text:
The Zombie Dilemma: Should We Unite?
Gee, it's kind of like an allegory or something, isn't it? And while maybe it doesn't provide a definitive answer, properly understood, it might generate a couple of suggestions.
For instance, while it's proper for the survivors to discuss their various options, they should be careful not to injure one another, since all hands will be needed for the final confrontation.
Second, while you may disagree with the leader finally selected, there is no opting out of the fight, since your flesh is just as edible as the flesh of the guy next to you. "I didn't vote for him so I'm not working with him," is a prescription for certain death.
Thirdly, since the object of the moment is not to transform the earth into a flowering paradise but to make it through the night without getting eaten alive, perfection, whether in leadership or strategy, is not to the point. There's a time to talk and a time, as it were, to lock and load. Allegorically speaking.
And finally… oh, let's face it, Mitt Romney's going to win the nomination and whatever else you may think about the guy, he's not a zombie.
At least, I don't think he is.
Also read:
An Ode to the Non-Candidacy of John Thune
281 Comments, 73 Threads
Why the hurry? Let's wait for the nomination process to play out. Just out of principle, the nomination should not be decided by the first states only.
March 12, 2012 - 12:48 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
I dont think he is referring to it taking so long, but rather at the tendency for the candidates to essentially preform for the upcoming DNC commercials after the conventions.
March 12, 2012 - 6:46 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
If you voted for Mr. Compassionate Conservative GW Bush you really have no excuse for not voting for the eventual Republican candidate. On their worst day all of them are more fundamentally Conservative than Bush. Yes, Bush did it. He soured so many on the Republican brand some are considering Obama as a sane alternative. It's time to stop even considering splitting up to go off into the other room to see what that strange noise is. We know full what it is. It's Obama and he is coming for us.
March 12, 2012 - 7:09 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Bush's record is considerably more conservative than Romney's actual record.
We can unify after the primary is over. I agree we have to do so and beat Obama, but there's little reason to carry water for a man who was very dishonest with us this primary and the most aggressive attacker of conservatives in the race.
"Perry is going to kill social security" burned some bridges. As did that USA Today article showing that Romney actually proposed the federal ind mandate. He had used Perry's claim about Romney's national mandate position as justification for very harsh attacks, but it turns out Romney was dishonest.
I think Romney is very likely to be the nominee, but attacking those who have a principled objection to Romney is tent shrinking. We aren't sheep who will run back into the tent when snapped at by some scrappy RINO dog… many of whom boasted they would vote Hillary if we nominated Mccain in 2008 (Ann Coulter, I'm looking at you, so don't think about demanding unity).
Also, we demand MORE from the GOP, not less. That Bush's era saw a lot of bad choices actually makes the need for improvement more urgent, not less. Saying 'aw shucks, the GOP was liberal before, so you have to have the same standards now' ignores that those low standards are a huge problem.
We need a balanced budget. we need real entitlement reform against the forces of 'I will preserve your entitlements if you vote for me… and to hell with your grandkids who will pay for it'.
It's a huge shame that conservatives failed to rally behind a conservative governor in time, and a huge shame that those conservatives who ran were poor in debates (though I think this is a sideshow… I guess it matters to American Idol fans).
Anyway, I'll vote Romney in the general, but I'll campaign against him in the primary. That's what everyone should do.
March 12, 2012 - 10:37 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Darryl Boyd
"Bush's record is considerably more conservative than Romney's actual record."
Really? No Child Left Behind. Prescription drug benefit. Trillions in debt. 68% increase in the Federal budget – twice the rate of Clinton. Aggressivly pushing the concentration of power to the executive. The whole notion of Big government "Compassionate" Conservatism (US funded AIDS assistance).
Conservative? Please. The man had his moments and was no doubt a better choice than the alternatives but short of driving off a bridge and leaving a drowning woman it's really hard to see how the man could have been more of a Big Government Liberal.
Romney also has his baggage (Romneycare) but overall his tenure as the Gov of Mass was far less Liberal than Bush.
March 12, 2012 - 12:22 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
G.W. Bush's record was more conservative than Mitt's.
Mitt was so left of center on social issues it's hard to imagine he's actually in serious contention (strongly pro-abortion, strongly pro-homosexuality).
Mitt was the author of romneycare and promoted it federally. That kinda trumps most, if not all, of Bush's bad ideas. That is a permanent game changer.
Mitt supported and may still the notion of man-made global warming. This is also a game changer due to the total control over most human activity that is "required" to reduce warming, according to most schemes.
Mitt was very pro-gun control: signed into law a permanent ban on assault weapons, supported the Brady Bill, and boasted of his differences with the NRA.
I could go on, but the point is made. Mitt's conservative credentials arrive after he held office, supposing you believe he's actually changed.March 12, 2012 - 1:50 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Would he appoint someone to the Supream Court as Left as Obama is certain to do? I'm not particularly trying to make the case for a Conservative Mitt. I'm saying anything will be more Conservative than Obama and, again, if you could stomach Bush and the list I gave you certainly should stomach Mitt.
March 12, 2012 - 7:22 pm Link to this Comment -
Mitt was the author of romneycare and promoted it federally. That kinda trumps most, if not all, of Bush's bad ideas. That is a permanent game changer.
It's downright trivial by comparison with Bush's amnesty/open borders agenda. THAT is a game changer. Replacing conservative voters with left-wing voters is the biggest and most fundamental game changer possible.
Newt, that other so-called conservative, is equally hopeless on the national question.
March 13, 2012 - 5:08 pm Link to this Comment
Zombies are too black-and-white for analogies. In the '12 election, there is only one issue — O'bwana-care. If it is not repealed, totally, then nothing else matters — we are Greece plus multiple minorities, which means Greece on steriods, during an earthquake, and simultaneous tsunami. Sweden is one thing, but Sweden with millions of Mexicans, blacks, and Asians is a nightmare not yet seen on planet Earth. I'm telling you right now, Romney will not repeal O'bwana-care. It'll be Hoover, Nixon, and the Bushes all over again (even P.T. Barnum must be amazed). And, I hope and pray, the end of the Republican Party.
March 12, 2012 - 5:38 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
2. Elize Nayden
"Mitt Romney's going to win the nomination and whatever else you may think about the guy, he's not a zombie."
In the newer zombie movies, the origin of the zombie apocalypse is usually a zombie-virus and there is always somebody who was bitten and infected before he came into the constitu… I mean house. He seems healthy and didnt transform yet. As soon as the conser… survivors find out about the bite, they are confronted with the question if they should kill him before he turns into a zombie, even though he doesnt pose a threat yet.
And yes… Im looking at you, Willard!
March 12, 2012 - 1:49 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Scott W
Touche Elize, Touche… Like the mentioned metaphore, the dumb ones in the first room usually decide to let em live, always a bad move…
March 12, 2012 - 9:29 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Nancy Lopez
Funny – I thought you were talking about Santorum.
March 12, 2012 - 10:00 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Let fix a typo for you:
"And yes… Im looking at you, Rick!"
or even:
"And yes… Im looking at you, Newt!"
Either equally fit the meme as Mitt. Of course it could just be the ramblings of a disturbed person and the person killed (or smeared) could not have been "infected"…
March 13, 2012 - 2:13 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
3. Tom Perkins
"Because the Conservatives — I mean survivors — can't defend the Constitution — I mean, house — unless they can first learn to work together and fight as one."
I do know how to work and fight together, I will not fight for what Romney wants. He wants business as usual at best.
Between gun control, higher taxes, a still not balanced budget, government run healthcare, a belief we are warming the planet and we have to be stopped–to go by what he still claims he believes and his record, these are all what you are asking me to embrace in Romney.
You keep your damn kool aid.
March 12, 2012 - 2:23 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
At The Rubicon
So clearly you believe that we'll be better off under an Obama second term than under a President Romney. If you truly believe that then you are not one of us. You are just a stealth zombie.
March 12, 2012 - 6:02 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Theres no difference between Black obama and White obama so whats the difference?
the difference perverted Rino logic that says White obama is better than Black Obama.March 12, 2012 - 6:56 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Locomotive Breath
Because if (this is the real battle) the Reps take both the House and Senate, Obama will veto everything. Any Rep President can be owned.
Further, if a US Supreme Court position becomes open, do we really need another Wise Latina on the bench?
March 12, 2012 - 7:22 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
I never have understood this sentiment that because (Insert candidate X here) isn't perfect, that means that there's no difference between him and Obama.
Hello? Federal judges? Taxes? Not wanting to gut the military?Even if you accept the argument that X "will drive off the cliff too, just slower than Obama", that still means we're going slower, with that much more time to try to hit the emergency brake or whatever. And X will be someone who actually loves America, not someone who thinks it would be better as a Marxist "paradise" or an emasculated banana republic. We won't have someone (probably)
who thinks all the problems of the Middle East is Israel's sole fault.America can survive an 'X'–can you honestly tell me that it can withstand another 4 years of Obama?
March 12, 2012 - 7:53 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Yes – I can honestly tell you that the US will survive another four years of obama.
What the US will not survive is a demoralized Republican party that has watched a remake of the Dole and McCain candidacies.
Maggie Thatcher said it best:
"Jim Prior was an example of a political type that had dominated and, in my view, damaged the post-war Tory Party. I call such figures 'the false squire'. They have all the outward show of a John Bull -ruddy face, white hair, bluff manner – but inwardly they are political calculators who see the task of Conservatives as one of retreating gracefully before the Left's inevitable advance. Retreat as a tactic is sometimes necessary; retreat as a settled policy eats at the soul. In order to justify the series of defeats that his philosophy entails, the false squire has to persuade rank-and-file Conservatives and indeed himself that advance is impossible. His whole political life would, after all, be a gigantic mistake if a policy of positive Tory reform turned out to be both practical and popular."
Thatcher, Margaret, The Downing Street Years pg 104.That is the situation that we face with the Republican establishment today – and that is why we will have to burn the Republican party to the ground before we will be successful in turning the country around.
If Willard The Rat is our candidate I will vote a straight dummycrat ticket. We need to hold the Republican Establishment responsible if they don't pay attention to the rank and file. We need them to fear alienating the Conservatives as much as they fear alienating "independents".
March 12, 2012 - 12:31 pm Link to this Comment -
Micha Elyi
"If Willard The Rat is our candidate I will vote a straight dummycrat ticket."-GFR
Your strategy has been tried before, zealot.
"Suicide squad, attack!"
March 12, 2012 - 11:41 pm Link to this Comment
Theres no difference between Black obama and White obama so whats the difference?
People stupid enough to believe that Romney is "white Obama" should be stripped of their right to vote. This sort of thing is why we need to bring back the poll tax – there are far too many people in this country who possess the intellect of a head of cabbage.
Romney is to the right of George W Bush. He's to the right of John McCain. He's more conservative than the normal Republican Presidential candidate.
March 12, 2012 - 9:08 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Why do you have to insult cabbages like that?
I'm no Romney fan, but IF he's the nominee I'll put on my (somewhat grim) smile and go pull that lever!
March 12, 2012 - 10:08 am Link to this Comment -
Tom perkins
Relative to whom is needed, Mitt is the 2nd coming of Walter Mondale.
Do entertain us with evidence he is to the right of GW.
March 12, 2012 - 10:12 am Link to this Comment -
Marc Malone
"Shut up!", you explained.
Thanks for the edification… except there wasn't any. You offered nothing to back up your argument.
For your edification:
March 12, 2012 - 1:44 pm Link to this Comment
Well, that's really the question, isn't it AtR? Do you really think we would be any better off with the progressive republican who brought government-run healthcare to his state than we are with the progressive democrat who brought government-run healthcare to the nation? Why? Just because Romney has an "R" after his name?
It isn't so much that anyone believes that we would be better off with Obama than with Romney, AtR, it's more that too many of us are struggling to believe that we would be any better off with Romney than we have been with Obama.March 12, 2012 - 7:30 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
The advantage is that if Obama is the President the Copperheads lose RINO cover. We're already seeing that with a House that while nominally Republican won't fight back.
March 12, 2012 - 9:00 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Maybe we think ROMNEY is a loser, he couldn't beat McCain, or Kennedy, and even Satorum and Ron Paul give him trouble… so whose delusional in thinking he'll beat Obama… he WON'T … so we're DOOMED to another 4 years of Obama if Romney wins… mark my words.
March 12, 2012 - 12:26 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Between gun control, higher taxes, a still not balanced budget, government run healthcare, a belief we are warming the planet and we have to be stopped–to go by what he still claims he believes and his record, these are all what you are asking me to embrace in Romney.
Since Romney stands for exactly none of these things, I can only conclude that the zombies have already eaten your brain.
March 12, 2012 - 7:46 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom perkins
Yes he does. From the man's own words he thinks gun control is fine and dandy and excused by federalism, he imagines the same makes Romney care ok–and he insists it is doing a good job now in Mass. By definition believing as he does on gov run healthcare, he's a fan or big government; and putting off the reckoning for his expenditures is not balancing the budget.
March 12, 2012 - 8:10 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Even his past record isn't a indication of how he will behave as president. His entire first term he will be pandering to conservatives because he needs their support to pass any legislation and because he needs their support to be re-elected. Use common sense. Mitt is a smart guy. He is not simply going to do the opposite of what he said he will do in the debates because, "Hey man, fooled all you guys in the debates, really I'm a stealth democrat and I'm going to throw away any mandate I might have come in with as well as any chance of being elected by acting and voting exactly like Obama during my presidency."
Give me a break. Use some common sense. You are thinking like a conspiracy theorist whose theories only make sense if they people they talk about are geniuses and idiots at the same time. If, with all we know about American politics and human nature, you think Mitt is going to come to office an push an agenda just a liberal as Obama's agenda, you are off your rocker. I'm usually polite, but I just can't do it this time.
March 12, 2012 - 10:19 am Link to this Comment -
Tom, just stop. Santorum voted for every single excess of the Bush years: from the statist Medicare Part D to the even more statist No Child, from the ridiculous Homeland Security to its evil spawn the TSA, and for numerous hikes in the debt ceiling in between.
To refer to Ricky from PA as anything but a self-proclaimed moralist is to ignore the truth. The things about Mitt are he's not a DC lifer and has actually created jobs.
March 12, 2012 - 10:57 am Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
Where'd you get the idea I like Rick?
He beats the stuffing out of Mittens in my view, but that ain' t saying much.
March 12, 2012 - 11:30 am Link to this Comment
You're playing games with words. You are implying that Romney wants the US federal government to enact a national health-care plan, and that he thinks such a thing would be constitutional. In fact he has said the exact opposite.
State run healthcare systems are constitutional, under the US Constitution. They may or may not be constitutional under the constitutions of the individual states.
By definition believing as he does on gov run healthcare, he's a fan or big government.
By definition, you're a very dishonest person.
March 12, 2012 - 8:49 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
The point I think that is being made is that his actual record, in some cases his prior record but in other cases he still embraces them, is what it is.
Many, like me, do not simply accept a guy like Mitt saying he is now embracing conservative positions when his past actions (rather than words) say something entirely different.
Mitt's stance on many things important to conservatives (which he stood on the opposite side of) morphed around 2006-2007. Many of us, such as myself, would contend it appears it morphed when he developed presidential aspirations and for no other reason than political expediancy and viability.
No one could argue that if Mitt still held his 2004 positions he would stand no chance of being nominated.
It's about trustworthiness, plain and simple. Can he be trusted to do what he says he will? Most of the base says no. I won't go as far as some and say I will not vote for him if he's the nominee, but he's a toss up for my last choice (tied with Paul). So long as there is a chance to get another, I will not support Mitt.
I will support Rick all of the way. He's no RINO and he's been a solid conservative. Unlike Mitt and Newt, he never supported a federal mandate on health insurance, never supported TARP, never supported global warming, and never supported amnesty for illegals. I'll take him (with his flaws) over them and not think twice.March 12, 2012 - 9:17 am Link to this Comment -
Tom perkins
I' m not playing any games, I'm looking at his record and his words. He will not repeal "Obamacare" he will "fix" it.
And if you can't see how the constitution forbids gov run healthcare, think reserved powers and the 14th amendment. If you think it isn't big gov, there's no hope for you.
I have not lied once here.
March 12, 2012 - 9:33 am Link to this Comment -
Deeds, not words.
The record, not rhetoric.That's what tells the tale.
Accordingly, I have no intention of supporting another smirking state supremacist.
March 12, 2012 - 11:02 am Link to this Comment -
I' m not playing any games, I'm looking at his record and his words. He will not repeal "Obamacare" he will "fix" it.
Maybe the problem here is that you are illiterate. Because these are Romney's words on the subject, taken directly from his website.
On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.
In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government's role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition.
By what mental contortions do your manage to read this as "He will not repeal 'Obamacare"? Of course your words are literally true – he will not repeal Obamcare. Because no President can do such a thing. Congress passed Obamacare and only Congress can repeal it.
But the fact that you have to lie – sorry, but no other words fits here – about Romney's position and statements does not reflect well on you.
March 12, 2012 - 11:51 am Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
"Because these are Romney's words on the subject, taken directly from his website."
Yeah, and I know what else he's also said about it, and I know what he's done. I have good reason to disbelieve what he now claims he will do.
"But the fact that you have to lie – sorry, but no other words fits here – about Romney's position and statements does not reflect well on you."
In defiance of his record and past words, you believe his current statements. I don't know why.
But I haven't lied even once.
March 12, 2012 - 5:41 pm Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
I should add, here about this, I haven't lied once. Obviously, being human, I have lied.
But not ever once here.
March 12, 2012 - 7:22 pm Link to this Comment
I do hate to burst your bubble, as I continue running into people who are unaware of Mitt's past, but here is the truth:
-Mitt, as gov, signed a permanent ban on assault weapons in Mass in 2004; he also supported the Brady Bill, and boasted of not being in line with the NRA
-Mitt, as gov, authored and passed romneycare (as I assume you know), what you may not know is he promoted it as a model for obamacare, as revealed in a July 30, 2009 USA Today op-ed he wrote (which demonstrates acute dishonesty on his part since he's denied ever supporting a federal mandate); he also promoted mandates in a debate in 2008 (you can find it on youtube-Fred Thompson is in it also).
-Mitt, as gov, ran to uphold status quo in Mass with respect to abortion, which included minors getting around parental consent, and may have included partial birth abortion-though I haven't researched Mass law on that at the time yet (very pro-abortion record prior to '06-07); he still refuses to sign the Susan B. Anthony pro-life pledge
-Mitt, in his book in 2010, promotes global warming nonsense and by extension, the big govt interventions that accompany it (I understand he may have signed into law as gov the first carbon caps or tax-haven't had a chance to verify that yet either).
-Mitt, in 2006, supported amnesty for illegals (very similar to Newt's position)
-on homosexuality, Mitt supported the change to "don't ask, don't tell" in 1994, but would keep open homosexuality in the military as opposed to reinstating it; he furthermore refused to sign an anti-gay marriage pledge in July of 2011.
I could go on and on. I predict shock and horror when a general election campaign begins scrutinizing his actual positions (since few outside of Rick have hit it hard). Most I have discovered are not aware of these positions, but they are all true. The ads barry will run on this will not stop, all aimed at suppressing voter turnout (which to some degree, I'm sure will be successful). There is something in his record that is sure to alienate him from every block of the conservative base.Establishment will be tickled to get a guy with such a left of center record, but I'm not sure anyone else will.
March 12, 2012 - 9:03 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
As for Mitt's gun grabbing, some people try to defend Mitt on for his signing the "assault weapons" ban, but Mitt is on record saying how he doesn't think "assault weapons" have any purpose other than killing people and that regular people shouldn't have them, etc.
I bet Mitt can't even describe what an "assault weapon" actually is.
If you read between the lines, it also sounds like he wants to ban all private firearm transactions.
At this point, Romney has banned more guns than Obama has.
March 12, 2012 - 10:05 am Link to this Comment | Reply
That kind of attitude WILL get us a second Obama term. You want that? A President Romney (or whomever) will likely listen to us. The O has not and will not. Don't forget there is a very real potential of one or more Supreme Court Justices to be appointed in the next 4 years. You talk about the gift that keeps on giving, for their lifetime!
March 12, 2012 - 7:51 am Link to this Comment | Reply
4. Aqua
I'm glad you wrote this, because it reflects the truth of the way I'm feeling more and more — exactly what is happening in pictoral form. Zombies! "They" have been de-humanizing "us" for so long … we're "crazy" … "backward" … but, the more I read, I can't help but de-humanize them. It's as if a brain fungus deliberately disseminated by our "Universities" is infecting the entire left.
Their "minds" are twisted — gone! Nothing left that resembles human thinking. The Collective Mind?!?!
Now, just recently reading on Breitbart.com the actual "ideas" of this David Bell — I did know that the ideas coming out of that arena were irrational — but actually reading how deep it is … how far it retreats into an ugly abject mental labrynth of twisted oozing briars leading nowhere but to impalation on them — for everyone — starting with those it screams it's going to "help." Then OWS — their ignorant and greedy "down with Capitalism and the 1%" supported by utterly brainless millionnaires. (Bizzarly, they don't consider themselves part of the 1% and "somehow" believe they'll be protected in the "end" they're rooting for.) I do see that they're much more organized (or rather led — by Pied Pipers like Van Jones) than we'd ever imagined — they'll combine with SEIU and ACORN and all the other groups of screaming mimis. And although the "plans and plots" have in one way or another been going on a long, long time — at the current moment — the "inspiration" and planning for it has come right out of our White House — through "visitors" — and if it doesn't seem to have money behind it now — it certainly will. They're forming an army. A huge one. It certainly has the odor of coming violence. Their "philosophical leaders" (Francis Piven, et al) certainly have expressed a desire for it. And, no doubt, there is much more that we still don't know about — and then there's always the "unexpected consequences."
The infection — day by day we learn how deeply it has penetrated into our Institutions. The DOJ — Terrorist sympathizers are now the attorneys influencing how we enforce and our anti-terror policies. All our most important "protection" agencies taking "orders" from CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Every time I read something new lately — I feel like I have to go and take a bath — that's after I throw up. It's filthy. It's … inhuman — mindless — this "collective fungus-infected brain" that's taken over so many. Satiated with nothing but smugness — mocking grins of sanctimonious, self-congratulating maliciousness.
And yes, that to witness humans turning into Zombies — and they ARE coming for the rest of us — and our children. No matter what "color" we happen to be. It IS frightening!
It must have felt like this for those who witnessed from within the snowballing irrationality in the U.S.S.R. On second thought, no, this is worse. The Soviets never had what we've had — which we are now watching being defiled and raped from the "inside."
"We're" losing, you know. They are much more organized than we'd ever imagined, have plans which have very long been creeping, seeping their way along. What do we have? The Tea Party and some Blogs?
Romney. Of course well get behind him. We must. At the very least, his winning might plug up a few holes long enough for us to try to figure out just how far and deep this all is — and what to do about it — if much can be done — and at least to try to turn this around somewhat — for now.
March 12, 2012 - 2:30 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Correction — that's "Derrick" Bell, not "David."
March 12, 2012 - 5:34 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Agreed. Question. Do we elect people to represent us in Congress anymore? Or is it that we elect only a president and, once elected, we depend on that person to direct Congress, to prepare the legislation, appropriate funds, frame priorities concerning national issues, build a growing base with a particular political overall political philosophy, and generally assume the role of a dictator over the entire governing process?
Judging from the number of whiners and defeatists that file comments on these pages I would assume that the answer is "yes" regarding the latter. In my opinion, the issue is not nearly so much Romney (who IS going to be the nominee) but who is going to lead the charge for conservative values and change in the Congress. Boehner and McConnell must be replaced by solid conservatives. If not, a "moderate" Romney will prevail. A congress led by strong conservative leadership will give Romney (or anyone else) very little wiggle room. As an example of this dynamic, the detailed intricacies of ObamaCare were not developed by Obama but by the leftist loons in the Congressional leadership. They were not the "rubber stamp" so much as Obama was. Given the make-up of Congress when Obama was elected government controlled healthcare was going to come with or without Obama. Obama just made the process faster and easier.
It will be refreshing when these pages are filled with detailed analysis of how we are going to take the Congress and shape its leadership. And once that is accomplished, how Congress will go about presenting informed conservative legislation to the president and rallying their constituents behind same. That's the only lasting solution. Imagine this. We elect Newt, for example, and most of the Republican Congressional leadership doesn't take him seriously, or even hates his guts, while at the same time continuing to cut deals with the Democrats. What has been gained?
March 12, 2012 - 8:25 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Good analysis of how Conservatives in Congress can help keep Romney on a straight path.
Yes, of course, essential – vital is voting Conservatives into Congress.
But keep in mind — sometimes it just isn't possible to get everything all at once. As William Buckley said — (paraphrase) Important to vote in those who are closest to what is ultimately desireable. In other words — strive for the most Conservative, get as many as possible, but always take a Republican over a Democrat — if that's the choice — whether that Republican is ideal or not. Choose the one who can win.
March 13, 2012 - 2:15 am Link to this Comment | Reply
5. Tom Perkins
To continue your over-strained analogy, Romney is the supposed leader of the house, but every one can see he's been bitten and is about to turn.
You, Mr. Klavan, evidently represent the third of the party which doesn't care.
March 12, 2012 - 3:07 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
6. Adina Kutnicki, Israel
While I 'heart' with Santorum's true Conservative views, it is what it is.
Thus, I will send in my absentee ballot for Romney if he becomes the candidate. Obama MUST be defeated, not only for the good of America, but for the entire free world.
Republicans must unite, there is NO other option. Freedom is at stake. It is THAT serious.
March 12, 2012 - 3:16 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Oh, by all means. Let's keep Obama in the White House. Currently, Mitt is the best of a bad lot, but the alternative is another 4 years of Obama. Quite honestly, I can't see Romney shredding the Constitution the way the current Manchurian Candidate has been doing for the past few years. The effort should be made in getting more conservative candidates in the House, Senate, Governorships, and state legislatures. Eventually, a true conservative that is palatable will run. Right now, no one who might be worth it can withstand the pressure from the left wing. My sense is that with strong conservative checks and balances Romney won't do what Obama has been doing.
Until then, anyone who says they won't vote for "x" reminds me of spoiled children who pout when they don't get their way.
March 12, 2012 - 4:04 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
8. Freedom Man
I've seen this horror show before, it's called the Dole and Mc Cain campaigns.
March 12, 2012 - 4:11 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Fact is — we're in sorry shape as far as potential leaders go.
I see what you're saying about Dole and McCain, but …
Gingrich has almost lost so far, and
Rick Santorum doesn't have a chance to win against Obama … not a chance.
There simply isn't anyone else but Romney.
His chances are slim as well. And don't forget, there's going to be massive voter fraud this time — much worse than last time.
Face it.
March 12, 2012 - 4:28 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Ed Wallis
The ONLY thing we have to "face" is the onslaught of mindless RomneyBots droning on like Airport Krishnas about "inevitable!" and "give up!".
NO, he's not. And you're a BORE.
March 12, 2012 - 4:36 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
"a BORE"?
Oh, yes, there isn't any doubt that it could be a lot of FUN nominating Santorum — feeling so good to have him there — feeling all completely represented — and cheering gleefully all the way to Obama's re-election!
March 12, 2012 - 5:44 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
If Romney winds up losing (Lord help us that he doesn't), it won't be because we didn't nominate Santorum.
Newt maybe could win. Santorum would lose overhwelmingly. There's no doubt about it.
March 12, 2012 - 5:47 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Rick beats Newt strongly against barry in every poll I have seen for at least several weeks. Newt's record of ethics issues, check kiting, marital infidelity, and polarization makes him unelectable in a national election. I'll go further, I'm not sure I have seen any polls, even when Newt was surging, that shows him beating barry.
Newt is as weak of a national candidate as Paul, no doubt about it.
Rick won a state twice that hasn't gone to a republican in a presidential election since 1988, and he didn't go RINO to do it:
-he by all accounts was always strong on social issues
-he was crucial to getting welfare reform passed
-was rated higher during his carreer by the National Taxpayers Union than Newt (lifetime rating 75.2% to Newt's 61.9%)
-most of what he gets beaten up about (debt ceiling, No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D) would have also been voted for by Newt -who supported some or all of them at some point.
-Rick has never supported:
*individual mandates*global warming*TARP*amnesty for illegals ALL of which Newt has supported (you really should watch Newt's May 15, 2011 Meet the Press interview). These are not insignificant issues that Newt has embraced.March 12, 2012 - 9:29 am Link to this Comment
Mike Steele
Well maybe Gingrich deserves another look…
March 12, 2012 - 5:57 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Even if we're united, ROMNEY WILL LOSE.
United behind Gingrich, we have a fighting chance to win.
March 12, 2012 - 7:16 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Scott W
Amen to that, Newt is the only one with a chance, the sores on Romney's skin just don't show up yet…
March 12, 2012 - 9:34 am Link to this Comment
Romney will lose, no matter what.
United behind Gingrich, we have a fighting chance to win.
March 12, 2012 - 7:23 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Newt supported:
-individual insurance mandates (from 94 until at least 2011-see his May 15, 2011 Meet the Press interview-same interview where he called Ryan's medicare reform "right wing social engineering")
-amnesty for illegal aliens (still supports)
-global warming along with govt action (the pelosi ad he did directed you to a govt site showing govt action to curb the warming)
-was reprimanded by the whole House of Representatives for misleading the committee by providing false information to them , which he admitted he did and paid a $300,000 fine to cover. His statement included:
"I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted on my behalf. In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable statements were given to the committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee."
The IRS only exonerated him of the tax questions concerning the non-profit organization he was involved with, it did not, nor could not, exonerate him of the misleading investigators charge, which was upheld by a 395 to 28 vote of the HOR.
-protected the endangered species act (see his 2007 book A Contract with the Earth).
-calls FDR, not Reagan, the best president of the 20th century (and did so several times, see his 1995 book, To Renew America)
-voted in 1979 to create the Department of Education
-supported Cap and Trade/Carbon Caps and stated it was the "conservative approach" (PBS interview Feb 15, 2007).
-did commercials not just with Pelosi, but also with Al Sharpton for education reform since 2009 (wonder what they agreed on).
-supported a RINO Scozzaslfava rather than conservative Hoffman (and tears up Rick for the Specter support?).
-kited 22 checks in the House Bank scandal
-in a 2011 Christian Broadcast interview, he suggested it was his patriotism that led him to have multiple affairs leading to 2 divorces
-don't think that him marrying his high school teacher at 19 yoa (which allowed him to have family defferments from the draft once she was pregnant) will go overlooked in a national election.
-ran against capitalism with the Bain Capitol attacks a couple of months ago.
-rated LOWEST of the candidates (excluding Romney) by the National Taxpayers Union lifetime ratings (Newt 61.9%, Rick 75.2).Really Newt? Possible the only candidate (other than Ron Paul) who absolutely could never win a national election.
March 12, 2012 - 9:54 am Link to this Comment -
I wish I had the time that you apparently do – and I would dismantle your all your points. I'll pick just a few.
The meme that Gingrich called Ryan's reform plan "right wing social engineering" is a lie. Coulter especially perpetuates that lie. He was asked whether he thought that conservatives should ram through something that a majority of Americans do not want as did the liberals with Obamacare. He answered that question like any good conservative would. LISTEN TO THE D**MN interview.
Gingrich did not support TARP. He was aggressively against it. Here's his interview with Hannity against TARP.
He eventually "reluctantly and sadly" capitulated to the "dire economic meltdown" reports, but he was deeply against it.
Newt never attacked capitalism. Beck is the worst at perpetuating that lie. Newt raised the question of business ethics regarding Bain & Company, and he should have. Obama et al will destroy Romney because of Bain. Here's an interview with a Reagan conservative venture capitalist who explains that Bain is really a job-killing leveraged buyout firm.
Newt was not for CAPnTRADE, here is his full testimony to Congress AGAINST it:
For all the "morality" mud, here's a must-see introduction by Pastor Jim Garlow
Wish I had more time, you are so wrong on so many points.
March 12, 2012 - 2:17 pm Link to this Comment
Ausonius' facts may well all be true –
Nevertheless –
Beware of paying too much attention to Polls — especially now, in these early stages — as relating to the general election in November.
Pay more attention to your general knowledge, and common sense.
The vicious Left machinery hasn't shown a slither of what they are amassing.
This is their last chance — they're going to pull out so many "stops" that our heads are going to be spinning. It's D-Day at Normandy for them — and they've been planning and organizing behind the scenes non-stop since Nov. 2008. (Don't forget — they have absolutely no – none – no ethics. They'll do anything.It's 99.9% that it'll be Romney as nominee.
But just for thought —
Newt — there's no doubt he has a bagful of negative "issues" — BUT — He can Speak!
He WILL be able to bring "ideas" into the forum and get them into the public mind. He can explain those ideas — help people to understand. And he's a fighter. He'll give the MSM a good run for their money. He WILL bring public awareness to the corruption of the MSM. He can "talk" circles around Obama and his clowns.
As for his baggage — Americans tend to ignore that when they are convinced a Pres will be better for them — (They did re-elect Clinton after Lewinsky).It's always the middle — the "independents" who swing the vote.
No matter how popular Santorum is with Republicans, no matter what the "polls" say now — (even the "truth" of his record for good or ill doesn't matter as much) — he's just talks too much about Religion. It frightens the middle. The MSM will have a field day — more than that — with him, and he'll take the bait every time. More than the MSM, the O Admin has already begun it's fear mongering and "truth inversion" re social issues. They see it as their best weapon (the economy sure isn't).
At election time, Santorum will win only a few states — those that are in alignment with his Social ideas. His whole governmental and economic message will be ignored — and the Dems will get to frame all the battles in and on their own terms.
March 13, 2012 - 2:55 am Link to this Comment | Reply
Marc malone
This is the meme that is hurting his candidacy. It is simply not true. Recent polls show Santorum up two over Obama, and Romney up 5. Once one of them is the actual nominee, when the opposition is not so divided, that number will go up.
I sure get tired of folks repeating these narratives, which are not backed by any actual facts.
March 12, 2012 - 1:57 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Both Dole and McCain would've been far better than Clinton and Obama. There is no doubt of it. Both made serious tactical mistakes, which doomed them, and neither were particularly strong candidates. It doesn't follow that 'we' can blame 'them' for losing. Not enthusiastic about Romney, if he gets it? Neither am I, but I voted for him anyway because he seems the best of the lot. I can't see Gingrich or Santorum getting it, even though I was an early supporter of the latter. The closer he comes to the front spot the less presidential he appears.
However, I will vote for all of the above against Obama. Dole would have been better than Clinton in every way–we might never have suffered the attacks of 9/11 if he'd been president. Instead of letting Obama wander loose we might have had him locked away somewhere. It's not a given, of course; but different men make different decisions. I voted for Forbes in the primaries rather than Dole and Bush, even though I thought he had little chance of winning. This time I voted tactically, because winning has become far more important than it was the last few cycles. If Romney gets the nod all of us have got to start screaming 'Remember the SLC Olympics' like mad, and keep that narrative going until he gets his chance to prove he can do it again–or not.
Every one of the candidates that ran this time around would be a better president than Obama, even those with no experience outside the House like Bachman, Gingrich and Paul. The only real question is: who can BEAT Obama?
March 12, 2012 - 2:36 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
9. Aqua
The Founding Fathers — they knew — that there was no way to hold on to a true Republic if most of the People weren't ultimately "good." Had a deveoped sense of decency and values. Were Self-Reliant and took responsibility for themselves. With the guarantee that the government wouldn't be entitled to take the fruit of anyone's labor or their property(as all governments prior to this had done) — that the People wouldn't form into mobs of force — taking what they didn't earn.*
We have to face it — if it turns out that too large a portion of our population rejects the basic principles of this nation — it's over as we know and love it.
These are the "Times" — it's Now as it's never been before. Not ever in our history.
Reading David Bell, for example, and realizing what's being taught in our Universities … and worse than that — the children aren't being taught what's now become the "other side!" They're simply not being taught the value of the Principles in our laws.
That's our fault. For 40 plus years — we weren't paying attention to what the Universities were actually teaching — or neglecting to teach. We "assumed" they were teaching, more or less, along the lines that we were taught. We just continued to pay the bills and make the donations. (What an easy mark we were for the Left to take full advantage of in our slumber!)
We just took — and continue to take it for granted that the kids — and others "should" understand. They simply don't.
They hear us shouting, but they don't even know what we're shouting about — or what those Principles are. That's why, when they hear us, they just give us those silly, vacant grins. They never learned about them! And those values and understandings have basically disappeared from a large portion (most? via MSM, Movies, TV) of the culture at large.
The only chance is — if more and more of the basically "good" — those with good ideas and basic integrity and dignity — are gathered (and taught) — it's ultimately in the numbers — how many of us there are and will be. The methods and deceptions of the Left have to be exposed — and especially their goals — or where there seeming goals will actually lead. It's all in — information dissemination … And in "Ideas." Dissemination of the good "Ideas." We must — must — pay attention to the children — who have to be taught how to tell the difference … have to be given standards. It's very late.
Everyone who sees and understands what is going on will have to take part — put their effort into this — to gathering and enlightening more and more of those who don't quite see" or "understand" — gathering them into the fold.
And if we lose the numbers battle? — We lose. It's gone.
It was set up that way. Rightfully so. Only a basically "good" People deserve the Republic that was so ingeniously crafted and provided for them.If that turns out to be so — what about the rest of us … ? There's no place a modern "Mayflower" could take us to — there are no unknown lands across the sea where we could go and set up a new civilization. Those of us who haven't been sent to re-education farms, or been executed … we'll just have to go underground, set up secret societies, preserve and hide our founding documents, and tell our children to wait for the mindless to implode and impoverish themselves under President Bill Ayres or his progeny.
It's horrifying to contemplate. But what other alternative is there?
Mind you, we'll be much worse than "Europe" or even the "U.S.S.R" — something in the way we've developed has made us able to be better at whatever we do — so we'll be much better at being horrible. You can count on that.—–
*(Yes, there were huge flaws — some compromises had to be made, or there would have been nothing accomplished at all — but, the basic "good principles" were there. Relying on those basic principles set out in the original documents, the Founding Fathers set aside plenty of ways for those flaws to be resolved in time — and most have been. And the People themselves had and have been getting better and better regarding those same principles — until now.)March 12, 2012 - 4:22 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
10. Libertyship46
"Or what about the Professor, who seems smarter than any of them but is known to be an all-around son-of-a-bitch?"
When did it become a prerequisite for a President to be nice guy? We are in such a mess right now, owing trillions (that's trillions with a "T") dollars, that I WANT the nastiest S.O.B. to be elected. Maybe then SOMETHING could get done in Washington. Maybe then SOMETHING could get done with a Congress that is more concerned about getting re-elected than it is about getting anything of substance done. Maybe if we had a president who was more interested in getting results than in living from campaign to campaign, we could get out of this mess. We are NOT electing a pope here. Andrew Jackson was president and had to be one of the nastiest people you'd ever want to meet. Calvin Coolidge was a successful president, although he didn't say much and really didn't like people that much. And let's not even talk about Nixon, who at least ended the war in Vietnam. So when the chips are down and we are facing real trouble, I don't really want a "Mr. Nice Guy" as president. I want a person who will get results, like Newt did. And if being the nastiest guy in the room is what it takes to bring some order back to Washington, then so be it.
March 12, 2012 - 4:24 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Noesis Noeseos
I am inclined to agree. The times call for a patriotic Andrew Jackson with bold ideas. Unfortunately, too many voters don't agree. Newt is who the country needs, but too large a segment of the people are either too dependent or too mesmerized by the propaganda machine to accept his prescriptions. Newt's admonition that as the federal government shrinks, the states, localities, and people themselves must take responsibility makes good Conservative sense, but it will scare the daylights out of the servile proletarians that swell the voter rolls.
Hopefully in the future, Americans will man up, but for now, it seems that the majority are willing, at most, only to let the robot halt just the worst of the socialistic depredations. We may have to settle for the more timid beginning to recovery. If we achieve that, the stage may be set for the bolder struggle that must follow. At any rate, we cannot afford to shun the robot, even as we yearn for a man with some hickory in his spine.
March 12, 2012 - 6:01 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
I don't object in principle to a son-of-a-bitch, just as long as he's OUR son-of-a-bitch. But Newt is not that. He's his own son-of-a-bitch.
March 12, 2012 - 7:52 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom perkin
Yeah, at worst, so what?
Romney is their son-of-a-bitch, they of the unending deficits, bailouts, and crony capitalism. The worst of GWB is best we can expect out of Mitt.
I will not endorse that.
March 12, 2012 - 8:25 am Link to this Comment | Reply
11. Ed Wallis
If we're going to play movie analogies, then I'll offer up Andrew Klavan for the part of the evil doctor-turned-hypnotist, who destroys humans one by one, tying them up and telling them…as he EEEEEEVILLY swings his gold watch before their eyes:
"You will surrender to Mittens. Mittens is inevitable."Seen that film. It S*CKED.
March 12, 2012 - 4:33 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
If the mittens suck, hows that Obama movie going for you? ANYBODY but Obama at this point.
March 12, 2012 - 7:54 am Link to this Comment | Reply
12. Tolbert
Whomever the eventually nominee is and it may end up being Romney, I'm pragmatic enough that I'm not going to say that I won't vote for that person. Because in the end another Obama administration is not acceptable even if the alternative is unpalatable.
March 12, 2012 - 4:42 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
13. spinoneone
I think Klavan left out one item: at the end of this contest, are you going to go out and vote to end the 0′s presidency or are you going to sit on your hands in a blue funk and contribute to his re-election? Your choice, your economy, your country.
March 12, 2012 - 4:45 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
There's never a good reason to vote for a progressive no matter which party he comes from, spinoneone. Until the GOP figures this out it's better not to encourage them.
If I sit on my hands in a blue funk it'll be because I had no one to vote for.
March 12, 2012 - 8:09 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Oh for heaven's sake, Ronald Reagan reincarnated wouldn't pass your smell test.
Maybe you need to start your own country because this one has never elected a president conservative enough for you. It ain't gonna happen. If you want to start turning the tide in the right direction however, you might get off your high horse and when the general election is held, take one for the team like your guy Santorum said he did. Politics is a team sport, in his words. You have to move things forward incrementally. If you sit on your hands because you think both candidates are too progressive, you'll end up with the most progressive one. It's time to start the slow push back.March 12, 2012 - 10:47 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
What good can come from "taking one for the team" if both the Republican and Democrat candidates for president are progressives? Six of one, half-dozen of the other. If the GOP wants my vote, then the GOP has to EARN it.
I'm thinking incrementally all right, but not just for the Whitehouse. I'm thinking incrementally for the PARTY. I'm thinking that by witholding my vote for Romney the party may finally begin to understand that a progressive republican nominee is a sure-fire loser with the conservative base, no matter how many times they have to lose before they finally get it. I'll vote in the general election as follows:
1) Gingrich
2) Santorum
3) Paul
4) STAY HOMEMarch 12, 2012 - 3:02 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
And hand Obama another four years? You're a very unserious person. I will vote for almost anything – up to and including a used feminine hygiene product – before I waste a vote by staying home.
Staying home possibly contributes to BHO gaining another term to continue destroying this country and – as much as I dislike all of the GOP candidates – I can't sit idly by and allow that to happen.
I urge all voters to pinch their noses and vote for whomever the GOP nominee is to send BHO packing. That HAS to be our collective goal or we are truly f*cked.
March 17, 2012 - 8:03 pm Link to this Comment
14. John - TMF
I am really tired. It was a long weekend, son back to college, trying to figure out how to pay two tuitions again next year. Had to fill out that intrusive and FISMA violating FAFSA form TWICE because I am sending two children to college, but instead of filling out one form for two kids in college, I am filling out two of the exact same form for kids… except that THEY are supposed to be filling it out, WITH MY private – and frankly non of their business – tax information.
All so that the Federal government can "generously offer" too little money at an insanely high interest rate, because I earn too much money and therefore my children don't "deserve" subsidized loans at the same interest rates as banks pay. There is no choice… the Feds now own the market, and almost every school – and EVERY Public School… demands that the form be filled out. ADD to that I, or my children never see the check, it goes straight to the school.
– I bring this up because it is why I cannot stomach the notion of voting for Romney, and will not do it.
Romney is the Establishment's Consolidator. He is Nixon and the EPA, Affirmative Action, price controls, liberal judges, expansion of HEW, which became HHS and Education under Carter.
The Establishment needs Romney. They need him to seal in the status quo now that the envelope has been pushed farther to the Left than ever. Romney is the designated "GET USED TO IT" manager for the power elite.
He will not repeal Obamacare.
He will not hold the line on taxes – within a year he will be calling to raise them – sneaky at first, but evenually "IT WILL JUST HAVE TO BE DONE".
He will cut little.
He WILL NOT buck Harry Reid – who regardless of majority or minority leader status will control the Senate.
He will appoint liberal/left of center judges.He WILL do what his masters tell him to do, consolidate the gains of the Left.
I have 7 more FAFSA forms to fill out (another child in high school) they are unlikely to net more a loan (puffed up to be FINANCIAL AID – only the Federal government would call having to get into debt for tens of thousands of dollars, AID…) and our nation will just slip into the abyss at a more sedate pace.
Willard Milton Romney is a Limousine Liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican; therefore I WILL NOT vote for him EVER!
-John – The Mighty Fahvaag
March 12, 2012 - 5:11 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Good then, John. Don't voter for Romney if he is the nominee and enjoy four more your of socialist tyranny. Like that?
March 12, 2012 - 7:57 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
John - TMF
You aren't listening.
Romney is not going to do anything other than maintain the current status quo. He is the Consolidation candidate of the Elite/Establishment. They are running BOTH Romney and Obambi…
If Romney gets in… absolutely nothing changes for the better… nothing at all.
I didn't vote for him in Virginia's jury rigged phony primary, and if he is nominated I will under-vote in the General Election in November. I WILL NOT vote for a Liberal Democrat, ever!
March 12, 2012 - 8:24 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
If Romney gets in… absolutely nothing changes for the better… nothing at all. That may be a valid prediction. However, I think "If Obama gets a second term, things will get a lot worse" is a valid prediction. During a second term, he won't have to push for reelection and will be able to do pretty much as his ideology requires. If the Democrats control even one house of the Congress, he will be essentially unstoppable.
Perhaps President Romney could be pushed in a good direction; President Obama, no chance.
March 12, 2012 - 9:53 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
John - TMF
He won't owe you or me a thing. The only "influence" on him will be the Mainstream Media/Democrat Propaganda and power machine, for whom he will jump dutifully LEFT at each "BOO!".
He will do just what he did in the PRM. The progressive statist Establishment Liberal thing.
Romney = Obambi no change… none… because Obama is an empty suit, sock puppet. He doesn't run anything but his mouth, and even that is tightly scripted.
The same people who work the Obummer dummy will pull the strings of marionette Mitt… flip-flop sound and all.
So Mittster will only gun the engine of doom to 2,000 rpm… when Obummer would run it up to 4,000.. wee..
Sorry… no sale, and no Romney isn't a choice, he's an echo.
March 12, 2012 - 10:27 am Link to this Comment
Noesis Noeseos
But–and this is big–a President Romney will not nominate a Sotomayor or a Kagan to the Supreme Court, a Holder to DOJ, or a Sibelius to HHS.
Ginsburg will not last another four years. More to the point, Kennedy won't. Thomas and Scalia are not getting any younger. Do you really want Obama to insure that a far left-wing majority rules the Court for decades?
March 12, 2012 - 5:45 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
15. cedarhill
Right. The choice with Obama or Romney is Romney will just be nicer while he drives the Liberal Knife further into your groin.
March 12, 2012 - 5:19 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
16. sinz54
The more ideologically driven base of a party need to understand that the party doesn't belong to them. They're just one faction of that party. And they also need to understand that the more ideologically pure a party becomes, the smaller it becomes.
According to the vote totals and exit polls from these primaries, Romney has gotten more votes from registered Republicans than Santorum or Gingrich–at least as many votes as the Gingrich and Santorum vote totals combined. That's why Romney has a wide lead in the delegate count. He's winning primaries and he's winning Republican votes.
A whole lot of Republicans prefer Romney to Gingrich and Santorum. And it's their party too.
March 12, 2012 - 5:30 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom perkins
Do the Romniacs understand we owe the party nothing but our best judgement? Do the Romniacs understand they are a minority of the Party, and the leftmost at that?
March 12, 2012 - 5:46 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Ed Wallis
Don't worry, Tom. "sinz" is merely exhibiting that all too typical RomneyBot symptom of megalomania. You know, the olde "the vote belongs to the people…amd *I* am the people" schtick.
Just like Obama supporters of their Messiah…sorta makes ya wonder….
March 12, 2012 - 5:52 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Funny, I always thought when the majority voted for someone, that made them the majority. Here it turns out that the majority is actually the minority. Weird! I understand you don't like Romney. I think you are mistaken in your fears, but it is good to vote for who you, not I, think is the best candidate- that is your right. But to say that only a small, liberal, minority of the Republican party want Romney is flat out wrong. I am about as conservative as you can get, and I support Romney, as do the overwhelming majority of those who have so far voted in the primaries. Or, as you some how see it, the underwhelming minority- though how you get that from a 200% lead over his nearest competitor, I will never understand.
March 12, 2012 - 6:31 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom perkins
He doesn't have a majority voting for him yet. I suspect he never will.
March 12, 2012 - 7:59 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Majority: A majority is a subset of a group consisting of more than half of its members. (From wikipedia)
Number of Delegates currently voting for Romney: 454
Number of Delegates voting for anyone else: 373The majority of delegates are currently voting for Romney. Your statement is false. If Santorum were to suddenly win every state from here on out, he could beat Romney… But that isn't very likely. My statement still holds that the majority of voters prefer Romney, as those who have voted so far is a fairly random sample of the total population.
March 12, 2012 - 10:10 am Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
A majority of delegated, yes. A majority of voters, I don't think so.
Which is what I said.
March 12, 2012 - 10:28 am Link to this Comment -
I'm sorry- I thought we were talking about the voters in the republican primary, which is proportional to the number of delegates. What voters were you talking about? The national election? That will be dicier, true, but Romney is currently polling higher then Obama.
March 12, 2012 - 11:33 am Link to this Comment -
Tom perkins
He has a good majority of delegates because he has a plurality of voters.
It's not the same thing.
March 12, 2012 - 11:55 am Link to this Comment -
You see, that's where you have me confused. The republican's changed how they distribute delegates in most (not all) states so as to be proportional to the voters- so it would be extremely difficult for Romney to have a majority of delegates with only a plurality of voters. (I just looked at the listing- Romney appears to have won all the Winner-Take-All states, but even if those had been proportionally given, Romney would still have the majority of voters.) I hate to be nit-picky, but you are wrong on this one. The majority of those who have voted so far prefer Romney. I know you don't, and that's great. You are free (and welcome to it! We need diversity of opinions here) to support other candidates, and to try to persuade others that they would be better than Romney- but please use the truth to do so. Politics is ugly enough with out lying about it.
March 12, 2012 - 2:05 pm Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
Counting only Newt and Rick, the non-Romneys out-poll Mitt.
He does not have a majority. He has a plurality of 45%, per realclearpolitics.com.
I believe the they have an accurate count.
I claim I'm such lying?
Prove it.
March 12, 2012 - 2:22 pm Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
Counting only Newt and Rick, the non-Romneys out-poll Mitt.
He does not have a majority. He has a plurality of 45%, per realclearpolitics.com.
I believe they have an accurate count.
You claim I'm lying?
Prove it.
March 12, 2012 - 2:24 pm Link to this Comment -
Are you paid by Santorum or something to haunt these threads, or do you just really hate Romney for some reason? Heh, I just read through the rest of the comments, and you show up a lot. I already proved you were mistaken about Romney not having a majority of voters (voters, not polls on realclearpolitics.com, which I assume covers non republicans as well). Now, you are correct when you say that he only has a plurality of those polled, in some poles. Congrats. We have now gone from you claiming that only a small, liberal minority support Mitt, to claiming that, while he might have the majority of delegates, there is no way he has the majority of voters in the primaries, to claiming he only has a major lead in the poles, but not a majority. Anywhere else you want to move the goal posts to?
March 12, 2012 - 4:23 pm Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
No, I loath Romney because I have good judgement.
That's all.
And that isn't a poll at realclearpolitcs, dummy. It's a tabulated count of certified votes.
Romney does not have the support of the majority, but a plurality.
March 12, 2012 - 5:32 pm Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
This is a count of votes, not a poll.
March 12, 2012 - 5:44 pm Link to this Comment
myth buster
That's because you're listening to what the media is telling you instead of the facts. The facts are that there are very few proportional primaries in the Republican primaries. What there are a lot of are district voting primaries with proportional/majority-take-all rules for the at-large delegates. This enables a candidate with a plurality of the vote to win a disproportionate share (but not 100%) of the delegates.
March 12, 2012 - 4:23 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Le Cracquere
Fair enough; may the best man win. But it's not disenfranchising Romney voters to insist their man play out the season and win the nomination the old-fashioned way–i.e., defending himself against the other Republican candidates who think THEY'D make better presidents.
You might not have meant it this way, but your post comes across as if only concession speeches from Gingrich & Santorum can make Romney voters feel welcome in the party. If so, that's too way high a price to pay for their comfort.
March 12, 2012 - 7:36 am Link to this Comment | Reply
Let's face it: even when pundits you really like tell you that Romney's going to get the nomination, it just makes you want to do anything other than support Romney. At this stage, with months of smug pundits telling me I ought to know better, the only thing that helps me calm down is thinking of the pastoral bliss of a pasture full of cattle…with every Romney apologist pundit face down in giant cow flop.
Yes, I'm going to vote for a syphilitic camel in November over Obama. Now, for the love of God, could you please stop telling me how syphilitic and how much of a camel I'm going to vote for?
March 12, 2012 - 5:30 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
If I may repeat myself just once more, "inevitable" is just a more concise way of saying "shut up and spread your legs." Whenever someone says "inevitable" or (sorry, Andrew) "let's face it," I know that the genuine exchange of views has come to an end.
It is likely, but not certain, that Romney will get the nod. That doesn't make him a desirable leader for the mission against the Zobambinauts and their freedom-eating agenda. His instincts are entirely managerial. He doesn't have a leader's personality; he completely lacks any passion for freedom. The only way we can make him suitable for this contest is to make him struggle for every last delegate — and compel him to "buy" the last few he'll need by making binding commitments to the key elements of the conservative agenda.
America's problem is that we need to put a rope around the necks of our politicians, and make them feel its presence. Now is the time to do so, both with Mitt Romney and with anyone else who'll run under a Republican banner this fall. After the elections will be much too late.
March 12, 2012 - 5:40 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Marc Malone
"he completely lacks any passion for freedom."
This was one of the things noted in the '08 election, that Obama never used the words freedom or liberty in his speeches. Likewise, I have never heard Romney talk about these things. To the contrary, he purposely distances himself from the Tea Party movement. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul talk about freedom. Romney does not.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe someone with the research skills can do a survey of Romney's speeches and answers to questions and see if he ever speaks of freedom or liberty. I bet I am right.
March 12, 2012 - 2:11 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
20. Ed Wallis
Legendary Moderate GOPer Rudy Giuliani on Romney:
"Newt's the most electable Republican because – I kinda go back to 1980 and I remember the Carter White House just dying for Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was the "dumb actor", Ronald Reagan said incendiary things, Ronald Reagan – like Newt – you know, gosh, you never know what he was going to say and the whole world would go crazy and the New York Times would write editorials. Then there was Bush, greatest resume of anyone that ever ran for president, solid citizen, right on the mark. But they got Reagan and they got trounced. Maybe Newt is appealing to something that Mitt isn't appealing to.
There's something wrong when you've been running as long as Mitt has and you're at 25% and you don't go much above, and you don't go much below. 75% of the other Republicans are telling you something about him. I think it's deeper than he's kinda staid and everything else. I ran against him in '07, '08. I've never seen a guy – and I've run a lot of elections, supported a lot of people, opposed a lot of people – I've never seen a guy change his positions on so many things so fast – on a dime. Everything! From Governor of Massachusetts to candidate for president, you're Pro-choice, pro-life. He was pro-gun control – fine. Now becomes a lifetime member of the NRA. He was pro-Cap and Trade, now he's against Cap and Trade; he was pro-mandate for the whole country and then he becomes anti-mandate and takes that page out of his book and republishes the book. I could go on and on – I mean, this is a total switch. Now what will Barack Obama do to that? What Barack Obama will do to that is, "This is a man without a core, this is a man without substance; this is a man who will say anything to become President of the United States. I think that is a great vulnerability."
March 12, 2012 - 5:48 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Thank you for that. If there was ever an election to swing for the fences with a guy like Newt, this is it. I'm convinced the establishment is for Romney so they can get their little hands on the insider trading machinery.
March 12, 2012 - 7:14 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Wow, that's a great link Ed. Thanks for sharing it.
March 12, 2012 - 4:07 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Rudi is right. Mitt has switched a lot. All politicians do and have done — but Mitt … maybe more than most.
But, although, the O might try to use that against Mitt — no one — not even Mitt — no one has ever "switched" opinions as much as the O. And from one day to the next! And he outright and bare-facedly — lies! Doesn't even try to cover them! That's his "audacity!" That's his "Alinsky!" No — Unless Mitt gives up the fight and has stupid advisors — the O won't win on that one.
March 13, 2012 - 3:27 am Link to this Comment | Reply
21. Rich K
Of course he's not a zombie. He is a card carrying member of the east coast mindset where all things grow from government. He will not fix anything at all thats stifling this economy no matter how damn positive I feel about him.He's nothing more than Obama in white face.So why waste time and energy helping him when he will do NOTHING to help me and mine.
March 12, 2012 - 6:03 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Exactly. Romney is a RINO. A suit with nice hair. He won't do a tenth of the things that need to be done.
Why is he the One? Why are guys like Klavan so high on him?
March 12, 2012 - 6:43 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Because Santorum is too far right for Americans in the middle to vote for. I'm really disappointed, but the U.S. has become Sodom and Gomorrah.
March 12, 2012 - 9:43 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Yeah, we were much more more and upstanding when we tarred and feathered Tories, tolerated slavery, made treaties with the Indians and then just changed our mind about them over and over. Spare me the talk of the Golden Age, when we we somehow "good." We were flawed then, and we are flawed now.
Someone should explain the scale of virtues and vices about how we were good or bad in the past, vs good or bad now. There are a of of things in our current era, which I don't care for, but I'll be damned if I can realistically make the case that we were "better" overall, at some other time. Even the American Revolution apparently reduced the religiousisity of Americans considerably, which is not to say that it did not come back in the various awakenings. I think that a lot of people here suffer from almost terminal, golden-age, old fartism, and pine for a time, which overall was NOT better.
We have had material progress, we do live longer, and in general, we do not have to work the dawn to dusk hours of our ancestors. We must be doing something right, as pointed out by those who tell us how well-off the poor are with their flat-screen tv's and nice cars. If the point is that it is all going to go "poof" because the numbers don't add up, then vote for someone who will move us in the right direction. No one is going to solve our problems overnight. We certainly can and will "survive" four more years of Obama, but we may well do better with Mitt.
By the way, I think the Zombie movies are dumb, and don't bother to watch them. Am I missing something important?
March 12, 2012 - 10:43 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Marc Malone
"Because Santorum is too far right for Americans in the middle to vote for. I'm really disappointed, but the U.S. has become Sodom and Gomorrah."
Or as Jesus said, "Remember, they hated me, too."
They do not want to hear the message. They do not want to be forced to confront their sinning ways, because they want to go on sinning. How many times have I seen a comment on the blogs say, "Don't preach at me!"?
Catholics hold the same views as the rest of the country. They split the same way. It is like their religion has no sway on their political views. So, Santorum, who, in theory, should be getting the vast majority of the Catholic vote, loses them to Romney. Romney, by contrast, is overwhelmingly supported by Mormons.
Santorum gets the majority of his support from Evangelical Protestants, not Catholics. To be fair to the Catholics, the Protestants are also split between Mainline and Evangelical. The split is roughly the same as for Catholics. It is just clearly defined. So, it is fairest to say that Santorum gets his support from the Evangelical Christians of all persuasions. The others vote "moderate" or Left (Left/Lefter).
Basically, the Evangelicals' politics reflect their strong religious beliefs. The others simply reject certain aspects of the doctrines of their own faith, because their religious beliefs are NOT strong. In other words, they do not want to hear the message. They vote accordingly.
The Moral Majority has become the Moral Minority.
March 12, 2012 - 2:37 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
So they've moved more toward my views and away from yours? Well, then, we'll have to give them credit for a little common sense, and recognizing a case, when it is made.
March 12, 2012 - 3:59 pm Link to this Comment
22. Scott M
You forgot to mention the obvious…in order to kill a zombie, even a zombie administration, you've got to shoot/spike/club/vote it in the metaphorical head.
March 12, 2012 - 6:21 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
23. Grace
Ok, here's the deal:
if Romney will win the nomination anyway, why should Republicans go and vote in the rest of the primaries? Their votes obviously don't count, their views obviously don't count, so let the GOP chalk up the 'inevitable' 30% of votes for Romney and be done.
In fact – why not cancel the Tampa convention altogether, save the money, nominate Romney right now and wait for the inevitable defeat come November.
Never mind if this sounds like the lite version of 'democratic centralism', according to which the Communist Party and the SU were governed. After all, the Party and especially their establishment knows best, don't they.
Now all we need are some sort of private enforcers who get everybody to the voting booths and check they vote correctly. 99.9% of votes – victory!Freedom?
What freedom?March 12, 2012 - 6:25 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
24. Gryphon Moor
Do you want another four years of Obama? If Romney wins the nomination, that is what we get. And it will be what we deserve. I say this because the conservative right, Republicans, whatever label you want to use, will not vote cohesively for Romney. Yes, it's sad but true. We condemn ourselves to Obama by selecting Romney. Obama is seen as an arrogant Muslim and many view Romney as an arrogant Mormon, equal suspicion accounted to both. The silent majority and uber conservatives respect Santorum. Even his opponents will rally around the wagon if he is selected as the nominee. He is more palatable to conservatives as a whole than Romney. Please think beyond the nominee, think about who will unite the conservative vote and make an offensive move to beat Obama. That person is not Romney.
March 12, 2012 - 6:47 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
25. Janeway
Where do these commenters come from? Don't like Romney, fine, but because you think he is a Liberal is just silly. He may not be as far right as you would like but that doesn't make him a Liberal or like Obama. You say you don't believe him that he is "secret" Liberal well maybe Gingrich, Santorum, Paul are all "secret" Liberals – sounds kind of dumb. We really need to focus on who can win and good or bad that is Romney. He will make a fine President, not a perfect President. Someday you will get another Goldwater candidate and he will loose and you will be vinicated but this is not the time for an experiment. We need to end this President's administration and rules, and backward movement of the country. Focus. Romney 2012
March 12, 2012 - 6:51 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom perkins
No, its his whole history and own words that make him a progressive big government, borrow to "balance" the budget liberal.
I 'm doing the man the credit of taking him at his words in calling him a liberal. At least the words he said back when I think he wasn't lying.
March 12, 2012 - 7:56 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
John - TMF
I don't THINK he's a Liberal… I KNOW IT TO BE SO.
1. RomneyCare – Socialized Medicine is LIBERAL. Even Heritage realized their straying into the arms of the perpetual boot grinding in our faces and abandoned the concept.
2. He voted for: Carter, Mondale against Ronald Reagan, not as a callow youth, but as a full fledged functioning rational adult. He provided serious monetary support for Paul Tsongas, again as a rational adult, and as recently as the 1990′s.
3. He was not a declared Republican until he ran against Teddy Kennedy for US Senate… Romney ran on a pro-abortion, pro-gun control status quo platform to the LEFT of Fatso. AND Flip-Flop STILL LOST!
4. He LOST the nomination to Johnny McLame… who ran to Romney's right on a national defense platform.
5. He pushed a bureaucratic acceptance of homosexual "marriage". Real Conservative there…
6. He "saved" the Olympics by getting massive infusions of cash from the Feds, and leveraging willing volunteers for more than the traditional volunteer work at the spectacle.
I won't even go into the sleazy, dark side of shady stuff that Bain er um Baine… w/e Capital (Leveraged Buyouts are Capital… I suppose… other folks take the risk… Romney and his cronies line their pockets.) The government cleans up the messes.
Willard Milton Romney is a Limousine Liberal Democrat.
The willful suspension of disbelief is for Science Fiction Novels (this one might be written by Franz Kafka) not politics.
He fakes being a Republican because it has a better chance to get him to the place he wants to be; The White House.
AND I WILL NOT vote for him, EVER!
TMFMarch 12, 2012 - 8:02 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Ed Wallis
Well-stated facts…not that such will influence the Mittens-Bitten Zombies.
Romney is a friend of MONEY, the STATE, along with the power and influence the former can buy from the latter.
For Romney, the Presidency and America are nothing more than another business deal. DANGER, Will Robinson!
March 12, 2012 - 2:24 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
moderate progressive.
enjoy him while he lasts, he'll lose to obama.March 12, 2012 - 11:09 am Link to this Comment | Reply
26. jeanne misses Andrew
Roger, Bella, Swindle, Klavan, Radosh et. al. – these pundits are so perceptive & shrewd that they think the way to convince those not already part of the Romney Collective is to repeatedly tell the skeptics tough luck, shut up, it's over, deal with it, the rest of the primaries are a sham, your vote is meaningless. Yes, that'll work.
March 12, 2012 - 7:09 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Buckeye Abroad
I've noticed that unsettling trend myself.
March 12, 2012 - 8:41 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Prothonotary warbler
Exactly. Talk about party-line/talking points. Don't let the nominating process proceed? Yeah, well, as unconscionably rigged as it has been by "the establishment" (debates controlled by msm, early state primaries overweighted, caucuses, winner-take-all, etc.) we should now, in addition, abandon said process by somehow forcing not-Romney candidates to quit, and thereby simply annoint Romney the Republican candidate! In aid of what? To better insure that the Osurper is not re-elected? I don't buy it.
I suspect that behind the shrill desperation evident in the pleadings/chastisements of the above mentioned (and others) Romney pushers is the knowledge (deep in their hearts) of the fatal traitorous complicity by the National Republican party in the ascension of the Obamite god. Guilt is the true motivator. Their deepest fear is not that the Obamanation will be re-elected, but that he will not be defeated BY THEM. They seek redemption; if necessary at the cost of the majority of us not upholding our beliefs, not acting as our consciences dictate.
The tone of their admonishments is always as if we are little children–gradeschoolers– who need to be monitored and made to behave by the all-mighty senior class members. Wrong. We (Constitutional Conservatives) are the adults in the room. We are not afraid to say that we are now being RULED by an illegal cadre of criminals (in all branches of government) and we will not be silenced. No government can take away our unalienable Rights inherent in us "by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." They can at worst kill us for defending those Rights.
March 12, 2012 - 9:48 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Y'all are going off the deep end here. They're not trying to force anybody to vote for Romney. They're not trying to force anybody out of the race. They're saying "it looks like Romney, so stop carping and be constructive!" I saw Ann Coulter here in AZ before she had decided on Romney, and she was still weighing options at the time–she said since Christie wasn't going to run, Romney looked like he might do. This was just after Perry imploded. She might have been first, but it's the same message over and over–quit with all the conspiracy mongering and whining about 'mittens' and start looking at necessities. The NEED is to defeat Obama. Klavan's little allegory is apt, and goes right back to the first 'Night of the Living Dead.' The reason they all died is because they couldn't stop fighting. Fine, Romney isn't Reagan. I would argue he's better than either Bush, but that's not saying much. He'll do; creeping towards socialism is better than sprinting. ANYTHING that slows the pace is worthwhile, meanwhile don't worry about presidents so much. Focus on your mayor, your city council, your county chairmen, state legislatures etc. Work to make your House district put a conservative in Washington. The focus on the presidency is what has caused conservatism to keep losing ground. We might own the argument now, but the zombies are still rushing us towards the cliffs like so many lemmings. Politics is local; sturdy local leaders will not just resist the banshee wail of Washington, they will provide future leaders who have been in the trenches, and may eventually make Washington into something more than a nasty word.
March 12, 2012 - 3:15 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Nonsense, they ARE trying to get us to vote for Romney. They have the jitters because we won't roll over for Romney. And they believe the liberals will have a hey day with our objections to letting him coast to the nomination. I'm 60 years old and I've NEVER IN MY LIFETIME heard this used as a nomination meme – he's inevitable, resistance is useless, get used to it.
What the….?
Let the process continue. Romney is NOT the candidate for many of us and we're not going to cave until there IS no other choice.
God Save America – because Romney sure as heck won't.
March 12, 2012 - 3:44 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Marc Malone
There has been a leftward trend on this site. I do not know why. I used to see weekly articles here by VDH, Klavan, Solway, Rubin, Totten, and others. The articles all skewed Right/Conservative.
Now, the aforementioned rarely offer articles here. I see them elsewhere. We have all these new contributors, and they are far more moderate. Baehr, Smith, Rogers, Reddy… they add their moderate voices to Radosh, Kimball, Simon (the former Liberals).
And they have all blocked me from commenting on their articles (except maybe Radosh).
I have had a strong effect on the discourse for years. People have adopted my words, arguments, and views… not just here, but also in the national dialogue. And they have blocked me. I have not violated the rules. They just do not like how I tear down the moderate arguments. They do not like what I have to say. And they all support Romney.
Just a few things I have said which others have since adopted:
Union negotiations/Pension plans (Promising future benefits which cannot be paid. The illusion of payment.) -
"Kick the can down the road until they run out of road." (Oldie, but newly applied);
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." – WimpyWealth redistribution -
"Institutionalized envy." "Politics of envy."
"Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal." (As rebuttal to "fairness")Tax policy -
"Wealth creation."
"Creating wealth versus skimming the wealth."
"Makers versus takers."I started these and more. But now I am mostly blocked. The Conservatives let me post still, but they contribute less often than before. The site has moved Leftwards.
March 12, 2012 - 3:07 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
This post was supposed to go here, but villains re-routed it…or something:
"So they've moved more toward my views and away from yours? Well, then, we'll have to give them credit for a little common sense, and recognizing a case, when it is made."March 12, 2012 - 6:33 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
27. Florida
If Romney were a bible-thumping Baptist, most of his critics here would be ecstatically supporting, instead of trashing, him. Let's face it: All this antagonism has little to do with his politics, and much to do with his religion. Fundamentalist Christians accuse him of belonging to a cult, and wax insane about his non-Christian identity. Nothing less that a head-spinning, hand-waving, gospel-gushing, fake penitent Elmer Gantry could get their vote. Hence Santorum.
March 12, 2012 - 7:27 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom perkins
Believe what you need to so you can sleep at night.
The beliefs and policies of the mainstream LDS prior to its own "immaculate" flip-flop about blacks and his participation in that church 11 years prior to 1974 require explanation or should. If you think the MSM won't ask, I think you're nuts.
But that isn't bigotry any more than criticizing "sheets" Byrd was, or knocking Obama over Jeremiah Wright was out of line.
March 12, 2012 - 7:47 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Would it be bigotry to talk about how Christianity tolerated or even supported slavery for almost two thousand years?
That's a rhetorical question. In truth, I think it would be bigotry. But that's where your (remarkably left-wing) thought processes lead.
March 12, 2012 - 9:27 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
You are attempting to evade the issue.
It would not be bigoted, it would only be stupid. The immediate answer would be that Christianity was the only major religion to birth opposition to slavery.
What will be Mittens' answer to the question? Or are you deluded enough to think he won't be asked?
1974 was a little late to come to Jesus on the issue, and Mitt had been an adult member of that church for 11 years. What will be his answer to the question, "What were you doing?"
It is a question to which he will be put, and he must have a good answer.
March 12, 2012 - 9:44 am Link to this Comment | Reply
Yes, it's hard not to suspect that the irrational rage against Romney is coming from a religious rather than a political perspective.
March 12, 2012 - 9:15 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
So, the only problem is those who bitterly cling to their guns and Bibles. That sounds familiar.
March 12, 2012 - 10:17 am Link to this Comment | Reply
No. If Romney followed the Mormon Church, he would be a lot more acceptable to many social conservatives.
March 12, 2012 - 9:45 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
yup we are racist which is only reason we don't support obama
oops we were talking romney, sorry.
using that argument you can see how I got mixed up.March 12, 2012 - 11:11 am Link to this Comment | Reply
28. Dana
Andrew, don't forget what happened at the end of The Night of The Living Dead.
It's too bad, an accident. The only loss we had all night.I hope that's not what we're saying late on the evening of Nov. 6th. because we shot the only guy who could win, thinking he was a zombie- but wasn't.
March 12, 2012 - 7:38 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
29. cfbleachers
I don't know if Romney will be the nominee, Andrew. But I do believe that Gingrich and Paul have virtually zero chance at this point.
Santorum's chances are mathematically, well…monumental.
However, if all three stay in the race as anti-Romney zombies, we will not have a nominee by Tampa. That means, as always with the Stupid Party, the real inevitability is chaos.
Getting to the convention with a four way fustercluck, delegates running around like chickens with their heads cut off, we might get to a third or fourth ballot…and finally, finally…come to our senses.
If WE can't decide upon someone that WE all find acceptable, there is NO chance that person can galvanize the "troops" to take back this land of ours from the small c communists intent on overthrowing it.
I do NOT buy the nonsense that we couldn't frame the argument with two brilliant candidates at the end of August. I do NOT buy the notion that they won't be "vetted enough" by November. I do NOT buy the argument that we couldn't raise enough money for them to combat the Obama propaganda machine.
So, the only ones who would be zombies, would be the ones who continue to try to press the same lever that isn't delivering pellets in this insane Skinner box experiment called the Republican primary. These candidates suck.
Mitt has been running for this office…badly…for seven years. Great. He has money, organization and endorsements. Also, fine. But, he's never been and likely never will be more than a Rominee. A guy who moonwalked into being the nominee.
He's cotton candy. Heavily spun and leaving you feeling uniquely unsatisfied.
I say, go with the three month fight of our lives. It's either that, or surrender.
March 12, 2012 - 7:43 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
myth buster
A brokered convention is fine by me, because any plausible scenario results in us getting the nominee we want. Romney can't win if he doesn't win on the first ballot, because everybody else hates him. Paul can't win because no matter how much his supporters try to stack the deck in their favor, they just don't have the numbers. That leaves Santorum, Gingrich, or a new candidate. We've established that Santorum and Gingrich are acceptable, and while the media likes to speculate about new candidates, the only plausible new candidate that could win the nomination in a brokered convention is Mike Huckabee (Palin could be accepted, but she doesn't have the support, and anybody else would be thrusting an unknown onto the American people two months before election day- no way will the delegates chance that disaster).
March 12, 2012 - 4:39 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
30. MarcH
Well said Andrew.
In 1860 Lincoln's Republican political rivals (Bates, Seward, Stanton, Chase) put aside their rivalry and united with him for the good of the Republic (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06mcpherson.html?pagewanted=all). Even Stephen Douglas did so, to some extent, prior to his death and before the start of the Civil War.
I pray that Gingrich and Santorum will be capable of similar statesmanship.
March 12, 2012 - 7:54 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom perkins
Mittens ain't Lincoln, he's Douglass at best.
March 12, 2012 - 8:27 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
But, Mittens does remind me of something Lincoln said; I paraphrase somewhat but, when it comes to socialism, ". . . I prefer my despotism pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
You can't be a "small government" Republican and still be in favor of government mandated health insurance, Draconian gun laws and radical environmentalism, all of which Mittens has embraced at one time or another.
March 12, 2012 - 10:51 am Link to this Comment | Reply
In the 1860 election Lincoln didn't savagely destroy his Republican opponenents prior to the general election, either.
Sorry Mitt is no Lincoln.
March 12, 2012 - 10:44 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Ed Wallis
"…for the good of the Republic"? You think Romney cares about the American Constitutional Republic?!?
Based on his proven political track record, Romney's friends seem to be primarily MONEY and the STATE, along with the power and influence the former can buy from the latter.
For Romney, the Presidency and America are nothing more than another business deal.
DANGER, Will Robinson!March 12, 2012 - 2:29 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Tom Perkins
So you don't think the racist and held to quite late policies of the LDS either won't or shouldn't come up in the general election?
March 12, 2012 - 8:38 am Link to this Comment | Reply
32. ChrisS
The biggest constraint in my voting for "Mr. Inevitable" is the GOP's Pledge to America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_to_America). I'm sure some of you remember the promises and bluster of the GOP prior to the 2010 elections. They wanted to capture the thunder of the TEA Party once it because obvious that the TEA Party was making progress. So they trotted out their "Pledge"… go ahead, read it again… did they make any meaningful progress. Of course they didn't. The GOP will tell you it's because they didn't have the Senate and the Presidency. If we hand them those then they'll tell us they need a mandate. Then they'll tell us they need a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Then they'll tell us it's an election year so we'll have to wait.
Against all that we've got Mr. Inevitable's weak, timid, milquetoast platform. So, I've got no hope for change with the GOP and I've got no hope for change with Romney. Frankly, my only hope is that Obama doesn't want to be remembered as the worst President in history and he'll fundamentally re-transform the nation. The odds that Obama will provide the needed changes are infinitesimally small, the odds that the GOP will are zero.
But Mittens can still get my vote if he takes the gloves off and goes big on Conservatism. All I need is a plan from him on how he'll cut the federal budget to $2.0 trillion in his first term, how he'll pay down the debt in his second term, how he'll reform the tax code to make it transparent and strip out all the political favoritism, and how he'll reform the entitlement structure to emphasize personal accountability.
Sadly, the mittens are surgically attached and cannot be removed, Mittens will run as "almost like Obama but you can trust him". Sorry, I'm a big advocate of Reagan's "Trust but verify" and Romney fails verification.
March 12, 2012 - 8:09 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
33. Scott
I keep hearing Romney is a conservative – by what measure? The fact he has an "R" behind his name means little in light of how he has governed and the official positions he's taken – which are generally liberal Democrat positions.
There are two components in presidential elections.
One component is the voter who is voting AGAINST someone, the other component is the voter who is voting FOR someone.
In the Romney campaign, you have a candidate who will Not be able to as effectively motivate to voter who is voting AGAINST Obama because they are not going to see much difference between challenger and incumbent.
Likewise, the Republican party seems intent on nominating a candidate who will not be able to motivate the voter who is voting FOR a candidate simply because Milquetoast Mitt has – despite the massive amounts of money he's shelled out to buy delegates – been able to drum up any enthusiasm.
End result, the party of stupid very likely is going down in flames as yet another 'moderate' in the Bob Dole / John McCain mold fails to win national election and we are stuck with a flaming liberal president to inflict 4 more years of damage.
And exactly who would be to blame for that again? Certainly no the ones screaming to nominate someone other than Mitt RomneyCare.
March 12, 2012 - 8:09 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
34. tanstaafl
…fair to equate the current exponential growth of extra-legal czars, bureaucrats, debt, mandates and money-transfers and the concomitant pandemic of dependents and dependent-wannabes with a sudden invasion of soulless armies of the slavering undead intent on devouring our flesh and brains.
March 12, 2012 - 8:25 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
35. Tennwriter
Great scott! Mr. Klavan….so many reasons to disagree. Romney should resign from the race.
March 12, 2012 - 8:31 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
36. NCBob
The nasty primary season will be proven to be a wonderful thing. Without it, the Republican would naively enter the campaign with Obama's filth, corruption and crookedness. The primary season has hardened the Republican team.
I like bumper stickers like "The Mormon or the Muslim? Our Choice!" Sure, I'd prefer Newt, Rick Perry or, maybe, Palin, but I'm going to let my preference cloud the key issue, getting rid of Obama and his associated filth. The main bumper sticker will be, "Like the clean water conservationists say, 'If it's brown, flush it down!'"March 12, 2012 - 8:32 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
37. Squid
Four years ago, the Democrats looked at the political environment and realized they had a perfect storm: a deeply unpopular president, an economic collapse, and widespread war-weariness combined to leave the incumbent party tired, discouraged, and unmotivated. The Dems saw that it was the sort of opportunity that only comes around a couple of times in a century, and so they pulled out all the stops to install a candidate who would "fundamentally transform" the nation into something more in line with the progressives' Utopian vision.
Two years later, we saw the rise regular Americans who were mad as hell about the bailouts, the class warfare, the unconstitutional power grabs, and — most of all — the crippling debt being piled on to our children and grandchildren. These people marched on Washington and their state capitols; they confronted the lies and cowardice of their elected officials, and then they went to the polls and unseated their feckless legislators and representatives by the hundreds.
Another two years have passed, and we see the lessons learned by the establishment GOP after witnessing all of the above: they run the most bland placeholder of an empty suit anyone could imagine. They continue to marginalize the Tea Party reformist grassroots who carried the last election in a landslide. The only thing they have to say to these millions of voters is "shut up and vote for who we say." This is how they react to the source of more energy and enthusiasm than the party has seen in two generations?
Screw them! They had an opportunity to nominate somebody who would represent self-sufficient Americans who just want to live their lives unmolested; to push back against the terrible federal over-reach of the past 4 years (never mind the past 40). Instead they 'anoint' another New England patrician, who has endorsed socialized medicine, cap-and-trade, the nanny state, and endless 'compromise' with those who endlessly chip away at our remaining liberty. No, thank you.
I will not be blackmailed ("four more years of Obama!") into voting for a statist technocrat who promises only that he will keep the bus in good running order as he drives it over the same cliff. Instead, I will vote (once again!) for Mike Rowe to take the dirtiest of jobs, and spend this year making sure that my "ideological minority" sends another hundred reformers to Congress, making life a living Hell for whichever meddling do-gooder sits in the Oval Office. And if that makes the GOP sad — tough darts. They don't get my vote until they reform themselves and become the defenders of liberty that they once promised to be.
The GOP will reform, or it will be replaced. The clue bat we whacked 'em with in 2010 obviously didn't do the job, so we'll have to hit 'em again this year. Let's hope they wise up.
March 12, 2012 - 8:33 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
I love it. "Mike Rowe 2012: The other guys are full of **it, so vote for the only guy who will clean it up."
March 12, 2012 - 8:40 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
That beautifully sums up the absurdity of the anti-Romney position. The only guy acceptable to you is not even running.
March 12, 2012 - 9:02 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
They continue to marginalize the Tea Party reformist grassroots who carried the last election in a landslide.
The Tea Party reformist grassroots are split 50/50 between Romney and Santorum. I'm not sure how you think they are being marginalized. But I've noticed that people like you are long on outrage and feelings and short on facts and rational thought.
March 12, 2012 - 9:21 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Just where did you see "tea partier" split evenly between Mitt and Rick? Other than Ohio and Michigan, I haven't seen any such split. For the record, the exit polliing I saw suggests that a good number who turned for Mitt did so because of the inevitability of his nomination, but not because he was their choice.
By the way, did I read an earlier post of yours clearly that you equate Christianity with tollerating slavery? Please do not tell me you are that ignorant of Christianity's history of turning opinion against slavery where it has existed, both in Europe and in America. In fact, allowing slavery was a central issue that almost stopped the formation of the U.S.A. The Constitution had to be ratified by all states, including those that were married to slavery.March 12, 2012 - 1:43 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Just where did you see "tea partier" split evenly between Mitt and Rick? Other than Ohio and Michigan, I haven't seen any such split.
"Other than Ohio and Michigan"? That seems like a really odd thing to say. But since you ask …
In Arizona the Tea Party did not split its vote down the middle. It voted for Romney over Santorum, 43% to 31%.
In Florida those who supported the Tea Party also went for Romney over Santorum, 41% to 15%.
So I guess you are correct to question whether these is a even split. If anything Romney seems to do better with the Tea party than Santorum does.
March 12, 2012 - 2:16 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
By the way, did I read an earlier post of yours clearly that you equate Christianity with tollerating slavery?
No. You read an earlier post of mine where I mocked a certain lefties attempt to claim that Mormons are raaaaaacists!
March 12, 2012 - 2:18 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
Until 1974 they were. Little in the game to figure out that was wrong, don' t you think?
He's gonna get hit with that if he's the nominee, after he's the nominee
And if he doesn't shoot it down, he's done.
March 12, 2012 - 2:35 pm Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
"Late in the game" is how that should read.
March 12, 2012 - 3:38 pm Link to this Comment
Art Chance
I'm willing to bet that a real live pure "true conservative" like you is so pure that you've never sullied yourself with going to a precinct or district meeting, attending a caucus or convention, or if you tried to become a delegate to a caucus or convention, you weren't successful. And it would be far too demeaning to subject your purity to actually having to face real voters and run for office or, God forbid, become involved in a campaign above the sign-planter and stamp licker level so that somebody might think you're the kind of person who could contribute to their campaign and their government and appoint you to something or put you on a legislative or Congressional staff. If you'd ever been in the real world of politics and government, you'd have found that there are one Helluva lot of people who don't agree with you, no matter which side of the ditch you're on. Even if you win by a "landslide," almost half the voters didn't agree with you. So, if you want to actually do something whether it is pass ObamaCare or abolish the Federal Reserve and the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Education, and Health and Human Svcs., you have to find a way to get 50% + 1 of an elected body to go along with you. In the Executive Branch of most governments, including the federal government, you are surrounded by people who have the backing and the ear of very powerful constituencies and interests and who often were elected on their own in state and political subdivision governments. If you're going to accomplish anything, whether it adds to or subtracts from the power of government, you have to get enough of those powerful people and their constituencies to go along with you to make the executive decision and then you have to get a recalcitrant bureaucracy to actually implement your brilliant idea. Democrats have an easier time with the bureaucrats, but not that much easier, and mostly Democrats have it easier because they are much more ruthless in dealing with the bureaucrats than are Republicans. Basically, the bureaucrats don't like anything that threatens their personal power and position or disturbs their stately progress to retirement and it doesn't matter if it comes from an R or a D.
I can only conclude that you and the other pure and true conservatives have never actually had to deal with a real, live Democrat officeholder or apparatchik. If you had, you couldn't possible be sane and conclude that there is little or no difference between an Obama Administration and a Romney Administration. I'm not really a Romney guy, mostly because I've worked with and for "Captains of Industry" who came to government with all their "private sector skills" and had to be shown to their office by a Democrat and when they got there couldn't find the light switches and restrooms. Plus, Romney is too nice and too much the Rotary Club Republican for me, so the worst of both worlds, little actual government experience and nice. I'm more a Gingrich kind of guy; it is good in the executive branch to be an asshole as long as it is the right people who think you're an asshole. My worry with Gingrich is that most of the more than half of the electorate with indoor plumbing think he's an asshole and all the yutes think he's one of those mean teachers who would give them a B. That said, if he's the nominee, I'll cheerfully vote for Romney and try to get as many people as I can to vote for him, give money to him, do anything to help elect him. 'Course, I'd do the same thing for a yellow dog running against that communist SOB the idiots elected.
March 12, 2012 - 11:13 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Subotai Bahadur
Just for the record:
Saturday I attended our County Republican Convention. I was elected as a delegate to 4 higher nominating conventions, including our State Convention. Today at our County HQ I was offered the paperwork to run for National, but declined. In the 16 caucus/convention cycles over the last 32 years; I have gone to State 14 times. One year I missed was because I lost a son and did no politics that year. I have run a Republican presidential campaign in my county, and we kicked Democrat butt. That may or may not suffice to give some credibility with you as a Conservative with real world political experience.We are going to be fighting an uphill battle against election fraud on an unprecedented scale, a uniformly hostile media, and illegal activities by the government. To defeat them, we will have to mobilize every part of the base AND give voters a reason to be FOR our candidate other than "he is not Obama".
Looking at the voter turnouts in the Republican primaries; total turnout in the counties where Romney has won has been below the turnout in the last cycle. Total turnout in the counties where Gingrich and Santorum have won has been higher than the previous cycle. Which candidates are going to motivate OUR side? Which are going to depress our turnout?
Others have listed Romney's pre-presidential ambitions political stands and actions. He is not going to push the Left back. I have been asking repeatedly; can anyone name one instance in his 20 year political career when he has stood his ground against the Democrats for ANYTHING conservative? And running for election himself does not count because that is for his own personal benefit.
Looking at the nature of the Republican congressional delegation, lead and controlled by Vichy-Republicans; who would a president Romney listen to? A Republican majority House and Senate with a Conservative minority in each caucus, or the Democrats in each House plus the media?
Court appointments get brought up. In Massachusetts, Romney appointed judges. Only 25% of his judicial appointments were Republicans, none really Conservative as far as I have heard. The other 75% were Massachusetts Democrats, which translated to the rest of the country means they were collectivist Socialists. David Souter would be considered too radically conservative for appointment by a Romney administration.
Romney may be the nominee. And if he is, he will lose. A Romney nomination is an automatic second term for Obama. In the characterization of this cycle as being a zombie movie:
Should they listen to the Businessman, who has the experience of leadership but is too slick to trust?
should they follow the Preacher, who has some good ideas but is operating under the delusion that this is all some sort of Biblical judgement?
what about the Professor, who seems smarter than any of them but is known to be an all-around son-of-a-bitch?
A smart son-of-a-bitch who has a history of fighting the Enemy sounds like a better bet than a businessman with no such history and who cannot be trusted not to work with the Enemy. And even a Preacher who has fought the Enemy before at least has some basic beliefs that he can be depended upon to stand by.
Subotai Bahadur
March 12, 2012 - 2:12 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Say it again for me.
"A smart son-of-a-bitch who has a history of fighting the Enemy sounds like a better bet than a businessman with no such history and who cannot be trusted not to work with the Enemy."
March 12, 2012 - 8:03 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Ed Wallis
DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!
March 13, 2012 - 12:11 am Link to this Comment | Reply
38. Jonk
I can't figure out a way to fully work this into the metaphor. Sorry. I'm just not convinced of the wisdom of electing to house leader the guy who can't credibly oppose the zombies' two biggest weaknesses: Health Care and being bought and paid for by Wall Street. We're basically going to pick the guy who won't let us use guns or fire to defend the house against the zombies.
March 12, 2012 - 8:34 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
the zombies' two biggest weaknesses: Health Care and being bought and paid for by Wall Street.
You are living in an alternative reality if you think that Obama's two biggest weaknesses are healthcare and Wall Street. You need to start paying attention to what the American electorate cares about, and that is NOT healthcare, or Wall Street, or the thing which Santorum fans actually care about, which is abortion. The American electorate cares about the economy, about unemployment, about gas prices.
You're like a person who is shouting "We need sunlight and crucifixes to kill the zombies!".
No, those are vampires. To kill the zombies we need shotguns.
March 12, 2012 - 8:58 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Art Chance
I have a black, ugly, scary, only slightly modified Saiga 12 guage (basically an AK-47 in 12 ga.) for the express purpose of repelling a zombie attack. I go walk the properly line with it slung over my shoulder periodically and there hasn't been a single zombie around here – yet.
March 12, 2012 - 12:24 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Art Chance
Bear gun is a marine finish/polymer furniture Mossberg 500 12 ga. pump loaded with 3″ shells, 3 00s first and then two slugs. Don't trust my markmanship under pressure so I stay with the buck until the last two, and that last one might be for me. I prefer the Mossberg over the Saiga because it is absolutely reliable while the Saiga can be finicky, and you can get a recoil absorbing stock for the Mossberg so my wife is more comfortable with it. The Mossberg hardly kicks at all with the Blackhawk stock but it does rise, next purchase for it is a King Armory muzzle brake; have one on the Saiga and it really helps you hold on for follow up shots. The Saiga really doesn't run well with anything but 3″ shells and is a fairly light weapon; ripping off a couple of ten round magazines will leave you bruised and your arm numb; I don't go to the range with that thing without my falsies on and I don't care who knows I'm padded.
Brown bears are very rare around town, every now and then one out on the trails on the Hillside. When I lived in Juneau, I would have never taken my boat out without the shotgun; you get off on any of the big islands down there and you are definitively NOT the top of the food chain. I had to kill a big Brown sow a few years back, and I don't mind admitting that I didn't know you could get that scared; a thousand pounds of bear coming out of the brush at you at full speed will crystalize your perceptions. Three rounds of buck squarely in the face and chest starting at about 30 yds as fast as I could pump and aim, well not aim, point, the slug or just the total injury dropped her about five or six feet from me still alive but down and dying, finished her with the last slug in her head and sat down and shook for a good long while. Hope to never do it again.
March 12, 2012 - 8:14 pm Link to this Comment -
Yeah, that would definitely get the juices flowing! What then, reports to fish and game, exoneration for justifiable homicide etc.?
March 13, 2012 - 6:06 am Link to this Comment -
Art Chance
Yeah, it has to be reported and you can't keep anything. That skin would have looked good on my wall, though the taxidermist would have had his work cut out for him patching it up. Alaska's fishing and hunting is heavily regulated and penalties for violations can be draconian. It used to be said that if you ever decided to kill your wife, you needed to be careful not to miss her and hit a moose out of season. If they catch you in a violation, they can and often do confiscate everything you were using at the time of the violation. The Troopers have an endless supply of airplanes, boats, trucks, ATVs, firearms, and all sorts of fishing and hunting gear. Those two scruffy looking guys fishing from a beat up old Boston Whaler with beer cans in their hands are as likely as not to be Fish and Wildlife Troopers. In the elbow to elbow "combat fishing" on the rivers, there's likely to be a Trooper somewhere in your field of view, and you never can tell just who might be flying that Super Cub off in the distance. Most non-resident hunting has to be guided and it is a big, big business, especially out of the fancy lodges. One of my slip neighbors was a bear guide and he stayed busy, lots of Europeans, ocassionally Arabs and Orientals. He had a 45 or so foot "Taiwan Trawler," don't remember the brand, that he kept running with charters all the time. I don't really hunt, so I rarely even had a license and didn't even bother to get a sportfishing guides license because I hate charter hunting and fishing. It is too easy to get skunked, especially for the things people really want like a big king salmon, a big Brownie, or a moose with a big rack, and people who just spent a young fortune on their fishing and hunting trip of a lifetime tend to have very bad dispositions about getting skunked – I've seen some ugly scenes on the docks and landing strips. Every now and then I'd take a party over to Admiralty Island or someplace and come back and get them at the appointed time, but mostly I stuck to hauling newly weds and nearly deads around to see whales, seals, sea lions, eagles and such; you can pretty much be sure you can make them happy and happy tourists leave good tips – usually.
March 13, 2012 - 9:13 am Link to this Comment
Lina Inverse
While of course the economy (including all those subsumed items like gas prices) comes first, Obamacare is wildly unpopular and getting all the more so and was important in the 2010 elections. Depending on e.g. what happens or rather doesn't in the Middle East before November it could well be issue number #2. I sure consider it #2 at the moment, right after the unsustainable annual trillion and a half dollar deficits … neither of which I expect Romney to do much about.
Well, until the world's appetite for US debt at near zero interest rates is satiated. At that point things can and probably will get really ugly really fast, and having Romney in office would probably be better, except in that case as Bob Krumm predicted generically he's likely to be the last Republican President ever.
March 12, 2012 - 1:29 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Obamacare is wildly unpopular and getting all the more so and was important in the 2010 elections
People who don't like Obamcare, just like people who do like it, will have the choice of voting for Obama – the guy whose name is in "Obamacare" – or for the guy who has promised to do all he can to repeal it.
If some of them decide to sit out the election, all that will show is that they did not really care about Obamacare after all.
the unsustainable annual trillion and a half dollar deficits … neither of which I expect Romney to do much about.
I don't expect Romney to do "much" about it either. But that is probably because I have a basic understanding of the way the government works and is structured, which is why I know that the only body which can do "much" about our deficits is Congress.
There is something slightly pitiful about this desire in some parts of the right for One Great Man to go to DC and solve all our problems. You don't want a president, you want a strongman, a tyrant.
March 12, 2012 - 3:38 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
"or for the guy who prototypes it and who says it's a wonderful thing"
I fixed that lie for you for free. Mittens loves gov run healthcare.
March 12, 2012 - 5:50 pm Link to this Comment
Ed Wallis
Sorry, Steve…but if the "economy" improves (and even if it doesn't) from where it is today, that will be ebough for many to discard the issue for the election.
NOT SO WITH OBAMACARE.March 13, 2012 - 12:14 am Link to this Comment | Reply
39. Jerry
New polling numbers… looks like the "base" is not behind Mr. Inevitable, I don't think that translates well for a general election when the "non-base" votes for Obama anyways:
The New York Times/CBS News poll showed Mr. Santorum commanding a lead over Mr. Romney among several important groups that he has done well with in a number of primaries thus far. Mr. Santorum leads among Tea Party supporters by 40 to 21 percent, conservatives by 43 to 24 percent and evangelical Christians by 47 to 22 percent. Mr. Romney continued to get support from moderate and nonevangelical voters and college graduates.
Mr.Santorum also led 41 to 27 percent over Mr. Romney among women, while men were more evenly divided.
The nationwide poll is based on telephone interviews conducted March 7-11 on landlines and cellphones with 301 Republican primary or caucus voters.
March 12, 2012 - 8:48 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
The nationwide poll is based on telephone interviews conducted March 7-11 on landlines and cellphones with 301 Republican primary or caucus voters.
Nyuck nyuck nyuck.
The only thing this poll shows is that it is still true that a sucker is born every minute.
March 12, 2012 - 12:09 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
40. SteveM
I see a lot of people here making the embarrassingly ignorant argument that the fact that Romney has been "unable to clinch the nomination" thus far shows what a horrible candidate he is, one who lacks the support of the Republican base, blah blah, etc etc.
The reality is that the national GOP establishment changed the primary process this time around specifically to make it harder for anyone to sew up the nomination early in the process. If the same rules which held in 2008 were still in force, Romney would have a lot more delegates than he does at present. (And he already has a commanding lead)
The other reality is that Romnney beats Santorum by a significant margin among Republicans. Santroum is still in the contest because we allow open primaries, where lots of non-Republicans can and do vote – and they support Santorum.
March 12, 2012 - 8:50 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
SteveM: My coment on this is still awaiting moderation but your suppositions and the latest polls do not meet at all: New polling numbers… looks like the "base" is not behind Mr. Inevitable, I don't think that translates well for a general election when the "non-base" votes for Obama anyways:
The New York Times/CBS News poll showed Mr. Santorum commanding a lead over Mr. Romney among several important groups that he has done well with in a number of primaries thus far. Mr. Santorum leads among Tea Party supporters by 40 to 21 percent, conservatives by 43 to 24 percent and evangelical Christians by 47 to 22 percent. Mr. Romney continued to get support from moderate and nonevangelical voters and college graduates.
Mr.Santorum also led 41 to 27 percent over Mr. Romney among women, while men were more evenly divided.
The nationwide poll is based on telephone interviews conducted March 7-11 on landlines and cellphones with 301 Republican primary or caucus voters.
March 12, 2012 - 9:16 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
The New York Times/CBS News poll ..
It's nice to see that the self-proclaimed "true conservatives" are now citing the New York Time and CBS News to make their case.
But here are some hard facts about what actual people have already done.
Romney has won the votes of 3,200,000 people, compared to 1,975,000 for Santorum.
Romney has won the votes of 41% of voters in Republican primaries, compared to 25% for Santorum.
In the Arizona exit poll, 43% of Tea party supporters backed Romney, vs 31% for Santorum.
In the Michigan exit poll, 53% of Democrats backed Santorum, compared to 18% who backed Romney. In that same exit poll, Tea party supporters split their support equally between Romney and Santorum. More from that state – Romney beat Santorum among Republicans 48% to 37%.
If we look at the Ohio exit polls we see that, again, Romney beat Santorum among Republicans 41% to 37%, while Santorum closed the gap via his support from Dems (he beat Romney 47% to 27% among them) and independents (a 37% – 31% win for Santorum. Tea Party supporters in Ohio split their vote almost equally between the two men – a 39% to 36% edge to Santorum.
your suppositions and the latest polls do not meet at all
Not suppositions, but hard facts. Obviously, they support me and not you.
March 12, 2012 - 11:40 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
Yet, after all this time and all these tens of millions of dollars spent paying for lies, Mittens does not have the support of a majority of the party.
March 12, 2012 - 5:24 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Tom perkins
No, not all states have open primaries. Quit lying.
Of course, if you could prove your claims, you' d have dispositive links?
March 12, 2012 - 9:21 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
He didn't say they ALL have open primaries, but many of them are, and some are "closed" (but not really). In those races that are open or nominally closed, Santorum wins the Democrat vote. It defies explanation why he would since he's so opposite on most of the issues- unless you entertain the idea that they are scared of Romney and are voting to place Santorum as Republican nominee. In Ohio (nominally closed) Santorum won the Dem vote by a large margin, same for Michigan where an estimated 10% of the voters were Democrats and they were encourage by Santorum himself! http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-santorum-defends-robocalls-urging-democrats-to-vote-in-michigan-20120228,0,3155743.story
March 12, 2012 - 9:49 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom perkins
Steve M wasn't careful enough with the truth to qualify the proportion with open vs. closed primaries or caucuses.
This squares with him generically not being careful of the truth.
March 12, 2012 - 10:23 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Marc malone
Santorum wins the blue-collar Dems. He constantly talks about bringing back manufacturing jobs. And unlike Romney, he doesn't support carbon taxes (aka, coal taxes). Union leadership always support Dems, but the workers themselves, especially those out of work, respond to Santorum's message on manufacturing. They also like his family values.
In previous times, these blue-collar workers were known as "Reagan Democrats".
March 12, 2012 - 3:28 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Lina Inverse
I believe he's referring to the new rule of proportional allocation of delegates until April 1st (perhaps not counting the "traditionally early" states).
March 12, 2012 - 1:35 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
not all states have open primaries
If you can cite me saying that "all states have open primaries", I'll issue a groveling retraction.
What I said was "we allow open primaries".
Your reading comprehension problem keeps biting you in the butt.
March 12, 2012 - 2:31 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
I never claimed you said all states had open primaries, did I?
I said the true thing that not all states have open primaries in response to your unsupported and false claim that enough of them did that it was a substantial fraction of the anti-Romney (specifically I believe Santorum's) vote.
As opposed to making further false statements, you might better back up your claim's with numbers, if you can.
March 12, 2012 - 5:20 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
I never claimed you said all states had open primaries, did I?
Yes, in fact you did. Just a few comments above this one, there is you telling me:
No, not all states have open primaries. Quit lying.
If that is too complicated for you to understand, you claimed that I was "lying" by asserting that "all" (your word, not mine) states had open primaries. You angrily corrected me for saying that "all states have open primaries".
If I said what you are now claiming (largely correctly I might add) that I said – that "enough" states did have an open primary that "it was a substantial fraction of the anti-Romney (specifically I believe Santorum's) vote", then you would not have responded as you did. Because to that claim on my part, the response that "not all states have open primaries. Quit lying" makes no sense whatsoever.
As for what primaries have been open or closed, read on.
New Hampshire primary – closed – won by Romney.
South Carolina primary – open – won by Gingrich.
Florida primary – closed – won by Romney.
Arizona primary – closed – won by Romney.
Michigan primary – open – won by Romney. It was close though, and it was close because Santorum got a lot of Democratic and independent support.
Georgia primary – open – won by Gingrich.
Massachusetts primary – semi-closed – won by Romney.
Ohio primary – semi-closed – won by Romney. It was close though, and it was close because Santorum got a lot of Democratic and independent support.
There have been primaries since, but I think the pattern is clear. Romney does better in the more closed primary states, and does worse where the primaries are open.
March 13, 2012 - 2:17 pm Link to this Comment
41. Yeahright
I will never show up for Willard Fillmoure Romnyecare.
Take that to the bank.Not a conservative?
no vote.
I don't play these perverse incentive games with the Republicans. If I show up when they give me a democrat-lite like Willard, they are incentivised to give me another crappy democrat-lite next time.
Sorry. You can take your George McDole and choke on him without my help. He won't get my vote, the republicans won't get my money, and I certainly won't go door to door, or man the phone lines this year for a gun-control nut like Romney.
March 12, 2012 - 9:02 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
42. Ceteris Paribus
Romney is a zombie mutant who is fully infected but his condition is not obvious to those who lack a trained eye.
March 12, 2012 - 9:12 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
There you go.
Romneycare. Beginning, middle and end of the argument.
Romney legitimized and paved the way for the Left's greatest goal of our time – nationalized healthcare. He did it because like every RINO he's a compulsive quisling and appeasement artist. Believe nothing he says. He will sell you out. He will enable to Left to take deeper hold on the culture and he will serve himself up as the perfect post-Bush RINO stooge for a return of the Left to even greater power in 2016.
This guy is enthralled only with the idea of being an executive in his Daddy's image not with any purpose or principle.
Anybody but Romney.
March 12, 2012 - 11:30 am Link to this Comment | Reply
43. John Bailo
The great thing about this primary is that if Mitt wins, he won't be beholden at all to Social Conservatives. He can continue the smooths sounds of his M.O.R. politics and sweep in able to court the great middle with Moderation.
March 12, 2012 - 9:26 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Yeah, and then Romney IS going to lose. The social conservatives you don't like will not get out in mass to support him in flyover country!
March 12, 2012 - 10:33 am Link to this Comment | Reply
44. tanstaafl
Romney has been positioning himself as a conservative for months.
He feels the heat in the country and has gravitated (at least verbally) to what he and handlers perceive as the winning position.
The heat would have to be continued were he to be elected.
He is far far less of a threat to the survival of the Republic than the current guy.
March 12, 2012 - 9:32 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Romney has been positioning himself as a conservative for months.
Romney was the conservative candidate in 2008. I suppose that technically, forty-eight months still counts as "months". But so does four hundred and eighty months, or ten thousand months.
March 12, 2012 - 11:15 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Marc Malone
Another oft-repeated, false assertion. The candidates, in order of Liberal to conservative were (leaving out Ron Paul, the Libertarian):
Tommy Thompson;
Fred Thompson;
10)Tancredo.I consider Huckabee just barely Right of Center. Romney only seemed Conservative compared to Giuliani (pro-abortion, anti-gun, AGW-believer) and McCain (McCain-Lieberman, Kennedy, Feingold).
Romney spent $40mil of his own money trying to get elected. Giuliani and McCain were nationally known. The Right-of-Center candidates just could not compete money-wise and were too small to keep going. Except Huckabee, who is a gifted speaker, because of his experience as a preacher. Even then, he lacked the money, else he would have won the nomination.
The big-money Republicans rarely back the Conservative. Always, the Conservative operates with the huge handicap of lack of money and lack of Party support. (That Santorum is doing as well as he is, is simply amazing, when seen in that context.)
No, Romney was NOT the Conservative guy in the last Presidential election. Not even close.
March 12, 2012 - 3:52 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Romney only seemed Conservative compared to Giuliani (pro-abortion, anti-gun, AGW-believer) and McCain (McCain-Lieberman, Kennedy, Feingold).
But that is always the nature of things. Everybody is only "conservative" or "liberal" by comparison with somebody else.
I never got the impression that Thompson was at all conservative. He seemed to see his sole purpose as helping John McCain win the nomination.
My own first choice in that election cycle was Hunter, followed by Tancredo. But of people with a snowballs chance in hell of getting nominated, Romney was the most conservative.
March 13, 2012 - 1:52 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Ed Wallis
Sorry, Stevie, but it seems the Mittens Cheerleader panties you've been wearing throughout this thread are getting a little too tight for you here.
Romney, "conservative"?!?
The jerk called himself a PROGRESSIVE in Massachusetts and rejected the label – including any association with President Reagan – as well!March 13, 2012 - 12:21 am Link to this Comment | Reply
45. davidwendell
Terrible analogy. Since we are nowhere near a Zombie invasion, I will vote for the Republican. However, if there really were a Zombie attack you don't want wolves in your pack (I'm not saying Romney is a Wolf – just that during a zombie invasion you must be much more discerning with who you bring into your "family").
March 12, 2012 - 9:40 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
46. Karen L Antley
If Sarah would give us another chance, I would give the max. amount directly to her fund. She had something on this weekend that gave me some hope. But if the crazies can call her stupid again and we all run like she has the plague because our enemy calls her names, don't we deserve Romney or one of the other Progressive candidates? She makes Obam-bam look like the idiot he is. I would like to see him back out of a debate with her! I'm a realist…
She made Alaska run like America did, before the Progressives got control of our Constitution down here. The reason we are not uniting behind one of these Progressives is, we hate what we have to vote for! How do you pick among choices that are destroying US? WE have until November, why tell us WE need to unite now? You know we will vote for the lead "R" to Keep His Heinous out of the White House when the time comes. These are serious times every minute WE have left, should be used! Unless you don't like the chance someone else might jump into the race. But if that were the case, I think that would make you the other side.March 12, 2012 - 9:59 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
I 'll go with the all around out son-of-a bitch.
Don't send a man into a gunfight, with a knife.March 12, 2012 - 10:05 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
48. ari
abo, ya'll, abo.
I'd vote for Perry, but he couldn't persuade voters hither or yon. I sort of need to trust the other conservatives in other states. I live under Perry-ness- it's a good place to be. Jobs, stable schools, safety, big churches. He couldn't articulate what made Texas work in a not-frightening way, I guess. I don't know. Spouse wasn't going to vote for him, and he lives here, too. He thought he was too hick.
Romney is talking about prosperity, America, joy, America, prosperity. He's not sharing the ingredients that make that cake, b/c I think he'd scare people. It's sort of an Obama strategy. Telling someone who has been unemployed for two years that they'll have to get a job- 2 years is a lot of daytime tv. The world looks frightening, when you've been inside or dependent for years. HopeNChange sounded pretty good, you have to admit, until we found out which Hope and what Change. I think Romney is doing this same thing. Prosperity? What does it look like? It doesn't look like foodstamps forever, or 99 weeks of unemployment, or buying cheap, old reliable cars and junking them. It doesn't look like more regulations. But- do you say "Hey, I'm going to deregulate, people are going to find jobs, people will start businesses…."
Like, Oprah magazine. Okay, we all make fun of her for running a tv show for stay at home moms, right? Emotional, poorly educated, non- professional….Okay, she has Oprah magazine. And at least two pages in every last single issue are about a company that makes something small and simple and sells it. And there is this profile of how they started, and what they felt about it when it started, and how they feel now. I can read that, and imagine being scared as I start my little, at home, premium soap company(soap companies come up a lot). And then I can start, b/c that's my face in the mirror, not "master of the universe with an MBA from Harvard" Michael Douglas in a fine suit face.
I think that's what he's doing. He's running a pleasant, slick, positive campaign. He's getting people to vote for him that would never vote for a straight-up policy wonk. I mean, I like Elizabeth Dole- from way-back- but it wasn't a campaign pitched to normal ears- wrong whistle tone. Mitt is running- family guy, devoted wife, tons of kids, and grandkids, competent, American. That is so contrasted to Obama, who somehow thinks drag queens are a strong voting bloc.
I think I'd vote for Mitt, just based on Mrs Mitt. He persuaded a very methodical, driven, privileged bright woman to share his life. That's hard to do. And she's still his biggest fan. That's even harder.
March 12, 2012 - 10:13 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
"he's running a pleasant…positive campaign"
Oh, you poor misguided soul. Romney's attack-ad blitz is hardly "positive" campaigning. After Romney "carpet-bombed" Gingrich in Florida, he tried it again with another ad that was such a lie that Gingrich threatened to sue television stations with libel if they continued to run it. And they stopped, because it was indeed an outright lie and they would have been vulnerable to libel.
Positive campaign my foot.
March 12, 2012 - 2:31 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
49. Wes
I don't understand this article. Which "conservatives" are fighting the zombies? The "conservatives" who support things like TARP, the Patriot Act, NDAA indefinite detention, raising the debt ceiling, TSA, giving the President the power to kill U.S. citizens without transparency or due process?
Or maybe it's the "conservatives" who support big-government people like Paul Ryan, who not only supports TARP, the Patriot Act, and NDAA, but whose "conservative" budget plan Republicans passed last year adds five trillion to the debt the first 10 years and doesn't balance the budget until the year 2063.
March 12, 2012 - 10:14 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
50. Wes
Speaking of zombies, anyone hear what Newt Gingrich said the other day about leaving Afghanistan?
"I think we need to reconsider the whole region. We need to understand that our being in the middle of countries like Afghanistan is probably counterproductive."
And then some Republican talking heads agreed with him!
Leave Afghanistan and possibly the entire area? Messing around in other people's countries might be counterproductive!? Sounds like something "crazy, kooky, loony" Ron Paul would say! Looks like Newt might be shaking off a little of his nation-building zombie-ism.
March 12, 2012 - 10:22 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Simple answer: No, we cannot unite in support of ROMBOT.
March 12, 2012 - 10:31 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
52. Allan Crain
"You will know them by their fruits." Jesus Christ 32AD Matt 7:12
…"the tree is known by its fruit." Matthew 12:33Wikipedia Mitt Romney and read his summarized biography. If you are a big critic take a few minutes and learn more about the man you are criticizing. It is foolish to equate that Obamacare and Romneycare are the same. At the time Romenycare was implemented the Heritage Foundation was all for it. Why is it the healthcare industry's responsibility to give FREE CARE to the indigent? If the governments (fed, state, local) mandate care be given, then they should pay a large portion of it. Those given free care should have an interest-free lien placed on them. BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILTY.
It is without question that Romney is a successful manager. He gives of himself time and money. Yes, he was the Mass. Governor and he vetoed over 800 bills, at least 8 of them were additions to the original Health Care bill and they were overrode so the laws went into effect. President George W. Bush did not veto one bill.
He has lived a conservative fiscally and responsible life and has been true to his core values.March 12, 2012 - 10:42 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Ed Wallis
"…foolish to equate RomneyCare with ObamaCare"…
WHY…because the writers of RomneyCare went on to develop ObamaCare,
because he's proudly called it the BLUEPRINT for ObamaCare?!?FAIL!!!
March 13, 2012 - 12:24 am Link to this Comment | Reply
53. n0b0z0
March 12, 2012 - 10:48 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
The man with the finest, most accomplished conservative record in the history of living men is Newt Gingrich. That we should vote for a Massachusetts liberal who hasn't a conservative clue in his pretty little head is patently absurd. I am not a child, so don't tell me to believe what a politician says, I'll believe only what he has done.
Obama's relection will not be due to conservatives, but due to those who wish to nominate another progressive liberal. I suggest that for Republicans, electability begins with conservatives, not independents.
March 12, 2012 - 10:52 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
55. reinhold
I find few things more obnoxious and occlusive than the "Romney's going to win and get used to it" meme.
Romney is worse than a zombie — he's a coward and quisling. A zombie at least inspires a human response, excites the basic impulse to retaliation and survival, to life. By conditioning us into a weary accommodation to a false moderateness, or to the "inevitable", Romney and those like him have done more to damage the conservative spirit than the Left.
Romney — the idea of Romney — must be routed from our political consciousness.
March 12, 2012 - 11:10 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
56. Controse
Well thanks for adding one of the most apt damning-with-slight-praise phrases to our lexicon: "Romney is not a Zombie." Scott Adams of Dilbert fame came the closest to summing up Romney: "A robot butler that ran away and changed his name to Mitt Romney."
March 12, 2012 - 11:48 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
57. SteveM
And if you can't see how the constitution forbids gov run healthcare, think reserved powers and the 14th amendment.
The federal constitution forbids federal government run healthcare. It says a big fact nothing about what any individual state may do in the matter.
You have already mentioned that in addition to disliking Romney, you also dislike Santorum. And now you are making it clear that you dislike the concept of federalism.
I'm really not getting the picture of a "true conservative", or of any conservative at all. I'm starting to suspect that you voted for Obama last time, and will do so again this time. You're just a moby, here to stir up trouble in Republican ranks.
March 12, 2012 - 12:04 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
Yeah, I'm such a sleeper agent I've voted a Republican party line 23 years running.
Federalism is a great idea, but the states don't get to take your property arbitrarily.
Even if you think it does–and what sort of conservative would that make you?–if you disagree that Romneycare is big government, what do the you think big government would be?
I don' t think I'm either the moby or the noob, here.
March 12, 2012 - 12:45 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
I've voted a Republican party line 23 years running
And I'm the Queen of France. If you want to be accepted as a conservative, start saying conservative things. All you've come up with so far is that you don't like Romney, you don't like Santorum, you don't like federalism, and you think Mormons are racists. You've said nothing yet which could not have come from the keyboard of Markos Moulitsas.
March 12, 2012 - 2:24 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
O.K. You're the Queen of France. That's more factual than anything else you have said on this thread.
March 12, 2012 - 4:58 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Tom Perkins
I have a history under my own name (Tom Perkins, TomDPerk, TDPerk, etc.) of making pro-liberty, pro-constitution, recognizably politically conservative statements reaching back to dial-up BBS's.
I don't remember running into you before.
March 12, 2012 - 5:10 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
"and you think Mormons are racists"
Trouble is, they in-arguably were, and within the time period encompassing Romney's adult membership.
But you're still dodging the question, and Mitt can't do that.
What was he doing about his church's view in that time? What were his views on that policy of his church?
March 12, 2012 - 5:14 pm Link to this Comment
I'm really not getting the picture of a "true conservative", or of any conservative at all. I'm starting to suspect that you voted for Obama last time, and will do so again this time. You're just a moby, here to stir up trouble in Republican ranks.
Typical leftist approach to those who disagree.
The federal constitution forbids federal government run healthcare. It says a big fact nothing about what any individual state may do in the matter.
The Declaration of Independence, our nation's founding document, explicitly states the justification for our government "…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…" exposes Romney's (and apparently your) attempt to justify the denial of an individual's right to choose whether or not to purchase health insurance based upon the 14th or any other amendment, liberal, fascist, philosophy.
While it might be legal for a state to override individual liberty (I don't agree that it is), there is absolutely no case that can be made that it is a good thing to do so. Free riders are not the problem with health care, rather, free health care itself is the problem.
March 12, 2012 - 1:17 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Typical leftist approach to those who disagree.
Yes, the typical leftist approach to those who disagree is to call those people … leftists. Please engage your brain before you type.
The Declaration of Independence, our nation's founding document
The Declaration of Independence is not our "nations founding document".
exposes Romney's (and apparently your) attempt to justify the denial of an individual's right to choose whether or not to purchase health insurance
The Declaration of Independence does not confer on you the right to choose anything. It does implicitly suggest that you have the right to vote for the sort of government you like. It does not say you will always get your way however. More specifically, the Declaration of Independence does not say anything about "individuals".
The people have the right to institute government(s), "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". If the people of Kansas want to do X while the people of Vermont want to so Y, then more power to both of them.
While it might be legal for a state to override individual liberty (I don't agree that it is)..
Then you're a full-blown anarchist who must logically hate the entire US of A, because every state not only can but must engage in some degree of over-riding "individual liberty".
there is absolutely no case that can be made that it is a good thing to do so.
Clearly the people of Massachusetts are of a different opinion. I don't agree with their opinion either, but I respect their right to have it. And I cannot think of a single reason why they should have to live their lives and organize their state in such a fashion as to make YOU happy.
March 12, 2012 - 2:07 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
The Declaration of Independence is the nation's founding document. The Articles of Confederation governed the first implementation of our government and the Constitution of the United States governs the second implementation.
You speak as if the United States is a pure Democracy where the will of the majority is sacrosanct. There are inviolable rules established to prohibit the tyranny of the majority and thereby preserve the sovereign individual.
What Obama and Romney believe to be in the cause of the general welfare exceeds the consent of the governed not only because it is an unwarranted intrusion into our lives but that it allows of no limits to future governmental interference.
It is exactly here, this issue, which prevents Romney's accession to the office he seeks. Obama and Romney both seek to expand the reach and power of government to accomplish what they believe to be in the best interests of government itself.
March 12, 2012 - 4:31 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Art Chance
The DoI isn't a founding document nor is it a legal instrument. It is probably most analogous to a complaint for divorce wherein the gentlemen in British North America did the gentlemanly thing and informed the gentlemen back in England, their fellow British citizens, of the reasons that an incompatability of temperament had arisen in the relationship, they believed the differences were irreconcilable, and they were ending the relationship. It sets forth no governing order, merely states some agreed upon governmental premises and sets forth the grievances that have led to the separation.
The founding and governing document is the Constitution, thankfully a rather prosaic document short on philosophy and long on separation of power, specific delegation to the United States, and protection of the rights of the sovereign states and the property owners therein. Lots of evil has come from giving governing impetus to those high-flying words of the Declaration.
March 12, 2012 - 7:50 pm Link to this Comment
Ed Wallis
I *LOVE* the idea:
Steve the wearer of the Mittens Cheerleader outfit with mismatched panties
calling out OTHERS as being NOT conservative…..Bwahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, Steve, I needed the laugh.
March 13, 2012 - 12:27 am Link to this Comment | Reply
58. Bryan
One of the ways that we can begin to unite right now is to call out the concern trolls. Romney is good enough. Yes, he is good enough. That will do. That will have to do. You, my counter-zombies, will vote for him, because frankly, your misplaced honor or whatever simply isn't of much consequence. Do the better thing, please vote for Romney in November. Thank you.
March 12, 2012 - 12:54 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
No, he isn't.
For example, he has banned more guns than Obama, and said it's a good idea. Steven and Mitt both say federalism makes it okay, so we should ignore it.
I disagree.
March 12, 2012 - 1:17 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
he has banned more guns than Obama
Can you give details as to where and when this happened? The "how" would be good as well.
In our system of government the executive, whether Obama or Romney or George Washington, cannot ban guns. Or pass laws, or repeal laws, or any of the other things you seem to imagine they can do.
March 12, 2012 - 3:22 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
Were Romney any conservative, the state AWB would have passed only over his veto, not with his endorsement. Federalism is no excuse here either.
March 12, 2012 - 4:58 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
I asked you if you could give any details. I'll take that as a "No".
March 13, 2012 - 4:54 pm Link to this Comment
Mitt Romney: "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense." "They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
March 12, 2012 - 5:09 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Ed Wallis
You ANTI-AMERICAN Romney supporters are showing your true colors (of desperation):
since your heartthrob can't cut it in the political game – regardless how much he spends or how many scorched earth attack ads he runs against his opponents – you resort to threats and intimidation. To hell with the voters, right? THAT'S all you're saying. Your attitude DISGUSTS me."Give up! Surrender! You've lost already! Inevitable!"
WHERE HAVE I HEARD CR*P LIKE THAT BEFORE?!? Oh wait…*O*B*A*M*A* 2008!!!
Romney. Obama. Two peas in a pod.
March 13, 2012 - 12:32 am Link to this Comment | Reply
59. SLibertarian
Quite honestly, the presidency isn't as important as the GOP establishment is trying to make it seem.
Get a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, and even if Obama is re-elected, he can't get anything done..
If Romney is the nominee, I won't be voting for him…
March 12, 2012 - 3:12 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
60. Joey
Basically, Romney needs conservatives more than we need him.
Bryan, My reply to you is F^&% Y^& sir.
March 12, 2012 - 4:57 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
offensive and peculiar
Uh, Joey, though use of profanity (if indeed that is what your code to Bryan is) might make you feel as though you win the argument (?) on some level, it truly is a poor substitute for reasoned debate; and besides, If I am not mistaken, I believe Bryan was being sarcastic.
March 12, 2012 - 7:42 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
"As the price of gasoline soars, top Mitt Romney adviser, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw sticks to his guns and calls for a hike in gasoline taxes."
And of course there's Mitten's good friend John Sununu – the guy who recommended David Souter for SCOTUS to Bush and therefore got eminent domain effectively dropped from the bill of rights.
Thomas Jefferson weeps.
March 12, 2012 - 5:19 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
62. packsoldier
Yes, it's time to unite behind Romney. He's our best shot to beat Obama, and squabbling with the likes of Santorum and Gingrich only makes him look less presidential.
March 12, 2012 - 6:29 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Ed Wallis
Just empty words without facts or reason. But nice Cheerleader outfit ya got there, toots.
March 13, 2012 - 4:10 am Link to this Comment | Reply
63. SurferDoc
I will not vote for Romney. He will be smiling and talking about The Call of History when he guts the 2nd Amendment. Besides, if this sucker is going down I want the Ds to own it.
March 12, 2012 - 6:38 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
64. offensive and peculiar
Andrew, there is only one problem I have with voting for the inevitable nominee, Romenee. Well not only one problem, but the one that is at the top of the list? The guy believes, (if he is a good Mormon) THAT HE WILL BECOME A god, RULE HIS OWN PLANET, AND POPULATE IT BY ETERNALLY IMPREGNATE HIS WIFE FROM HIS CELESTIAL HEAVEN. Uh, seeing that I must answer to the one true GOD for how I vote … ain't gonna happen. I am not going to give the reigns of government to someone that delusional.
Any of the other 3 I can vote for, but not him.
March 12, 2012 - 7:26 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Art Chance
But re-electing an avowed communist and all his communist pals is OK with, I guess? Idiots!
March 12, 2012 - 7:43 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
You know, if Mitt Romney had the record of making good policy decisions, I wouldn't give a damn if what motivated him was the belief the Flying Spaghetti Monster was going to give an Everlasting Meatball.
But he has a record of proudly screwing up in ways markedly similar to the one.
I believe that if the coming GOP House and Senate can't find it in them to effectively stop Obama, should he be elected, then we have no hope of them moving a Pres. Romney right–instead he'll move them left from where they are now.
And given his pro-business as usual ways, I don't know that he'll pick notably better SC justices, and the mediocre ones at best that he picks are way more likely to get on the court.
If it comes down to Mitt or Obama, a continued course of leftism is assured. I'd rather have a Dem in the White House to hang that on.
March 12, 2012 - 7:52 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Tom Perkins
You do know Mittens is a self-avowed Progressive, right?
March 12, 2012 - 7:56 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
offensive and peculiar
I did mention, did I not, that his delusion of becoming a god was not my only problem with Romney? It was just the top of the list.
And I fully accept your premise. I would rather not die a death by a thousand cuts in the name of conservatism. If we must die, which seems inevitable with either BHO or Romney, let it be under the header of the communist/Democrat party.
If Romney gets in there, look to him to thwart anything but a super majority of conservatives in congress.
March 12, 2012 - 8:43 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Or the fact that Romney is some kind of "bishop" or high priest in his church is something I'll leave to others to investigate and dispute. That doesn't bother me but what I'm bothered by is the fact that if we don't get a SOLID republican majority in Congress and Romney is nominated and somehow wins, then the democrats play him like a violin, not much changes, and instead there will be a republican face on the next 4 years of disaster. I'm very worried!
March 13, 2012 - 5:22 am Link to this Comment
Art Chance
Actually, I don't think you or any of the other self-described true conservatives have a clue what a "progressive" is – or a conservative either; all you know is the very wrong Glen Beck conflation of the very American "progressive" movement of the late 19th and early 20th Century with the communist adoption of the term progressive in from the late 1920s until the anti-communist movement in the late '40s, early '50s. Sorry, fellas, no matter what Beck taught you TR and WW have nothing in common with today's self-described progressives of the US Left. Even FDR has little in common with them though he was more tolerant of communists than he should have been early in his tenure and had to be tolerant of them in the War years. Mitt Romney has some things in common with TR and WW, even FDR, but he has nothing in common with Comrade Obama.
The communists back in the days when the real ones knew they were communists and listened to Radio Moscow and the Comintern for instructions used the term progressive to describe "fellow travellers" or others that were loyal communists but because of their personal situation couldn't openly be members of the CPUSA. People like Comrade Obama's grandparents were at least "progressives" within that meaning if not fellow travellers or maybe even outright members; something brought them to Harry Bridges' towns, Seattle and Honolulu when not many people did such things.
Mitt Romney's positions are mainstream moderate, urban Republican; he might not be able to get elected in the rural South or the Inter-mountain West, but nobody who can get elected there can get elected in the urban areas of the Country. Sorry, but somebody who hews the line of rural America simply cannot get elected President; they have trouble getting elected statewide almost everywhere in the Country. Alaska has been a heavily Republican/libertarian state since oil, but Sarah Palin didn't run as a social conservative either in her failed Lt. Gov. bid or in her successful bid for Governor. She didn't govern as a conservative at all, yet she's the darling of the "true conservatives." I conclude from things like that that most of you are "truly ignorant" of politics and really are just "aginners." Whoever is in charge, you're 'agin 'em. Whoever's winning, you're 'agin 'em." "Conservative" is a way of thinking and an attitude towards change; it is not a program or prescription nor is it an ideology. You do know that, don't you?
March 12, 2012 - 9:03 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Ed Wallis
I am embarrassed FOR you and your ignorance:
Romney HIMSELF called himself a PROGRESSIVE.March 13, 2012 - 12:36 am Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
Err, you have realized no one here hardly is criticizing Mittens for not being a social conservative, right? It because he's no kind of conservative at all, not even the fiscal conservative we so desperately need.
Mitt wants to drive us off the same cliff Obama wants to go over. Mitt wants to do it at 5 mph and thinks we'll land softly somehow. Obama thinks we'll clear the chasm at 105mph and land in Shangrila (more likely, he's fine with ruling over the wreckage).
I am trying to insist on someone who wants to go in the right direction instead.
It ain't Mitt.
March 13, 2012 - 2:32 am Link to this Comment -
Art Chance
@Ed Wallis – I'm embarrassed that we have people associated with conservative/Republican politics with your lack of reading comprehension skills.
March 13, 2012 - 8:40 am Link to this Comment
offensive and peculiar
Hey Art, if both BHO and Romney are going to kill us, and they are, I'd rather it not be death with a false label of "conservatism."
Also it is not kind to call those who disagree with you "idiots," even when they sometimes seem such. I struggle with that myself sometimes, so I understand the difficulty. And I am not making any veiled implications, just good counsel.
March 12, 2012 - 8:50 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Art Chance
You offer a false alternative; it isn't how we get ruined. Comrade Obama WILL ruin us; there really might not be another meaningful National General Election after this one if he wins. Certainly there are those among his inner circle, his handlers, and his more faithful and thoughtful supporters who would like to see the end of the American republican democracy as we know it and the sooner the better.
I don't much like Romney; way too much, "would you beleive this, then?" karma about him, but he is a Republican. He'll fire most of the Democrat appointees and "czars," probably not all and certainly not enough, a common Republican failing, but he will get rid of the top ones. He won't call the SEIU, ACLU, Black Panthers, NOW, Sierra Club, or Soros and the MoveOn crowd for recommendations of who to hire in those positions.
If you've never been a part of government, you have no idea how many sleeper cells, money laundries, and regulatory IEDs even a normally crazy Democrat administration can set up in just one term; I spent the next ten years trying to get stuff out of our labor agreements that a desperate Democrat gave the unions in his last year and that guy, hough a Democrat, was a better Republican than lots of Republicans and not even in the same league as Obama and the Soros henchmen.
Admittedly,Romney on his own won't do much to drive back the federal leviathan, but if we have the House and Senate, he won't veto their efforts to do so. Even if we only have the House, the President's power to reward his friends and punish his enemies will bring enough middling senators along to be able to pass Republican legislation, something we can't do now. With a Democrat Senate and WH, you cannot pass Republican legislation. With a Republican Congress and a Democrat WH, unless you have a veto proof majority, something almost impossible at the federal level, you can't pass legislation. So, people who can't comprehend that are, indeed, idiots, at least with regard to politics.
March 12, 2012 - 9:45 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Tom Perkins
Yes, we know what a Progressive is, someone who thinks it the job of government to improve society. And it took you three wordy paragraphs to avoid the question, do you know Romney has himself said he is a Progressive?
"but he is a Republican"
Prove it by the first 25 years of his record, and his words then, instead of by the recent lies he's told to get elected.
Then maybe it will be believable.
March 13, 2012 - 2:27 am Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
"there really might not be another meaningful National General Election after this one if he wins"
BS, more than enough rifles that that won't happen, and servicemen who know their oath.
March 13, 2012 - 2:33 am Link to this Comment -
Art Chance
You're nuts; I'm better armed and more skilled than most and I have no illusions about my odds against police units armed and trained like the military. I'm well enough equipped and prepared to deal with roaming bands of zombies, but not trained and organized forces. With a second term, the military's leadership cohort will have been purged of any who are not totally poltically correct careerists who've hitched their wagon to the Obama Junta' star, and the military will follow orders, even orders to shoot US citizens on US territory, because they and the public will be told that it is a good and necessary thing. Soldiers may not re-up and some few might desert, but in the main they'll do as they're told and be proud of themselves for doing so. All the Obamunists need is an inciting incident and this Country is poised for a race war, which will cause Democrat governors and mayors, and even some stupid Republicans, to call for federal assistance, thus getting around posse comitatus and the mass of the public will think it is a good thing to restore order and get all those armed people under control and since in such a state of civil disorder the civilian courts won't be able to function, "criminals" will be subject to military justice. And we made it all possible by setting up the Homeland Security regime. Then they can do just like Chavez, have something that looks like elections but no real opposition will be allowed. The Obama Junta really does intend to destroy the US as a capitalist republican democracy and you idiots are concerned about a Republican candidate that's a little too liberal for purists; we unfortunately deserve our fate.
March 13, 2012 - 12:59 pm Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
I don't know about that Art.
You're the one claiming an excuse to vote for Romney is that the re-election of Obama would be the last election.
I'm merely counterclaiming that such an insurrection against the Constitution by the government wouldn't survive either the people or the military.
March 13, 2012 - 4:26 pm Link to this Comment -
Tom Perkins
Also, you're jabbering about race war.
The usual progress of this is that you're about one step from full on RonPauldom, and then hopelessly to DavidDukitis.
March 13, 2012 - 4:42 pm Link to this Comment -
Art Chance
Tom, you and your pals are simply stuck on stupid; nothing more to it. If you can't tell the difference between an avowed communist and a guy who just isn't quite where you are politically, you're too stupid to vote.
Romney isn't my choice; but I'll vote for him. Hell, I'd even vote for you because I'm pretty sure Vann Jones ain't on your speed dial, so you're not going to be appointing him Sec of State.
March 13, 2012 - 10:33 pm Link to this Comment
65. 99guspuppet
I will never vote for someone that wants to limit my constitutional rights. I want to pursue happiness. So I will never support or vote for the following slave-masters: Obama, Romney , Gingrich , Santorum…. Individuals are more important than slave-masters. I don't like being a slave.
March 12, 2012 - 7:45 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
You are lucky in that you will never have to experience real slavery, so knock yourself out throwing the word around.
March 13, 2012 - 6:00 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
You're already a slave – to your own stupidity.
"Men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
March 13, 2012 - 1:43 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
66. Aaron_PH
Vote for Obama, seriously, the sooner liberalism is seen to have failed the sooner we can start rebuilding, let them do whatever crazy socialist thing they want, lets start offering welfare to Mexican citizens! Letting the French vote! Gut the military and then send the remains to police Uganda, Somalia, Bosnia, etc course they wont have bullets due to cutbacks, but they still have harsh language and warlords hate being called names. when it all comes crashing down like communism did we can say "I told you so" and rebuild.
March 12, 2012 - 10:09 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
67. Zal
Fighting zombies by turning in zombies for Romney?!? What is that? I disliked Romney back in 2008 and we had the horrible choice of him or McCain then, and here we are again – sorry, keep the fight going – I'd like to be able to show a bit of passion and fight for my candidate and Romney leaves me cold.
March 13, 2012 - 5:14 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
68. Brimic
I still haven't heard a 'republican' describe any significant difference between Romney and Obama. Near as I can tell, the only differences are their skin tone and the fact that Romney got his socialist healthcare system passed sooner than Obama. I simply will not reward the republican party with my vote if they want to put up a left of center candidate.
Our country is headed for the economic abyss, and neither big government candidate is going to steer our country off that path.
I've supported every weak conservative nominee/candidate since George HW, and refuse to any more.March 13, 2012 - 6:17 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
I still haven't heard a 'republican' describe any significant difference between Romney and Obama.
Exhibit A in why the GOP is called "the stupid party".
I bet back in the 1950′s, your dad was saying stuff like "I still haven't heard anyone describe any significant difference between Eisenhower and Chairman Mao".
(That's a Bircher joke, since I suspect you're too dumb to get it)
March 13, 2012 - 1:40 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
I am usually wordy. All I have to say is, "Supreme Court nominations". Clear?
No matter what you think of a "wallet conservative" which is what we here in the northeast call our candidates, he will not appoint left wing numb nuts as SCOTUS nominees. That's all you need to know.
If it had been Humphrey over Nixon, it wouldn't just be Miranda warnings, it would be fart warnings and cholesterol warnings and the whole country would be like Frisco.
SCOTUS is THE issue which makes me support Romney. It's unfortunate, but it's reality.
March 13, 2012 - 8:17 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
70. richard40
I dont give a hoot about Romneys supposed unreliability on social issues, since I dont give a hoot about social issues. Its the economy stupid. And Romney has convinced me on one crucial point, he is serious about cutting gov spending, opening up drilling and building the pipeline, cutting regulation, cutting taxes, and repealing Obamacare. Since it is certain that Obama will make zero progress on any of those, that decides it for me.
As for those who want to continue to fight it out, just be aware of this. Nobody other than Romney has a path to win that does not involve a brokered convention. And pardon me if I am not a bit worried about not deciding our nominee until after a prolonged fight that ends with an insider deal in a smoke filled room in september, with Obama trashing the leading contender, and each of the contenders trashing each other, and begging insiders for delegate deals, the entire time we wait. If Romney continues his present pace, winning about half the primaries and taking 2nd place in the other half, you had better wake up and face the inevitable win that will happen in about another month or 2.
Mind you, if any of the 4 candidates could make a serious case that they could actually win more delegates than Romney by the time the primaries end in June, I could understand. But staying in just so you can prevent Romney from getting a majority, when you yourself have zero chance to get a majority yourself, is pretty stupid. Ron Paul continuing to run, I can understand, since he was always more about making his point about his unique libertarian stands than in actually winning. And perhaps Santorum, if he started massively winning future winner take all states, might have some chance of getting more delegates than Romney. But Newt, whose only chance is that idiotic brokered convention idea, I cant understand at all. And even in Santorums case, I can only understand if he can dramatically reverse the trend in the next month, and start rolling out consistent big wins, instead of just picking up a few states here and there, often without even getting many delegates. If we ever reach a point where there is no way, even with huge 60% margins of victory in every remaining state, that neither Newt nor Santorum can possibly get more delegates than Romney, it will be time to call it quits for the sake of unity against Obama. Just going on to deny Romney a majority, with no chance to pass him in delegates themselves, is stupid, devisive, and futile.
March 13, 2012 - 1:08 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
71. Tom Perkins
"And Romney has convinced me on one crucial point, he is serious about cutting gov spending, opening up drilling and building the pipeline, cutting regulation, cutting taxes, and repealing Obamacare."
I am convinced by the first 25 years of Romney's political history, that he doesn't mean a word of it. I have the man's actual words and the evidence of his deeds to back me up.
You have his words made so late in the political game that they are obvious crass lies and pandering, to anyone who has any sense left–which excludes the Romniacs.
In the event he is selected and elected, his backsliding will not be met by me with any individual "I told you so's!" I'll be too busy building a competing party structure, in the then likely event the GOP rolls over for Mittens the Progressive.
In the more likely event that Obama is re-elected and the GOP does not fight him, I will enthusiastically greet the elections to follow with a similar competing party structure, to the greatest degree I am able. If they fight, I will greet those elections with similar enthusiasm within the current GOP.
In the event very much more unlikely than any other, if Romney is the next Reagan…
…good for him!
But knowing what I know of the man, I will not vote for him, unless in 2016, he has turned out to be a Reagan. And I remember Reagan fairly well.
March 13, 2012 - 5:11 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
72. Tom Perkins
"If you can't tell the difference between an avowed communist and a guy who just isn't quite where you are politically, you're too stupid to vote."
So you were making race war noises a little while ago, and now you think you get to say who votes or not?
I'm not the crazy one here.
When you claim Romney "isn't quite where you are politically", what I'm saying is–I believe and have good reason to believe he is actually more than halfway to Obama's side of things than he is just not where I am politically.
I believe that Romney's election would represent continued progress down the same path Obama wants to take us on, only slower. I have good factual, historical reasons to believe that.
You're believing the words quite recently out of a politician's mouth as opposed to how he has talked and acted for decades, when he is obviously pandering for votes and saying things he doesn't believe just to win an election.
If Romney is the nominee, I ain't pulling the lever for him.
Against the leftist Romney, Boehner will fold like a cheap suit, even if we do get the Senate–and I don't think Romney's coattails will get us the Senate. Too many Dems can say, "Hey, I just like that Romney guy!"
A good many of the Dem Senators can truthfully claim, "Hey, I'm more to the right than that Romney guy!"
Against the lamest of lame ducks–a re-elected Obama–Boehner with a nominally R Senate might find a reason to scrap.
If they won't then it's time for a new party, either from within or without.
March 14, 2012 - 3:32 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
73. Rhonda
Why isn't there an "f" link next to your videos so we can share them on our Facebook wall? I notice there's an "f" next to all the comments but never an "f" link next to your videos. It would help get your messages out and help more people be aware of your wit and wisdom.March 14, 2012 - 7:40 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Andrew Klavan
Hi Rhonda. Press the YouTube button – go to YouTube – hit Share and the f button's there. AK
March 14, 2012 - 10:07 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Comments are closed.