Posted by: Sub-tard Goober at May 17, 2011 12:41 PM (Q5+Og)
On the plus side, I believe T-Paw did formally flip flop on his own "Romneycare" global warming legislation.
You'd think Romney would have wised up at least to this extent...
Posted by: 18-1 at May 17, 2011 08:50 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Lucifer, John Ashcroft's personal savior
That right there is rather sexist and exclusionary. For shame.
How nice of you to hide behind a political figure that's been out of government for years. It's almost as if you weren't looking forward, but rather to a caricature of the past. So much for the 'reality based' community.
Posted by: conflicted moron at May 17, 2011 08:50 AM (Gzv/o)
This certainly makes the Eeyores and limp socks come out, eh, Ace?
Peoples, it is early. Calm down and get your panties out of a bunch. Jeez. I am breathing easier now that Huck is gone. Newt will follow. I am a girl and have more testosterone to fight that some of you wimps.
That "I am going to stay home and pout on election day if my perfect candidate does not win the primary" and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa crap worked well in 2008, right? Those of you who could not plug your nose and then drink heavily voting for McCain/Palin are as much to blame for Barky as the ignorant masses who blindly vote (D) due to color of skin. Bite me. Repeat, rinse, repeat: it is still early and the weeding process has begun.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at May 17, 2011 08:51 AM (FnRYN)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at May 17, 2011 08:51 AM (SB0V2)
I sat through Fair Game JUST so I could see that undeserving bastard William Baldwin handle Cindy Crawford's naked titties.
I must seriously consider her endorsement.
Are you sure it wasn't a body double?
/Yes, I suffered through watching that crap-fest of a movie back in the day. HBO and Skinemax played that simultaneously once, to my delight.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 17, 2011 08:52 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: brak at May 17, 2011 08:52 AM (S7e2n)
Vic, I know you have a history of coronaries, so you better not read this.
I think the ticket will be Romney/Pawlenty.
Yes, two former Republican governors from pretty blue states. God help us.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 08:52 AM (gM4zK)
Posted by: Jean at May 17, 2011 08:52 AM (WkuV6)
If Reagan's campaign was that of a happy warrior, Goldwater's was that of an angry one.
It didn't help that the media pulled a Bush 43 on him - they claimed he was crazy and actively working with NeoNazis.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 17, 2011 08:52 AM (7BU4a)
And she should bring a menu explaining the different levels of support.
Platinum, baby! Maybe I can score the ambassadorship to the Bahamas, or maybe Aruba and invite Cindy to spend some time in the neighborhood!
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at May 17, 2011 08:52 AM (1hM1d)
that's not nice to say about two women, who between them gave birth to ten children and still have careers and marriages.
It's all in his head. The little one, not the one he should be thinking with.
Posted by: huerfano at May 17, 2011 08:53 AM (IN2A4)
Posted by: Kensington at May 17, 2011 12:46 PM (mEyVv)
Hugh has been very harsh on the establishment GOP and calling them out in interviews and not kissing up, which is unusual for a guy who always thinks the Republican will win. But overall he's gotten tougher post-midterms.
THAT SAID, he's still Romney's biggest ass kisser, he invited Guy Benson to his show who slammed Romney and Hugh started whinning that Guy was bias and so was the WSJ
Posted by: YRM (Go Bolts!) at May 17, 2011 08:53 AM (UzBwz)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 17, 2011 08:54 AM (i6RpT)
That right there is rather sexist and exclusionary. For shame.
Oh don't worry about that, cm. Libs only have those rules about sexism and exclusion for everyone else. They don't actually believe any of that shit.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 17, 2011 08:54 AM (sbV1u)
I won't count him out until the end. Perry has a huge war chest and perfect credentials to win in this environment. He would be a runaway, kick-ass favorite on the national scene. I can't think of anyone else who has stuck it to Obama so much on every issue.
There is a reason Texas is the Number 1 state in new population. His name is Rick Perry.
Posted by: Marcus at May 17, 2011 08:54 AM (CHrmZ)
Actually with Huck out Mitt has a chance in Iowa and I already figured he would win NH. He isn't even going to campaign in SC so that tells you what his internals are telling him here but it will not matter.
SC will be a split vote State with all the rest being winner take all, so the loss of SC will not cost him anything but potential momentum.
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2011 08:54 AM (M9Ie6)
So now there are two good things about Senor Romney.
1. Cindy Crawford
2. He can't betray his principles if elected, because he doesn't have any.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at May 17, 2011 08:54 AM (epBek)
Posted by: brak at May 17, 2011 08:54 AM (S7e2n)
I think Newt has spent the last ten years trying to sell himself as a serious, thoughtful, gravitas dripping, party elder, in preparation for a run. It is funny how he shit all over himself as soon as he got on national TV and little newt popped out of his pants for all the world to see.
Time to go back to the classroom, Newt. Sell you IQ to the Freshman polysci students.
Posted by: nine c at May 17, 2011 08:54 AM (uz3hs)
btw, we'll know for sure if Pawlenty and Romney have some sort of deal.
If Pawlenty doesn't attack Romney on Romneycare, they're in cahoots.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 08:54 AM (gM4zK)
I actually support McVain against my better instincts once he won the nomination. And he did exactly what I thought he would - give the election to Barky "3000%" Obama.
NO MORE.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 17, 2011 08:54 AM (7BU4a)
Me too, but I'll feign excitement once we have a chance to kick Sissypants unceremoniously out of office.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 17, 2011 08:55 AM (9hSKh)
Boggles.The.Mind.
Exactly. Besides, look at what's happened all the other times conservatives have stayed home. Pelosi and Reid especially were given the keys for this reason. How well did that work out for us? Look at what it's done to this nation and to us in particular. At this rate, we may not even survive until 2012.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 17, 2011 08:55 AM (CLYmB)
Nope. I don't hate America. I just don't recognize it anymore.
Worse, all suspected and confirmed candidates offer nothing to support the idea that I'll ever see anything resembling the country I once loved again. At best, they offer a slightly slower, more scenic drive off the cliff into fire, brimstone, and socialism.
Give me a candidate who will, come hell or high water, lead us away from socialism and has a verifiable track record of getting it done and I will march through fire and broken glass to support them.
The problem that we have is that are choices are a) run a celebrity against Obama's celebrity and hope that their ineptitude is better than his, or b) run retreads (Gingrich, Romney, etc.) who have a consistent track record of nothing but pissing down our necks and telling us that it's raining... and the rain is good for business.
No thanks.
Posted by: Damiano at May 17, 2011 08:55 AM (3nrx7)
Have you seen that ass? It's like butter. I wish I could disappear up inside that thing.
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at May 17, 2011 08:55 AM (mEyVv)
Posted by: huerfano at May 17, 2011 12:53 PM (IN2A4)
Oh, we'd be talking limited government and politics.
Dirty politics.
Posted by: garrett at May 17, 2011 08:55 AM (eyY0c)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 17, 2011 08:56 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at May 17, 2011 12:55 PM (mEyVv)
Bah - check out the pant "crease" on this one.
Posted by: David Brooks staring at POTUS at May 17, 2011 08:56 AM (7BU4a)
A week ago the bloggers here were pronouncing Mitt dead for the obvious reason that he is the godfather of socialized medicine in this country. This week? Its Morons for Mitt!! We're fucked, and its no wonder.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I will be voting in the primary AND the general for an unapologetic anti-socialist who make REPEAL of Romneycare issue #1. That exludes most Republicans and all Democrats. And Romney.
As I see it, if Romney wins, socialism is cemented as the de facto Party of Power in this country, much as it already is in NYC, Mass, CA, Philly and several other socialist hellholes. If Romney loses (and even if Barry wins), well, at least we still have the pretense of an anti-socialist opposition.
Posted by: Its Morning in the Pension Fund of America at May 17, 2011 08:57 AM (K/USr)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 17, 2011 08:57 AM (TATbF)
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at May 17, 2011 12:51 PM (FnRYN)
uh I voted for Mac/Palin in 08 when most my age were voting for hope and change, I also have stated i'd vote for anyone but Ron Paul against Obama and the Doctor doesn't stand a chance being the nom
Posted by: YRM (Go Bolts!) at May 17, 2011 08:57 AM (UzBwz)
Posted by: brak at May 17, 2011 12:52 PM (S7e2n)
yeah, I chuckled
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 17, 2011 08:57 AM (UOM48)
At this rate, we may not even survive until 2012.
I'm not much for the doom here, BUT...
Remember that when the riots come, they'll come to the blue spots on the map first. Hell hath no fury like a lib who can't get to his fair-trade coffee due to the piles of tires burning in the streets.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 17, 2011 08:58 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at May 17, 2011 08:58 AM (FnRYN)
Vic, you're old, you remember?
Hell I campaigned for Goldwater. Two things beat Goldwater:
Biggest reason JFK assassination and national guilt
Stupid Dem daisy commercial and support by the ultra-liberal press.
But LBJ did one good thing, he turned the South Republican except for his own home State of Texas which was the "most guilt ridden"..
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2011 08:58 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: maddogg at May 17, 2011 08:58 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 17, 2011 08:59 AM (fsGgs)
...they claimed he was crazy and actively working with NeoNazis.
Of course, of course. Though it is a little surprising that even back in '64 the press was completely in the bag for the DNC.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 08:59 AM (gM4zK)
Maybe you are going about this all wrong. Don't complain about it, support what you believe. I don't like either party. I don't complain, I just registered independent and I give to the candidates I like directly, usually on the internet.
Posted by: curious at May 17, 2011 08:59 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Damiano at May 17, 2011 12:55 PM (3nrx7)
then do us a favor and gtfo if you're not going to help stop Obama, after that we can focus on w/e probs we have w/ the new President
Posted by: YRM (Go Bolts!) at May 17, 2011 08:59 AM (UzBwz)
Not only the Democrats will latch on to this. As I noted yesterday:
Now every time the MBM mentions Ryan's plan in any context, they can add the tag line - "a plan labeled as 'right wing social engineering' by none other than Newt Gingrich".
Thanks, Newt.
Posted by: RM at May 17, 2011 09:00 AM (TRsME)
There is a reason Texas is the Number 1 state in new population. His name is Rick Perry.
Posted by: Marcus
Careful. Wasn't he behind mandating HPV shots in Texas after taking campaign money from the company that makes the drug? Are such shots nice? Yes. But to mandate shots for what is essentially an STD?
Posted by: conflicted moron at May 17, 2011 09:00 AM (Gzv/o)
You were looking at her head?
btw, Cindy Crawford played a terrible lawyer character - I think Shannon Tweed did a better job in some of her B-fare.
My favorite - Jabootu's Fair Game review!
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 17, 2011 09:01 AM (9hSKh)
Israel is damn near surrounded by Iran, while Obama does nothing but pressure Israel to give up more land. Iran has missile silos in Venezuela, and not one word from our CIC. The border is like a sieve, and the Mexican cartels are geting bolder.
Any Republican would do something about this situation. Any Republican would sign a pared-down budget. Any Republican would sign health care repeal...even Mitt.
Please, I am begging for the sake of my grandchildren, please support whoever the GOP candidate winds up being. Our nation depends on you doing your duty, unpleasant though it may be.
Posted by: Miss Marple at May 17, 2011 09:01 AM (Fo83G)
Posted by: Bean Blossom at May 17, 2011 09:01 AM (T1d4e)
Posted by: The Romney Campaign Slogan Evaluation Committee at May 17, 2011 09:01 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2011 12:24 PM (M9Ie6)
Um, isn't that what we want to happen?
Posted by: Lurk Ness Monster at May 17, 2011 09:01 AM (orseI)
HA! You probably like the Yankees, don't you, David? Me, I support the Buckeyes!
Coming up next we'll talk about this further with some of the finest minds of conservative thinking, including Fred Barnes, David Dreier and Mike Allen from Politico.
Stay tuned! Morning glory!
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at May 17, 2011 09:01 AM (mEyVv)
Posted by: Sub-tard Goober at May 17, 2011 09:02 AM (Q5+Og)
Later this morning, appearing on The Mario Lopez Variety Hour, Newt described how the pain caused by his pending divorce has been soothed by his new relationship with a former staffer of John Ensign.
Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at May 17, 2011 09:02 AM (+lsX1)
"But Hugh "Radio RNC" Hewitt assures us that the opposition to Mitt and Noot all comes from the Manhattan-Beltway Media Establishment."
I haven't listened to Spew Hewitt since his 2008 3 hour per day fellate fest for Mittens. Any oposition to teh Mitt was met with derision and instant charges of bigotry because he's amoron
Posted by: Government/Union Thug at May 17, 2011 09:02 AM (re6ik)
You guys are forgetting our ace-in-the-hole for 2012.
Joe Biden.
(even though I still believe he'll be dumped off the ticket for somebody else)
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 09:02 AM (gM4zK)
"Newt says would be happy to cut an ad for any Republican who gets attacked using Newt's remarks."
/PhilipKlein
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 17, 2011 09:03 AM (CLYmB)
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 01:00 PM (gM4zK)
Texas last went D in a Prez election in 1976 by a very close margin when Carter swept the south w/ close victories. Texas (thanks to Perot) also almost went D in 92 and 96 but the GOP was able to hold it both times.
Posted by: YRM (Go Bolts!) at May 17, 2011 09:03 AM (UzBwz)
Yeah, I think that is key. After the 2008 debacle, I said no more to the Republican establishment. I gave my support, and dollars, to individual candidates who were conservative and could use the help.
I would strongly suggest every other moron do the same.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 17, 2011 09:03 AM (7BU4a)
Thanks a lot, Newty-Newt. Now go away!
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 17, 2011 09:04 AM (9hSKh)
THAT his how you know Newt is out of touch with reality.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 17, 2011 09:04 AM (sbV1u)
I'm ready to grab a shovel and dig up Reagan's powdered bones at this point. What a lousy, lousy group of establishment GOPers, loons, milquetoasts and any combination thereof. You'd think (ha ha) that the Republican Party would've learned their lesson with McCain, one of the absolute worst candidates we could have had.
I guess bravery, bravado, integrity and love of country is in short supply with those who have the means, drive and intelligence to run. I'll still vote for whatever doorknob is up against Dear Satan, but I won't like it. And I won't expend any energy or money, enthusiasm or patriotism getting them there. I'll just push my button at the polling booth and go home.
Posted by: Lady in Black at May 17, 2011 09:04 AM (XK4nA)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at May 17, 2011 09:04 AM (SB0V2)
The primaries are what matters. Can the new RNC chair change any of the rules? What has to happen, is that the alternative to Mittens is clear - so that the conservative vote isn't fractured. Ignore Mittens for now, lets concentrate on who the other guy is going to be.
Posted by: Jean at May 17, 2011 09:05 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: joey biden at May 17, 2011 09:05 AM (Y1DZt)
Perry has made a couple of mistakes like that. That and the Trans-Texas Corridor are the two I can think of, off-hand. He backed of TTC once he saw that the people hated the idea. I can't remember if he backed off the HPV vaccine, but his reasoning there was at least nominally rational. I still disagreed with it, but it seemed rational.
But, yes, Perry also has baggage as seeming to be a crony-ism type politician. So far it hasn't mattered much in Texas, because he's also the most conservative candidate (who can win) who has been running for Gov. I'm not sure if it would be a major problem nationally, or not. It's certainly a weapon his opponents would use, though, however effective it may or may not be.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 17, 2011 09:06 AM (8y9MW)
Believe it or not they voted for Humphrey over Nixon in 68. Talk about the lesser of the two evils. We went from the most conservative candidate in 64 to the most liberal Republican in a 100 years in 68.
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2011 09:06 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: maddogg at May 17, 2011 09:06 AM (OlN4e)
then do us a favor and gtfo if you're not going to help stop Obama, after that we can focus on w/e probs we have w/ the new President
Posted by: YRM (Go Bolts!) at May 17, 2011 12:59 PM (UzBwz)
Sure. That makes sense. Let's elect somebody who we know we'll have endless problems with. Why look for a person who is qualified to hold the highest office in the land when you can elect some jackass who can get one more vote than Obama?
You'd have a promising career in making bumper stickers if your grammar weren't limited to text message- type nonsense.
Posted by: Damiano at May 17, 2011 09:06 AM (3nrx7)
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2011 12:58 PM
Texas has always been a pretty republican state, for, you know, historic reasons.
Posted by: Barry Obama at May 17, 2011 09:07 AM (IN2A4)
Posted by: Gecko at May 17, 2011 09:08 AM (+dGnF)
Posted by: Berserker at May 17, 2011 09:08 AM (FMbng)
I was in the mall the other day. It was crowded, not with lookers but with buyers, everyone had three or four little bags from the stores. I thought that was a good sign. My wall street friend told me not to get my hopes up. He said you were there in the beginning of the month when people have money. He said "go back at the end of the month, the place will be a ghost town". He also said "the smart ones will save their little bit of money to anticipate the memorial day sales but I don't even think that will be great"...
Now, he also said that "BO has the sales gene" so he thinks that the guy can talk the country into accepting all this bad economic stuff and that the republicans won't understand how it's not going to really make a difference in the election. So I guess it's the republicans job to combat the "sales gene" rhetoric and talking points, so far don't see any one of the men with the stomach to do that, they all want to play nice.
Posted by: curious at May 17, 2011 09:08 AM (k1rwm)
SC Gov. Niki Haley also went after him this morning:
"What he said was absolutely unfortunate," Haley told CNN in a phone interview. "Here you've got Representative Ryan trying to bring common sense to this world of insanity, and Newt absolutely cut him off at the knees."
"When you have a conservative fighting for real change, the last thing we need is a presidential candidate cutting him off at the knees," she added.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 17, 2011 09:09 AM (CLYmB)
Newt says would be happy to cut an ad for any Republican who gets attacked using Newt's remarks."
Gee, thanks Newt, but we're playing politics, not Russian roulette.
Posted by: Republicans who value their chances better than someone marrying Newt at May 17, 2011 09:09 AM (Gzv/o)
I did not know that.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 17, 2011 01:08 PM (gM4zK)
CA was a pretty solid GOP state until the 90s.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 17, 2011 09:12 AM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Kaitian at May 17, 2011 09:12 AM (ZDbHT)
Posted by: The guy who keeps it simple at May 17, 2011 09:13 AM (dKCBV)
"every Democrat will run an ad against his opponent running Gingrich's 'right wing social engineering' and 'radical' quotes"
Gingrich *is* a promiscuous talker, but Democrats (and a lot of moderates) loathe him. You don't want him on your side as a liberal, even if you use it to beat up the GOP.
If Gingrich is saying something, the kind of person who is influenced by a political ad to begin with is probably just going to be against whatever Gingrich is for. He or she will think, "This must be some kind of Gingrich mind trick. Maybe we do want right-wing social engineering."
Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at May 17, 2011 09:14 AM (wp/lB)
Posted by: john voigt at May 17, 2011 09:14 AM (Y1DZt)
Posted by: Miss Marple at May 17, 2011 01:01 PM (Fo83G)
Oh, how I wish that you were right. Certainly the current rhetoric supports your view, but unfortunately, history does not.
- Mitt signed RomneyCare into law- the template for Obamacare. The best excuse he can come up with is essentially "It was a good idea at the time" and "Democrats would have won anyway". Both bullshit.
- John "STFU and praise me for increasing spending and sucking Obama's balls"? Boehner
- Juan "I support amnesty and think that there is nothing to fear from an Obama presidency" McCain
- Newt "F**K the Ryan Plan, Gimme 'modified' mandates and a seat on the couch with Pelosi" Gingrich
...
the list goes on and on.
Posted by: Damiano at May 17, 2011 09:14 AM (3nrx7)
I can see a path for Romney winning, and that the problem. We get someone who is an effective manager - who makes poor decisions on the ethos and role of Government. He could be worse then Obama: he won't screwup as much, he will have no effective political opposition, his appointees will be competent, the damn trains will run on time -- but I don't like where they are going.
Could we have him as Palin's or West's Chief of Staff?
Posted by: Jean at May 17, 2011 09:16 AM (WkuV6)
the list goes on and on.
Posted by: Damiano at May 17, 2011 01:14 PM (3nrx7)
History also supports that if you don't vote for a major party, you are wasting your vote.
Reagan turned the party of Rockefeller and Nixon into his own, for 20 years and more. We just need to take it back again from the same kind of timeservers.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 17, 2011 09:17 AM (z1N6a)
This. Obama needs to be defeated for the sake of the country ASAP.
Posted by: Berserker at May 17, 2011 09:17 AM (FMbng)
It's so bad for me that Romney's actually making me take another look at Pawlenty, and I have no love for Pawlenty. At least he had the sense to repudiate his previous position on man-made global warming, which is more than I can say for Romney and Romneycare.
Which brings me to another point. The main reason that I can't bring myself to supporting guys like Romney, Gingrich, or Pawlenty is that they so often accept the left's premises. Global warming is a prime example; instead of refuting the claim that man is changing the global climate, instead of refuting the claim that climate change would be catastrophic, they accept the claims and look for turn it to their advantage. Guess what guys, when you accept the left's premise you've already lost half the battle.
What these guys should be doing is offering the Vincent Gambini, Esq. rebuttal.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at May 17, 2011 09:20 AM (JxMoP)
People have been predicting Mitt Romney's demise since the summer of 2007.
Tougher guy and candidate than people want to give him credit for.
He aint going away easily, especially when the others dawdle.
Posted by: swamp_yankee at May 17, 2011 09:21 AM (jOQSe)
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 17, 2011 09:27 AM (fsGgs)
People have been predicting Mitt Romney's demise since the summer of 2007.
Tougher guy and candidate than people want to give him credit for.
He aint going away easily, especially when the others dawdle.
Posted by: swamp_yankee at May 17, 2011 01:21 PM (jOQSe)
He went away pretty damn quick in 2008. Only the Rudi fiasco kept him out of the basement as the biggest bust of the campaign.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 17, 2011 09:27 AM (z1N6a)
He went away pretty damn quick in 2008. Only the Rudi fiasco kept him out of the basement as the biggest bust of the campaign.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 17, 2011 01:27 PM (z1N6a)
Simply not true. I get people havingqualms with Romney, but I hate the lies. Romney started the campaign an unknown one term Mass governor. When he quit at CPAC, he had beat Fred, Rudy, Huck and all the others. Only Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain saved McCaine, even though he had been running since 2000 and was a national war hero.
Posted by: swamp_yankee at May 17, 2011 09:31 AM (jOQSe)
Mitt's own people were declaring him the front runner in the summer of 2007, and he spent by far the most money of anybody on the GOP side. Huckabee spent nowhere near that and came out with just as much name recognition.
Only Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain saved McCaine, even though he had been running since 2000 and was a national war hero.
Wait...what?
McCain won because he was the strongest on the Iraq war, the main issue of the primaries. He'd already beat Romney in NH and had won SC (Romney had come in third). He was the man to beat at that point, long before Florida.
Romney bought himself a second place finish in a weak field.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 17, 2011 09:42 AM (FkKjr)
McCain won because he ran in 2000, and had never stopped running for 8 years and was a household name and war hero.
Romney was pulling ahead in the polls in Florida then Mel Martinez and Crist endorsed Romney. Romney also had a shot after that Huck and McCain cut a deal for Huck to send delegates to McCain.
Romney quit a month before Huckabee. Even though Huckabee campaigned in dozens of states after Romney stopped his campaign, Romney still won more states and popular votes.
Posted by: swamp_yankee at May 17, 2011 09:51 AM (jOQSe)
Amen, swamp_yankee. I hold Crist responsible for McCain. Crist is the same color as the belly of a cockroach and is now working for ambulance chasers in Florida (Morgan and Morgan).
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at May 17, 2011 09:53 AM (FnRYN)
Fox Feb. 10 polled all adults giving Mittens 87% name recognition. Trump and Palin had 99%.
Mitty's problem is he's a shape-shifter. No sale. Ever.
Posted by: gary gulrud at May 17, 2011 09:54 AM (/g2vP)
Posted by: Geronimo at May 17, 2011 09:57 AM (tvOF2)
Posted by: swamp_yankee at May 17, 2011 09:58 AM (jOQSe)
McCain won because he ran in 2000, and had never stopped running for 8 years and was a household name and war hero.
No, McCain was a dead man walking in the summer of 2007 after the Amnesty debacle. It was when the surge took off (and people turned off Huck and Mitt) that his rise in the polls began.
And spent astronomically more than Huckabee did. The final delegate counts for the amount of money Romney spent are embarrassing.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 17, 2011 10:01 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Vic at May 17, 2011 10:06 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: polynikes at May 17, 2011 10:20 AM (3hdsA)
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at May 17, 2011 11:07 AM (9eDbm)
Posted by: Blake at May 17, 2011 11:14 AM (8wyay)
I'm hoping to work for Romney in NYC. This is going to be exciting. Repeal Obamacare. Waivers for All. A big scale-back of the DC monster. I'm all in for Romney.
Posted by: ParisParamus at May 17, 2011 11:56 AM (Z1dHn)
Posted by: ParisParamus at May 17, 2011 12:03 PM (Z1dHn)
234. Oh, like Rove calling the DE Primary result indefensible?
40% of the Right may well nominate but the loss is on them as well.
Wacko, inbred TEAs will run a conservative if the GOP does the skank strut.
Gallup has 52% of Republicans and 68% of Indies wanting another option.
Posted by: gary gulrud at May 17, 2011 12:08 PM (/g2vP)
Posted by: Blake at May 17, 2011 01:49 PM (8wyay)
Posted by: Kaitian at May 17, 2011 01:54 PM (HQTFb)
Electorally, Romney's looking like the best we've got.
Demographically, he hits the economic recovery variable strongly and is also non-threatening enough on social issues to bring over the large swath of moderate/independent suburban white voters who went to Obama in '08 and have turned disillusioned. That 4-5% swing in the largest demographics means a huge deal in the electoral college when the swing states are within a few percentage of flipping.
Romney will not lose the south as one moron stated. The pattern we're looking for is a modified W in 2000-template, where Obama and his minority voting blocs might carry NV and CO.
Due to favorable EV shifts, Romney can win with the loss of NV and CO (270/26
The downside for Romney is going to be found -- in order of likelihood -- in losing NH, VA, the Carolinas'. VA could be blunted by the Senate election that will hopefully keep it red. NH and NC is anybodies guess, for different reasons. OH, MO and FL seem to be secure this time around for economic reasons.
There are numerous, realistic pathways for Romney to win. Hell, some are slightly favorable given the economic climate and a more moderate candidate like him.
The again, this all means nothing for some ideologues who would rather see a token conservative candidate nominated so they can beat their dick off like they owe it money. Because, lets face it, it worked out so well in the case of Senator Christine O'Donnell.
The sooner many of these social ideologues realize that the path to social change in today's US is via the Supreme Court and not via presidential fiat, the sooner they realize that a President Romney would be in their best interests; especially vis-a-vis another 4 years of Obama.
Posted by: Vince at May 17, 2011 02:50 PM (Fe9fp)
Posted by: Kaitian at May 17, 2011 03:01 PM (IEis2)
Posted by: Blake at May 17, 2011 04:29 PM (kwdpd)
Posted by: Kaitian at May 17, 2011 06:13 PM (sS7ou)
What are you talking about: it's nothing but dissenters. Dissent is actually being kind to the level of fratricide being waged against Romney and in general by the conservatives in the Republican party over potential nominees with differing views.
Your whole post is a straw-man, btw.
Mitt's resume this side of 1970 is reason enough to vote for the man: intellectually curious, yet practical; holds a joint MBA|JD from Harvard; a successful venture capitalist, successful entrepreneur, wildly successful corporate and governmental turn around specialist -- as if there was ever a time and a need for such a skill, or reason, as today where we sit $14 trillion in debt with another $2T clicking off every year or so as over 17% of Americans are unemployed.
While you may disagree with his social positions, to deny the above as you do is to put ones blind faith in a political ideology over objective reality. Say hello to the radical left for me.
Posted by: Vince at May 17, 2011 06:24 PM (Fe9fp)
Posted by: Ago Solvo at May 18, 2011 03:27 AM (k8JkR)
Posted by: Blake at May 18, 2011 10:08 AM (8wyay)
Ogabe's highwater mark for the popular vote is his floor in approval, e.g., 61% approved but 52% voted in 2008. So you've an incumbent who really can't muster more than 42%, most of it wasted on Blue boreholes.
Generally the same boreholes Romney is claiming as his turf in the march to nomination.
Romney is the Manchurian's ticket to another four years puttering around.
Posted by: gary gulrud at May 18, 2011 07:38 PM (/g2vP)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.1965 seconds, 368 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Good hair.
Posted by: momma at May 17, 2011 08:22 AM (penCf)