September 22, 2011
— Ace Not if it took political capital to do so, says Philip Klein, which it would.
Some of Romney's many policy reversals have been overlooked in this campaign as old news, so I'll just provide a brief refresher. Romney ran for statewide office in the Massachusetts twice, in 1994 and 2002, as a pro-choice candidate, only to become publicly pro-life in 2005, just as he was gearing up to seek the GOP presidential nomination instead of seeking a second term as governor of the liberal state. During the 2008 campaign he attacked various opponents for being for gun control, amnesty and campaign finance reform. Yet at earlier points in his career, Romney supported the federal "assault weapons" ban (and signed a state ban as governor in 2004), called the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform "reasonable" and "quite different from amnesty" and supported campaign finance reform measures far more draconian than anything in McCain-Feingold. During this campaign, he's spent the last few weeks attacking his opponent Texas Gov. Rick Perry for criticizing Social Security too harshly, because he says it's politically damaging to do so.Romney, in short, has displayed zero political courage during his career. He has held opposite positions on nearly every issue, with one obvious exception. He still hasn't disavowed the health care law he designed, campaigned for, and signed with a smiling Ted Kennedy at his side. And it happens to be the forerunner to Obamacare. There's no reason to believe as cautious and calculating of a figure as Mitt Romney would stake the crucial first months of his presidency getting into a bruising political battle to repeal a law, when he still clings to its underlying policy ideas.
Klein forgets that Romney also refused to either support, or clearly oppose, the Surge in Iraq. A dicey, dangerous proposition at the time... so Romney punted, again.
There's a cleverness to that. It's good positioning. It's crafty. But Obama was good at political positioning too; positioning is not policy.
I'd sure like to see some more definite stands, rather than a vague pitch about simply bringing better management skills to the table.
Because Perry had not rocketed to instant acceptance as I thought he would, I began considering Romney as an adequate Plan B.
First I considered: Honestly, I don't know what he actually stands for, which is, oddly enough, a good thing, since it at least holds out the hope he'd be more conservative than we might expect him to be.
But then I considered: No, I doubt that.
Personnel is policy, the saying goes. I think it is even more true that political constituency is policy. That is, your base of voters determines your policy, because no politician, save the most courageous or most suicidal, ever thwarts his base.
Obama sure isn't thwarting his base. The Democrats didn't thwart their base when it was clear ObamaCare was very unpopular -- they had a choice between disappointing independents/moderates and disappointing liberal Democrats; we know who they stuck with.
For some time I thought that Romney's General Election Campaign During The Primaries was a crafty one. By already running to the center immediately, in the primaries, rather than waiting to do so until the general, at least there would be no run to the center later, no awkward lurch and flip-flop.
However, it does occur to me that Romney is expressly building a constituency among the most moderate Republicans (including on fiscal issues), with an eye to grabbing up the independent/moderate vote in the general election.
That's a decent enough plan to get elected.
But what happens then, if he should be elected?
In that case is constituency -- his base -- is precisely the don't-rock-the-boat, more-spending-and-less-taxes-too, let's-punt-off-all-these-long-delayed-decisions-to-our-grandchildren-along-with-a-huge-pile-of debt independent/moderate segment that, through its apparent refusal to make anything resembling a clear choice, substantially gotten us into this mess.
What are Romney's actual politics? Down in his heart?
I'm really not sure.
But I do know that a President's politics tend to mirror that of his base constituency. Simply due to the need to have a base.
And while Romney talks up how dreadfully "extreme" Perry's "Ponzi" talk is, he is making implicit promises to his would-be governing coalition: That he will not be "extreme." That he will be... middle of the road.
That he'll do more of the same, but maybe just a little bit better, and will not seek drastic, controversial (!!!) reforms, but rather tinker a bit to get us through the next four years or so.
Posted by: Ace at
02:25 PM
| Comments (653)
Post contains 757 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 22, 2011 02:27 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 02:27 PM (rJVPU)
I had a knee-jerk purity quip to make, but I thought, just this once, I'd read the rest of the post before entering internet tough guy mode.
Thanks for the rest, btw.
Posted by: Methos at September 22, 2011 02:28 PM (sOXQX)
Fuck you, mittens.
Posted by: tangonine at September 22, 2011 02:28 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Suffolk University NH Poll at September 22, 2011 02:29 PM (rJVPU)
Dude. Given the SCOAMF, I vote for freakin' Ron Paul if he were the nominee.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 22, 2011 02:29 PM (bjRNS)
...
By way of contrast, Romney said, during his early years as governor he held weekly meetings with Democratic legislators after realizing that to get something done he "had to be friendly."
Posted by: Vic at September 22, 2011 02:29 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Suffolk University NH Poll at September 22, 2011 02:30 PM (rJVPU)
I don't read your posts when you do that.
It's more refined than ALL CAPS, but it's still shouting.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 22, 2011 02:31 PM (bjRNS)
Nope, don't like it.
Well, it's not that bad.
Nope, definitely don't like it.
Posted by: Mitt Romney at September 22, 2011 02:31 PM (263hv)
Dude. Given the SCOAMF, I vote for freakin' Ron Paul if he were the nominee.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 22, 2011 06:29 PM (bjRNS)
Willow understand supply and demand. she can speak english without a teleprompter (she loves the sprout channel) and she wouldn't be golfing for half her term.
Posted by: tangonine at September 22, 2011 02:31 PM (x3YFz)
lower case 'willow'. We might as well write in one of our own.
Posted by: Methos at September 22, 2011 02:31 PM (sOXQX)
Posted by: Hotair Commenter at September 22, 2011 02:31 PM (82bKx)
The Deciders People You Pissed Off That You Really Shouldn't Have Pissed Off.
Posted by: New Hampshire at September 22, 2011 06:31 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: tangonine at September 22, 2011 02:32 PM (x3YFz)
She's got eight days to register for the primary, like everyone else.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 22, 2011 02:32 PM (bjRNS)
I always found his "I will issue a waiver to everyone" claim to be just step-one in him going "Now that we have time we can modify Obamacare to actually work."
He strikes me as a "what can government do?" type. And that would be his dafault action, making the government do something vs getting government out of the way.
Posted by: buzzion at September 22, 2011 02:32 PM (GULKT)
Listening to Romney waffle on social security, he ain't it..
Posted by: Willy at September 22, 2011 02:33 PM (Ja9VH)
She's got eight days to register for the primary, like everyone else.
If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 22, 2011 02:33 PM (bjRNS)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 02:33 PM (nRTou)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 02:33 PM (QxSug)
lower case 'willow'. We might as well write in one of our own.
Posted by: Methos at September 22, 2011 06:31 PM (sOXQX)
No, her name is Willow, not willow.
Want to challenge her on that? Ever seen an African Grey go apeshit on your earlobe? I think you don't.
Posted by: tangonine at September 22, 2011 02:33 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 02:34 PM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: sven10077 at September 22, 2011 02:34 PM (AEIYh)
Fuck Mittens. You should get at him more ace. Why Bachmann? That horse is dead.
He really needs to get taken out and Perry does not seem the one to do it.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 02:34 PM (TBjNw)
OT: Jane D'oh, i have had exceptionally good luck shipping those plastic chocolate pudding cups to the Rockpile for Grim. also been shipping him Chef Boyardee ravioli. they make nice treats/ desperation meals. for some reason hes been craving chocolate and the pudding ships well, and was something he liked getting in his lunchbox as a kid.
might want to bag it in a ziplock vaccuum seal bag like i do in case of puncture. But its a super way to get around the care package guidance of NO CHOCOLATE. worked great and he saved them for his days off to enjoy or after big missions when he wants to reward himself.
Posted by: Gushka is full of meds and pissed at September 22, 2011 02:34 PM (QNeKQ)
Posted by: ace at September 22, 2011 06:32 PM (nj1bB)
Thanks, Ace.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 22, 2011 02:34 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 02:35 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: ace at September 22, 2011 06:34 PM (nj1bB)
FTFY
Posted by: tangonine at September 22, 2011 02:35 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 02:35 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Kim Priestap at September 22, 2011 02:35 PM (jM8GR)
Posted by: Johnny Cold Cuts at September 22, 2011 02:36 PM (I/MzF)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 02:36 PM (rJVPU)
I've been trying to remember what it was I disliked about Gingrich. All I can come up with is "with Nancy on a couch," and that doesn't seem that big a deal.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 22, 2011 02:37 PM (bjRNS)
lower case 'willow'. We might as well write in one of our own.
Hell, I wrote my own name in for '08. (In my defense, it's not like Alabama was a swing state then. Call it the luxury of knowing it doesn't matter anyway.)
Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© sez F--- Nevada! at September 22, 2011 02:37 PM (Fs7RJ)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 02:37 PM (rJVPU)
We're so fucked.
Posted by: tangonine at September 22, 2011 02:38 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 02:38 PM (QxSug)
He's said Repeal and Replace, but he has not detailed what the "replace" would entail. Last I checked (a couple of days ago) his campaign website on health care was still just a few paragraphs with no detail plan.
And he's supposed to be an expert on this.
And he's been running for three plus years now.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 02:38 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 02:38 PM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: sven10077 at September 22, 2011 02:39 PM (AEIYh)
Hell, I wrote my own name in for '08. (In my defense, it's not like Alabama was a swing state then. Call it the luxury of knowing it doesn't matter anyway.)
Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© sez F--- Nevada! at September 22, 2011 06:37 PM (Fs7RJ)
My state, PA, is a swing and I aint voting for romney. I'd rather have the republican congrress do nothing then let another douche in the WH
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 02:39 PM (TBjNw)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 02:39 PM (QxSug)
I've been trying to remember what it was I disliked about Gingrich. All I can come up with is "with Nancy on a couch," and that doesn't seem that big a deal.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 22, 2011 06:37 PM (bjRNS)
Zactly second look a the Newtman!
Posted by: Roomba at September 22, 2011 02:39 PM (I/MzF)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 22, 2011 02:39 PM (BcpOa)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 02:39 PM (rJVPU)
Do I keep having to go over degrees?
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 22, 2011 02:40 PM (bjRNS)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 02:40 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 02:40 PM (HmTkU)
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 02:40 PM (RFHC3)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 02:40 PM (QxSug)
I have concerns about his character, although not as severe was my concerns about Huntsman whom I have concluded is a nasty piece of work. (Obama-level nasty.)
Perry is still way ahead of the others on my list, but I am furious about Romney lying about Perry and in the process knee-capping the GOP on Social Security reform. I've defended the dude for a long time, but I'm fed up with him.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 02:41 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 22, 2011 06:39 PM (BcpOa)
There ya go!
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 02:41 PM (I/MzF)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 02:41 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at September 22, 2011 02:41 PM (azHfB)
Want to get elected? Your nickname needs to be "The Hammer."
Don't cut through red tape, hit it with a flamethrower. Stand on principles, swat away the lawyers and nay-sayers and steamroll this country back to success.
Period.
Fuck it. I should run.
Who's with me!?
...
I said who's with me?
...
Is anyone there?
Posted by: tangonine at September 22, 2011 02:42 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 02:42 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 02:42 PM (QxSug)
That appears to be the only way I can get pixy to go italics. Italics indicates it is a quote.
Posted by: Vic at September 22, 2011 02:42 PM (M9Ie6)
If Romney was running for Captain of the RMS Titanic, his theme would be that he'd work smarter, so the ship would sink at 4:40 am instead of 2:40 am. He'd just forget to mention that the same passengers would perish.
Posted by: John P. Squibob at September 22, 2011 02:42 PM (lqAhy)
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 22, 2011 02:42 PM (bjRNS)
I agree with most of this. I've been trying to talk myself into not disliking romney. After the SS scaremongering he lost me. I've accepted that there is a 50/50 chance that he wins the primaries and I'm trying to prepare myself for a possible win.
However, I simply can't do it. I will be disappointed if he wins. I will not offer him any support other than my vote in the general if he wins.
To me, he's another four years of no accomplishments. Does anyone thing he'll reform Social Security, Medicare or repeal Obamacare? Does anyone thing he'll reign in the EPA or OSHA? Does anyone honestly believe he will cut spending?
I simply don't. To me, he'll simply suck less than Obama and I can't get excited about that and I won't donate time or money to that.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 02:42 PM (tEGzl)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 22, 2011 02:43 PM (BcpOa)
No hurry to choose a RINO.
Posted by: Willy at September 22, 2011 02:43 PM (Ja9VH)
Perry's not perfect. The Gardasil debacle and the 'last name' bullshit are marks against him. He is still far and away superior to the rest of the field on record. And his basic position, that government needs to become irrelevant to as many of us as possible, is the closest thing to a solution available to us. Which is not a guarantee, it's just the most likely route to a successful rebuilding effort after the credit collapse runs its course, if he sticks with it.
I don't see any glimmer of hope with Romney.
No, her name is Willow, not willow.
I was suggesting the commenter. Meant to be funny.
Posted by: Methos at September 22, 2011 02:43 PM (sOXQX)
Actually, I know personally that Rove can not stand Mitt.
Mormonism is a cult, I think that was his quote.
Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at September 22, 2011 06:42 PM (hXJOG)
Rove is an idiot. Nearly lost 2 elections he should have won handily. Architect my ass.
Posted by: tangonine at September 22, 2011 02:43 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 02:43 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at September 22, 2011 02:43 PM (5Z/+/)
Posted by: mpfs, TPT at September 22, 2011 02:43 PM (iYbLN)
Ah, OK. I've had days where the comment tool doesn't work right, and then (all of a sudden) it works fine again.
I'll blame Firefox.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at September 22, 2011 02:43 PM (bjRNS)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 02:44 PM (QxSug)
I don't see any glimmer of hope with Romney.
No, her name is Willow, not willow.
I was suggesting the commenter. Meant to be funny.
Posted by: Methos at September 22, 2011 06:43 PM (sOXQX)
Hokay, mister funny... I'd be looking up if I were you.
Posted by: Willow at September 22, 2011 02:44 PM (x3YFz)
That appears to be the only way I can get pixy to go italics. Italics indicates it is a quote.
I feel for you. Pixy is a finnicky bitch
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 02:44 PM (tEGzl)
Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at September 22, 2011 06:37 PM (hXJOG)
Yeah, and it didn't help that one of the f*cking attorneys called the execution a "legal lynching." They ate that crap up.
The MacPhail family are good people. They deserve some peace now.
Oh, and Davis' name on the street here in Savannah was "ROH" --"Rough as Hell." A real sweetheart. And he shot someone earlier before he killed poor young Officer MacPhail.
*down, blood pressure, down*
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 22, 2011 02:45 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: ace at September 22, 2011 02:46 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 02:46 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: mpfs, TPT at September 22, 2011 02:46 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 02:46 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: mugiwara at September 22, 2011 02:46 PM (KI/Ch)
Posted by: drscott at September 22, 2011 02:46 PM (7Mkm/)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 02:46 PM (HmTkU)
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 02:47 PM (I/MzF)
Isn't that how they did it on "The Island"?
Posted by: Dr. Varno at September 22, 2011 02:47 PM (QMtmy)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 02:47 PM (nRTou)
Posted by: sven10077 at September 22, 2011 02:47 PM (AEIYh)
I don't see Romney as a conservative, I see him as a romneybot. He's a corporate republican, not a small business republican. Will he repeal ObamaCare? I doubt it. I credit Perry of admitting a mistake with the vaccine thing. Will Romney ever say RomenyCare was a bad thing? Nope. And that tells me everything about the spineless man.
If he ends up the repub nominee, I still plan to vote against Barry, but I doubt Romney will shrink the fed govt much and all the work the Tea Party, all those inroads the Tea Party made will be pretty much for naught. And within 10 years this country's debt will be 20+ trillion, the CBO has said this, the IMF has projected this, the Chinease know this, the world knows this. If this is not turned around via real growth by the middle of the decade, we are pretty much lost as a country. Does Romney recognize much of this, well more than Barry Soetero of course, but not at a visceral level that Perry does. Romney is not Obama-lite as much as scott brown-lite.
Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at September 22, 2011 02:47 PM (ACkhT)
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 02:47 PM (RFHC3)
Maybe there are no true conservatives in the GOP.
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 06:39 PM (QxSug)
Hah!Somebody has actually figured it out.
Posted by: Ed Anger at September 22, 2011 02:48 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at September 22, 2011 02:48 PM (nF6Yj)
Sigh.
All those INNOCENT. LITTLE. GIRLS.
Who wouldn't have had cervical cancer.
Freedom to have cancer-- now THAT'S What America's all about!!!
Posted by: ace at September 22, 2011 06:46 PM (nj1bB)
Well, Ace, years from now, all the women whose moms chose not to give them tardisil because of Bachmann and developed cervical cancer can blame her. And their ignorant moms.
Way to go, Michelle.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 22, 2011 02:48 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 06:46 PM (HmTkU
Wow thats the stupidest thing I ever read, anywhere, ever!
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 02:48 PM (I/MzF)
Sigh.
All those INNOCENT. LITTLE. GIRLS.
Who wouldn't have had cervical cancer.
Freedom to have cancer-- now THAT'S What America's all about!!!
Posted by: ace at September 22, 2011 06:46 PM (nj1bB)
Clearly they should take the vaccine sold by a Merk's competitor that is a Bachman supporter. I'd love to see her get asked about that.
Posted by: buzzion at September 22, 2011 02:49 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Bosk at September 22, 2011 02:49 PM (n2K+4)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 02:49 PM (nRTou)
Herman Cain, maybe.
Ron Paul would be good domestically but his foreign policy is ass.
Outside of that, we're fucked.
Posted by: tangonine at September 22, 2011 02:49 PM (x3YFz)
We don't need a slightly larger empty suit.
Nothing Romney can say can hide his record on the issues. It is just not what we need.
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 02:49 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at September 22, 2011 02:49 PM (W8W07)
Cain just isn't getting traction. Gingrich is bi-polar. One day, he's proposing brilliant and innovative solutions, the next he's sitting on the couch next to Nancy Pelosi calling Paul Ryan a nut. Ron Paul... well, we already elected one fringe cult leader president, how did that work out? Santorum has a better change of being elected Marshall of the West Hollywood Gay Pride Parade than president.
So, we're left with Perry and Romney. Both deeply flawed, but probably better than the SCOTUS. They're B-minus candidates, to be sure. But there's not an A-grade candidate on this team.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at September 22, 2011 02:49 PM (azHfB)
Posted by: USS Diversity at September 22, 2011 02:49 PM (aD5Kx)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 02:49 PM (fyOgS)
I gave Huntsman a serious look when his name was first floated, but have discounted him. He left a lot of Utahns feeling betrayed by his actions when he was governor here, particularly on school choice and carbon trade. If Mitt has a rep as a flip-flopper, my impression is that Huntsman is even worse in terms of being crassly political.
He has, in theory (on paper), a great resume from having several international appointments in GOP administrations, but he has yet to show me how he'd be better at foreign policy than any solid conservative. And, frankly, when he got the China ambassadorship I thought it looked pretty bad because of the dealings his dad's company has over there.
I also don't like a guy whose main public service is through political appointments rather than elections.
Then when he announced it was clear he was not going to run as someoen with insider information on Obama's failings, but instead run a McCain 2.0 campaign against his old boss.
And teh story (in Vanity Fair I think) about why Huntsman hates Romney (over the Olympics gig) is true from what I have heard from basically everyone here, including well-connected Utahns.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 02:50 PM (5H6zj)
We see this time and again- waiting, poll testing, and focus grouping before making a decision that's sufficiently "safe". Not of great consequence, but the Rubio endorsement was another example- he waffled till it looked like Rubio would win, then and only then would he endorse.
Every pol tailors his message according to the audience and electorate to some degree, but Mitt takes it to an entirely higher and disturbing level.
In 2008 when he campaigned in MI, he favored "investments" in the auto industry. In IA, he was all-in for ag / ethanol subsidies. In FL he proposed increasing SS benefits without really saying how he'd pay for higher benefit payments. All while maintaining that he was a hardcore fiscal conservative.
We (or at least I) have no idea whatsoever how he'd actually govern, and his record in MA doesn't help in the slightest. I'm sure he'd appoint competent people, but otherwise would he be a conservative? A moderate? A fighter? A wimp? A technocrat? It's impossible to even guess.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 22, 2011 02:50 PM (SY2Kh)
well anyone to go through such an ordeal.
you know..
Posted by: willow at September 22, 2011 02:50 PM (h+qn8)
Ace, I love ya, but that's the world's stupidest strawman. The problem with Perry on this is that he used an EO to subvert the legislature, and that's exactly what the SCOAMF does all the time. Now, he's admitted in public that it was a stupid mistake, and I believe him when he says that, but it *was* a stupid mistake, regardless of what the actual policy was about.
Posted by: Ian S. at September 22, 2011 02:50 PM (WXhxA)
WTF is this supposed to mean?
>>>Bachmann is not an idiot nor a lunatic, she's a complicated woman with hopes and dreams and that scare weak minded men and inspires the best in Americans of every stripe.
Ah, I get it now.
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 22, 2011 02:50 PM (kRtDX)
Posted by: drscott at September 22, 2011 02:50 PM (7Mkm/)
Posted by: fish out of water at September 22, 2011 02:51 PM (gkxl1)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 02:51 PM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: LizLem at September 22, 2011 02:51 PM (lSuMX)
If gardisil comes up tonight I'm going to pee on the tv.
I'm so fucking sick of this stupid side show.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 02:51 PM (tEGzl)
I was going to comment, but you covered my take pretty well. Instead of heading towards the precipice of economic collapse screaming with our hair on fire, it will be a more leisurely stroll.
Posted by: Alamo at September 22, 2011 02:51 PM (Cv3GE)
That he'll do more of the same, but maybe just a little bit better, and will not seek drastic, controversial (!!!) reforms, but rather tinker a bit to get us through the next four years or so.
Posted by: Ace at 06:25 PM Key question then becomes... do we have 4 more years when we can just tinker around the edges? Europe is about to implode, with the Middle East to follow (once the Economy is bad enough so they don't have enough Petro bucks to support their Welfare states). Eastern Europe remains OK... but Russia has the ability to cut off their energy supplies... Meanwhile, America goes under trying to keep Europe and the World economy afloat, while NOT investing in our own resources and homeland. When the US economy goes... China goes with it (loss of too large of a market), as they are supporting a boom using American Coal and Dollars.... Whole world is teetering on an economic / political precipice.... and the Status Quo is what got us here.... Thus, someone who is a status quo candidate, is out of the running for my vote. Romney is the epitome of Washington Insider Status Quo.Posted by: Romeo13 at September 22, 2011 02:51 PM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 22, 2011 02:51 PM (UOM48)
People who depended on the MFM for their news could have said some very similar things about Obama in the 2008 election. That didn't turn out well.
Romney in the White House would be just slightly better than Obama.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at September 22, 2011 02:52 PM (i0App)
So I'll put my flip-flops on the Resolute Desk. Big deal. At least the scuff marks will be minimal.
Posted by: Mitt Romney at September 22, 2011 02:52 PM (r4t7/)
He really does fight back well.
i wouldn't hate it. but i do hope Perry has been boning up on smacking down the attacks.
Posted by: willow at September 22, 2011 02:52 PM (h+qn8)
If gardisil comes up tonight I'm going to pee on the tv.
I'm so fucking sick of this stupid side show.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 06:51 PM (tEGzl)
Please post the vid to YouTube. Or it didn't happen.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 22, 2011 02:52 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 06:39 PM (QxSug)
Hah!Somebody has actually figured it out.
Posted by: Ed Anger at September 22, 2011 06:48 PM (7+pP9)
That's because true conservatives have a reasonable amount of common sense and common sense tells us that we want nothing to do with the microscope-up-the-ass election process.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 02:53 PM (KinxY)
So the guy who spent the vast bulk of his career in the private sector before being shanghaied by Huckabee and Mccain (political lifers) in 2008 is now the "Establishment" guy? Amusing how readily people mold history to fit their current mood.
Hey, given the options, I wanted Romney in 2008. I thought his concession speech at CPAC was the best speech he ever gave.
But a lot of shit has happened between the 2007 primaries and 2011 primaries.
Wouldn't you agree. It's not so much that we changed our minds on a whim, is it?
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 02:53 PM (tEGzl)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 02:53 PM (HmTkU)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 06:44 PM (QxSug)
Hey just maybe Newt believed the hype back then. Lets hope the subject comes up tonight.
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 02:53 PM (I/MzF)
Or just bitch slap anyone who brings it up.
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 02:54 PM (4CSeG)
If gardisil comes up tonight I'm going to pee on the tv.
I'm so fucking sick of this stupid side show.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 06:51 PM (tEGzl)
Hmm...just don't ground yourself out.
Posted by: Red Shirt at September 22, 2011 02:54 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 02:54 PM (QxSug)
REMEMBER: WHOEVER WINS THE NEXT TERM GETS TO NOMINATE UPWARDS OF THREE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, INCLUDING THE REPLACEMENT FOR RUTH BADER GINSBURG AND PERHAPS ANTHONY KENNEDY.
You want Barack Obama doing that? Even if you think Mitt Romney would fuck it up and pick some squish, that would STILL be 1000% better than two screaming liberals with life-tenure.
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 22, 2011 02:54 PM (kRtDX)
You know, Romney's Winter Olympics thing really was an amazing management job. But it didn't involve opposition or real controversy.
Mitt really is that good, but in a way that doesn't translate to the political world. What are his Mass. success stories? Anyone? Anyone?
Ugh. Mitt the Milquetoast RINO or Open-Borders Perry, the Crony Capitalist. At least I can still vote against Obama.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 22, 2011 02:54 PM (epBek)
ace, I mean the political debacle. He's admitted that he went about it in the wrong way. That's all I'm saying. And that it's less of a concern than the baggage any other candidate is lugging around.
Posted by: Lawrence Brewer at September 22, 2011 02:55 PM (sOXQX)
The stache for the win.
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 06:54 PM (QxSug)
That is the stache of PWN
Posted by: tangonine at September 22, 2011 02:55 PM (x3YFz)
Governor of Nevada endorsed Perry.
There are a lot of Mormons in NV, but I don't know that it's a lock for Mitt.
Michigan... well, I think the jury is out on that. In the general Perry should seriously consider a Mitch Daniels type (if he's interested in running as VP).
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 02:55 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 02:55 PM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 02:56 PM (fyOgS)
Romney called himself "middle class" yesterday, didn't he grow up in a rich family? Perry grew up poor, didn't he, a farmer's son.
I don't care, but I don't trust Romney that much, 2013 will be devastating for the economy, and someone who knows what they stand for, what direction the country should go, etc that is someone who needs to be charge. This country will never see unemployment below 8%, especially when ObamaCare is fully implemented, there's a reason why Europe has high unemployment constantly, all that redistrubution and all those safety nets costs money, money that will not be used to expand an ecnomy.
Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at September 22, 2011 02:56 PM (ACkhT)
Hmm...just don't ground yourself out.
Posted by: Red Shirt at September 22, 2011 06:54 PM (FIDMq)
Ouch.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 02:56 PM (KinxY)
So which side of the bed did you get on today? Aha. The Right one. Would you care for some mild TEA?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at September 22, 2011 02:56 PM (r4t7/)
Posted by: drscott at September 22, 2011 02:56 PM (7Mkm/)
Posted by: Joffen at September 22, 2011 02:56 PM (EPcuy)
What are Romney's actual politics? Down in his heart?
Romney stands for Romney.
He'll look you in the eye, shake your hand, and ask for your vote ...
... then do what he needs to do to retain power.
Posted by: Arbalest at September 22, 2011 02:57 PM (2TaiW)
Posted by: Dr. Herbert West at September 22, 2011 02:57 PM (//Trk)
Posted by: Michelle Bachmann at September 22, 2011 02:57 PM (BcpOa)
It occurs to me that, beyond Romneycare, I really know nothing about Mitt's tenure in Massachusetts. The context, the record, nothing. And I don't even know if I "know" Romneycare as well as I think I "know" it.
This is the problem of political ignorance.
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 22, 2011 02:57 PM (kRtDX)
He strikes me as a "what can government do?" type. And that would be his dafault action, making the government do something vs getting government out of the way.
Exactly. The idiot has been running for president for how long? Does anybody even think he'll try and make government smaller? If he wins, it'll be his show and by G*d he'll keep things big by "working on it."
Every single conservative candidate who was elected in 2010 will essentially be neutered.
Posted by: The Ghost of Kim Novak at September 22, 2011 02:58 PM (8DdAv)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 22, 2011 02:58 PM (UOM48)
Romney went to school in Massachusetts and was a business professional there. He had lived there since the early 70s when he decided to become a politician.
Now he could have done one of two things. Either run in a more conservative state and be considered a political carpetbagger, or run in his home state.
He picked the latter and ran for Senate in Massachussetts against one Edward Kennedy. The liberal lion of the Senate. To have run on a conservative platform would have been a task doomed from the start, so he modified his fews. He lost, but would have been absolutely pumelled had he campaigned as a strident conservative.
He later ran in Mass for Governor and was elected. His record there is ideologically mixed. Spending for the most part was stable in those four years. He cut spending at times and raised fees at others. Many of the spending cuts he proposed were promptly knocked down by an overwhelmingly liberal Mass legislature. He did sign on with an assault weapons ban. It should be remembered however that Ronald Reagan was pro-NRA but not exactly a pure conservative on the issue, as he supported the Brady Bill.
With respect to Romneycare, it is not a program I am a fan of, but I will say this. It is vastly different from Obamacare in one crucial respect. It isn't NATIONAL. There is a tenth amendment issue here that is relevant. Mass residents favored the program, for good or ill, overwhelmingly. What Romney has NEVER supported is a nationwide imposition of government controlled healthcare. He has stated that he will support waivers for all states regarding the health care law before it can be repealled.
Is he a flip-flopper? Well that implies he's gone back and forth in his positions. It seems to me he has flipped on a few issues, but not flopped back to his former position. One thing that I haven't seen much indication of is his campaigning one way, and then governing another. I don't see it to be to his advantage to try to govern the United States as if he was back in the state house in Massachusetts. He's too smart to do such a thing, and I don't think that is what he would want to do anyway. He's plenty old enough to remember when GHWB broke his no new taxes pledges, and the consequences he suffered.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 02:58 PM (0DGtF)
Posted by: drscott at September 22, 2011 02:58 PM (7Mkm/)
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 06:54 PM (4CSeG)
All right! Another Rick Perry assault video.
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at September 22, 2011 02:59 PM (W8W07)
Yes Newty endorsed dede scuzzy-commie in NY-23
Posted by: Vic at September 22, 2011 06:57 PM (M9Ie6)
Sheesh, it's back for more?
Posted by: CanaDave ---Say Yes to Keystone Pipeline--- at September 22, 2011 02:59 PM (T3vxL)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at September 22, 2011 02:59 PM (rgQW4)
Whack me in the head if I'm missing something that's obvious to everyone else, but....I don't understand why no one will so much as look in Rick Santorum's direction.
He was tea-party-fiscally conservative before it was cool, is well versed in foreign affairs (particularly the ME), has been active in entitlement reform efforts, and seems to me to be a man of integrity who stands by his principles.
Okay, so he's not flashy or gimmicky. Is there something else that makes him a dud?
Posted by: EyeTest at September 22, 2011 02:59 PM (ReC4P)
I think they're talking about the guy who's been campaigning almost continuously since 1996, with only a brief interlude while he served as MA governor.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 22, 2011 03:00 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: cranky-d at September 22, 2011 03:00 PM (nRliU)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 03:00 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: drscott at September 22, 2011 03:00 PM (7Mkm/)
Enough said.
Perry could lose to Romney the same way that Romney lost to McCain.
Posted by: Michele Bachmann at September 22, 2011 03:00 PM (//Trk)
Oh hell. Here comes Sheppy to mourn Troy Davis.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 22, 2011 03:00 PM (UOM48)
Screw it.
America deserves four more years of Obama.
Is there any other way to educate America that the socialist model equals epic fail?
Posted by: Ed Anger at September 22, 2011 03:00 PM (7+pP9)
If you had read Pelosi's cap and screw bill you would not say that. That bill if it had been enacted would have totally destroyed the U.S. It was actually worse than the Obamacare bill.
Anyone who supported Pelosi on that scam doesn't deserve to remain in the Republican Party, much less get a vote for President.
Posted by: Vic at September 22, 2011 03:01 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: drscott at September 22, 2011 03:01 PM (7Mkm/)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 03:01 PM (nRTou)
Screw it.
America deserves four more years of Obama.
Is there any other way to educate America that the socialist model equals epic fail?
Is there such a thing as being educated to death?
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 22, 2011 03:02 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: Vic at September 22, 2011 03:02 PM (M9Ie6)
Also, I think people are overstating Mitt Romney's electability.
If he wins, the MSM will focus on his record and past. It's not as clean and vetted as people assume.
Also, having a candidate who has more houses than most people have cars isn't the greatest thing in terms of optics. It surely didn't help McCain.
Romney is called a flip flopper for a reason. He's a panderer. He will tell any group he's speaking too exactly what they want to here. He's on video telling people one thing and then telling another group of people something comepletely different.
I just think that his biggest selling point, that he's electable, isn't as clear cut as some people are saying.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 03:02 PM (tEGzl)
I have put up with constant disappointment with the GOP in Washington, if not outright betrayal. I have held my nose and pulled the lever for two Bushes, Dole, and worst of all, McCain.
But Romney is a bridge too far. I absolutely refuse to vote for him, and if he wins the nomination, I am through with the Republican Party. I'll switch my registration to independent and most likely stay home on election day.
Posted by: DRayRaven at September 22, 2011 03:02 PM (4kYSc)
Romney = Spinach Dip. Mild, will not upset stomach.
Perry = Jalapeno Poppers. Can cause indigestion and seems too mexican.
Bachmann = Bag of paint thinner. Will cause brain damage.
Cain = Pizza.
Johnson = Weed.
Posted by: wooga at September 22, 2011 03:03 PM (vjyZP)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at September 22, 2011 03:03 PM (eOXTH)
Is there such a thing as being educated to death?
Nothing is better than steak
Stale bread is better than nothing
Therefore stale bread is better than steak.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 03:03 PM (tEGzl)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 22, 2011 03:03 PM (BcpOa)
Yeah, well JackStraw keeps alluding to scandals that are going to come out about Rick Perry. Verrry ominous. Oooh scarrry!
But I know for a fact the media is digging into Romney's donors for campaign finance violations. Big donors whose family members and associates are getting called for opinions about the supposed scandal. So this idea that Romney, whom very few people seem to actually like (outside of LDS circles) on a personal level but who many find acceptable as a "safe" candidate, is going to survive that kind of scandal is laughable to me.
Mostly, however, I'm pissed off that he is resorting to trying to scare granny about Scary Perry. It's cheap and most importantly it won't help us when guys like Ryan try to reform it.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 03:03 PM (5H6zj)
You nailed it. The real problem with our nation isn't Obama, it's the millions of people foolish enough to vote for him.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 03:03 PM (HtUdo)
Posted by: LIGuy at September 22, 2011 03:03 PM (c/M8t)
Whack me in the head if I'm missing something that's obvious to everyone else, but....I don't understand why no one will so much as look in Rick Santorum's direction.
Because he's a fucking asshole.
Posted by: wooga at September 22, 2011 03:03 PM (vjyZP)
Not if you were a conservative. I laughed my ass off...and breathed a sigh of relief.
Posted by: EyeTest at September 22, 2011 03:04 PM (ReC4P)
Johnson = Weed.
I'm actually excited to see Johnson tonight(heh).
I'd like to see libertarianism get a decent salesman for once instead of Obergruppenfuhrer Paul
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 03:04 PM (tEGzl)
Posted by: drscott at September 22, 2011 03:04 PM (7Mkm/)
Posted by: Joffen at September 22, 2011 03:04 PM (EPcuy)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 03:04 PM (QxSug)
Sure, I'd vote for Romney if necessary. That said, he's exactly what's wrong with ALL politicians. Anybody but 1. Obama 1a. Any Democrat ever again, 1b. Mitt Romney. 2. Rick Perry.
Shit. Now what?
Posted by: Singyn Somewhere at September 22, 2011 03:04 PM (NBj0d)
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at September 22, 2011 03:05 PM (W8W07)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at September 22, 2011 07:03 PM (eOXTH)
Former New Mexico governor Johnson will be at the debate. He's like a less crazy, more drug friendly version of Ron Paul.
Posted by: wooga at September 22, 2011 03:05 PM (vjyZP)
Because he's a fucking asshole.
Posted by: wooga at September 22, 2011 07:03 PM (vjyZP)
'Splain, please?
Posted by: EyeTest at September 22, 2011 03:05 PM (ReC4P)
...and he managed to close a 3 trillion dollar whole without using government stimulus dollars to do it.
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 06:46 PM (TMB3S)
I think you've got three extra zeroes and one extra w in there.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at September 22, 2011 03:05 PM (7EV/g)
America deserves four more years of Obama.
Well, it's coming--if this blog is a microcosm, our side will be too busy tearing apart each other's candidate to focus on the REAL enemy.
Posted by: USS Diversity at September 22, 2011 03:05 PM (aD5Kx)
I too am distrustful of Romney, but I know Obama is a dirty rat. If there is political capital to get an Obamacare repeal to a President Romney's desk, it's probably going to come from the hill, and I don't see him vetoing it. If you're going to nullify it by an EO, you might as well sign a bill that repeals it. Further, there hasn't been one favorable poll for Obamacare. My hope is that SCOTUS takes it off the table before the elections anyway.
That said, there will be no entitlement reforms with a President Romney, unless they have bi-partisan cover, which means they'll be meaningless or probably further detrimental. The best you can probably hope for is 8 years of Romney until Medicare collapses and VP now President Rubio lays a plan on the table.
Posted by: Rich C at September 22, 2011 03:06 PM (aXpAb)
I'm starting to hope Ryan or Chritie reconsider." --Johnny E.
You people are almost as bad as the 0bamatrons that voted this pinko in office in the first place. There is NO messiah, no "perfect" candidate; and if you think Christie or Ryan have a shot down south you're dreamin'.
Posted by: A Pissed off Texan at September 22, 2011 03:06 PM (g86v0)
Because he's done a world-class crap job up until now. And I don't give a shit about everyone who waves their hands and says "you can't trust Romney!" or "Perry's more conservative!" because none of that matters, doesn't matter one sweet goddamn bit, if Perry can't win in the general election. Whether he can't win because he's compromised on his record or his past statements, or he can't win because he's actually not that good at taking and rebutting flak from opponents (whether Michele Bachmann or Barack Obama), it doesn't matter. I WANT TO WIN.
I will viciously drop consideration of anyone, no matter how theoretically ideologically preferable, who looks weak on that front. I don't care if it's Rick Perry or Jesus Christ we're talking about. (This, incidentally, is why the chorus of "I won't vote for Romney in the general election!" makes me want to vomit...you stupid fucks, do you realize what kind of mess we're in? Drop the moronic bitter-ender rhetoric about how "Romney will only take us off the cliff slower than Obama"; not only is it not true, even if it was..are you saying you want us to zoom off the cliff?)
So I will reiterate, as prelude to tonight's debate: it's not a question of Romney 'winning' my vote -- he already has demonstrated to me that he has what it takes to match up against Obama. The question now is whether Perry can stop from LOSING my vote, because it's slipping from his grasp, and if the polls are to be believed a lot of other people are feeling the exact same way right now. This isn't on Romney so much as it is on Perry, IMO.
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 22, 2011 03:06 PM (kRtDX)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 03:06 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: 29Victor at September 22, 2011 03:07 PM (CoE4b)
Posted by: DanInMn at September 22, 2011 03:07 PM (N+prl)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 03:07 PM (nRTou)
Posted by: drscott at September 22, 2011 03:07 PM (7Mkm/)
Mostly, however, I'm pissed off that he is resorting to trying to scare granny about Scary Perry. It's cheap and most importantly it won't help us when guys like Ryan try to reform it.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 07:03 PM (5H6zj)
What about Romney calling SS criminal in his book last year? That is true right? Has he changed his mind (like he does on everything)? Or is it just ok to vaguely call something criminal but to specify the type of crime it is, is just wrong.
Posted by: buzzion at September 22, 2011 03:08 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 07:03 PM (HtUdo)
Word. The approx. 20-30% of the ENTIRE population of the United States.
That number still leaves me dumbfounded.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 03:08 PM (iyQ4N)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at September 22, 2011 03:08 PM (azHfB)
Posted by: izoneguy at September 22, 2011 03:09 PM (i6Neb)
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 03:09 PM (MH77M)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 03:10 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 03:10 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: drscott at September 22, 2011 03:10 PM (7Mkm/)
He's a suck up to the media--just like McCain.
He tells the conservatives they need to moderate--just like McCain.
He refuses to attack any Democrat--just like McCain.
His harshest words have been for Republicans--just like McCain.
He is loved by the Northeast/Establishment GOP--just like McCain.
He uses a candidate with no chance (Huckabee/Bachmann) to run scorched Earth attacks on rivals--just like McCain.
He is McCain, without the experience, without the occasional conservative vote and without the mildly interesting military background. In short: He is all the bad qualities every conservative hated in McCain without any of the good.
Mood Ring is a recipe for disaster in November as he'll suppress the GOP base worse than McCain and will almost certainly invite a doomed third-party bid.
Posted by: Jimmuy at September 22, 2011 03:10 PM (ibeMV)
I really hope everyone here declaring they won't vote if Romney is the candidate is just grandstanding.
I dislike Romney. I make that known.
But I will vote for anyone who isn't Barack Obama. I'd vote for Paul, Tardisil, Cain, heck even Huntsman over Barack Obama.
Even with a Republican congress, Obama can still do damage through EOs and Supreme Court picks. Also, Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014. If we don't undo it before that time then it will never be undone. It will be with us until we collapse economically or until Xenu is reformed and makes us all pay for not converting to scientology, whichever comes first.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 03:11 PM (tEGzl)
Posted by: 29Victor at September 22, 2011 07:07 PM (CoE4b)
How can they with one minute to answer a question? The so-called debates have been jokes so far.
Posted by: EyeTest at September 22, 2011 03:11 PM (ReC4P)
But now? A few years of seeing him operate...hoo, boy. I don't know.
Posted by: S. Weasel at September 22, 2011 03:11 PM (zGphV)
Ok if we get stuck with someone we aren't really on board with but have voted in more conservatives in the house etc.. wouldn't those conservatives in senate and house be able to hold who IS elected to some conservative principles? Don't they all realize america is in deep and we need to climb out of economic catastrophie ?
Posted by: willow at September 22, 2011 03:12 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 03:12 PM (nRTou)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at September 22, 2011 03:12 PM (azHfB)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 03:13 PM (TMB3S)
^Yes, that's another knock on him.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 03:13 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 03:14 PM (HmTkU)
That number still leaves me dumbfounded.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 07:08 PM (iyQ4N)
You're welcome.
Posted by: Dept. of Education at September 22, 2011 03:14 PM (W8W07)
Posted by: KG at September 22, 2011 03:14 PM (LD21B)
Word. The approx. 20-30% of the ENTIRE population of the United States.
That number still leaves me dumbfounded.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 07:08 PM (iyQ4N)
Oh and I meant that as the total number of hardcore Progs who will never stray, not the real retards who bought into hope and change.
I think I'm the only person here who comments on his own comment.
Jeebus.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 03:14 PM (iyQ4N)
Posted by: sven10077 at September 22, 2011 03:14 PM (AEIYh)
This x100. I've found his choice of words regarding Bambicare odd. Why the need for a waiver if it is repealed? It's sneaky and says to me he wouldn't repeal...that he would refine it, make it better. To which I say, f that.
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 03:15 PM (ycuSb)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 03:15 PM (nRTou)
Posted by: buzzion at September 22, 2011 03:15 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: rdbrewer at September 22, 2011 03:15 PM (uYoAI)
>>>Mitt moved a blue state redder- Perry did the opposite.<<<
Texas is turning bluer because of all of the emigres from the blue states where there are no jobs. Many of them are bringing their liberal ideologies with them (damn them all to Hell).
We're trying to turn 'em red, but it's a daily battle.....
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at September 22, 2011 03:15 PM (0xqzf)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at September 22, 2011 03:15 PM (azHfB)
I find him a bit strident as a social-con. Granted, I approve the overall sentiment of moving back to a more socially conservative as a culture - and maybe he's the guy who can do it - but there needs to be a balance of interests and motivation for national policy. Also, I'm agnostic, so I view him through that lens. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but he comes across to me as too reliant on religion though, more fairly, I don't equate him with Huckabee who I view as a fraud. IOW, I don't believe Santorum to be a Statist, just a religious conservative, unlike Huckabee who is a Statist hiding behind "compassionate conservatism."
Consider this my gut reaction to his presentation.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at September 22, 2011 03:15 PM (r4t7/)
Posted by: S. Weasel at September 22, 2011 03:16 PM (zGphV)
Drudge links a story from RealClearPolitics noting that Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.
Posted by: fluffy at September 22, 2011 03:16 PM (4Kl5M)
Yup. Congress, when it isn't porking interns and wasting money teaching Africans to wash their junk, can steer the country to the right.
Congress that helped Reagan destroy the USSR by backing his programs. Not always willingly, but they knew we loved Reagan and wouldn't stand for them selling out.
We just need them wide awake, conservative, and spine intact during a Republican Presidency.
Not ankle-biting, spending, and sabotaging like during Bush's second term.
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 03:16 PM (4CSeG)
God damn.
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 07:15 PM (nRTou)
yeah it makes me a little wobbly too.
i'm sure we all will get our heads out of our rears when the time comes.
well pretty sure.
Posted by: willow at September 22, 2011 03:17 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: willow at September 22, 2011 07:12 PM (h+qn
I agree. But.....you know how it is.
Posted by: Speaker Boehner at September 22, 2011 03:17 PM (W8W07)
Instead of flooring it as we go over the cliff, Romney's going to kill the head lights and put it in neutral.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 03:17 PM (HtUdo)
Posted by: Joffen at September 22, 2011 03:17 PM (EPcuy)
I don't think he is any more electable than Perry. In fact I think he is more likely to shut down GOP turnout and do another McCain. Turn red states blue through low Republican turnout.
If Perry tanks in the end I guess I'll have to go back to Cain because Bachmann has shit in the well and dumped a dead pig in it.
Newt sat on the couch with Pelosi in support of the worst bill in the history of the country, called a really weak balance the budget plan social engineering because it went to far, and generally acted like a damn lying shit weasel to his ex-wife indicating very poor character.
The rest of them aren't even worthy of any consideration except maybe for Santorum who doesn't seem like he can get support from anyone.
Oh lest I forget Palin, she is not going to run and it appears she may want to shit in the well some here lately as well.
Posted by: Vic at September 22, 2011 03:17 PM (M9Ie6)
"That number still leaves me dumbfounded.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 07:08 PM (iyQ4N) "
What should leave you dumbfounded is the next 30-40% that believes itself to be educated, street-smart, and up on current events yet are demonstrably illiterate regarding matters of history, basic economics, philosophy, skepticism, logic, rhetoric and a grammar. That's who the first 30% is listening to after all. Who do you think's running the news desk? (Any news desk.)
Posted by: Singyn Somewhere at September 22, 2011 03:18 PM (NBj0d)
Posted by: Joffen at September 22, 2011 07:17 PM (EPcuy)
Jeff B. does support Perry. Its just that he has a tail that you can pin to him and one of his friends is a bear that really like honey.
Posted by: buzzion at September 22, 2011 03:18 PM (GULKT)
That's why Colorado went to shit.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 03:18 PM (HtUdo)
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 07:16 PM (4CSeG)
rigth so we just heckle them until they all stand up and do what's right.
I think they are starting to realise how piss'd everyone is. and how dangerous it is to play pork o-rama now.
Posted by: willow at September 22, 2011 03:19 PM (h+qn8)
Nah!
Posted by: Thomas Dewey at September 22, 2011 03:19 PM (//Trk)
Romney fought for a lot of things as governor including submitting a tax decrease 3 years in a row (defeated by the donk legislature), fought gay marriage up through the MA SC (lost), refused to sign off on the regional cap and trade boondoggle, and on and on and on. He actually got the MA legislature to come back into session and cut the budget he inherited after being elected to get a balanced budget and he managed to close a 3 trillion dollar hole without using government stimulus dollars to do it. .
JackStaw
Well said. He had to go against the tide in Massachusetts. Perry on the other hand has had the luxury of governing in a deep red state.
I think it is beneficial to look more deeply into the specifics of Romney's tenure in Massachusetts. It seems that for the most part he did what he could to temper the liberal impulses there.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 03:20 PM (0DGtF)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 03:20 PM (rJVPU)
I really hope everyone here declaring they won't vote if Romney is the candidate is just grandstanding.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 07:11 PM (tEGzl)
Don't know about you Ben, but I live in NY, we're voting Zero no matter who the GOP nominates. I'd like to cast a vote for the GOP candidate, but if it's Romney I absolutely will not, I didn't trust him in '08 and I trust him less now.
Now if you're in a state that matters, you've got a much harder choice to make, but not me. No Romney, ever.
Posted by: mugiwara at September 22, 2011 03:20 PM (KI/Ch)
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 03:20 PM (ycuSb)
I agree. But.....you know how it is.
Posted by: Speaker Boehner at September 22, 2011 07:17 PM (W8W07)
ok you got me.
still He is in the minority still right?
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 07:17 PM (HtUdo)
ack, that's bleak .
Posted by: willow at September 22, 2011 03:21 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 03:21 PM (nRTou)
Posted by: jjshaka at September 22, 2011 03:21 PM (UbEWC)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 03:21 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at September 22, 2011 03:21 PM (AcrIN)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 03:22 PM (rJVPU)
I'm trying to figure out why it is a bad thing to vote for a 3 time governor from a deep red state vs a one time governor from a deep blue state.
Posted by: buzzion at September 22, 2011 03:22 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Joffen at September 22, 2011 03:22 PM (EPcuy)
God damn.
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 07:15 PM (nRTou)
Nah, we'll be okay. There is a long time to go yet and the field will continue to narrow itself and condense their positions. Besides, Obama is REALLY starting to lose it and that's not a trend that's going to reverse.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 03:22 PM (iyQ4N)
Every Republican politician should be afraid of losing their job.
In fact, we should make them so accountable and nervous they consider how much they want the job every election cycle.
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 03:23 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: A Pissed off Texan at September 22, 2011 07:06 PM (g86v0
Can you clarify for me if the Tea Party is now actively seeking signatures on a petition to force Perry to deal with his broken borders?
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 03:23 PM (I/MzF)
Posted by: tasker at September 22, 2011 03:23 PM (rJVPU)
So Mitt the cow-flop fought regional cap and trade??? Bull Shit, he was its biggest supporter.
And club for growth gives him at best a mixed record on taxes in MA.Posted by: Vic at September 22, 2011 03:24 PM (M9Ie6)
227 Jeff B - That's why the NRO Camarota stuff today hit me in the gut. Perry's the best candidate we have going but if the Texas Recovery has an Achilles' heel re: who got the jobs, his general electability could be more dicey than we've been assuming. If newly-arrived immigrants (legal and illegal) have arguably taken the lion's share of even skilled new jobs in Texas, that at least requires explanation and discussion, if not course-correction.
The best thing Perry could do to get ahead of this (apparent) problem is to throw the doubters some substantive policy red meat about how President Perry will deal with immigration, both legal and illegal.
I've said it before here - we need a field of candidates as wide as possible because the media savaging hasn't even started and we've already got some holes to plug. There's still time, for all that I haven't heard of any real heavyweights still waiting in the wings.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 03:24 PM (MH77M)
Posted by: Fritz at September 22, 2011 03:24 PM (FabC8)
Romney hasn't lied about Perry
Bullshit. Romney has been telling grandma that Perry is going to take away her check since the day Perry announced.
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 03:25 PM (VKD8C)
Because he's a fucking asshole.
Posted by: wooga at September 22, 2011 07:03 PM (vjyZP)
'Splain, please?
Posted by: EyeTest at September 22, 2011 07:05 PM (ReC4P)
--
Let's see. Aside from his creepy obsession with SSM, he has a habit of dismissing anyone who disagrees with him as stupid. For example, he said John McCain "doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works." Seriously, John fucking McCain, with the broken arms. As to Perry's support of Israel, Santorum sneered: "IÂ’ve forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel." But my main problem is that Santorum rejects Federalism and explicitly rejects the Tenth Amendment, as he thinks "moral law" should trump (just google "Santorum Tenth Amendment").
Posted by: wooga at September 22, 2011 03:25 PM (vjyZP)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 03:25 PM (nRTou)
That's why Colorado went to shit.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 07:18 PM (HtUdo)
Huh? So it's not just illegal immigrants working in TX? (Even though I'm inclined believe that anyone from CA is an illegal immigrant)
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at September 22, 2011 03:26 PM (W8W07)
Can you explain why Mitt supported McCain-Kennedy amnesty? and BTW, Perry has screamed for the feds to close the border for years and did not support amnesty.
Posted by: Vic at September 22, 2011 03:26 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Singyn Somewhere at September 22, 2011 07:18 PM (NBj0d)
Oh, I know. I used to work with them. My neck hurt from shaking my head all the time.
Thankfully, I work in sports now so that isn't a problem anymore.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 03:26 PM (iyQ4N)
God damn.
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 07:15 PM (nRTou)
Doesn't matter who we nominate. We'll win handily. Where we'll lose is in getting the primary wrong - and electing our own version of Obama. No one should get the warm and fuzzies over any of these candidates. Doesn't matter who it is - let them know we're staring at them with the same dead-eye we're looking at the current dick in the oval office with, (may he rot in the fleshy long unwashed folds of the first pigs ass-fat.) Don't let any of them get comfortable. Particularly the 2010 and 2012 freshman. Just keep pouring it on every 2 years. That's how we change this thing long term. That's the only way. 'We the people' have no friends in DC, just enemies we'll allow to live (politically speaking) so long as they remain useful to us.
Posted by: Singyn Somewhere at September 22, 2011 03:26 PM (NBj0d)
Yeah, we're still the Stupid Party.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at September 22, 2011 03:26 PM (//Trk)
Look, Romney is a weasel. End of story.
Is he better than the SCFOAMF? Yeah, but who on the Republican side isn't?
I'll pull the lever for Mittens if I have to, but don't serve me bullshit and tell me it's filet mignon.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 03:27 PM (HtUdo)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 03:27 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 03:27 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: Farmer Joe at September 22, 2011 03:28 PM (P8oOy)
Posted by: Dr Spank at September 22, 2011 03:28 PM (BcpOa)
He reiterated this last night on Hannity as well. He's repeatedly stated the failure of the federal gov't to close the damned border. He said he does not support amnesty or citizenship for illegals.
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 03:29 PM (ycuSb)
2012 is the biggest slam-dunk conservative election in history and I'm starting to feel like we're gonna fuck it up.
I'd like the first part of that to be true, but I doubt it. Is Obama unpopular? Yes, but remember that al portion of those dissatisfied with him are Dennis Kucinich liberals who think he's a wuss. They'll hold their nose and vote for him in the general.
People are likening this election to the one of 1980, but that comparison is flawed. The demographics of this country have changed a great deal since then, which is due in great part to illegal immigration. I still believe that a Reagan vs. Carter race in 2012 would result in a Reagan victory, but it would be much closer, and nobody in this race is in the same league as Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 03:30 PM (0DGtF)
Mitt is Bill Clinton 2.0.
You'll see.
Perry needs to ease up on pandering to Hispanics.
He needs to destroy this insane lady who keeps biting his ankles.
And he needs to draw out the Democrat in Mitt Romney that Mitt has been trying to hide.
Then he needs to make Obama cry and piss his pants.
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 03:30 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Brian Cobbs at September 22, 2011 03:30 PM (QUUT2)
Posted by: macintx at September 22, 2011 03:30 PM (ucs8Y)
...but not to worry, because he said they would be made up with green jobs...and that we should invest heavily in these industries.
OK..with this and healthcare, how the fuck is he any different from Obama?
Oh yeah...about the investing in green energy.??...how did Mittens make his money again??
Posted by: beedubya at September 22, 2011 03:31 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Joffen at September 22, 2011 03:31 PM (EPcuy)
Because that's what we do. We are paid to produce and nothing produces like conflict. We like to build people up and then tear them down. We enjoy trying to control the environment. We compete for audience share and make prediction after prediction hoping to be right so that we can say, "See, I was right! Now hire me to give you another opinion!"
In other words, we're a bunch of assholes relieving lots of hot air... for money.
Posted by: The Punditocracy at September 22, 2011 03:32 PM (r4t7/)
Why should I support Mitt Romney?
You shouldn't, unless he's the nominee.
Because the SCoaMF is that bad.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at September 22, 2011 03:32 PM (HUZDZ)
Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at September 22, 2011 07:12 PM (ACkhT)
No! I argee ABO!!!!
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 03:32 PM (I/MzF)
Yes, that 81% thing is going to haunt Perry, even tho it is employers making the conscious decision to not hire Americans. Not sure what he can really do about it tho.
Posted by: KG at September 22, 2011 03:32 PM (LD21B)
He did? I was not aware of that. Please explain your assertion.
Just so ErikW doesn't feel so alone, I'll respond to my own comment, also.
The hit 'n' run poster won't be back to explain his incorrect assertion. I'll explain:
Mitt Romney turned Massachusetts bluer. I repeat, Romney turned Massachusetts bluer. The Governor's office had been held by a Republican from 1991 until Mitt left. He did nothing to help grow the party locally. The (R) caucus did not grow in his tenure, in fact it took a serious beating in Nov 2008.
In the words of the candidate I worked for in '10:
"Mitt is all about Mitt"
Posted by: fluffy at September 22, 2011 03:32 PM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 03:33 PM (VKD8C)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 03:33 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 03:33 PM (QxSug)
310 War - we're not just talking about lies and misrepresentations. What is Ace making up about Romney's record ? I support Perry and I'll be the first to admit that he's done the typical border-state-politician pander regarding Mexican immigration from his first days in office.
Yes, both of them are vastly superior to the Worst President Ever. The Republican nominee will get my vote in 2012. But that doesn't mean they are flawless or that their critics are liars.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 03:34 PM (MH77M)
His vocal delivery is too quick, his technique is to always turn it back to how well he can manage, because, as we all know, he once managed something or other.
I predict he will prevail over Perry tonight, though, because Perry just doesn't seem to get across the Red River on issues, and also because he does not have the mental heft to debate well.
Am greatly disappointed in all of them. Woe is us, because the JEF's campaign is going to mow everyone down, with the able assistance of the MFM.
We may hate the sound of Zero's voice, but you got to admit, he can give a full-throated William-Jennings-Bryan-type barnstorming speech, rousing the rabble, while getting his base to burn with a white-hot fever for winning.
Who do we have that can counter that?
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at September 22, 2011 03:34 PM (4sQwu)
Posted by: USS Diversity at September 22, 2011 06:49 PM (aD5Kx)
No, this is an *insert bandwagon here* place.
Posted by: Lurker at September 22, 2011 03:34 PM (gQceP)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 22, 2011 03:35 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 03:36 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: USS Diversity at September 22, 2011 03:36 PM (aD5Kx)
but you got to admit, he can give a full-throated William-Jennings-Bryan-type barnstorming speech, rousing the rabble, while getting his base to burn with a white-hot fever for winning
He hasn't been able to do that for a long, long time. The best he can hope for now is that everyone stays awake.
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 03:37 PM (VKD8C)
Mitch Ronny? Opportunist. Good manager.
His chauffeur says he's a regular guy.
What the hell do you know about Massachusetts politics, anyway? ;--)
Posted by: fluffy at September 22, 2011 03:37 PM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: dogfish at September 22, 2011 03:37 PM (N2yhW)
Posted by: tasker as Sigmund Freud at September 22, 2011 03:37 PM (rJVPU)
Between the two of them, they took 200+ jobs with them
Posted by: beedubya at September 22, 2011 03:37 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 03:37 PM (HmTkU)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 03:37 PM (nRTou)
Posted by: Joffen at September 22, 2011 03:38 PM (EPcuy)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 06:51 PM (Qjh0I)
Did Mitt sign that assault weapons ban or veto it? I can't remember. Did Mitt sign that health care bill and enact it into law or did he veto it? I can't remember. Did I see Mitt in Vietnam or did he find something else that was more important? I can't remember.
Help me out will you?
Posted by: robtr at September 22, 2011 03:38 PM (MtwBb)
What the hell do you know about Massachusetts politics, anyway? ;--)
I know Sal DiMasi is a scumbag. ;-)
Actually if any of you remember Dean Barnett (Soxblog) he was Romney's driver during his gubernatorial campaign, and he used to say Romney was a regular guy.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at September 22, 2011 03:39 PM (HUZDZ)
Posted by: Gabriel Syme at September 22, 2011 03:39 PM (iA0UK)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 03:40 PM (jhpbW)
Governor Mitt Romney signaled his support yesterday for a regional agreement among Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite opposition from power companies and other business interests that have been lobbying the administration against the plan.
In opening remarks to a clean-energy conference in Boston, Romney said the first-of-its-kind agreement, under which Massachusetts and eight other states could be required to cut power plant emissions by 2020, will not hurt the economy, as some have charged. He argued that it would spur businesses to develop clean- and renewable-energy technology to market worldwide.
''This is a great thing for the Commonwealth," Romney said, his strongest endorsement of the pact to date. ''We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs."
[...]
''I'm convinced it is good business," Romney said. [Boston Globe, 11/8/05
Posted by: beedubya at September 22, 2011 03:41 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 06:34 PM (Qjh0I)
Um, actually, Mittens vetoed 8 sections of the legislation, and the Democrats overrode 6 of the 8. Oh, and also, not to be outdone by the Democrats, whose plan was to cover half of the unisured, it was Mittens' idea to cover all the unisured. Yep.
I cared to look.
Posted by: The Ghost of Kim Novak at September 22, 2011 03:41 PM (8DdAv)
I'm not worried what Republican wins the WH. Based on the strength of gaining more Tea Party members in the Congress and Senate we will have started reversing the direction of the Pendulum of Doom!
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 03:41 PM (I/MzF)
Posted by: R. Aurum Tar at September 22, 2011 03:41 PM (km9GR)
I have voted for the Republican in every Presidential election in my adult life. I will not vote for Romney if he is the Republican candidate.
So you're voting for Obama? Because you will be.
Posted by: USS Diversity at September 22, 2011 03:41 PM (aD5Kx)
Edge: Barry.
Posted by: mugiwara at September 22, 2011 03:41 PM (KI/Ch)
What are the odds he'll prosecute anyone for Operation Fast and Furious? I'm guessing zero.
r0mney 20never
Posted by: arhooley at September 22, 2011 03:41 PM (hEa+8)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 03:41 PM (fyOgS)
Are we swinging back Mitt? I thought it was a Perry place?
More than anything else, it's an Obama is a....well you know.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 03:41 PM (0DGtF)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 03:42 PM (HmTkU)
Posted by: Patton's Ghost at September 22, 2011 03:43 PM (rJVPU)
Great minds think alike..lol.. I want him to say what I'm [or other conservatives] are thinking, but he doesn't quite get there.
Posted by: Willy at September 22, 2011 03:43 PM (Ja9VH)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 07:40 PM
She's our only hope.
Posted by: arhooley at September 22, 2011 03:43 PM (hEa+8)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 03:44 PM (q1Tbv)
As hard as he "fought" the liberals in MA, how many times did he allow a state government shutdown rather than come to an amicable compromise with those same liberals?
Not once? He's the go-along, get-along type who'll negotiate the best deal he can but only up to the point that there's no potential political risk involved? You don't say.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 22, 2011 03:44 PM (SY2Kh)
329 KG - I wouldn't suggest he lead with the truth on that one - that employers find immigrants have a better work ethic, are more appreciative and "coachable" than Americans, more likely to work longer hours, take fewer days off, etc...
Immigration policy's not a deal breaker for me re: Perry, but a) I'm in the whitest of white collar jobs and b) I remember my blue-collar father eating up what Boss Ross was selling on the "sucking noise" back in '92 and helping elect Bubba by voting for Perot despite Dad having nothing but contempt for Clinton.
It's a serious issue to many, if not so much for me than for many others, and I want to see Perry deal with it forthrightly. While it may be advantageous to speak generally and carry a vague stick as long as possible, at this point Romney needs to repudiate RomneyCare in an unequivocal fashion and Perry needs to show us that his immigration policy has some priorties above winning the Hispanic vote.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 03:44 PM (MH77M)
if the GOP allows the MFM and the talking heads to maneuver him into being our candidate in 2012, we will pretty much deserve the four more years of the original SCOAMF we will get because of it.
Posted by: redc1c4 at September 22, 2011 03:44 PM (d1FhN)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 03:44 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: The Ghost of Kim Novak at September 22, 2011 03:45 PM (8DdAv)
If Romney is Obama-lite, then what's the point?
Convince me Romeny's a conservative. Please, I'm begging you.
Seriously, convince me to vote for this guy, because other than a vote against Obama, I just don't see it.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 03:45 PM (HtUdo)
I'm with you. I think he would hurt the conservative brand and set us back. He's Obama-Lite. In the long run the country would be better off running Rubio in 2016.
After two or three Abbie Hoffmans are confirmed to the Supreme Court and the permanent institution of Obamacare, what will it matter by then?
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 03:46 PM (0DGtF)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 03:46 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Gabriel Syme at September 22, 2011 07:39 PM (iA0UK)
Oh hell to the no. Like someone mentioned earlier, I'd vote for Ron Paul before I voted for this anti-American prick.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 03:47 PM (iyQ4N)
Ha. This actually sounds about right, buzzion. I'm a bit of an Eeyore, aren't I?
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 22, 2011 03:47 PM (hIWe1)
You're right if you're referring to the "Romney = Obama" nonsense, but it was Romney v2.0 that served as MA governor. It's Romney v4.0 that is running now.
The problem many of us have is that we have no way of knowing how many bugs end up in Romney v5.0.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 22, 2011 03:47 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at September 22, 2011 03:48 PM (ACkhT)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 03:48 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: dogfish at September 22, 2011 07:37 PM (N2yhW
We TP'ers are universal in principle. I get good response on Perry posts from friends on FB . I live in NJ. How is Perry on immigration there. I see where the TP is petioning him to get busy in it!
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 03:49 PM (I/MzF)
Posted by: jake at September 22, 2011 03:49 PM (gvKUn)
Then stack the court and FDR their asses. I'm up for 13 supreme court justices, with the new additions all appointed by President Rubio.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 03:49 PM (HtUdo)
"Seriously, convince me to vote for this guy, because other than a vote against Obama, I just don't see it."
Well, Romney's a conservative compared to Barry.
Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at September 22, 2011 03:49 PM (ACkhT)
I will vote for whoever wins the GOP primary.
I had FOX on just now. News bulletin: Shep just made fun of Barky's "pass that bill" speechifying today, mocking him. It also showed the clip (linked to Drudge) when Zero stutters, "I,I,I,I,I am a warrior for the middle class." It was pretty funny, both Shep's mocking and then this clip. When the preznit loses Chrissy Matthews it is ovah.
Seriously, JEF sounded like Woody Woodpecker when he stuttered on that clip. He still jogged up to the podium like the rock star he thinks he is in the legacy of his narcissistic mind(and, man, he is tiny these days).
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at September 22, 2011 03:49 PM (baL2B)
Posted by: Joffen at September 22, 2011 03:50 PM (EPcuy)
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 03:50 PM (VKD8C)
In response to National Security Archive scholar Jeffrey Richelson’s Freedom of Information Act request, the CIA said all of its work is “classified.”
“We completed a thorough search for records responsive to your request and located material that we determined is currently and properly classified and must be denied in its entirety,” Susan Viscuso, the agency’s information and privacy coordinator, wrote Richelson.
Posted by: Mansfield Turner at September 22, 2011 03:50 PM (e8kgV)
1. Santorum. No executive experience, too assertive about his extreme positions. He sounds like someone who is running to push the Overton Window, not to actually make it.
2. Dr. Spank asks why he should support Romney? Short answer, he shouldn't. Most of the knocks on Romney are legit knocks. Reject the fallacy that at least one candidate must be a pretty darn good candidate.
3. Someone tries to defend Perry on immigration because Perry said that he was against an amnesty. Umm, yeah, everyone says that they're against it. Except that Perry favors a 'path to legalization,' which is . . . an amnesty. Perry suggested that people opposed to the Dream Act were racists, which shows where his head is on this (hint: in Dem territory). This recent article says a lot:
Numbers USA continues to rank him a D-.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 22, 2011 03:50 PM (epBek)
I know, that's why I suggest people read Romney's books and look at his actual accomplishments. His character and core beliefs are evident. The problem with being a man who made his way in the private sector is that only four years of his career have been "for public consumption". Gives the peanut gallery lots of room to make up shit.
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 03:51 PM (Qjh0I)
Fixed for accuracy.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 22, 2011 03:51 PM (SY2Kh)
I guess you can't read either.
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported a carbon-trading pact among Northeastern states that, like his health care bill, served as a potential model for a national version. Romney even said of the plan, “I am convinced it is good for business.” Of carbon emissions in general, Romney said, “These carbon-emissions limits will provide real and immediate progress.”
http://is.gd/CKhQ5O
Posted by: Vic at September 22, 2011 03:52 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 03:52 PM (XAQS+)
Posted by: Gabriel Syme at September 22, 2011 07:39 PM (iA0UK
Its ABO or go around here these days mister.
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 03:52 PM (I/MzF)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 03:52 PM (HmTkU)
386 John - That's why I can live with voting for Mitt, despite the fact he's another McCain in my book. If we have majorities in the House and Senate, there's no carrot for him worth crossing the base to reach across the aisle.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 03:53 PM (CjS9e)
Posted by: Patton's Ghost at September 22, 2011 03:53 PM (rJVPU)
Serious question, would Romney put someone like Roberts on the court or someone like Kennedy?
Yeah that's a tough one, however I'll take Kennedy over any of the people Obama nomintated.
I know its a pathetic statement but it's true.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 03:53 PM (tEGzl)
Repealing ObamaCare is my single biggest issue in this election, followed by removing the regulatory environment Obama enacted while no one was watching. Entitlement reform is third on my list if we are ever going to bring this country back to basics.
I already distrust Romney on the health care plan. His view on SS and the need to get along with the Dems I find appalling. He is losing any support I may ever have been able to muster.
Seriously, in a choice between Romney and the SCOAMF, I vote for SCOAMF because they are both FAILS. I prefer the enemy that I (and my elected representatives) know to oppose to the one that talks kinda sorta like I want him to but then does the wrong thing.
I have that now, but it is expected.
Posted by: Advo at September 22, 2011 03:54 PM (PCB7D)
I'm not reading his fucking book. He needs to publicly state his positions. Period.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 03:54 PM (HtUdo)
Except that Perry favors a 'path to legalization,' which is . . . an amnesty.
No. Perry's exact quote on that is "there already is a path to legalization" get in line.
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 03:54 PM (VKD8C)
Posted by: Mitt Romney at September 22, 2011 03:54 PM (KI/Ch)
Too early to say that, I think.
BTW, chemjeff, do you like sushi? I ask because the other day I had to kill time in Salt Lake while hubby was at a work function so I took myself to a sushi bar near the convention center. Lots of singles sitting at the bar and chatting. And they were mostly professionals from what I could tell. (Not hookers, engineers and such.) So you might have better luck meeting folks you'd like at that type of place.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 03:55 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 03:55 PM (nRTou)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 03:55 PM (fyOgS)
I'm not convinced Romney would appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. He used to be pro-choice before flip flopping.
This is one of the few things Romney would be good at. He's plugged into high-level conservative legal circles and given his background knows the importance of good judges who are very, very bright. No Souters, Meyers, Kennedy, or Gonzalez from him. I expect he'd make some pretty savvy judge picks.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 22, 2011 03:55 PM (epBek)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 03:56 PM (TMB3S)
>>>Yeah, we're still the Stupid Party.
Co-signed.
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 22, 2011 03:56 PM (hIWe1)
I know, that's why I suggest people read Romney's books
that's the star wars argument. You need to read the books to understand what's going on in the Phantom Menance.
No, put it in the fucking movie.
Or in this case, state it on the campaign trail or in the debates.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 03:57 PM (tEGzl)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 03:57 PM (HmTkU)
Well, since you eeyores need to commiserate with each other, don't forget.
John Fucking Bolton is still in play and chomping at the bit.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 03:57 PM (iyQ4N)
I'm with you. I think he would hurt the conservative brand and set us back. He's Obama-Lite. In the long run the country would be better off running Rubio in 2016.
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 07:42 PM (HmTk
OMG What long run? when O's policies on taxation,O Care and EPA regulations kick in 2013 its over dude.
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 03:57 PM (I/MzF)
Even a "Kennedy" is better than a Sotomayor,no?
Eh, as long as a liberal is being replaced, I would say it doesn't much matter if we got a Sotomayor or a Kennedy. The balance doesn't changed. However another Roberts would be a HUGE game changer in that situation.
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 03:58 PM (VKD8C)
Hey, me too!
I can assure those who care to listen that he's not nearly the ridiculous caricature presented by the purists.
I can't see what he brings, besides RomneyCare and a 'green energy' fetish. I'll vote for him in November, as I will for Scott Brown, but neither a showing me a reason to work for them.
Posted by: fluffy at September 22, 2011 03:58 PM (4Kl5M)
Is he? I thought he took himself out of play a few weeks ago. Maybe I'm misremembering that.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 03:58 PM (5H6zj)
I know, that's why I suggest people read Romney's books
that's the star wars argument. You need to read the books to understand what's going on in the Phantom Menance.
No, put it in the fucking movie.
Or in this case, state it on the campaign trail or in the debates.
If I have to read their mind, they're fired.
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 03:58 PM (4CSeG)
I just noticed that this debate is in florida. Get ready for SS scaremongering that would make the democrats blush.
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 04:00 PM (tEGzl)
399/408 : We've let politicians get away with "read my website" or "read my book" too much, IMO. You don't need to be Reagan behind a podium, but being able to at least articulate your core beliefs shows me that you in fact wrote your book/website, or at least know what's there.
I'm always waiting for the follow-up questions that verify whether the candidate knows what the book or website says, but they don't usually follow.
Plus, guys like Romney have taken so many positions and/or written so many books (that's you, Newt) in the past that it's impossible to nail them down even if you've read everything they've ever written or said.
The ability to take questions in an adversarial setting and defend your ideas against attack lends them credibility than setting them out in a softball-pitch setting with your hired sycophantic ghost writers.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 04:00 PM (CjS9e)
I heard today that he is advising Perry.
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 04:00 PM (VKD8C)
the wind energy boondoogle which is the biggest in the country and about to cost Texans billions in higher energy costs
That really is a massive and stupid program, but I don't think you can really blame Perry for it. It was mainly the Texas legislature that pushed that, right? Besides, as dumb and costly as it is and will be, it might actually play well with independents, who are also pretty dumb.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 22, 2011 04:01 PM (epBek)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 04:01 PM (FzVlt)
Except that Obama does basically everything now by EO or through regulatory agencies.
Posted by: Jason at September 22, 2011 04:01 PM (EYwgu)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 04:01 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Dan at September 22, 2011 04:01 PM (5gk+b)
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 04:01 PM (tEGzl)
Then stack the court and FDR their asses. I'm up for 13 supreme court justices, with the new additions all appointed by President Rubio.
Neat idea, but not likely. After four more years of the stench of BO, I believe you are going to hear a lot of chatter about secession. A decidely left wing and young SCOTUS imposing it's will unfettered on red state America could cause such a revolt. Yeah, I know it sounds crazy, but people have their breaking points.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 04:02 PM (0DGtF)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 04:02 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 22, 2011 04:02 PM (epBek)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 04:02 PM (nRTou)
Posted by: Serious Cat at September 22, 2011 04:02 PM (bAySe)
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 04:02 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 07:58 PM (5H6zj)
I thought I read in an earlier thread that he's involved in advising some candidates on foreign policy, including Perry.
I think.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 04:02 PM (iyQ4N)
Amaddinnerjacket
Hu Jintao
Who will they fear more?
Romney or Perry?
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 04:03 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 04:04 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Serious Cat at September 22, 2011 08:02 PM (bAySe)
I think he just endorsed Romney
Posted by: willow at September 22, 2011 04:04 PM (h+qn8)
Sorry, Sonnypats, the morons in this thread have pissed me off so much that I won't vote for any of them even in the generals.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 22, 2011 04:04 PM (epBek)
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at September 22, 2011 04:05 PM (xy9wk)
He dropped out today and went all in for Romney.
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 08:03 PM (VKD8C)
RINO!!
Posted by: robtr at September 22, 2011 04:05 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Lana at September 22, 2011 04:06 PM (2cVan)
We need all the distractions we can get. Wait times to get a Dr's appointment are longer than ever here in Mass.
Posted by: fluffy at September 22, 2011 04:06 PM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at September 22, 2011 04:06 PM (i0App)
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 08:02 PM (5H6zj)
Ah, sorry. I didn't mean that he was in play for the Presidency but that he was actively involved on the campaign level. My bad.
Still a good sign that he's interested in the SecState position, I hope.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 04:07 PM (iyQ4N)
I think you're looking for reasons to not support him Ace.
His economic plan is IMO exactly what we need. The first steps include repealing Ocare and it will get done b/c and this is key:
THERE WILL BE NO MEANINGFUL SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION UNTIL OBAMACARE IS REPEALED
And Romney wants to be a successful POTUS. So it will get done or there will be no job growth, that easy peasey.
He will sign E.O. releasing states form compliance FIRST DAY.
Also very firm there.
Now onto Perry:
What are his economic plans, specifi steps he will take on Day 1, heh, to turn it around?
What is Perry's position on Romney's plan to eliminate cap gains, dividend taxes for Middle Class? Cuz THAT won me and everyone I talk to over right quick. It allows us to catch up on saving for retirement which will need to grow, fast, as Gen X and after are benefit cut (which I support as necessary to save my kids from enslavement to Boomers retirement)
Perry opened a giant can of worms on SS.
He WAS specifi on devolving it to states in his book, which Romney is nailing him on. Mitt will have to take heat too on Romneycare, fine.
But I am not getting SPECIFICS from Perry and it is debate 3.
Show me the money.
Posted by: ginaswo at September 22, 2011 04:07 PM (y6MwA)
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 04:07 PM (ycuSb)
Posted by: jukin at September 22, 2011 04:07 PM (vkkNZ)
Posted by: willow at September 22, 2011 04:07 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 04:07 PM (I/MzF)
The MA legislature was the driving force behind healthcare reform. Romney signed on. He owns it. Same with Perry in Texas, and he was pretty damn enthusiastic about it even giving T. Boone Pickens a big award for his wind energy crap. Pickens is a big Perry donor. And those costs will dwarf the healthcare increases in MA.
Fair enough. Look, I agree with you, on points Romneycare is less of an albatross then Texas wind. Romneycare was an experiment to see if the main problem with healthcare was freeloaders without insurance. Turns out it isn't, but that wasn't known at the time which is why Romney got advice and support from free-market think tanks. Texas wind, on the other hand, was and is always blatantly stupid and corrupt.
But, if you blame Perry for Texas wind, don't you have to give him at least SOME credit for the Texas job growth? I think you do.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 22, 2011 04:07 PM (epBek)
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 04:08 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 04:08 PM (roFKc)
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 08:07 PM (ycuSb)
heh, i'm game
Posted by: willow at September 22, 2011 04:08 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 04:09 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: Elize Nayden at September 22, 2011 04:09 PM (v49dF)
Nope.
Posted by: sifty at September 22, 2011 04:10 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 22, 2011 04:10 PM (epBek)
I think he fell short of endorsing him, but said he thought he'd win. He was holding off on his endorsements.
I have to say that a lot of these endorsements have rolled out very early, the most egregious example being Jason Chaffetz. Very odd.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 04:10 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 04:10 PM (dZ756)
No, but I think it's more of a toss-up than people imagine. In a perfect world where I could simply will the candidate into office and skip those messy elections, I'd choose Perry on the simple logic that he seems to be dispositionally more conservative than Romney. However, I have certain reservations about him that were, ironically enough, voiced eloquently by Rush Limbaugh today on his show: (paraphrasing here) "It's not that Rick Perry is opposed to big government -- he LOVES himself some big government on the state level -- it's just the Federal level that he hates. We'll see if he maintains that view if he gets elected President."
That's a critique that actually has a bit of purchase with me, in particular because it's an interesting mirror of the critique people here make against Romney, i.e. that he's a technocrat who believes in "government working smart" as opposed to being opposed to it on its merits. Well yes, I think that critique has a lot going for it...but I keep looking into Perry's record (e.g., wind farm boondoggle, Trans-Texas corridor, and yes, even the HPV kerfuffle) and I ask myself whether that isn't essentially just as true for him, with the difference of better branding and a hardcore-GOP legislature to rein him in.
I get the sense that Perry would nominate better justices to the Supreme Court than Romney would, and would be less inclined to compromise on that score, and as a lawyer that's big for me.
But I also get the sense that Romney might actually have a better idea of what exactly needs to be done in terms of macro-economic policy decisions to get America out of its ditch. Whether that means hiring the right people or applying the lessons he's learned through years of Bain, or even (gasp) being able to get some buy-in from a couple of Democrats (esp. in the Senate, where we'll need it because we won't have 60 votes), I just think he's smarter about that stuff than pretty much anyone on the stage. And this relates in part to my criticism of Perry's debate demeanor...his inarticulateness upsets me so much precisely because it makes me wonder if Perry even knows why, on a deeper level, Texas was so successful. Or whether he can sell that to people. Or whether he was just the lucky schlub who happened to be in office in a state that was structurally superior to all the others (GOP legislature, low taxes, oil industry, etc.) and reaped the benefits without doing too much to make it happen.
But honestly I think either one would be an okay President. I've made this comparison several times before, and I fall back on it because I really think it's solid (also, nerdy): Perry and Romney are like different characters in an arcade fighting game (i.e. Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat), or different races you can play in Starcraft -- they have different strengths and weaknesses, and they play rather different styles based on that. This is why I agreed above with Undead States' observation that, indeed, we have TWO good candidates here, NOT JUST ONE. Perry OR Romney -- I'd be thrilled to vote for either one.
It's not a coin toss between them -- I prefer Perry and currently plan to vote for him, although my vote is definitely not solid -- but I honestly do think the differences between them are greatly exaggerated by the context each one had to work with (Romney fighting a 70%-80% liberal Dem legislature in MA vs. Perry working with a compliant GOP house in an ultra-business friendly state) and are being blown out of proportion by BOTH sides here on the blog. And that includes Ace, who is entitled to a bit of Perry-hacking (as he called it on his Twitter-feed), but runs the risk, I think, of overstating the unacceptability of Romney.
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 22, 2011 04:12 PM (hIWe1)
....hahahha...isn't that fucking hysterical? I mean...how's a guy supposed to get by with only $250 million in net worth.
I wouldn't waste the time and the energy to fill in that circle next to his name next November
Posted by: beedubya at September 22, 2011 04:12 PM (AnTyA)
And living in AZ, I remember very clearly when Perry would not support us and Brewer on SB1070. Romney will build a wall.
Even if it is about as useful as Hadrian's wall, I want one.
And Dream Act? so my girl born in AZ legally has to pay thru the nose out of state tuition at TX universities but an illegal immigrant gets in state rates there? I hate that I really do. I wish someone would sue for equal treatment or something.
I will support whomever you nominate but so far Romney has the private sector capital markets experience over Perry and he has put out a very thoughtful specific plan.
Romney is also being advised by Peter Navarro on China policy and he is VERY Tough on China in his economic plan which will play verry well with we blue collar Dems.
I think Romney would clean Obama's fxckin clock in a debate on capital creation and credit markets. 3 years in and Obama still doesnt fxckin get how they work.
Can Perry do that? so far Ive not seen anything to how that.
How about foreign policy? Where is Perry on AfPak? Romney has 08 run exp debating and importantly framing and learning about foreign policy. Perry has to do better IMO in that area.
Bring it to the table and let's shake it out and regroup to work together to win this MoFo.
Posted by: ginaswo at September 22, 2011 04:12 PM (y6MwA)
So this is what 1979 felt like before Reagan jumped in.
Reagan had been running since 1968. He didn't exactly jump in in 1979
Posted by: Ben at September 22, 2011 04:13 PM (tEGzl)
Wasn't crazy about him as my Governor, but if he'll get DC out of the way more power to him.
Posted by: Duke Lowell at September 22, 2011 04:13 PM (BSPOC)
If we're already at the stage where the outlier candidates like Bolton and McCotter are lining up behind Romney and Perry, narrowing the field this early and letting the media tee up months ahead of schedule, we'd better start trying these candidates by fire now. Make Mitt and Rick show us how well they can stand the heat before it's too late to get them out of the kitchen.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 04:13 PM (CjS9e)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 04:14 PM (fyOgS)
If Romney doesn't openly say - over and over -that he will repeal Obamacare - I will not suppport him.
If he wins and changes his mind? A pox on him.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at September 22, 2011 04:14 PM (0fzsA)
Sorry, Sonnypats, the morons in this thread have pissed me off so much that I won't vote for any of them even in the generals.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 22, 2011 08:04 PM (epBek
OK so wear your 52% patch in good health .
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 04:14 PM (I/MzF)
So this is what 1979 felt like before Reagan jumped in.
Reagan had been running since 1968. He didn't exactly jump in in 1979
Posted by: BenI did not know that in 1968 Reagan declared for the 1980 nomination. Interesting.
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 04:14 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 08:08 PM (roFKc)
Nope, I was in the Romney Camp when the ones you mentioned were the flavor of the month.
I left romney when he decided scaring seniors like the democrats do was in his interest. If anyone shoudn't be attacking other candidates it's romney.
Posted by: robtr at September 22, 2011 04:14 PM (MtwBb)
I'm wondering when we are going to see a little more herd thinning......
Santorum can't win. He's a solid conservative, but he can't win.
Cain....same deal.
Paul....well he's actually right about a lot of things domestically, but he's nuts on foreign policy. Alas, he isn't going away, and neither are his epically annoying followers.
Bachmann. Done, but she's pissed off at Perry so she may stay in just to be an irritant (Yes, I recognize that even though I'm a Romney supporter)
Newt....hmmm...yeah maybe he should stay. It's too damn entertaining watching him hammer media pissants.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 04:14 PM (0DGtF)
One thing Rick Perry has done is go toe to toe with a Republican congress that wanted to dabble in raising taxes and/or spending the Rainy Day fund. So that might warm the cockles of your hearts. At least he's sorta conservative.
Posted by: Lana at September 22, 2011 04:14 PM (2cVan)
Posted by: Elize Nayden at September 22, 2011 04:14 PM (v49dF)
@199 re Santorum question.
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at September 22, 2011 07:02 PM (OWjjx)
Thanks, Mallamutt. Looks like his standing's not too likely to change. Apparently he's hardly even hate-worthy, judging from the dearth of disparaging remarks that followed my question. Oh well. At least he appears honest about his beliefs, and his statements agree with his record.
I still think he's the truest conservative of the lot...and that might present an even bigger problem than Mittens' or Perry's suspicious baggage.
Posted by: EyeTest at September 22, 2011 04:15 PM (ReC4P)
Yeah, I really don't see where you're getting that.
Or why it matters, frankly.
People arrive at their candidate preferences in a lot of ways. It's a pretty organic process. What I find interesting about Perry is that when he announced a number of us from a pretty broad spectrum of backgrounds were enthusiastic about his candidacy. Vic seems to be more conservative than I am and we are from different regional backgrounds and whatnot, but we both seem to like him.
So I sympathize with the frustration about people not backing your candidate, but I don't see where it is getting you (or him) to make allegations or dismiss their reasons for supporting someone else.
Posted by: Y-not at September 22, 2011 04:15 PM (5H6zj)
Repealing Obamacare is THE SINGLE GREATEST ISSUE WE HAVE in front of us. If it doesn't happen - our economic system will collapse under its weight. It's a path to leftwinger fascist "single payer" - a failed system in all other nations.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at September 22, 2011 04:15 PM (0fzsA)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 04:15 PM (z8tc4)
I could clean Obama's clock on capital creation while flying high on a San Francisco treat. So what?
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 04:16 PM (dZ756)
You want Barack Obama doing that? Even if you think Mitt Romney would fuck it up and pick some squish, that would STILL be 1000% better than two screaming liberals with life-tenure.
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 22, 2011 06:54 PM (kRtDX)
Bears repeating.
Posted by: museisluse at September 22, 2011 04:16 PM (4Lj43)
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 08:07 PM (ycuSb)
Yup
I could go there.
Posted by: EyeTest at September 22, 2011 04:16 PM (ReC4P)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 04:16 PM (jhpbW)
The only differences between Mittens and Obama on the core issues of the day are the motivations.
Posted by: beedubya at September 22, 2011 04:17 PM (AnTyA)
Ditto. I'm backing Perry for now. I never supported those other duds. Perry's not perfect. He's not Reagan. Of the two, my gut instincts tell me he has a considerable more bit of trustworthiness than Romney. I believe Perry when he says what he believes. I believe him when he says he f-ed up. I don't believe he would compromise himself or his integrity just to win the presidency. He was not right at the front of the sign-up line when things started heating up. He had to be approached and convinced now was his time. It's not something he's been dreaming about his entire adult life. That's the feel I get from Romney.
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 04:17 PM (ycuSb)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 04:17 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 04:17 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 08:14 PM (fyOgS)
And he's a damn sight better than that fucking Socialist piece of shit that is shredding the Constitution.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 04:18 PM (iyQ4N)
I have to say that a lot of these endorsements have rolled out very early, the most egregious example being Jason Chaffetz. Very odd.
Current endorsement list
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at September 22, 2011 04:18 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 04:19 PM (jhpbW)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 04:19 PM (fyOgS)
I've liked Newt over the years. It just takes some getting used to, that arrogance, but since I see it on a daily basis with our current SCOAMF, it's not nearly as annoying when Newt does it as it used to be.
Could he really be the one left standing at the end? He is the smartest guy in the room.
Posted by: jaimo at September 22, 2011 04:19 PM (L5Jes)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 08:15 PM (z8tc4
Perry needs to pull a Newt and take the reigns more tonight.
Posted by: sonnyspats at September 22, 2011 04:20 PM (I/MzF)
Posted by: logprof at September 22, 2011 04:20 PM (QaKuj)
While we're talking about endorsements, Sam Brownback of KS just endorsed Perry.
Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2011 04:20 PM (VKD8C)
"And while Romney talks up how dreadfully "extreme" Perry's "Ponzi" talk is, he is making implicit promises to his would-be governing coalition: That he will not be "extreme." That he will be... middle of the road.
That he'll do more of the same, but maybe just a little bit better, and will not seek drastic, controversial (!!!) reforms, but rather tinker a bit to get us through the next four years or so."
It's agonizing to watch so many astute commentators in the blogosphere slowly, agonizingly and begrudgingly coming to the realization that Electability!!! isn't going to do squat to save us from the mess we're in.
Keep plugging away at it Ace, you're almost there.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at September 22, 2011 04:20 PM (8JpQH)
@480: "I've made this comparison several times before, and I fall back on it because I really think it's solid (also, nerdy): Perry and Romney are like different characters in an arcade fighting game (i.e. Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat)"
HA-DO-KEN, bitch!
Excellent.
Posted by: Rick Perry at September 22, 2011 04:20 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 04:20 PM (RD/KP)
Anything from Massholechusetts is dead to me, Mr. Romney.
Posted by: Live Free Or Die at September 22, 2011 04:21 PM (Ifp/o)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 08:17 PM (dZ756)
You forget yer sarc tag, I hope? So, maybe someone taps her for VP.
Posted by: EyeTest at September 22, 2011 04:21 PM (ReC4P)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 04:21 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 22, 2011 04:22 PM (r4wIV)
See, this is exactly what appeals to me about Romney too. It's why I simply cannot buy into the "I'm voting Obama!" or "I'm staying home!" crap that people are pushing is he gets the nomination. Romney isn't Linc Chaffee, for fuck's sake. He genuinely does seem to know more about business than anyone else who's run for President in the past 12 years or so. And that's a strong selling point that overcomes a lot. A WHOLE lot, for me.
I'm young(-ish). My life is still before me. I keep seeing myself referred to as "the lost generation" by the MSM, and Drudge, and pretty much everyone everywhere I turn. If the GOP puts up a guy who has the business skills and lifelong experience as a turnaround expert to run for President...what, are you fucking kidding? I'd be crazy not to vote for that guy, even if he wasn't my first choice.
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 22, 2011 04:22 PM (hIWe1)
Conservative websites draw conservative commenters who prefer more conservative candidates. No great mystery there- even you would be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that Romney is/was more conservative than Perry.
There are legitimate concerns about Perry I and others have, and that's why you don't see many of us going the Palinista "My candidate is perfect in every way and only (s)he can save America" route. If he starts looking to be unelectable, his support will drop like a stone.
However, his record as governor (flaws and all) does give me and many others some degree of confidence in terms of where he lies ideologically and what kind of President he'd make. Yes, he might not be a Tancredo on illegal immigration, and may have corporatist and cronyism tendencies, but neither is he the Lindsey Graham / John McCain "Yes, in fact I would like a reach-around but only if it's not too much trouble" type.
That same confidence doesn't exist with Romney, who himself seems to have dropped any pretense that he's the same guy who served as governor.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 22, 2011 04:22 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 04:22 PM (jhpbW)
Say something nice about Mitt Romney? Well -- he's not the most worthless jelly-spined Rino in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Wait -- Scott Brown just got hit by a taxicab? I withdraw my previous statement.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 22, 2011 04:22 PM (EeYDk)
499 John - Every Republican candidate supports tort reform. It's something he should cite as an accomplishment in that he actually got it done, but it's a choir preaching issue.
In fact both Perry and Romney have supported national tort reform. FWIW, I don't agree with a national one-size-fits-all tort plan. Tort law has always been a state-by-state issue and to me, a national plan reminds me of both Romney and Perry's flirtations with paternal statism (RomneyCare, Gardasil). That being said, national tort reform would have enough upside that I could ignore the federalism damage even though in my case it would take money out of my own pockets.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 04:24 PM (CjS9e)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 04:24 PM (jhpbW)
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 04:25 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 08:17 PM (dZ756)
You forget yer sarc tag, I hope? So, maybe someone taps her for VP.
Posted by: EyeTest///
You're kidding me, right? I was not being sarcastic. The Republican base still gets worked up over utter sideshows like religion and sexuality.
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 04:25 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Piñon Farmer at September 22, 2011 04:25 PM (IzuWw)
1.) This is self-evidently retarded.
2.) So let's assume Romney wins the nomination. Are you saying that nobody could vote for him against Obama and be a conservative?
3.) Seriously, are you even old enough to vote yet?
Posted by: Jeff B. at September 22, 2011 04:26 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 04:27 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 04:27 PM (z8tc4)
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 04:27 PM (CjS9e)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 08:25 PM (dZ756)
Yup, that's why those bastards stayed home and didn't vote for Bush/Cheney(with a gay daughter and pro gay marriage)
Did you just arrive on this planet?
Posted by: robtr at September 22, 2011 04:27 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 04:28 PM (ycuSb)
Not likely. Newt is living proof that a high IQ does not necessarily correlate with good judgement.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 22, 2011 04:28 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 04:28 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: jaimo at September 22, 2011 04:29 PM (L5Jes)
Ditto. If he's not up to the task, I'm at a real loss here.
Yes, ABO, but that's beginning to sound pretty weak.
Posted by: Piñon Farmer at September 22, 2011 04:29 PM (IzuWw)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 08:25 PM (dZ756)
Why should Mary Cheney be a bigger problem for Liz than for Dick?
Posted by: Elize Nayden at September 22, 2011 04:29 PM (v49dF)
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 08:28 PM (ycuSb)
He's going to do motorcycle tricks at half time.
Posted by: robtr at September 22, 2011 04:29 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 04:30 PM (0DGtF)
Threaten to stack it. If it's good enough for FDR, it should be good enough for everyone.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 04:31 PM (HtUdo)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 04:31 PM (z8tc4)
We've hired the best management guy in the country to oversee our decline in a graceful, dignified manner. Yay us!!
Posted by: Lana at September 22, 2011 04:31 PM (2cVan)
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame
President Romney's first three Supreme Court picks:
Oren Hatch
Richard Lugar
Rino TBD
Consider that rat still boned
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 22, 2011 04:31 PM (EeYDk)
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 04:31 PM (ycuSb)
I prefer Perry (at this point) but will walk over broken glass to vote for Mitt should he grab the nomination.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at September 22, 2011 04:31 PM (A0VTZ)
No, this is an *insert bandwagon here* place.
Posted by: Lurker at September 22, 2011 07:34 PM (gQceP)
Damn, lurking does make things clearer, doesn't it?
Posted by: Steph at September 22, 2011 04:31 PM (0pysv)
Posted by: jaimo at September 22, 2011 04:32 PM (L5Jes)
Yup, that's why those bastards stayed home and didn't vote for Bush/Cheney(with a gay daughter and pro gay marriage)
Did you just arrive on this planet?
Posted by: robtr///
I'm sorry, which GOP candidate challenged Bush for the nomination in 2004? Ok. Given a choice among competing candidates, Liz Cheney is not going to get evangelical support with a gay sister. They'll vote for her in the general, over the anti-Christ (teh ghey bad, teh Obama = End of Times), but they're not going to support her during the primaries.
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 04:32 PM (dZ756)
I prefer Perry (at this point) but will walk over broken glass to vote for Mitt should he grab the nomination.
I'm willing to show up drunk at the polls for Mitt, but that's about it.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 04:32 PM (HtUdo)
Romney helped individual business grow by trimming the fat, i.e., laying people off.
...and guess what...he made a shitload of money doing so.He has never done anything to help the overall economy grow.
I don't begrudge Romney. It's part of the capitalist system....but don't ever try to translate his experience and success as proof of changing the tax and regulatory climate to allow the economy to expand.
He has done the complete opposite.
Posted by: beedubya at September 22, 2011 04:32 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Lincolntf at September 22, 2011 04:33 PM (FzVlt)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 04:33 PM (z8tc4)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 04:33 PM (jhpbW)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 04:34 PM (TMB3S)
Richard Lugar
Rino TBD
Consider that rat still boned
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 22, 2011 08:31 PM (EeYDk)
Look, would you rather have Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar, or Van Jones and Elizabeth Warren?
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 04:34 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Morbius Wilters at September 22, 2011 04:35 PM (CxBWM)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 04:35 PM (nRTou)
Posted by: Lana at September 22, 2011 04:35 PM (2cVan)
552 - Stacking's a non-starter issue nowadays. Most Americans in the 30's didn't look on the Supreme Court as the most powerful institution in American politics, and FDR had the media firmly in his grip. The situation now is exactly the opposite. If a Republican president tried to stack the Court in 2012-2016, they'd be more likely to face impeachment than to get even a single justice added to the Court.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 04:35 PM (CjS9e)
::in best Seinfeld vioce..i kid::
Posted by: Willy at September 22, 2011 04:35 PM (Ja9VH)
This. It may take a pint or two to wear the cornbrero, but I will.
Posted by: toby928©: Poluting your thread with football at September 22, 2011 04:36 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: USS Diversity at September 22, 2011 04:36 PM (aD5Kx)
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 04:36 PM (s7mIC)
Mittens was wealthy in the womb. He has never had any skin in the game. He invested with other peoples' money. There was never any risk to himself.
He has no fucking clue what it takes to lay everything you have on the line to start an entrepreneurial concern and have the government fuck with you at every turn
Posted by: beedubya at September 22, 2011 04:36 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 04:37 PM (b8YIP)
Do I think Romney would fight to get congress to repeal it? no, no I don't.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 22, 2011 04:37 PM (jiVmv)
Look, would you rather have Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar, or Van Jones and Elizabeth Warren?
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 08:34 PM (s7mIC)
Are you actually designing the ballot papers for Hell inc.??
Posted by: Elize Nayden at September 22, 2011 04:37 PM (v49dF)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 08:37 PM (b8YIP)
In the primaries or in the general?
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 04:37 PM (s7mIC)
Romney or Perry, Perry or Romney, I think in the end Romney will pull a McCain and start complimenting Obama during debates or something, whereas I don't see Perry doing that.
The media is all over Perry because they want Romney in the general election, he's a puss. Perry would chew the Kenyen up and feed him to that coyote, before he shoots it.
Posted by: jaimo at September 22, 2011 04:38 PM (L5Jes)
I'm willing to show up drunk at the polls for Mitt, but that's about it.
As long as you vote for him fair enough.
While I'm not a huge Mittens guy, I don't have the same revulsion for him as you do. I don't put him in McCain territory either as many like to do either.
Whatever, if it was up to me, I'd pretend Rubio was 50 and had a full term in the Senate under his belt. Or Ryan. Life ain't perfect though and our two choices are Mitt n Perry and the either of them Vs. Owaffle.
Seems pretty easy to me.
Posted by: Delta Smelt at September 22, 2011 04:38 PM (A0VTZ)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 08:32 PM (dZ756
Your stereotype fu is pretty weak. Wait, who was an evangical presidential candidate that picked a guy with a gay daughter and who was for gary marriage to be his VP?
Posted by: robtr at September 22, 2011 04:38 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Dang at September 22, 2011 04:38 PM (TXKVh)
I prefer Perry (at this point) but will walk over broken glass to vote for Mitt should he grab the nomination.
I prefer Romney, but I'd roll around on a hill of fireants to vote for Rick should he get the nomination.
No BO
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 04:39 PM (0DGtF)
This. It may take a pint or two to wear the cornbrero, but I will.
Its best to vote by mail when drunk-voting. Saves the DUI.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 22, 2011 04:40 PM (jiVmv)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 04:41 PM (fyOgS)
In the primaries or in the general?
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 08:37 PM (s7mIC)
In both. It's my first fucking vote for President. Mitt. Is. A. Piece. Of. Shit.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 04:41 PM (b8YIP)
Whatever, if it was up to me, I'd pretend Rubio was 50 and had a full term in the Senate under his belt. Or Ryan. Life ain't perfect though and our two choices are Mitt n Perry and the either of them Vs. Owaffle.
Rubio, Jindal, Ryan, and perhaps Christie. The next field will be pretty darn interesting.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 04:41 PM (0DGtF)
Posted by: John at September 22, 2011 04:42 PM (z8tc4)
In both. It's my first fucking vote for President. Mitt. Is. A. Piece. Of. Shit.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 08:41 PM (b8YIP)
Lucky you. Voting on who won't end life as we know it faster than the other. I was fortunate, I got to vote for Ronald Reagan, twice.
Posted by: jaimo at September 22, 2011 04:42 PM (L5Jes)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 04:42 PM (b8YIP)
Posted by: no good deed at September 22, 2011 04:43 PM (mjR67)
This. It may take a pint or two to wear the cornbrero, but I will.
Ahh, you find the possibility of a rerun of 2008 disturbing?
Don't get wrong, I'll wear may own cornbrero should the need arise, but there is something to voter enthusiasm.
Posted by: Piñon Farmer at September 22, 2011 04:43 PM (IzuWw)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 22, 2011 08:35 PM (nRTou)
She could raise millions of dollars for a charitable organization if she'd pose for even a PG-13 calender.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 04:43 PM (iyQ4N)
Rubio and Jindal can't be President, they aren't natural born citizens.
Posted by: jaimo at September 22, 2011 04:43 PM (L5Jes)
Posted by: toby928©: Poluting your thread with football at September 22, 2011 04:44 PM (GTbGH)
What a weasel Romney is.
Posted by: Sticking Neck at September 22, 2011 04:45 PM (ecmD4)
In both. It's my first fucking vote for President. Mitt. Is. A. Piece. Of. Shit.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 08:41 PM (b8YIP)
Oh. Well then. I guess you like SCFOAMF then...
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 04:45 PM (s7mIC)
Wow. My heart goes out to you. I have the honor of claiming my first vote, at the age of 18. I got the blessing of voting for Mr. Ronnie himself. You won't have much to hang your hat on.
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 04:45 PM (ycuSb)
Your stereotype fu is pretty weak. Wait, who was an evangical presidential candidate that picked a guy with a gay daughter and who was for gary marriage to be his VP?
Posted by: robtrI guess rather than actually respond to my post you act like a liberal.
Dick Cheney was not a candidate for the GOP nomination in 2000. Dick Cheney did not support gay anything in 2000 (at least not publicly). Who the hell even knew who Mary Cheney was in 2000? Now, it would tickle me purple if you'd actually respond to what I said: the evangelical base (last I checked GWB was not the base) will not support a candidate for the nomination who has a gay sibling. You've yet to respond to that statement. You've managed to kill every other straw man, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 04:45 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: sven10077 at September 22, 2011 04:45 PM (AEIYh)
Posted by: jaimo at September 22, 2011 04:46 PM (L5Jes)
Do
Not
Trust
Unfortunately his initials are ABO.
Posted by: trainer at September 22, 2011 04:46 PM (DGxyd)
False choice. We could instead elect someone who would never appoint either douche.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 04:46 PM (HtUdo)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 04:47 PM (fyOgS)
Oh. Well then. I guess you like SCFOAMF then...
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 08:45 PM (s7mIC)
No I said I would not vote for him in the general. oh, you were talking about Obama.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 04:47 PM (b8YIP)
560 Goth - Cheney's not going to run, OFC, but if she did, evangelicals and other Christians would not shun her for having a gay daughter. Some would over support of gay marriage, but you seem to be buying into the "Jesus-zombie" stereotype the media uses to smear Christians and Republicans.
I'm an atheist Objectivist but I'm not knee-jerk anti-religion. Are you an angry fi-con, Libertarian or what ? In either case, go easy on the Christians. They're 90% on our side and they're 80% of the electorate. Save your ammo for the enemy.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 04:47 PM (CjS9e)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at September 22, 2011 04:47 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 04:48 PM (0DGtF)
Oh, that's right. Vic pointed it out above:
As Democratic and Republican leaders in Washington struggled to find agreement on spending cuts and extending the debt limit, Mitt Romney struck a conciliatory note in New Hampshire on Monday by lamenting partisan feuding while touting his record of working with Democrats -- even the Senate's onetime liberal lion Edward M. Kennedy.
...
Posted by: As If! at September 22, 2011 04:48 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 04:48 PM (fyOgS)
Rubio and Jindal can't be President, they aren't natural born citizens.
Posted by: jaimo at September 22, 2011 08:43 PM (L5Jes)
Yes they are.
Posted by: ErikW at September 22, 2011 04:48 PM (iyQ4N)
Posted by: jaimo at September 22, 2011 04:49 PM (L5Jes)
Posted by: JackStraw at September 22, 2011 04:50 PM (TMB3S)
I'll still try and save her once the Barackalypse hits.
Posted by: Waterhouse at September 22, 2011 04:50 PM (hOcpZ)
Why the hell is O'Reilly interviewing him?
Posted by: As If! at September 22, 2011 04:50 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: USS Diversity at September 22, 2011 04:51 PM (aD5Kx)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 04:51 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 04:51 PM (ycuSb)
Mine was 1992. Didn't work out too well.
My Grandparents voted for Hoover in 1932!
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 04:52 PM (0DGtF)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at September 22, 2011 08:48 PM (0DGtF)
I don't know. Sarah is great when not holding some RINO's water. Certainly better than ms. tardisal.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 22, 2011 04:52 PM (b8YIP)
Posted by: sven10077 at September 22, 2011 04:52 PM (AEIYh)
I was too. I still remember my dad taking me. Back then, our "precinct" was in somebody's basement. No joke!
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 22, 2011 04:53 PM (ycuSb)
Yeah, we could. But if we don't, then I'll still vote for the guy who will put a guy named Orrin Hatch on SCOTUS over a guy named Van Jones.
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 04:53 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Daniel at September 22, 2011 04:54 PM (lQQvy)
My daughter was hear yesterday when The Five came on and I suddenly shouted "damnit!"
My daughter was taken aback for a moment until I told her to look what a beautiful, accomplished woman had done to herself. She spotted it tight away and followed up with daaaannng.
It is disappointing that someone such as she would feel the need to pump botox into her forehead. It's not even subtle.
Posted by: As If! at September 22, 2011 04:54 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 04:54 PM (fyOgS)
Cool. Then we're agreed that Romney is the candidate of last resort.
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 04:54 PM (HtUdo)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 22, 2011 08:45 PM (dZ756)
I did respond to it. Dick Cheney has got the evangical vote twice. You really haven't been paying attention if you don't think Cheney's gay daughter wasn't brought up in the 2000 election. It was brought up a lot. Just not in a debate like it was in 2004.
I am not an evangical but I think you are wrong in saying they wouldn't vote for a person because her sister is gay.
You are thinking about the fred phelps crowd and they are democrats.
Posted by: robtr at September 22, 2011 04:55 PM (MtwBb)
No, we agree that we're both voting for Romney in the general if he does get nominated.
Posted by: chemjeff at September 22, 2011 04:56 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: toby928©: Poluting your thread with football at September 22, 2011 04:56 PM (GTbGH)
I'll drink to that
Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at September 22, 2011 04:56 PM (HtUdo)
625 Reg - With Bachmann taking a gas can to her own credibility, the chances of Palin running have probably gone up. Palin for Prez is still not viable, IMO, but things certainly look better from her perspective. She could fill the "female" and "(looks) most conservative" roles and provide the only strong personality counterpoint to Perry among frontrunners. She and Perry would probably end up goading each other into such fringe displays of Conservative bona-fides that they both became radioactive in the general.
Hugh Hewitt might do well to endorse Palin on those grounds, cuz you know who that helps...
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 04:57 PM (CjS9e)
Oh, but didn't you know? He's now the second most powerful man in America.
Posted by: As If! at September 22, 2011 04:58 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 22, 2011 04:59 PM (CjS9e)
Posted by: steevy at September 22, 2011 08:47 PM (fyOgS)
--Same here.
Posted by: logprof at September 22, 2011 04:59 PM (QaKuj)
B.O. is talking about a California councilman who named his dog Mohammed. CAIR is demanding an apology.
Posted by: As If! at September 22, 2011 05:00 PM (piMMO)
Look, would you rather have Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar, or Van Jones and Elizabeth Warren?
Posted by: chemjeff
After the next election, a leftist nominated to the Court by Da O is far less likely to be confirmed by the Senate than a moderate/squish appointed by Romney.
Republicans are more likely to oppose/filibuster a Democratic pick* than a Republican choice. Republicans are, after all the go along party.
Not sure the Republic can much more from those Republican Justices who "grow in office" once they take the black.
*especially if Lugar gets hit by the same taxicab that snagged Scott Brown
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 22, 2011 05:12 PM (EeYDk)
Well if it's going over anyways this would give us a lot more entertaining sound effects and panic steering.
Posted by: DaveA at September 22, 2011 05:26 PM (jWTOk)
Posted by: EvilRedScandi at September 22, 2011 05:58 PM (M+Vm5)
Posted by: The Detachment AudioBook at September 22, 2011 06:12 PM (+uroR)
Still like those RINOs?
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at September 22, 2011 06:19 PM (dr4y0)
Posted by: ex pat at September 22, 2011 06:25 PM (rsOPT)
It doesn't make one tiny bit of diff to me if the reason Obamacare survives in some part because Obama gets re-elected, or because some "Moderate" gets elected instead. We're toast either way.
Posted by: K~Bob at September 22, 2011 06:43 PM (Cm6g1)
This is ACE at his best. This is an insightful post. For me, if Romney wins, I will vote for him as the lesser of the two evils. In the primary, I am in the "anyone but Romney" camp. His team seems so much like the typical Rep establishment. They are at best moderates. They "live" among the liberals. So they tend to adopt their way of thinking implicitly. As I suspected and anticipated, a conservative will have to fight not only against the left, but also the Rep establishment. They will play the "electability" card by doing the attack for the left. They will try to damage our candidates so that they can claim that they are "unelectable". So it is time for Perry to go nuclear on the Romney camp if that 's what they want. BTW, Romney also praised Obama for having the gut to fire GM CEO in 2009! His tactics are straight out of the liberal playbooks. In the primary, I am in the "anyone-but-Romney" camp now. Also I don't trust the Rep establishment anymore.
Posted by: LAI at September 22, 2011 07:21 PM (iVem0)
Posted by: DRayRaven at September 22, 2011 07:27 PM (4kYSc)
From what I read about Perry 's performance at the debate tonight, I am down on him too. Sad! Now I have to wait for my plan B: Sarah Palin.
Posted by: LAI at September 22, 2011 07:30 PM (iVem0)
The problem with Rick Perry is that he is a less-than-skilled debater with the appearance of having too limited of a knowledge base for a run for the Presidency. Unless he ups his game, then he runs the risk of fading away gently into the political twilight.
Second look at Palin? ;-) Palin/Romney or Palin/Newt? ;-)
Posted by: Jon at September 22, 2011 07:31 PM (VAOLm)
Posted by: HoJo at September 22, 2011 08:21 PM (L7RsW)
I have been arguing all along that Romney would never repeal Obamacare - and to me, Obamacare is the signature issue of the campaign. If we don't repeal Obamacare, liberalism has won. Private health insurance will eventually fail and once there is central control over health care, the federal gov't has sufficent reason to regulate everything. We in effect become europe. Moreover, if Obamacare stands, the commerce clause is expanded to the point that there is no power that the federal gov't does not have. So, if we fail to repeal it, it doesn't matter what else a republican president does, liberalism wins.
Also, I have been banging on the nobody knows what romney truly believes drum for awhile also. This is guy that ran for Senate, then ran for Governor and was governor for 4 years, and has been running for president for the last 5 years. And WE STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE REALLY BELIEVES.
Anyone who does not come into office as a conservative will move left. A technocrat, establishment guy like Romney is going to move further to the left than most. We will be lucky if he is even as conservative as GHW Bush, and I sincerely doubt that he would be.
I am honestly not sure if America would be better off (long term) with a failed Romney go-along-get-along presidency or 4 more years of Obama. I don't even believe Romney would appoint conservative justices to teh Supreme Court. I think we'd be lucky to get another Kennedy or Sandra Day out of Romney. We'd more likely end up with a Souter
Posted by: Monkeytoe at September 23, 2011 03:59 AM (sOx93)
Plus, I don't believe Romney has the beest chance against Obama, despite current polls.
Romney polls well in head-to-head matchups against Obama b/c he is literally the generic republican. The mushy middle has heard of him and knows he is "moderate" and thus safe and not scary and therefore are willing to pick him. But, most of the mushy middle (like everyone else) doesn't know what Romney stands for - so he can easily be defined by Obama (and the media - which will campaign hard for Obama).
And, romney is a cautious, meek campaigner, so hard-nosed Obama will tear him apart in this regard.
Plus, Romney will not excite the base or independents, so forget about lots of dollars pouring in or lots of volunteers.
And, at the end of the day, the best Romney will be able to do is say "i'm a lot like Obama (Romneycare), but allegedly have better management skills". Well, most in the mushy middle are likley to stick with the devil they know (Obama) than try something new if no real difference is offered.
And, I still worry that a lot of evangelicals will not vote for a mormon. I could be wrong, but I worry.
I just don't see Romney doing very well in teh general election. I see another 52-48 in favor of Obama.
Romney will sit back and hope that Obama loses. I want someone who will try to beat Obama. It doesn't have to be a 100% fire-brand conservative vowing to do away with all gov't agencies, but someone who does more than write a tepid middle-of-the-road op-ed weeks after everyone else has taken a firm stance on an issue.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at September 23, 2011 04:06 AM (sOx93)
It's got everything but principle and character.
No sale. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum.
Posted by: Ken at September 23, 2011 05:53 AM (7yb9x)
what political capital ? he runs on repeal, he wins, he repeals ... no political capital required ...
political capital is accrued on your campaign issues that you win on ... once elected you only use it up when you want to do something you DID NOT campaign on ... then you spent your capital on an issue OTHER than what you ran on ...
Obama had to use political capital to pass ObamaCare ... But wait, didn't he run on reforming healthcare ? Yes he did, but ObamaCare didn't actually reform healthcare, it is a government takeover of healthcare, that is why he had to expend capital to get it passed ...
Posted by: JeffC at September 23, 2011 07:00 AM (A3tpD)
Posted by: Phelps at September 23, 2011 07:02 AM (zNl2Z)
Posted by: Ryan Larsen at September 27, 2011 11:07 PM (nizjj)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3603 seconds, 781 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: rplat at September 22, 2011 02:27 PM (4vq8i)