So, if Mitt comes in furth, can we count on him to drop out of the race?

/s

Ron Paul comes in behind Santorum. 

Mostly because Ron Paul is secretly afraid that Santorum might be jewish and he doesn't want to take his eyes off the sneaky jew.

Sidebar quiz submission...

Fiona Apple is not popular due to heroin addiction or at least the perception of?  Am I right?  Do I win?

I got Pushing Up Daisies in the fifth by a nose and Aunt Sally's Buttermilk Biscuits in the third by a length!!

Can't we make Idaho the first state?  The potato industry needs some more subsidies.

Rick Perry is going to do better than most people think, especially Romney.  I predict Santorum's surge is over and Perry will be 3rd.  As much as I dislike him, I hope Ron Paul wins 1st and Romney is 2nd, if not lower.  I didn't like Romney's attitude last night saying he was going to win it.

I don't trust Romney to repeal Obamacare, he signed Romneycare and continues to defend it. I live in MA and it's horrible.

1.Romney

2.Paul

3. Perry

4. Gingrich

5. Santorum

6. Bachmann

7. Huntsman

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 03, 2012 12:18 PM (Qjh0I)

Heh, you just illustrated Perry's major problem.

Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at January 03, 2012 12:19 PM (ZiYQG)

Surely you joust!

wow you folks still think that Perry can finish 3rd much less 4th?

1. Romney - by the skin of his teeth

2. Santorum

3. Paul

4. Gingrich

5. Perry

6. Bachmann

7. Huntsman

no one drops out tonight and Ill shock everyone and pick NH already - Romney wins it

the race truly begins in SC

and yes i'll be prepared to happily eat crow if Perry places 3rd or 4th

Ron PAUL 100%!!!11!!

It's lose/lose either way. Either Mittens wins and he wraps up the nomination quickly, or Paul wins and we have to deal with a nutjob. I guess a Paul victory is preferable simply to deny Romney the win, though.

I say anyone below third place needs to drop out so we can unite behind the strongest not-Romney and not-Paul.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 12:22 PM (i6RpT)

Thank God

>>wow you folks still think that Perry can finish 3rd much less 4th?

Yes. I think he's got a good organization.

I think Gingrich is done(in iowa). The attack ads killed him the socon state of Iowa.

I think Santorum's rise is false. He'll be in the top five, but he won't win 1,2 or 3.

I think Paul's ground game is overstated as well. Unless the Iowa caucuses are open, he won't place in the top three either.

I bet Bachmann drops out and endorses Romney after she places second to last behind Huntsman.

I say anyone below third place needs to drop out so we can unite behind the strongest not-Romney and not-Paul.

Posted by: Chris at January 03, 2012 12:26 PM (xzLHn)

Hey, how about we all get behind the not-Republican candidate.

Since traditionally the winner of Iowa crashes and burns

lately it seems that way but it used to matter for awhile there, Dole and Dubya both won there

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 12:27 PM (i6RpT)

So we can still attack Romney and Huntsman?

Posted by: Ben at January 03, 2012 12:27 PM (wuv1c)

well either way one of us two is eating crow after tonight, sounds like fun

Santorum: 26%

Paul:  21%

Newt:  17%

Romney:  17%

Perry:  12%

Bachmann:  4%

Huntsman:  2%

Palin and others:  1%

>>I think Paul's ground game is overstated as well. Unless the Iowa caucuses are open, he won't place in the top three either.

I meant to say he won't win. He will probably place in the top three though.

Is Iowa an  open caucus?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 03, 2012 12:31 PM (/kI1Q)

Hole in eight baby. Sometimes I even impress myself.

Posted by: dagny at January 03, 2012 12:21 PM (TCgts)

Wait, don't you already know how big his penis is?

Posted by: Pecos, at January 03, 2012 12:33 PM (2Gb0y)

it's currently the freest state in the nation according to studies and it's the only inroad for the GOP in dem New England lately

Iowans can go back to doing what they do best...providing the rest of us with pork products and corn.

And getting all those sweet sweet subsidies that we all get to pay for.

Meh...it just dawned on me who Luap Nor is.

Duh.

I hat hate all of you.

it's currently the freest state in the nation according to studies and it's the only inroad for the GOP in dem New England lately

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 03, 2012 12:34 PM (yAor6)

Compared to the rest of benighted New England, NH is the most free...but compared to some place like Montana?

Posted by: Jose at January 03, 2012 12:34 PM (srIqv)

I almost had a heart attack when I read that comment, you have the same name as my brother who LOATHES Perry so I was taken aback heh

I hat hate all of you.

Posted by: dananjcon at January 03, 2012 12:36 PM (8ieXv)

Not only do I hat hate all of you, I glove hate you all as well.

Compared to the rest of benighted New England, NH is the most free...but compared to some place like Montana?

Posted by: 18-1 at January 03, 2012 12:36 PM (7BU4a)

according to the studies yes, and MT has been showing signs that it will be more Dem friendly in the future

Posted by: Pecos, at January 03, 2012 12:33 PM (2Gb0y)

Sort of  a real place, sort of la la land. Mitt Romney is a conservative in NH.

Small little place too. Fart in New Hampshire and they will smell it in Maine. They might even hear it.

I'd really hate hate the presidential election to come down to Harvard Law v Harvard Law.

Not only do I hat hate all of you, I glove hate you all as well.

May you be doomed to be a New York Jets fan now and forever.

Posted by: Pecos, at January 03, 2012 12:33 PM (2Gb0y)

No it's not.  Same thing goes for Maine.  Once the last tourist leaves in September, they're shut down for the winter.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 03, 2012 12:39 PM (7BU4a)

Santorum will endorse Mitt when he drops out

Dear Iowa Republican Caucus-goersÂ…. http://wp.me/p1ipEz-1bE

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 03, 2012 12:38 PM (SY2Kh)

I disagree. If she'd run a better campaign she could have had a shot at the nomination.

But she's run a horrible campaign and yes, it appears now just fighting for Romney...but if she stays in after Iowa, her supporters need to realize they are choosing Romney if they vote for her...

1. Romney (Best organization of any of the candidates. Successfully managed not to take a stance on any issue of real importance.)

2. Paul (Even through voters are becoming increasingly aware of Paul's dark, fringy weirdness, that awareness will not yet have penetrated far and deep enough to affect the Iowa result.)

3. Santorum (All that pavement-pounding and face-to-face in every Iowa county is bound to have an effect.)

4. Gingrich (He's falling fast but not that fast.)

5. Perry (Placed after Gingrich because Perry's eschewed running on his economic record and gone all in in Iowa on social con issues dear to the evangelicals--I don't think it'll work.) 

6. Bachmann (Prayed for Divine Intervention to save her campaign. God says no.)

Posted by: Hotair Commenter at January 03, 2012 12:41 PM (kBehb)

+1, thread winner

 Iowa sucks cock, just like Obama

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Is Iowa an  open caucus?

Posted by: Ben at January 03, 2012 12:30 PM (wuv1c)

Roughly, yes.  You can go in and pick up a D or an R ballot.

But keep in mind how small the caucuses are.  It isn't like an anonymous primary.  If you're known to be liberal, your neighbors will recognize you.

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2012 12:41 PM (W/RCd)

Bah, not like Obama does. Amateurs.

Mittens, Paul, and Perry in a surprising third.

I don't care about percentages, and frankly I think the order matters little.  My only "bold" prediction here is that the Santorum flash was just that, the shortest of the flare-ups among the various not-Romneys.  Not that it matters.  Mittens is on this day beginning the process of receiving what was handed to him, more or less, as soon as McCain was finished taking his turn.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 03, 2012 12:40 PM (jucos)

Guaranteed to happen sooner or later. They've outlawed "breeders" in Buttfukafornicatia, and the people it outlawed voted in favor of the law.

Posted by: Jeremiad was a Bullfrog at January 03, 2012 12:44 PM (UzjcV)

Just like old times! En garde Barry!

1. Romney, (narrow win...but hey, it's a win)

2. Santorum

3. Gingrich

4. Paul

5. Bachman

6. Huntsman

7. Perry

Further predictions:  Paul drops out, and attempts to run as an Independent, thus insuring the country another four years of Jug Ear's enlightened, and progressive leadership, because there are just enough starry-eyed Ronulans out there to screw up any chance for a Republican White House.

Republicans hold on to their majority in the House, and win a slim majority in the Senate.....and then fuck it all up, just like they did last time.

Romney

Paul

Santorum

Newt

a ham sandwhich

Bachmann

Buddy Roemer

The other guy from Wham

Rick Perry

Speaking of Hot Air, Tina Korbe got engaged.

hot chick

good blogger, her and Jazz have made that blog more readable

she should stay away from TV because she sucks being in front of it when she opens her mouth

142 -

If God is listening, I would like it very much if Ms. Bachmann could be placed below Jon (father of hot daughters and absolutely nothing else to recommend him) Huntsman.  Please, thank you, and amen.

I hat hate all of you.

Posted by: dananjcon at January 03, 2012 12:36 PM (8ieXv)

Hat hate keeps me warm at night.

Is Iowa an  open caucus?

Posted by: Ben at January 03, 2012 12:30 PM (wuv1c) 

Effectively they're open. You can register or change party registration at the caucus site. A really shitty system, IMHO.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 03, 2012 12:47 PM (jucos)

I walked into that

Romney

Paul

Perry

Gingrich

Santorum

ItÂ’s time to get scientific about the Iowa outcome.

Santorum cried the other day about his dead baby and itÂ’s getting air time, so heÂ’s going to win.  Romney is making people feel comfortable, so heÂ’s coming in second.  Paul has received enough attention that folks are starting to see just how fucking crazy he is, so heÂ’ll underperform expectations but still place third.  Gingrich will either tie Paul or be one point behind.  PalinÂ’s write in will be in the high single digit range and beat both Perry and Bachmann.

Summary:

Santorum

Romney

Paul

Gingrich

Palin

Perry

Bachmann

Posted by: Jeanne at January 03, 2012 12:48 PM (GdalM)

That would certainly cause a lot of consternation in the white house, not to mention Jimmy Carters appearance schedule.

Posted by: Jeanne at January 03, 2012 12:48 PM (GdalM)

Don't know if he's dead or not, but his death pic will try to kill your 'puter.

And no, there's no "but Ron Paul doesn't count so 4th is really 3rd" exception. If neither Newt or Perry get at least a top 3, resistance is futile, we will all be assimilated into the Romney Collective.

Not if Paul is 1st, it isn't.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 03, 2012 12:50 PM (SY2Kh)

oh, yes I forgot about her love for Bachmann

Posted by: bannor, voting for NotRomney at January 03, 2012 12:53 PM (6AXh/)

Barrack Obama thanks you for the support

Posted by: brak at January 03, 2012 12:54 PM (kBehb)

Ok, now I'm pissed.

Barrack Obama thanks you for the support

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 03, 2012 12:55 PM (yAor6)

Romney or Barry, Kodos or Kang?

mind still not made up!!  is there any way we can take the good pieces of the canidates and put them together, instead of a bunch of lesser of several evil nitwits to face the obamination.

Resistance IS futile.

Mitt's the Shit!

LMAO and I scarf hate all of you as well.

...now back to work, someones gotta earn the bacon round here!

Posted by: Jeanne at January 03, 2012 12:48 PM (GdalM)

That would certainly cause a lot of consternation in the white house, not to mention Jimmy Carters appearance schedule.

Nothing on Babalu yet. But I'm sure Val has champagne on ice.

203 ItÂ’s time to get scientific delusional about the Iowa outcome.

Fixed that for you.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 03, 2012 12:54 PM (SY2Kh)

DonÂ’t tell me youÂ’re still wishcasting for that inarticulate stumblefuck Perry?  I thought you would have learned something at the Ace School of Election Reality.

DonÂ’t tell me youÂ’re still wishcasting for that inarticulate stumblefuck Perry?  I thought you would have learned something at the Ace School of Election Reality.

Posted by: jwest at January 03, 2012 12:59 PM (8moZm)

well while I agree with you somewhat on the Perry love he gets here I have to say i'd take him over Saint Sarah any day, and yes Perry will get more votes then a write-in for Palin just as he did in the Iowa straw poll

What's with the Perry hate?

The guy has an awesome conservative record in Texas.

Who else has a record like him?

DonÂ’t tell me youÂ’re still wishcasting for that inarticulate stumblefuck Perry?  I thought you would have learned something at the Ace School of Election Reality.

Posted by: jwest at January 03, 2012 12:59 PM (8moZm)

No, that's Ace's Selective School of Regulation, Enumeration, Accreditation, and Monitoring in Iowa.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at January 03, 2012 01:01 PM (BKOsZ)

I'm not a flip flopping stumblefark...I'm you. Unless you don't want to vote for you. Then I'm totally someone else.

Posted by: maddogg at January 03, 2012 12:58 PM (OlN4e)

I've had a feeling ever since people started announcing their candidacy, that the lack of any really good candidate makes me wonder what a lot of people aren't telling us.

Other than the SCOAMF, who wants to preside over a dying nation. 

Santorum 22%

Paul 20%

Bachmann 19%

Perry 17%

Mittens 16%

Newt 6%

Who does this really hurt? Hugh Hewitt.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky at January 03, 2012 01:03 PM (baL2B)

+1

Posted by: ChristyBlinky at January 03, 2012 01:03 PM (baL2B)

Agreed.

I predict scewed non real results... as the vast majority of Repubs are not enthused enough to go... and the place will be packed with zealots of individual cnadidates...

And the 30% or so of registered Independents (or unaffiliated) don't have a dog in this race.... sooo... tempest in a teapot EXCEPT for the pundits who will attempt to spin this, as they have, into somthing important.

Time to dump Iowa!  They really only do it for the money and to become (ir)relevant every 4 years.  They certainly don't speak for me!

Who cares how they vote - they won't change my mind!

What's with the Perry hate?

The guy has an awesome conservative record in Texas.

Who else has a record like him?

Posted by: TypicalWhitey at January 03, 2012 01:01 PM (xeVap)

There are brief periods during the day that Paulbots and DNC shills outnumber everyone else.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 03, 2012 01:05 PM (niZvt)

Certainly. Raul might need someone to aim his dick for him when he pisses.

Who does this really hurt? Hugh Hewitt.

Posted by: Gregg the Obscure at January 03, 2012 01:04 PM (5tPx9)

You think Bachmann will do that well?

The best analogy I can think of for Romney is that he's like the somewhat decent chick left at the party. Yea, you're drunk and she's not really that hot,,,,,But even with your beer goggles on she's not totally ugly either but it will have to do for now.

These caucus votes aren't even binding.

From what I understand, this is just a preliminary thing. .....Iowa Republicans still have to go through their county conventions, then their district conventions, then their state convention. .....And then their 28 delegates/votes will finally be determined and sent on to the National Convention.

But you gotta hand it to Iowa. .....They've got millions pouring into their state for this non-binding circus, while getting to act like they are the most important people in the country.

You get used to it.

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 03, 2012 01:08 PM (OCCG6)

Yep, just like that, so come take a spin big boy

/Que the Music from the Crying Game

1. Tim Tebow

2. Duggars

3. Jesus

Wishing the hopeless hope that St. Sarah will come to the rescue does not strike me as grounded in anything resembling reality. 

She's a nice lady.  And pretty.  Otherwise.....

here's another headline prediction:

Broncos Throw Cold Water on Steelers

We can hope.

That should be a good game, though.  Definitely a defensive game.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 01:10 PM (8y9MW)

you guys are nuts, Steelers in a blowout, then they shock the Patriots in the Divisional round (Thank God) before they lose the AFC Championship to the Ravens

Posted by: dagny at January 03, 2012 12:21 PM (TCgts)

He's your husband, I would think you would know by now if he does.

I know what you mean about Santorum, there's something I just don't like about him. I can't put my finger on it (insert small peep joke here)

Posted by: bannor, voting for NotRomney at January 03, 2012 01:11 PM (6AXh/)

Hey, not all of us can be extremely extreme right wing like that Bush guy. You know, the older one.

The best analogy I can think of for Romney is that he's like the somewhat decent chick left at the party. Yea, you're drunk and she's not really that hot,,,,,But even with your beer goggles on she's not totally ugly either but it will have to do for now.

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 03, 2012 01:08 PM (OCCG6)

Even when I get her back to my place, I ain't fuckin' er.  No sir.  No siree......

Posted by: soothsayer at January 03, 2012 01:12 PM (G/zuv)

I did, I picked the Seahawks to stun the Saints last year

the Broncos will get throttled by the Steelers

The best analogy I can think of for Romney is that he's like the somewhat decent chick left at the party. Yea, you're drunk and she's not really that hot,,,,,But even with your beer goggles on she's not totally ugly either but it will have to do for now.

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 03, 2012 01:08 PM (OCCG6)

-----

No, Romney is the scag that you wake up with the next morning you look at with disgust when you realize that you could have been in bed with a conservative.

What's with the Perry hate?

The guy has an awesome conservative record in Texas.

Who else has a record like him?

Posted by: TypicalWhitey at January 03, 2012 01:01 PM (xeVap)

Where have you been?  Here at AoSHQ, if someone isnÂ’t your candidate, you must destroy them.  Only by learning what a piece of shit your guy is and what an asshole youÂ’ve been for supporting him will you be converted to my guy.

This was all explained pretty well by Dale Carnegie in one of his books, I think.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 03, 2012 01:14 PM (G/zuv)

Obama blames racism for his loss. Eric Holder found in fetal position in Federal prison shower.

The best analogy I can think of for Romney is that he's like the somewhat decent chick left at the party. Yea, you're drunk and she's not really that hot,,,,,But even with your beer goggles on she's not totally ugly either but it will have to do for now.

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 03, 2012 01:08 PM (OCCG6)

 Even when I get her back to my place, I ain't fuckin' er.  No sir.  No siree......

Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 01:14 PM (xSHjK)

Oh come on, like you never lowered your standards and woke up with Coyote arm. Any port in a storm.

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at January 03, 2012 01:13 PM (qjUnn)

You know... statements like this really irritate me.  So because we don't agree with YOUR assesment of the candidates... with the choices we are given... Because we excercise our Freedom to Vote by choosing NOT to Vote... we are Traitors???

/looks back at his shadowbox on the wall with his military decorations...

/looks at the geneology hanging next to it, with forebears directly going back to Valley Forge...

/looks at the CURRENT picture of his Son in his Navy Uniform...

As we used to say in the Old pre PC Navy.... Blow Me....

No, Romney is the scag that you wake up with the next morning you look at with disgust when you realize that you could have been in bed with a conservative.

Posted by: Mark E at January 03, 2012 01:15 PM (w5RwR)

Ann Coulter?

I think Romney, Paul, Perry. Perry takes the nomination in the long run.

Failing that....

I for one would welcome our new Romney Collective overlords....

Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 01:13 PM (zLeKL)

_____

I'll watch for the Megan Kelly legs and cleavage peep show.

Posted by: Question Man at January 03, 2012 01:12 PM (jiwQf)

Yeah, right.  Of course you're not.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 01:18 PM (i6RpT)

I say take the "Inglorius Basterds" approach, carve the Obama symbol into their forehead. Stickers fall off.

2012 future headline:

new Palin reality show

Yes, but its my turn to lose!

Posted by: soothsayer at January 03, 2012 01:18 PM (G/zuv)

Headline:

Vice President Biden Killed in Tragic Fruit Juicer Accident

298 No predictions.

I hate Iowa. The whole state is joke. 

Yeah it's a joke. .....These caucus votes aren't even binding! They get to change their minds later during their conventions.

I'm not making any predictions. ....Still rooting for Perry. Hope he does well.

2012 future headline:

new Palin reality show cancelled for poor ratings.

This may be more accurate.

I have foreseen that Romney and Santorum will basically tie with Ron Paul slightly behind.

I have also foreseen that Gingrich will take 4th and Perry 5th.  Neither will drop out.

2012 future headline:

conservatives for Palin will have a massive nervous breakdown when it hits them they're girl isn't on the ballot

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 01:19 PM (i6RpT)

And as an American, that IS MY CHOICE.... Americans have the RIGHT to be boneheads if they wish...

But to call someone a TRAITOR??? Because they don't agree with your Politics???

I have foreseen that Romney and Santorum will basically tie with Ron Paul slightly behind.

I have also foreseen that Gingrich will take 4th and Perry 5th.  Neither will drop out.

 Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 03, 2012 01:23 PM (epBek)

holy crap you agree with me so I guess i'm foreseeing too!

At least even a rudderless floating turd like Romney will get Holder out at DOJ.

That's something.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 01:24 PM (73tyQ)

And you mock the Freedoms we fought for.... by calling someone a TRAITOR because they don't agree with your POLITICS.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 03, 2012 01:25 PM (G/zuv)

he also was behind getting Rush not to own the Rams

And you mock the Freedoms we fought for.... by calling someone a TRAITOR because they don't agree with your POLITICS.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 03, 2012 01:25 PM (NtXW4)

I find not voting to be a mockery of the freedoms folks fought for

I have foreseen that Romney and Santorum will basically tie with Ron Paul slightly behind.

I have also foreseen that Gingrich will take 4th and Perry 5th.  Neither will drop out.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 03, 2012 01:23 PM (epBek)

Now for the important question: Will Katy Perry get breast reduction surgery?

Perry is my man. I think he would make the best President.

Not the best debater, not the most articulate debater.

But if you see him in interviews he is very articulate and what he has done has worked in Texas.

I think he is the one who can back up his words. Just look at his record.

The others don't really have a record like his.

That being said, as a small business owner in the construction industry, I will crawl across broken glass, whore myself out and work my fingers to the BONE to ensure that obambi does not get a second term.

Whatever I have to do to save our livlihood and the income of our 4 employees I will do, within the law.

This election is the most important in my lifetime. I honestly believe it will either change the course of this country (obama) or right the ship (anyone but obama).

I'd get excited, but my state (MD) doesn't vote until April.  I expect my "Not Romney" options will be significantly different by then.

Stupid primary schedule. 

349 Rick Perry will be on Fox with Megan Kelly in about two minutes.

If he did that he'd win in a landslide. Then again hitting that might be all the victory in one guys life you'd ever need.

O.K. Seriously. My bold predictions

1st. Mittens but barely, In a suprising outcomePerry just ahead of Luap Nor for 2nd. Luap 3rd. Followed by, Newt, Santorum, Bachman, Huntsman.

And you mock the Freedoms we fought for.... by calling someone a TRAITOR because they don't agree with your POLITICS.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 03, 2012 01:25 PM (NtXW4)

Real men don't whine about the "lack of choices", fold their arms and pout.

I find not voting to be a mockery of the freedoms folks fought for

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at January 03, 2012 01:27 PM (yAor6)

Inherent in EVERY Right, is its non use...

Freedom to bear arms comes with the Freedom NOT to Bear..

Freedom of Speech entails the Freedom NOT to Speak...

And the Right to vote, comes with its opposite...

Calling someone stupid or short sighted for not voting? Hey... no problem...

To call them a Traitor? brings to mind Inigo Montoyas line.... 'you keep using that word...'

I'd get excited, but my state (MD) doesn't vote until April.  I expect my "Not Romney" options will be significantly different by then.

Stupid primary schedule. 

Posted by: Hal at January 03, 2012 01:29 PM (MftY/)

well you can be like my sate and say "fuck you" and move the primary earlier but then we get punished for daring to challenge the almighty Iowa and NH birthright

Compared to the rest of benighted New England, NH is the most free...but compared to some place like Montana?

Posted by: 18-1 at January 03, 2012

Montana is like 80% owned by the Feds.

I'm sorry, but I don't see enough difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama to pull the lever for Romney

 *facepalm*

Posted by: soothsayer at January 03, 2012 01:27 PM (G/zuv)

Real men don't whine about the "lack of choices", fold their arms and pout.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 01:29 PM (73tyQ)

LOL... oh... now I'm not a REAL Man????

Yeah... thats the way to win a debate... to win people to your side...

And its THIS exact type of Rhetoric, which will destroy the Conservative movement, with the independents... and the Libertarians.

Stupid primary schedule. 

Posted by: Hal at January 03, 2012 01:29 PM (MftY/)

Amen. They should go in order based on square miles. Largest first.

Montana is like 80% owned by the Feds.

Selling off a lot of that land the Fed Gov 'preserves' might be a good place to start balancing the budget.

LOL... oh... now I'm not a REAL Man????

Posted by: ChristyBlinky at January 03, 2012 01:20 PM (baL2B)

Exactly.  Thank you.

Let's not let our dream of perfection be the enemy of the sorta-tolerable.  Even Luap Nor would be better than Obama.  At least a little bit.  Probably.  Politics does not attract the best and brightest most of the time.  Those people are too easily sickened, or too busy having a good time making money in the private sector.  We are stuck with what we got.  Time to make the best of our poor choices.  The odds that another Reagan will emerge any time soon are, at best, remote.

Posted by: Question Man at January 03, 2012 01:12 PM (jiwQf)

let's see....

A Limited Federal Constitutional Gov't? check.

Fiscal & monetary policy soundness? Check.

Stop both sides from deficit spending binges? check.

I think you have your answer (or some of them).

Posted by: Cricket at January 03, 2012 01:36 PM (DrC22)

Works for me!

Posted by: ChristyBlinky at January 03, 2012 01:30 PM (baL2B)

Interesting.... seeing as how I held my nose and VOTED for McCain... and held my nose and Voted for the Repubs LAST election....

Sooo.. we did what you wanted... and got? The Status Quo...

Now the Scorpion is saying "comeon... one more ride... It'll be different this time"....

And I reassert... that calling somone a TRAITOR for excercising their RIGHT... puts YOUR belief in the American system in question...

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 01:37 PM (i6RpT)

I'm not trying to change his mind. He has made it up. He has decided that there is virtue in bitching and moaning and that somehow by convincing us that he will stay home that we will pat his head and tell him it's alright, we'll change everything just to assuage his wants and needs.

What I would like to show is how this kind of BS is self-defeating.

Posted by: Jypsea Rose at January 03, 2012 01:39 PM (digkk)

Or ask his daughter, Ron, Jr.

Romney 26

Santorum 18

Paul 17

Newt 12

Perry 11

Bachmann 10

Hunstman Who Cares

Bob Dole Bob Dole

William McKinley Deceased

Work It Already Cancelled

USS John Stennis 1

Iranian Revolutionary Speedboats 0

Keith Olbermann In the Tub

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 01:36 PM (8y9MW)

OK - I agree as far as that goes - but I don't see a viable 3rd party emerging in time to save us from the next elections' bad choices.  Odds are, the election will be between Obie and Mittens.  The choice, while stinky, is clear.  Fight the good fight in the primary.  After that, choose the lesser evil.  Not voting is simply allowing the choice to pass to those who will.  You can bet that the entitlement crowd will be whipped up into a fervor before this next election.  They're going to vote.  They don't even have to take time away from work to go do it, and they get to vote 2 or 3 times each.  Don't leave it up to them.

A decayed, degraded society like ours can't produce very many good political leaders.  It's always a choice of the lesser evil.  The "R" party is simply the less odious choice. 

Posted by: Mark E

Good luck with that.  Especially if Romney takes first, which he probably will.

273 262 Anyone who stays home this election day in November is a traitor to our country.

i've had to eat every shit sammich the GOP has served up since 1996. if Mittens is our guy i'm out. McCain was the last straw.

RINOs suck.  No excuse for you sucking too.

Also, even if you decide to be a petulant Obama-enabler, at least show up to vote conservative in the House and Senate races.

vegeltung

too bad about the whole insanity thing......and his racsit anti semitic insane followers...other than that he'd be great.........

Posted by: nickless at January 03, 2012 01:43 PM (MMC8r)

Joe Biden Attempts to Tie Shoes, Strangles Self and Chris Matthews

Remember 2008? I do. I remember how the election of Obama was supposed to bring about the final rejection of liberalism.

Remember that?  How's THAT working out?  There's momentum and you have to move the ball.  You don't get sacked so as to develop a cunning strategy to throw a longer Hail Mary.  It doesn't work that way.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 01:41 PM (73tyQ)

Democrat to be named later is worse. He might increase the deficit from $1.5T to $1.6T or increase your Obromneycare bill! If you enable him in any way you lose the argument. A no vote or third party vote is (at least) half a vote for Democrat to be named later.

Stupid primary schedule. 

Posted by: Hal at January 03, 2012 01:29 PM (MftY/)

Amen. They should go in order based on square miles. Largest first.

I think the date should be pushed back to early spring and have them ALL on the same night and make it an instant run off type of vote.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 01:35 PM (73tyQ)

Are you going to say the country is in the shape it is in because for thirty years Republicans have been too 'pure' and haven't won elections?

What explains the period from 2000-2006 where deficits rose merrily every year while we controlled both houses and the presidency?  Where was the fiscal conservatism promised us when we reached that nirvana?  Why should we believe in the future it will be anything different?

If anything, we have been too eager to win a victory at all costs and then accepting poor governance.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 01:24 PM (73tyQ)

And you mock the Freedoms we fought for.... by calling someone a TRAITOR because they don't agree with your POLITICS.

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 03, 2012 01:25 PM (NtXW4)

I'm with Romeo13 on this one.

FWIW, I think we're arguing over who's going to step into the locomotive car, and take the engineer's seat, when the train's going 100 MPH and the bridge that's 200 feet ahead is already blown.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 03, 2012 01:40 PM (TpXEI)

No one except perhaps Huntsman will drop out after Iowa.  I think everyone is beginning to realize what a joke Iowa is. 

Posted by: San Antonio Rose at January 03, 2012 01:45 PM (nOFwj)

Now there's an explanation for Biden that makes sense. :-)

BTW, sorry to hear about your kitteh, Rose...meant to say something on the early morning thing and got busy and forgot.

No one except perhaps Huntsman will drop out after Iowa.  I think everyone is beginning to realize what a joke Iowa is. 

Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 01:46 PM (xSHjK)

Huntsman won't.  He's on record completely shitting on Iowa.  He'll drop out after New Hampshire if he's smart.

So fun to read but ultimately meanless?

Well, in a couple of billion years the Sun goes red giant.

I think the date should be pushed back to early spring and have them ALL on the same night and make it an instant run off type of vote.

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 03, 2012 01:45 PM (OCCG6)

The nominee would be Donald Trump.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 01:50 PM (2I4Tp)

2nd look? :-) But can he get on the ballot in Virginia?

Now for the important question: Will Katy Perry get breast reduction surgery?

Posted by: The Robot Devil

No.  The Force is strong with that one, but not too strong.

Posted by: PAgirlinNC at January 03, 2012 01:47 PM (1q+yi)

This. Romney's picks will likely make us pull our hair out (at least some of them), but they'll still be miles better than President Petulant: The Sequel's would be.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 01:46 PM (8y9MW)

Yeah, well, the thing is that after the big crash you need to wait for a superior ethos to come along and start re-invigorating the culture.  I don't have time to wait around for that.   I have, maybe, another 45-50 years left on earth.  I want the great fall postponed for as much of that as possible, if only to allow me more time to prepare.  Hitting the reset button sounds great in theory, but I want no part of it.  The future post-Reactionary is the future's problem.  Not mine.  Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. 

Kick that can, stall, do whatever can be done to delay whatever reckoning my lay ahead.  It may provide time for a solution to be devised, or at least another innovation that allows more can kicking.  There's nothing to be gained by pulling the rug out from under ourselves.

1. Santorum

2. Romney

3. Perry

4. Gingrich

5. Paul

6. Bachman

Posted by: lowandslow at January 03, 2012 01:48 PM (GZitp)

This.

Posted by: nickless at January 03, 2012 01:54 PM (MMC8r)

Yeah, but his cat is a strict constructionist.

Remember 2008? I do. I remember how the election of Obama was supposed to bring about the final rejection of liberalism.

Yeah, the strategy of choosing the "moderate" candidate worked out brilliantly in 2008 didn't it? The only man that could beat Obama...who incidentally beat this year's "the only man that could beat Obama".

Remember that?  How's THAT working out?  There's momentum and you have to move the ball.  You don't get sacked so as to develop a cunning strategy to throw a longer Hail Mary.  It doesn't work that way.

Yeah, so let's choose Romney and punt on 1st down. That we are guaranteed no sacks.

dave in va

the only thng that romney makes me comfortable with is his supreme court nominations......a moron here posted the other day that bork is his consultant on that..............and of course his hair...............

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 01:50 PM (2I4Tp)

Yup.

Romney's picks will likely make us pull our hair out (at least some of them), but they'll still be miles better than President Petulant: The Sequel's would be.

Eric Holder:  Supreme Court Justice.

I ain't even kidding.

the only thng that romney makes me comfortable with is his supreme court nominations......a moron here posted the other day that bork is his consultant on that..............and of course his hair...............

Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at January 03, 2012 01:56 PM (mfbqu)

Oh yeah...I keep forgetting that. Well that makes me feel better, but I still bet we'd get some squishy ones just from him trying to do his all things to all people poll numbers thing, but even if, that's still light years better than the marxist-flavored fascists we'll get from Barky.

This. Romney's picks will likely make us pull our hair out (at least some of them), but they'll still be miles better than President Petulant: The Sequel's would be.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at January 03, 2012 01:53 PM (R/QV7)

President Lame Duck Petulant, don't forget.

One thing Romney has going for him (and as a Perry caucuser, I can't believe I'm defending him so much) is that he has Bork advising him on the courts.

Romney's picks will likely make us pull our hair out (at least some of them), but they'll still be miles better than President Petulant: The Sequel's would be.

Eric Holder:  Supreme Court Justice.

I ain't even kidding.

And maybe to solidify the white chick vote, Hillary.  (At least a robe would cover her cankles.)

Selling off a lot of that land the Fed Gov 'preserves' might be a good place to start balancing the budget.

That would be a GREAT way to reduce the debt  Balancing the budget requires reducing spending.  You can't fix a budget deficit with one-time sales.

Debt =! budget deficit.

But, yes, if you can get the budget under control, selling off government property, mineral rights, and oil leases could make a big difference to our monstruous debt.  You wouldn't want to do it all at once, but you could raise billions and billions if you do it a little at a time.

This is where we are as a nation.

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 03, 2012 01:53 PM (Hx5uv)

LOL.  Good story, but let's not get hyperbolic.  That might be where the Republican Party is, but not yet the US as a whole.  As bad as things are here, it's still better here than anywhere else.  There's no two nations together who could whip us (bloody us, maybe, but not whip us).

The key to America is that Americans have carried on and kept plowing ahead in spite of the drag generated by the government and the losers.  The government and losers are bigger and heavier than ever before, but the productive class of Americans are more productive and advanced than ever before.  If we would learn to harden our will, and harden our hearts such that we finally started to ignore the damn do-gooders, things could still be turned around. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 01:50 PM (2I4Tp)

In fact Romney would probably govern to the right of Reagan. Very unlikely he'll nominate two pro-choice SCOTUS judges (like Reagan), or sign an illegal alien amnesty (like Reagan), or raise taxes (like Reagan). 

FWIW, I think we're arguing over who's going to step into the locomotive car, and take the engineer's seat, when the train's going 100 MPH and the bridge that's 200 feet ahead is already blown.

Posted by: Vergeltung at January 03, 2012 01:46 PM (jttPx)

I pledge right now not to increase the rate of acceleration. Much.

Romney, the right choice for 2012.

Romney 19%

Paul 18%

Gingrich 17%

Santorum 16%

Perry 15%

Bachmann 10%

Huntsman 3%

Cain / Palin / Roemer / Pawlenty / Pat Robertson / Zombie Reagan 1%

Posted by: 18-1

Yeah, if only Gore or Kerry had got in, the federal government would have been so much smaller or less intrusive.

Be serious.

Posted by: Jordan at January 03, 2012 01:57 PM (RSG1I)

Actually, the Senate is disproportionately rural.  I think people overestimate the role Iowa's early caucus status has on ethanol subsidies.  I just think they want a boogieman to bash the caucuses.

And maybe to solidify the white chick vote, Hillary.  (At least a robe would cover her cankles.)

Posted by: WalrusRex at January 03, 2012 01:59 PM (Hx5uv)

Good lord...I saw those things in person and up close (no, not that close) during primary season in New Hampshire in 1992. Even a 20-year-younger Hillary had ankles that would put a prized heifer to shame. I'd have been proud to have biceps with the circumference of those things. Oy.

Posted by: Karl Marx at January 03, 2012 01:48 PM (niZvt)

an Obumbles win *would* bring about the collapse that much sooner. perhaps some good will come of it after all.....

Posted by: San Antonio Rose at January 03, 2012 01:54 PM (nOFwj)

From my own experience, it's still extremely tough to play God.  You have my sympathy. 

Posted by: reg at January 03, 2012 02:04 PM (xoCN2)

Yeah, if only Gore or Kerry had got in, the federal government would have been so much smaller or less intrusive.

Be serious.

Sometimes you have to take a principled loss. Look at 1964. Would it have been to run an Northeastern "moderate"  then running Goldwater?

Of course the closer model to 2012 is 1980. An unpopular Democrat president. We went with the moderate in 1976/2008 and lost anyway. Do we pick another Northeastern moderate to lose by a little in 2012, or take a gamble on a conservative?

The good news is we still have time to pick not-Romney. The bad news is too many people are willing to run Bush 41 in 2012. 

We have no more time for status quo "Republicans".

raise taxes (like Reagan)

Totally misleading.  The 1986 SS reform was a codified attempt to fix a problem.  President From-the-Bunker, his Stars Wars cantina cabinet, and the genuises of the Democratic caucus jsut tell us "more revenue."

Posted by: © Sponge at January 03, 2012 02:06 PM (UK9cE)

Sanctions!  A total comment embargo!  Hey hey, ho ho, this old thread has got to go!

Then, at some point, it becomes necessary to go ahead and crash-out.  Rome could never have produced the Enlightenment or the Renaissance.  Renaissance Europe could not have produced the Industrial Age.  Those things had to come after the status quo had failed.

Absolutely true, but that doesn't mean you work for the flame-out, unless you are a Maoist or a super-villain.  Each civilization crash produces untold misery or death.

I agree that Romney won't do anything other than just kick the ball down the road for another four to eight years (even on judges--he'll appoint good judges, but probably just to replace good judges, the baddies will hang on till the next Prez), but that's better than embracing the flame-out.

Apres moi le deluge is evil.

Except for leaving a brighter future to our posterity, of course.
You do realize those were some of the exact arguments made (at least in substance) by many of the Royalists circa 1776?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romne at January 03, 2012 01:56 PM (8y9MW)

Sure. Posterity. How many generations away? Crash it now, and your grand children will not live long enough to see it repaired.   I suppose that since I have no interest in making children to eek out a living on this vile earth, it's easy for me to discount the future.  But even so, bringing our system to its knees for the sake of those removed from us by many generations doesn't seem prudent to me.

Ace isn't really a morning person, huh?

Posted by: soothsayer 2012 at January 03, 2012 02:10 PM (G/zuv)

Preferably in a steel cage match duel using battleaxes and double-handed longswords.

"Daniel at January 03, 2012 02:03 PM "

Is the Herr Doktor going into the concentration camp business?

Posted by: Marty McFly at January 03, 2012 02:05 PM (136wp)

we could go back to 1912 and stop most of it!! 

Ace isn't really a morning person, huh?

Posted by: the crack of 2pm at January 03, 2012 02:11 PM (a4lmz)

Hobos are nocturnal creatures.

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2012 02:13 PM (W/RCd)

I'd humbly like to suggest that its actually my turn to fuck things up now Mr President.

Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at January 03, 2012 02:06 PM (mfbqu)

the brown one, or the dress whites? I mean, there's a difference......

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 03, 2012 02:08 PM (hVnJ9)

I'm ready. my guess is many others here are as well.

Posted by: Need A strong VP at January 03, 2012 02:15 PM (/MuFf)

Hasn't she already been dubbed the sexy slave girl in W's cabinet?

There is one one guy who can stop Mitt Romney

Ron Paul

As a member of the Illuminati, TriLateral Commission, Majestic 12, and the Conspiracy to Bomb the WTC and then invade Afghanistan for the Purpose of WTF, I don't think so, champ.  WE HAVE RIGGED THE GAME AND ARE PROUD OF IT.

Now excuse me while I track you down via your currency vapors.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 03, 2012 02:11 PM (niZvt)

we can no longer afford Empire. re-read what you wrote. we need to borrow money from the chinese to "fight 2.5 wars". seriously? I imagine you'd never say that to Romeo13 in person.

your urine would be trickling down your leg in no time.

Santorum--22%

Paul--21%

Romney--18%

Perry--16%

Gingrich--12%

Bachmann--8%

Huntsman--3%

"587  I want to hear Obama's concession speech on election night."

Imagine what a paean to self pity and pack of bitter recriminations that shitshow will be. I suppose I'll have to tune in, but I won't hear anything over the cheers echoing through my house.

Posted by: soothsayer 2012 at January 03, 2012 02:19 PM (G/zuv)

Oh, yes.  That would be magnificent and strangely arousing.

" I imagine you'd never say that to Romeo13 in person.
your urine would be trickling down your leg in no time."

So you have a friend that's named Romeo13? NTAIWWT

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 03, 2012 02:12 PM (hVnJ9)

My dear home state and Illinois and New York may need to have some words with you.

CoolCzech at January 03, 2012 02:24 PM

There was more than one czech. Speaking of RWN, have you been by the sewer lately? Last I saw, Vega had gone full blown mulsim supporter and jooo blamer.

we can no longer afford Empire.

And the tell of the Paultard.

Daniel at January 03, 2012 02:28 PM

Blatant lie, but, don't let that interupt your dreams of a 4th Reich.

"And no, there's no 'but Ron Paul doesn't count so 4th is really 3rd' exception. If neither Newt or Perry get at least a top 3, resistance is futile, we will all be assimilated into the Romney Collective."

I call BS on this (unless, of course, DrewM. is only joshin' us).

Aside from the fact that winning Iowa means next to nothing, the structure of the 2012 nominating race means that the real primary is the one for the position of not-Romney-not-Paul.  Romney's supporters are with him no matter what, just as Paul's are with him.

If Santorum places in the top 3 tonight, that earns him a ticket as far as South Carolina, maybe Florida, and how he does in those places determines if he can go on into February.

Meanwhile, Perry and Gingrich have the means to go on to SC and FL regardless of their Iowa finishes.  However, since Gingrich is polling very strongly in SC and FL and Perry is polling very weakly in those states, if Perry doesn't pull a 4th or better tonight, he's going to corkscrew in and won't survive into February.

If the other also-rans decide to drop out after IA and NH, the 60% of the GOP voters who detest Romney and Paul will start to coalesce around the last men standing.  By February, it looks to be a four-way race between Romney, Paul, Gingrich and either Perry or Santorum, and it's looking real bad for Perry.

" I imagine you'd never say that to Romeo13 in person.
your urine would be trickling down your leg in no time."

So you have a friend that's named Romeo13? NTAIWWT

Posted by: Dick Nixon at January 03, 2012 02:25 PM (kaOJx)

he a poster here at AoSHQ (in this thread) that folks started calling a coward/traitor and various other insulting things because he said he would not throw the lever for mittens.

that's all.

In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs.

Vergeltung at January 03, 2012 02:31 PM

Hell, If you don't vote for the nominee of the GOP, you are supporting Obama. Thought everyone knew that.

Posted by: soothsayer 2012 at January 03, 2012 02:19 PM (G/zuv)

Oh, yes.  That would be magnificent and strangely arousing.

Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 02:23 PM (xSHjK)

HAHA, never gonna catch up to us suckas! We're about to lap the field

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther)

This is one area where I think Mitt actually has conservative instincts (maybe immigration too?).  My friends in conservative legal circles say Mitt is plugged in to the Federalist Society and that kind of stuff.

Obviously I can't vouch for whether he also has the courage to nominate a real conservative though.  But even a moderate nominee would probably be more conservative than Kennedy usually is.

566

Sometimes you have to take a principled loss. Look at 1964. Would it have been better to run an Northeastern "moderate"  then running Goldwater

The Great Society was the single greatest disaster this country has experienced in the last half-century.  Worse than Korea, worse than Vietnam, worse than the cultural dislocation of the 60s.

And Nixon's election was a direct result of the Goldwater loss too, which gave us the EPA and the complete decimation of the Republican Party in the 70s.

So, you know . . .

But you're changing the argument anyway.  This isn't about who we should choose in the primary.  I'm not arguing that we should go for the Mediocre Massachussetts Moderate because I think he's more electable.  I'm arguing that if he does get selected as the GOP nominee, not voting for him if you live in a swing state is folly (if you don't, like AllenG, I would strongly advocate voting 3rd party or write-in to send a message).

P.S. Even Huntsman would be well to the right of Rockefeller.

Tim Stanley in the Daily Telegraph blogs:

But tonight’s rankings will decide how seriously the losing candidates are treated (excepting Jon Huntsman who isn’t running in Iowa because he knew he couldn’t win it). For that reason, it’s important to watch who comes in just after the top three – a position that suggests the candidate is serious but not suited to Iowa, so worth another look.

Newt Gingrich desperately needs to place fourth. If he does, he can blame not coming in the top rank on his lack of organisation, while he is polling well enough in South Carolina and Florida to justify hanging on in for another month. But if he fails to place fourth in Iowa, after dominating the state for most of December, heÂ’ll look unelectable. His momentum will stop and his numbers in the South will plummet.

Likewise, fourth place for Rick Perry would resuscitate his candidacy and prove it isn't a grand satirical joke. Following several terrible debate performances, he certainly needs to regain the Republican Party’s confidence. His shrill pitch to religious voters (including running this borderline homophobic ad) implies that he has staked his reputation as a Christian in order to do it. Anything less than fourth place will leave him looking foolish and cynical – a man who has gambled away his dignity.

But the person who most needs the golden fourth is Michele Bachmann. Ms Bachmann gambled everything on Iowa. The public only took her seriously because she won the coveted Iowa Straw poll, and she has spent all her time since making strong pitches to local Christian conservatives. Now she says she is praying for a miracle that will keep her from last, but her prayers will likely go unanswered. If she has sunk in Iowa polls then it is because she has failed to deliver in debates and on the stump. Remember that she said a vaccine for STDs caused mental retardation? Or that she was happy to be in the birthplace of cowboy actor John Wayne when, in fact, she was closer to the home of serial killer John Wayne Gacy? The congresswoman has failed to show the statesmanlike poise required of the presidency. She has the right ideas but the wrong temperament.

Someone please poke the head ewok with a broom handle.

Time for a new topic.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at January 03, 2012 02:29 PM (PReJ3)

With Pictures!

HAHA, never gonna catch up to us suckas! We're about to lap the field

Posted by: Detroit at January 03, 2012 02:34 PM (FIDMq)

HA!...LOL!

Except for leaving a brighter future to our posterity, of course.
You do realize those were some of the exact arguments made (at least in substance) by many of the Royalists circa 1776?

The Royalists would be the Obama supporters in this analogy. 

The American Revolution had a reluctant, moderate wing and a real revolutionary wing.  Luckily the real revolutionary wing went along on issues where the moderates prevailed (the US Constitution, for example).  That's one of the reasons why the American Revolution worked.

In contrast, in the French Revolution the moderates and the true revolutionaries tried to purge each other and the whole thing blew up.

Ron Paul 2012: Hatin' on Joos like it 1932 all over again.

Posted by: Daniel at January 03, 2012 02:32 PM (fPiSf)

Well I'm glad you posted that. I was ready to believe the words that come out of Paul's mouth on a daily basis on how he feels about national defense but now I have a thirty year old quote from Reagan to clear that all up.

he a poster here at AoSHQ (in this thread) that folks started calling a coward/traitor and various other insulting things because he said he would not throw the lever for mittens.

that's all.

Posted by: 18-1

What makes you think that we have four years to let Obama light fires?

Posted by: Jypsea Rose at January 03, 2012 01:30 PM (digkk)

Hey Jypsea, I'm in Baltimore, probably the worst place to be a Republican voter I could imagine.  MD-3 at that, a ridiculously gerrymandered district.

I remember heading to the polls to vote for the 2010 primary election.  There were people soliciting votes up and down the block leading up to my polling place.  One guy just would not leave me alone, until I finally told him, "I'm a registered Republican."  Not only did he immediately let me walk away, but as people further up the block prepared to inundate me as I approached, he called after me, "Don't bother, folks, he's a Republican!"  I've never seen so many people lose interest in me so quickly.  I'd have been grateful, but those were some frosty stares.

Posted by: soothsayer 2012 at January 03, 2012 02:40 PM (G/zuv)

funny considering he'd vote for him if he went 3rd party

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 03, 2012 02:08 PM (hVnJ9)

And I thought AmishDude was being extreme when he called you guys traitors.

Anyone who is advocating for the collapse of their country into anarchy is a traitor, no matter how noble their alleged motive.

What makes you think that we have four years to let Obama light fires?

/Scratches head.

Once the house is on fire, if you've determined you aren't going to put it out, does it matter if you let President Fiddle or President Flip Flop watch?

Ron Paul wins IA = IA irrelevant in all future cycles.

1 Romney

2 Paul

3 Santorum

4 Newt

5 Perry

6 Bachmann

7 Huntsman

Posted by: naturalfake

Yes, yes, yes.

The last group of folks who decided fuck it, what comes next can't be worse?  The German electorate, 1932.  When you unleash the tiger, what happens next is unpredictable, uncontrollable, and usually ugly.

698

What to do?

Start drinking, heavily.

As a member of the Illuminati, TriLateral Commission, Majestic 12, and the Conspiracy to Bomb the WTC and then invade Afghanistan for the Purpose of WTF, I don't think so, champ.  WE HAVE RIGGED THE GAME AND ARE PROUD OF IT.

Now excuse me while I track you down via your currency vapors.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 03, 2012 02:20 PM (B+qrE)

First rule of the Illuminati: we don't talk about the Illuminati.

Back to sweeping spider-goat guano from the DNA hybridization labs for you, Circa.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 03, 2012 02:47 PM (zlvkY)

Posted by: ChristyBlinky at January 03, 2012 02:32 PM (baL2B)

---

.... And what did liberal Mittens Romney do ... did he do the principled, conservative thing and veto the bill ....

NO, Mittens sign the socialized bill and accepted credit for Romneycare.

And he still thinks that it is a good thing.

He doesn't want to repeal it, he wants to "improve" it.

(and btw, if you Rom-bots can call people who don't want to support Mittens "traitors", can non-Rino's call you "Commie-symps"?  Just asking?)

87:

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"

689

Declaring up front that a certain candidate is beyond the pale to a certain percentage of the base plays a part in the primary.

Making it clear that if the party selects Mr Inevitable you lose x percentage of your presidential election base vote might change the dynamic. Enough? We'll see.

Anyway. we no longer have time for status quo Republicans when the country is burning down before our eyes. Romney, Obama it doesn't matter at this point.

Posted by: 18-1

Yeah, trying to hold the country hostage if you don't get your preferred strategy is really smart.  Sure is paying off, isn't it?

And of course it matters.  Romney is a fiscally conservative moderate.  Obama is an ACORNite.  Enough said.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 03, 2012 02:56 PM (niZvt)

Tell him to give it back.

Perry will have massive problems turning the Federal Govt (assuming he even wants to). Obama has had 4 years to pack the governmental apparatus with willing monkey wrenches who can make sure any real reform happens very very slowly and don't accomplish what they should. Many entry level Clinton era hires have wormed their way up to positions of real authority by now too.

The apparatus of government is bookended at the entry level and higher levels by employees who have no personal vested interest in reforming anything.

Sulla had the right idea about how to fix stuff like this.

Once the house is on fire, if you've determined you aren't going to put it out, does it matter if you let President Fiddle or President Flip Flop watch?

Posted by: 18-1

Since Obama has a flamethrower, yes, of course. 

Romney lacks courage.  He won't do anything radical if he can help it, which means he won't solve our problems.  But he is smart enough to understand budgets and to do what he has to keep us off the edge for another 4 or 8 years.  Not good enough to get my primary vote, but more than good enough for the general election.

Yesus H. Krestos, you people are dumb.

And I'm dumb for arguing with you, since you've as much admitted that you're just running a giant bluff to somehow resurrect the deceased Perry campaign.

Posted by: Cornfed at January 03, 2012 02:57 PM (Hoy9u)

The difference, here, is that there were also two wings of the Royalist camp- the actual Royalists, who believed that rebellion was wrong (near onto heresy, in some cases), and those who simply believed that, while British Rule was bad, it wasn't as bad as war, and that war should be avoided at all costs.

Take a look at the Mel Gibson movie (from before he went completely Loco) The Patriot.  His character was one of those, in the beginning.  But, like he found out, the question isn't whether or not war will come, the question is only when and how bad will it be. 

It is far better to get it over with- decisively- than to allow a long, slow burn.

As much as I hate General Sherman (may he burn in Hell), I have to admit he was right- the best, most 'humane' way to end the Civil War was not to be afraid of atrocity.  His March to the Sea completely broke the South's will, let alone ability, to fight the war, which may well have saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives.

It's the same idea behind the atom bombs in WWII.  Or the bombing of Dresden, come to that.

Well, I'm looking at this election and I'm thinking we have a choice- an actual correction (an actual conservative president), a slow-burn, or a hard crash.  Of the three, I'd prefer an actual correction.  That's looking less and less likely.  Failing that, I'm leaning toward hard-crash (even if I'm not quite there, yet).

Though, hearing that there's some actual evidence (in the person of Robert Bork) that Mittens would at least nominate actual constructionists to SCOTUS makes me a little more hopeful, even if he wins.

Wow, that's so muddleheaded.

Yes, there were people in the American Revolution who thought that the British would stomp all over America, hang the leadership, and turn the place into a second Ireland.  They were wrong.  But you seem to agree that another four years of Obama *would* lead to the hard crash.   That's the difference.  What would you call an American Patriot who was convinced that the redcoats would burn the place down and turn us into peasants, but, hey, totally worth it?

Again, for Sherman, he wasn't choosing a hard crash for himself.  He wasn't trying to burn down his own side because he thought somehow it would make things better.  In fact, the real 'hard crash' types in the Civil War era were the hardline secessionists who dragged the South out of the union in the first place.  They thought blowing up the Union and risking war was totally better than letting things gradually get worse for slavery over time.  How did that work out for them?

Or the Atom Bomb, or burning down Dresden.  Again, those weren't decisions made by the Japanese or the Germans. 

But here you, an American, are deliberately talking about working for the destruction of *our* own country.

Jesus.  750 posts.

1. Paul

2. Romney

3. Santorum

1. Santorum

2. Paul

3. Newt

4. Romney

5. Perry

6. Bachmann

The apparatus of government is bookended at the entry level and higher levels by employees who have no personal vested interest in reforming anything.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 03, 2012 02:58 PM (hVnJ9)

It’s a shame we can’t vote for someone who would bring “sudden and relentless reform”.

726 -

Of course Hitler won elections in Germany!  Now ask me if they were fair.

Btw, Hindenberg didn't die before Hitler became Chancellor, Hindenberg was the one who appointed him, reluctantly so.

746 You know, I actually wasted time Google-searching "lawrence o'donnell child pr0n" because of Soothsayer.  Asshole.

What can I say, I wanted it to be true.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2012 03:14 PM (hIWe1)

Wasting time Google-searching something before spreading it around the world?  ThatÂ’s why youÂ’ll never be a journalist.

Posted by: Mark E

He balanced the budget in Massachussets.  If memory serves, he had to fight his legislature hard to do it, too.

Yes, he had to agree to raise fees to do it, and some of those fees were legit fees and some were just taxes under another name.  But that was with a Massachussets legislature that was 80% to the left of Ted Kennedy and he *still* managed to partially balance the budget with spending cuts.

So what do you think someone who is determined to have a balanced budget is going to do with a Republican House and a Republican Senate?  Raise taxes through the roof?  Not hardly.

Some of the other Republican candidates might certainly do better, but compared to Obama Romney would be like Calvin Coolidge with super powers.

Posted by: Jean

Creative destruction is about letting inefficient companies fail in the marketplace, not about deliberately working to have your country fail.

That's despicable.

Santorum 23

Romney 22

Gingrich 20

Paul 17

Perry 10

Bachman 6

Palin 3

Huntsman 3

Ellie's Critters 2

Posted by: 18-1

So you're gonna effectively support Obama? LOL.

Remember folks, we have to elect Mitt Romney to find out what's in Mitt Romney.  Revising my Iowa prediction:

Perry 48%

Noot 20%

Bachbreaker: 20%

Santorum: 10%

The Huntsman!: 2%

Mittens: 0%

Paul:  -50,000,000,000%

Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 02:48 PM (73tyQ)

I'm not a socialist. Unless you want me to be.

So you're gonna effectively support Obama? LOL.

I'm voting against Obromney. You?

Sooth,

I wonder if Levin reads this here blog thingy. I said Rand should be targeted if daddy goes third party on one of the threads a week or so.

And he is makiing it easier to justify by involving himself more in daddy's campaign.

I'm voting against Obromney. You?

Posted by: 18-1

You're voting against a silly name slogan, the idiot's right-wing equivalent of Bushitler?  Figures.

I'm voting against Obama.

"Keeping your powder dry"

Um, no, if you choose not to vote, you don't get a revote later when you feel like.  No, what happens is Obama gets re-elected.

Which means you are "deliberately working for active failure.'

My point exactly.

I'm puzzled here - hasn't the winner in the Iowa Caucus since 1961 or so always been either a small boy named Anthony (and, er, um, that's a good thing, a real good thing!) or -He-Who-Walks-Behind-The-Rows?

Why would voters break with precedent here?

Romney 38

Paul 20

Santorum 20

Perry 10

Gingrich 5

Bachman 4

Huntsman 2

Palin/Cain/etc 1