A "Positive Case For Romney"

People say there's no positive case for Romney.

Well, apart from his high personal morality and integrity, there's also the story of how he shut down Bain to help find a partner's missing daughter.


"In July 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, had disappeared," the story reads. "She had attended a rave party in New York City and gotten high on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was. Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to help find Gay’s daughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hired a private detective firm to assist with the search. He established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and went through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York and asked them to help find his friend’s missing daughter. Romney’s accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles, while cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put fliers in the bag of every shopper. Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part of New York and talked with everyone they could – prostitutes, drug addicts – anyone.

"That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of the girl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boy phoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPD traced the call to a home in New Jersey, where they found the girl in the basement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose. Doctors later said the girl might not have survived another day. Romney’s former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughter’s life, saying, ‘It was the most amazing thing, and I’ll never forget this to the day I die.’

Posted by: Ace at 01:55 PM



Comments

1 But...but...Mittens, or something...

Posted by: Romneybot since 2007 at February 22, 2012 01:58 PM (BB0/w)

2 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 01:59 PM (7W3wI)

3 That's great for Mitt, and his friend's daughter, but I don't want Obama analogizing from that -- "I must shut down this country so that I can..." and then you just segue to that prior Nixonian post.

Meh. Not a reason to vote for Mitt.

Posted by: SFGoth at February 22, 2012 02:00 PM (dZ756)

4 "Has he told them how many push-ups he can do yet?"

- Fyvush Finkel as Murray Chotiner in "Nixon"

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:00 PM (r1jNE)

5 Great story. Everything I've read about Romney suggests that he's a very good man. I think he'd make a good President.

I also think that Rick Santorum is a good man and would make a good President.

I also think that Barack Obama is not a very good man, and has made a horrible President.

I also think that Romney-Santorum would be a good ticket to defeat Obama.

None of these things are mutually exclusive.


Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 22, 2012 02:00 PM (qHCyt)

6 He's NOT a douchebag

Posted by: Jones at February 22, 2012 02:00 PM (8sCoq)

7 I also think there is no such thing as bad pie

Posted by: Jones at February 22, 2012 02:01 PM (8sCoq)

8 That is a great story, good job Gov. Romney.

Posted by: jocon307 at February 22, 2012 02:01 PM (QDPDH)

9 I vaguely remember that story. I am not a fan of whom we have left as our choices. But I think Romney is our best chance of getting rid of SCOAMF over Santy. It's crucial that we do so. Nice story about Romney.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 22, 2012 02:01 PM (kicl8)

10 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:01 PM (8y9MW)

11 Just last night there was a low-paid security guard at an apartment complex here in OKC that struggled through thick smoke (without a respirator) to save 12 children from dying in a fire. Perhaps we should nominate him as the deal-breaker at the repub convention.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2012 02:01 PM (0mlnt)

12 Brought to you from the Politifact Truth-O-Meter.

Of course, at the time that girl's mother was pregnant, Romney would have supported her right to abort.

Posted by: Average Joe at February 22, 2012 02:01 PM (bN5ZU)

13 Totally makes up for his forcing people to buy products from a private company.

Posted by: lorien1973 at February 22, 2012 02:02 PM (0tkqC)

14 Okay. He's got my vote for man of the year.

Now where is the positive case based on his political record to vote for Mitt Romney?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:02 PM (8y9MW)

15 Obama is stilla lot better than Romney at shutting down companies.

Posted by: Roy at February 22, 2012 02:02 PM (VndSC)

16 Pfft. Finding a 14 yo girl.

I found Bin Laden. By myself. And took him out. Beat that... bitchez.

Posted by: SCoaMF-in-Chief at February 22, 2012 02:03 PM (zV3nK)

17 Beck told that story a while back, before he went full-on Santorum.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 22, 2012 02:04 PM (UOM48)

18 >>>That's great for Mitt, and his friend's daughter, but I don't want Obama analogizing from that -- "I must shut down this country so that I can..." and then you just segue to that prior Nixonian post.

I know people are super anti-Mitt and I knew someone would have to try their hand at explaining how this is a BAD thing. People couldn't resist.

And I was also sort of intrigued as to what form the "This is actually a bad anecdote for Romney" argument would take.

I guess all I can say is: Kudos. Your hackishness here surprised me. A guy shutting down his firm to find the missing daughter of a friend is turned into some sort of Nascent Fascist Impulse that will doom America.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:04 PM (nj1bB)

19 Did he ever do anything like that for a poor person?

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 22, 2012 02:04 PM (mP3uM)

20 Wait, she was dancing at a boy-girl party?

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 22, 2012 02:04 PM (+lsX1)

21 By the way, pop quiz.
Who said this?





Chastity is sexual purity. Those who are chaste are morally clean in their thoughts, words, and actions. Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means complete fidelity to husband or wife during marriage.



Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage.



In the world today, Satan has led many people to believe that sexual intimacy outside of marriage is acceptable. But in God's sight, it is a serious sin. It is an abuse of the power He has given us to create life.

If you guessed Rick Santorum, you're wrong.

If you guessed the Catholic Church, or Opus Dei, or Pope Benedict, you're wrong.

If you guessed the Church of Latter Day Saints, the church that Mitt Romney belongs to, you win a kewpie doll.

That's right, the religion Mitt Romney believes in espouses beliefs that are virtually indistinguishable from the beliefs of Rick Santorum and the Catholic Church on matters of sexuality. Here, for instance, is the LDS Church's teaching on abortion: "Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church."

The point here is not to criticize Mitt Romney. Far from it. The teachings of the Mormon Church quoted above are just fine with me. It's simply to suggest that criticizing Rick Santorum's religious beliefsisn't a rational criticism of those beliefs as being somehow different from mainstream Christian beliefs; it's an irrational reaction against a caricature of the Catholic Church. It's bigotry, pure and simple.

Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 22, 2012 02:04 PM (qHCyt)

22 A good story that needs to be made into a movie or book. I honestly did not know about this.

However...

That doesn't excuse his political record.

Posted by: EC at February 22, 2012 02:04 PM (GQ8sn)

23 is this the Ace of Rino site now?

Posted by: Julescat at February 22, 2012 02:04 PM (X65M/)

24 So he's a nice guy, that's good. But people are looking for any evidence whatsoever that Romney is at all fiscally conservative, and you drop this on us? But okay,cool story bro.

Posted by: yinzer at February 22, 2012 02:04 PM (/Mla1)

25 Vote Mitt! He'll send <s>SEAL Team 6</s> Bain Commandos into Egypt to liberate LaHood!

Posted by: innominatus at February 22, 2012 02:05 PM (tq6K2)

26 7 'nuther slice of Helen Thomas?

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at February 22, 2012 02:05 PM (Qxdfp)

27
If more people would help out Ace with the PayPal button, he wouldn't have to keep tryingto get support from the Romney campaign.

Posted by: H.L. Mencken's Ghost at February 22, 2012 02:05 PM (m5666)

28 lol Roy.

I'm sure Romney would have done the same if it were a Bain janitor's black drug-addicted daughter.

Posted by: Average Joe at February 22, 2012 02:05 PM (bN5ZU)

29 I don't want to read too much into the story, but it does show good character on Romney's part.

Posted by: 141Driver at February 22, 2012 02:05 PM (/E3ql)

30 Good grief, people.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 22, 2012 02:05 PM (UOM48)

31 Put him in charge of FEMA then.

Posted by: Brian at February 22, 2012 02:05 PM (wTSvK)

32 When presented with the choice of Obama, Romney and Santorum, my instinctive reaction to the thought of Romney as President is the least revolting.

But my analytical side tells me that failing to repeal ObamaCare will be the death knell for the US economy for the foreseeable future.

Assuming it's not too late already, which is a possibility.

Maybe Romney can repeal it. Only Nixon could go to China, and all that. But that's probably wishful thinking.

Seconol/Whisky 2012!!

Posted by: Phinn at February 22, 2012 02:06 PM (KNtHw)

33 Anyone of these guys has my vote over the cocksucking piece of shit Obama.

Posted by: Mr Pink at February 22, 2012 02:06 PM (P2Rgo)

34 "And I was also sort of intrigued as to what form ..."

No, it's a fine anecdote. I mean in context it's kind of pathetic that this is what Ace is reduced to, but on its own terms the story is heartwarming.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:06 PM (r1jNE)

35 Mr. Pink

+1000

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 22, 2012 02:06 PM (UOM48)

36 Rush Limbaugh read this story on air a few weeks ago. He's such an asshole for relating this story.

Posted by: Ms Choksondik, all in for Heroin Overdose 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:07 PM (fYOZx)

37 If a Dem had done this it would be national news. Maybe the right will figure out how to use the media some day.

Posted by: truth fairy at February 22, 2012 02:07 PM (ue2Nm)

38 Anyone else tired of all of these candidates?

Posted by: rjs3455 at February 22, 2012 02:07 PM (RDhnw)

39 >>>Did he ever do anything like that for a poor person?

Runner-up for the Hack Derby.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:07 PM (nj1bB)

40 How come Romney hasn't found Natalie Holloway yet?

Posted by: Average Joe at February 22, 2012 02:07 PM (bN5ZU)

41 Was she subjected to satanic buttsex?

Posted by: Rick.S.Anon.For.This at February 22, 2012 02:07 PM (gQLr2)

42 That's cool.None of his detractorssay he isn't amoral man with excellent character tho... There was a time when Jimmy Carterwas amoral man with excellent charcter.

Posted by: jacke at February 22, 2012 02:08 PM (5Cwv4)

43 38
Anyone else tired of all of these candidates?



Not as tired as I am of the SCOAMF in the WH.


Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 22, 2012 02:08 PM (UOM48)

44 Amen Mr Pink.

Posted by: Ms Choksondik, all in for Heroin Overdose 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:08 PM (fYOZx)

45 Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 22, 2012 02:04 PM (qHCyt)


That's what everybody believed before the left co-opted sex as a way to ruin the family, fuck up society, and increase their own power.

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:08 PM (u50z0)

46 Nice anecdote, but it doesn't address my main problems with Romney.

For me, the main reason I can come up with for voting Romney is that I think he's squishy enough that we might be able to scare him into doing what's right, against his own impulses.

Sanoturum is too sure he's right, and Gingrich is too slippery. Romney is dull and compliant enough that we might be able to mold him into something vaguely resembling a conservative.

Posted by: sandy burger at February 22, 2012 02:08 PM (L07Yb)

47 I'll be the first to say that searching for a friend's missing daughter isn't high on the indicator of a good President list but how that search was organized and managed might be.

Almost everyone that has worked with Romney praises his leadership.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 02:08 PM (Kzpaz)

48 http://www.buzzfeed. com/mckaycoppins/25-photos-of-mitt-romney-looking-normal

Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:08 PM (wuv1c)

49 >>>I'm sure Romney would have done the same if it were a Bain janitor's black drug-addicted daughter.

I think we might have a new winner.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:09 PM (nj1bB)

50 Look, I haven't heard anyone saying Mitt Romney is a bad person. I'm sure he's a fantastic person.

Okay- not "anyone" but very, very few.

But being a good person is not qualification enough to be President. Ross Perot hired mercenaries to rescue some of his employees, once. We didn't elect him President (for other reasons, obviously). I think we can say that, as far as being a quality human being, any Republican will far outdo Obama.

But it doesn't answer any of the problems we have with Mitt as a presidential nominee.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:09 PM (8y9MW)

51 If Rick Santorum ran Bain that girl wouldn't have gone to the party in the first place.

Posted by: Average Joe at February 22, 2012 02:09 PM (bN5ZU)

52 "Santorum is a fool for talking about Satan."

-- noted AC/DC Fan, Ace of Spades

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:09 PM (EjhWd)

53 Ace - no, the true winner would have to work in a reference to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:09 PM (r1jNE)

54 The real question is whether Ace can find it in him to find the good things Newt and Santorum have done too.

Not bloody likely huh

Posted by: Village Idiot at February 22, 2012 02:09 PM (utXSy)

55 >> apart from his high personal morality and integrity


Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

His own campaign guy said he lied about his abortion views while running in Massachusetts. That's not integrity in my book.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 02:09 PM (5H6zj)

56 Was the teenager's name Strauss-Khan?

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:09 PM (u50z0)

57 43 I agree.

Posted by: rjs3455 at February 22, 2012 02:10 PM (RDhnw)

58 Perhaps we could make Romney the head of the FBI?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:10 PM (EjhWd)

59 23 is this the Ace of Rino site now?
Posted by: Julescat at February 22, 2012 02:04 ........................Because he posted a nice story about one of the two possible nominees? Jeez. You people are amazing. I haven't seen anyone here saying that Santy or Mitt are the shizzle. But those are the two we have left. I don't like it either but otherwise you need to deal with it, or stay home and pout.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 22, 2012 02:10 PM (kicl8)

60 If Newt Gingrich ran Bain they could have just looked in his bedroom.

Posted by: Average Joe at February 22, 2012 02:10 PM (bN5ZU)

61 He also donated more of his income to charity than Cardinal Santorum ever has...

We elevate candidate's religious lip service while dismissing Romney's actual religious service, just because he is Mormon and people think it is weird.

People are going bat crap crazy over Santorum's religious comments, both positive and negative. But Romney is not out there trying to out Religious Santorum, which is telling I think.

Romney serves two year full-time mission, then becomes a Bishop of a Mormon congregation and then a "Stake Leader?" over multiple congregations and Santorum is the religious one?

Posted by: New Identity at February 22, 2012 02:11 PM (nMMma)

62 How about positive policies and positions we can link to Romney? How do you feel about the new Romney Tax plan?

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:11 PM (a9mQu)

63 The rescue of the young lady was diminished by Governor Romney refusing to make her say three Hail Marys and an Our Father. In a penitential and humble manner.

Posted by: Omnia Secula Seculorum Santorum at February 22, 2012 02:11 PM (jm/9g)

64 That story is eerily similar to the one about Obama's jumping into action after the BP oil spill.

Posted by: alppuccino at February 22, 2012 02:11 PM (Wj7vk)

65 52
"Santorum is a fool for talking about Satan."


It WAS 4 YEARS AGO IN A SPEECH AT A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL. How dumb are you guys?

AND I'm for Romney but Holy Shit this Santorum/birthcontrol/satan thing is the epitome of brain dead.

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:11 PM (u50z0)

66 What does it say about one's character when one falsely claims residency in a state (PA) in which one does not live, AT ALL, and at the same time takes money from said state (which you're Senator of) for "homeschooling" your kids in another damn state?

While collecting huge paychecks you have to do this? Oh and then in the end you let the state you're supposed to be representing but can't be bothered to spend a moment in pick up the legal bills for the whole thing?

What does that say about your character?

Posted by: BlackOrchid at February 22, 2012 02:11 PM (SB0V2)

67 >>> How do you feel about the new Romney Tax plan?

I like the part of his plan where birth control isn't a Trick of the Devil.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:12 PM (nj1bB)

68 Mitt, help me find the real killer!

Posted by: Orenthal James at February 22, 2012 02:12 PM (liU61)

69 Past Mitt -- Saves kid on drugs

Past Obama -- Sold kids drugs


Posted by: history lesson at February 22, 2012 02:12 PM (zV3nK)

70 Someone that has held both sides of every possible issue has integrity?

Posted by: Dumpsterjuice at February 22, 2012 02:12 PM (B6U0F)

71 If I were that rich, I'd mobilize commandos all the freaking time.

I'd even have a command center, with lots of radio headsets and flat-screen monitors everywhere.

Just because I could.

Posted by: Phinn at February 22, 2012 02:12 PM (KNtHw)

72 Anyone of these guys has my vote over the cocksucking piece of shit Obama.
Posted by: Mr Pink at February 22, 2012 02:06 PM (P2Rgo)

-------------------------------------

This. It will all come down the this.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2012 02:12 PM (0mlnt)

73 Good grief, people.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 22, 2012 02:05 PM (UOM4
Amen, Jane. Amen

Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at February 22, 2012 02:12 PM (ZYUWp)

74 Romney seems like a good man, and he seemed to be pretty smart (until this primary). I like him. He did very well trying to help the GOP in the 2008 general and did a pretty good job. But, this is a different time. It's his positions and the only principle he will defend (individual mandates for health insurance at the state level) that kills his appeal to most conservatives. Mittens was only the preferred conservative pick at the end of the 2008 primary because it was in comparison to McShame, who was the most despised person in the GOP, by miles.

Posted by: really ... at February 22, 2012 02:12 PM (X3lox)

75 ...or the time Obama dropped his wedge in the middle of his backswing to make the death call on Bin Laden.

Posted by: alppuccino at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (Wj7vk)

76 That is a great story that I only heard about a few weeks ago. It says something positive about the character of Mitt. It is also positive that Mitt (and his team)has not attempted to use that story for his political benefit (as near as I can tell).

It tells us nothing about his policy preferences or how he would act as President. But if you were making pro/con list for reasons to support him, that would definitly go on the pro side.



Posted by: SH at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (gmeXX)

77 Here's some song lyrics in honor of Rick Santorum.
1. Hell Awaits


[Lyrics King; Music Hanneman/King]

[Backwards: "Join us" x times]
[Welcome back]

Existing on damnation's edge
The priest had never known
To witness such a violent show
Of power overthrown

Angels fighting aimlessly
Still dying by the sword
Our legions killing all in sight
To get the one called Lord

The Gates of Hell lie waiting as you see
There's no price to pay just follow me
I can take your lost soul from the grave
Jesus knows your soul can not be saved

Crucify the so called Lord
He soon shall fall to me
Your souls are damned your God has fell
To slave for me eternally
Hell awaits...

The Reaper guard's the darkened Gates
That Satan calls his home
Demons feed the furnace where
The Dead are free to roam

Lonely children of the night
There's seven ways to go
Each leading to the burning hole
The Lucifer controls

Priests of Hades seek the sacred star
Satan sees the answer lies not far
Zombies screaming souls cry out to you
Satanic laws prevail your life is through

Pray to the moon... when it is round
Death with you shall then abound
What you seek... for can't be found
In sea or sky or underground

[Lead - Hanneman]

Now I have you deep inside my everlasting grasp
The seven bloody Gates of Hell
Is where you'll live your last

Warriors from Hell's Domain
Will bring you to your Death
The flames of Hades burning strong
Your soul shall never rest

The Gates of Hell lie waiting as you see
There's no price to pay just follow me
I can take your lost soul from the grave
Jesus knows your soul can not be saved

Sacrifice the lives of all I know they
Soon shall die
Their souls are damned to rot in Hell
and keep the fire growing deep inside
Hell awaits...

[Lead - King]

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (7W3wI)

78 We save kittens everyday, do we get any love?

Posted by: PETA at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (hXJOG)

79 Yes and anyone of us here would get the same treatment if we were multi-millionaires, since we are not, all this seems to me is an example of privlidged access for a privileged few.

How does this relate to the average guy, somehow I think the janitor of the building Bain worked out of would not have had a happy ending if it were his daughter.

Posted by: firewithfire at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (lcwvr)

80 If Romney refused to give the little snot who called the reward, and instead had him thrown in juvi, that would bolster Romney's cred a little bit.

Posted by: yinzer at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (/Mla1)

81
>>If I were that rich, I'd mobilize commandos all the freaking time.

>>I'd even have a command center, with lots of radio headsets and flat-screen monitors everywhere.

>>Just because I could.


This goes without saying

Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (wuv1c)

82 Nice guy? Meh. Square that with the super PAC attacks.
Now, if mitt can make the case for how he will shrink the size and scope of guvmint w/o a 59 point plan (TLDR), then I'll listen.

Posted by: Luke Duke at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (liU61)

83 No one said Mitt wasn't a good man. We're saying he won't be a good president.

And, by the way, Guiliani did a good job organizing a command center during a crisis in NYC. Doesn't mean he'd be a good president either.

Is this REALLY your positive case for Romney, Ace?! Thin gruel indeed.

Posted by: giftedjab at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (ubduJ)

84 Cool story, I've never heard of it before. I'll vote for any of our people over Obama. At this point, does it really matter who it is? They are all flawed in some way and all great in some other way. If we could mash Santorum, Romney and Gingrich into a paste and pour the mess into a mannequin mold, we would have a "generic Republican".

Posted by: Don lurks a lot. at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (ocsWJ)

85 Thank you for providing that post, which is so highly relevant to a President's duties.

Posted by: Gerry at February 22, 2012 02:14 PM (Cw4Ba)

86 39
>>>Did he ever do anything like that for a poor person?



Runner-up for the Hack Derby.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:07 PM (nj1bB)
Yeah, that's pretty hack-y. I have a question though - at what point do (we) just get on with the full - out attack on the fucker in the White House? I believe most of the contributors here, barring the trolls and nutjobs (piss be upon them) want the bastard out. I'd willingly vote for any of them, and I'm thinking you would too.I'm sincerely asking, Ace.

Posted by: tubal at February 22, 2012 02:14 PM (BoE3Z)

87 "67 >>> How do you feel about the new Romney Tax plan?

I like the part of his plan where birth control isn't a Trick of the Devil.
Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:12 PM (nj1bB)

The way this blog is sinking into the depths maybe you should change the name to Ace of Hades.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:14 PM (a9mQu)

88 Romney serves two year full-time mission, then becomes a Bishop of a Mormon congregation and then a "Stake Leader?" over multiple congregations and Santorum is the religious one?

THIS.

Deeds, not words. This is why people don't like churchy types who are all up your face about it.

Yay! You have faith! You love God! Live it and stop being the damn Church Lady in a Sweatervest.

GAH! Please, third look at damn Newt!

Posted by: BlackOrchid at February 22, 2012 02:14 PM (SB0V2)

89 ...or the time Obama had a chance to break 120 if he could just three putt the last green but he walked away to kill Gadhaffi.

Posted by: alppuccino at February 22, 2012 02:14 PM (Wj7vk)

90 But... but... if this was actually in the archives of the MSM, why didn't we hear about it there, instead of teh intertoobz?

(I think it is healthy for one's sense of humilityto ask at least one absolutely clueless question like this per day. Truth be known, sometimes Ido notachieve the full effect because I throw an object at the TV or radioas I ask it.)

Posted by: sherlock at February 22, 2012 02:14 PM (6rLSO)

91 "It WAS 4 YEARS AGO IN A SPEECH AT A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL. How dumb are you guys? "

Go back and look at who I was supposedly quoting. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of Ace and the other heavy metal music (known for it's Satanic themes) fans on this board knocking Santorum because he believes in Satan.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:14 PM (EjhWd)

92 >>>es and anyone of us here would get the same treatment if we were multi-millionaires, since we are not, all this seems to me is an example of privlidged access for a privileged few.

So just to make sure of where we are -- the GOP is now officially also the second party of class warfare?

What's left? I guess just abortion, birth control, and the Devil.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (nj1bB)

93 Well that settles it.

Any man that has the potential to shut down the country to find someone has MY vote.

Look out Barack, you clusterfuck, Here comes The LOCATOR!!!!!

Posted by: © Sponge at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (UK9cE)

94 McCain told me Romney is the conservative choice

Posted by: Dumpsterjuice at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (B6U0F)

95
All of the current GOP candidates and a ham sandwich walk into a bar.
Bartender says, "You got my vote"

Posted by: clonefan at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (+yR6J)

96 "It is also positive that Mitt (and his team)has not attempted to use that story for his political benefit (as near as I can tell)."

... until now.

One wonders: what Glories of Mitt will the coming week bring? That one adventure where he went back in time to stop his mom from getting felt up by the town bully? A waifish extraterrestrial he nursed back to heath with Reese's Peeses? The time he taught a small town to dance?

Stay tuned!

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (r1jNE)

97 Rescuing a drugged up girl from some guy's basement? Well, he's just lost Plinkett's vote.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (AQD6a)

98 Mittens is BATMAN (or Ross Perot)!

Posted by: Jean at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (OfinX)

99 this is the devil's deception, I am the only true warrior of God in this race

Posted by: Ricky Sweatervest at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (yAor6)

100 >>>People say there's no positive case for Romney.
Well, apart from his high personal morality and integrity

That is the highest qualification there is.

Posted by: Janitor at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (tazG1)

101
I like Rick Santorum's plan for ending unmarried sex in America.
All unmarried women will have to get tramp stamp tatoos of Rick Sanotrum's face on their lower back.

Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:16 PM (wuv1c)

102 If I still don't like Mitt, am I now a "Hack"?
Watching the Country Burn with SCOAMF in charge, or Mittens in charge, that is the question.
The Answer is...the Country still burns.

Posted by: USMC 8541 at February 22, 2012 02:16 PM (v3pYe)

103 Holy cow. That was truly awesome.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:16 PM (OhYCU)

104 >>>I have a question though - at what point do (we) just get on with the full - out attack on the fucker in the White House? I believe most of the contributors here, barring the trolls and nutjobs (piss be upon them) want the bastard out. I'd willingly vote for any of them, and I'm thinking you would too.I'm sincerely asking, Ace.

If santorum's the candidate it's irrelevant, as we lose under almost every scenario.

At that point we just try to limit the damage in Congress.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:16 PM (nj1bB)

105 Yay! Mittens for Chief Detective!!!

Posted by: I am Jack's raging bile duct at February 22, 2012 02:16 PM (pVvkk)

106 I don't dislike Mitt for President because he's not a nice guy. He is, clearly. I dislike him for President because he's not particularly conservative. I mean really, dude lost to McCain. . .

Posted by: Morseus at February 22, 2012 02:16 PM (YWZwH)

107 Once Barry was in town, we were out of crack and the whores had disappeared.

I dropped everything and went to work finding the stuff my man needs on a golf trip and Barry didn't forget, played with him again Christmas (brought the red head).


http://tinyurl.com/3sp698j

Posted by: Bobby Titcomb at February 22, 2012 02:16 PM (hXJOG)

108 That man has his priorities straight

Posted by: minuteman (formerly trainer) until Juggy is gone at February 22, 2012 02:17 PM (Rojyk)

109 If santorum's the candidate it's irrelevant, as we lose under almost every scenario.



At that point we just try to limit the damage in Congress.





Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:16 PM (nj1bB)


Oy vey.

Posted by: really ... at February 22, 2012 02:17 PM (X3lox)

110 Nice. So Mitt hires people who let their 14 year old daughters attend rave partys in New York?

Posted by: maddogg at February 22, 2012 02:17 PM (OlN4e)

111 ace, come on. You know full well that people are asking for good reasons to VOTE for Romney.

What are you doing, man? This is the stuff you make fun of other people for.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 22, 2012 02:17 PM (h+RLu)

112 It's a little early to start with the Romney hagiography isn't it?

How about an actual reason to vote for him as President of the United States rather than Mr. Congeniality.

Oops, that comparison falls apart since no beauty contestant would ever win Ms. Congeniality if they smeared their opponents 90% of the time.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 22, 2012 02:17 PM (N/1Dm)

113 Live it and stop being the damn Church Lady in a Sweatervest.
LOL.. I have been trying to figure out what he reminds me of.

Posted by: jewells45 at February 22, 2012 02:17 PM (l/N7H)

114 91 "It WAS 4 YEARS AGO IN A SPEECH AT A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL. How dumb are you guys? "
Go back and look at who I was supposedly quoting. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of Ace and the other heavy metal music (known for it's Satanic themes) fans on this board knocking Santorum because he believes in Satan.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:14 PM (EjhWd)


If you play this comment backwards, it says "I AM A LOON GOO GOO G'JOOB"

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (CkoMi)

115 Yeh, but what if his dog had gotten off the roof of the car? Would he have used all of Bain to find the dog???

/

Posted by: Mama AJ at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (XdlcF)

116
A very nice story.

A very good man.

Not a conservative or the traditional definition of republican, but a very good man.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (r+9M6)

117 Curious how Ace's *post* claims this is a positive case for Romney while his *comments* are all about a negative case for Santorum.

Trolling your own blog. Because you can....

Posted by: giftedjab at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (ubduJ)

118 "What are you doing, man? This is the stuff you make fun of other people for."

He's up against the wall of Romney, facing the firing squad of Santorum.

It's not a comfortable place to be. Pity him, don't hate him.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (r1jNE)

119 This Romney asshole is trying to cut in my action!

Posted by: Liam Neeson at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (GQ8sn)

120 Ross Perot put together a very complex mission to rescue some of his employees from islamic savages.

Second look at Perot?

Posted by: Havedash at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (BRhGr)

121 I really thought we had something, Acey wacey. You've betrayed me!

Posted by: Rick Perry at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (eHIJJ)

122 Yes and anyone of us here would get the same treatment if we were multi-millionaires, since we are not, all this seems to me is an example of privlidged access for a privileged few.How does this relate to the average guy, somehow I think the janitor of the building Bain worked out of would not have had a happy ending if it were his daughter.
Posted by: firewithfire at February 22, 2012 02:13 PM (lcwvr)


Jeebus, aren't you late for a open mic check or something?

Posted by: robtr at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (MtwBb)

123 I don't understand why even this fairly harmless post drives people nuts.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (7W3wI)

124 Let's have a contest. WWOD. What would Obama do?

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:19 PM (OhYCU)

125 Romney had everyone looking for her because he heard that Teddy Kennedy was driving her home

Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 22, 2012 02:19 PM (1Jaio)

126 Santorum 2012: we're gonna make the scarlet letter cool again

Posted by: Ricky Sweatervest at February 22, 2012 02:19 PM (yAor6)

127 ...or the time Obama skipped a couple of holes to move his flight to Hawaii up so that we could avoid seeing Michelle's huge ass going up into a plane by herself on every news channel.

Posted by: alppuccino at February 22, 2012 02:19 PM (Wj7vk)

128 49
>>>I'm sure Romney would have done the same if it were a Bain janitor's black drug-addicted daughter.



I think we might have a new winner.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:09 PM (nj1bB)

--Posts by Average Joe are ineligible.

Posted by: logprof at February 22, 2012 02:19 PM (dnflv)

129 110
Nice. So Mitt hires people who let their 14 year old daughters attend rave partys in New York?

Posted by: maddogg at February 22, 2012 02:17 PM (OlN4e)


Clearly you have no children.

Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at February 22, 2012 02:19 PM (hXJOG)

130 He was the major party to what many have called the most negative campaign in history in FL, and this is the man you say has "high personal morality and integrity?" I think it makes him a scum bag. Also, the guy takes every political position known to man - most would call that dishonest and of low integrity.

But, even if I agreed that he's a good guy in his personal life - what difference would it make? It is also true of many leftist. It doesn't make him or them suitable for the office of the president.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2012 02:20 PM (Eh595)

131 Go back and look at who I was supposedly quoting. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of Ace and the other heavy metal music (known for it's Satanic themes) fans on this board knocking Santorum because he believes in Satan.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:14 PM (EjhWd) 92 >>>es and anyone of us here would get the same treatment if we were multi-millionaires, since we are not, all this seems to me is an example of privlidged access for a privileged few. So just to make sure of where we are -- the GOP is now officially also the second party of class warfare? What's left? I guess just abortion, birth control, and the Devil.
Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (nj1bB)

Ok, Notalibertarian but look what was said next

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:20 PM (u50z0)

132 The real question is whether Ace can find it in him to find the good things Newt and Santorum have done too.

Now that you mention it, this story reminds me of when the young son of Newt's receptionist went missing back in the 80's. Long story short, they never found him but Newt and the receptionist were briefly married. Later, Newt wound up marrying the lead investigator on the disappearance case, then the investigator's twin sister, and finally their mother.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 22, 2012 02:20 PM (+lsX1)

133 Did Mitt bring the girl home in his car or in a cage tied to the roof?

Posted by: mugiwara at February 22, 2012 02:20 PM (Y3Zia)

134 I like Rick Santorum's plan for ending unmarried sex in America.All unmarried women will have to get tramp stamp tatoos of Rick Sanotrum's face on their lower back. Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:16 PM (wuv1c)

Even though he'd attract ridicule in the general, much of it justified, I might support him just to force a conversation about America's Great Liberal Experiment with Unmarried Parents.

Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 02:20 PM (9KqcB)

135 92
>>>es and anyone of us here would get the same treatment if we
were multi-millionaires, since we are not, all this seems to me is an
example of privlidged access for a privileged few.



So just to make sure of where we are -- the GOP is now officially also the second party of class warfare?


No I don't want that, I was a bit harsh there. It is great Romney did what he did I just don't see it as anything above what a normal decent person should do. Having the means to do all the more that he did does not make the event any more special than someone without means joining a search party rummaging through the woods.

Neither of which is particularly useful to a presidential resume beyond a character reference.

Posted by: firewithfire at February 22, 2012 02:20 PM (lcwvr)

136

Sure, that’s a nice story, but…



If all the partners were corrupt and the oil companies were
making money off of the girl’s disappearance, then Romney quit and gave up the
majority of his income in order to clean up the corruption and find the girl –
that would be a story.

Posted by: jwest at February 22, 2012 02:20 PM (FdndL)

137 Santorum 2012: because God said so

Posted by: Ricky Sweatervest at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (yAor6)

138 This Romney asshole is trying to cut in my action!


Posted by: Liam Neeson at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (GQ8sn)



one of the best scenes ever:

"You know, I believe you ... but it's not going to save you."

Posted by: really ... at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (X3lox)

139 Good for him. My concern is will he listen to the TP and conservatives and govern as one? He says he will, putting aside the past where he had to deal with the libs in Massachusetts. That said, ABO. I will vote for anyone, anyone to oust the lazy louse from the People's House.

Posted by: eureka! at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (4e3Me)

140 So... Mitt mandated that everyone look for this girl?

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (OhYCU)

141 #21 If you will notice, Romney doesn't traipse around in his sweater vest spouting of on LDS principles. Santorum does.

As a Catholic, he somehow manages to make my faith sound like something creepy. I don't like it, and I think he should pay attention to the economy in his speeches.

And my husband (home for a visit from his job in Africa) just laughed and said he looked like a dork.

First impressions are more important than you think.

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (GoIUi)

142 92
So just to make sure of where we are -- the GOP is now officially also the second party of class warfare?

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:15 PM (nj1bB)

Well Romney's new tax plan kind of points things in that direction. Do you want to report on that? Or are you still fleeing the rising shadow hungry of Theocracy ?

Oh shit,was I RULING MANKIND again? Sorry.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (a9mQu)

143 You know, I have no doubt that Mitt is a good person, I just doubt he is a conservative.

Posted by: maddogg at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (OlN4e)

144 You can really tell the commenters on this blog who grew up with no moral guide other than television. Their the people whose main associations with Christianity are the Church Lady from SNL.

They are proof that Stephen King's demonizing of All Things Christian in the 1980s found its target.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (EjhWd)

145 Not a conservative or the traditional definition of republican, but a very good man.

At this point I'll settle for a good man over the despicable SCoaMF and the more despicable Lady SCoaMF.

Posted by: Cicero at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (QKKT0)

146
WWOD?
Stutter and fuck a cluster.

Posted by: clonefan at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (+yR6J)

147 I know, let's all pretend that Santorum said something about the devil recently and to a campaign audience because it's part of his platform. I hear that's what all the cool kids are doing. BTW, I'm for Romney.

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (u50z0)

148 A "Positive Case For Romney"
People say there's no positive case for Romney.


********

Commenters said that you--Ace-- were not making a positive case for Romney.

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM (r2PLg)

149 It's pretty obvious there is no good case to be made for Romney. I'm sorry, ace. This really fucking sucks, huh?

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM (h+RLu)

150 So, what you are saying is, Mormon Mitt Romney unleashed his religious goon squad to interfere with a woman's right to harmlessly enjoy putting drug's in her body.

You soc cons are all alike!

Posted by: Theocrats are Fascists or Something at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM (AQD6a)

151
>>>>How about an actual reason to vote for him as President of the United States rather than Mr. Congeniality.

Because he's the best one left in the race.
People keep asking for reasons to vote for him but are unwilling to accept that as a legitimate reason.
Don't vote for Romney then. Vote for that other candidate in the race who has a great personal record, has appeal in swing states, has positive name recognition, has a successful record in the private sector and has an extremely conservative fiscal record.

Wait, that person doesn't exist? Well then. I guess we kinda have to pick from the remaining candidates.

If you will only vote for someone because they meet certain criteria of conservatism, then you're shit out o'luck because there aren't any in this race.
I know, I know Newt Gingirch, Let's overlook that he's probably the most hated politician in America and the fact that he's been leeching off the state as a Washington lobbyist for the last decade or that he has more ex-wives than every single other President in US history combined.
There are three big government types left in the race and Ron Paul. It's not where any of us wanted to be, but it's where we are.

Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM (wuv1c)

152 123 I don't understand why even this fairly harmless post drives people nuts.
Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (7W3wI)


Jeff B. made a good observation yesterday that for many people when they hate someone, for some reason they feel compelled to deny all possible virtue in them as well. So that's a lot of what's going on here I think.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM (CkoMi)

153 There is no higher morality and integrity than trying to buy the presidency and lying about your 'conservative' record.
Seriously, I'll vote for the guy if/when it comes down to it but this if this is what makes him most qualified, then John McCain must have been a super genius for suspending his campaign during the financial crisis.

Posted by: Ms Choksondik, ABO 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:23 PM (fYOZx)

154 Let's have a contest. WWOD. What would Obama do?

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:19 PM (OhYCU)



Barry would have found her. If she was on a golf course

Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 22, 2012 02:23 PM (1Jaio)

155 This is a lot like his claiming to being a conservative because he got a job and raised a family isn't it?

It's a nice story and all, but why would anyone base a vote on this?

Posted by: Andy at February 22, 2012 02:23 PM (XG+Mn)

156 It's a positive anecdote, it's to his credit by showing his compassion and ability to get things done, and it makes me want to vote for him. Come on morons, it's possible to be TOO cynical.

Posted by: joncelli at February 22, 2012 02:23 PM (RD7QR)

157 I know people are super anti-Mitt and I knew someone would have to try their hand at explaining how this is a BAD thing. People couldn't resist.
And I was also sort of intrigued as to what form the "This is actually a bad anecdote for Romney" argument would take.
I guess all I can say is: Kudos. Your hackishness here surprised me. A guy shutting down his firm to find the missing daughter of a friend is turned into some sort of Nascent Fascist Impulse that will doom America

------------

Did you see Malor's post? Where he took Santorum speaking fondly of the founding and how this country is on a downward track and turned that into a Santorum bash fest? We learn from the best!

Posted by: Rich at February 22, 2012 02:23 PM (3lAjR)

158 .....or the time they found Obama's long lost brother shivering in a fridge box and they told Obama and he said "Looks like I've got about 120 yards. Better give me the 4 iron."

Posted by: alppuccino at February 22, 2012 02:23 PM (Wj7vk)

159 He went all out for a co-worker. Not a family member or lifetime friend. That says a lot to me. I give him credit. I am not sure where the nomination is headed but SCFOAMF has got to go. I will happily vote for the R Candidate. I am going to do so with enthusiasm. Fuckers can't harsh my mellow. SCFOAMF has to GO.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (Df/CP)

160 Obama would have fired the guy, and airbrushed him out of the company photos.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (OhYCU)

161 Even though he'd attract ridicule in the general, much of it justified, I
might support him just to force a conversation about America's Great
Liberal Experiment with Unmarried Parents.

+1. It's not like this election is going to be about anything if Romney's the nominee.

Posted by: Methos at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (6LvlL)

162 Nobody denies that Barack O'Romney has a good home life.

But he's still a stuttering clusterrino of a miserable failure, no matter how angry Ace may be at Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (+inic)

163 Jeff B. made a good observation yesterday that for
many people when they hate someone, for some reason they feel compelled
to deny all possible virtue in them as well. So that's a lot of what's
going on here I think.


Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM (CkoMi)


Oh....so, kinda like ace with Santorum?

Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (X6akg)

164 As a Catholic, he somehow manages to make my faith sound like something creepy

Yes, yes, yes!! That's exactly it.

Catholics just don't behave like Rick does. He's like a caricature . . . of something . . . I mean we're nearly as non-proselytizing (sp?!?) as Jewish people are . . .

Posted by: BlackOrchid at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (SB0V2)

165 Mr Pink: "Anyone of these guys has my vote over the cocksucking piece of shit Obama."

Cut. Jib. Newsletter.

Of course, I've published that in my newsletter, too, so maybe a cost-cutting collaboration is in order.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (eHIJJ)

166 That's all well and good but what's Romney's stance on the Great Schism of 1054?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (9Hw3U)

167 #33 - I agree 100%. And what's really politically advantageous about the story is that he did all of that for a Gay guy.

Posted by: Moe Ron at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (yWDpP)

168 Really? We're going to bitch about this too? I would rather hope that the statement "It's a good thing that Romney helped find a missing teenage girl" would be non-controversial.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (VtjlW)

169 remove *other* from my last post. I didn't want to imply Romney is the strongest fiscal con, he isn't, but I wanted to make the point there isn't anyone else that is in this race

Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (wuv1c)

170 Romney needs to start showing up at campaign appearances on the Mittcycle.

Posted by: Cicero at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (QKKT0)

171 You know a better story? A poor gay boy from a private school in Hawaii gains the attention of a bunch of marxists whotrain him to take over the country. He fucks it up so badly he is forced to flee to Kenya in deep shame and all of his horrible decisions are reversed.

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (u50z0)

172 Bless you, Sgt. Fury.

+1000

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (UOM48)

173 Great. Now all we have to do is kidnap his VP's daughter, and Mittens might shut down the government.

Am I stoned, or did I just see Ace refer to the guy he was taking apart months ago as a hypocrite as a man of "high personal morality and integrity"?

It's just sad, that's all.

Posted by: Boring Conversation Anyway... at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (V0QP1)

174 149
It's pretty obvious there is no good case to be made for Romney. I'm sorry, ace. This really fucking sucks, huh?




I don't know, he's clean and doesn't speak with a negro accent.

Posted by: Harry Reid at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (hXJOG)

175 It WAS 4 YEARS AGO IN A SPEECH AT A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL. How dumb are you guys?

AND I'm for Romney but Holy Shit this Santorum/birthcontrol/satan thing is the epitome of brain dead.


Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:11 PM (u50z0)

--Seriously, a lot of the shit I've seen posted here about Rick's religion I expect to see parroted by brain-dead leftards, not informed Morons.

Posted by: logprof at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (dnflv)

176 Old news is old. Neal Boortz has been publicizing this story for weeks. It's a great anecdote but doesn't say anything about his politics. There is no question about Romney's competency to lead...the question is where he wants to lead us.

By all accounts Obama is a devoted husband and father and one might say he has "high personal morality and integrity."

To the extent that you take issue with that proposition, does Romney's meandering on abortion show high personal morality and integrity?

http://tinyurl.com/7aot3c7

Romney (or Santorum or Gingrich) will have my reluctant vote, don't worry.

Posted by: Crispian at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (P9LP6)

177
>>It's a nice story and all, but why would anyone base a vote on this?

Why would anyone base their vote on bland platitudes like Hope and Change? Andyet they did.

Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:26 PM (wuv1c)

178 The quetion is not whether Mitt Romney is a charitable man. The question is whether he is sound on policy and whether his politcal promises can be trusted. There his record is akin to that of Obama: All of Romney;s statements are subject to reinterpretation and history constantly gets rewritten because the Mitt never ever makes a mistake.

I can accept Romney as the nominee if it is at the end of a long fight in which he has to go on the record with some highly specific pledges. Even then I will be concentratving my own effort on keeping the House and winning the Senate. That's because as President Romney is likely to be the very embodiment of Milton Friedman's observation about the important of establishing a climate of opinion which
will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right
thing.

Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at February 22, 2012 02:26 PM (D4DLO)

179 I don't really need a positive case for Romney. The only reason I'm voting this fall is to get rid of the Turd-in-Chief, and I believe that mathematically, Romney has the best shot. I'm just playing the odds.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 22, 2012 02:26 PM (JfxJx)

180 Oh....so, kinda like ace with Santorum?
Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (X6akg)


I'm not seeing it. Show your work please.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:26 PM (CkoMi)

181 >>At this point I'll settle for a good man over the despicable SCoaMF and the more despicable Lady SCoaMF.

The bar's been set pretty low, hasn't it? As long as Mitt doesn't bow to foreign heads of state, give military aid to defeat our allies, murder border patrol agents, shut down oil production by royal decree, or sic his wife on industry, he's a big improvement.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 22, 2012 02:26 PM (ZKzrr)

182 The Detroit News endorsed Romney today. I suggest you all read that editorial, it sums up the case for Romney quite nicely.

www.detroitnews.com

Posted by: rockmom at February 22, 2012 02:26 PM (NYnoe)

183 Ace, as someone who has some liberal friends and relatives, I'm a little offended that you find it so unusual when a liberal does a good deed, that you need to make a whole post praising him. Lots of liberals have really good hearts and mean well, even if their politics are a little misguided. I find this all very condescending.

Posted by: yinzer at February 22, 2012 02:27 PM (/Mla1)

184 He helped the Gays!

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:27 PM (u50z0)

185 122 Yes and anyone of us here would get the same treatment if we were multi-millionaires, since we are not, all this seems to me is an example of privlidged access for a privileged few.....................Yes and I'm sure if you were wealthy and powerful and your 14 year old was missing you'd say. nah, I'm good with whatever the police are doing. STFU and go back to Zucotti park dickhead.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 22, 2012 02:27 PM (kicl8)

186 I'm not thrilled about Romney. But for the positive case for him is that he has a history of turning around failing organizations and focusing on the bottom line.

I expect a more serious approach to the budget from him than from any other candidate, and in my own personal opinion the budget is the most important issue.

Posted by: Emperoro of Icecream at February 22, 2012 02:27 PM (epBek)

187 At his core, he's a good man. I've never doubted that.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 22, 2012 02:27 PM (W54Uh)

188 This story is fluff - of no value. I think everyone here would acknowledge that Romney is a decent guy. We know this.

The real issue in this election is our debt. Discussion on any other issue in this election is meaningless. If Romney wins, he'll enter office with something over 16 Trillion in national debt.

After 4 years under Romney administration, does anyone here expect that our debt will be anything less than 16 Trillion? I don't.

Romney, if given his choice, would only dabble around the edges of the economy. I'm sure he would cut some taxes and maybe cut some spending, but he will certainly do anything as drastic as is needed.

Posted by: Not an Artist at February 22, 2012 02:27 PM (Lo/3Q)

189 Obama would have fired the guy, and airbrushed him out of the company photos.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (OhYCU)


LOL. Because it's true.

Posted by: really ... at February 22, 2012 02:27 PM (X3lox)

190 He's a good and decent man, which is why so many of his detractors reduce him to a stereotype before they attack him. He's an uptight Boy Scout, he's a vulture preying on family businesses, whatever it takes to avoid looking at the real guy.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 22, 2012 02:27 PM (hiMsy)

191 I've hammered Willard in the past on his policy position(s), but ultimately, if he's our candidate, I have no problem supporting the Mittster.

Posted by: Fritz at February 22, 2012 02:28 PM (Ohmaj)

192 Ace - Romney is not losing a leg to save your life. He is the equivalent of a brain transplant to cure brain cancer. Id rather roll the dice and hope to survive for the next 4 years in the hope that a cure is developed than participate in some asinine therapy that is going to kill me anyway, just because I feel the need to do SOMETHING.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2012 02:28 PM (Eh595)

193 --Seriously, a lot of the shit I've seen posted here
about Rick's religion I expect to see parroted by brain-dead leftards,
not informed Morons.


Posted by: logprof at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (dnflv)

that is the problem in thinking some of these slack jawed yokels are in fact "informed"

Posted by: The Dude at February 22, 2012 02:28 PM (M8yfa)

194
>>>>So just to make sure of where we are -- the GOP is now officially also the second party of class warfare?
<<<<<

Also now officially the second party of religious haters?

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 02:28 PM (r+9M6)

195 >>>Even though he'd attract ridicule in the general, much of it justified, I might support him just to force a conversation about America's Great Liberal Experiment with Unmarried Parents.

There are going to be four or five "conversations" this election, key points the election turns on.

So you want to elevate this one up? Which of the others do you wish to demote for these purposes?

You (and me) are Political Geeks. You study politics like a Trekkie studies star trek. For you, any political topic is potentially interesting because you are just a fan of the general topic.

You continue to mistake your political geekery for being the level of interest in the average voter.

It's not. The average person is not very interested in Star Trek. He's also not very interested in politics.

So while you dream and scheme about these Great Educational Teachable Moment National Debates we're going to have on issues that cannot be fixed by government (and furthermore are multigenerational propositions -- the breakdown of the family did not happen over a pair of presidential terms), you completely forget the Forgotten Man.

Which debates will you NOT be having in order to have this one? Because political oxygen is finite, and the public's interest in ideology and secondary/indirect effects reasoning is sharply limited.

So I now know we're going to lose a debate on one of Obama's weaknesses to entertain Rick Santorum's solipsisitc, my Religion Is Always Right on Policy devotion to explaining the evils of the diaphragam.

One down. One debate on a Obama weakness we WON'T be having so that Santorum can talk about his own political weakness.

How many other winning issues do you wish to similarly demote?

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:28 PM (nj1bB)

196 "To the extent that you take issue with that proposition, does Romney's meandering on abortion show high personal morality and integrity?"

Ace doesn't care.

Not only does he not care, Romney's patent insincerity on the topic *pleases* Ace, because Ace is pro-choice. To his credit, he's never tried to hide that: he puts up with the social-issues crowd because the party needs them to win, but he's ever vigilant that they not get uppity.

But while he doesn't personally care, he gets *why* so many of you care about abortion, so he's willing to let that one slide a lot of the time. But birth control is a bridge too far.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:28 PM (r1jNE)

197 Gays have a daughter?

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:28 PM (OhYCU)

198 I'm religious but Santorum makes me uncomfortable.He just comes off as a scold andhe doesn't seem able to shut it off.If he just stayed off ocial issues entirely it would be better.We really have much bigger problems.He does come off kind of like the Church Lady with that sweater vest and his religious views.I agree with his religious views but it's not something a politician should talk about.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:29 PM (7W3wI)

199 I've never said that Willard is a bad person. I think he's a terrible campaigner but I'll be on his side if he's the last person standing after the convention.

Tammy Bruce played a Trump robo-call for Meechigan on behalf of Romney which sounded like the most effective thing to come out of his camp of dumbfucks and retards. It may turn a few people off but I think it will be a net plus for him.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 22, 2012 02:29 PM (6mFAv)

200 Well, shit. There I was writing about "where the fuck is the case FOR a candidate since your last was back before the Iowa Caucasus." in another post, and I refresh in another window and you've written a starter positive case for Romney. That's a good start. Perhaps we can get a multi paragraph positive for Romney instead of a multi paragraph negative for every other Republican candidate.

Posted by: Kelgair at February 22, 2012 02:29 PM (EGbCB)

201 185
122 Yes and anyone of us here would get the same treatment if we were
multi-millionaires, since we are not, all this seems to me is an example
of privlidged access for a privileged few.....................Yes and
I'm sure if you were wealthy and powerful and your 14 year old was
missing you'd say. nah, I'm good with whatever the police are doing.
STFU and go back to Zucotti park dickhead.

Ace already pointed out my blindness in that statement and I conceded I was wrong, keep up with the times.

Posted by: firewithfire at February 22, 2012 02:29 PM (lcwvr)

202 I'm not seeing it. Show your work please.


Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:26 PM (CkoMi)


The premise is that if you 'hate' someone you are compelled to deny any virtue about them. Ace has a strong dislike of Santorum....it's on display here multiple times a day. Not sure how much more 'work' you need to see.

I say that as someone who will vote ABO....and at this point, that may even include Luap Nor.

Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2012 02:29 PM (X6akg)

203 >>>Also now officially the second party of religious haters?

Yup! The same as opposing the liberal black agenda and liberal gay agenda makes you a black hater, or a gay hater!!!!

God, you're so oppressed!!!

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:29 PM (nj1bB)

204 123 I don't understand why even this fairly harmless post drives people nuts.
Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (7W3wI)

Jeff B. made a good observation yesterday that for many people when they hate someone, for some reason they feel compelled to deny all possible virtue in them as well. So that's a lot of what's going on here I think.
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM (CkoMi)
I've got a theory.I call it the "Big Swinging Dick Unified Theory of Political Blog Commenting". Maybe someone could just post a ruler in the sidebar and y'all could be done with this nonsense ...

Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at February 22, 2012 02:29 PM (ZYUWp)

205 Why would anyone base their vote on bland platitudes like Hope and Change? Andyet they did.
Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:26 PM (wuv1c)

So Mitt supporters = obamabots? Comforting.

Posted by: Ms Choksondik, ABO 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:29 PM (fYOZx)

206
Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM (wuv1c)


Ben, listen, you don't have to keep repeating the Conventional Wisdom. I've heard it roughly 10,000 times. I've thought about it, memorized it, parodied it, yelled at it, cried for it, and learned to accept that it won't go away until all of the people who accept it have no other choice but to migrate to a new, more operable Conventional Wisdom.

But really, I don't need to read it again.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 22, 2012 02:30 PM (N/1Dm)

207 Satan is among us.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:30 PM (OhYCU)

208 >> Why would anyone base their vote on bland platitudes like Hope and Change? Andyet they did.

You're not doing the "positive case", if you can really call it that, any favors there.

Posted by: Andy at February 22, 2012 02:30 PM (XG+Mn)

209 If santorum's the candidate it's irrelevant, as we lose under almost every scenario.

At that point we just try to limit the damage in Congress.


Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:16 PM (nj1bB)

********

But wait!!!

You think Santorum can federally ban birth control!!!

That implicity means you believe he will have a Republican Sneate majority, and he can get them all to act and vote together.

That means he probably would need a filibuster proof majority and would have to overcome the Maine Sisters..

So...62 Republican Senators!!!!

Now you are telling me Rick Santorum would lose Republicans the Congress!?

I feel dizzy!

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 02:30 PM (r2PLg)

210 "Big Swinging Dick Unified Theory of Political Blog Commenting"

tell me more

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:31 PM (OhYCU)

211 Bill Clinton would have shut down the Government to help his intern find her stray pussy.

Posted by: maddogg at February 22, 2012 02:31 PM (OlN4e)

212
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (UOM4
Thank you Miss Jane. Like my old man used to tell me; everyone gets a say but that don't mean you get your way. Same with the primary. I say let everyone bitch, moan and piss about Rhino, Jesus Freak, Idiots, Spineless Pussy and whatever. But, the truth is, all we have is our vote. That's all. I know some of the internet revolutionaries are always spouting off about "there will be blood" and other bullshit, but The SCFOAMF has to be beaten at the voting booth. That's it and that's all. I know our candidates suck but I am going to happily vote for their ass when the time comes. That's all I have and I am damn sure going to do it. If other homo's want to stay home, well then stay home but please do us the favor of shutting the fuck up.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at February 22, 2012 02:31 PM (Df/CP)

213 204 Yesss,it is all about the dick size!!

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:31 PM (7W3wI)

214 >>>Not only does he not care, Romney's patent insincerity on the topic *pleases* Ace, because Ace is pro-choice. To his credit, he's never tried to hide that: he puts up with the social-issues crowd because the party needs them to win, but he's ever vigilant that they not get uppity.

If that were true I'd take solace in Mrs. Santorum's longterm live-in sexual relationship with an abortionist.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:31 PM (nj1bB)

215 What is being done now to Santorum will be done to Romney, times ten

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 22, 2012 02:31 PM (UqKQV)

216 Right - cuz no way we're having a conversation about Romney's religion ...

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2012 02:31 PM (Eh595)

217 I will not destroy our progressivity in our system of finding missing children. I will search 20% more for anyone's missing daughter, except for those from families earning over $200,000 per year. They will have to make up the daughter search deficit on their own.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (IZTTb)

218 Anyone hear about the RedState accusations that Vir. Gov. Bob McDonnell has suddenly turned against pending anti-abortion legislation in Virginia because he doesn't want any "controversial" stances to interfere with his becoming Romney's VP?

But, then again, this teenager rescue story makes up for all of Romney's political opportunism.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (EjhWd)

219 So what? Romney found the missing girl. Kennedy or Clinton would have also found her, but in addition would have given her a job as an intern!

Posted by: Havedash at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (BRhGr)

220 Gee, at what campaign speech did Santorum have an extended conversation about unmarried parents or abortion? WE are making this an issue because? Because we prefer Romney? I do but I really hate to get there dishonestly, I'm not a lefty.

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (u50z0)

221 This story was pushed in 2008 too. I believe it indicates desperation in the Romney campaign.
Question: Where would a Pres. Romney get the power to grant waivers from Obamacareto every state? That's kinda an important question because a President exercising that kind of power by fiatis dangerous.

Posted by: Pres. Chet Roosevelt at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (xOgsn)

222 168 Really? We're going to bitch about this too? I would rather hope that the statement "It's a good thing that Romney helped find a missing teenage girl" would be non-controversial.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM (VtjlW)

Is it really a positive case for Romney as president or even the GOP candidate for president though? Is it vitally relevant to the campaign in the same way that a four year old Santorum speech to a Catholic university apparently is? Is this the kind of thing that has Obama shaking in his political loafers?

What else ya got?

Anybody want to talk abut Romney's new tax plan?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-proposes-slashing-top-tax-184022541.html

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (a9mQu)

223 Yup! The same as opposing the liberal black agenda and liberal gay agenda makes you a black hater, or a gay hater!!!! God, you're so oppressed!!!
____
Take comfort my son, in my church we welcome you with open arms.

Posted by: Omnia Secula Seculorum Santorum at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (jm/9g)

224 One good thing about Romney, he's not an asshole like Santorum.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (JYYzZ)

225 eff B. made a good observation yesterday that for

many people when they hate someone, for some reason they feel compelled

to deny all possible virtue in them as well. So that's a lot of what's

going on here I think.




Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM (CkoMi)

Oh....so, kinda like ace with Santorum?


Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (X6akg)


Or Jeff B with Palin

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (6mFAv)

226 Once again, I must ask, does Rick Santorum really talk incessantly about contraception, or does the MFM take a twenty second soundbite out of a two-hour interview and loop it endlessly to create that impression?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (AQD6a)

227 "If that were true I'd take solace in Mrs. Santorum's longterm live-in sexual relationship with an abortionist. "

Good point. (Wait, don't you take solace in that? *Someone's* been spamming threads with it, but I guess that's not you.

..

Speaking of which, have you done a front-page post on that?)

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (r1jNE)

228 Big deal, I find chicks in my basement, shivering and suffering from withdrawal symptoms, on a regular basis.

I guess that makes me a hero.

Posted by: Dr Spank : American at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (Sh42X)

229 The ad is a nice, but a bit of a put off.


What is that saying about people who toot their own horn too much?

Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (hXJOG)

230 Does Santorum like talking about religion? Or does the media like asking him about it, and playing the sound clips over and over? Could they do the same exact thing with Mitt if they wanted?

Posted by: yinzer at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (/Mla1)

231 Too bad Romney wasn't old enough to find Mary Jo Kopeckne.

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (u50z0)

232 If it were me, I'd make sure some of my underlings armed other drug dealers in NYC with heavy weapons, and "hope" that by "following" those guns they would help lead us to the missing girl.

Except, with my plan, the girl ends up dying and so do around 300 other innocents in the NYC area. Brilliant!

Posted by: SCoaMF at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (zV3nK)

233 Meanwhile Rick "Sanctimonious" Santorum doesn't pay a full tithe and wants a camera in every bedroom to make sure that only approved consensual sex is being practiced. Religious extremists like Santorum always find ways to use the authority they are given to "educate" the rest of us as to the proper way to manage our lives.

Posted by: Big Al at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (UWp/G)

234 <<<<The average person is not very interested in Star Trek.<<<<

I see the devil has totally consumed you. Heresy I call its name!

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (r+9M6)

235 This is the case for Romney as President? did I miss a sarc tag? Pathetic.

Posted by: montgomery burns at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (K/USr)

236 "I'm religious but Santorum makes me uncomfortable."

Behold: Another product of Stephen King and SNL.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (EjhWd)

237
"Okay. He's got my vote for man of the year.

Now where is the positive case based on his political record to vote for Mitt Romney?"

So what would you consider a positive case Allen? Not that I should even ask given that you signed your self as a dedicated tenther who says no to RINO Mitt for god knows how long. It's obvious that nothing Romney does will be pure enough for you.
For years Conservatives have said that they want a candidate with real world business experience. Here comes Romney and it's the wrong kind of experience.
We have wanted a candidate with a strong moral center and who is religious. Well yeah Romney has that but it's the wrong religion and there is just something creepy about Mormons and all that family values stuff.
You advocate for the tenth amendment, but here comes Mitt who following the will of the voters in his state utilizes his states authority (under the tenth amendment) and signs off on Romney-care as the best alternative available. Well that isn't really what we mean by the tenth amendment.
We want some one who will cut spending and balance the budget. Romeney did that, but in extreemly liberal Massachusets he also raised taxes. Oh My God, burn him at the stake. The Tax Foundation (the guys who calculate Tax Freedom Day) determined that under Romney Mass. tax burden was about .5 % lower than the national average.
He flopped on abortion, but instead of doing like most politicians he went pro-life instead of pro-choice and did so 3 years before his 2008 presidential run. But hey he once supported abortion so he has to go.
We want someone that will stand-up to democrats. In his last year in office Romney vetoed 250 separate dem sponsored bills. He's a squish.
Basically any positive anyone brings out about the guy (and he is far from my favorite candidate. I don't think we have a good candidate running or even available) is just going to be dismissed out of hand so why don't you just go back to spamming the comments with your stupid doucheylittle Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant



Posted by: chad at February 22, 2012 02:33 PM (9VSWS)

238 @195: ace, you give the MSM too much credit. You think the debates will be about issues? Since when?

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (aYnZc)

239 179 I don't really need a positive case for Romney. The only reason I'm voting this fall is to get rid of the Turd-in-Chief, and I believe that mathematically, Romney has the best shot. I'm just playing the odds.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 22, 2012 02:26 PM (JfxJx)


Yes this is more or less where I'm at at the moment. I don't love Romney but I don't hate him like many here either. He's got some good qualities but there's also a lot of things to worry about in him.

But I think he can win.

And one thing that I've learned in life so far: It's always better to win. Any strategy that's based on 'winning by losing' is really just a form of denial via rationalization of failure.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (CkoMi)

240 Some of these same posters who are making fun of posting this story were the same one's who thought the lame dog on the roof story was significant.

This story is just another about Romney that doesn't count because well...because fuck you that's why.

He is the only candidate with executive experience in both the private and public sectors. As Givernor he vetoed almost a thousand pieces of liberal legislation in just 4 years. This includes the veto of in-state tuition for illegals.

In the private sector he saved the Winter Olympics from financial disaster and returned to Bain Company and saved them from bankruptcy.

His record is more impressive when you look at it beyond general terms and look at the details but we are now a bumpersticker nation so that likely will not happen.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (xJTAH)

241 219
So what? Romney found the missing girl. Kennedy or Clinton would have
also found her, but in addition would have given her a job as an intern!

Posted by: Havedash at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (BRhGr)

That's not ALL we would give her!

Posted by: The scumbag Kennedys at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (hXJOG)

242 What is being done now to Santorum will be done to Romney, times ten


Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 22, 2012 02:31 PM (UqKQV)

but he's electable unlike the icky Santorum.

Even though I would give my left nut to have Obama out of the WH, I hope Mitt gets the nom and fails spectacularly

Posted by: The Dude at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (M8yfa)

243 NotALib, why does Stephen King get top billing in the War on Religion?

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (r1jNE)

244 Even though he'd attract ridicule in the general, much of it justified, I might support him just to force a conversation about America's Great Liberal Experiment with Unmarried Parents.
Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 02:20 PM (9KqcB)

-----------------------------------

If one were to honestly look at the tap-root of the welfare (redistribution) problem in the US, it would be the unwed mother and her bastard children. This also gave us that most craven concept of abortion. I applaud Santorum for, at least, starting this conversation. It's well overdue.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (0mlnt)

245 Ace already pointed out my blindness in that statement and I conceded I was wrong, keep up with the times.
Posted by: firewithfire at February 22, 2012 02:29 PM (lcwvr) ....................Sorry, didn't know only one person was alowed to respond to your post. Perhaps next time you should just e-mail him directly.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 22, 2012 02:35 PM (kicl8)

246 Lets give a big shout out to Whitney Houston, 5 Days Clean and Sober!

Posted by: Dr. Varno at February 22, 2012 02:35 PM (QMtmy)

247 214
If that were true I'd take solace in Mrs. Santorum's longterm live-in sexual relationship with an abortionist.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:31 PM (nj1bB)

So now it's not Santorum...it's his creepy evil wife?

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:35 PM (a9mQu)

248 This is a nice story. How it relates to voting for Mitt, I'm not so sure.

Posted by: mama winger at February 22, 2012 02:35 PM (P6QsQ)

249 That Mitt sure sounds like a great guy. Must be he's got a heart as big as his bank account. And we should make him President.

Is that how this goes?

Posted by: BurtTC at February 22, 2012 02:35 PM (TOk1P)

250 WWOD?Have Carney schedule an interview so thatMSNBC couldaskObamahow racist it is to expecthim to overcome the drug-addled kids epidemic that the Bush administration left him with.

Posted by: sherlock at February 22, 2012 02:35 PM (6rLSO)

Posted by: minuteman (formerly trainer) until Juggy is gone at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (Rojyk)

252 >>>Gee, at what campaign speech did Santorum have an extended conversation about unmarried parents or abortion? WE are making this an issue because?

Um, this is Santorum's butthurt whining today -- "gee, it's not fair to ask about a candidate's religion."

The guy has run on his religion (as a niche candidate) for six months and now wants to say "Don't ask me about my religion, which I've discussed over and over again when I just wanted 10% of the vote."

The guy who's not ashamed of talking about his religion is now spinning (through spokesmen) that it's unfair to ask him about his religion.

HE made all of this an issue.

There was NO consensus in the conservative party that we now needed to do something about birth control. He just decided to run that up the flagpole. Himself.

And now, having done so, he and his supporters want to say "no fair accurately quoting our candidate!!!"

It is fair.

Another positive point in Romney's favor: He has focused on the issues this election will actually be won on (if it is to be won at all). He isn't fucking about with issues where the public is 85% against him.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (nj1bB)

253 Absolutely, there are lots of positive ways to sell all of the GOP candidates, and we'd all be best served to be posting those and negatives on Obama than trying to tear down one candidate or another.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (r4wIV)

254 152
123 I don't understand why even this fairly harmless post drives people nuts.
Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (7W3wI)

Jeff
B. made a good observation yesterday that for many people when they
hate someone, for some reason they feel compelled to deny all possible
virtue in them as well. So that's a lot of what's going on here I think.


Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM (CkoMi)

--Yeah, even 0bama has that pant-crease going for him.Silver lining.

Posted by: logprof at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (dnflv)

255 Right,because if we think religion should be left out of politics we are brainwashed by pop culture.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (7W3wI)

256 I call it the "Big Swinging Dick Unified Theory of Political Blog Commenting". Maybe someone could just post a ruler in the sidebar and y'all could be done with this nonsense ...
I think you may be onto something there. lmao, btw..

Posted by: jewells45 at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (l/N7H)

257 Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (r1jNE)

Have you ever seen Carrie? Or noticed that every villain in his stories is a Catholic priest or Christian fundamentalist?

Think that might have an effect on impressionable kids watching that carries over into adulthood?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (EjhWd)

258 233 Meanwhile Rick "Sanctimonious" Santorum doesn't pay a full tithe and wants a camera in every bedroom to make sure that only approved consensual sex is being practiced. Religious extremists like Santorum always find ways to use the authority they are given to "educate" the rest of us as to the proper way to manage our lives.

You forgot your sarc tag. It's so funny that Obama is doing just that but no one says anything! LOL.

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (u50z0)

259
dagny

thank you.....can you pass me a towel to clean my screen?

Posted by: phoenixgirl is responsible for bringing down the perry campaign at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (mfbqu)

260 242 GENIUS!!

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (7W3wI)

261 >>>>Yup! The same as opposing the liberal black agenda and liberal gay
agenda makes you a black hater, or a gay hater!!!! God, you're so
oppressed!!!

Whoa now there fella. Didn't you jump on somebody for a "wealth" comment elevating that to a "party of class warfare"?

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (r+9M6)

262 Yes this is more or less where I'm at at the moment. I don't love Romney but I don't hate him like many here either. He's got some good qualities but there's also a lot of things to worry about in him.

Romney has a huge problem-it's called credibility, if you lose that....

It might not hurt him in the general relative to Obama, but it is hurting him in the Republican primary.

Hell it's going to hurt him in the general too, who the hell am I kidding.

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (r2PLg)

263 " Some of these same posters who are making fun of posting this story were the same one's who thought the lame dog on the roof story was significant. "

I thought the 'dog on the car roof' story was completely stupid.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (a9mQu)

264 218 Anyone hear about the RedState accusations that Vir. Gov. Bob McDonnell has suddenly turned against pending anti-abortion legislation in Virginia because he doesn't want any "controversial" stances to interfere with his becoming Romney's VP? But, then again, this teenager rescue story makes up for all of Romney's political opportunism.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:32 PM (EjhWd)

Yep. McDonnell is demonstrating his political bone fides. He's showing that he's willing to sell his soul, and VA,for a chance to be mini-Mitt.

Posted by: Havedash at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (BRhGr)

265 '@195: ace, you give the MSM too much credit. You think the debates will be about issues? Since when?"

Ace has a weird confusion. He can see all the booby traps lying in wait for Santorum ... but whenever anyone tries to point out the equally large traps tailor-made for Romney, he at best tries a Jedi handwave to explain them away.

The media will be merciless to Santorum - but tin-eared Romney is somehow going to remember that ONLY THE PENITENT MAN SHALL PASS.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (r1jNE)

266 Once again I am amused that after six or eight months of knocking the crap out of Romney at every opportunity... he's suddenly become the Savior of the Party.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (AQD6a)

267 Deserve's got nothin' to do with it.

Posted by: William Munny at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (8g9qq)

268 Big Al

Santorum will have an executive order banning divorces and strip clubs.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (JYYzZ)

269 245
Ace already pointed out my blindness in that statement and I conceded I was wrong, keep up with the times.

Posted by: firewithfire at February 22, 2012 02:29 PM (lcwvr)
....................Sorry, didn't know only one person was alowed to
respond to your post. Perhaps next time you should just e-mail him
directly.

Geee, no one is saying only one person can respond but for pete's sake give a man credit for admitting when he is wrong without any slimy qualifiers, I was wrong and missed the mark totally in my first post on this thread.

Posted by: firewithfire at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (lcwvr)

270 246
Lets give a big shout out to Whitney Houston, 5 Days Clean and Sober!

Posted by: Dr. Varno at February 22, 2012 02:35 PM (QMtmy)

The first five days are the hardest, really. After that, man, piece of cake.

Posted by: Zombie John Belushi at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (hXJOG)

271 207
Satan is among us.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:30 PM (OhYCU)

Sshhh! I'm just lurking today.

Posted by: Satan at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (YEelc)

272 The president has saved countless lives, so many in fact he should be given a medal. Oh wait, he got one from the Nobel Committee.

Posted by: Jay Carney at February 22, 2012 02:38 PM (Sh42X)

273 Even though I would give my left nut to have Obama out of the WH, I hope Mitt gets the nom and fails spectacularlyPosted by: The Dude

Good to see you have your priorities straight.

Are you by any chance a Santorum supporter?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2012 02:38 PM (9Hw3U)

274 Reading his twitter stream, am I the only one who thinks Jake Tapper is repressing an urge to tweet "Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant"?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:38 PM (8y9MW)

275 Yes, yes, yes!! That's exactly it. Catholics just don't behave like Rick does. He's like a caricature . . . of something . . . I mean we're nearly as non-proselytizing (sp?!?) as Jewish people are . . .
Posted by: BlackOrchid at February 22, 2012 02:24 PM (SB0V2)

Seriously? *That* depiction of Catholicism is a caricature. You've obviously never been to a Catholic men's or women's conference, where there are plenty of Catholics pumped to share their faith. Or Catholic schools like Steubenville, Wyoming Catholic or Christendome. If you think of the Ave Maria speech in those terms, it's not shocking at all.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 22, 2012 02:38 PM (W54Uh)

276 "Have you ever seen Carrie? Or noticed that every villain in his stories is a Catholic priest or Christian fundamentalist?"

I've read Carrie. Not sure I've seen it, and that blame (if blame there be) has to at least partly lie with Brian De Palma.

Eh, I don't think King's all that egregious on this count. If there's a general anti-religious sentiment in his books, it's a symptom, not a cause.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:38 PM (r1jNE)

277 >>>And one thing that I've learned in life so far: It's always better to win. Any strategy that's based on 'winning by losing' is really just a form of denial via rationalization of failure.

It's a flight from reality -- a form of cowardice -- dressed up as "courage" because no one wants to admit he's a coward.

There are bad choices in life -- sometimes you have to make hard decisions, and neither choice is optimal. Sometimes both are somewhat bad-- but one's a lot worse.

This whole "winning by losing" thing is a method for people to assuage themselves that they're doing the heroic (rather than the cowardly) thing by giving up, by running from reality.

We did not "Win" with Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell. We lost. There was no virtue in being dumb.

But here we go again.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:39 PM (nj1bB)

278 Of course, at the time that girl's mother was pregnant, Romney would have supported her right to abort.

A flat out lie.

Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at February 22, 2012 02:39 PM (0M2Nt)

279 Even though I would give my left nut to have Obama out of the WH, I hope Mitt gets the nom and fails spectacularly
Posted by: The Dude at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (M8yfa) ....................................Yea, that 'll show em! Stellar thinking there sparky.

Posted by: CutsNoseToSpiteFace at February 22, 2012 02:39 PM (kicl8)

280 JFK would have made the girl give BJs to all his business partners

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:39 PM (OhYCU)

281 Ever heard of "Rush Babies"? A lot of the commenters here are "King Babies".

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:39 PM (EjhWd)

282 Runner-up for the Hack Derby.
Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:07 PM (nj1bB)

It's a nice story, but don't you think Robert Gay being the managing director of Bain is relevant?

Posted by: Elephant Liberation Front at February 22, 2012 02:39 PM (mP3uM)

283 Knemo,
Santorum will be the perfect straw-man for Obama. The one good thing, a Santorum defeat will finally discredit the Social Cons.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 02:39 PM (JYYzZ)

284 Are you by any chance a Santorum supporter?


Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 22, 2012 02:38 PM (9Hw3U)

hate everyone, would love nothing but burn all the candidates with napalm. And no, I have no allegiance to any party (though I'm a registered Libertarian)

Posted by: The Dude at February 22, 2012 02:39 PM (M8yfa)

285 If Mitt caught the punk that held her in his cellar, fed him Exlax and mounted him on the roof of his car for 6 months I prolly still wouldn't be for him.

But it would be a better ending.
ABO no matter what.

Posted by: ontherocks at February 22, 2012 02:40 PM (ZJCDy)

286 jacke at February 22, 2012 02:08 PM (5Cwv4)

i think you mean "a moral" instead of "amoral" unless you were going for some abstract pun that flew over my head.

Posted by: chas at February 22, 2012 02:40 PM (TKF1Y)

287 I am convinced now. Thanks.

Posted by: grease monkey at February 22, 2012 02:40 PM (VSWPU)

288 Maybe Romney could choose Upton as his VP? They could run on light bulbs.

Posted by: Dumpsterjuice at February 22, 2012 02:41 PM (B6U0F)

289 He just decided to run that up the flagpole. Himself.

InOctober to an obscure blogger in response to a question.

And I'm for Romney NOT Santorum

But

Most people aren't atheists so they don't really think it's "cool" to trash people because they have beliefs and morals. In fact, most people look for that. It's the treatment of Santorum that is dispicible not his having a religion or even a strong belief system, it's certain people making it"nuts and sluts". It's dishonest. It's liberal.

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:41 PM (u50z0)

290 I heard Rush say Romney's tax cut plan essentially excludes the top 1%. Rush seemed to be giving Romney the benefit of the doubt, saying it was a consultant's decision because they didn't want to try to explain how tax rate cuts equal increased revenue. I think Rush knows the truth, that Romney is a liberal who wants the rich to pay their fair share, but Rush isn't going to blast the guy, since he might still end up being the Republican nominee.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 22, 2012 02:41 PM (TOk1P)

291
>>>You're not doing the "positive case", if you can really call it that, any favors there.


There isn't one. I'm not making that claim that there is.
There are a lot of decisions in life where you have only terrible options, butthere are varying degrees of terrible.
So you pick the least terrible option.
In this case, Mitt Romney.
There isn't a positive argument to be made for any candidate in the race. People keep arguing as though there is some True Conservative still in the race.
Every criticism of Romney could easily be turned back on Gingrich or Santorum when you view their record.

Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:41 PM (wuv1c)

292 "We did not "Win" with Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell. We lost. There was no virtue in being dumb. "

Please list all the examples in a *national* race of a candidate losing d/t excessive social conservatism.

I'll wait.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:41 PM (r1jNE)

293 "I've read Carrie."

His movies were non-stop demonizing of Christians. Even Kathy What's-Her-Name (Bates, That's it!) in that movie where she hobbled the writer that got into that accident near her house walked around the entire time with a little cross hanging around her neck.

The guy had an axe to grind.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:41 PM (EjhWd)

294 ""That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of
the girl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a
teenage boy phoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up
abruptly. The NYPD traced the call to a home in New Jersey, where they
found the girl in the basement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal
symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose. Doctors later said the girl might
not have survived another day. Romney’s former partner credits Mitt
Romney with saving his daughter’s life, saying, ‘It was the most amazing
thing, and I’ll never forget this to the day I die.’"

That's awesome. Props to Romney for that.

"Well, apart from his high personal morality and integrity,"

You assume the guy who flip flopped on some very basic and core issues has high personal integrity, but I think he'll say anything to win a vote.

People are complex. Romney is not the devil, but I do not have any faith in any of his promises because he simply is so inconsistent. It's far worse than most other politicians.

In fact, if Romney were still proudly as liberal as he was in MA, I would be more likely to vote for him. That's about how I am with Santorum. He's said a lot of stuff I don't agree with, but he is too honest to change his tune.

The case against Romney's personal integrity is very strong, so to see it dismissed is a bit jarring.

Posted by: Dustin at February 22, 2012 02:41 PM (wcT+8)

295 If you play this comment backwards, it says "I AM A LOON GOO GOO G'JOOB"
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:18 PM (CkoMi)

I almost choked on my coffee. That was classic.

Posted by: Heralder at February 22, 2012 02:41 PM (/Mxso)

296 Has anyone got Ace to answer-

if he truly believes-

Santorum will ban birth control?

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 02:41 PM (r2PLg)

297 @252: uh, where do you get that the public is 85% against the issues Santorum is talking about? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it?

I know you're trying, ace. There's really know way to get around the fact that Romney comes across as a disingenous politician. He has a good resume, but he just comes across as a snake. They will attack whomever we choose as our candidate.

Did you happen to see Romney's "1%" quote? A perfect example of how he's willing to say or do anything to get elected.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 22, 2012 02:42 PM (aYnZc)

298 289 Dagny,he comes off as a scold.It's not good politics.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:42 PM (7W3wI)

299 We did not "Win" with John McCain. We lost. There was no virtue in being dumb.

But here we go again.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:42 PM (a9mQu)

300 Ace, methinks you may be wasting your time at this point. Wait until Santorum inevitably steps in it. Take solace that Rush is setting him up for a nice fall.

Posted by: Scott555 at February 22, 2012 02:42 PM (Y+jP3)

301 I thought the 'dog on the car roof' story was completely stupid.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:37 PM (a9mQu)



That story cracks me up every time I hear it ... but I'm heartless, I've been told.

Posted by: really ... at February 22, 2012 02:43 PM (X3lox)

302 When did we start liking Rick Santorum again?


Posted by: taylork at February 22, 2012 02:43 PM (5wsU9)

303 >>>> "Ross Perot put together a very complex mission to rescue some of his employees from islamic savages.



Second look at Perot?"
-------------------------------------------

I remember that story, and I liked the whole private commando story then as much as I like this one about Romney.

Actually, it was Perot's private commando mission that sparked my initial interest in setting up my own command center, with the aforementioned radio headsets and TV screens everywhere.

So far, I've only managed to buy a set of walkie-talkies and communicate with my 8 year-old as he bicycles around the neighborhood, but it's a start.

Posted by: Phinn at February 22, 2012 02:43 PM (KNtHw)

304 (though I'm a registered Libertarian)


Posted by: The Dude at February 22, 2012 02:39 PM (M8yfa)

Ron Paul! Silver dimes!
Seeing Romney fail means seeing Obama elected, man. Do the math.......

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 22, 2012 02:43 PM (UqKQV)

305 Please list all the examples in a *national* race of a candidate losing d/t excessive social conservatism.



I'll wait.



Yeah, you know, eh, I added sooo much to the ticket, with my hot legs, big tits and stupid voice. Did I mention I am trig's mother or something.

Posted by: Sarah at February 22, 2012 02:43 PM (hXJOG)

306 "We did not "Win" with Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell. We lost. There was no virtue in being dumb. "

But we did so great in 2006 and 2008 when wiser heads prevailed.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 02:43 PM (AQD6a)

307 Has anyone got Ace to answer-

Holy crap that's some bad English.

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 02:43 PM (r2PLg)

308 Even though I would give my left nut to have Obama out of the WH, I hope Mitt gets the nom and fails spectacularly
Posted by: The Dude at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (M8yfa)

No--no frigging way. Even though I have my problems with Romney, and think his judicial appointments won't be all that good (Sununu's in the mix here), I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (W54Uh)

309 "Has anyone got Ace to answer-

if he truly believes-

Santorum will ban birth control? "

Again, *he doesn't care.* This is not about what Ace thinks a President Santorum would or wouldn't do, since he thinks it's impossible for him to win.

This is about Ace deciding that (a) Santorum's social stuff is a bigger disaster than Romney's assorted stuff, which is by itself a fair decision although persons of reasonable mind could disagree; (b) the proper strategy is to go Smithers-shill all up and down the front page, while engaging in catty dramatics on the thread.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (r1jNE)

310 Palin would have quit her job to look for the girl.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (OhYCU)

311 I don't have time to read all this.

Why was Romney hanging out with prostitutes and drug addicts in New York?

Posted by: RioBravo at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (eEfYn)

312 so ace is dropping the whole conservative schtick for awhile. but only because its more pragmatic to back romney?? no surprise you finally went full bore for romney, you both change your positions on whim.

Posted by: chas at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (TKF1Y)

313 Nice job Mittens did a good deed. To bad he still sucks.

Posted by: bannor, voting Sweet Meteor of Death 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (HEa5q)

314 >>>239
And one thing that I've learned in life so far: It's always better to win. Any strategy that's based on 'winning by losing' is really just a form of denial via rationalization of failure.
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (CkoMi)


That makes sense if you consider a Romney win a win for you. Which I don't. I consider a win by any statist a loss for me.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (Eh595)

315 Didn't Perot finance missions to find POW's in Vietnam?He was still a nut bar and handed an election to the Dems.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (7W3wI)

316 Ugh. The Passive-Agressive Romney boosting rolls on....

"Your candidate is a theocrat, a dirtbag, slime!!/Why is everyone so mean to Saint Mitt?

Posted by: runninrebel at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (tqxia)

317 The reasons a story like this is relevant are: (1) It'sa huge counterweight to the ridiculous dog-on-the-roof story the liberals keep flogging to make Romney look like an asshole; (2) It shows Romney as a man of action, willing to do whatever it takes to resolve a crisis; and (3) they say that real character is doing what's right even when nobody is looking, and this incident shows great character.

Plus, Obama's got nothing like it in his background. It will also make Romney look very "manly" in a general election campaign, when his rich-guy image doesn't.

Posted by: rockmom at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (qE3AR)

318 "Holy crap that's some bad English. "

Shutup. We're not in England.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:44 PM (OhYCU)

319
Who did Harry Ried beat before Sharon Angle? Well, besides his wife I mean.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 02:45 PM (r+9M6)

320 I didn't know ace had a basement.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 22, 2012 02:45 PM (Sh42X)

321 Gregory of Yardale: "Once again, I must ask, does Rick Santorum really talk incessantly about contraception, or does the MFM take a twenty second soundbite out of a two-hour interview and loop it endlessly to create that impression?"

Santorum has always advocated Family Values, but as to your question, it's a fine rhetorical. When anyone else uses "family values," it's a benign, admirable topic usually because it's pablum. When the "conservative" uses it, and most specifically when Santorum uses it, it's a malignant, damnable position because it's obvious he's a ChristoFascist ready to impose a Theocracy. Or something. Doesn't matter. It's a political narrative and a narrative those who worship the State manufacture like their own King James Bible.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (eHIJJ)

322 242 So true. Republicans need to lay off criticizing both Santorum and Romney on their religious values, and instead consistently attack the mainstream media for doing so. Otherwise, when Santoum is eviscerated for the crime of being a fairly mainstream conservative Catholic and holding beliefs on life, contraception, and marriage that are the norm in most suburban Catholic parishes, the Dems and the MSM will say "hey, why are you complaining about us going after Romney's weird Mormonism when you yourself went after Santorum's weird Catholicism?"

And gay Republicans and pro-choice Republicans and even if you're just libertarian Republicans who are pro-doing-whatever-the-fuck-you-like, you need to get your arms around the concept that tolerance is a two-way street. You want to be part of a Big Tent Party that wins elections? Try doingit without having Evangelicals and Mormons and conservative Catholics on your side. Leave all this talk about how regular Christian conservatives are "theocrats" to the New York Times op-ed page.

Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (qHCyt)

323 We did not "Win" with John McCain. We lost. There was no virtue in being dumb.



But here we go again.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:42 PM (a9mQu)


Stop harshing my Christian-bashing mellow, man.

Posted by: pragmatic republican at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (6LvlL)

324 "...higher-income Americans in particular will see limits placed on deductions, exemptions, and credits that are currently available. The result will be a pro-growth tax code that still raises the necessary revenue, retains the existing progressivity, and ensures that middle-income Americans see real tax relief."

Progressive sells, stupid cons.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (IZTTb)

325 Some of you fucks are really funny.A very fewof you other fucks are a class warfare idiots who probably need a bath. But I think Dagny is da bomb.

Posted by: A. Breitbart at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (yWDpP)

326 298 289 Dagny,he comes off as a scold.It's not good politics.
Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:42 PM (7W3wI)

>> No shit. I prefer Romney for that very reason but this whole "religious fanatic/birth control grabbing/satan speeching" thing is dishonest as hell. I don't want him to get the nomination I just don't want to go about nominating Romney by acting like a libtard.

Posted by: dagny at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (u50z0)

327 There are bad choices in life -- sometimes you have to make hard decisions, and neither choice is optimal. Sometimes both are somewhat bad-- but one's a lot worse.

I guess as an engineer I'm fairly used to having to choose the least-worst option out of the bag of bad choices. But a lot of people seem to reject the very idea of this.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (CkoMi)

328 Remember the days mitt was in the sidebar in a cornsuit, and was the butt of everyone's jokes? Ahh, those were the days.

Posted by: yinzer at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (/Mla1)

329 Neither of these guys is abona-fide fiscal conservative - but they're both more fiscally responsible than Obama. That issue's a wash unless you have another candidate in mind.

RE: ObamaCare - Romney's already said he'd waive ObamaCare for all 50 states. If I have to take Santorum at his word on not imposing his morals on the country, as everyone loudly demands, extend Mitt the same courtesy on ObamaCare. FTR, I believe both of them on those points.

RE: Religion - It's going to be an issue because the media will make it one. Rail about that being unfair, don't let them pick our candidate, etc. but it will happen anyway. His campaign needs to learn how to deal with his past statements and learn how to keep focused on issues we can win on (hint - they involve $). He did OK in his belated "move on" response to the birth control flap. It's harder to walk back "my opponent is serving the Devil." I'll see how he does with that and go from there.

Christie made a point I hadn't thought of - our proportional delegate system is making this more of a long-running fight. Proportional representation in primaries gave the Dems Obama. Regardless of who's presently benefitting, the track record for proportional primaries isn't too hot since 2008. I'm Googling more info on that, but not until I have more time.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (yK8YH)

330 Um, this is Santorum's butthurt whining today -- "gee, it's not fair to ask about a candidate's religion."

The guy has run on his religion (as a niche candidate) for six months and now wants to say "Don't ask me about my religion, which I've discussed over and over again when I just wanted 10% of the vote."

Silly me, Ace, I thought that when one puts quotes around a statement, it was something that someone actually said.

Your "quotes" are fabrications, and are nearly 180 degrees off from what Santorum actually said about the media's (and your) current obsession on his Catholicism.

As opposed to whining, here's what he said to CNN:

"If they want to go ahead and dig up old speeches to a religious group they can go right ahead and do so. I'm going to stay on message. I'm going to talk about the things Americans want to talk about," Santorum said to CNN.

He also said:

“I’ll defend everything I say.”

ttp://tinyurl.com/7v278jz

Posted by: Reno_Dave at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (OL4L4)

331 I consider a win by any statist a loss for me.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but whoever wins (at this point) will be a statist. To varying degrees and in different areas- but they're all statists.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (8y9MW)

332 Why was Romney hanging out with prostitutes and drug addicts in New York?<<<<<

Beautiful.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 02:47 PM (r+9M6)

333 Oh shit,was I RULING MANKIND again? Sorry.
Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:21 PM (a9mQu)

No, just being an insufferable prick as usual.

Posted by: Heralder at February 22, 2012 02:47 PM (/Mxso)

334 (b) the proper strategy is to go Smithers-shill all up and down the front page, while engaging in catty dramatics on the thread.

**************

You forgot (c) post every half hour and -

RUN AWAY!!! from the question.

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 02:47 PM (r2PLg)

335 Romney's all nice and stuff, but today he's announced his new tax plan. Tax cuts for everyone BUT THE RICH.
Now, who else is using that kind of language? Santorum? Newt? Luap? Nope, just OWS and Obama.

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at February 22, 2012 02:47 PM (UU0OF)

336 266 Once again I am amused that after six or eight months of knocking the crap out of Romney at every opportunity... he's suddenly become the Savior of the Party.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 .....................................................Nobody said he is. I think if you took a poll of the AOSHQ that Santorum nor Mitt were their first , second or even third choice for some. It's basically between the two and people are deciding. I don't think anyone is happy about it.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 22, 2012 02:47 PM (kicl8)

337 >>>We did not "Win" with John McCain. We lost. There was no virtue in being dumb.

No fucking offense, but that's on you.

I love these people who claim "RINOs" forced McCain on them.

I supported every major candidate EXCEPT McCain, bozo.

who did you support-- Huckabee?

None of these geniuses who whine about having McCain "forced" on them by "RINOs" ever say who they preferred.

Refuse to say. I've asked this ten fucking times, no one ever answers.

Oh and by the way-- McCain won because he had the most traditional position on hot buttons like abortion. His mavericky-ness was excused because Romney was a big flip-flopping pro-choicer, that's what he was!

So that's not on me, jack.

I think a lot of you guys who whine the most about McCain actually voted for him, because of his relatively solid pro-life credentials.

And that's why you specifically would not vote for Romney.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:47 PM (nj1bB)

338 326 Fair enough but how do we explain why we think Santorum is unelectable without talking about it?

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:48 PM (7W3wI)

339 Again no one has shown me where Romney has changed his position and then changed it back again. His positions have become more conservative over time. This is a good thing.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 02:48 PM (xJTAH)

340 14 years old?

Was she hot?

Posted by: Roman Polanski at February 22, 2012 02:49 PM (dnflv)

341 "His mavericky-ness was excused because Romney was a big flip-flopping pro-choicer, that's what he was!

So that's not on me, jack."

Honesty at last: Ace thinks McCain secured the nomination in 2008 because he was a social con.

Ace, do you think McCain's dastardly hard-right theocratic woman-hating medieval persona was why he lost the general?

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:49 PM (r1jNE)

342 But we did so great in 2006 and 2008 when wiser heads prevailed.


Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 02:43 PM (AQD6a)



Ah yes, TEH ARCHITECT and his permanent Repuke majority brought to you by compassionate conservatism. That worked really fucking well.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 22, 2012 02:49 PM (6mFAv)

343 337 Ace,people want to blame someone,the media,"the establishment",the fiscal cons,somebody.Human nature I guess.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 02:49 PM (7W3wI)

344 It's really nice to see all these Mitch-Daniels-"Truce On Social Issues"-Enthusiasts so openminded about a social con like Santorum.

Their biggest concern is supposedly that Rick won't shut up about social issues. He doesn't talk about them all that much, so they bring out old video of him talking about social issues at social con events.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 22, 2012 02:49 PM (EjhWd)

345 >>>these quotes are fabrications

Good eyes, Reno Dave. You nailed that one.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:49 PM (nj1bB)

346 Time Share Condoms!!

Get them while they're hot!!

Going fast!!!!

Maid service available.

We clean them, you use them.

Posted by: Red Neck Riviera Condoms at February 22, 2012 02:50 PM (r2PLg)

347
>>>>326 Fair enough but how do we explain why we think Santorum is unelectable without talking about it?

No, when you bring up a candidates shortcoming or record we simply call it "conventional wisdom" and dismiss it.

Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:50 PM (wuv1c)

348 Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:36 PM (nj1bB)

--------------------------------

It's strange, the changing times. 20-25 years ago what Santorum is saying now would be considered quite virtuous. As much or more than this story about Romney since everyone knows that MANY Americans at that time (or even now) would do exactly the same thing. Has this country sunk so low that a candidate can't express his/her morality without ridicule?

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2012 02:50 PM (0mlnt)

349 I hear that Romney once permitted another partner to defer receipt of tax-preferred carried interest notwithstanding Bain's premature actualization of the hurdle rate. Not that the MSM will ever report on his good deeds.

Posted by: Average Joe at February 22, 2012 02:50 PM (bN5ZU)

350 And one thing that I've learned in life so far: It's always better to win. Any strategy that's based on 'winning by losing' is really just a form of denial via rationalization of failure.


Posted by: Mætenloch


As Rick Santorum would say, amen.


We hear a lot of stories about winning by losing. The reason we hear them a lot is because they're interesting and unexpected. The reason they're interesting and unexpected is because they're so rare.




Posted by: Emperoro of Icecream at February 22, 2012 02:50 PM (epBek)

351 Rubber Dinghy Rapids!!

Posted by: Waj of Spades at February 22, 2012 02:50 PM (X3lox)

352 Sad story, but it did have a happy (ecstacy) ending.

Posted by: Sharkman at February 22, 2012 02:51 PM (RtpCp)

353 Romney only looks for children of the 1%

Posted by: Robert Gibbs at February 22, 2012 02:51 PM (OhYCU)

354 This is what I don't get about all the Santorum love--where was it last year?

You hate Romney. Fine. But it's clearly clouding your judgement. I mean Rick Santorum, really? Last year, if you made a list of your 10 ten candidates, would he have even made the list?

Posted by: taylork at February 22, 2012 02:51 PM (5wsU9)

355 steevy

Americans don't like to be lectured. Santorum poses as some holy man who will usher in some moral utopia. It turns people off.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 02:51 PM (JYYzZ)

356 If Romney is the nominee I will vote for him. But he is in the process of pissing the election away it seems to me. It also seems the GOP voting public sees Santorum and Romney through different eyes than Ace and others here. They obviously are not terrified of Santorum, but they may well be disgusted by Mitt. Just sayin'. BTW, it seems that Romney hits a hard ceiling around 25% support, no matter how many foolish girls he saves from evil. That means that he isn't changing any minds, and that is losing the election for him.

Posted by: maddogg at February 22, 2012 02:51 PM (OlN4e)

357 Can't wait for Romney to be nominated and the Mormon Underwear jokes to begin.

Just. can't. wait.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 22, 2012 02:51 PM (UqKQV)

358 Santorum will be the perfect straw-man for Obama. The one good thing, a Santorum defeat will finally discredit the Social Cons.
Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 02:39 PM (JYYzZ)

It's not so much the Santorum reference as the devout hatred fo social conservatives in this bit of emoting that amuses me.

Yeah, let's dismiss a quarter of the GOP vote in every election. Because that will set up the GOP forever, what with the flood ofunicorns calledfiscally conservative but socially liberal voterswho will take their place.

Step 1: Drive out the SoCons!

Step 2: ?

Step 3: Permanent Electoral Majority!

Yeah, go with that.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 22, 2012 02:51 PM (W54Uh)

359 Beach front.

Green energy.

Fumigated.

Up front preferred.

Posted by: Jersey Shore Condoms at February 22, 2012 02:51 PM (r2PLg)

360 Even though he'd attract ridicule in the general, much of it justified, I
might support him just to force a conversation about America's Great
Liberal Experiment with Unmarried Parents.


You can't force people to have a conversation they are not interested in. That's not a conversation - it's a sermon. Random weirdos are always trying to force conversations with people, you can usually find them in subways, bus stations, zucotti park, running for president, etc.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 22, 2012 02:52 PM (+lsX1)

361 Has Romney ever rescued any poor black children?

Posted by: Robert Gibbs at February 22, 2012 02:52 PM (OhYCU)

362 >>Has this country sunk so low that a candidate can't express his/her morality without ridicule?

Depends on the morality being expressed.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 22, 2012 02:52 PM (ZKzrr)

363
"Another positive point in Romney's favor: He has focused on the issues this election will actually be won on (if it is to be won at all)."

Bet he'll get his ass handed to him by Barry if he bring up Obamacare.

"Gov. Romney, your healthcare plan was where I got the idea for my healthcare plan". B. Obama, first POTUS debate.

Romney will not be able to hammer Barry on healthcare.

Disclaimer: I officially endorsed yesterday.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 22, 2012 02:52 PM (SF+vx)

364 Mitt Romney is an admirable man with many fine qualities. It seems to me that he is a great husband, father and friend. If he is the GOP nominee, this is what I'd hang my support and enthusiasm for him on too.

That's not trivial. Character does matter. Also, Romney is by all accounts a good manager. He knows how to delegate, how to organize, and how to get things done. This isn't trivial either.

So, yeah. I could vote for Romney without holding my nose. I voted for him in the 2008 primary.

I just don't see how anyone can declare with such moral certainty that he is the most electable of the GOP's current crop of candidates.

The whole concept of electability as some sort of finely-measurable metric is a chimera. It's just another word for "letting the MSM pick our candidate." Not that the consideration is unimportant; I just think it's overemphasized, because I think all our candidates but Paul are electable, and I think that at this point Romney is no more electable than Santorum.

I think Santorum is on the whole more reliably conservative, so I am supporting him, but there are valid reasons for supporting Romney too, and even Newt.

Of course, all of them are made less electable by the fragging each as gotten from fellow Republicans. Too bad, that.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 22, 2012 02:52 PM (IlZPo)

365 Last year, if you made a list of your 10 ten candidates, would he have even made the list?

No, but last year we all thought we'd have a strong field than this. We weren't expecting Romney to become ace's choice, either.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:53 PM (8y9MW)

366 >>>It's strange, the changing times. 20-25 years ago what Santorum is saying now would be considered quite virtuous.

And this is your problem. You refuse to contemplate that perhaps the country has moved on from your bugaboos.

yes, Rick Santorum's bogeyman of (effective) contraception would have been pretty normal in Blue Law America forty years ago.

it's not forty years ago anymore.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:53 PM (nj1bB)

367 320
I didn't know ace had a basement.


Posted by: Dr Spank at February 22, 2012 02:45 PM (Sh42X)

"Basement" is more a way of life than an actual location.

Posted by: joncelli at February 22, 2012 02:53 PM (RD7QR)

368 Ace = Katrina Trinko = Jennifer Rubin = Ace

Posted by: ruserious at February 22, 2012 02:53 PM (W2qJe)

369 Now all I want you to do is imagine, the guy who kidnapped the lil' rave-slut was black.

How do you feel about my Mittens now?


Posted by: That maudlin attorney prick from "A time to kill" or Annnnne Couuuulter at February 22, 2012 02:53 PM (qxcKC)

370 Has Romney ever rescued any poor black children?

Posted by: Robert Gibbs at February 22, 2012 02:52 PM (OhYCU)


He was raised a poor black child.

Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2012 02:53 PM (X6akg)

371 I endorsed Romney. Left that out.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 22, 2012 02:53 PM (SF+vx)

372 "Uber Wealthy Businessman, One Term Governor of Massachusetts, Rescuer
Of The Olympics in the Mormon Stronghold of Salt Lake City, Utah Using
Government Funds, Trying To Buy US Presidency, Disseminates Story To
Bloggers To Show His Humanity"




Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 22, 2012 02:53 PM (oZfic)

373 >>>327
I guess as an engineer I'm fairly used to having to choose the least-worst option out of the bag of bad choices. But a lot of people seem to reject the very idea of this.
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (CkoMi)


As an engineer, you should know that sometimes you don't have the necessary tools handy at the moment to do the task at all. And by attempting to do the task with the tools you have, you end up breaking shit and making things worse. But, maybe you don't know that and you're just a shitty engineer.

Posted by: gm at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM (Eh595)

374 Nobody wins by losing.

Nobody wins by losing.

Nobody wins by losing

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM (UqKQV)

375 "I guess as an engineer I'm fairly used to having to choose the least-worst option out of the bag of bad choices. But a lot of people seem to reject the very idea of this.
Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:46 PM (CkoMi)"

Well if we had materials and design data all backed up by testing on the candidates that approach might work but this is like being asked to build a prototype with off the shelf parts by their sales specs alone. And the parts can change their resumes from day to day and they talk crap about each other. And another engineering team who wants to set us up to fail and is working on a competing prototype has input on our project despite it being our project.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM (a9mQu)

376 >>Santorum poses as some holy man who will usher in some moral utopia.

Do you have a clip of this?

And shit, you just described Obama in the summer of 2008--but his morals were enviro-Marxist, so they were *good* morals.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM (ZKzrr)

377 Good eyes, Reno Dave. You nailed that one.

I assume you're being sarcastic.

No comment on Santorum's actual quotes, in which he doesn't appear to be whining?

Posted by: Reno_Dave at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM (OL4L4)

378 Lets see, if Romney gets to pick a SC judge I wonder if he'd pick a liberal like he did 27 out of 36 times in MA...
Yeah, that's good for America.

Posted by: Hard Right at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM (uhftQ)

379 Nothing to add to "A positive case for Romney". MOF, didn't read it. Don't care, don't have a dog in the race. But will say that, while its nice Ace makes the case for his candidate, I'd seriously consider changing the site to some SEO optimized content management system.

Posted by: Jimmah at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM (845uI)

380 If you think the media and the left are having a real hoot with Santorum's whacked-out religious beliefs, then you ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait until Romney gets the nomination and see what they do with mormonism. Sending their children off for 2 years, completely isolated from their families except for two child initiated phone calls a year, to serve their church...no, that won't be massaged into stuff like cult initiation, child abuse, child neglect, religious zealotry, brain washing or anything of the sort, will it?

Posted by: Havedash at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM (BRhGr)

381 Last year, if you made a list of your 10 ten candidates, would he have even made the list?

Actually, I thought Electability was decided by winning, you know, elections. Which Rick Santorum has done more- both previously and in this primary season- than Mitt Romney, to date.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:55 PM (8y9MW)

382 >>>The whole concept of electability as some sort of finely-measurable metric is a chimera. It's just another word for "letting the MSM pick our candidate." Not

no, it's understanding that the goal is to get 51% of the country voting for your candidate and trying to figure out what candidate would NOT scare off 51%+.

Some are behaving as if independents don't count. I assure you they do.

Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:55 PM (nj1bB)

383 I think a lot of you guys who whine the most about McCain actually voted
for him, because of his relatively solid pro-life credentials.


I voted for Huckabee, because once any meaningful nod to fiscal coservatism is off the table, as it was in 08 and is again now, "shares my values" is the default selection. I wouldn't again because of the pardon issue, but there you go.

Posted by: Methos at February 22, 2012 02:55 PM (6LvlL)

384 #349 - Did you say "premature ejaculation"?

Posted by: R. Santorum at February 22, 2012 02:55 PM (yWDpP)

385 340
14 years old?

Was she hot?


Posted by: Roman Polanski at February 22, 2012 02:49 PM (dnflv)


Nah, she was shivering when they found her, don't you foreigners read English?

Posted by: Bobby the pimp Titcomb at February 22, 2012 02:55 PM (hXJOG)

386 #357 why wait. You can get your fill from commenters at AOS.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 02:55 PM (xJTAH)

387 Romney refused to run the Summer Olympics. Too many black athletes.

Posted by: Robert Gibbs at February 22, 2012 02:56 PM (OhYCU)

388 Obviously the man is one of those evil Christianist types. I mean, come on,his actions directly interfered with Darwinism doing it's natural and proper job of disposing of the unfit and unready.

Posted by: Todd Bridges, first to go bad, last to go down at February 22, 2012 02:56 PM (qL20/)

389 I mean Rick Santorum, really? Last year, if you made a
list of your 10 ten candidates, would he have even made the list?


Posted by: taylork at February 22, 2012 02:51 PM (5wsU9)


Of those looking to run? Yes. But he was overshadowed by Bachmann, who was a much better conservative who knows exactly what situation America is in and what needs to be done. But, Bachmann was pounced on, heckled like crazy by the "conservative" pundits and finally dismissed because of an offhand comment she made (during her correct attack on Perry for that Gardisil crap, and it was) that had nothing to do with anything.

Posted by: really ... at February 22, 2012 02:56 PM (X3lox)

390 None of us can predict the future. For all the slagging that SoCons get here, who knows if Santorum will beat Obama? Who knows if Romney will lose?

Right now Santorum is next and next in the polls. It's not a guaranteed loss if either candidate is the nominee.

Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at February 22, 2012 02:56 PM (7NcjA)

391 "Some are behaving as if independents don't count."

Have you seen Romney's numbers with independents recently?

Are you secure in the belief that they'll rebound?

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 02:56 PM (r1jNE)

392 I had never heard that story until about two weeks ago. Recall that Romney also ran in 2008, and I follow politics more than the average voter. Can you imagine how well we'd know about it had Obama in 2008 had it in his background?

That said, that story has contributed to my recent sense of futility as far as our political future. When I first started reading about it, the *comments* I came across elsewhere on the Web were unbelievable. Whether or not you support Romney, whether or not you think the story means anything as far as someone's being presidential material, how in holy hell is it possible to read that story and react negatively?

Yet people--including conservatives--do. It's as though we've become so programmed to be negative attack merchants that we can't shut that off our criticism for one damn minute and find something to be whole-heartedly positive.

When I read my fellow Americans unable to see that incident through anything but the prism of their own political interests, I say, screw it. Our national character is no better than any other, and so it doesn't matter anymore who we elect President.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at February 22, 2012 02:56 PM (zL1lf)

393 Ace left out the best part.

After the police recovered the girl, Romney returned to his hotel room and took a dump.

It was a perfect coil.

Posted by: Boomhauer at February 22, 2012 02:56 PM (eNjcq)

394 353
Romney only looks for children of the 1%

Posted by: Robert Gibbs at February 22, 2012 02:51 PM (OhYCU)

My Secretary makes more!

Posted by: Warren Buffett, Sees Chocolate maker at February 22, 2012 02:57 PM (hXJOG)

395 So what? Does he want a cookie? This election should be about policy, not horseshit. I'm not voting for a neo-liberal like Romney.

Posted by: Real American at February 22, 2012 02:57 PM (GL1SF)

396 Ultimately, some people need to face the fact that they as socons are not a majority and cannot independently elect one of their own any more than libertarians or moderates or whoever.

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 02:57 PM (zmlwq)

397 Best comment on this as insty noted a tweet from Taranto the other day:

Weird religion: Satan is against America. Normal religion: "God damn America."

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 02:57 PM (r+9M6)

398
Most independents I know are extemely religious and would like the state to be more involved in their personal lives and relgion. That's pretty much the main reason why they're independent..or something.

Posted by: Ben at February 22, 2012 02:58 PM (wuv1c)

399 It was a perfect coil.

Posted by: Boomhauer at February 22, 2012 02:56 PM (eNjcq)


Pictures or it didn't happen.

Posted by: Rick Perry, the walking dead at February 22, 2012 02:58 PM (hXJOG)

400 Thanks guys. You're doing a bang up job helping my campaign. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Barack Obama, backdoor man at February 22, 2012 02:58 PM (fYOZx)

401 I see a LGF freakout at AoS on the horizon.

Posted by: Pres. Chet Roosevelt at February 22, 2012 02:58 PM (xOgsn)

402 As an engineer, you should know that sometimes you don't have the necessary tools handy at the moment to do the task at all. And by attempting to do the task with the tools you have, you end up breaking shit and making things worse. But, maybe you don't know that and you're just a shitty engineer.Posted by: gm at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM (Eh595) I hate to burst your bubble, but I'm an engineer,and a damn good one. A good engineer finds ways to do a job with the tools he has, rather than asking for new tools all the time. And thats what seperates the good ones from the shitty ones.

Posted by: maddogg at February 22, 2012 02:58 PM (OlN4e)

403 Steve the Pirate

Social Cons have controlled and set the GOP agenda since 1992. Its time for them to let others take charge.

How did the Socially Conservative administration of W Bush work out?

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 02:58 PM (JYYzZ)

404 #344 We're not just concerned that "Rick won't shut up," I sympathize with him TRYING to shut up about social issues. The problem is the media WON'T shut up, because painting Republicans as Puritan scolds is their default position. Their stories about Santorum write themselves, and they will keep on writing themselves no matter what. This is what we are in for if we make him the nominee, and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. Some people make the same arhunent against Romney because of the 1%/99% stories they think the media will run 24/7. They might be right, but recent history shows that always and everywhere the media prefer to write the "Republican candidate wants to outlaw sex" story.

Also, it is pretty disingenuous for a guy who is only winning because he is a social con to now cry that all the media want to talk about is social issues and his stands on them. He sure as hell didn't win Iowa because of his tax policy. He doesn't have the Duggars following him around because of his position on Iran.

Posted by: rockmom at February 22, 2012 02:58 PM (NYnoe)

405 Well, then. I'll forget all about RomneyCare, his pro-abortion record, claiming tobe more liberal than The Swimmerand finger-in-the-wind policy making. Oh, and today's shout-out he gave to the 99% about sticking it to the 1%.

Posted by: RushBabe, Seriously Conservative at February 22, 2012 02:59 PM (tQHzJ)

406 As an engineer, you should know that sometimes you don't have the necessary tools handy at the moment to do the task at all. And by attempting to do the task with the tools you have, you end up breaking shit and making things worse. But, maybe you don't know that and you're just a shitty engineer.
Posted by: gm at February 22, 2012 02:54 PM (Eh595)


Yep. I just suck. You done got my number there.

But come November there is going to be an election. And the alternative isn't perfection - it's Obama in a second term.

And I'm going to vote for the least worst option, ABO.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:59 PM (CkoMi)

407 "This election should be about policy"

It should be, but it's about the ads run during the last 2 weeks of the election, in order to influence the Jersey Shore/ American Idol watchers.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:59 PM (OhYCU)

408 I have had enough, going out to shot a coyote for dinner.

Posted by: Rick Perry, the walking dead at February 22, 2012 02:59 PM (hXJOG)

409 Romney may be talking about what the majority of voters care about but unfortunately with his history of being on all sides of an issue a great many people have problems taking any of what he says at face value. I am not sure there is a remedy for this. The conclusion of the Saletan piece at Slate on Romney's conversion to pro life status applies to the economic issues as well.

"Which persona is real? Neither. Romney’s soul isn’t in the five minutes
he spent as a pro-lifer in that interview, or in the two seconds he
spent as a pro-choicer. It’s in the flux, the transition between the two
roles. It’s in the editing of his record, the application of his
makeup, the shuffling of his rationales. Romney will always be what he
needs to be. Count on it.”

I know people who supported Romney in 2008 who now loath him because during the ensuing years they have caught on the shuffling act and see it as the opposite of genuine leadership. Type the term "too clever by half" into Google and the fist prompt you'll get is Romney.

Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at February 22, 2012 02:59 PM (D4DLO)

410 @395 Real American

I'm not voting for a Theocrat like Santorum.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:00 PM (JYYzZ)

411 The smartest thing I ever did was convince people that I don't exist

Posted by: the DEVIL !!!! at February 22, 2012 03:00 PM (UqKQV)

412 401
I see a LGF freakout at AoS on the horizon.

Posted by: Pres. Chet Roosevelt at February 22, 2012 02:58 PM (xOgsn)

LGF is one long freakout these days. Except in the form of brief comments with the occasional link.

Posted by: joncelli at February 22, 2012 03:00 PM (RD7QR)

413 And this is your problem. You refuse to contemplate that perhaps the country has moved on from your bugaboos.
deteriorated to the point that no effort should be made to salvage it.

FIFY


Posted by: Methos at February 22, 2012 03:00 PM (6LvlL)

414 AHHHHH. The Cherry on the Sundae that is Ace's new love; Mittens Romney.

How someone goes from being a rabid Perryiac to a Romneybot is suppose stems from a desire to win and a willingness to accept the MFM's repeated statements about how "electable" Romney is.

*knock, knock* Hello! Mother Fucking Media. Ring any bells?

How can you decide on the one hand they're not to be believed before but now they are?

Jennifer Rubin is going to get crowded out from around Mittens Knob if this keeps up.

ROMNEY WILL SAY, DO, REPEAT, SWEAR, TRUMPET, BEG, PLEAD or anything else to be President. If he got in, who knows what he would do? I don't trust him to do any good for the majority of people in this country.

He won't even repudiate his RomneyCare in Mass. (but he swears he'll sign a bill to repeal Obamacare. Pinky swear!!!!)

*spit* a liberal is a liberal regardless of the initial after their name.

My respect for you has been diminished by YOU.

Posted by: Rick Perry's Evil Twin at February 22, 2012 03:00 PM (CP+yl)

415 "The problem is the media WON'T shut up, because painting Republicans as Puritan scolds is their default position."

Well, that or rich and out of touch.
It'd be nice if these flaws were concentrated in one candidate. Instead we've got Mr. Burns and Ned Flanders to choose from. (Well, and Martin Prince plus 50 years. I miss Newt already and he's not even gone yet).

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:00 PM (r1jNE)

416 382 - no, it's understanding that the goal is to get 51% of the country voting for your candidate and trying to figure out what candidate would NOT scare off 51%+.

No, the goal is to get 270 electoral votes, while understanding that the Republican will not, for the foreseeable future, win CA or NY.

Posted by: Reno_Dave at February 22, 2012 03:00 PM (OL4L4)

417 366 And this is your problem. You refuse to contemplate that perhaps the country has moved on from your bugaboos.

yes, Rick Santorum's bogeyman of (effective) contraception would have been pretty normal in Blue Law America forty years ago.

it's not forty years ago anymore.
Posted by: ace at February 22, 2012 02:53 PM (nj1bB)

40 years ago was Nixon vs. McGovern. (a leftist centrist type versus an uber leftist for the time) But flailing is fun. How'd Nixon turn out for the GOP BTW?

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 03:00 PM (a9mQu)

418 Nobody wins by losing<<<<

What if you bet the "Don't Pass Line"?

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 03:00 PM (r+9M6)

419 How did the Socially Conservative administration of W Bush work out?

4% unemployment, no terrorist attacks, and deficits a fifth the size of the iWons.


Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:00 PM (AQD6a)

420 Is there a positive case based on his record as Governor?

Posted by: Mongoose at February 22, 2012 03:01 PM (KM86p)

421 "Ultimately, some people need to face the fact that they as socons are not a majority and cannot independently elect one of their own"

Yet, we elected the most radical left wing President ever.

Logic, please.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 03:01 PM (OhYCU)

422


chas


Yeah - The AoS editor intermittently deletes spaces from some of my posts. I begin to think it isn't acoincidence. If I post under another name it doesn't occur.
I guess it's AoS attempting to censor those who they deem trolls - i.e. disagree with a neo/paleocon worldview. Could be hidden artifacts from my editor too.

Posted by: jacke at February 22, 2012 03:01 PM (5Cwv4)

423
Shut the fuck up with the strident defense of Santorum already. He isn't your daddy, your brother or your husband.

And yet everyone seems to take swipes at him personally. Fuck him. He's a politician. Just like Romney. Or Obama, for that matter.

And for the memory-impaired, let me remind you of Ace's ignorant attacks on Romney based on his lack of financial literacy regarding leveraged buyouts.

So it's not like he hasn't criticized every fucking candidate at one time or another. He's definitely spread the hate, so quit whining.

In conclusion: FUCK. YOUR. GUY.

You're hiring a fucking employee, not marrying your daughter to him.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 22, 2012 03:01 PM (z/Nqu)

424 "Holy crap that's some bad English. "



Shutup. We're not in England.""




Shit that made me laugh.

Posted by: Berserker at February 22, 2012 03:01 PM (FMbng)

425 positive case for romney ? well, so far obama's pac is running adds against romney in michigan

Posted by: runner at February 22, 2012 03:01 PM (WR5xI)

426 Real American: real questions - - - - -
(1)If Romney is the nominee, do you intend not to vote?
(2) Do you believe the United States would be better off or worse off if Obama is reelected?
(3) Do you believe a Romney presidency would be better for the United States than an Obama second term?
Just wonderin'

Posted by: Moe Ron at February 22, 2012 03:01 PM (yWDpP)

427 and finally dismissed because of an offhand comment she made

Actually, it was more than "an offhand comment," and she doubled down on it when challenged. Just like Rick Perry killed his own chances, so too did Michelle Bachmann.

And that is the sole positive reason I can come up with to vote for Mitt Romney: even with his current straying from conservative orthodoxy (see also: class warfare comments made yesterday and (I believe) today), Mitt has managed his campaign in such a way that he hasn't had a major faux pas.

Now, some of that, certainly, is due to the nature of the coverage he's received, but some (most) of it does have to be credited to him and his campaign.

Now, if only there were reasons beyond "He runs a good campaign" to believe that he would govern as a conservative, I might be less antagonistic toward him.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 03:02 PM (8y9MW)

428 There isn't a positive argument to be made for any candidate in the race. People keep arguing as though there is some True Conservative still in the race.
------

There *are* positive cases to be made for each of them, despite their suckage. You're conflating this "true conservative" thing (which I don't see promoted here much except by folks who seem to be Paul supporters) with "positive."

None of them are true conservatives. Most of us are past looking for that. But each of them is a mix of good and bad points in terms of their records, their proposals, their aptitudes, and their "intangibles." Each of us has to make those evaluations and come up with our own assessments.

Romney is a Republican who is pretty well-connected with major players in the Republican circles, both elected officials and pundits. That would serve him well if he were President and help make up for his lack of DC experience. His platform is pro-business, but not particularly dramatic. That may make it easier to sell to a divided Congress. He has the ability to talk in a way that appeals to moderates. All those things are to the plus for him.

Santorum is an experience Republican politician who has had good to very good evaluations from some important conservative groups. He is credited with working hard on welfare reform. He is nevertheless a Party guy and his votes reflect that -- but that's not all bad because he could presumably work with other elected Republicans, which would make him more effective. He is well-versed on foreign policy. He has a nice family story (as does Romney) and a really clear moral core.

Newt is imho an extremely articulate communicator of conservative principles. It's not just that he understands the history (short and long term), but he can speak with passion in terms average people can understand. He has the biggest track record of accomplishments in office and was out in front during the Reagan revolution. He is a fighter who challenges the assumptions of the Left and the media.

I could vote for any of them at this point.

Having said that, there are weaknesses in each of them that bother me. It's the mix of good points and bad that leads to how I've ranked them.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:02 PM (5H6zj)

429 Pres. Chet Roosevelt

Just because Ace don't support Social Cons, don't make him a Leftists. In fact, Social Cons are closer to the Left than Economic Cons are. You and the Left love a Nanny state. You guys just disagree on what that nanny state should do.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:02 PM (JYYzZ)

430 Good for Romney. It was the decent thing to do. I'm happy he had the money to do those things to help a friend out, not all of us do. However, there are quite a few people in this country who do the decent thing every single day without accolades (searching for missing children, etc.) It doesn't mean you get a pass to be president.

Posted by: mpfs at February 22, 2012 03:02 PM (iYbLN)

431 Gallup had a poll up yesterday.

Didn't get much press.

Here are some interesting geographical breakdowns for that Romney v. Santorum poll.

Romney is tied with Santorum in the East.

Santorum leads Romney in the Midwest by-

40% to 21%

Santorum beats Romney in the South-

33% to 25%

Santorum eeks out a lead in the West-

35% to 34%.

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 03:02 PM (r2PLg)

432 218/264 - I think Romney should be looking for a strong pro-lifer to shore up his ticket with Conservatives. There might be a temptation to go with a moderate as a knee-jerk counterreaction to Palinfrom 2008but I don't see it that way. She got slimed in part because she wasn't ready for the media auto de fe. The media hated her for being a conservative pro-life woman, but it they wouldn't have succeeded if she hadn't badly stumbled on several occasions - fault there being primarily with McCain for selecting her when she wasn't ready. IMO she hasn't helped herself with a lot of decisions since, but the 2008 stuff wasn't so much on her, unless you say she should have turned McCain down.

Santorum on the other handmight be better served going with a moderate VP.

Either one can avoid the Palin problem by choosing someone who's been around the block with the media. Rubio would make for a good choice for either one of them, although I don't know where he stands re: supporting either camp off the top of my head.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 22, 2012 03:02 PM (yK8YH)

433

34014 years old?



Was she hot?



Posted by: Roman Polanski
at February 22, 2012 02:49 PM (dnflv)





You don’t waste good ecstasy on a bowser.

Posted by: jwest at February 22, 2012 03:02 PM (FdndL)

434 If one were to honestly look at the tap-root of the welfare (redistribution) problem in the US, it would be the unwed mother and her bastard children. This also gave us that most craven concept of abortion. I applaud Santorum for, at least, starting this conversation. It's well overdue. Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2012 02:34 PM (0mlnt)

On a purely political level, the Right cannot ever achieve limited government with our current and growing number of single-parent families. Never. So, without addessing it head on, we're just a bunch of Paulbots, pining for a government we know we'll never have.

Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 03:02 PM (9KqcB)

435 "How someone goes from being a rabid Perryiac to a Romneybot"

This is the real tragedy. Many of those Ace is now railing against as a braindead horde presumably started this journey last summer as his *allies* in support of Perry.

But take what Ace sees as a wrong turn when the final grim choice presents itself, and you'd better be standing behind a spit shield.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:03 PM (r1jNE)

436 Character matters. Except when it's exemplified by a candyass RINO.

Posted by: packsoldier at February 22, 2012 03:03 PM (Fa3e9)

437 I don't object to substantive, rational criticism of Santorum, Romney, or anyone else.

But, "Santorum is a crazy radical theocratic radical papist radical who will set up morality police and outlaw unmarried sex" is neither substantive nor rational.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:03 PM (AQD6a)

438 Obama 2012 because you cant despoil yourself.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 22, 2012 03:04 PM (tf9Ne)

439 " ROMNEY WILL SAY, DO, REPEAT, SWEAR, TRUMPET, BEG, PLEAD or anything else to be President. If he got in, who knows what he would do? I don't trust him to do any good for the majority of people in this country."

Part of the problem is that he wont do that with his own base or we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. He's still pro-Romneycare, talking about a minimum raises that automatically rises indexed to inflation, and is looking to keep the basic tax structure with some discounts and pay for it with eliminated 'loopholes' and deductions, and kind of iffy on just about everything else including AGW and illegal immigration.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 03:04 PM (a9mQu)

440 I believe we mean there is no positive POLITICAL case to make for Romney. We haven't seen one of those yet.

As far as "high moral" character, Romney is running one the most hideously filthy campaigns in recent memory.

Posted by: bask at February 22, 2012 03:04 PM (Wa/0G)

441 i'm dead inside so one is the same as another except paul....i'll never vote for paul.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl is responsible for bringing down the perry campaign at February 22, 2012 03:04 PM (mfbqu)

442 419 How did the Socially Conservative administration of W Bush work out?4% unemployment, no terrorist attacks, and deficits a fifth the size of the iWons.

Do you really want to brag about GWB's record? Seriously?

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:04 PM (zmlwq)

443 This is a great story and I applaud it. It's good to know given unlimited money and powerful contacts Romney could find this girl safely. I don't find the idea the Romney campaign turned this into a commercial, rather than just a story they relate, to be something I would applaud though.

Posted by: Rocks at February 22, 2012 03:05 PM (Q1lie)

444 I like Romney.
He has said he will repeal Obamacare and he is more than competent.

I dont give a shit if he is rich.. please point me to the pauper who has ever run for President.
Dont give a shit that he changed his opinion on abortion.. so did I.

He will beat Obama. Santorum and Gingrich will lose.

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at February 22, 2012 03:05 PM (qjUnn)

445 what about rick perry?

Posted by: socrates krebs at February 22, 2012 03:06 PM (lB/5N)

446 This sudden onset of Santorum love from some is making the Paulbots look a little less irritating.

Posted by: taylork at February 22, 2012 03:06 PM (5wsU9)

447 Obama has a magic carpet, Mitt has magic underwear.

Posted by: Cast Iron at February 22, 2012 03:06 PM (EL+OC)

448 That same Gallup poll showed a

12% swing towards Santorum away from Romney within a week.

That means that the week before Romney held a 2% advantage with women only to currently lose 10% to Santorum.

That's significant.

Could it be that all of the "Santorum is going to ban birth control" hysteria done by Romney media is insulting the intelligence of Conservative women voters?

It's possible. Romney media supporters might want to consider if they are hurting the very candidate that they want to "help".

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 03:07 PM (r2PLg)

449 Look, the case for Mitt Romney is that he is an experienced, intelligent manager whose experience in the business community will provide the leadership and insight we need to turn around this economy.

That case is undercut if... with all the money and organization in the world... he can't beat a guy who is running a campaign on a shoestring.

Romney will be the nominee... which is what makes all of the Santorum Derangement so ridiculous. You're all going to feel silly a month from now.

But in the meantime, Mittens could learn a few things from Santorum; like passion, conviction, and honesty.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:07 PM (AQD6a)

450 Robert Gay himself is an incredible guy. What lives these Mormons live.

Posted by: MTF at February 22, 2012 03:07 PM (JOnLy)

451 >>4% unemployment, no terrorist attacks, and deficits a fifth the size of the iWons.

But if he gets re-elected in 2004, he'll round up all the gays into camps for extermination.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 22, 2012 03:07 PM (ZKzrr)

452 417: 40 years ago, I didn't have to speak Spanish to get any fucking work done in Phoenix south of Thomas Road. Do you get my drift?

Posted by: Moe Ron at February 22, 2012 03:07 PM (yWDpP)

453 Given a choice between America now and America 40 years ago, I think I'd have to go with the later. But I'd actually prefer the 50s.

Posted by: Havedash at February 22, 2012 03:07 PM (BRhGr)

454 Nobody wins by losing

Um, can someone mention me here?

Posted by: Jesus Christ, hanging on a cross, saving any soul that can be saved at February 22, 2012 03:08 PM (6LvlL)

455
taylork

please don't summon the zerohedge paultards...............

Posted by: phoenixgirl is responsible for bringing down the perry campaign at February 22, 2012 03:08 PM (mfbqu)

456 But why won't you shut up and accept intelligent design!!!!

Posted by: Little Green Lyzard at February 22, 2012 03:08 PM (Yigvc)

457 As an aside, I met Robert Gay and heard him speak. He is a very impressive, very moral man.

He's also very pro-life. He took flak for his commencement address from some of the lefty faculty for relating a story about Mother Teresa and for encouraging young women to not abort their babies, but give them up for adoption.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:08 PM (5H6zj)

458 Do you really want to brag about GWB's record? Seriously? Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:04 PM (zmlwq)

Are you kidding? We controlled the whole federal government and didn't change a damn thing. One tax cut and then road 9/11 for as long as possible.

Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 03:08 PM (9KqcB)

459 Do you really want to brag about GWB's record? Seriously?

Looks pretty damned good next to the SCOAMF's

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:08 PM (AQD6a)

460 You can't force people to have a conversation they are not interested in. That's not a conversation - it's a sermon. Random weirdos are always trying to force conversations with people, you can usually find them in subways, bus stations, zucotti park, running for president, etc.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 22, 2012 02:52 PM (+lsX1)

---------------------------------------

If we really want to solve the many problems with government overreach and intrusion in this country, we're going to have to talk about these things. Otherwise, little actual change will happen for us. We might get a small temporary reprieve, but when people don't feel compelled to take responsibility for their actions, the state of the nation as we're seeing now will return.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2012 03:08 PM (0mlnt)

461
Two things that boggle my mind: 1. Romney is electable. I don't know that any of them are. 2. Santorum wants to run a theocracy. That is so far out there as to be in bed with the "truthers".

ps- still with Newt, unless BAD THAD MCCOTTER gets back in with a brokered convention.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 03:09 PM (r+9M6)

462

But take what Ace sees as a wrong turn when the final grim choice
presents itself, and you'd better be standing behind a spit shield.



Posted by: Knemon at
February 22, 2012 03:03 PM (r1jNE)





I’ll be standing there, in my finest Pirate pose (hands on
hips, head tossed back) when Ace completes the task he’ll need to do if he wants
to jump on the Palin train after the convention. He’ll look up with questioning eyes and hear
the final order…

“Swallow!”

Posted by: jwest at February 22, 2012 03:09 PM (FdndL)

463 Way to dodge, Ben. But the Conventional Wisdon you and others repeat ad nauseum has nothing to do with policy, philosophy or records. Those are the things we should base our debates on.

Instead everything is based on the groupthink about "electability" "likability", this poll indicates this candidate is disliked by this group, this poll indicates this candidate can't win. Oh, this poll? Let's pretend this poll doesn't matter.

The CW is the reason we are in such bad shape as a party and a nation, the sooner you people give it up the sooner we can turn things around.

Posted by: runninrebel at February 22, 2012 03:09 PM (tqxia)

464 Do you really want to brag about GWB's record? Seriously?

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:04 PM (zmlwq)


Well, it IS better than where we are now.....

Posted by: © Sponge at February 22, 2012 03:09 PM (UK9cE)

465 428 Y-Not - I like everything you said. Each one of these candidates has something to like and something to worry about.

However, I'd say Santorum would do better with a divided Congress. I think Mitt's more susceptible to "bipartisan" temptation. Then again, I think Mitt's much more electable.

I'd ratherhave strong majorities in both chambers than the presidency, if I had to choose between the two

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at February 22, 2012 03:09 PM (yK8YH)

466 This thread is getting old and stale like myself...

Posted by: Foster Friess at February 22, 2012 03:09 PM (F6KtL)

467 Ace, with all due respect you didn't respond to my comments regarding electability in toto. I did not say electability was an unimportant matter, merely that it is not as finely-measured a metric as you seem to think it is.

One might respond that polling of independents provides fine measurability, but it doesn't this far out, because independents are notorious for their volatility as measured in polls.

You are thus going on your informed judgment regarding what qualities the independent voter is attracted to. That's perfectly valid, and I respect your acumen in this regard, but it is merely an opinion, not a scientific nor moral certainty.

In other words, reasonable people may disagree.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 22, 2012 03:09 PM (IlZPo)

468 459 Do you really want to brag about GWB's record? Seriously?

Looks pretty damned good next to the SCOAMF's
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:08 PM (AQD6a)

Amen. I would take W back in a minute.

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at February 22, 2012 03:10 PM (qjUnn)

469 443 This is a great story and I applaud it. It's good to know given unlimited money and powerful contacts Romney could find this girl safely.
-----
I'm pretty sure Robert Gay is much wealthier than Romney.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:10 PM (5H6zj)

470 I don't know that there's anyone out there saying that Romney is a bad guy. This story is completely in line with how I see him as an individual. You can be a perfectly wonderful person, but that doesn't automatically make you an attractive political candidate.

The opposite is also true, by the way: you can be an awful person, but end up as your party's Anointed One. See Obama, Barack H.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 22, 2012 03:10 PM (4df7R)

471 Hey, my hash changed.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 22, 2012 03:10 PM (IlZPo)

472 Gregory of Yardale

He inherited low unemployment. His job creation record was the weakest of any administration, just a net of 3 Million jobs. He added 5 Trillion to the debt and presided over an economic collapse.

Again, how did W's administration work out?

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:10 PM (CX71c)

473 This sudden onset of Santorum love from some is making the Paulbots look a little less irritating.

Personally, I would like to see the Crusades come back in style so we can finish the fucking job this time.

Posted by: Cast Iron at February 22, 2012 03:11 PM (EL+OC)

474 Steve the PirateSocial Cons have controlled and set the GOP agenda since 1992. Its time for them to let others take charge.How did the Socially Conservative administration of W Bush work out?

That's hilarious. Yeah, it was SoCon mindbeams that caused HW to raise taxes, and Ross Perot to begin the first of two very expensive ego trips, and the media to misreport the economic recovery. We're awesome that way.

And, yep, you can imagine us beaming with pride as we finally deployed our dream candidate, "Bob Dole, Culture Warrior," in 1996. We'd been working on that one for decades, let me tell you.

And from Bush, we got two Supreme Court justices in return for carrying him over the finish line in 2004. Ask all those vigilant fiscal conservatives what they did to put the brakes on spending between 2001 and 2007. Or Bush himself, since he ran on fiscal conservative themes himself the first time around. I don't recall him campaigning on a Medicare expansion.

And I can't tell you how giddy the godbothering claque was with McCain's stance on embryonic stem cell research. Dismembering embryos is a big part of our platform as you know.

Back to W, no , I can't say I was thrilled with his spending, though he islooking like a miser compared to SCOAMF.

Anyway, back to my question: how do you plan on replacing 25% of the GOP base?

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 22, 2012 03:11 PM (W54Uh)

475 "One might respond that polling of independents provides fine measurability, but it doesn't this far out, because independents are notorious for their volatility as measured in polls."

The bigger point here is that *Romney has already tanked with independents.*

This has, like, happened, and it's the increasingly Inconvenient Truth making a mockery of Ace's strenuous pro-Mitt (or at least anti-Rick) efforts here.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:11 PM (r1jNE)

476 I'd prefer someone more conservative than Mitt (while being firmly ABO), but the argument that SCOAMF could defeat him because of Romneycare seems to me to be fallacious.

By November you'll either be against the marxist dictator or a delusional, brain dead, bought off dhim.

Posted by: ontherocks at February 22, 2012 03:11 PM (ZJCDy)

477 GWB started the ball rolling on massive government spending increases.Yes,Obama took it to a new frightening level but GWB was a big government,big spender.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:11 PM (7W3wI)

478 However, I'd say Santorum would do better with a divided Congress. I think Mitt's more susceptible to "bipartisan" temptation.
------
I agree with you.

I have them ranked Newt >> Santorum > Mitt.

I had Mitt in second a couple of weeks ago, but with the jihad against Santorum, I did some research into him. After doing that, I decided I was pretty comfortable with him and decided to weight Santorum's character above Mitt's business experience.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:12 PM (5H6zj)

479 How does a candidate who resides in Virginia not get on the Virginia ballot? How does an incumbent Senator lose an election by 18%? How is a career politician with no executive experience considered the best person for President?

Those are my biggest issues with Santorum beyond his sandpaper personality but I think he can win against Obama if he backs away from focusing on issues which creates a perception that he wants to be the moral police and loses that sweater. I'm serious about the sweater.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 03:12 PM (xJTAH)

480 Here is a direct link to the Gallup file that you can down load.

http://tinyurl.com/87nhy5f

Feel free to check my numbers particularly on the geographic breakdown.

I am having a hard time with my eyesight and it was hard for me to read.

If I have it right Romney is performing abysmally in -

The Midwest.

Those numbers again-

Santorum 40% to Romney 21%


That's *shocking* actually.. That's almost a 20% differential.

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 03:12 PM (r2PLg)

481 <<Yeah - The AoS editor intermittently deletes spaces from some of my
posts. I begin to think it isn't acoincidence. If I post under another
name it doesn't occur.

I guess it's AoS attempting to censor those who they deem trolls -
i.e. disagree with a neo/paleocon worldview. Could be hidden artifacts
from my editor too.>>

This is similar to the Bush is a moron/evil genius conundrum (masterminded 9/11 stuff). The code of this blog sucks but they write fancy code just to F with you.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 22, 2012 03:12 PM (tf9Ne)

482 Hm...never knew about this. Brought a tear to my eye.

Posted by: cvb at February 22, 2012 03:12 PM (HRFxR)

483 Nice positive story on Romney. I really like it.

I'd love to see more of these (and more beatdowns of Barack Obama's horrific record.)

Posted by: Beatnik Joe at February 22, 2012 03:12 PM (/n3lt)

484 Gregory of Yardale

Bill Clinton presided over 20 Million jobs created, budget surpluses and wages grew. Want to debate Bush vs Clinton? Clinton was fiscally more Conservative than Bush. That's a fact.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:12 PM (GlBgT)

485 Since no one is questioning Romney is nice, what is the point of this post? To pseudo-balance things out for the next Mitt-bashing post?

Posted by: ParisParamus at February 22, 2012 03:12 PM (f8v6c)

486 'I'm pretty sure Robert Gay is much wealthier than Romney.'


Did someone say gay? I'm against that.



Posted by: Sweater Vest Ricky at February 22, 2012 03:12 PM (F6KtL)

487 Could it be that all of the "Santorum is going to ban birth control"
hysteria done by Romney media is insulting the intelligence of
Conservative women voters?



It's possible. Romney media supporters might want to consider if they are hurting the very candidate that they want to "help".


Most people have only the vaguest clue as to who Santorum even is.

You and I have seen and heard plenty about his SoCon obsessions and personal opposition to birth control, but most haven't. You could pretty much replace his name with "Generic Republican" at this point.

Where the doubt comes in is the impression that he's not the sort of candidate that will win people over the more they see and hear about him. Almost certainly the opposite.

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 22, 2012 03:13 PM (SY2Kh)

488 Truthers>Birthers>Sataners

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 03:13 PM (OhYCU)

489 "

"Ultimately, some people need to face the fact that they as socons are
not a majority and cannot independently elect one of their own"




Yet, we elected the most radical left wing President ever.



Logic, please.""



Well to start with, leftists are brainless autotrons. Socialism is their religion, leftist candidates are their gods. They would line up behind a pedophile axe murderer without question if it advances their religion. The right don't do that, we pulled a circular firing squad on every candidate we have. When it came to obama, he got 98% of the black vote (yeah no racism here), every sniveling communist, socialist, hippy leftovers, douchebag mushy independant white guilt voters, plus alot of circular firing squad types on the right stayed home and didn't vote for McCain.

thats how obama won

Posted by: Berserker at February 22, 2012 03:13 PM (FMbng)

490 Classifying W as "better than Obama" is faint praise indeed. The GOP controlled Congress and the White House and yet government spending exploded. Awesome stuff!

Yes, I'd take W over Obama, but if that's the best we can do, we're in even more trouble than I thought.

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:13 PM (zmlwq)

491 Sock-B-Gone

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 22, 2012 03:14 PM (SY2Kh)

492 Romney will be the nominee... which is what makes all of the Santorum Derangement so ridiculous. You're all going to feel silly a month from now.

But in the meantime, Mittens could learn a few things from Santorum; like passion, conviction, and honesty.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:07 PM

---

Yeah, you're probably right about Romney winning and you are certainly right about the other stuff.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:14 PM (5H6zj)

493 Romney saved children
Romney saved the Olympics
Romney will save America!!!!

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 03:14 PM (OhYCU)

494 360 Even though he'd attract ridicule in the general, much of it justified, I might support him just to force a conversation about America's Great Liberal Experiment with Unmarried Parents.You can't force people to have a conversation they are not interested in. That's not a conversation - it's a sermon.

You really think the majority of tax-PAYERS aren't interested in talking about where a growing proportion of their taxdollars are going? I disagree. Further, as I said, we will NEVER have limited government as long as enough voters think there is a legitimate need for big government. And right now they think that most of the poor and working poor are that way due to no fault of their own. We will never win that argument unless we engange in it. Statistics suggest otherwise, that it was due to selfish choices. It is almost impossible to be poor in this country if you marry before having children.

If you're afraid to address the cause of growing government, don't bother advocating smaller government.

Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 03:15 PM (9KqcB)

495 Again, how did W's administration work out?

Just fine until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, at which point the deficit immediately tripled and the economy began to tank.

Of course, the reason the Democrats won Congress in in 2006 was because the GOP establishment was frantically spending millions propping up RINO's like Lincoln Chaffee and spending like mad. Also, good moderates like John McCain were blocking oil from ANWR and joining up with Democrats to stop good constructionist judges from being appointed to the bench.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:15 PM (AQD6a)

496 @428 Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:02 PM



You are a sane island in a sea of crazy. Bless you.

Posted by: mama winger at February 22, 2012 03:15 PM (P6QsQ)

497 I just don't see how anyone can declare with such moral certainty that he is the most electable of the GOP's current crop of candidates.
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 22, 2012 02:52 PM (IlZPo) .................................Well let's recap. Newt. Ah, no. He's a D-bag. Luap. not a chance. Leaving Rick and Mitt. They both have "electable" qualities but this year there will be alot of Dem voters staying home or Reagan Dems up for grabs as well as the independents. Does Santorum have much traction with that group? I don't think he does. Santorum probably appeals more to the base but he won't get any swing voters and I think if Santorum gets the nod we get Barry Vs. 2.0 I am not saying Mitt is a shoe in over SCOAMF but I think there's a better chance.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 22, 2012 03:15 PM (kicl8)

498 I'm pretty sure Robert Gay is much wealthier than Romney.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:10 PM (5H6zj)

Did I say it was Romney's money?

Posted by: Rocks at February 22, 2012 03:15 PM (Q1lie)

499 Steve the Pirate

Bush was no Fiscon. He ran as a Big Governmnet Liberal and used Social Issues to cover up his agenda.

As for the 25% of GOP voters who are social cons, easy, bring in Economically Conservative Independents. The Socons have damaged the GOP enough. I would love for them to take a hike.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:15 PM (GlBgT)

500 Yeah, you're probably right about Romney winning and you are certainly right about the other stuff.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:14 PM (5H6zj)
===============================
Thank you. What an exceptionally handsome comment.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:16 PM (AQD6a)

501 Social liberals seem to have thought theywon some sort of battle against social conservatives for control of the Republican Party. They did not. And as they wake up to that cold reality, they are going to tear the party apart, and blame the social cons for it.

Logic, it is not strong with this bunch.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 22, 2012 03:16 PM (TOk1P)

502 426
If it comes to it, I'd vote for Romney over Obama. But I'm amazed and saddened that many Republicans are preferring to replace a genuine liberal with liberal-lite. I would prefer to replace a liberal with a conservative. Santorum is the conservative choice at this point. Voting for Romney is giving up on conservatism for four years.

Posted by: Real American at February 22, 2012 03:16 PM (GL1SF)

503 <<Yeah - The AoS editor intermittently deletes spaces from some of my posts. I begin to think it isn't acoincidence. If I post under another name it doesn't occur.

For what it's worth, I've figured out that spaces get deleted in my posts when I go back to edit something, like adding a word to a sentence. If I don't put extra spaces around the edit to separate it from the original wording, the spaces disappear and it all gets crunched together.

That's how thishappens.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 22, 2012 03:16 PM (4df7R)

504 If Santorum wasn't a complete afterthought two months ago, I could take the people promoting him more seriously. People preferred Herman fucking Cain over Rick Santorum not too long ago, which tells you all you need to know about Ricky's charisma and ability to win people over.

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:16 PM (zmlwq)

505 at what point do (we) just get on with the full - out attack on the fucker in the White House?

--------

After we're through skewering each other, duh! Pay attention!

Posted by: Laura Castellano at February 22, 2012 03:16 PM (fuw6p)

506 If Romney is the nominee, the independents won't bother to vote. So BO will win a second term. I don't know a single independent who likes romney enough to go out of their way to vote for him. thus why turnout is down. People don't bother they feel romney can buy everyone and everything in sight to make sure he is the nominee, not saying it's true but it's what people have come to believe.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 22, 2012 03:17 PM (oZfic)

507 Our brilliant "Addition by Subtraction" Plan would have worked if it wasn't for THE ESTABLISHMENT!

Posted by: Anony at February 22, 2012 03:17 PM (Yigvc)

508 Obviously a lot of you have wasted your fucking lives doing whatever it is you do rather than running for President. I've never seen so many political geniuses assembled in one place before. Not to mention the walking Saints among us who were born with perfect foreknowledge and have thus avoided the moral felony of ever changing their minds.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 22, 2012 03:17 PM (hiMsy)

509 Yeah - The AoS editor intermittently deletes spaces from some of my posts. I begin to think it isn't acoincidence. If I post under another name it doesn't occur.
I guess it's AoS attempting to censor those who they deem trolls - i.e. disagree with a neo/paleocon worldview. Could be hidden artifacts from my editor too.Posted by: jacke at February 22, 2012 03:01 PM (5Cwv4)
That tinfoil hat looks FABULOUS on you!

Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at February 22, 2012 03:17 PM (ZYUWp)

510 Bush = Huckabee=Santorum.Big spending social cons all(and I am a social con)

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:18 PM (7W3wI)

511 : Gregory of Yardale,

Bullshit. Bush had anemic job growth. He was averaging 100-150,000 jobs as opposed to 250-300,000 of the 90's. He ran deficits and added to the Debt. Wages stagnated under Bush and the cost of living increase. Bush's had an average growth rate of 2.5% as opposed to 4% of the 90's. Bush set the stage for the economic collapse.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:18 PM (OxI/Y)

512 Santorum is weak. Not unelectable... his social views aren't unacceptable to anyone but those already in O's tent, and those who just find them annoying can still take it.

But Santorum is weak.

However, Romney is apparently much weaker. With all his advantages, Romney is getting his ass clobbered by a weak candidate.

Thank goodness we aren't going to nominate the candidate much weaker than Santorum (and we aren't).

Posted by: Dustin at February 22, 2012 03:18 PM (wcT+8)

513 The Socons have damaged the GOP enough. I would love for them to take a hike.

===========================================

The New England GOP has told the social conservatives to do just that; which must be why the GOP is so dominant in Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont....

Basically, this troll is advising the GOP in states where they win to emulate the GOP in states where they lose. Wonder why?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:18 PM (AQD6a)

514 "People preferred Herman fucking Cain over Rick Santorum not too long ago, which tells you all you need to know about Ricky's charisma and ability to win people over."

Or about Romney's ability to win over these freaks and geeks.

If the only way you can think to promote Romney at this last date is with lame sneers at "Ricky," it's all over anyway.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:18 PM (r1jNE)

515 Cat piss is against Romney,keep that in mind.You want to be on her side?

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:19 PM (7W3wI)

516 495 Again, how did W's administration work out?Just fine until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, at which point the deficit immediately tripled and the economy began to tank.

Yeah, running those $400 billion deficits in 2004 was just peachy

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:19 PM (zmlwq)

517 Bill Clinton was our last conservative President

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 03:19 PM (OhYCU)

518 440 I believe we mean there is no positive POLITICAL case to make for Romney.
-----
I think the positive case is that he's a mainstream, pro-business Republican.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:20 PM (5H6zj)

519 But if he gets re-elected in 2004, he'll round up all the gays into camps for extermination.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 22, 2012 03:07 PM (ZKzrr)
--------------------------------------------------------
It's true. It was a secret program so not everyone knew about it. Darth Cheney and Halliburton ran the program to get rid of teh gheys.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 22, 2012 03:20 PM (jucos)

520 Meh. Not a reason to vote for Mitt.

I disagree, and I’m not a fan of Romney over any of the others. This is a conservative case for private ownership of businesses, and the great things that individuals can do when they control their own lives.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at February 22, 2012 03:20 PM (QF8uk)

521 steevy

I don't mind an Economic/Fiscon who is socially Conservative. My beef are with Progressives like Santorum who use Social issues to cover up their Liberal economic agenda.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:20 PM (OxI/Y)

522 I see we still have a lot of BDS. And ignorance.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 03:20 PM (xJTAH)

523 "Cat piss is against Romney,keep that in mind.You want to be on her side?"

Yeah, there is that.

Still. No War But The Class War.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:20 PM (r1jNE)

524 Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 22, 2012 03:17 PM (oZfic)



So, Gotham Princess....if Romney is the nominee, you will not vote?

Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2012 03:20 PM (X6akg)

525 GWB started the ball rolling on massive government spending increases.Yes,Obama took it to a new frightening level but GWB was a big government,big spender.
Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:11 PM (7W3wI)

One tax cut.

Massive spending.

Massive new health care plan.

Massive federal intrusion into education.

Massive amnesty for illegals.

W.

Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 03:20 PM (9KqcB)

526 Most people have only the vaguest clue as to who Santorum even is.

You and I have seen and heard plenty about his SoCon obsessions and personal opposition to birth control, but most haven't. You could pretty much replace his name with "Generic Republican" at this point.

Where the doubt comes in is the impression that he's not the sort of candidate that will win people over the more they see and hear about him. Almost certainly the opposite.
Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 22, 2012 03:13 PM (SY2Kh)

**********

I think the "Santorum is going to ban birth control" has gone mainstream.

Remember it started with the Liberal Media.

So it's very well disseminated.

And here is the continual problem Romney and his fans continues to face-

Romney has to win the Republican Primary first.

That problem they keep having--they do that all to themselves.

If Romney can't be a better candidate against Santorum with the clear advantage in funding and support from most of the big guns in Conservative media...

Well, I don't hold out too much hope for how Romney is going to campaign against Obama.

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 03:20 PM (r2PLg)

527 497 -

If Santorum gets the nod, he gets a ton more "Reagan Democrat" votes than Romney. People who reluctantly voted for Obama last time, but will not again. If they stay home, Obama beats Romney.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 22, 2012 03:21 PM (TOk1P)

528 514 "People preferred Herman fucking Cain over Rick Santorum not too long ago, which tells you all you need to know about Ricky's charisma and ability to win people over." Or about Romney's ability to win over these freaks and geeks. If the only way you can think to promote Romney at this last date is with lame sneers at "Ricky," it's all over anyway.
Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:18 PM (r1jNE)

Jesus H. Christ, you're myopic. I have never written one post here boostering for Mitt Romney. He's an equally unacceptable candidate for different reasons.

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:21 PM (zmlwq)

529 515
Cat piss is against Romney,keep that in mind.You want to be on her side?

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:19 PM (7W3wI)
Haven't liked romney ever. You can look up my posts. From day 1, never liked him, it's a gut feeling. But you should look at who is bankrolling his campaign and who is bankrolling BO's campaign and what Soros said right out loud to all your faces, about romney.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 22, 2012 03:21 PM (oZfic)

530 "Smart" isn't a real quantifiable characteristic anymore. Now it's just a brand. And sometimes the product that brand sells really sucks. In this new reality if Smart(TM) sells something dumb then you have the smart way to be dumb and something less dumb just isn't Smart(TM).

We are trapped in an elf hill and the cacophonous noise is starting to sound like merry signing as our minds break down and the glamor takes hold. Soon we will be dancing and eating leaves and having a wonderful time.

Unfortunately we will all have to wake up emaciated in a dry clearing at some future point and wonder where the missing years went.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 03:21 PM (a9mQu)

531 In 1980 all the press seemed to want to talk about was the coming theocracy when Ronald Reagan put Jerry Falwell in charge of the Justice Department.

Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at February 22, 2012 03:22 PM (D4DLO)

532 Gregory of Yardale

BS again. The Northeastern GOP ran Social Cons and that's why the Democrats run the place. People don't want to hear about family values.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:22 PM (OxI/Y)

533 I think Romney has some chinks in his armor.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 03:22 PM (OhYCU)

534 "Jesus H. Christ, you're myopic. I have never written one post here boostering for Mitt Romney. He's an equally unacceptable candidate for different reasons."

Fair enough. I mistook your anti-Santy for a pro-Romney, instead of just an anti-.

Lotta that going around.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:22 PM (r1jNE)

535 But Santorum is weak.

However, Romney is apparently much weaker. With all his advantages, Romney is getting his ass clobbered by a weak candidate.

Thank goodness we aren't going to nominate the candidate much weaker than Santorum (and we aren't).


That stupid argument remains being stupid.

One can be a very strong primary candidate while being a very weak general election candidate. Such is the case with Rick Santorum.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 22, 2012 03:22 PM (SY2Kh)

536 GWB started the ball rolling on massive government
spending increases.Yes,Obama took it to a new frightening level but GWB
was a big government,big spender.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:11 PM (7W3wI)


But seriously, who ISN'T!?!

Reagan grew government, Bush grew government......Obama made it a massive oligarchy.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 22, 2012 03:23 PM (UK9cE)

537 BurtTC

Santorum gets the nomination, Economic Cons and Libertarians will take a hike. We are sick of you Social Cons dictating to us. 20 years is enough.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:23 PM (OxI/Y)

538 Yeah, running those $400 billion deficits in 2004 was just peachy - Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:19 PM (zmlwq)

======================================

Better than Trillion+ deficits under the SCOAMF.

In most ways, Bush *was* a pretty lousy president. Which just demonstrates how abysmally worse Obama is.

Furthermore, it wasn't Bush's social conservatism that made him bad, it was that he shared the values of the elite class and applied them to his policies; spend more on education, give amnesty to illegals, expand medicare. It wasn't Bush's conservatism that did him in, it was his liberalism.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:23 PM (AQD6a)

539 Did I say it was Romney's money?
Posted by: Rocks at February 22, 2012 03:15 PM
---
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were implying that.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:24 PM (5H6zj)

540 This is the first I heard this story about Romney and thanks for posting it Ace. I knew he was a good man, just didn't know that he is willing to put it on the line for the important things.

You know, people say all kinds of things they believe or don't believe, change their minds, insult someone they don't mean to insult, voice support for some stupid idea they haven't really thought through and on and on.

But a man gives himself away by what he does. And now I know what kind of man Romney is.



Posted by: Previous Greg at February 22, 2012 03:24 PM (MDQQ7)

541 Romney is too insulated.

It's as if he is surrounded by yes men.

Hardly any critique-no matter how valid against Romney gets out there.

Under those conditions it will be hard for Romney to improve.

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 03:24 PM (r2PLg)

542 "We are sick of you Social Cons dictating to us. 20 years is enough."

I think you are in the wrong party, dude.

Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 03:24 PM (OhYCU)

543 Nope, not pro-Romney, just disgusted with the dreck we have to choose from. And, quite honestly, bitter that the only guy whose vision appeals to me at all is a conspiracist nutcase who likes to solicit support from white supremecists.

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM (zmlwq)

544 We need a right-wing ruthless SOB who loves his country and its people.

Where he/she is, I don't know.

Posted by: Pam at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM (cgrL5)

545 (Sigh) There's no arguing with fanatic nutters, is there?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM (AQD6a)

546 As for the 25% of GOP voters who are social cons, easy, bring in
Economically Conservative Independents. The Socons have damaged the GOP
enough. I would love for them to take a hike.

Seems like a fair deal to me. I'll vote for Santorum now, and if Mitt wins, I'll walk.

Posted by: Methos at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM (6LvlL)

547 As a Catholic, he somehow manages to make my faith sound like something creepy. I don't like it,

-----

Heh. Welcome to the club.

Posted by: Laura Castellano, Mormon Moronette at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM (fuw6p)

548 536 Reagan still had a Cold War to win.He needed to trade off some spending to keep tsome Dems paying for Defense.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM (7W3wI)

549 "And, quite honestly, bitter that the only guy whose vision appeals to me at all is a conspiracist nutcase who likes to solicit support from white supremecists."

Yup.

Buy you a drink?

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM (r1jNE)

550 Nice to see some of you think that the Tea Party was just a trojan horse for social issues

Posted by: Anony at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM (Yigvc)

551 As for the 25% of GOP voters who are social cons, easy, bring in Economically Conservative Independents. The Socons have damaged the GOP enough. I would love for them to take a hike.

Yeah, because there are so many of them.
I'll believe in the existence of thesehypothetical voterswhen you manage to elect such a being (*coughSchwarzeneggercough*). I'd be happy if you could name a significant national figure in elective office who holds to such a view. The allegedsocially liberal/fiscally conservative voter jettisons the latter at the first sign of trouble, 9 times out of 10.

You should be happy to be stuck with us. Should you get your wish, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 22, 2012 03:26 PM (W54Uh)

552 Let's compare and contrast with http://tinyurl.com/85ftugl -- it's clear that, in Mitt's estimation, there was nothing that any of the people involved needed to do that was more important than finding his partner's daughter.

Note that he included his auditors, PwC. Were they paid? Were they strongarmed? What does this say about their future independence?

It's heartwarming, and has a happy ending, and combats the "bloodless MittBot" meme.....but it raises more questions than it answers.

Posted by: Barney Frank at February 22, 2012 03:26 PM (kaalw)

553 124
Let's have a contest. WWOD. What would Obama do?
Posted by: cherry π at February 22, 2012 02:19 PM (OhYCU)


Question the girl's mother as to why she didn't "unburden" herself of the protoplasm 14+ years earlier.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at February 22, 2012 03:26 PM (7GfKM)

554 i.e. disagree with a neo/paleocon worldview.

Um... well which one? Neocons and paleocons don't exactly see eye to eye.

Seems like you're just throwing nefarious adjectives at the wall to see what sticks.

Posted by: Entropy at February 22, 2012 03:26 PM (7XtTp)

555 "Compassionate Conservatism" was driven by socon ideas.No Child Left Behind,Medicare Part D,social con stuff to the core.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:27 PM (7W3wI)

556 Reagan grew government, Bush grew government......Obama made it a massive oligarchy.
Posted by: © Sponge at February 22, 2012 03:23 PM (UK9cE)

Reagan tried the "starve the beast" strategy. He assumed that the Dems would be compelled to at least make a pretense towards solvency. He lost that gamble, which is why we can't make the same mistake again. Taxes are important, yes, but until spending is finally tamed, we remain doomed.

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:27 PM (zmlwq)

557 Santorum gets the nomination, Economic Cons and Libertarians will take a hike. We are sick of you Social Cons dictating to us. 20 years is enough.
Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:23 PM (OxI/Y)

*************

I don't think there are as many Libertarians as you might believe there are.

They really aren't a large part of the electorate.

Their representation might be disproportionate on the internet.

Posted by: tasker at February 22, 2012 03:27 PM (r2PLg)

558 Santorum gets the nomination, Economic Cons and
Libertarians will take a hike. We are sick of you Social Cons dictating
to us. 20 years is enough.


Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:23 PM (OxI/Y)



Go now and avoid the rush. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Posted by: really ... at February 22, 2012 03:27 PM (X3lox)

559 "527 497 - If Santorum gets the nod, he gets a ton more "Reagan Democrat" votes than Romney. People who reluctantly voted for Obama last time, but will not again. If they stay home, Obama beats Romney.
Posted by: BurtTC at February 22, 2012 03:21 PM (TOk1P)"........Sorry I disagree. Regan Dems are not going to vote for a social con. Regan Dems care about the economy more thansocial issues. I think Romney gets way more indie and Reagan Dem votes than Santorum.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 22, 2012 03:27 PM (kicl8)

560 cherry,
If Santorum wins, I will switch to Libertarian and I will not be alone.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:27 PM (JYYzZ)

561 We need a right-wing ruthless SOB who loves his country and its people.Where he/she is, I don't know.Posted by: Pam at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM





Dick Cheney comes to mind.

Posted by: mama winger at February 22, 2012 03:27 PM (P6QsQ)

562 I see CJ reviewed his vast library of reference material before he posted. And by reference material I mean his collection of bumperstickers.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 03:28 PM (xJTAH)

563 Santorum is no Tea Partier,Tea Party ignored social issues almost completely.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:28 PM (7W3wI)

564







Posted by: Truck
Monkey at February 22, 2012 03:20 PM (jucos)



Let’s hope if
they start exterminating Gays and Joos (and hopefully Midgets and Clowns), that
they outsource it to the private sector.
So much more cost effective.



Posted by: jwest at February 22, 2012 03:28 PM (FdndL)

565 546 As for the 25% of GOP voters who are social cons, easy, bring in
Economically Conservative Independents. The Socons have damaged the GOP
enough. I would love for them to take a hike.

Seems like a fair deal to me. I'll vote for Santorum now, and if Mitt wins, I'll walk.
Posted by: Methos at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM (6LvlL)

Yeah the centrists did GREAT. And the economically conservative independents that aren't with the Tea Party hold you in contempt. But have fun repeating 2008 again.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 03:28 PM (a9mQu)

566 "Nice to see some of you think that the Tea Party was just a trojan horse for social issues"

OK, here's the thing: the post-New Deal Republican coalition is mostly made up of moral traditionalists and antistate libertarians.

This coalition *only* makes sense as an enemy-of-my-enemy deal, and it falls apart virtually the *moment* it wins.

The prolonged campaign and hyperspeed news cycle have, oddly, propelled us through at least one normal campaign's length, so that we've come to the point of contemplating what happens if one of these guys actually *wins*, and so the splits in the coalition start to crack open again, but ahead of schedule this time.

Not sure what can be done about this.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:28 PM (r1jNE)

567 So the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in 2008 is our savior?

Posted by: bask at February 22, 2012 03:28 PM (Wa/0G)

568 532 Gregory of YardaleBS again. The Northeastern GOP ran Social Cons and that's why the Democrats run the place. People don't want to hear about family values.
Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:22 PM (OxI/Y)


What? WHO? I LIVE in the northeast, and the only social con I know of who's run for prominent office is Ovide Lamontagne here in NH, who was just narrowly beat out for the Senate by Kelly Ayotte, but who is looking like a strong candidate for the governership this election cycle. Who the hell else are you talking about?

Also, you've contradicted yourself at least once. Up above you claim that you'd love it if all social cons left the GOP because they've "damaged" it, but then you go on to say that you have no problem with social cons who are also fiscally conservative. Well, which is it? Do you hate social cons, or do you hate social cons who aren't fiscally conservative? If a social conservative votes unwillingly for your preferred candidate, will you be glad? Or will you damn their eyes and wish they'd stayed home?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM (4df7R)

569 really

Enjoy the destruction you will suffer at the hands of Obama. It will be the ultimate defeat for Social Cons. You guys will be a political relic.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM (JYYzZ)

570 Dick Cheney(before the left decided to make him public enemy number 1) was actually quite a moderate.Look it up.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM (7W3wI)

571 No Child Left Behind,Medicare Part D,social con stuff to the core.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:27 PM



I respectfully disagree.

Posted by: mama winger at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM (P6QsQ)

572 Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:27 PM (JYYzZ)



This is the same 'No to Theocrats' from this morning.

Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM (X6akg)

573 Reagan grew government, Bush grew government......Obama made it a massive oligarchy. Posted by: © Sponge at February 22, 2012 03:23 PM (UK9cE)

Woah. Reagan did not "grow government." Yes, federal government spending increased under Reagan. But while he sought to eliminate the Dept. of Education - because it served no constitutional function - Bush increased federal ed spending and encroachment more than any president in history.

Reagan tried to move away from overreliance on Medicare. Bush implemented a massive new Medicare entitlement, and misled wary lawmakers about its true cost.

No, it's not all W's fault. The GOP as a whole crushed consevatism in the 2000s. And we all went along. All we cared about was 9/11 and defending W from critics of the Iraq invasion. They all got a pass on actual conservativegoverning until 2006 when the party couldn't ride teh 9/11 wave anymore.

Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM (9KqcB)

574 Ace,
@214, responding to @196, responding to me @176

"If that were true I'd take solace in Mrs. Santorum's longterm live-in sexual relationship with an abortionist."

Another delightful anecdote. 196 responded to my point as if I were saying support of abortion may indicate poor personal morality and integrity. That was not exactly my point (though it can be related). Watch the video in the slate link if you haven't. Romney was at least functionally pro-choice, citing the tragic death of someone close to him due to an illegal abortion. For him to turn around and become pro-life, pretending that tragedy wasn't so relevant any more, basing his epiphany on talking to a researcher...that is what I found lacking in personal morality and integrity. And to pretend he fought for pro-life policy in MA when he didn't is simply offensive.

I didn't agree with Herman Cain's functionally pro-choice stance but I lost respect when he pretended it wasn't his stance. If one is pro-choice for moral reasons (eg not wanting to control another person, due to personal experience with dangers of abortion not being legal, etc) but then one lies about those moral foundations and says they were never believed that is what is so odious.

Posted by: Crispian at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM (P9LP6)

575 Reagan still had a Cold War to win.He needed to trade off some spending to keep tsome Dems paying for Defense.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:25 PM (7W3wI)


Regardless. Government growth is government growth. The road to hell is lined with the best of intentions.....

The fact is....true conservatism IS dead never to be seen again. We can only take the wins when we can get them, all of which compromised with some other bullshit that the left wants because, much like mooselimbs, tantrums will be thrown unless they get their way.

This country will never be the same and will be socialist in the next 20 years.

Posted by: © Sponge at February 22, 2012 03:30 PM (UK9cE)

576 "We are sick of you Social Cons dictating to us. 20 years is enough."

You keep saying that, but you have no proof to back it up. It's not even faith-based reasoning, just a meditative mantra. A Luap Nor-ish view of history, except that even he has some social conservative bona-fides.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 22, 2012 03:30 PM (W54Uh)

577 This is the same 'No to Theocrats' from this morning.


Posted by: Tami at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM





The eugenics guy? Oh ......

Posted by: mama winger at February 22, 2012 03:31 PM (P6QsQ)

578

"I'm gonna make sure the 1% keeps paying their share." - Barack Obama?, nope, Mitt Romney.


Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 03:31 PM (r+9M6)

579 And while we're on Reagan.....if socons were the driving force behind Reagan's election, wouldn't they have felt more attached to the guy who was an actual born-again Christian , Carter, over the guy who wasn't particularly religious? Reagan really never made socon ideas a focus of his governing philosophy.

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:31 PM (zmlwq)

580 "Reagan did not "grow government."

He signed the damn budgets. The buck stops there. I understand *why* he did it ... but he still did it.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:31 PM (r1jNE)

581 569 really

Enjoy the destruction you will suffer at the hands of Obama. It will be the ultimate defeat for Social Cons. You guys will be a political relic.
Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM (JYYzZ)

The stupid aisle crossing moderate wing is the one headed for relic-dom. Democrat-lite is a worthless position to occupy. That's why the blue dogs got wiped out in 2010.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 22, 2012 03:31 PM (a9mQu)

582 My friends, I owe it all to my support from moderates.

Posted by: President John McCain at February 22, 2012 03:31 PM (kaOJx)

583 MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter,

Do you hate social cons, or do you hate social cons who aren't fiscally conservative?

I hate Social Cons who are economically Progressive. They tend to be in your face about it like Huckabee and Santorum. Social Cons, who are economically Conservative tend not to be in your face and focus more on economic and fiscal issues. I don't classify these as Social Cons. These are Economic/Fiscons who happen to be socially Conservative.


Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:32 PM (GlBgT)

584 I see CJ reviewed his vast library of reference material before he posted. And by reference material I mean his collection of bumperstickers. Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 03:28 PM (xJTAH)

Wha? You got a pointyou want to make? A critique maybe? A view you wish to express, beyond an empty insult? Go for it.

Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 03:32 PM (9KqcB)

585 Let’s hope if
they start exterminating Gays and Joos (and hopefully Midgets and Clowns), that
they outsource it to the private sector.
So much more cost effective.



Posted by: jwest at February 22, 2012 03:28 PM (FdndL)
---------------------------------------------------
Oh yes. I have RAGING Coulrophobia. All of the Shriners Pancake Breakfasts I ever went to were ruined when the clowns showed up. I would get so panicky that I would immediately start vomiting. The worst part was that my parents found it funny.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 22, 2012 03:32 PM (jucos)

586 I would gladly support Romney if he demonstrated any amount of fiscal conservatism. He doesn't. He wants the federal government to run all healthcare, and he wants to tax the rich because he thinks it's fair.

He's Obama, without (maybe) the awful judicial appointments. No thanks.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 22, 2012 03:32 PM (TOk1P)

587 Seems like you're just throwing nefarious adjectives at the wall to see what sticks.

Posted by: Entropy at February 22, 2012 03:26 PM (7XtTp)

Or he figured only one of the two would vet past pixy.

Posted by: Methos at February 22, 2012 03:32 PM (6LvlL)

588 Just a recap of Romney's new tax plan: Cut taxes for all BUT THE RICH.

Yup, he's the real conservative.

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at February 22, 2012 03:32 PM (UU0OF)

589 Romney wants it too bad. That's what makes him dangerous and not trustworthy. It's blantently obvious that he will say anything, be anything, do anything just to be president.

Posted by: Havedash at February 22, 2012 03:33 PM (BRhGr)

590 really

Enjoy the destruction you will suffer
at the hands of Obama. It will be the ultimate defeat for Social Cons.
You guys will be a political relic.


Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM (JYYzZ)



I'm not a social con, you blithering idiot. I'm just not an insane anti-religious douchebag like you.

Posted by: really ... at February 22, 2012 03:34 PM (X3lox)

591 Gee and just the other day there were commenters talking about how its the "purity" people in the party that talk about purging others from the party and never the more moderate types that do it.

Posted by: buzzion at February 22, 2012 03:35 PM (GULKT)

592 Now, if only there were reasons beyond "He runs a good campaign" to believe that he would govern as a conservative, I might be less antagonistic toward him.

maybe he could take a continuing ed class at Texas A&M and endlessly recycle a catchphrase

Posted by: Fat Jason Whitlock at February 22, 2012 03:35 PM (Jg7uO)

593 However, Romney is apparently much weaker. With all his advantages, Romney is getting his ass clobbered by a weak candidate.Thank goodness we aren't going to nominate the candidate much weaker than Santorum (and we aren't).
Posted by: Dustin at February 22, 2012 03:18 PM (wcT+

How is Romney getting his ass clobbered? Isn't he still leading in delegates?

Posted by: rockmom at February 22, 2012 03:35 PM (qE3AR)

594 "if socons were the driving force behind Reagan's election, wouldn't they have felt more attached to the guy who was an actual born-again Christian , Carter, over the guy who wasn't particularly religious? Reagan really never made socon ideas a focus of his governing philosophy."

They *were* more attached, allowing Carter to flank Ford's right in 1976. Carter kinda-sorta created the religious right, but it turned on him big-time.

Reagan did make them a (not the, *a*) focus, giving them equal dignity as a leg in the postwar stool (social/economic/military). To claim he didn't is revisionism.

People made the same predictions about Reagan's supposed religious extremism that they made about W. They might actually be right about Santorum, but there is a bit of a crying-wolf effect.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:35 PM (r1jNE)

595 I thought the Blue Dogs got wiped out thanks to a combination of the Tea Party and people pissed off at Obamacare.

If the Blue Dogs were moderate, we wouldn't have Obamacare as it is in the first place.

Posted by: Anony at February 22, 2012 03:36 PM (Yigvc)

596 Boy, was that an awful sock.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 22, 2012 03:36 PM (kaalw)

597 "Reagan did not "grow government." He signed the damn budgets. The buck stops there. I understand *why* he did it ... but he still did it Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:31 PM (r1jNE)

As I explained, yes, he approved higher spending. He did NOT create new entitlements like Bush did. He did NOT inject the federal government into areas it didn't belong, like Bush did. That's a fact and that's what most people mean when they say "grow government."

Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 03:36 PM (9KqcB)

598 559 -

Reagan Dems are mostly Catholic union folks. The very people Obama is alienating as we speak. The ones who are learning their healthcare plans are going to require them to pay for other people's abortions and contraceptives.

Which, we keep being told, is not supposed to be an issue this year.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 22, 2012 03:37 PM (TOk1P)

599 maybe he could take a continuing ed class at Texas AM and endlessly recycle a catchphrase

Posted by: Fat Jason Whitlock at February 22, 2012 03:35 PM (Jg7uO)



CATCHPHRASE!!!!!!

Posted by: That doofus from the Dr. Pepper 10 commercial at February 22, 2012 03:37 PM (UK9cE)

600 I wonder if this "Santorum is not Holy" idiot is actually Canadian. And comments on other blogs with the name Christoph.

Posted by: buzzion at February 22, 2012 03:37 PM (GULKT)

601
>>>Enjoy the destruction you will suffer at the hands
of Obama. It will be the ultimate defeat for Social Cons. You guys will
be a political relic.


Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:29 PM (JYYzZ)<<<<<
First wipe the (JYYzZ) off your chin, I know you are liberal troll moby homo democrat Ofeckless supporter.

Second if Oflustercluck gets re-elected the US itself will be a political relic.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 03:38 PM (r+9M6)

602 http://tinyurl.com/5vbvrjd


Mr. Romney is no match for true judges of character.

Posted by: I, Barack, Entertainer-in-Chief at February 22, 2012 03:38 PM (1ZF7c)

603 The first lady also mentioned the president’s memory “like a steel trap” and that he reads letters from Americans every night and tells her of his concern and that there is more work to do.

Obama pounded her fist once on the podium when she asked “Who are we? Will we continue all the change we’ve begun or just allow everything to slip away?”

One woman said “wow” as FLOTUS [First Lady of the United States] continued her speech to its end.

“He cannot do it alone. That was never the promise.”

Then she asked the crowd whether they are “in.” “Wait, wait, I didn’t hear that. Are you in?”

They stood to applaud as she asked the question and ended the event.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:38 PM (7W3wI)

604 "That's a fact and that's what most people mean when they say "grow government."

Okay, and but so what I mean by "grow government" is grow government, as in, the bottom line gets bigger. (I'm willing to cut some slack by inflation indexing it, but even there the Clinton + GOP Congress combo beats the Reagan + Dem Congress hands-down).

Yes, only Ron Paul is selling that particular brand of beer, and yes, as someone upthread noted, he's disqualifyingly nuts on other stuff.

So here we are.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:38 PM (r1jNE)

605 Amazing that on the very day Romney rolls out his "tax the rich" economic plan, here at HQ we get a fluff piece on how Mitt "did the right thing" and saved a puppy or something.

Truly amazing.

Posted by: bask at February 22, 2012 03:38 PM (Wa/0G)

606 How is Romney getting his ass clobbered? Isn't he still leading in delegates?

Posted by: rockmom at February 22, 2012 03:35 PM (qE3AR)


I believe the clobbering being referred to is the clobbering Romney is receiving in the polls, which have yet to translate to the ballot box (but which have a very good CHANCE of translating to the ballot box if past is precedent).

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 22, 2012 03:38 PM (4df7R)

607 Reagan really never made socon ideas a focus of his governing philosophy.

Nope not at all.

Posted by: Some city on a hill thing or another at February 22, 2012 03:39 PM (6LvlL)

608 Does anyone have a link to Romney's tax plan 2.0? I keep seeing references to it, but not the actual plan.

Just saw that he's going to propose trimming charitable deductions for the wealthy. Not good.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 03:39 PM (5H6zj)

609 No new entitlements were created during Reagan's administration? Is that your final answer?

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 03:40 PM (xJTAH)

610 Nobody we nominate will ever be as bad as obama...nobody. I won't even buy into the obama-lite argument. There is no obama lite, because obama is a narcissist wannabe tinpot, a grifter, a squater in the white house sucking up the taxpayer money on his lavish lifestyle, an anti american piece of fucking shit that hates they very foundation of this country and wakes up every fucking day with ideas on how to make us pay.

Nobody...fucking NOBODY on our side would remotely come close to that.

Posted by: Berserker at February 22, 2012 03:40 PM (FMbng)

611 That's a nice story and all, but let's return to what's relevant: a big part of the President's job is to NOT introduce tyrranical government intitiatives like Romneycare.

Romney care. RomneycareRomneycareRomneycareRomneycareRomneycareRomneycare.

Posted by: YFS at February 22, 2012 03:40 PM (hOpqT)

612 Bill Clinton was our last conservative President
Posted by: cherry ð at February 22, 2012 03:19 PM (OhYCU)

-------------------------------------

Don't kid yourself. Clinton was a screaming, occutard-like, liberal banshee until the 1994 mid-terms. Then the repubs started reigning him in. Oh, btw. The repub. congress that did this was led by none other than our candidate Newt.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2012 03:40 PM (0mlnt)

613 For those "Sure he has a lot of money so rescuing that girl was easy" types out there, he also jumped on a jet ski and took off into a lake when he heard screams of the passengers on a boat that had sank. He and his sons saved all 6 of them plus their dog. No idea if he then strapped said dog to the roof of his Volvo.

http://tinyurl.com/7epjb2e

Posted by: Hedgehog at February 22, 2012 03:40 PM (3jGS1)

614 really ...

I'm a practicing Catholic. I just don't believe in wearing my religion on my sleeve and clubbing people over the head with it.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:41 PM (OxI/Y)

615 What an awesome story. Thanks for telling it.

Posted by: JQ Public at February 22, 2012 03:43 PM (NBj0d)

616 I'm a practicing Catholic. I just don't believe in wearing my religion on my sleeve and clubbing people over the head with it.
Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:41 PM (OxI/Y)

If he is clubbing people over the head with it, why does the media have to dig up shit he said years ago...AT A CHURCH.

Posted by: yinzer at February 22, 2012 03:43 PM (/Mla1)

617 I'm a practicing Catholic. I just don't believe in wearing my religion on my sleeve and clubbing people over the head with it.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:41 PM (OxI/Y)


Yet you seem perfectly content to rip the religion off other people's sleeves, demand they shut up and stop talking while you beat them over the head with your vitriol.

By the way, your username: "Santorum is not Holy." Who in heaven or hell has said that he IS?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 22, 2012 03:44 PM (4df7R)

618 "Social Cons, who are economically Conservative tend not to be in your face and focus more on economic and fiscal issues. I don't classify these as Social Cons. These are Economic/Fiscons who happen to be socially Conservative."

You are into self abuse, aren't you?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 22, 2012 03:44 PM (kaOJx)

619 The fact is, Romney pushed several lines here, even if -- and it's a big "if" -- he didn't go over them completely. He devoted firm resources -- not just his -- to a personal cause. Business didn't get done; customers missed deadlines; opportunities were lost. He strong-armed his auditors into joining this cause.....what's that audit staffer going to do when he finds the revenue that hadn't yet been earned?

Sure, it's a feel-good story with a happy ending, but go back and read Bastiat's "Seen and Unseen". Just like the Berkeley story where the police were keeping an eye on the OWS protesters (good), but failed to answer a 911 call fast enough to keep someone from being beaten to death, we only see the good consequences of this action.

Posted by: cthulhu at February 22, 2012 03:45 PM (kaalw)

620 “He cannot do it alone. That was never the promise.”
<<<<<


You tell em Sister. Our guys can't catch the passes too.

Posted by: Giselle, stand by your man at February 22, 2012 03:45 PM (r+9M6)

621 Soona

Bingo! I am a Newt man. My point was that Bush had a Republican House and Senate, yet governed to the Left of Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:46 PM (OxI/Y)

622 Dick Nixon

You're not used to get pushed back. For 20 years, Socons have bullied Fiscons. Well those days are coming to an end.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:47 PM (OxI/Y)

623
Anybody going with Santorum is not Holy as a name is surely a troll. And a liberal one at that. And clearly not a Catholic.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 03:48 PM (r+9M6)

624 614
really ...

I'm a practicing Catholic. I just don't believe in wearing my religion on my sleeve and clubbing people over the head with it.


Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:41 PM (OxI/Y)
The very idea of a "practicing Catholic" is being defined as we speak. The Bishops and now Cardinal Dolan, are drawing a line in the sand with Pope Benedict's blessing. Catholics are going to be challenged to really follow the faith. The Cafeteria Catholics will lose interest and may even leave. The administration woke the sleeping giant.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 22, 2012 03:49 PM (oZfic)

625 By the way, notice how you see people here referring to Mitt Romney's tax plan as being "tax the rich" or something like that?

It's a lie. It's obviously all coming from one central set of talking points. If you've actually LOOKED at the details of Romney's proposed tax plan, it includes across-the-board cuts in tax rates for EVERYONE, from the top earners all the way down. What's the hat people are desperately hanging their "Romney is secretly a liberal!" talking point on, then? I'm not really sure. I'm guessing it's the fact that his proposal eliminates the capital gains tax for almost everyone, but (IIRC) excludes some at the very top.

But yeah: Mitt Romney's new tax plan involves "raising taxes on the rich" or whatever bullshit you want to roll with. Sure. Hey: a lie is just as good as the truth for the anti-Romneyites around here. Even better, in fact: a lie can be perfectly crafted to make him seem gloriously malevolent, whereas the truth has to be distorted and stretched, which can sometimes be difficult.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 22, 2012 03:49 PM (DN+j9)

626 yinzer

Actually I have no beef with Santorum's Satan is after America speech. It's totally correct. There are other things to hit Santorum on. I have never attacked him for that speech.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:49 PM (OxI/Y)

627 Just like the Berkeley story where the police were keeping an eye on the OWS protesters (good), but failed to answer a 911 call fast enough to keep someone from being beaten to death, we only see the good consequences of this action.
Posted by: cthulhu at February 22, 2012 03:45 PM (kaalw)


Or like every action movie ever made. Sure John McClane saves his wife and kills all the bad guys, but the destruction of the Nakatomi building and the associated problems thereof (power outages, road closures, police resources devoted to the site thatleave other areas unpatrolled, bonds and other financial resources lost and scattered to the four winds, DEAD PEOPLE), the negative fallout would have been HELL.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at February 22, 2012 03:49 PM (4df7R)

628 This is it? This is the best positive case for Romney? His friend's daughter was kidnapped and he did a pacifist Ross Perot? Did he even try to hire a merc? Not good enough. What about his accomplishments in government? How is Romney's record indicative that he'd be even willing to consider undertaking the radical change needed to get the country back on course?

Posted by: Iblis at February 22, 2012 03:49 PM (9221z)

629 I'm a practicing Catholic. I just don't believe in wearing my religion on my sleeve and clubbing people over the head with it. Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:41 PM (OxI/Y)

---------------------------------------

So I'm guessing that there's a difference between a practicing Catholic and a good Catholic. For myself, I'm never ashamed of telling everyone that everything that I have in mylife is a blessing from a good and loving God.

Posted by: Soona at February 22, 2012 03:49 PM (0mlnt)

630 What Guy Mohawk said in Comment 623. Stop feeding the troll.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 22, 2012 03:50 PM (W54Uh)

631 >>>The fact is, Romney pushed several lines here, even if -- and it's a big
"if" -- he didn't go over them completely. He devoted firm resources --
not just his -- to a personal cause. Business didn't get done;
customers missed deadlines; opportunities were lost. He strong-armed his
auditors into joining this cause.....what's that audit staffer going to
do when he finds the revenue that hadn't yet been earned?

Sure,
it's a feel-good story with a happy ending, but go back and read
Bastiat's "Seen and Unseen". Just like the Berkeley story where the
police were keeping an eye on the OWS protesters (good), but failed to
answer a 911 call fast enough to keep someone from being beaten to
death, we only see the good consequences of this action.


Holy shit. It's a shame Ace isn't in this thread anymore, because THIS one actually takes the cake for the most unbelievable "spin this into a negative" attempt I've ever seen. Wow fucking wow.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 22, 2012 03:51 PM (DN+j9)

632 jeremy lin

Catholics have been challenged before and we always come through. My beef with Santorum is his idea of some Moral Utopia with a Nanny state making sure people are moral and his stance against personal liberty. His faith is not my issue, since I share it. Its the fact he wants to impose some Christian version of Iran on America.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:52 PM (CX71c)

633 I'm a practicing Catholic. I just don't believe in wearing my religion on my sleeve and clubbing people over the head with it.


Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:41 PM


I don't believe that you are a practicing Catholic. On an earlier thread this morning you were saying you were fine with abortion as it reduced the number of poor people and "other" populations. That is hardly the position of a practicing Catholic. It is a position more in line with eugenicists.

Posted by: mama winger at February 22, 2012 03:52 PM (P6QsQ)

634
JeffB, I'll believe you that you know Mitt's tax plan, I don't care because its not flat, but I did hear him directly use that language of the left - 1%, fair share. Why does he do that?

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 22, 2012 03:52 PM (r+9M6)

635 How are you doing JeffB?

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 03:53 PM (7W3wI)

636 Soona

If asked about religion I am proud to admit my Catholic faith. My faith doesn't have anything to do with my politics. I don't seek to impose it on others like Santorum.

I must say, you are a reasonable person. Its great being able to discuss with you, than the name calling Social Cons usually engage in.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:54 PM (CX71c)

637 I think Romney is a pretty all around great guy. The problem is going to be in states like Oklahoma and many back East where there is a lot of anti-Mormon bigotry that stems from gossip and urban legends. In many cases the criticism of Romney is rooted in that bigotry but folks can't seem to come right out and say that so they find other reasons to demagogue him.

Posted by: crosspatch at February 22, 2012 03:54 PM (ZbLJZ)

638 mama winger

I don't care if you believe me or not. That's between me and God. The lord knows when my heart stands with his Church. I could care less hat you think, you will not judge me when I die.


Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:55 PM (CX71c)

639 >>>How are you doing JeffB?

Not so hot. But it ain't no thing.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at February 22, 2012 03:55 PM (DN+j9)

640 "Why does he do that?"

Because he's bad at politics, and has no guiding ideology, so he just randomly grabs phrases that float through his mind, some of which sound good, others meh, and yet others downright face-palm-y.

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 03:56 PM (r1jNE)

641 630 Jeez, I thought Ace was the troll. Maybe you guys should find a blog that will flatter your prejudices instead of push back when they feel it's necessary. I heard Hot Air loves itself some Palin Santorum.

Posted by: Anony at February 22, 2012 03:56 PM (Yigvc)

642 Crud, I meant to have Palin scratched out.

Posted by: Anony at February 22, 2012 03:57 PM (Yigvc)

643 Anony

Hot Air is full of cowards. They ban people who stand up to the Socons and Bigots. Ace is cool!

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:58 PM (CX71c)

644 http://www.buzzfeed. com/mckaycoppins/25-photos-of-mitt-romney-looking-normal

WTF, he's got a rear view mirror in that boat. That's just wrong, you go like hell and when the little brother spotter starts laughing you ask "Is he on"? Then you go back.

Posted by: DaveA at February 22, 2012 03:59 PM (2eUbq)

645 you will not judge me when I die. Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:55 PM




You are correct on that. God alone sees the heart. He is Judge, not I. On this we are in agreement.

Posted by: mama winger at February 22, 2012 03:59 PM (P6QsQ)

646 I'm a practicing Catholic. I just don't believe in wearing my religion on my sleeve and clubbing people over the head with it. Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:41 PM
*********

From the guy that says



275 Joffen, fucking sunshine patriotThen if she had kids, you would bitch about all these poor kids. I am OK with abortions since it reduces the number of poor.
Posted by: No to Theocrats at February 22, 2012 10:39 AM (GlBgT)

****************

You know as much about being a Catholic as Nancy Pelosi does you ignorant shit.

Posted by: buzzion at February 22, 2012 04:00 PM (GULKT)

647 632
jeremy lin

Catholics have been challenged before and we always
come through. My beef with Santorum is his idea of some Moral Utopia
with a Nanny state making sure people are moral and his stance against
personal liberty. His faith is not my issue, since I share it. Its the
fact he wants to impose some Christian version of Iran on America.


Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 03:52 PM (CX71c)
It's blatantly obvious that you have not listened to his Ave Regina University speech. It is also blatantly obvious that your fears are all a construct of your own mind. I'd bet 500 bucks that your Catholic faith is waaay different from Rick Santorum's Catholic faith, because when it comes down to it, being a Catholic is an individual experience. Santorum is not "wearing his Catholic Faith" rather the media has put the mantle on him and he has graciously accepted their actions and turns it around on them almost every day. I would love to see the quotes where he took a stance against personal liberty and where he will force his morality on you. Where has he said this cause I see where he has voted at times contrary to his beliefs becasue he represented his constituents.What's really happening is that the anti Santorum rhetoric coupled with the birth control/abortion attack is morphing into folks just not wanting to hear another thing about the election. Romney shooed think twice before he says again that the base will support him. What base, it's all torn apart and fragmented. The TEA party, though he and others want to negate them is alive and well and they will turn out but the so called republicans maybe not, not for romney. Maybe not for any of them. Independents are growing casue people are too embarrassed to admit they would be a part of either political party.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 22, 2012 04:00 PM (oZfic)

648 Let me sum up my overall view on the matter, which I believe might represent the view of some of the rest of us:

If Barack Obama is re-elected President, we are completely and utterly fucked.

If Mitt Romney is elected President, we are completely and utterly fucked.

I would be entirely happy if anyone could remotely convince me that the second proposition isn't true. However, in my case that will require a reasonable case that Romney will aggressively seek to repeal Obamacare as his first priority, after which he will aggressively wage war on government spending as his overall general priority. If anyone has that case to make, please, PLEASE, present it to me.

Posted by: Ken Begg at February 22, 2012 04:01 PM (0pNdu)

649 mama winger

Fair enough! Look I don't have beef with Economic Cons who are Socially Conservative. I am against Gay marriage, since it should be between a man and women. I can't stand are Big Governmnet types like Santorum who want a Nanny State deciding people's morality. Don't fall for these false prophets like Santorum.

Only God can bring about the perfect society, not government made from men. Santorum is a false prophet, don't fall for it!

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 04:02 PM (CX71c)

650 Hang in there Jeff,you are in my prayers.

Posted by: steevy at February 22, 2012 04:02 PM (7W3wI)

651 Santorum is a false prophet, don't fall for it!


Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 04:02 PM (CX71c)
Is that the new democratic talking point?

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 22, 2012 04:03 PM (oZfic)

652 Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 03:40 PM (xJTAH)

Close, but not quite. You can jump in any time with a thought.

Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 04:03 PM (9KqcB)

653 If you want to read a summary of Romney's tax plan as well as every other issue you can simply go to MittRomney.com

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 22, 2012 04:04 PM (xJTAH)

654 @648
I can't make the case you're asking for, unfortunately, but I still think you should vote for Romney if he's the nominee.

He doesn't hate America.

He will take Jim DeMint's phone calls (even if his inner circle is populated by odious effers like John Sununu).

He will have a standard Republican approach to foreign policy, particularly on defense. (He'll differ to military leaders and not be pushing for ridiculous crap like pregnancy suits.)

His judicial appointments will be better than Obama's.


Romney is not my first choice (or even my second one at this stage of the game), but with Obama we are being hurled headlong into Euorpean style socialism (or worse).

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 04:05 PM (5H6zj)

655 "Right,because if we think religion should be left out of politics we are brainwashed by pop culture."

Yes. remember Ace's moment with the beach fires? That's where you are, before you realize it.

And it looks like we have a new concern troll.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 22, 2012 04:05 PM (r4wIV)

656 Ugh, that's "defer" not "differ."

blech.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 04:07 PM (5H6zj)

657 #648 Ken Beg knows what's up.

If the only impetus I am being given to vote for Romney is "Eh, he's not Obama," then we're fucked.

Romeny is pretty much Obama in whiteface.

Posted by: Clp at February 22, 2012 04:07 PM (OvPy4)

658 Do you really want to brag about GWB's record? Seriously?

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 03:04 PM (zmlwq)

I see the Axelrod paid trolls are out in force in this post.
Yes, I'll take GWB's record against Teh Won's any day of the week. Let's start with the obvious historical facts that GWB was subjected to day in - day out media slander attacks in just the opposite way that Obamao has received media fawning on a 24-7 basis. Then add in the historical fact that the US economy did not start going down hill until the Democrats took over the house and senate in 2006.So yes clear cut - superior performance by Bush. Other than being black Obawon has virtually nothing going for him. No, you don't think so? OK pin the same performance record on a white Republican and tell me how great a president he is.

Posted by: An Observation at February 22, 2012 04:08 PM (ylhEn)

659 jeremy lin

Can you point out where I attacked Santorum for his speech? Nope, my beef is his policies.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 04:08 PM (JYYzZ)

660 It's good that Romney's plan has gotten more specific, but I don't like that he's making it revenue neutral instead starving the fed govt and I particularly do not like that his strategy for doing so involves hitting charitable deductions.

Posted by: Y-not still for Newt at February 22, 2012 04:08 PM (5H6zj)

661 So, Romney has no hesitation shutting down the legitimate business operations of his company (a company responsible to investors, employees, and shareholders), ordering employees to suspend their actual compensated duties, and calling in favors from clients and contractors in service of solving the personal problem of one of his partners.

This is supposed to recommend him to me as someone with a proper perspective on the duties and powers of the presidency?

To the contrary, it is one of a series of actions in his business and political life that indicate his belief that what he, and/or his friends, partners, and supporters need at any given time is superior in priority to what he was actually hired/elected to do.

Working the system to call in favors to save the SLC Olympics is the same thing. Would he have been so eager to be the "Savior of the Olympics" if the rampant corruption and assorted malfeasance going on with the SLCOOC been happening in any other city than the home of his religion? Of course not.

I would be a hell of a lot more impressed with this little bit of hagiography from Mitt's new butt-boy, Ace, if Romney had done all this girl-rescuing on his own time and on his own dime and not dragooned his employees and customers into footing the time and the bill.

Romney is just another in a long line of upper-class silver-spoon types who think that the structures and rules of our society are just levers he can pull to help out his buddies. All the better if he can convince the simple-minded of his "virtue" for having pulled those levers.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 22, 2012 04:09 PM (dcoFe)

662 I have been a life-long Republican, but I won't vote for Santorum. I was lukewarm on Mitt, but now that all the other people have imploded, there is not much choice left for me. Christie, Daniels, Pawlenty would have been preferable.

I think this story makes me feel a lot better about Romney...the guy who gave up his inheritance, the guy who ran a company successfully, the guy who used his own resources to help a business partner, the guy who fixed a corrupt Olympics, the guy who was a governor of a large state, etc.

Sure, Romneycare SUCKS and Romney's an idiot for not admitting is was plain unsuccessful. But I don't want to hear about aspirin between the knees, Satan, or whatever Santorum has to spin this week. He needs to stop with the "I don't want to be your pastor, but..." stuff.

Even then, I think I won't vote for him - I can stomach religious talk from libertarians, but not from someone who always bad mouths freedom as "dangerous."

Posted by: sexypig at February 22, 2012 04:09 PM (wWV5q)

663 An Observation

Bush had anemic job growth, weak GDP growth of 2.5 %, stagnant wages and he added 5 Trillion to the debt. The reason the Dems won Congress in 06,w as because the economy was stagnant.

Try again Bushbot!

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 04:10 PM (JYYzZ)

664 sexypig

Well said and many feel the way you are. These Socons don't realize the damage Santorum will do to the Right.

Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 04:12 PM (JYYzZ)

665 659
jeremy lin

Can you point out where I attacked Santorum for his speech? Nope, my beef is his policies.


Posted by: Santorum is not Holy at February 22, 2012 04:08 PM (JYYzZ)
Please read. You are making assumptions about Santorum without proof. If you read the speech you would understand him better, but you didn't becasue you simply don't want to understand, instead you want to attack him and distort his positions. Why not prove what you are saying with Rick Santorum's actual words, in context?It's funny I know who I don't like but I'm not sure who I do like, however, what I disdain wholly is having to defend someone when they are being eviscerated by the media and conservatives. I'm sure the next time newt is up I'll be defending him.
Listening to romney on hannity. For a month Larry Kudlow has railed about Romney's economic plan and he has suggested all the changes. Like everyone else, Kudlow jumped on the romney band wagon too early and so now he has to save face by complaining about the plan until romney changes it and slips it to him first. The 9-9-9 plan was the simplest and best so far. The others are all obama lite.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 22, 2012 04:14 PM (oZfic)

666 Uh Ace this story was up at Protein Wisdom a month ago. Wipe your face.

Posted by: icepick at February 22, 2012 04:15 PM (o0Uno)

667 Oh, and I was once in a massive earthquake where thousands died. I finally got back to my trashed office and there were two faxes waiting for me.

One fax was from our New York customer, angrily demanding we answer their questions Re-FAX!!!!!

The other one from our California customer wanted to know if we were all safe.

Guess which customer I consider a prime asshole and which customer I would move heaven and earth to help solve a problem?

You guys can claim that Romney should have just carried on with business as usual, but business is made up of people, and trust me, real people appreciate these kind of things.

Posted by: sexypig at February 22, 2012 04:15 PM (wWV5q)

668 Yea but Newt saved three womens from boring unsatisfied sex lives and Sanitorium only has sex to make babies and the Lyin kING is a stud that hoses down anything that doesn't move but prefers big strong guys. So whats Mittens got to say to DAT!

Posted by: concealedkerry or Submitt at February 22, 2012 04:15 PM (vXqv3)

669 "I will put a halt to all the obama era regulations" - Romney....No not put a halt, totally repeal, see how the language is being nuanced, just like the dems.

Posted by: jeremy lin fan at February 22, 2012 04:16 PM (oZfic)

670 No, Romney should have used his own time and money to solve his partner's problem, not the time and money of his company and customers.

This wasn't a natural disaster that struck his office. It was the kid of one of the partners being where she shouldn't have been, doing what she shouldn't have been doing.

Is Romney going to call in the Marines if one of his cabinet secretary's kids turns up missing or would that be an inappropriate use of executive resources? Explain the difference between this hypothetical and what Romney did in the case being discussed.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 22, 2012 04:21 PM (dcoFe)

671 Ace, if Newt acquits himself well tonight, please don't try to squoosh him again. Because as you well know things can always get worse.

Posted by: SarahW at February 22, 2012 04:23 PM (LYwCh)

672 Romney = not a douchebag
Santorum = not a douchebag
Obama = Tyrannical douchebag and SCOAMF

My vote this year = anyone who's not Obama.

Posted by: Chaz at February 22, 2012 04:25 PM (oJGIR)

673 "Is Romney going to call in the Marines if one of his cabinet secretary's kids turns up missing "

I hope not, when the FBI would be the appropriate group to handle that. And yes, he should put the FBI on a Cabinet Secretary's missing kid if that happens.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 22, 2012 04:25 PM (kaOJx)

674 I see the Axelrod paid trolls are out in force in this post.

Holly shit, people. Take a fucking breath. Easy now...

Posted by: CJ at February 22, 2012 04:26 PM (9KqcB)

675 Exactly Chaz. Stay on target people. Stay on target. Which would be worse for you, President Santorum/Romney/Gingrich, or 4 more years of President Obama with nothing to lose? Be rational here.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 22, 2012 04:27 PM (r4wIV)

676 607 Reagan really never made socon ideas a focus of his governing philosophy.Nope not at all.
Posted by: Some city on a hill thing or another at February 22, 2012 03:39 PM (6LvlL)

Reagan's shining city on a hill imagery was referring to abortion, contraception or school prayer???

No, it was referring to the US as a model of freedom. A concept Rick Santorum is a little hazy on.

Posted by: radar at February 22, 2012 04:31 PM (zmlwq)

677 I am not criticizing Romney for this, it was very admirable as was the fact that everyone wholeheartedly participated and they saved the girl. I just have to ask if anyone remembers Ross Perot? He got a lot of mileage out of funding a rescue mission for employees who had been kidnapped by terrorists.

I will vote for Romney or whomever the eventual nominee turns out to be. But I find little common ground with Romney on issues relating to actual governance.

Posted by: Will Not Assimilate For Food at February 22, 2012 04:33 PM (kXoT0)

678 Which cabinet secretary' kids? SecDef? SecState? Is the Labor Dept secretary on the list? How about the OMB guy's kids? What about an Under-Secretary's kids?

See my point? When you start using the company's or the government's official resources for personal problem-soving you open the door to what we have with Obama and all his pay-offs and crap.

Romney has shown a pattern of thinking that he is bigger than his office's purview. That is exactly what you Romney people are accusing RS of doing, with absolutely no evidence of in 20 years in public life, beyond the typical legislator's earmark crap.

You Romney people want to point to Romney's actions as an executive. Well, fine. Examine those actions with a critical eye to what you say you find objectionable about other candidates and their supposed proclivities.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 22, 2012 04:33 PM (dcoFe)

679 "No, it was referring to the US as a model of freedom."

And amnesty, apparently. Who knew?

"...I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still...."

Posted by: Knemon at February 22, 2012 04:34 PM (r1jNE)

680 "My vote this year = anyone who's not Obama."

This.

Posted by: Santorum is so totally holy at February 22, 2012 04:46 PM (MTzcp)

681 This is the essence of the problem I have with Romney, and that I have with Romney's supporters.

Everybody is getting all freaked out about RS supposedly wanting to "impose" stuff on the country or "ban" stuff. Why? Because a faithful Catholic speaks truthfully about his faith when asked about it. Is there any instance in 22 years of public office, and 8,000+ votes, of him ever actually doing what his detractors say they are afraid of? No, of course not.

On the other hand, we have actual, documented policies pushed for and implemented by Romney that actually do force people to do or not do stuff. Romneycare chief among them.

So, let's see: hypothetical threat to our liberty vs actual threat to our liberty. Who is scarier? The Catholic, of course.

I'm definitely enjoying the revival of 1850s Know-Nothingism coming from the "moderates" in the party over the last three weeks. Is that what Romney meant when he said he was a "severe conservative?"

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 22, 2012 04:49 PM (dcoFe)

682 "Which would be worse for you, President Santorum/Romney/Gingrich, or 4 more years of President Obama with nothing to lose?"

Yeah, you'd think some of the commenters here are those Montana Freemen jerkoffs.

Posted by: meekrob at February 22, 2012 04:50 PM (MTzcp)

683 "When you start using the company's or the government's official resources for personal problem-soving "

Because kidnapping a cabinet secretary's child is a personal problem.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 22, 2012 04:50 PM (kaOJx)

684 Jeez, I thought Ace was the troll. Maybe you guys should find a blog that will flatter your prejudices instead of push back when they feel it's necessary. I heard Hot Air loves itself some Palin Santorum.
Posted by: Anony at February 22, 2012 03:56 PM (Yigvc)

I'min awe of folkslike yourself who suffer from cognitive limitations, yetare determined toovercome them. It can't be easy.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 22, 2012 04:57 PM (W54Uh)

685 @683 The partner's kid wasn't "kidnapped," she was missing. Missing, it turns out because of getting high at a party she shouldn't have been at. Yes, that is manifestly a personal problem for the family involved and not "official" business.

Address Romney's eagerness to use the official resources of his company for personal problem-solving and what that says about his philosophy regarding ends/means and the constitutional limitations of the presidency.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 22, 2012 05:14 PM (dcoFe)

686 PErry was my guy, but of the options left it looks like Romney is my only choice because I don't like Santorum.
So nice to know something nice about him.

Posted by: Lea at February 22, 2012 05:24 PM (lIU4e)

687 Posted by Knemon: Have you seen Romney's numbers with independents recently?


Are you secure in the belief that they'll rebound?
----------------

Of course we have seen them. They will also rebound.

Understand that in general elections the voter population is 128,000,000 people. The primary results are ridiculous.

This country is roughly a spectrum where we self assing names to the tune of 40% conservative, 40% moderate, 20% liberal.

In reality, the 10% conservative and maybe 8% moderate that abut on the spectrum are close and interchangeable. They vascillate from election to election, many are old school 'conservative democrats,' etc

That 40% moderate + 10% conservative slice is low-information voters, they don't pay attention to politics, they don't know details.

They've picked up little snippets on Romney due to the primary getting so nasty, like his "I don't care about poor" remark, etc. That said, come convention time when the candidate has a prime-time introduction, with huge campaign and PAC and 527 money behind him, people start to see things like the Romney closes shop and saves girl story... and they like it.

This wave of primary negativity always happens and is always temporary.



PS. That voter distribution is why you "true, hard core conservatives" can go fuck yourself. Fine, call your bluff, stay the fuck home. I'll gladly exchange your 10% of voters on the far right (which causes us to lose 25% of moderates and 10% of conservatives) for large gains in the middle. Any day.

Posted by: Uriah Heep at February 22, 2012 05:27 PM (JdSQO)

688 @687 Maybe they see the "rich guy strong-arms employees and customers to find druggie daughter of irresponsible-parent business partner," instead.

Don't assume that Romney will be able to control the narrative in the fall with overwhelming monetary superiority just because he has been able to somewhat do so in the primaries, against guys with 10% of his campaign money.

Envision all of Romney's weaknesses: only with an opponent exploiting those weaknesses with more money than Romney and the entire MSM on his side.

That is your general election scenario with Romney.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 22, 2012 05:35 PM (dcoFe)

689 681

The GOP absolutely HATE so-cons with a passion, they are embarrassed by the men and women who make up the base.

Embarrassed by so-cons station in life, hate southern so-cons, hate uneducated so-cons, hate their evangelical ways, etc. Hate their social and political beliefs. Republicans mock so-cons in the press consistently.

It is beyond me why so-cons would want to be in a party that works with Democrats to defeat them?

Weird, it's like a version of battered wife syndrome.






Posted by: Pam at February 22, 2012 05:35 PM (cgrL5)

690 Pam, your guy says he doesn't like libertarians, so look in the mirror.

@Uriah Heep

Thank you!!!!! My thoughts exactly.

Posted by: sexypig at February 22, 2012 05:48 PM (wWV5q)

691 OK, I've bashed so-cons enough and I actually like them personally and totally will go to the mat to defend their right to religion. For example, no way should Catholic groups have to pay for contraception. No way should gays get to force churches to marry them.

But what worries me is the so-cons who cannot be content with being free to worship as they please and decide that I need to worship as they please.

Sure, morality is always going to spill into the public realm a bit, but it should mainly be done through PERSUASION not law.

I think the pro-life movement has done very well on this front. Yes, abortion is not illegal, but through moral persuasion, the country is more inclined to want to limit it, perhaps not through government bans, but softer ways. Even simple guilt over the action is helpful - something we've probably lost in the food stamp realm, where it used to be shameful to take assistance.

Posted by: sexypig at February 22, 2012 05:56 PM (wWV5q)

692 "Envision all of Romney's weaknesses: only with an opponent exploiting those weaknesses with more money than Romney and the entire MSM on his side."

Santorum will be beaten like a drum by the MSM. Even if its unfair it will still happen.

And I suspect he will fall into many a trap where he just gives his honest Catholic faith on his sleeve answer and scares the hell out of people.

Romney is a Mormon - not exactly unitarians you know - but he doesn't do that. The key to this election will be the economy and attracting the middle - those people are liberal on social areas.

The so-cons should consider that winning the election means better justices on the Supreme Court, who at the very minimum will protect religion, and also chances for other so-con issues to be done ad-hoc through Congress. You don't need to run on these. "Hey everybody, I'm not your pastor, but..."

The other option is to go full culture warrior, scare the demoralized Obama voter to the barricades, and get yourself supreme court justices chosen by Obama . Oh, and possibly lose the chance at the Senate and some ground in Congress as well.

The strategy should be to keep the Democrats at home. To keep them embarrassed of bringing up politics at work or on-line.

But you guys fell for the Democrat plan - contraception is now an issue. Thanks St. Rick!

Posted by: sexypig at February 22, 2012 06:04 PM (wWV5q)

693 I don't have a "guy" unfortunately, as I said above, we need a rightwing ruthless SOB (which none of our candidates have ever been, save RR, and Rudy)......just obvious observations for the last 30 years, on the behavior of the GOP.

Especially during primaries, but even in general elections past. Working hand in hand with the Dems and the MSM to trash so-cons. They have weakened the party by actively sleeping with the enemy.

They even do it in the Congress and Senate. Remember what Republicans in the Senate did to DeMint last year. Trashed him in the press, vowed to leave all his legislation on the shelve to rot like a bad banana.

The GOP exudes weakness.








Posted by: Pam at February 22, 2012 06:11 PM (cgrL5)

694
*Gibbs* Nice work, Mittens. */Gibbs*

And that's how an actual executive operates. As opposed to a Stuttering Cluster Fuck of a Miserable Tyrannical Failure.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 22, 2012 06:24 PM (1hM1d)

695 I will still never vote for Mitt Romney but good on him for helping others!

Posted by: Pragmatic at February 22, 2012 06:35 PM (z8Cts)

696 Are there people saying that Mitt Romney is a "Bad Person"? I mean, this is a really nice story, and reflects well on Romney's character as a human being. I'm just not sure that was ever in question, though. I will not vote for Mitt Romney for the GOP Presidential nomination based on this story, though, and anyone who would is a fool. I won't vote for him in the general based on this story, either, although I most certainly WILL vote for Mitt Romney in the general should he win the nomination. It's a great story, it's just not a "positive case" to VOTE for Mitt Romney.

It bums me out to see good guys acting like this, but I guess politics can bring out the worst in anyone. Ace, if you truly believe that this story is a valid reason to vote for a guy for POTUS, then I think you're fooling yourself and really grasping at whatever you can get your hands on. If, on the other hand, you're just trying to flush out some embarrassing comments from anti-Mitt commenters, well, I just don't see the value in that.

Posted by: holygoat at February 22, 2012 06:42 PM (XnwWl)

697 It is a very moving story. I was moved by it. I gave Mitt some criticism for his "workers" removing Santorum signs today. But I am absolutely sure Mitt Romney is a good man in real life. Just like I am sure Rick Santorum is. I disagree with policies of both of them, and I also think they are hands down better than Barack Obama.

Same for Newt (although he has more mud on his shoes) and for that matter Ron Paul (although I disagree with him on a lot of points and do not care for some of his associations).

Posted by: Evi L. Bloggerlady at February 22, 2012 08:00 PM (IgakF)

698 The more people push the whole "electability" line and tear down the other GOP candidates, the more likely I am to vote Libertarian again instead of GOP this time around.

Just saying.

11th commandment. Stop pushing "your guy" by making him the default because you've destroyed everyone else. If that's your tactic, you have a character flaw, are no better than a fucking Democrat, and deserve to lose.

Posted by: Wicked Fenrir at February 22, 2012 08:01 PM (++lH5)

699 Obomneycare.

Posted by: Kevin at February 22, 2012 08:01 PM (3o64G)

700 If you are stuck on an island who would you rather have with you? Romney or Santorum?

One of them seems like the kind of guy who gets shit done. The other seems like the kind of guy who will tell you how you're survivin' wrong.

I'm a little surprised that if you are grasping for good qualities to wrap Romney in -- why the discussion on this site and this thread rarely holds up Romney's private sector mojo?

Turning around Bain & Co, (the biz business consulting firm not the venture capital firm) and then founding the upstart Bain Capital. I'm sure some of you morons have started / run your own business? It's f'ing hard to do well. And really hard to do really f'ing well.

Posted by: Hoss at February 22, 2012 08:27 PM (zk1ly)

701 Jeff B. made a good observation yesterday that for many people when they hate someone, for some reason they feel compelled to deny all possible virtue in them as well. So that's a lot of what's going on here I think.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 22, 2012 02:22 PM

I'm sure this statement was meant to explain the Romney 'hate'. But it is also a very good explanation for ace's -- and other commenters' -- Santorum 'hate'.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at February 22, 2012 11:35 PM (vUK/h)

702 Really? We're going to bitch about this too? I would rather hope that the statement "It's a good thing that Romney helped find a missing teenage girl" would be non-controversial.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 22, 2012 02:25 PM

It is non-controversial until people start using it as "a positive case for (voting for) Romney".

This tactic by ace is in the same vein as McCain supporters saying his time spent as a POW is "a positive case for McCain". McCain's POW experience is a nice example of his character as a young military man, but it did not trump all the negative things in McCain's political history.

Romney-detractors say they don't like Romney, because of X, Y & Z political reasons (Romneycare, lying about his position on abortion for political reasons, flip-flopping on issues, etc) and ace comes back with "but he found a missing teenager!" Okay? Nice, but how is it relevant to his political history?

McCain detractors said they didn't like McCain because of Gang of 14, Amnesty, campaign finance, etc and McCain-supporters come back with "but he was a hero as a POW!" Okay? Nice, but how is that relevant to his political history?

This is the kind of thing the Left does.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at February 22, 2012 11:49 PM (vUK/h)

703 Guys, guys! He saved A GIRL! LET US CHRISTEN HIM SUPER PRESIDENT NOW!

...and now that we're down from our ecstasy high, REALLY? Really, guys? It's not his politics or his record that we should consider, but the fact that he did a good deed? Oh, I'm not begrudging the fact he saved someone's life. But insisting this in any way makes him a better candidate to be the most powerful man in the world is shameful. Stop shilling, Ace.

Posted by: R. Waher at February 23, 2012 02:22 AM (4FP+P)

704 I don't think it's a story JUST about his ethics. It also sounds like a story about his "getting shit done-edness" that fits into his "getting shit done-edness" evidence in turning around Bain and Co and founding Bain Capital...

(... and, yeah, getting RomneyCare passed... yerk...)

Posted by: Hoss at February 23, 2012 07:59 AM (zk1ly)

705 By that measure, Ross Perot should've been elected President. He rescued two of his employees from Iran during the hostage crisis.ThatRomney will look out for his own kind should come as no news to anyone.

Posted by: Jay Anderson at February 23, 2012 11:05 AM (pLTLS)

706 If I end up having to hold my nose and vote for this prick, you guys better be prepared to do the same if it ends up being a not-Romney.

Posted by: wtf hes a phony at February 23, 2012 11:35 AM (3eZ+x)

707 700
If you are stuck on an island who would you rather have with you? Romney or Santorum?



One of them seems like the kind of guy who gets shit done. The other
seems like the kind of guy who will tell you how you're survivin'
wrong.***

Romney's first response would be to form a committee of lawyers. I do not think that's going to be a big help.

Posted by: Kerry at February 23, 2012 12:55 PM (a/VXa)






Processing 0.11, elapsed 0.1193 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0335 seconds, 716 records returned.
Page size 389 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat