Michigan Exit Polls

There are some interesting numbers in the exit polls out of Michigan, where Mitt Romney narrowly beat Rick Santorum yesterday. (Here are Fox's and CBS').

Nine percent of GOP primary voters were Democrats and they went for Santorum by 51%. So the robocalls had some effect. Romney and Paul each picked up 17% of that group. But the presence of that many Democrats makes it hard to draw conclusions from some of the poll data. Twelve percent of GOP primary voters said they "Strongly Oppose" the Tea Party and that group also went for Santorum (45%) over Romney (29%). That's gotta be those Democratic voters in large part, right? Santorum also got 45% of those who "Strongly Support" the Tea Party. Same problem with the union membership question.

On the other hand, some of the results are noteworthy. Of the voters who decided which candidate they would vote for on the day of the primary, Romney beat Santorum 38%-31%. That's a reversal from what polling before the vote was saying and is probably due to backlash over the robocalls and Santorum's JFK gaffe, which he said he regretted yesterday.

Other notable numbers: of self-identified conservative voters, Romney beats Santorum 43%-41%. Romney also beat Santorum among those who self-identify as Republican 48%-37%. But when those who say they're "Very Conservative" (about a third of the voters) are separated out, they went for Santorum (50%) over Romney (36%).

Fifty-three percent of voters believed Romney is the most likely candidate to beat President Obama. Only 73% of that group actually voted for Romney, though.

Thirty-one percent of voters believed working in government is the best experience for a president. That group went for Santorum (52%) over Romney (20%). The reverse was true for those who believed working is business is the best experience for a president.

Romney voters were indeed the most resolute: of the 62% of GOP primary voters who said they will definitely vote for the GOP candidate in November, 50% went for Romney; only 36% picked Santorum. The Ronulans, of course, carried away the category "Only If My Candidate Wins the Nomination."

One last surprise in the CBS exits: Romney beat Santorum among Catholics 44%-37%.

In short, in Michigan, Romney carried conservatives, Republicans, Catholics, those who believe working in business is better prep for the presidency than working in government, and those who are most dedicated to voting against President Obama.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:32 AM



Comments

1 First. And Super Tuesday looms just down the road

Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 29, 2012 07:34 AM (YKQpP)

2 and how much did it cost him per delegate this time?

Posted by: bannor, voting Sweet Meteor of Death 2012 at February 29, 2012 07:38 AM (HEa5q)

3 Hot Air hardest hit.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 29, 2012 07:41 AM (RJ8yG)

4 Crater Together!

Posted by: SMODULAN at February 29, 2012 07:42 AM (LYwCh)

5 Anybody But Obama

Posted by: sickinmass at February 29, 2012 07:42 AM (bcNec)

6 3. You Betcha'

Posted by: SMOD at February 29, 2012 07:43 AM (LYwCh)

7 If you experience an election lasting longer than 4 months please contact your physician immediately. (unless your Dr. Is Luap Nor)

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 29, 2012 07:43 AM (RJ8yG)

8 Let's face it. Romney is the best turd out of the remaining turds left to unseat the biggest turd ever.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 29, 2012 07:47 AM (RJ8yG)

9 Romney carried conservatives, Republicans, Catholics, those who believe
working in business is better prep for the presidency than working in
government, and those who are most dedicated to voting against President
Obama.


I'll take that demographic.

Posted by: Blacksheep at February 29, 2012 07:47 AM (jA4Zy)

10 The "I'll believe the polls I want to believe and dismiss the polls I don't want to believe" syndrome.

Posted by: JEA at February 29, 2012 07:48 AM (KSjQG)

11 Strongly oppose the TEA PARTY? 12%??

The only block that wants to restore sanity to our country! That Tea Party?

Fuck the 12%!!

Posted by: McLovin at February 29, 2012 07:52 AM (j0IcY)

12 Is Ace going to stop hyperventilating and get off the fainting couch now? Will he stop with the childish arguments and melodrama?

I certainly hope so.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at February 29, 2012 07:52 AM (sOx93)

13 Thanks for this Gabe..

Interesting though that Santorum only got 51% of the Democrats. And Romney won the districts in and around Detroit - the town he said he would have allowed to go bankrupt.

That means, perhaps, there are some union/Dem crossover votes we may be able to count on in November.. Reagan Democrats, maybe?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 29, 2012 07:52 AM (UTq/I)

14 Reagan Democrats, maybe?

I don't believe there are any Reagan Democrats left. They became Republicans long ago.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at February 29, 2012 07:54 AM (+zL0z)

15
Open primary = dumbest thing ever. The idea makes sense if you have a voting public that's not 52% cynical assholes - but since we have douchebags of on the Left trying to rig the election by selecting a bad candidate for our side it's no longer a workable concept. Michigan - close the primary!!
That said, I'm glad the actual Republicans in my state managed to do the right thing, overall.
Ultimately the ongoing stupefaction of the American public, perpetrated by the public ed system and Hollywood, will bring down this country. But I treasure every day of delay that we can buy. Here's hoping that we can soon be complaining about President Romney.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 29, 2012 07:55 AM (xUM1Q)

16 How much appeal does immigration policy have to those that are not very conservative?

The VC voters are fractured, yet immigration voters break for Romney.

This suggests contrary to popular opinion that immigration is an issue that less conservatives voters support, and may have a bit of cross over appeal.

Posted by: MJ at February 29, 2012 07:55 AM (/x4oj)

17 Is this the DOOM thread?

If only SMOD had a ground game and got on the ballot in MI. (But refusing to act establishment is part of his appeal, so...)

>>I don't believe there are any Reagan Democrats left. They became Republicans long ago.

It's been 30 years. Most Reagan Democrats are now dead, and thus voting Democrat again.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 07:56 AM (hO8IJ)

18 13
Thanks for this Gabe..

That means, perhaps, there are some union/Dem crossover votes we may be able to count on in November.. Reagan Democrats, maybe?


Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 29, 2012 07:52 AM (UTq/I)

From past experience, this is a real possibility. If/when it happens, the crossovers will show up in the Nov. election. There be nary a peep from them until election time. Union guys are going to be "real" quiet about their intentions until then.

Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 07:56 AM (BoE3Z)

19 It's amazing to think that there's been 3 or 4 candidates that were all at one time the ABBR flavor of the month. I'll give Mitt credit that he kept on a keeping on. I would think Mitt is smart enough to realize and remember that the base is not particularily enamored with him. Hopefully that means he realizes he's on a short leash. This thing isn't over yet but last night was a huge win for Romney and should help him on Super Tuesday. Well he's the best of the worst to unseat the worst. Time to go dig out from our blizzard last night.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 29, 2012 07:57 AM (RJ8yG)

20 I do believe, however, that there are still "JFK Catholics" and that they seriously did not like Santorum's JFK-vomit comments. That was a self-induced wound both for its off-putting vulgarity and because JFK's speech was actually about religious freedom.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at February 29, 2012 07:57 AM (+zL0z)

21 It's been 30 years. Most Reagan Democrats are now dead, and thus voting Democrat again.
----------------
Hahahahaha.

Posted by: MJ at February 29, 2012 07:57 AM (/x4oj)

22 Er...a link to Legal Insurrection explaining that JFK was promoting religious freedom in that speech:

http://bit.ly/wsE17N

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at February 29, 2012 07:58 AM (+zL0z)

23 Newt come back.

Posted by: Can we get go back to the better not Romney now? at February 29, 2012 07:59 AM (LYwCh)

24 This suggests contrary to popular opinion that immigration is an issue that less conservatives voters support, and may have a bit of cross over appeal.
Posted by: MJ at February 29, 2012 07:55 AM (/x4oj) Our side has always had a big winner in the immigration control issue. Cons want to reduce the cultural impact of a bunch of unassimiliated 3rd world underachievers, and the moderates want less competition for jobs. BUT - the question is, how many votes does it gain, vs how many it loses? I personally think it's a net win based on how well it polls- but everyone in professional politicsis afraid that the illegals and their sympathizers will vote in a monolithic bloc against anyone that seeks to thart their border-jumping ways.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 29, 2012 08:00 AM (xUM1Q)

25 Just wondering, now that Mittens has reclaimed the Mantle of Inevitability, does that mean that moderates will go back to repressing their vitriolic hatred for "so cons" (i.e. "Theocratic Fascists"), or is it OK to keep bashing them from now through the election?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 08:00 AM (azHfB)

26 I do believe, however, that there are still "JFK Catholics" and that they seriously did not like Santorum's JFK-vomit comments. That was a self-induced wound both for its off-putting vulgarity and because JFK's speech was actually about religious freedom.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at February 29, 2012 07:57 AM (+zL0z) Alas - this is probably true. What makes ME want to vomit is the absurd JFK worship in this nation of lunatics. In addition to being an incompetent and too weak to deal effectively with the Russians, the man was a sleaze. The only reason I wish he hadn't been assassinated is so that his deterioration from VD could have been exposed. That would have taken some luster off the "Camelot" crew.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 29, 2012 08:03 AM (xUM1Q)

27 You missed two other significant groups who broke very big for Mitt: old people and rich people. No doubt some crossover between the two, but clearly a more significant factor in this than the 9% Dems, who are being given a great deal more ink.

Mitt definitely has his demographics.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:04 AM (Gc/Qi)

28 Open primary = dumbest thing ever.


Posted by: Reactionary at February 29, 2012 07:55 AM (xUM1Q)



Yep. Primaries are party events, not for the general public. The powers that be like to have open primaries because that takes our system another step towards the sort of unrestricted democracy that Europe has had and that our Constitution was written to disallow. That's why political parties are not Constitutional entities at all in America, whereas political parties are the fundamental political entities in the rest of the world which took on the insane and asinine Euro party-oriented, collectivist, unlimited, unseparated national governmental architectures.


Too many Americans don't realize how totally different our governmental architecture is from just about every other nation in the world - part of the reason for having required natural born citizens to lead the Executive branch - and how important and fundamental those differences are.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 08:04 AM (X3lox)

29 Even though Mitt is not my guy, extreme pressure should be placed on the rest of the candidates to, tangentially drop out of the race and coalesce around Romney.

We needed to start hitting Obama like yesterday and we can't start that process until we have a GOP candidate.

Posted by: McLovin at February 29, 2012 08:04 AM (j0IcY)

30
What was the turnout, low or very low?

Posted by: soothsayer at February 29, 2012 08:05 AM (vanqS)

31 While Reagan Democrats have long ago converted, I believe the concept is still sound. My prediction is that we will witness a new batch of Democrats moving to vote R realizing the principles pushed by Democrats, embodied boldly by the SCOAMF, is a losing recipe.

Posted by: dogfish at February 29, 2012 08:06 AM (N2yhW)

32 does that mean that moderates will go back to repressing their vitriolic hatred for "so cons" (i.e. "Theocratic Fascists"), or is it OK to keep bashing them from now through the election?
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 08:00 AM (azHfB) ________________I doubt it. I assume that now that they feel it's a winning position we'll hear a lot more of it. Better get used to the words "sit down and shut up."But then, that's fine with me. You can't make people into social cons through laws and voting. You have to win the cultural/religious arguement in the private sphere. The best we can hope to do is help the fiscal cons win the battle against entitlement spending. Nothing makes people into social cons faster than having to live with the price of bad behavior.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 29, 2012 08:07 AM (xUM1Q)

33 I wonder if Santorum is going to get pissy about supporting Romney. He's made it clear he's a team guy, but still...

Posted by: MJ at February 29, 2012 08:07 AM (/x4oj)

34 1
First. And Super Tuesday looms just down the road

Posted by: Dick Nixon at February 29, 2012 07:34 AM (YKQpP)
I'm guessing that Santorum hit his high water mark and there is going to be no "third look at Gingrich".A good solid conservative candidate, who was prepared to run for president, had some level of charisma, and was not a complete social con warrior (I'm not saying not a social con, just someone more politically astute than Santorum when discussing social issues) would have won this thing in a cake-walk. There was no such candidate. Perry, if he had been prepared to run when he jumped in, would probably be leading now.The real problem for conservatives is that the bench of good conservative candidates that can make a credible run for President is very thin. Jindal is still young and relatively inexperienced, same for Rubio. Pawlenty had no charisma whatsoever. Who does that leave? Ryan? DeMint?
the GOP's longest serving Senators tend to be moderates - Lugar, Hatch, etc. So there is no real strong conservative bench in the Senate for potential presidential hopefuls. We only have a few governors and they are of mostly recent vintage. That is why every 4 years the contest is usually between moderates and not conservatives. Even George W. Bush - who the left portrayed as far-right, was not very conservative on most issues. He was pro-life and for low taxes, but he also gave us Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind and crazy spending. He ran as a moderate with his "compassionate conservatism". And who was his primary opponent? McCain - hardly a conservative.
The reality is that the GOP is not a conservative institution and those that rise to the top of the party in leadership positions in congress tend not to be conservatives. Same in most state GOP parties. thus, the conservative bench of credible (and by credible, I mean people with the name recognition, organization, experience and fund-raising ability to have a real shot at winning) presidential candidates to run in the primary is very small compared to the moderate pool of potential candidates.
So, the real lesson for conservatives is to continue working on taking over the GOP and making it into a much more conservative party. that's part of what the Tea Party has been doing and it needs to continue with some primaries in conservative states and districts where the incumbent GOP is squishy. I'm not saying primary incumbents in blue states or blue districts with a hard core conservative - that would be silly. But in a red state/district, we should have a deep red candidate.States like Utah shouldn't have squishes like Hatch as Senators. there should be a solid conservative in that seat.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at February 29, 2012 08:08 AM (sOx93)

35 Judging by the dearth of comments, and the overall lack of affect, it seems that this issue is dead. It is what it is - we need some Cialis and fast. God I miss the earlier candidates. ABO, I know, but really, what a bunch of limp-dicks.

Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 08:08 AM (BoE3Z)

36 @33

He better, we need to stop destroying our own candidates.

This election cycle wasn't about showing differences, it was about pure destruction.

Some of the GOP candidates have been irreparably destroyed. And it was our own side that did this!

Posted by: McLovin at February 29, 2012 08:10 AM (j0IcY)

37
The best barometer for the election is Obama.

Is Obama running for cover? Nope.

Is Obama distancing himself from the radical left, eg unions and warmists?

Nope.

Is Obama moving to the center?

Nope.




Posted by: soothsayer at February 29, 2012 08:10 AM (GcwH1)

38 30 -

Slightly less than a million so far, could push past the mil mark before all is said and done. I believe that's up from the '08 primary. Not way up, but up.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:11 AM (Gc/Qi)

39 Santorum could have disagreed with JFK and carefully explained why. He used words such a "make me want to vomit." This use of hyperbole may be fitting for Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. But it is too vulgar for a Republican debate.


Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 08:11 AM (O3R/2)

40 Barack Obama is a Stuttering Clusterf*ck Of A Miserable Failure

Posted by: Because nobody said it yet at February 29, 2012 08:12 AM (gC30A)

41 "It's been 30 years. Most Reagan Democrats are now dead, and thus voting Democrat again."

Thaaaarrrreeeead Winnah!

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 08:13 AM (rX1N2)

42 Some of the GOP candidates have been irreparably destroyed. And it was our own side that did this!Posted by: McLovin at February 29, 2012 08:10 AM (j0IcY) ________________Well said. I believe that's because for many of them it's not about what's best for the US - it's about winning. Our professional politicians rarely think the way we do. To them it's either a career choice, or a game. They don't care of they scortch the earth, so long as they achieve 'victory.'

Posted by: Reactionary at February 29, 2012 08:13 AM (xUM1Q)

43 I hope the turnout ends up higher than 08.

Cuz it sure dont bode well if this low turnout trend continues.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 29, 2012 08:13 AM (KUrJA)

44 17!

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 08:13 AM (lpWVn)

45 @37

Why would he distance himself?

51% of the country do not pay income tax.

That's his constituency.

Posted by: McLovin at February 29, 2012 08:14 AM (j0IcY)

46 36 -

Mitt Romney is, was, and always will be a bad candidate. And if he wins in November, most likely he will govern badly. That he is the best of a bad lot is the best you or anyone can say about him, and it's not anyone's fault but his that this fact is being exposed.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:14 AM (Gc/Qi)

47 He used words [sic] such a "make me want to vomit." This
use of hyperbole may be fitting for Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. But it is
too vulgar for a Republican debate.


Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 08:11 AM (O3R/2)


"vomit" is not off-limits, especially not in that well-known and totally inoffensive phrase. That word "hyperbole"; I don't think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 08:15 AM (X3lox)

48 "3 Hot Air hardest hit.
Posted by: Minnfidel at February 29, 2012 07:41 AM (RJ8yG)"

+1 for that comment.

Posted by: Opinionator at February 29, 2012 08:15 AM (H14Av)

49 aspiring toilet bowl brush Debbie Wasserman Schultz is bloviating on Fox about Romneys' credibility with independents

Posted by: SMOD please smite me NOW !! at February 29, 2012 08:15 AM (mWijP)

50 "JFK Democrats" died twenty years before the "Reagan Democrats".

But yes, they still vote Democrat.


Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 08:15 AM (O3R/2)

51 45
@37



Why would he distance himself?



51% of the country do not pay income tax.



That's his constituency.

Posted by: McLovin at February 29, 2012 08:14 AM (j0IcY)

Ah shit, you "had" to bring that up! - gorilla in the room and all...


Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 08:16 AM (BoE3Z)

52

Mitt’s victory also shows that if you have a well-funded SuperPAC
capable of unleashing millions of dollars in attack ads, you don’t need
principles, bold ideas, or heartfelt convictions.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 08:16 AM (azHfB)

53 does that mean that moderates will go back to repressing their vitriolic
hatred for "so cons" (i.e. "Theocratic Fascists"), or is it OK to keep
bashing them from now through the election?[i/]

How about a truce: we'll quit bashing, and you quit telling everyone else what's moral and how we should lead our personal lives. Deal?

Oh, and btw, we mods aren't vitriolically hating on anyone. It's probably true we're defensive, but only because we're tired of being cast as less than conservative because we "only" care about smaller government, lower taxes and strong national security, rather than abortion, homosexuality and other so con issues. It also doesn't help when we see guys like Santorum running around butting into everyone's sex lives, telling the press that people with different views make him want to vomit, and soliciting votes from mischievous Dems who aren't really in his camp. If that's what's passing for so con these days I want no part of it.

Posted by: Blacksheep at February 29, 2012 08:16 AM (jA4Zy)

54 There will be another debate Saturday, on Fox News Huckabee's Show. All but Paul have confirmed for it.

One more chance to rip each other's guts out. Gee, I wonder if there will be a lot of socon ?s from the Huckster.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 29, 2012 08:16 AM (ccXZP)

55 I doubt that Santorum literally felt like he was going to vomit. Exaggeration? That's hyperbole.


Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 08:17 AM (O3R/2)

56 Nice formatting ^^^ ... yikes.

Posted by: Blacksheep at February 29, 2012 08:17 AM (jA4Zy)

57 @29: Romney has repeatedly stated he believes it's wrong and racist to say mean things about Obama. You thought McCain ran a hilariously bad general election campaign...

Posted by: Ian S. at February 29, 2012 08:17 AM (Lpdzt)

58 @46

Mitt is not my guy, but we have to bend to reality.

Obama must not be allowed to have another four years. The sooner we start attacking him and put him on the defensive the better.

Posted by: McLovin at February 29, 2012 08:18 AM (j0IcY)

59 Posted by: BurtTC
..........
Go listen to his speech from last night..

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 29, 2012 08:19 AM (UTq/I)

60 Oh, and it appears God's Willy got slammed in a MI screen door last night.

Now I'll try to lay off on the socon bashing for a bit, Gregory.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 29, 2012 08:20 AM (ccXZP)

61 37
The best barometer for the election is Obama.

Is Obama running for cover? Nope.

Is Obama distancing himself from the radical left, eg unions and warmists?

Nope.

Is Obama moving to the center?

Nope.




Posted by: soothsayer at February 29, 2012 08:10 AM (GcwH1)
----
Is Obama ever going to "center" himself? He's an ideologue. Nobody lives Barack more than Barack

Posted by: SMOD please smite me NOW !! at February 29, 2012 08:20 AM (L5yyj)

62 I doubt that Santorum literally felt like he was going to vomit. Exaggeration? That's hyperbole.


Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 08:17 AM (O3R/2)



Exaggeration != Hyperbole

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 08:20 AM (X3lox)

63 Is Obama moving to the center?

Nope.


Rhetorically he is. Recent proposals to reduce corporate taxes, possibly do Keystone XL.

Posted by: blaster at February 29, 2012 08:21 AM (Fw2Gg)

64 58 -

Why, just yesterday we were told Santorum was wrong for calling Obama a snob. Is today all that different from yesterday?

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:23 AM (Gc/Qi)

65 Since there is no DOOM, I guess you have bring your own to the party. This time it's of the CA Boning variety:

STOCKTON, Calif. (AP) -- The city of Stockton in California's crop-abundant Central Valley has the second-highest foreclosure rate in the nation and one of the highest crime and unemployment rates. It was named America's most miserable city in a national magazine - twice.

And now, officials say this river port city of 290,000 is on the brink of insolvency and could become the nation's largest city to fall into Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection.


AP link http://tinyurl.com/7n44dwf

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 29, 2012 08:24 AM (ccXZP)

66 59 -

Egad, why would I (or anyone else) voluntarily listen to a politician's speech?

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:24 AM (Gc/Qi)

67 Is Obama moving to the center?
Nope. Posted by: soothsayer at February 29, 2012 08:10 AM (GcwH1)

He doesn't have to move to where he already is. At least, so the MBM tells me. Expect your head to be stuffed with this fantasy over the next few months far more than you have for the past 3 years.

And then Mitt will have to explain why everyone should choose his moderation over Barky's.

I can't shake the feeling that Romney is going to get crushed in the general.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 08:24 AM (rX1N2)

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

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 08:25 AM (8y9MW)

69 Obama has to be defeated no matter what. So I will vote for whoever.... my biggest problem with the Prez' is his racism. In his case he must go around 24/7 having an internal argument with himself, and lots of self-directed anger and resentment. In other words, bat-shit crazy. That is disturbing, and he needs to go.

Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 08:25 AM (BoE3Z)

70
Romney has about 55 more delegates than all the other candidates combined.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 08:26 AM (wuv1c)

71 Santorum's the Whitney Houston of unforced geisslerlieder.
Let us hope he's bled himself out enough somewhat he stops spreading his nanny plague through the party any farther.

Posted by: Sarahw at February 29, 2012 08:29 AM (LYwCh)

72 Just once, I'd like to be able to vote for a Republican without throwing up in my mouth.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 08:30 AM (azHfB)

73 I'd like to see Mitt wrap up the nomination quickly, but I have no doubt this will drag on for at least another two months...the longer it goes, the better Barack Obama's reelection chances are.

Posted by: packsoldier at February 29, 2012 08:30 AM (6tSTJ)

74 In his case he must go around 24/7 having an
internal argument with himself, and lots of self-directed anger and
resentment.


Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 08:25 AM (BoE3Z)



Barky isn't smart enough to have an argument with himself. And his anger is not self-directed. It's directed at America and the West. Obviously. He does not consider himself part of the West. He represents the third world where he grew up and formed the bulk of his twisted personality. Barky sees himself as the Avenging Angel of the Third World, come to rain pain and destruction on the US and the West. He has no internal conflict about this.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 08:30 AM (X3lox)

75 Forget MI. Romney won it, and that's enough (even though I understand MI is splitting their delegates roughly in half). If he'd lost, it probably would have dealt a major blow to his campaign, but he didn't; so it's just another box checked off the list.

The big one to me was AZ. AZ is much more conservative than Michigan, and Romney won (winner takes all, to boot) by double digits.

I think, at this point, even those of us who hate Romney need to accept that he's almost certainly the nominee. Which is not to say I won't slam him when he strays off the Conservative Reservation, or that I'm not rooting for !Romney, but I'm doing those things more with an eye toward making sure he's aware of our displeasure, more than any sense of hope that we can prevent him from winning the nomination.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 08:30 AM (8y9MW)

76 Romney has about 55 more delegates than all the other candidates combined.

Romney has 123, compared to 72 for Santorum, 32 for Gingrich and 19 for Paul. It takes 1,144 to win the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Tampa next summer.

Mr. Inevitable now has 10% of the votes needed and the Dems are suddenly talking about taking back the House. Related? I don't think so.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at February 29, 2012 08:31 AM (phlKA)

77
Unless there is a major upset on Super Tuesday, it's best to make peace with Romney anddo everything you can to help his campaign to beat Obama.

Just about all of us wanted a different candidate to win, but our main goal should be beating SCOAMF.

Sometimes you gotta win the Presidency with the candidate you have.

It's a good idea to focus on your local races as well. A strong Republican House and Senate are extremely important.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 08:32 AM (wuv1c)

78 "we're tired of being cast as less than conservative because we "only"
care about smaller government, lower taxes and strong national
security, rather than abortion, homosexuality and other so con issues."

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

And we're tired of being bashed as Theocratic Fascists and having the Establishment that depends on our votes act like they're ashamed of us in public and screwing us over once they're in office... when all we are doing is defending the values that have made Western Civilization possible against those who want to tear them all down.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 08:33 AM (azHfB)

79 67 -

You don't literally mean Mitt is going to be crushed, do you? Why, that's perfectly hyperbolic!

And if we're going to avoid using hyperbole, perhaps we should all take comfort in knowing that Mitt doesn't think Obamacare is anything to get mad about.

Calm down, people. Listen to the soothing sounds of Burt Bacharach or Montovani whilst sipping a nice cup of Earl Gray. Hyperbole is for those God botherers, not us squishy middlers.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:33 AM (Gc/Qi)

80 "Santorum's the Whitney Houston of unforced geisslerlieder."

Because Mitt has been a bulwark against obvious attacks and supremely guarded against slips of his tongue.

Seriously, I'm hoping Santorum drops out now so the painfully stupid attacks against him will stop so we can work on trying mightily to shore up Mitt's equally-gaping defenses.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 08:33 AM (rX1N2)

81
Romney has 165 delegates, Santorum 44, Gingrich 38. Paul 27.
That doesn't include the 111 extra delegates who aren't attached to state results. Those are all believed to be Romney supporters.

(these numbers include unpledged)

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 08:33 AM (wuv1c)

82 Did these results cause ace to reach full release?

Posted by: yinzer at February 29, 2012 08:33 AM (/Mla1)

83 don't include*

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 08:35 AM (wuv1c)

84 43. You hope the turnout ends up higher than '08?

'08 Leftovers for '12!

Yep, that'll draw the crowds. Deja vu, a higher turnout requires more than a willing suspension of disbelief.

Besides, the Republican Party Leadership doesn't connect real-time turnout with virtual results. Their "general winner" is determined by Wall Street Banking Investments, whether to flip for Mitt or stick us with another term.

11. Strongly oppose the TEA PARTY? 12%??


Jeb Bush said that his clique would usurp the Tea Party.

Miss his 12% yet? Lest you forget, GHWBush endorsed Mitt Romney.


Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 08:35 AM (lpWVn)

85
>>The big one to me was AZ. AZ is much more conservative than Michigan, and Romney won (winner takes all, to boot) by double digits.


Also, supposedly Newt Gingrich had the best hispanic outreach of all the Republicans and he did poorly in AZ.
I think Gingrich is staying in hoping Santorum has a major gaffe. However, it will be hard for him to stay in after Super Tuesday if he doesn't win Georgia.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 08:36 AM (wuv1c)

86 74

Barky isn't smart enough to have an argument with himself. And his anger is not self-directed.......
Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 08:30 AM (X3lox)


I see your points - but my issue is that the crazy seems strong in him. Incitatus anyone? You might think he would never put a horse in the Cabinet, but have you really taken a good look at Sebelius, or Wasserman whoever the fuck?
That's what I'm talking about.

Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 08:37 AM (BoE3Z)

87 I can't shake the feeling that Romney is going to get crushed in the general.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 08:24 AM (rX1N2)



I was worried about that too but the last few weeks have cured me of it because the JEF keeps coming up with anti-American dogshit every fucking day. I think he's irrevocably pissed off a significant number of the 52% assbags that thought that voting for the nations's first black preznit would be kinda kewel particularly when a senile fuckstick opponent told them they didn't have a damn thing to worry about him being elected. Prolonged unemployment sucks, and I have to think that quite a few of them have more experience with that than they wanted.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 29, 2012 08:37 AM (mpxAj)

88 And 65% of all the moron horde prefer their demise viathe SMOD.
*
The remaining 35% prefer a death of 1,000 beers
*
+/-4% MOEfor hobo encounters gone wrong.

Posted by: dananjcon at February 29, 2012 08:38 AM (8ieXv)

89 Romney won't get crushed. Even McLame only lost by six during a perfect storm. Romney's loss will be much narrower. So long as his mediocrity has coattails maybe that's the best we can do this time around.

Paralysis 2012 ... it's better than the alternative!

Posted by: Blacksheep at February 29, 2012 08:40 AM (jA4Zy)

90 keeps coming up with anti-American dogshit every fucking day.
--
Obama: Kill an Owl to save an Owl and Create Jobs. (Washington Post)

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 08:41 AM (lpWVn)

91 87 -

I'm still of the opinion that Obama loses big in November. That he and his people are tone deaf is not a reflection of their confidence (as sited above), but their absolute belief in the sweet smell of their own fecal matter.

My bigger concern is not an Obama win, it's a Romney win. I do not expect, after all the whooping and hollering at changing the name on the door, Romney to govern differently enough from Obama.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:42 AM (Gc/Qi)

92 I see your points - but my issue is that the crazy
seems strong in him. Incitatus anyone? You might think he would never
put a horse in the Cabinet, but have you really taken a good look at
Sebelius, or Wasserman whoever the fuck?
That's what I'm talking about.


Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 08:37 AM (BoE3Z)



Yes, Barky's a nutcase, but you give him credit for more thought than his demented pea-brain could ever possibly hold. Incitatus would be a step up from Barky - or Sebellius and the rest, frankly. I'll donate a whole ranch to replace that dangerous joke of a cabinet, which was pathetic from Barky's first five failed attempts to build it and only got worse with time.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 08:43 AM (X3lox)

93 For anyone who hasn't read the side link about the EPA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) overreach to institute Cap & Trade (that has already taken place) , the link is a must read !

Posted by: More punishment at February 29, 2012 08:43 AM (L5yyj)

94 @84

All I see are a thousand Brutus'

My endorsement is some kind of reverse double Mark Antony in my mind.

Posted by: McLovin at February 29, 2012 08:44 AM (j0IcY)

95 91. absolute belief in the sweet smell of their own fecal matter

--given their insulated lives, that's it.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 08:45 AM (lpWVn)

96 All I see are a thousand Brutus'

...thousand points of light

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 08:46 AM (lpWVn)

97
92

"that dangerous joke of a cabinet........."


And that is why we'll all go and vote for Romney in November. His cabinet will not be filled with the malevolent and the insane. (I hope).

Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 08:47 AM (BoE3Z)

98
BurtTC is right about The SCFOAMF losing in November. He will. I predict that he gets about 42% of the vote. A thrid party, maybe Huntsman pulls out 2-3% and you have President Romney. I am not passionate about Romney but I am passionate about seeing Obama thrown out. Ask yourself why gun sales are at an all time high? Ask yourself why Obama needs to create a African Americans for Obama group? Really, shouldn't he have that group totally sewn up? Why spend money there? He is going to lose. Mark it down.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at February 29, 2012 08:47 AM (GMcwY)

99 ♬ Cock suckers ♬ We are suckers of Cock ♬

Posted by: MSM at February 29, 2012 08:47 AM (L5yyj)

100 but their absolute belief in the
sweet smell of their own fecal matter.



Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:42 AM (Gc/Qi)



Actually, barky and gang are more gourmands and gluttons in this area.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 08:47 AM (X3lox)

101
I think people are letting their hatred of Romney cloud their judgement.

Do I think he's great? No. Is he the candidate I wanted? Clearly not.

But he isn't awful. He was perfectly acceptable to us in 2008. He was a better option that McCain or Huckabee. I think the same holds true of Santorum and Gingrich. (although I do like Gingrich, I can't get beyond his sordid past and how it will hurt him come election time).

Remember, Romneycare and healthcare mandates were considered to be conservative solutions to freeloaders back in the 1990s. Even Gingrich supported a type of mandate.

The Republican party is more conservative now than it's ever been. We have some of the most conservative Senators and Congressmen we've ever had. We have conservative governors in states tackling the tough issues.
A Romney Presidency wouldn't be a repudiation of that progress. It's just a minor bump in the road. Did people honestly thing after the 2009 Tea Party that we'd completely control the party in 2 years? It takes time to co-opt a party. Think of how long it took the far left to co-opt the Democratic party.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 08:47 AM (wuv1c)

102 "Mitt’s victory also shows that if you have a well-funded SuperPAC

capable of unleashing millions of dollars in attack ads, you don’t need

principles, bold ideas, or heartfelt convictions."

Let me translate that, the American public is stupid.

This crap is not going to end well.

Posted by: MarkC at February 29, 2012 08:48 AM (Kf68R)

103 I do not expect, after all the whooping and hollering at changing the name on the door, Romney to govern differently enough from Obama.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:42 AM (Gc/Qi)

Same here, but around this place people will insult you for that view, even though Romney's short political record as an executivesupports it. "But but but, he made a lot of money at Bain! He's a businessman! As for AGW-related legislation, minimum wage views, Repeal and Replace, and his record of appointing liberal judges? Well, rick Santorum wants your porn, that's what."

I tell myself the same stuff to get to sleep at night.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 08:50 AM (rX1N2)

104 The MSM is warming up to the Mormon story. By September and October you won't be able to turn on the news or pick up a newspaper without this screaming at you...

http://tinyurl.com/8a6m7a3

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at February 29, 2012 08:50 AM (phlKA)

105 Is Obama moving to the center?



Nope.
-----------------------------------------

Nobody is paying attention yet. He only needs to do that in August or September. Besides, his speeches have been filled with stuff like "making government smaller and work better"... that's not center... that's the usual conservative stuff Democrats like to say.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at February 29, 2012 08:51 AM (hirOE)

106 Remember, Romneycare and healthcare mandates were
considered to be conservative solutions to freeloaders back in the
1990s. Even Gingrich supported a type of mandate.


Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 08:47 AM (wuv1c)


No actual conservative person ever supported health insurance or health care mandates. They were NEVER conservative positions.

Heck, in 2008 (before ObamaCare was even on the radar in any way at all) Arizona already had Prop 101 on the ballot, disallowing any health insurance mandates on Arizona citizens, from either the state or the feds. It only lost by less than one half of one percent.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 08:51 AM (X3lox)

107 "I do not expect, after all the whooping and hollering at changing the name on the door, Romney to govern differently enough from Obama."****
I don't know, it's kind of hard to imagine a Romney DOJ battling the stateof AZ, oranyin his adminstrationattempting to strongarm Boeing into using union labor, or shutting down Gibson guitar on the pretext of saving some obscure Indonesian tree...

I get the impression that some of the non-Roms are forgetting the current admin's absolute hostility to private sector business. I just don't see President Romney going down that same road.

Posted by: kallisto at February 29, 2012 08:53 AM (jm/9g)

108 I don't care if the R's nominate Alfred E Newman, Newman from Seinfeld, the homeless bum down the block or a random person from the phone book.
I will be there at 6am to vote for them to do my part to rid the country of this SCOAMF.

Posted by: Jay at February 29, 2012 08:53 AM (3LaGb)

109 101 -

Mandates were seen as a small step compared to a complete overhaul. And now we get both!

Conservatives were wrong to support them when they did, and Newt as always, leads the tally of "stupid 'conservative' ideas" by a mile.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:53 AM (Gc/Qi)

110
I can't shake the feeling that Romney is going to get crushed in the general. -
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 08:24 AM (rX1N2)
-----------

Win with the attack ad blitz, lose with the attack blitz. Mittens has built up a lot of bad Karma, and the MFM has been giving him a pass now the way they won't once he is head-to-head with their beloved SCOAMF.

Since Mittens is incapable of connecting with the public, incapable of presenting a bold vision for the country, incapable of engaging in policy beyond platitudes and bromides... he has nothing to offer but being not-Obama. When the MFM/DNC coalition begins its own carpet-bombing, he has nothing to fall back on.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 08:54 AM (azHfB)

111 on the Catholic thing - Rick is like, Mel Gibson Catholic.

He's weird at it. Homeschooling in PA is not what Catholics do. Because we have a bunch of, you know, Catholic schools. They have those in his home state of Virginia too.

The only reason Catholics would homeschool is financial, and Mr Carpetbagger is richie rich. So? Why all the weird stuff?

He's just not like your run of the mill, Notre-Dame-loving, parochial-school-rememberin' Catholics.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at February 29, 2012 08:56 AM (SB0V2)

112 Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 08:47 AM (wuv1c)

Romney was perfectly acceptable to whom in 2008? Around here? Riiiiight.

And the whole Mandates Were Conservative Before They Were Liberal argument? Even I don't tell myself that whopper to get to sleep at night.

And considering that here and elsewhere, the Tea Party is becoming The Most Favored Whipping Boy, I'm gonna go ahead and call bunk on your whole comment.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 08:56 AM (rX1N2)

113 I do not expect, after all the whooping and
hollering at changing the name on the door, Romney to govern differently
enough from Obama.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:42 AM (Gc/Qi)


Assuming the Tea Party continues to make gains at the local level, he'll have a more conservative Congress sending him stuff that reflects the overwhelming desire of the electorate to rein in the spending shit. If there's one thing that technocrat Willard is good at, it's implementing things that have been mandated.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 29, 2012 08:57 AM (mpxAj)

114 Decent graphic from the Republican Study Committee in regards to Obama's energy policy...

http://tinyurl.com/7uldznz

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at February 29, 2012 08:57 AM (phlKA)

115
So Romney won MI despite the best efforts of Santorum and Michael Moore to freep the primary. It's all coming together.

You want to beat Obama?

He brings an Occupier, you bring a Paultard. He gives one of yours a Mic Check, you put one of his in the Rape Tent. That's how you beat Obama. That's the Moron Way.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 29, 2012 08:57 AM (rXGCl)

116
Bartender, It thinkI'll have the Mitt flavored Kool-aid. What the hell, a round of drinks for EVERYBODY!
*sigh*
Still, I console myself that the fact that theDemocrats are forced to drink nothing but SCOAMF and I feel better.
(But I think they've aquired a taste for it...)

Posted by: Warthog at February 29, 2012 08:57 AM (WDySP)

117 107 -

Nobody is forgetting. My problem with Mitt isn't to say he would be no different from Obama. His will be more of a "rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic" kind of Administration.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:57 AM (Gc/Qi)

118

>>>No actual conservative person ever supported health insurance or health care mandates. They were NEVER conservative positions.


If by never you mean just a few years ago were supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Newt Gingrich and Republicans.
Newt Gingrich in the 1990s was an uncontested conservative, no?
I can't speak for the rank and file. I never like the idea of making people buy a product, but you're fooling yourself if you think it wasn't supported by many conservatives over the past two decades.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 08:57 AM (wuv1c)

119 I do not expect, after all the whooping and
hollering at changing the name on the door, Romney to govern differently
enough from Obama.



Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 08:42 AM (Gc/Qi)



Same here, but around this place people will insult you for that
view, even though Romney's short political record as an
executivesupports it. "But but but, he made a lot of money at Bain! He's
a businessman! As for AGW-related legislation, minimum wage views,
Repeal and Replace, and his record of appointing liberal judges? Well,
rick Santorum wants your porn, that's what."



I tell myself the same stuff to get to sleep at night.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 08:50 AM (rX1N2)



The difference is that Mittens would be pretty easy to impeach and throw out. America is itching to toss a President out, especially after Barky has done so much damage to our nation from that office and perverted it in amazing ways with total impunity.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 08:59 AM (X3lox)

120 >>And 65% of all the moron horde prefer their demise viathe SMOD.

*

>>The remaining 35% prefer a death of 1,000 beers

*


Can't I have both?!

Posted by: Michael Jackson at February 29, 2012 08:59 AM (/kI1Q)

121 Well crap.

Someone forgot to figure leap-day into their system logic here at work. It looks like I'm probably going to be out for most of the day.

Have fun y'all.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 09:01 AM (8y9MW)

122 It's not that Mittens wouldn't govern differently from Obama... it's that Mittens wouldn't govern differently ENOUGH from Obama.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 09:01 AM (azHfB)

123
Nobody is forgetting. My problem with Mitt isn't to say he would be no different from Obama. His will be more of a "rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic" kind of Administration.
I can'targue with the second half of the statement, but you can't honestly believe the first half of that statement.
>>>Romney is no different than Obama? Obama is the most left wing President in the modern era, maybe US history.
Let's say you're right, Romney is just rearranging the deck chairs. Fine. I'll take that. If this ship is going down, then I want a Republican with business experience in control.
What happened in the 1930s when we had a Democratic President the last time our ship went down? We ended up with social programs and entitlements that are still with us today.
Let's say Monty's forecasts are right and we're in for some tough times ahead. Do you think increased panic in the US will give Obama more or less power?
Let's say something happens to Thomas and Scalia as a result of their old age. Two appointments could turn the court intoa liberal third branch for a generation. All the progress we made on things like gun rights, individual freedom and the like will be negated.

I understand people don't like Romney. I don't, but we need to keep things in perspective.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:03 AM (wuv1c)

124 113 -

I hope that's the case, that a strongly conservative Congress will assert itself. I'm not sure it will though. It's possible 2010 was the high water mark for the Tea Party, and there will be this year, if anything, more Romney types riding Romney's coattails, such as they are.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:03 AM (Gc/Qi)

125 119



Well,

rick Santorum wants your porn, that's what."

Oh, I rather doubt the Rickster would want "my" porn. In light of his attitude about what "normal" heterosexual sex might, uh, entail. Just a thought.

Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 09:03 AM (BoE3Z)

126 "I don't believe there are any Reagan Democrats left. They became Republicans long ago."

David Frum made the same point yesterday, and I think he might be right. The Dems have been purging conservatives for 30 years. Funny how many in the GOP also want to purge conservatives.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at February 29, 2012 09:03 AM (RtKsX)

127 I get the impression that some of the non-Roms are forgetting the current admin's absolute hostility to private sector business. I just don't see President Romney going down that same road.

Posted by: kallisto at February 29, 2012 08:53 AM (jm/9g)

Romney seems to like policies that favor big businesses. Small businesses, not so much. Obamneycare? Indexing minimum wage to inflation? Both of these ideas are horribly left, survivable only by big businesses, and detrimental to a healthy economy.

The differences between the two on a lot of the big stuff (mandates, AGW, liberal justices, 2nd Ammendment) aren't large enough to generate enthusiasm. It makes me feel good that we won't have somebody apologizing for us, bowing to foreign leaders, or subscribing to Black Liberation Theology, but we've got problems that are several orders of magnitude greater than that that are about to sink us.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 09:03 AM (rX1N2)

128 Great day for Romney. The double win gives him the momentum going into Super Tuesday. Santorum and Gingrich will scramble to come up with new messages/ads/robocalls over the next week, and that puts all the pressure on them. Tight time lines can lead to unforced errors and neither Rick. nor Newt can afford another kerfuffle before next week.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 29, 2012 09:03 AM (hiMsy)

129 Need moar cawfee.

Posted by: HeatherRadish beating sock puppet to death at February 29, 2012 09:04 AM (/kI1Q)

130 But he isn't awful.




That right there is severely inspirational.

Posted by: mama winger at February 29, 2012 09:04 AM (P6QsQ)

131
>>Romney was perfectly acceptable to whom in 2008? Around here? Riiiiight.

When it came down to McCain, Huckabee, and Romney in 2008, Romney was endorsed by almost every conservative website, radio host, and a large percentage of the rank and file conservatives

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:05 AM (wuv1c)

132 >>If by never you mean just a few years ago were supported by the
conservative Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Newt
Gingrich and Republicans.

They weren't saying we should do it. They were saying that was the only way HillaryCare could possibly be financially viable.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 09:06 AM (/kI1Q)

133 "When it came down to McCain, Huckabee, and Romney in 2008, Romney was
endorsed by almost every conservative website, radio host, and a large
percentage of the rank and file conservatives"

Really? I was alive and awake during that timeframe and that's contrary to my recollection.

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at February 29, 2012 09:06 AM (uehxp)

134 I would like to know who the people that can't stand Romney supported at this time in '08. Anyone?

Posted by: The Mega Independent at February 29, 2012 09:06 AM (hirOE)

135 123 -

Reread my comment. I'm NOT saying there is no difference. There is. I'm saying the difference is not enough. Rearranging the deckchairs is NOT going to make any difference if the ship is going down.

Frankly, I don't generally like that cliche, but here it seems to fit.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:06 AM (Gc/Qi)

136 I understand people don't like Romney. I don't, but we need to keep things in perspective.- Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:03 AM (wuv1c)
-----

It isn't that I won't vote for Mittens over the SCOAMF.

It's that he has done nothing that convinces me he can beat the SCOAMF.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 09:07 AM (azHfB)

137 "If by never you mean just a few years ago were supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Newt Gingrich and Republicans."

Was that the same Heritage foundation that has since distanced itself from those views? Would that be the same Newt Gingrich that we keep being reminded (why, on this here very blog) is no small government conservative?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 09:08 AM (rX1N2)

138 Repeal and Replace


Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 08:50 AM (rX1N2)



Yeah. Everyone with a brain knows that Mittens will spend his first year working on pushing some REPLACEMENT for ObamaCare through. He doesn't want to just repeal it and we all know what worthless pieces of shit the GOP Congress is, so they won't be handing Mittens any neatly wrapped acts. It will be like 2011, but with the Hill GOP surrendering over and over to dem minorities in the House and Senate.

But, like I said above, I don't worry about this because I think it will be pretty easy to have Mittens tossed out at the first sign of something too squishy. It's not as if we have a choice, anyway. The GOP is really into running these elections viewing the base as hostages.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 09:09 AM (X3lox)

139 To further my point, Mittens apparently doesn't see the difference between taking the battle to Obama and setting his hair on fire. This does not bode well.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 09:09 AM (azHfB)

140 "on the Catholic thing - Rick is like, Mel Gibson Catholic."

**

Oh no I hope that doesn't mean there's an Oksanalurking out there somewhere...

Posted by: kallisto at February 29, 2012 09:09 AM (jm/9g)

141 Speaking of socialized medicine, Wikipedia informs me today is Bart Stupak's birthday. I hope he has a shitty day.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 09:10 AM (/kI1Q)

142
>>It's possible 2010 was the high water mark for the Tea Party, and there will be this year, if anything, more Romney types riding Romney's coattails, such as they are.

Then be sure to go out an campaign for the most conservative candidate in your house district, senate race, or even local council.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:10 AM (wuv1c)

143 Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:05 AM (wuv1c)

I'll just echo another poster who seems to have trouble recalling that version of events.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 09:10 AM (rX1N2)

144 Make no mistake, this was a big win for Romney. Bigger than the final percentages indicate.

A blow out in winner take all Arizona.

A strong win among core GOP voters we need in November, in a blue state. A higher vote total than he got in 2008, when he was the "big winner" in MI. And his closest challenger had to ask Dems to vote for him in an open primary.

If he stays on message and doesn't say something stupid in the next week, then Super Tuesday should pretty much wrap this up.

Obama is unelectable (lest you forget)

Posted by: Dave in Fla at February 29, 2012 09:10 AM (RtKsX)

145 127 -

It's been pointed out that the tax plan released last week by Romney would remove most deductions from the 1% (or whatever they called it). In other words, small business owners, whose profits are counted as personal income.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:10 AM (Gc/Qi)

146 I'd like to know who here had Romney as their first pick when this primary season started, and why.


Posted by: mama winger at February 29, 2012 09:11 AM (P6QsQ)

147 @139

You're not helping my Acceptance phase.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 09:11 AM (rX1N2)

148 "What was the turnout, low or very low?"

Much higher than 2008. Over 10% higher.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at February 29, 2012 09:12 AM (RtKsX)

149 That right there is severely inspirational.


Posted by: mama winger at February 29, 2012 09:04 AM (P6QsQ)


Romney 2012: I don't suck quite as badly as you think

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 29, 2012 09:13 AM (mpxAj)

150 134 -

Personally, by this point in '08 I bugged out. I'm being honest here, I stopped reading Ace and all the other conservative blogs on my list, I stopped listening to talk radio, Fox News (which I still don't watch anymore), I terminated my Weekly Standard subscription. I was done with it.

Made a conscious decision to remain engaged this time. I'm still not sure it was a wise choice.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:14 AM (Gc/Qi)

151 A demographic that I think Gabe neglected to include. Santorum won the working women vote by about 4 points over Romney. At least that's the margin I heard when I finally went to bed last night.

Posted by: mama winger at February 29, 2012 09:14 AM (P6QsQ)

152 When it came down to McCain, Huckabee, and Romney in
2008, Romney was endorsed by almost every conservative website, radio
host, and a large percentage of the rank and file conservatives

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:05 AM (wuv1c)



Comparison to McShame (the most despised person ever in the GOP) and Huckabee (never a realistic chance and a big time nanny-stater, to boot) is pretty faint praise. Romney only got serious support when it was clear that he was the only non-McShame left. That was Mittens' main qualification in 2008.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 09:14 AM (X3lox)

153 Obama 2012 - "more bread, more circuses".

Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 09:15 AM (BoE3Z)

154 140 "on the Catholic thing - Rick is like, Mel Gibson Catholic." ** Oh no I hope that doesn't mean there's an Oksanalurking out there somewhere...
Posted by: kallisto at February 29, 2012 09:09 AM (jm/9g)
**
Eh...blow me.

Posted by: Mel G. at February 29, 2012 09:15 AM (8ieXv)

155 Oh, good. That was much less painful than I feared.

Note to all developers at the HQ: when setting a 1yr future date, (DateTime.Today.Year +1, DateTime.Today.Month, DateTime.Today.Day) is both lazy and wrong. Because of days like today. Your company has a way to figure "One year from leap day," find out what it is, and use that, please.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled circular firing squad.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 09:15 AM (8y9MW)

156 Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:10 AM (Gc/Qi)

See? This is the type of stuff that should be in the discussion right now, but instead we've been getting Electability, Catch it!™and discussions about Santorum's Chastity Belt Mandate.

Fucking surreal.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 09:15 AM (rX1N2)

157 Well, well, well......it looks like that sucking chest wound of a candidate...with all his money and organization.......and support of the entire GOP establishment......juuuuuust might collapse over the finish line for nomination.

Congratu-fuckin-lations. The atheist, homosexual, and Karl Rove wing of the Republican Party is jubilant today.

Posted by: Woopdee-Dam-Doo! at February 29, 2012 09:16 AM (kqbIK)

158 Made a conscious decision to remain engaged this time. I'm still not sure it was a wise choice.

I follow ya. I made a conscious decision to float my brain in ethyl for most of 2012. It may or may not be working, I don't care.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at February 29, 2012 09:17 AM (hirOE)

159 Another demographic via exit polling. The only age demographic that Romney won was the over 65 crowd. Of course, the over 65 crowd are reliable voters so that's in his favor come the general election. But it also means he is not connecting well to anyone under retirement age.

Posted by: mama winger at February 29, 2012 09:17 AM (P6QsQ)

160 You want to know how America achieves energy independence in the next five years? Nail clippings.

Win the Future! Wee-Wee: 2012

Posted by: President Wee-Wee at February 29, 2012 09:17 AM (/ZZCn)

161 It may or may not be working, I don't care.

Then it's probably working.

Drugs (or, in this case: alcohol): They don't make the pain go away; they make you not care.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 09:18 AM (8y9MW)

162 Santorum is only masquerading as a ultra scrupulous Catholic. I know those and they would never ever marry a skank. They only marry virgins in flat shoes and with obediant dispositions.

Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 09:19 AM (u50z0)

163 But it also means he is not connecting well to anyone under retirement age.

That is disturbing. Though it's possible the younger crowd in MI are either mostly Democrat (certainly possible) or so fed up with Democrats that they're refusing to vote for someone they see as Democrat Lite.

On the other hand, it mostly doesn't matter. Just the fact that he's still sort of a 'Favored Son' of MI means he puts a very important swing state into play.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 09:20 AM (8y9MW)

164 142 -

No question about it. My Congresscritter will be an R. Our Senator will be an R, but much more RINOish than I like. My little enclave is "severely conservative," if I may borrow that phrase, so they're not going to require any more effort than business-as-usual.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:20 AM (Gc/Qi)

165 It can now be revealed that Mitt likes to step in O-bah-muhhz dogshit.

Posted by: Mitt Still Sux at February 29, 2012 09:20 AM (PbfKD)

166 157
Congratu-fuckin-lations. The atheist, homosexual, and Karl Rove wing of the Republican Party is jubilant today.

Posted by: Woopdee-Dam-Doo! at February 29, 2012 09:16 AM (kqbIK

Uh, good morning to you, too. Glad to see you're looking down the road to November.

Posted by: tubal at February 29, 2012 09:20 AM (BoE3Z)

167 Nine percent of GOP primary voters were Democrats and they went for Santorum by 51%. So the robocalls had some effect.

Robovotes.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 09:20 AM (lpWVn)

168 Eh...blow me.
Posted by: Mel G. at February 29, 2012 09:15 AM (8ieXv)
****

I'm sorry, Rick Santorum doesn'tapprove ofthat type of activity since it is not procreative and diminishes the truly acceptable sex acts that are allowed by his version of the Heavenly Mandate.

Posted by: kallisto at February 29, 2012 09:20 AM (jm/9g)

169 The only age demographic that Romney won was the over 65 crowd.

The wealthiest of all Americans. Mortgages paid off, money in the bank, three or four paid off cars in the driveway.

Like I said yesterday -- Romney doesn't connect with the lower and middle class.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at February 29, 2012 09:20 AM (phlKA)

170 I would argue that were he to be in a two man race -- a "Romney v Not-Romney" -- he would lose, and that is likely making the dems very happy right now. The coming loss in November is all but guaranteed now. Ask yourself; what would you do if you wanted to lose the presidential election? Then look back at what has been happening. They want a Keynesian in office and are hedging their bets by forcing Romney on the party.

Posted by: TrueNorthist at February 29, 2012 09:21 AM (3Aixx)

171 Then it's probably working.

Drugs (or, in this case: alcohol): They don't make the pain go away; they make you not care.


I don't care.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at February 29, 2012 09:21 AM (hirOE)

172
>>>Was that the same Heritage foundation that has since distanced itself from those views? Would that be the same Newt Gingrich that we keep being reminded (why, on this here very blog) is no small government conservative?

That's the point I was making. It was considered conservative. It has since been abandoned.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:23 AM (wuv1c)

173 The coming loss in November is all but guaranteed now.

I'd believe these kind of forecasts if it was accompanied by the sound of the slitting of wrists.

Posted by: nickless at February 29, 2012 09:23 AM (MMC8r)

174 The wealthiest of all Americans. Mortgages paid off, money in the bank, three or four paid off cars in the driveway.

Have you been to Michigan? Sure, there are some wealthy people there, but I don't think there are as many as you're assuming. The Michigan economy still sux, and that's just as true for the elderly as it is for the young (though less urgent an issue, since most of them are subsidized by your tax dollars).

Your point is correct, your evidence just doesn't support it.

I suspect the 65+ crowd picked him because he's "safe," and he doesn't want to take away their Medicare or Social Security (which he accuses the others of wanting to do).

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 09:24 AM (8y9MW)

175 140 "on the Catholic thing - Rick is like, Mel Gibson Catholic."
----------------------------------

Terrible! Santorum's faith gives me the willies!





Meanwhile......in Romney's church basement..........the baptism of a VERY dead Red Skelton is scheduled for this Thursday evening.

Bring the kids!

Posted by: Woopdee-Dam-Doo! at February 29, 2012 09:24 AM (kqbIK)

176 O/t morons. My high school junior has to do a paper every month relating the section in US history to current events. Last month I helped him find an article relating voting rights in the south and reconstruction. Last night I particularly enjoyed setting him up to link Woodrow Wilson selling guns to Mexico which were later used against the US to Fast and Furious.

Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 09:25 AM (u50z0)

177 Nine percent of GOP primary voters were Democrats and they went for Santorum by 51%. So the robocalls had some effect.


Actually Ari Fleischer said last night that the whole Democrat-robo call thing was a non-factor, as Democratic voters turned out in roughly the same percentage as the election in 2010, and significantly LESS than the election in 2008.

Posted by: mama winger at February 29, 2012 09:26 AM (P6QsQ)

178 The only reason I wish he hadn't been assassinated
is so that his deterioration from VD could have been exposed. That would
have taken some luster off the "Camelot" crew.

Posted by: Reactionary

Rather, to prevent LBJ's administration legacy:

"The Great Society" inbreeding Welfare while destroying family unity, and the Vietnam War direction.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 09:26 AM (lpWVn)

179 162 -

That's not exactly true. There are, and have always been plenty of reformed "skanks" walking down the aisles of Catholic Churches wearing white. What I've noticed is that the tend to get much more conservative as they age, but don't lose their liberal tolerance for sexual hanky panky in our society. Lots of guilt there, of the sort that says "well I did it when I was younger, who am I to tell others they shouldn't?"

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:27 AM (Gc/Qi)

180 Last night I particularly enjoyed setting him up to link Woodrow Wilson
selling guns to Mexico which were later used against the US to Fast and
Furious.


I wish my mom had been half as subversive as you are. When I wanted to do papers pointing out things like "environmentalism" saying animals are more important than people- and that "environmentalists" necessarily want ~50% of humanity to starve to death, she completely nixed that idea.

And I was a good son, so what Mom said, went.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 09:27 AM (8y9MW)

181
>>>Comparison to McShame (the most despised person ever in the GOP) and Huckabee (never a realistic chance and a big time nanny-stater, to boot) is pretty faint praise. Romney only got serious support when it was clear that he was the only non-McShame left. That was Mittens' main qualification in 2008.

I don't entirely disagree, although Romney did run as a committed conservative in 2008.
He's taken a more centrist tone in 2012 as he was fairly certain to have the nomination locked up and didn't want to hurt his chances in the general.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:27 AM (wuv1c)

182 Sure, there are some wealthy people there, but I don't think there are as many as you're assuming.

The bridge has been lowered considerably in the past three years, but when you have one group with paid off mortgages against another group that owes about 200,000 on a house that isn't worth that much, it's all pretty relative.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at February 29, 2012 09:28 AM (phlKA)

183 Haha, dagny. Those papers are gonna melt a teacher's head.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at February 29, 2012 09:28 AM (UEEex)

184 Romney always does terrible among "very conservative" voters and those are the people who do the ground work and volunteer. This proves my point that there will be zero enthusiasm for his candidacy and we're looking at Bob Dole all over again, where people tune out by summer.

Posted by: Greg at February 29, 2012 09:28 AM (J3Ovp)

185 Uh, good morning to you, too. Glad to see you're looking down the road to November.
----------------------------

Good morning tubal.

I'm only in character. This isn't the real me.

Shhhhhhhh..........

Posted by: Woopdee-Dam-Doo! at February 29, 2012 09:28 AM (kqbIK)

186 A comment on the increased turnout in MI -- if ~10% of the voters yesterday were Dems, and they were not voting in the R primary in 2008, then the increased turnout is almost fully due to this crossover voting bloc.

It's not a signal of enthusiasm among R voters.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 29, 2012 09:29 AM (ccXZP)

187 The coming loss in November is all but guaranteed now.

All signs (drop in durable good orders) are pointing toward economic mayham thru the summer, and if economic activity wakes up -- gas will rocket up with demand. Either option screws Obama. Obama needs economic drift and Republican suicide to win.

He is really going to have to kiss Bibi's ass to keep Israel from lightin' up Iran.
The continued pounding the AGW crowd is taking hurts him, needs to stem the bleeding there -- fire Chu?
Deal with HRCs eventual departure
Hope for no scandals, the media can only keep the lid on so long.

Obama is losing to Ron Paul right now, so cheer up. Think of that.

Posted by: Jean, turning blue at February 29, 2012 09:30 AM (WkuV6)

188 Speaking of wrist-slitting, some asshole has turned the lobby TV from FoxNews to MSNBC (the breakroom TV remains, as always, on CNN). So everytime I need to use the can, I'm treated to lying, bloviating assholes.

Cursing all the poor life choices I have made that have led me to gainful employment.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 09:30 AM (/kI1Q)

189 I'd believe these kind of forecasts if it was accompanied by the sound of the slitting of wrists.


Posted by: nickless at February 29, 2012 09:23 AM (MMC8r)


The doomsters are pissing me off too; particularly when they claim to be acolytes of Reagan who was all about optimism.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 29, 2012 09:30 AM (mpxAj)

190 The Ronulans, of course, carried away the category "Only If My Candidate Wins the Nomination."

My nephew, who's a 20-something is making that kind of noise. I suppose I should be happy that he's no fan of Obumbles, but I just don't get it. He's a bright young man, who works from a fairly conservative mindset. According to him, most of his peers are Paul-ish, and this is in a college town. I'm pretty convinced that these young people see America through an entirely different set of lenses.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 29, 2012 09:30 AM (vbh31)

191 Pass the Pepto. I'm getting a bad feeling about this.

Granted I've had that bad feeling for a month or so now, but still.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at February 29, 2012 09:32 AM (GBXon)

192 I'm pretty convinced that these young people see America through an entirely different set of lenses a pall of fragrant smoke.

FIFY.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 09:32 AM (8y9MW)

193 Thirty-one percent of voters believed working in government is the best experience for a president.

I didn't follow the links (per the Moron way) but was the exact wording of the question released? I was initially taken aback that so many would say that but upon reflection it may be that there are those who think that "working in government" equates to "held elective office at some point". While I still would not say that is the best experience, I do think that the Presidency is not really a starter position for elective office. That may explain what appears to be an overly high number.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 09:32 AM (VtjlW)

194 That's not exactly true. There are, and have always been plenty of reformed "skanks" walking down the aisles of Catholic Churches wearing white. What I've noticed is that the tend to get much more conservative as they age, but don't lose their liberal tolerance for sexual hanky panky in our society. Lots of guilt there, of the sort that says "well I did it when I was younger, who am I to tell others they shouldn't?"

Not her, him. He's the phoney. Those chicks are whoever the closest guy wants them to be--skank, virgin, obedient shuffler, whatever. It's him. I think he's a phoney. If he were a real scrupulous catholic he would NEVER have dated or married that kind of woman with that history. My husband's only a little uptight and I know for sure that he would never ever ever have gotten near that, even for casual sex.

Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 09:34 AM (u50z0)

195
>>The coming loss in November is all but guaranteed now.
Don't be so pessimistic. Don't forget that the Demcoratic primary field sucks balls this year.
People are open to an alternative to Obama. The economy, despite manipulations of the UE numbers, isn't getting much better. People know that. Everyone has a friend or relative who is out of a job, working reduced hours, or had to take a job that pays considerably less than their previous job.
Everyone knows someone who lost their home, had to downsize or can barely make mortgage payments. Everyone has to go to the gas station and spend a larger percentage of their income on fuel.
Obama's EPA is shuttering power plants. Just wait until electricity and nat gas prices reflect those closures.
The only thing Obama has going for him is his personal likeability, which remains fairly high for reasons beyond my ability to comprehend.
He's got nothing positive to run on. He has a terrible record that Romney will destroy. The one think Romney has been great at is destroying his opponents.
Don't think Obama is going to have the same advantages he did in 2008. He'll have the media for sure, but he's not a blank slate, he has a record. I also don't think his money advantage will be nearly as big as it was last time.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:34 AM (wuv1c)

196 You'll feel better about Mitt when you look through Joseph Smith's Magical Crystal Glasses

Posted by: The Angel iMoron at February 29, 2012 09:34 AM (PbfKD)

197 We really need to put a lid on the mormon bigotry stuff. It's really distasteful and doesn't help us.

Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 09:35 AM (u50z0)

198 The only thing Obama has going for him is his personal likeability,
which remains fairly high for reasons beyond my ability to comprehend.]/i]




Because a lot of insecure white people don't want to tell a stranger over the phone that the first black president sucks maximum cock.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 29, 2012 09:36 AM (mpxAj)

199 Obama's EPA is shuttering power plants. Just wait until electricity and nat gas prices reflect those closures.

this is all true, but look at how it is filtered through the MFM

"Obama's EPA is shuttering power plants" --> "Dirty filthy polluters forced to shut down rather than clean up their mess"

"Electricity and natural gas prices go up" --> "Eeeevil speculators driving up the cost"

Posted by: chemjeff at February 29, 2012 09:37 AM (qVUxp)

200 Robovotes

Printing larger digits looks impressive... 51% of 9%

Wow, Santorum @ 51% of something!

Roughly speaking, 50% of 10% is only 5% vote reflecting a norm.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 09:38 AM (lpWVn)

201 "All signs (drop in durable good orders) are pointing toward economic mayham thru the summer, and if economic activity wakes up -- gas will rocket up with demand. Either option screws Obama. Obama needs economic drift and Republican suicide to win."

All signs point to a recovery, actually. Q4 GDP was revised up to 3.0% today and Consumer Confidence is surging.

Posted by: Greg at February 29, 2012 09:38 AM (J3Ovp)

202 194 -

Maybe, maybe not. He actually reminds me of way too many Catholic men I know, right down to the sweater vest. Oddly though, with my small sub-sampling, namely, "men who remind me of Rick Santorum," he does rather poorly.

It's also worth considering, some of these guys may know they are dating/marrying... I don't like the word "skank," I'll just say not-virgins, and it's possible they think of themselves as saving these gals from their previously naughty lifestyles. I don't know, really, just throwing it out there.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:38 AM (Gc/Qi)

203 If 31% of voters believe experience in government is good, what is the percentage who believe experience in the military is good?

Mitt is around my age. What was he doing during Vietnam?

Posted by: mama winger at February 29, 2012 09:39 AM (P6QsQ)

204 The only age demographic that Romney won was the over 65 crowd.

They thought they were voting for his father.

Posted by: t-bird at February 29, 2012 09:40 AM (FcR7P)

205 The only thing Obama has going for him is his personal likeability,
which remains fairly high for reasons beyond my ability to comprehend.


That is because they *want* him to succeed. They really did pour their hearts and souls into him in '08. They may think he's incompetent, or "in over his head", or obstructed by Republican obstruction, or put into impossible circumstances beyond his control, but they are still cheering for him to win.

that is why I think it is a bit of mistake to go full tactical nuclear on Obama in the campaign. because it has a high probability of coming off as "just mean" when the strong desire is there to see Obama not as a Marxist but as some well-intentioned guy who's been frustrated to do what he wants.

Posted by: chemjeff at February 29, 2012 09:40 AM (qVUxp)

206 All signs point to a recovery, actually. Q4 GDP was revised up to 3.0% today and Consumer Confidence is surging.

Posted by: Greg at February 29, 2012 09:38 AM (J3Ovp)




GREEN SHOOTS!!




Even greener than last time.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 09:40 AM (X3lox)

207 Mitt is around my age. What was he doing during Vietnam?

shitting in a bucket in France

Posted by: chemjeff at February 29, 2012 09:40 AM (qVUxp)

208 I am sorry, but I am going to say it. Enough with the doom casting. Romney is the lock. He rolls on Super Tuesday and it is all over. It is the McCain strategy and it works. It is pretty much written in stone, we have a nominee, it is time to deal with it. He isn't Perry, he isn't Christie, he isn't Rubio, he isn't Jeb, but he sure as shit isn't Barack Obama.

Keep in mind we are freaks. Not like left leaning freaks, we have jobs, we pay taxes, we have families, but freaks just the same. We pay attention to this shit day in and day out. Mittens isn't my choice, and he isn't the choice of most of the people here, but he is what we have. It is time to deal with it.

We can bitch and piss an moan all we like, but we are missing the bigger picture. Given the awful national climate right now Mittens has a good shot. A moderate, while not our choice, is acceptable to a large portion of Americans. This is important as the numbers demonstrate the Obama collation shrinking and losing strength. They won't switch, but they will stay home. Nobody is better off than they were four years ago, and we all know it. The unemployed aren't going to vote just because the unemployment numbers are getting better. They know the numbers are shit. Combined this with a disastrous first term and Mittens can win this thing.

The most important part is that the Supremes hang in the balance. This is a chance to take the court. You know any Romney appointee is going to be far better than anything Barry puts up. This is a golden opportunity this will change things for 30 years. Don't fuck it up because we have HW Bush instead of Reagan. Nothing is ideal. Buck up morons and remember the 11th commandment.

If all else fails, think of the bewildered look on Chinless Fuck Todd's face during an Obama loss. Brian Williams stammering about hateful people, Andrea Mitchell crying on air, Rachael Maddow gaining 50lbs in a month.

It has been anybody but Romney up until now. But anybody is better than Obama.

Posted by: Gulfkraken at February 29, 2012 09:41 AM (WBfjO)

209 Speaking of wrist-slitting, some asshole has turned the lobby TV from FoxNews to MSNBC

Heh. The lobby tv at my old firm was always on MSNBC because my bosses were huge libs. Whenever I had to go to the lobby, I would change it to the Weather Channel.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 09:41 AM (VtjlW)

210 Waiting to see if Newt's PAC changes their radio ad today. They had one that was all "Hate the 1%" until the day of the SC primary when the ad switched to "Us (meaning Newt) versus the Establishment (MItt)". I hear the ads at every break for hours and hours at a time, so I'm hoping for a change.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 29, 2012 09:41 AM (hiMsy)

211 Off topic, but has anyone heard anything with regards to the nebulous "new and improved" AoSHQ blog software? Or has the specter of SMOD shelved the development cycle?

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 29, 2012 09:41 AM (vbh31)

212 168 Eh...blow me. Posted by: Mel G. at February 29, 2012 09:15 AM (8ieXv) **** I'm sorry, Rick Santorum doesn'tapprove ofthat type of activity since it is not procreative and diminishes the truly acceptable sex acts that are allowed by his version of the Heavenly Mandate.
Posted by: kallisto at February 29, 2012 09:20 AM (jm/9g)
**
Eh..blow me.

Posted by: Mel G. at February 29, 2012 09:42 AM (8ieXv)

213 Romney still sucks.


Posted by: Please, please SMOD, smite us NOW! at February 29, 2012 09:42 AM (CP+yl)

214
(CNN Money) Economic growth
was stronger than originally thought at the end of 2011 as consumers
increased their spending and businesses stocked up their inventories.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economy, grew at a 3% annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2011, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.
The
government had initially said the economy grew at a 2.8% rate. The
Commerce Department estimates the GDP figures three times, and
Wednesday's report was its second estimate.



And the chocolate ration went up too!!!

Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 29, 2012 09:43 AM (1Jaio)

215 That's the point I was making. It was considered conservative. It has since been abandoned.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:23 AM (wuv1c)

Except by our candidate. Brilliant plan.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 09:43 AM (rX1N2)

216 190 -

It's likely one of those lenses through which they see the country is the one where they are going to be saddled with a massive debt they didn't create. Paul hits that message pretty hard, as we know. The youngsters are wanting to protect their own pocketbooks, nothing odd or unnerving about that. It would be nice though, if that charlatan Paul, wasn't looked at as their salvation.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:43 AM (Gc/Qi)

217
I agree completely Gulfkraken. Well said.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:43 AM (wuv1c)

218 202 Skank because she was living with some OLD abortionist, not because she wasn't a virgin. There are so many pieces to living with an aged abortionist that are skanky, I don't see any other word for her. Bleh.

She wasn't "naughty" (which, by the way, sound like the opening to a spanking pron novella) she was moved in and fucking/blowing/contracepting/fornicating with some old man who had delivered her as a baby btw and who was also an abortionist. I guess it would have been handy if the birth control failed. The whole situation is disgusting. I can see how her parents might forgive her for that but take that physical history on as a spouse? No way.

Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 09:43 AM (u50z0)

219 Robovotes.


Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 09:20 AM (lpWVn)
Does that mean I can go to sleep for good now?

Posted by: Very Tired Zombie Voter at February 29, 2012 09:43 AM (FIDMq)

220 Posted by: Greg at February 29, 2012 09:38 AM (J3Ovp)

oh look, it's the Gerg troll

hey guess what was the big driver of the GDP "surge" in Q4? increases in inventory

economic recovery is not built upon just stocking the shelves higher, dumbass

Posted by: chemjeff at February 29, 2012 09:44 AM (qVUxp)

221 Off topic, but has anyone heard anything with regards to the nebulous "new and improved" AoSHQ blog software? Or has the specter of SMOD shelved the development cycle?

Well, I think new comments thingy was a placeholder for the upgraded site in 2005 or around there so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Look, we're conservatives. We don't like all this new fangled ease of use and actual html and being able to preview and things like that. My lawn. Get off it.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 09:44 AM (VtjlW)

222 Nevertheless Gabe, this doesn't change the fact that Romney has some mighty insurmountable electability challenges himself.

Independents - who we saw yesterday still favour the repeal of ObamaCare by a wide margin - have little affinity for Romney, and this continues to increasingly be the case. They don't want the guy who is the spiritual godfather of ObamaCare, and this remains true, no matter how many "technicality" arguments the Mittbots on here try to make for why ObamaCare and RomneyCare aren't the same thing.

Mitt Romney will turn off a significant part of the base - the people who turn out the most not only to vote, but to volunteer. Romney at the top of the ticket will KILL grassroots GOTV, etc. downticket.

It's not too late, people. We can still say "no" to Ron Paul's wingman.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 29, 2012 09:44 AM (+inic)

223 Greg your attempts to convince yourself, while amusing, are also sad. The SCFOAMF is going to lose in November. He is done. You can't even imagine how satisfying your tears will be. He is done.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at February 29, 2012 09:44 AM (GMcwY)

224 and Consumer Confidence is surging

The only thing surging are your estrogen levels.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 29, 2012 09:44 AM (vbh31)

225 Mitt is around my age. What was he doing during Vietnam?

shitting in a bucket in France


Posted by: chemjeff at February 29, 2012 09:40 AM



Great. I just looked it up. Appears he got an exemption and spent the war in a palace in France. That's sure to lock up the Vietnam Vet vote.

But he has grown children, right? Surely one of them has volunteered at some point to serve in the Armed Forces.

/


Posted by: mama winger at February 29, 2012 09:45 AM (P6QsQ)

226
On a technical note, why does Georgia have so many delegates?

Ohio and Michigan are both larger than GA, but they both have less delegates.
Is there any rhyme or reason to the delegates per state?

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:47 AM (wuv1c)

227 That's the point I was making. It was considered conservative. It has since been abandoned.


Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:23 AM (wuv1c)


Not by any actual conservative I had ever met. That's the point I was making. Those groups don't define conservativism. Many of the same idiot groups support open borders and the GOP pushed it, but that has never been a conservative position. That is what killed the GOP and allowed Barky the entre to come do so much irreparable damage to our nation. Amnesty has never been a conservative position, even when Reagan signed it. It was a leadership position and nothing more and the leadership always suffered after pushing their non-conservative positions on a conservative base - think tanks included. The mandate is the same. It was always a conservative-killer if brought up anywhere, even by alleged conservative leadership.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 09:48 AM (X3lox)

228 she was moved in and fucking/blowing/contracepting/fornicating with some old man

You go, girl! Need a stone or two?

Posted by: Jesus, with a convenient pile of rocks for you to toss at February 29, 2012 09:48 AM (phlKA)

229 218 -

I wasn't really talking about him/her regarding my distaste for the word "skank." Since I was extrapolating the point to the Catholic couples I know, I'm trying to limit my comment to being descriptive, rather than judgmental.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:48 AM (Gc/Qi)

230 >>We can still say "no" to Ron Paul's wingman.

And then we say yes to......?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

(SMOD me, baby.)

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 09:49 AM (/kI1Q)

231 OK Gabe your in.

Acceptance, the final barrier.


Posted by: AoSHQ Romneybot director at February 29, 2012 09:50 AM (hXJOG)

232 211 Off topic, but has anyone heard anything with regards to the nebulous "new and improved" AoSHQ blog software? Or has the specter of SMOD shelved the development cycle?
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at February 29, 2012 09:41 AM (vbh31)
**
The first rule of the"new and improved" AoSHQ blog software is to never speak of the "new and improved" AoSHQ blog software.

Posted by: dananjcon at February 29, 2012 09:50 AM (8ieXv)

233
Great. I just looked it up. Appears he got an exemption and spent the war in a palace in France. That's sure to lock up the Vietnam Vet vote.

We ran a Vietnam war hero in 2008 and a WW2 hero in 1996 and had our clocks cleaned.
The Democrats ran someone who served in 2004.
They lost.

On the other hand the Democrats ran someone who was a draft dodger in 1992 and 1996. We ran someone who served state side in 2000 and 2004.
They won.

I don't think the general American public values military service as much as we do.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 09:50 AM (wuv1c)

234 >>But he has grown children, right? Surely one of them has volunteered at some point to serve in the Armed Forces.

I seem to recall Track's service being used to bash She Who Cannot Be Discussed.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 09:50 AM (/kI1Q)

235 228 In that area? Sure. Push the pile over here.

Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 09:51 AM (u50z0)

236
For those who get the vapors after reading the headlines of polls (Ace), here is a question and the results that are buried down in the tabs:

NBC News/Marist Poll, Feb 19th – 20th, 3149 Registered Voters
Michigan Registered Voters
If November's presidential election were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:
Tea Party Supporters:
Men – Barack Obama – 50%, Mitt Romney – 36%, Undecided – 15%

Now, let’s try to see if this makes sense. The pollsters are trying to tell us that out of all the people they interviewed, 50% of those that self-identified as Tea Party supporters said that they would vote for Obama in an election against Romney.

50 percent.

Half.

“Tea Party supporters”.

There are people in the world who will blindly accept numbers like this, simply because they are published and they look official. Then there are those who look at something like this and piss themselves laughing.

I’m in the second group.

Posted by: jwest at February 29, 2012 09:51 AM (FdndL)

237 197 We really need to put a lid on the mormon bigotry stuff. It's really distasteful and doesn't help us.
-----------------------------------------

You can call it bigotry if you like, but the fact that Mormons are so secretive about their faith is cause for concern since we have one about to be the nominee of our party......and possibly President of the United States.

I am going to continue to educate others about the Mormon faith........and if I do so in the form of a joke.........that doesn't make it "bigotry".

I like you a lot better when you are turning your nose up at your fellow Catholics.

Posted by: Woopdee-Dam-Doo! at February 29, 2012 09:51 AM (kqbIK)

238 All signs point to a recovery, actually. Q4 GDP was revised up to 3.0% today and Consumer Confidence is surging.

Posted by: Greg at February 29, 2012 09:38 AM (J3Ovp)



All signs point to the fact that you're an idiot

Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 29, 2012 09:52 AM (1Jaio)

239 I also guess it is time to admit I am a practicing child molester.

Posted by: Greg at February 29, 2012 09:52 AM (kaOJx)

240 225 -

Ouch! Hopefully, there isn't some comment of his out there, anything like saying he thinks his sons can serve the country honorably in ways other than joining the military.....

... oh, there is?

Oh my!

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 09:53 AM (Gc/Qi)

241 In that area? Sure. Push the pile over here.

You sound like our kind of person. Care to consider 'reverting' to Islam?

Are you angry? Can you drive a truck?

Posted by: Islamic Outreach Director at February 29, 2012 09:54 AM (phlKA)

242 Am I hearing that some think that the group who prefers government over business, despises, or "strongly opposes", the tea party and who are not committed to voting for a republican nominees is gonna vote for a republican in november ? not going to happen. the reagan democrats are long gone (or so insignificant that it wont make a difference). the only "crossover" will be those bush independents mccain lost in 2008.

Posted by: runner at February 29, 2012 09:55 AM (WR5xI)

243 Mormonism? It's own history since Joseph Smith Jr., "direct revelations from God" doctrines distinguishing Mormon beliefs from Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Gnostic Christianities.

Personally, I advocate the account for truthful records, historical documentation of orders, unfolding events and impact on unalienable human rights, and ideology of a candidate prior to my vote.

To the degree that revisionism erases records and lives as if never existent, as if never relevant, then perhaps dagny can argue that history is bigotry, and historians are bigots.

As if distasteful prevents any here from expressing vulgarity.

As if dagny disdains savagery against a designated scapegoat. Only when it's her pet. That's bigotry.

Yes, bigotry is distasteful. And in the end, bigotry worsens the outcome of good intentions, road to hell and all.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 09:56 AM (lpWVn)

244 There are people in the world who will blindly accept numbers like this, simply because they are published and they look official. Then there are those who look at something like this and piss themselves laughing. I’m in the second group.
Posted by: jwest at February 29, 2012 09:51 AM (FdndL)
**
Polls are like fat chicks and mopeds. Lots of fun but ya never wanna be seen on one.
***
Well...kinda.

Posted by: C. Johnson at February 29, 2012 09:56 AM (8ieXv)

245 Romney '12: Not Necessarily As Bad As the Alternatives!

Posted by: joncelli at February 29, 2012 09:56 AM (RD7QR)

246 As a not-Romney supporter, one of things that does not concern me about him is him pushing a religious agenda. He wasn't theocratic as governor of Massachusetts. I suspect, if that is how it goes, he won't be theocratic as President.

Posted by: fluffy at February 29, 2012 09:57 AM (vRSeu)

247 Sorry if I think "magic underwear" doesn't help Republicans against Obama. If you get a chance, let me know why you think making fun of a Mormon sacramental helps defeat the SCOAMT. Oh, and I'm not intolerant of fellow catholics, I'm saddened by the lack of knowledge that many catholics have about their faith and which causes them to side with the left.

See, I would like Obama to lose.

Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 09:57 AM (u50z0)

248 Huh? What brought on that?

Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 09:57 AM (O3R/2)

249 Ron Paul is now seen as a Romney surrogate

This is a bit of a problem for a movement candidate: Paul, whose
strategy has been to amass delegates through a caucus-focused strategy,
has become essentially an afterthought because of the way he is now
viewed.

The Texas congressman spent months in the debates essentially
deflecting other candidates’ shots at Romney. That spirit of kinship
burst out into the open with a series of news stories focused on the
relationship that has developed between Romney and Paul, and their
wives, over the months of campaigning.

Theories abound as to what’s driving this. Among them: Paul wants his
voice heard at the convention; he’s trying to get his son Rand on the
ticket; he’s working to ensure Rand’s future in 2016.

Whatever the reason, the narrative is taking root that Paul is
essentially in this to take down Romney’s rivals, as he airs negative
ads against them and siphons off votes. His aides vigorously deny this,
but the claim is being repeated enough that it has overshadows the role
Paul once played in the race.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 29, 2012 09:58 AM (e8kgV)

250 For all you new members, Willard gave a really good speech last night, and kicked Barry's ass. He should not mention anyone but Barry from now on.

Morons, the train is leaving the station, your applications are being accepted on a first come first serve basis.

Acceptance is the final barrier.

We picked up "The Magnificent Bastard" last night, I guess he got our check.


The rest will fall in soon enough.

Just remember, joining after Super Tuesday will keep you a Junior member for three months, join now with full "bot" powers.

Posted by: AoSHQ Romneybot director at February 29, 2012 09:59 AM (hXJOG)

251 Fifty-three percent of voters believed Romney is the most likely candidate to beat President Obama. Only 73% of that group actually voted for Romney, though.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So 27% of the people who think Romney is the best chance to beat Obama STILL voted for someone else !?!?!??

My god, how fucking dumb are these people ? "I don't think Santorum can beat Obama, but heck, I'm voting for him anyway."

At least SOME Santorum supporters don't think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. They may be delusional, but at least they believe it. These dopes, I don't know what to make of them

Posted by: deadrody at February 29, 2012 09:59 AM (eOvu0)

252 Romney also dominated with the Want Free Stuff from Government vote.

Posted by: montgomery burns at February 29, 2012 10:00 AM (K/USr)

253 Voting in the opposing party's primaries is disgustingly dishonest. And our last Presidential candidate addressed them as "my friends". The GOP needs someone with some damned backbone. That is whay I am marking Newt in Ohio. Anyone but Obama.

Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at February 29, 2012 10:00 AM (gMONh)

254 So he got an exemption from serving in Vietnam by saying he was doing missionary service instead.

Mr. Romney - if you were truly concerned about sharing your faith, you did not need to go to France to do that. In fact, you could have chosen to serve your country and shared your faith where it could possibly have been said to matter most: in real life and death situations. You could have had the opportunity to share your faith with those who were far away from home and needed someone to provide comfort, spiritual guidance and inspiration. You could have served your country and your fellow citizens at the same time, and been a true missionary. And done it in English, without a translator.

But it was easier to go to France and live in a palace .

How disappointing.

Posted by: mama winger at February 29, 2012 10:02 AM (P6QsQ)

255 My god, how fucking dumb are these people ? "I don't think Santorum can beat Obama, but heck, I'm voting for him anyway."

Not as dumb as you seem to think. They have different priorities from you. Not sharing your priorities != dumb (necessarily).

I'm certain, to this very day, that I won't vote for Romney in the primary. He's a NE RINO Republican, and he will get no (primary) support form me. This is because, to me, Mitt Romney getting elected is a Republican victory, but not a Conservative one- and I am Conservative first, Republican second.

And here's the thing- if you want to patch up the party by November, it might be wise to refrain from calling that part of the base "dumb" (both you and Romney). If you're vociferous enough about your belief that you don't need our votes, and your desire not to be seen with us, we may just accommodate you in November.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 10:03 AM (8y9MW)

256 Mitt Romney will turn off a significant part of the base - the people who turn out the most not only to vote, but to volunteer. Romney at the top of the ticket will KILL grassroots GOTV, etc. downticket.

It's not too late, people. We can still say "no" to Ron Paul's wingman.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 29, 2012 09:4


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And so your answer is, what?, exactly ? Any asshole that stays home in November to help Barry win a second term can fuck off in my opinion.

But beyond that, who do you think is going to both win the nomination and beat Obama, besides Romney ? Santorum ? Couldn't beat Obama in bizzaro world. Gingrich ? Is not coming close to winning the nomination at this point. He's third in a two horse race.

Quit your baby ass crying and do what it takes to beat Obama. If that means holding your nose while voting for Romney, TOO FUCKING BAD.

Posted by: deadrody at February 29, 2012 10:04 AM (eOvu0)

257 mama winger:

Apparently he was not such a great driver when in France. He got in an accident and was thrown from the car and pronounced dead. I think his passenger did die.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at February 29, 2012 10:04 AM (phlKA)

258 "Great. I just looked it up. Appears he got an exemption and spent the war in a palace in France. That's sure to lock up the Vietnam Vet vote."
Jeebus, are you serious? Don't have time to look it up myself, but if true Mitt's got so much shit going for him that will play so well into the class warfare shit going around right now. Mitt lacks the skill to defend himself against that nonsense.

Please, somebody please repeat one of those electability mantras to get me through work today.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 29, 2012 10:04 AM (rX1N2)

259 I know a spiritually redeemed prostitute who is a wonderful Catholic wife and mother. Aren't we supposed to rejoice at this?

Posted by: texette at February 29, 2012 10:05 AM (zt3lR)

260 "we're tired of being cast as less than conservative because we "only"
care about smaller government, lower taxes and strong national
security, rather than abortion, homosexuality and other so con issues."
=======
That's nice, and we're tired of being told that we're supposed to back down on opposition to baby-killing because you think morality is too ookie for your liking and your taxes are too high.

Posted by: Kensington at February 29, 2012 10:05 AM (uaEZS)

261 Mormons are so secretive about their faith?

To the extent that what their salesmen promote door to door fails to mention the fine print of contractual blood oaths, aka covenants, find the deceitful wolf beneath the sacred lamb's wool.

Regardless of religious indoctrinations, whether Mitt or Barack, both are Keynesian Corporatists.

Given the right to exercise religious freedom,

It's The Economy, Stupid.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 10:05 AM (lpWVn)

262 At the end of my block are evangelical missionaries who go to France every summer. I didn't know it was such a big missionary target. I wonder if they're going after catholics, muslims or atheists? I guess the Hueguenots aren't a big draw.

Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 10:06 AM (u50z0)

263 Not as dumb as you seem to think. They have different priorities from you. Not sharing your priorities != dumb (necessarily).

I'm certain, to this very day, that I won't vote for Romney in the primary. He's a NE RINO Republican, and he will get no (primary) support form me. This is because, to me, Mitt Romney getting elected is a Republican victory, but not a Conservative one- and I am Conservative first, Republican second.

And here's the thing- if you want to patch up the party by November, it might be wise to refrain from calling that part of the base "dumb" (both you and Romney). If you're vociferous enough about your belief that you don't need our votes, and your desire not to be seen with us, we may just accommodate you in November.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 10:03 AM (8y9MW)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remember, we're talking about people who think Romney has the best chance to win, here. And then not voting for him. Believe all you want, that's just dumb, frankly. I would suspect MOST people voting for Santorum actually think he can win. Voting for someone you don't think can win is ridiculous.

Posted by: deadrody at February 29, 2012 10:06 AM (eOvu0)

264 I guess the Establishment got off their butts and did their jobs and handed the primaries to Romney last night. They've been spending too much time at the Trilateral Commission weekly poker games and took their eye off the ball for a little while. Back in the game Baby!!!

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 29, 2012 10:06 AM (qCR9V)

265
>>>Mormons are so secretive about their faith?

It's understandable considering it was legal to kill Mormons in many states. They were persecuted by America for quite some time.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 10:07 AM (wuv1c)

266
Deadrody, you sound like you can put Romney in the Whitehouse by yourself and don't need the rest of us.

Good luck on that.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 29, 2012 10:07 AM (Rwrs+)

267 226

On a technical note, why does Georgia have so many delegates?

Ohio and Michigan are both larger than GA, but they both have less delegates.
Is there any rhyme or reason to the delegates per state?



I am pretty sure the delegate count is a function of how the state voted in last presidential election, how many GOP members in House and Senate, and whether the state has a GOP governor and legislature.

GA wins on all those counts.


Oh, and GA is the largest state on the East Coast (sorry NY you are a loser), so they get something for bragging rights, too.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:08 AM (hXJOG)

268 Heather Radish@141: "Speaking of socialized medicine, Wikipedia informs me today is Bart Stupak's birthday. I hope he has a shitty day."
=========
Ha ha! I think I love you.

Posted by: Kensington at February 29, 2012 10:08 AM (uaEZS)

269 251 -

Did you deliberately misread your own quote? It says "most likely." Not "THE ONLY ONE AND TRUE DREAMBOAT WHO CAN BEAT OBAMA SO GET IN LINE YOU IDIOTS!"

See the difference? There actually IS room for "maybe not quite as likely, but still very likely," and those people voted for the candidate they preferred instead of the one YOU prefer.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 10:09 AM (Gc/Qi)

270 259 I know a spiritually redeemed prostitute who is a wonderful Catholic wife and mother. Aren't we supposed to rejoice at this?
Posted by: texette at February 29, 2012 10:05 AM (zt3lR)


Sure. I just don't buy it in Santorum.

Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 10:09 AM (u50z0)

271 Mrs. Galt and I both voted Mitt. We split on the school millage vote. Daughter Galt watched in amusement, then got to play with "I voted" stickers.

The guy who took our ballots was quite gung ho (even at 6:45pm). Very into his patriotism. I am guessing that he probably wasn't a dem.

Posted by: John Galt at February 29, 2012 10:10 AM (9NQ6I)

272
>>Mitt Romney will turn off a significant part of the base - the people who turn out the most not only to vote, but to volunteer. Romney at the top of the ticket will KILL grassroots GOTV, etc. downticket.

I think a good VP pick will mollify those fears. Many of the die hards pulled the lever for Palin, not McCain.
I think they'd be happy to pull it for a Rubio type in 2012.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 10:10 AM (wuv1c)

273 It's understandable considering it was legal to kill
Mormons in many states. They were persecuted by America for quite some
time.


Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 10:07 AM (wuv1c)


To a large extent because of polygamy. And Mittens would be running against the only product of an actual polygamous family to ever even get near the White House, let alone run it. Kind of funny, in sick, whistling past the graveyard sort of way.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 10:10 AM (X3lox)

274 Sure. I just don't buy it in Santorum.

Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 10:09 AM (u50z0)

So Rick Santorum was a whore too?

I guess I knew that, but he never called me.

Posted by: Barney at February 29, 2012 10:11 AM (hXJOG)

275 Oh, and GA is the largest state on the East Coast (sorry NY you are a loser), so they get something for bragging rights, too.
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:08 AM (hXJOG)

Georgia is the largest state on the East Coast?

Maybe they have the largest peaches, but that's about it.

(and Michigan lost half their delegates for having the primary early)

Posted by: jwest at February 29, 2012 10:12 AM (FdndL)

276 I really hope Romney's religion doesn't become an issue. If he loses in November, which I think he will, I want it blamed squarely on his middle/left politics, not his religion.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 29, 2012 10:14 AM (Rwrs+)

277 Georgia is the largest state on the East Coast?

Sure is!


http://tinyurl.com/7hdlr3a

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:14 AM (hXJOG)

278 @277

Oh, and that chart includes water area, that is why FL is higher. I'll find a land only chart for you.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:15 AM (hXJOG)

279 The only part of the base that won't turn out to help the nominee is the part of the base that would rather see Obama reelected than accept that their preferred selection lost.

That's the part of the base that gives our base a bad name.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 29, 2012 10:16 AM (qCR9V)

280 "I really hope Romney's religion doesn't become an issue. If he loses in
November, which I think he will, I want it blamed squarely on his
middle/left politics, not his religion."
------
There will be no shortage of reasons to blame if he loses. I think one of the biggest ones will be the way he murders voter enthusiasm by pulling a McCain and insisting that there's nothing to fear from an Obama victory just so he can distance himself from his "crazy" base.

Posted by: Kensington at February 29, 2012 10:16 AM (uaEZS)

281 i'm addicted to cheez it snack mix.....i hate the chex cereal bits in there but the rest is delicious......i think i need an intervention......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 29, 2012 10:17 AM (Ho2rs)

282 My fear is that if Romney wins, he will become captain of a sinking ship. And when the ship goes down all the dems/media will say itsRomney's/Republicans fault, and what a shame that Obama wasn't given the chance to continue to save this country. So it will be the republicans that take the hit for the bad economy, high gas prices, unemployment, and as usual they will bend over and take it without a fight. I was hoping to vote for someone this time around who would be willing to fight for this country, and that includes taking it to Obama and the media, I don't think Romney will do that. I pray I'm wrong.

Posted by: spypeach at February 29, 2012 10:17 AM (+BJur)

283 Calling Santorum's wife a skank and describing her past sexual activities....that's why I love the Mittens people!

Posted by: jeannebodine, SMOD-Bot at February 29, 2012 10:17 AM (byR8d)

284 You know, on the "shut up, SoCons!" thing: I think the people saying that are overlooking something: by telling the SoCons to shut up, they're surrendering the "We Care!" vote to the Democrats.

See, if we don't have a moral reason for our Fiscal Conservatism, then it really is just self-interest (read: greed) like the Democrats say. Now, rationally, that might not matter, but people often aren't rational, and they instinctively dislike those they see as greedy. So when the 1%er GOP Candidate says, "Vote for me, I'll put more cash in your wallet," they don't believe him. But when the Democrat (who isn't "greedy" or "mean" or any of those other things) says, "Vote for me, and I'll take care of you," they do believe him.

If we wouldn't surrender that ground, however, there would be more of a fight for those voters. Because then the GOP wouldn't be seen as greedy, but as generous. The Dems would not be seen as "caring" but simply as "smothering." At least to some extent.

And, no, it's not an easy case to make, but it's a case which must be made, or we lose the long game, even if we win the short one.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 10:18 AM (8y9MW)

285 ....ever since i've been dead inside...i actually feel better......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 29, 2012 10:18 AM (Ho2rs)

286 Republicans are doing a great job at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Romney was not my first choice. Perry was. But Perry tripped over his tongue early on and many conservatives wouldn't forgive him for the "heartless" comment. Everyone else had their shot at taking on Romney and were unsuccessful. I am tired of hearing about how "they" are "forcing Romney on us". Romney is getting actual votes from actual people who are giving him actual delegates. This is a center right country, not extremely right or extremely left. It is a rare politician like Reagan or Obama, that comes along once in a generation with great and convincing oratorical skills that can move the masses. Otherwise, you get regular guys doing their best to present a cogent argument as to why they are the best candidate for the job. Romney is not flashy, he's not a great speaker and he says some dumb things. But, as far as I can tell, he is an honorable person and a good and decent man. He is more right than left and has experience that should help him manage a badly damaged economy. I'll work hard to get him elected while the younger guys like Rubio and Jindal gain the experience they need. Things could be worse. We won't win if we concede the field to Obama and I refuse to do that to my children.

Posted by: SquishyCynic at February 29, 2012 10:18 AM (mhXmr)

287 I'm just glad the nexus of Limbaugh, Moore, Obama and KOS hilarity didn't win the day.

Posted by: whatever at February 29, 2012 10:18 AM (i/wm2)

288 277 Georgia is the largest state on the East Coast?Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:14 AM (hXJOG)

Georgia has more square miles, but delegates aren’t apportioned by land mass.

Posted by: jwest at February 29, 2012 10:18 AM (FdndL)

289 @277

Here is another chart which breaks out land and water area, you can clearly see GA land mass is bigger than FL.


http://tinyurl.com/yax7h5t

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:18 AM (hXJOG)

290 I'm actually starting to worry that the Dems are going to retake the House, too. Won't that be grand? They won't screw up nearly so m

Posted by: Kensington at February 29, 2012 10:20 AM (uaEZS)

291 @288

I know that, read the comments, see @267. It was a joke. Hello?



Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:20 AM (hXJOG)

292
spypeach.
I sympathize, but I'm in a place where I can't really accept any argument that says we'll somehow win the big picture by losing the Presidential race this year.
Let's face it. The media will blame us for anything that happens. They always do.
We're not going to even havea chance to succeed if we don't win elections, starting with the one in November

And the SCOTUS can't be emphasized enough. There may be 3 open seats in the next term. One liberal, two conservative. Losing the SCOTUS would allow the left to roll back every accomplishment we've mananged since 1980.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 10:22 AM (wuv1c)

293 Well, squishycynic, I hope you enjoy government mandates, then, because I don't believe that Mitt Romney will do anything to remove them.

Posted by: Kensington at February 29, 2012 10:22 AM (uaEZS)

294 "Promise them anything, just get their votes." Romney

"Ron Paul is now seen as a Romney surrogate" whole cloth for sale.

That Romney crap tanked '08 First Principles Platform.
By the way, where's all Mitt's fire in the hole/belly?
Spent to usurp the Tea Party.

"Ron Paul is the only anti-Romney candidate who can beat Obama"
November CNN Poll: Paul and Romney tie Obama

"Ron Paul leads the incumbent President Obama in a head-to-head survey"
Rasmussen Report Feb. 28 '12

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 10:23 AM (lpWVn)

295 Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:08 AM (hXJOG)

I think Florida is bigger than Georgia.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 29, 2012 10:23 AM (nEUpB)

296
>>Georgia has more square miles, but delegates aren’t apportioned by land mass.

Yeah, when I said "larger", I meant by population. MI has a larger population.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 10:23 AM (wuv1c)

297 I cannot envision Obama winning without the Dems taking the House too. The arithmetic just doesn't add up whereby the GOP keeps the House and Oshithead keeps his job.


Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 10:23 AM (O3R/2)

298 There may be 3 open seats in the next term. One liberal, two conservative. Losing the SCOTUS would allow the left to roll back every accomplishment we've mananged since 1980.Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 10:22 AM (wuv1c) What conservatives are talking retirement? Ginsberg is about 130 and she's still there.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 29, 2012 10:24 AM (Rwrs+)

299 I was reading a story about how Israel might attack Iran and I found this gem of a link tucked in the middle ...



Related coverage:

Iran teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 29, 2012 10:24 AM (e8kgV)

300 Romney 2012: He doesn't suck that much!

Posted by: Romney for President 2012 campaign at February 29, 2012 10:24 AM (v+QvA)

301 283
Calling Santorum's wife a skank and describing her past sexual activities....that's why I love the Mittens people!



Posted by: jeannebodine, SMOD-Bot at February 29, 2012 10:17 AM (byR8d)

There was nothing creepy about it. I was the first guy to touch that stuff, and I always wanted it from the first time I pulled her out of her.......


Posted by: Dr. Tom Allen at February 29, 2012 10:24 AM (hXJOG)

302 Posted by: deadrody at February 29, 2012 10:06 AM (eOvu0)

Believing Santorum could win in the general is ridiculous. He won't/doesn't/can't make a conservative case that persuades anyone but people so sympathetic to his notions of virtue they miss the larger points he isn't making about self-government and ordered liberty.

He doesn't make those points because he doesn't want to and doesn't believe in conservatism.

I cannot abide Romney; I'd prefer Newt and all his baggage because at least he seems to understand what's at stake and how to argue for the future.

Is all hope gone? Everybody says so. But if we could just get shed of the very un-conservative unpleasant and unlectable Santorum there's still a chance for a win with someone who really means to stop the Obama mass transit express to tyranny.

Posted by: Sarahw at February 29, 2012 10:24 AM (LYwCh)

303 Funny, when someone says "larger" I think physically larger. If someone says more populous, I think more people.


Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 10:25 AM (O3R/2)

304 OT: Take a break from politics and watch this video....it will temporarily relieve your DOOM!


http://tinyurl.com/7a99ggv

Posted by: Tami at February 29, 2012 10:25 AM (X6akg)

305 279 -

If you're lucky, you won't have to find out how many of the "I won't vote for that guy who wants to supervise my sex life" people would stay home if Santorum wins the nomination.

I suspect more of them than us "not-Romney" people.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 10:26 AM (Gc/Qi)

306 @295

PLEASE read the comments. FL is NOT bigger in land mass, if you include water it is. See chart @289

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:26 AM (hXJOG)

307 290 I'm actually starting to worry that the Dems are going to retake the House, too.

Posted by: Kensington at February 29, 2012 10:20 AM (uaEZS)

The dems could sweep the election and take the House, keep the Senate and get Obama reelected. All it would take is for the general public to start believing that democrats would do a better job reviving the economy and that their policies will bring gas prices down.

Oh, and the sun rising in the West. It would take that too.

Posted by: jwest at February 29, 2012 10:26 AM (FdndL)

308 >>What conservatives are talking retirement?

Retirement may not be as big a factor as death. Pray for the continued good health of Scalia (only three years younger than Ginsberg) and Thomas.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 10:27 AM (/kI1Q)

309 There is land under all that water.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 10:27 AM (O3R/2)

310 i'm addicted to cheez it snack mix.....

Here. Give it to me. No, really, I'll throw myself on that grenade, what with the nobility and all.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 10:27 AM (VtjlW)

311 So if we are going to end up with Romney, was it worth it to destroy him? A question for the Limbaughbots.

Posted by: whatever at February 29, 2012 10:27 AM (i/wm2)

312 "If you're lucky, you won't have to find out how many of the "I won't
vote for that guy who wants to supervise my sex life" people would stay
home if Santorum wins the nomination.



I suspect more of them than us "not-Romney" people"
=============
Which is sad, really. I'm not supporting Santorum, but the idea that he wants to supervise your sex life is delusional.

Posted by: Kensington at February 29, 2012 10:28 AM (uaEZS)

313 Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:26 AM (hXJOG)

Yeah...about that artificial definition of "largest."

Does that water surface area include swimming pools and toilets?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 29, 2012 10:29 AM (nEUpB)

314 309
There is land under all that water.


FL people have been trying to sell swamp to Yankees for years, did you buy some?

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:29 AM (hXJOG)

315 People may be pooh-poohing Romney's huge margin of victory in Oakland County (all the rich white people voting for the rich white guy), but these are precisely the white-collar suburbs where Obama made such inroads in 2008 and we must win back if we are going to beat him.

Despite the bruises Romney has suffered in this race and the missteps he has made,I still think the core case for his electability stands and is being borne out in these primaries: he can win back the moderate to slightly conservative white suburban voters who voted for Obama in 2008. That will make the difference in the swing states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana, and could be the difference in winning Pennsylvania.

Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 10:30 AM (aBlZ1)

316 So cons do not need to shut up. They just need their politicians to be more tactful.

And I also think they need to consider that there are three options:

1) Democrats keep shrinking religion and forcing them to do stuff.

2) Libertarian alliance keeps religion as an option for everyone, but the religious can't force their views on others, though with federalism, they might be able to do a bit of that in very religious states...see Utah.

3) Socons sweep the election and can legislate morality nationally.

I hate to tell so-cons this, but I think #1 is way too possible, and #2 is barely winnable. #3 isn't going to happen anytime soon outside of Utah.

Posted by: sexypig at February 29, 2012 10:30 AM (wWV5q)

317 @313

I believe it is a measure of coastal area under the states control, it is not a measure of the land under lakes, etc.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:31 AM (hXJOG)

318 Ace writes, "Thirty-one percent of voters believed working in government is the best
experience for a president. That group went for Santorum (52%) over
Romney (20%). The reverse was true for those who believed working is
business is the best experience for a president."

As opposed to the current occupant of the Oval Office, who has neither.

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius at February 29, 2012 10:31 AM (exvgC)

319 Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 10:26 AM (Gc/Qi)

Agreed.

As much as many people around here squawk that Santorum was misquoted or misunderstood or his comments were taken out of context -- the fact remains that he is being portrayed as the sex-obsessed lunatic from the fringes. And that's all that matters.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 29, 2012 10:32 AM (nEUpB)

320 312 -

And as you know, delusion isn't just a river in Egypt, it's alive and well here at Camp AoS.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 10:32 AM (Gc/Qi)

321 Remember, we're talking about people who think
Romney has the best chance to win, here. And then not voting for him.
Believe all you want, that's just dumb, frankly. I would suspect MOST
people voting for Santorum actually think he can win. Voting for
someone you don't think can win is ridiculous.

Posted by: deadrody at February 29, 2012 10:06 AM (eOvu0)
So if Hillary Clinton had become a republican and then run in our primaries, we should vote for her.Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: krakatoa at February 29, 2012 10:32 AM (pXThs)

322 Way to go Mitt.

Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 29, 2012 10:33 AM (DGIjM)

323
Santorum is the perfect way to lose 35 states.
There is a reason he was polling at 5% for most of the primaries. People prefered Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Pawlenty and Gingrich to Santorum.
The only advantage Santorum had was being able to stay in the race without any money.
He's strategy has been last man standing. Think of that. His goal is to win by simply sticking around. He was the 4th or 5th option for conservatives in one of the shittiest group of primary candidates we've ever fielded.
His goal is to win by default.
I don't recall anyone here supporting Santorum until Perry, Cain, Bachmann, and Bachmann dropped out.
We're not going to win in November with a guy no one wanted to vote for until they were left with 2-3 crappy options.
Santorum will get crushed in cities and more importantly in the counties that surround cities. How do I know, because he did in his last election.
We're going to win this election by winning the exhurbs. We've got the country and suburbs on lock down. It's the moderates that we will need in Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Virgina, New Hampshire, etc.
Santorum has no chance there. Those people are dyed in the wool SoCons. They're not potential converts. They are fairly apolitical and will vote for whomever they think will act in their best interest and is palatable.

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 10:33 AM (wuv1c)

324 This is from Ron Brownstein in National Journal this morning (really great article BTW):

In Michigan, Romney may even have demonstrated a capacity to change the composition of the electorate. His base -- well-educated, affluent voters --represented a notably larger share of the vote than four years ago. In 2008, voters with at least a four-year college degree comprised only 43 percent of the Michigan electorate; that spiked to 51 percent Tuesday night. Similarly, voters earning at least $100,000 annually cast only about one-fifth of the Michigan GOP ballots last time; Tuesday night that rose to one-third.

That high turnout may reflect Romney’s unique link to the state: he was reared in Oakland County. But the overall pattern of results -- and conversations with dozens of Michigan voters last weekend -- reinforce the sense from earlier contests that Romney is a comfortable, solid choice for the GOP’s managerial wing. These voters are drawn to his business experience, his boardroom style and the belief that he is most likely to revive the economy. Indeed, without the crossover participation from Democrats (who cast one-in-eleven ballots), Romney would have won the state by more: the exit poll found that he beat Santorum among self-identified Republicans by a surprisingly wide 49 percent to 36 percent.

Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 10:33 AM (aBlZ1)

325 #225 Mitt got an exemption. So did Newt. Santorum hasn't served either.

The only person who was a vet, other than Ron Paul, is Perry, and he was deemed unsuitable due to poor debate performances. That's too bad.

Romne doesn't actively hate the military, which is good enough. I am pretty sure he wouldn't increase their insurance costs three fold while exepting civilian Pentagon workers.

As far as his sons serving, they didn't. Is Santorum's son in uniform? Nope. Palin's is, but she isn't running.

So this is nothing but a dead end complaint.

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 29, 2012 10:35 AM (GoIUi)

326 *aren't dyed in the wool

Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 10:35 AM (wuv1c)

327 Since we are not in full collapse mode yet, I think Romney will be good for cutting spending. Remember, this is a lot of what investment bankers do - watch the spending. He's on record as wanting to close programs that are duplicates, etc. This is the way to start the baby steps of shrinking government.

Who is going to complain vociferously about taking three training programs and dropping the two least effective? No one with any sense. This is like welfare reform, in that when you reform it you get less welfare and no one can complain that much.

At least that's my theory.

Posted by: sexypig at February 29, 2012 10:35 AM (wWV5q)

328 262 At the end of my block are evangelical missionaries who go to France every summer. I didn't know it was such a big missionary target. I wonder if they're going after catholics, muslims or atheists? I guess the Hueguenots aren't a big draw.
Posted by: dagny at February 29, 2012 10:06 AM (u50z0
**
Your neighbors summer in France?? How gauche. Martha's Vineyard is clearlymore suitable for a proper holiday in the months of July and August. Lower humidity, less riff-raff and lobster is in season!

Posted by: Moochelle O. at February 29, 2012 10:36 AM (8ieXv)

329 320
312 -



And as you know, delusion isn't just a river in Egypt, it's alive and well here at Camp AoS.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 10:32 AM (Gc/Qi)

You an idiot, it not delusion, it's denial, as in the river Da Nile.Tough morning when we can even get the bad jokes right.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:36 AM (hXJOG)

330 319 -

You forgot to add, he's being portrayed that way by "OUR" side. The same people who would tell us not to say Mormonism is odd.

Either we fight against the stereotypes, or we give in to them. I'd prefer we consistently fight them.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 10:36 AM (Gc/Qi)

331 "You don't get off from an elephant. You get off from geese."


Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 10:38 AM (O3R/2)

332 "As much as many people around here squawk that Santorum was misquoted or misunderstood or his comments were taken out of context -- the fact remains that he is being portrayed as the sex-obsessed lunatic from the fringes. And that's all that matters."

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

And if this is unfair, and for sure it is, as the MSM loves it, then we should first work to fix the MSM.

Step 1: No fed money for NPR
Step 2: School vouchers, for the long game.
Step 3: No more MSM for debates.

hmmm, damn that's not much is it.

Posted by: sexypig at February 29, 2012 10:39 AM (wWV5q)

333 I’m with President Obama on apologies.
On behalf of the Fifty-Seven United States
of America, I apologize for the deaths of 19 muslims who were killed by
New York City’s World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 29, 2012 10:40 AM (e8kgV)

334 329 -

Please tell me you are joking here. I realize it's hard to tell the head fakes from the full-bore idiocy around here at times, but I need to know that you know that I know that I substituted the word delusion for denial on purpose.

And now I'm confusing my own self...

Posted by: BurtTC at February 29, 2012 10:42 AM (Gc/Qi)

335 As much as many people around here squawk that Santorum was misquoted or misunderstood or his comments were taken out of context -- the fact remains that he is being portrayed as the sex-obsessed lunatic from the fringes. And that's all that matters.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at February 29, 2012 10:32 AM (nEUpB


Exactly.

My uncle voted Obama... because McCain was going to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.
He didnt look into it to see what he really meant.. he didnt go online and get other opinions.
He went back to watching the 'Price is righ't and voted Obama.
Thats all it took.

My best friend.. voted Obama because.. he looked like a good family man. Thats it. Didnt consider his policies ect.

Millions of Americans are like this.
So.. 'the guy who wants to ban birth control' line will be enough to get millions of these idiots to vote for Obama.

Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 29, 2012 10:42 AM (DGIjM)

336
Gregory of Yardale, I don't agree with everything you write, but you've been on a tear in this thread.<p>
A great encapsulation of Romney's win:<p>
"Mitt’s victory also shows that if you have a well-funded SuperPAC capable of unleashing millions of dollars in attack ads, you don’t need principles, bold ideas, or heartfelt convictions."<p>
A spot-on description of what lies ahead in the general election:<p>
"Since Mittens is incapable of connecting with the public, incapable of presenting a bold vision for the country, incapable of engaging in policy beyond platitudes and bromides... he has nothing to offer but being not-Obama. When the MFM/DNC coalition begins its own carpet-bombing, he has nothing to fall back on." <p>
The key point about how Romney would govern if he actually won:<p>
"It's not that Mittens wouldn't govern differently from Obama... it's that Mittens wouldn't govern differently ENOUGH from Obama."<p>
And a perfect description of how I feel as a "fusionist" Reaganite who believes in Christian ethics rather than merely gestures toward our values when it seems safe enough to do so:<p>
"And we're tired of being bashed as Theocratic Fascists and having the Establishment that depends on our votes act like they're ashamed of us in public and screwing us over once they're in office... when all we are doing is defending the values that have made Western Civilization possible against those who want to tear them all down."<p>
My one disagreement is this: Because Romney is such a nothing candidate who promises to make too few of the changes that we need to avoid the DOOM! that Mark Steyn has so eloquently and persuasively predicted, I can't support Romney in the primaries OR in the general election. I will not be an accessory to civilization collapse at half-speed.

Posted by: Lawrence at February 29, 2012 10:43 AM (dX1XT)

337 #273 You are forgetting that Obama is the product of a polygamous family. His father, a Muslim, had more than one wife at the same time.

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 29, 2012 10:43 AM (GoIUi)

338 In short, Romney narrowly won in a state where his father was Governor.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 29, 2012 10:45 AM (wI2gb)

339
Most resolute? I'll have to learn more about that question as from the way you explained it, it means that Romney supporters are more likely to support the GOP candidate in November if it someone else, while the other candidate's supporters are definitely not-Romneys and are more likely not going to turn out to vote for Romneycare in November if he wins the nomination.

I am confident that if Romney is the nominee, traditional GOP voters will not vote for him in November in unprecedented numbers. He won't be able to pick up enough independent voters to offset that and it'll be a Mondale type drubbing.

Posted by: doug at February 29, 2012 10:46 AM (gUGI6)

340 Erik Ericksen is a hack, he purposely trying to damage the Party's chances for pecuniary gain.

This election made me change my "ideological" identification label from "conservative" to "libertarian," because apparently I am not a conservative if you talk to Ericksen, Morrisey or Levin.

Posted by: ArizonaBuckeye at February 29, 2012 10:48 AM (9rg43)

341 338 In short, Romney narrowly won in a state where his father was Governor.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 29, 2012 10:45 AM (wI2gb)

also a state that will go for Obama.

But.. he won in Florida that is a must win. And he cleaned up in a solid red state.. Arizona.

Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 29, 2012 10:48 AM (DGIjM)

342 Mitt got an exemption. So did Newt. Santorum hasn't served either.




Mitt sought and got an exemption from the draft.
Newt was never eligible for the draft. True, he could have volunteered but he was not eligible to be drafted. (married with child)
Santorum was born too late for Vietnam. True, he could have volunteered for military service in a post-war era.



Posted by: mama winger at February 29, 2012 10:49 AM (P6QsQ)

343 Quit your baby ass crying and do what it takes to beat Obama. If that means holding your nose while voting for Romney, TOO FUCKING BAD.

Sorry Bubba, butI refuse to accept that.

There is no significant difference between Romney and Obama, so this whole "if you don't vote for Romney then you're voting for Obama!!!111eleventy111'!" schtick has no meaning for me. I'm not interested in "beating Obama," I'm interested in advancing conservatism. Romney won't do that, so there's no reason to vote for him, EVER.

In fact, it may actually be BETTER to bite the bullet and let the GOP-e know that the days of foisting any old trash off onto us, and doing so through using the "conservative" media as an attack dog and using the rumours and lies and innuendos to undercut everybody but the GOP-e approved candidate, are over. I'm perfectly willing to break the GOP if that's what it takes to actually get a true party of the productive people in this country.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 29, 2012 10:49 AM (+inic)

344
Buck up! The SCFOAMF is going to lose. There will be plenty of time to gnash teeth and bitch about being thrown under the bus by new RHINO President. That's for later. Now is the time to save your country. I don't like Romney either but on election day I am going to smile a big old shit eating grin and vote for him.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at February 29, 2012 10:50 AM (GMcwY)

345 Oh is the primary over again? Stupid fuckers.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 29, 2012 10:52 AM (a9mQu)

346
FORMAT(hopefully)CORRECTED:

Gregory of Yardale, I don't agree with everything you write, but you've been on a tear in this thread.

A great encapsulation of Romney's win:

"Mitt’s victory also shows that if you have a well-funded SuperPAC capable of unleashing millions of dollars in attack ads, you don’t need principles, bold ideas, or heartfelt convictions."

A spot-on description of what lies ahead in the general election:

"Since Mittens is incapable of connecting with the public, incapable of presenting a bold vision for the country, incapable of engaging in policy beyond platitudes and bromides... he has nothing to offer but being not-Obama. When the MFM/DNC coalition begins its own carpet-bombing, he has nothing to fall back on."

The key point about how Romney would govern if he actually won:

"It's not that Mittens wouldn't govern differently from Obama... it's that Mittens wouldn't govern differently ENOUGH from Obama."

And a perfect description of how I feel as a "fusionist" Reaganite who believes in Christian ethics rather than merely gestures toward our values when it seems safe enough to do so:

"And we're tired of being bashed as Theocratic Fascists and having the Establishment that depends on our votes act like they're ashamed of us in public and screwing us over once they're in office... when all we are doing is defending the values that have made Western Civilization possible against those who want to tear them all down."

My one disagreement is this: Because Romney is such a nothing candidate who promises to make too few of the changes that we need to avoid the DOOM! that Mark Steyn has so eloquently and persuasively predicted, I can't support Romney in the primaries OR in the general election. I will not be an accessory to civilization collapse at half-speed.

Posted by: Lawrence at February 29, 2012 10:52 AM (dX1XT)

347
It's understandable considering it was legal to kill
Mormons in many states. They were persecuted by America for quite some
time.


Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 10:07 AM (wuv1c)


Gov. Boggs of Many States Legislatures passed Kill Mormon Laws. pfft

Ben, do some historical research including archives not owned by the SLC Mormon Church and return to substantiate your "legal to kill Mormons in many states" claim. The Mormons antagonized wherever they went, voted as a block for whatever their Prophet ordered, and were indeed forced to leave on several occasions.

Polygamy aside, neighbors of Mormons were victims of thievery. For whatever their needs, using self righteous rationalization to steal from non-Mormons, thieves did the Mormon reputation poorly. Like travelers, the only people who "mattered" in Mormon civilization were other Mormons. Recall that the Mormon missionaries of the era called for converts to converge all together, without having built the Mormon settlements prepared in advance for the incoming new population. It's one thing to lay out plans for a city; quite another to have the city built. Yes, there was a lot of hardship. But life was hard for everyone. And for non-Mormon farmers to lose their livestock from thievery on a perpetual basis was not right. The incoming new Mormon population was told to come to Zion where all is well, to be gathered into the bosom of God, translated into paradisiacal glory given the 2nd coming at hand. Indeed, the United Order was another 19th Century utopian Mormon communist period, as the hierarchy literally fleeced its flock, enriching church leaders and the church treasury before determining to abandon communism, faulting the members for failing to comply with God's direct revelatory will (theocracy) which was timed with the abandonment of officially practicing polygamy, THE commandment required of all people in order to attain the highest degree of glory.

Ah, the revisionist games that people play while waiting for the Messiah.



Posted by: panzernashorn at February 29, 2012 10:52 AM (lpWVn)

348 Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 29, 2012 10:49 AM (+inic)

If you don't choose the lesser of the two evils, the Republic will fall. You really don't want to go there.

If you think that Obama is the lesser of the two evils, go back to the Daily KOS.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 29, 2012 10:54 AM (O3R/2)

349 I want all the candidates to hang around for a while. While I do think Romney is the likely nominee he is likely to be a disaster unless he really gets the message this is no longer his father's GOP. He needs to be disabused of the idea that the paternalistic values he brought with him from upscale Bloomfield Hills Michigan to politically correct Belmont Massachusetts in the 1970s reflect the values of most of the GOP electorate in 2012. We know from his own words that Romney isn't a deep thinker on such matters. Since Thus a hard fought nomination process may be the only way to get him to realize where the nation stands these days.

Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at February 29, 2012 10:54 AM (bNM/O)

350 I believe it is a measure of coastal area under the states control, it is not a measure of the land under lakes, etc.


Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at February 29, 2012 10:31 AM (hXJOG)


I don't think so, since Hawaii would be much bigger.

Posted by: really ... at February 29, 2012 10:56 AM (X3lox)

351 I've been a big critic of Romney here, but last night's speech was

good. That Romney can win.



He just needs to avoid the subjects of

- houses

- cars

- NASCAR

- trustees

- dogs

Posted by: Knemon at February 29, 2012 10:59 AM (t/Jzd)

352 Similarly, voters earning at least $100,000 annually cast only about one-fifth of the Michigan GOP ballots last time; Tuesday night that rose to one-third.

Takeaway from all the postings this morning including Vics on the previous thread;

voter turnout was down - not good at all
over 65 went for Mitt - probably thought they were voting for George Romney
gainfully employed making over 100K turned out for Mitt

What a coalition. No wonder the (D)'s think the House may revert back again.



Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at February 29, 2012 11:00 AM (phlKA)

353 343: "There is no significant difference between Romney and Obama, so this
whole "if you don't vote for Romney then you're voting for
Obama!!!111eleventy111'!" schtick has no meaning for me. I'm not
interested in "beating Obama," I'm interested in advancing conservatism.
Romney won't do that, so there's no reason to vote for him, EVER"

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

You're nothing less than a fucking idiot.

Posted by: Balsamic Shotgun at February 29, 2012 11:01 AM (sTS/8)

354 Well, I am going to support Romney enthusiastically.

The dems are not wanting to compete with him. Visually, Romney looks more presidential that Obama. His wife looks better and actually can construct a grammatical sentence without the use of "like" and "you know."

I am not going to argue with people here. It's pointless, since everyone simply wants to point out how they are right and Romney supporters are wrong. I will say that I would prefer Newt over Santorum; at least he doesn't constantly whine and gets some zingers in once in a while.

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 29, 2012 11:01 AM (GoIUi)

355 "Quit your baby ass crying and do what it takes to beat Obama. If that
means holding your nose while voting for Romney, TOO FUCKING BAD."
=======
Wow, you Romney guys really know how to win people over. Best of luck with this approach!

Posted by: Kensington at February 29, 2012 11:02 AM (uaEZS)

356 Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 29, 2012 10:49 AM (+inic)
**
Cut, Jib...newsletter??

Posted by: Kathleen Sebelius etal. at February 29, 2012 11:05 AM (8ieXv)

357 355 "Quit your baby ass crying and do what it takes to beat Obama. If that
means holding your nose while voting for Romney, TOO FUCKING BAD."
=======
Wow, you Romney guys really know how to win people over. Best of luck with this approach!
Posted by: Kensington at February 29, 2012 11:02 AM (uaEZS)


There isnt a conservative left.

Vote for the Republican in the general. If not.. you might as well call yourself a liberal.

Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 29, 2012 11:09 AM (DGIjM)

358 Catholics don't like Theocrats like Santorum.

Posted by: Dr. Gaius Baltar at February 29, 2012 11:10 AM (udRDY)

359 Millions of Americans are like this.
So.. 'the guy who wants to ban birth control' line will be enough to get millions of these idiots to vote for Obama.
Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 29, 2012 10:42 AM (DGIjM)

Okay. So if the post 2008 and 2010 voters are THAT gullible and easily swayed then a cold irritable moralizing fuddy-duddy 1% 'hope and change lite' rich white privileged banker/business type who likes to fire people and doesn't care about the poor line is going to be deflected how exactly?

How naive do you have to be to think that Romney doesn't have baggage that can be used to easily isolate and stigmatize him ?

All the democrats need to say is that he's not really for anything, that he's an empty suit who thinks running he government is like being a executive in the board room of a capital firm. That he's not democrat enough for the democrats and independents and not republican enough for the republicans must mean that he stands for nothing and is a cynical tool of the bankers who want to go back to ripping off america. They'll top it off with the voting against Obama means America is racist cherry.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 29, 2012 11:18 AM (a9mQu)

360 Romney '12: Not Necessarily As Bad As the Alternatives!


Posted by: joncelli at February 29, 2012 09:56 AM (RD7QR)

heh, i was trying to come up with an honest comment.it went like this. "romney when the mandate is not quite as bad"

Posted by: willow at February 29, 2012 11:19 AM (TomZ9)

361 Exit polls, outside of the top line stuff pollsters can ID by sight like sex and race, are indicitive of nothing. Demographics, like religion etc., rely on self reporting and even with that the sample may only be hundreds out of hundreds of thousands.

Catholics? How many of those who call themselves Catholic have not been inside a Church in 20 years? Or never even went on to receive their confirmation?

The same goes for people who say they are Conservative or Moderate or whatever. As long as they self id the figures just don't mean a lot. People have different definitions for different things and yes people flat out lie to pollsters.



Posted by: Rocks at February 29, 2012 11:20 AM (Q1lie)

362 There isnt a conservative left.

Vote for the Republican in the general. If not.. you might as well call yourself a liberal.
Posted by: jumbo jogging shrimp at February 29, 2012 11:09 AM (DGIjM)

I guess there will have to be a party split then. Tough shit.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 29, 2012 11:21 AM (a9mQu)

363 anyway now that it looks like Romney will be our candidate , I have taken the knives out of the drawer believing that the killing in the fields are over.
at least i now have hope.

Posted by: willow at February 29, 2012 11:21 AM (TomZ9)

364 o maybe i spoke too soon.

Posted by: willow at February 29, 2012 11:22 AM (TomZ9)

365 Note to all developers at the HQ:

nebulous "new and improved" AoSHQ blog software? Or has the specter of SMOD shelved the development cycle?


I can always count on Morons for a laugh. Even when we're not getting the joke.

ps: atc how are you going to get across the lawn in stompyboots?

Posted by: DaveA at February 29, 2012 11:25 AM (6O45Q)

366 @ 348 If you don't choose the lesser of the two evils, the Republic will fall. You really don't want to go there.

It will with either of them. No choice is no choice at all.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at February 29, 2012 11:31 AM (+inic)

367 There's still Newt, who has the advantage of generally making the best and most persuasive case for the soundest policy.

It's not over til SMOD has smited.

Posted by: SarahW at February 29, 2012 11:32 AM (LYwCh)

368 77
Unless there is a major upset on Super Tuesday, it's best to make peace with Romney anddo everything you can to help his campaign to beat Obama.

Just about all of us wanted a different candidate to win, but our main goal should be beating SCOAMF.

Sometimes you gotta win the Presidency with the candidate you have.

It's a good idea to focus on your local races as well. A strong Republican House and Senate are extremely important.
Posted by: Ben at February 29, 2012 08:32 AM (wuv1c)

Nope. No free ride. He either moves right in a big way to gain my support or I don't care if he wins. The only he can win meme is shit and he's a RINO among other RINOS. If he doesn't 'seal the deal' as they say then fuck him because he's just a RINO with an idiotic prophecy that he doesn't live up to. He's not even MY RINO. He's the 2nd time the GOP has tried this sweet spot triangulated moderate shit since 2008, and he can't expect to run a 50:1 ad advantage in the general. He believes in a floating minimum wage. He has no interest in simplifying the tax code. He is iffy on repealing Obamacare and created the main prototype for Obamacare. That he is leading the fight against Obama with minimal contrast is disgraceful.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 29, 2012 11:33 AM (a9mQu)

369 Many of the die hards pulled the lever for Palin, not McCain.

Yea but, how many (me) expected the job to finish Juan really dead.

Posted by: DaveA at February 29, 2012 11:34 AM (6O45Q)

370 The VC voters are fractured, yet immigration voters break for Romney.
Whywere the Viet Conginfiltrating the MI primary?

Posted by: Typical Libtard at February 29, 2012 11:36 AM (tQHzJ)

371 I have no doubt that Cackfinger and Titus Quin would prefer Romney lose in November if he's the nominee so they can feel they like they were correct.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 29, 2012 11:38 AM (InVlw)

372 @370 - well, they got the White House, and now they're on defense in the GOP primaries.

Posted by: JEM at February 29, 2012 11:38 AM (o+SC1)

373 Again I think the GOP expects Obama to either lose the election or be contained by GOP gained seats in congress and the governor's houses. They know that the next president, if GOP, is expendable and a backlash magnet. The GOP leadership does not expect the GOP to win the election. They feel their choice of candidate will not effect the race much since it will be a referendum on Obama so they want a candidate who will try to resist the base moving the party further rightward and who might even move the GOP leftward again. And if they lose they want to blame the right leaning base of the party for it. They think they are whipping the party back in line but more likely they are just splitting it.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 29, 2012 11:39 AM (a9mQu)

374 @343
There is no significant difference between Romney and Obama, so this
whole "if you don't vote for Romney then you're voting for
Obama!!!111eleventy111'!" schtick has no meaning for me. I'm not
interested in "beating Obama," I'm interested in advancing conservatism.
Romney won't do that, so there's no reason to vote for him, EVER.




You are soo right, I promise I won't appoint a supreme court judge that invalidates the second amendment, really.

Cross my heart. You can count on me, not a ounce of difference between me and those bitter clinging gun loving nuts.

Thanks for your support, I might make you ambassador to Cuba so you can see what you'll be getting soon. Free health care and all that shit.

Posted by: Barry at February 29, 2012 11:44 AM (hXJOG)

375 Thanks for the dog link Tami. Sorry to hear about yours.

I wonder how much of the full 'rescue dog' training this needs?

Posted by: DaveA at February 29, 2012 11:46 AM (6O45Q)

376 371 I have no doubt that Cackfinger and Titus Quin would prefer Romney lose in November if he's the nominee so they can feel they like they were correct.
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at February 29, 2012

You had no doubt that Santorum was a THEOCRAT. You had no doubt that Romney was the only one who could win. You had no doubt that Newt was crazy. You are a sucker being jerked around by the very same idiots who lost us 2008. AFTER 2010. You are repeating the canards of the MFM as if they were objective and apolitical.

I don't pay much attention to what you have no doubt about. I'll vote against Obama in 2012 but you don't fucking deserve it. If Romeny wins it will be fun watching you try to spin his "pragmatic" decision to "fix" Obamacare keeping the good parts and getting rid of the bad ones.

We've seen this story before. It leads to more debt and bigger government and a a resurgence of the democrats who will claim to have reformed just like they did in 2006.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 29, 2012 11:54 AM (a9mQu)

377 I think romney and wifey poo made a huge mistake that first night when they assumed the base would be there. That's a mighty huge assumption since romney's connection with the base has deteriorated more very day since then.

I'm sure the talking points from the romney campaign have advised everyone to go out and say "he's inevitable" just like they were told to say he was losing prior to michigan and arizona and his internals said he wasn't. He outspent Santorum by at least a million and a half. He employed every dirty trick in the book and when Santorum turned the tables, once, he whined to the media who love him and was given full coverage for the whining. Santroum's words were skewed, in context, whether you agreed with him or not, they made sense but a media hatchet job was done on him because the dems want romney as the candidate. They researched him and are absolutely possitive they can beat him. So tell me again why he should be the republican candidate and why anyone should accept his inevitability. I'm sure there are way more reasons to say he won't be, especially since if you add santorum's, newt's and paul's votes together he is not strong. And, those voters will not vote for him, they've already abandoned him and won't go back. And, he doesn't get cross over dems who see him as the same as BO. So why is he "inevitable" again. And "because Karl Rove is his hired gun" is not an acceptable answer.

Posted by: tinsley at February 29, 2012 11:55 AM (oZfic)

378 You are soo right, I promise I won't appoint a supreme court judge that invalidates the second amendment, really.

Cross my heart. You can count on me, not a ounce of difference between me and those bitter clinging gun loving nuts.

Thanks for your support, I might make you ambassador to Cuba so you can see what you'll be getting soon. Free health care and all that shit.
Posted by: Barry/Mitt at February 29, 2012 11:44 AM (hXJOG)


Fixed

Posted by: cackfinger at February 29, 2012 11:56 AM (a9mQu)

379 It's not over til SMOD has smited.

You may be smitten with Mittens,
but with SMOD you'll be smote.

Posted by: DaveA (ha, grammar poetry) at February 29, 2012 11:59 AM (6O45Q)

380 Someone please explain to me, WITHOUT drifting into social-con territory, how Santorum is more 'conservative' than Romney.

I don't want to vote for a President who sees his job as stretching the power of the office to do the 'right' thing. This was the Bush disease, and under Obama it's grown into a full-on plague, the only difference between the two on this is their relative interpretation of 'right'.

I think Romney has the judgment to know where to draw the line. Santorum's a Huckabee, a big-government populist even more than Bush 43 was.

Now, mind you, I'd vote for anything and anyone over Obama. But Santorum's behind Ron Paul on my GOP candidate preference list.

Posted by: JEM at February 29, 2012 12:00 PM (o+SC1)

381 "Mathematical Case for Brokered Convention; How Ron Paul Can Throw a Big Wrench Into Romney's Campaign" http://tinyurl.com/8yhml6n (or why people suspect there is a deal between romney and ron paul)
Obama Seeks to Prove He is More Like Romney; Obama vs. Romney - What's the Difference? http://tinyurl.com/7vdjlep

Posted by: tinsley at February 29, 2012 12:04 PM (oZfic)

382 Thanks for the dog link Tami. Sorry to hear about yours.

I wonder how much of the full 'rescue dog' training this needs?


Posted by: DaveA at February 29, 2012 11:46 AM (6O45Q)

Thanks Dave....I'm still struggling with the loss. Haven't moved his bed or bowls yet but I will......

I don't know what the training entails (ha...no pun intended!) for these dogs. But I would imagine it's much different than 'rescue dog' training. They have to be more sensitive to human behavior I would think.

Here's a bit of information on how they're trained....but there are lots of links on google with info.


http://tinyurl.com/7ar87ta




Posted by: Tami at February 29, 2012 12:08 PM (X6akg)

383 Hope you're all happy!

Posted by: ruserious at February 29, 2012 12:10 PM (W2qJe)

384 Posted by: JEM at February 29, 2012 12:00 PM (o+SC1)

I'm not a conservative, i'm an independent thinking about registering republican to vote in the primary. That being said, Mitt to me appears to be a man who wants to go the next step, reach the next goal. He doesn't like losing and he lost last time so he will keep running until he reaches his goal. It feel like everyone but the rich and old, see that he's trying to buy the presidency. It's hard to be rpesident of all the people if you don't understand the lives of most Americans and romney, every time he opens his mouth, shows his ignorance: "my wife drives a couple of cadillacs" "I know the guys who own these cars" "I'm not worried about the poor". I'm sure romney's campaign, having hired bachman's speech coach, is trying to make mitt look and sound like a real person and not a robot and they aren't succeeding. Plus most people don't believe a word coming out of romney's mouth. they don't believe he will repeal romneycare, instead he'll pass it on to the states and push them to institute it in their states cause at the end of the day he still believes he did the right thing. He reminds me of mayor mike. He said a lot of things on the campaign trail. He changed his mind on all of them. He even over reached by giving himself a third term. Mayor Mike is a democrat in republican clothing.
So is Romney. Romney is a democrat in republican clothing. Obama wants to run against him so he can do what he did with mcshame, endorse every good idea that came out of mcshame's mouth and agree with him until people chose the young guy over the old guy cause they were the same. Notice last night romney was stressing that he could show differences between him and obama. Not like the other candidates. And, therein lies the problem.


Posted by: tinsley at February 29, 2012 12:13 PM (oZfic)

385 SMOD promises big things but he's actually less massive than Hypothetical Permian Impactor. He's at best going to have the last 10% of the human race eating rats for 500 years. That's best. At worst he wipes out North Africa and southern europe with a tsunami and we end up with some cold years under dust cloud so the price of steak goes way up and we learn to eat roaches.

I think High Density Cosmic Ray Event is a more reliable candidate but he always runs at the last second if he runs at all.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 29, 2012 12:23 PM (a9mQu)

386
I am a Santorum supporter and will continue to be until I get to vote for him in the primary (super Tuesday).

After that, Mitt could earn my vote by not sticking his foot in his mouth every time he speaks. We'll see.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 29, 2012 12:24 PM (WYTHl)

387 "This election made me change my "ideological" identification label from "conservative" to "libertarian," because apparently I am not a conservative if you talk to Ericksen, Morrisey or Levin.:

Yeah, me too. Or as Santorum would call us, "libertines"

Posted by: sexypig at February 29, 2012 12:31 PM (wWV5q)

388 #384 Romney understands a very large part of the electorate.He understands business and the people who actually work for a living running businesses and managing them and making them grow. The professional white-collar voters turned out in droves in Michigan yesterday and voted overwhelmingly for Romney. These are exactly the voters we must win back if we have any chance of beating Obama. This group has been ravaged by this recession, they despise Obama's anti-business rhetoric and policies, and they like Mitt Romney. A lot.

Our economy is in a WORLD of hurt, and social cons just want to keep talking about abortion and gay marriage and now birth control. You know who that helps? Obama.

Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 12:31 PM (aBlZ1)

389 So if Romney wins...

Then what?

Posted by: runninrebel at February 29, 2012 12:34 PM (N/1Dm)

390 Also, what if Obamacare goes down in the Supreme Court, which I think it will.

(If it doesn't then our Republic is lost anyhows.)

Then that issue is dead effectively.

But is there any chance for serious free market reforms whoever gets elected? You know, like splitting healthcare from employment? Or actually cuts, or tax reform? Maybe I am just getting cynical.

Posted by: sexypig at February 29, 2012 12:34 PM (wWV5q)

391 Lemme preface this by saying I am a Catholic, I support Santorum.

Stop bashing Romney for "choosing to work in a palace in France". Mormons don't get to choose their missionary venue. One of my college classmates was very disappointed to be sent to Utah.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 29, 2012 12:36 PM (3GtyG)

392 Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 12:31 PM (aBlZ1)

I looked at the exit polls, where did they note "white collar professionals" because BO has collected more donations from Wall Street than any other president in history (per the glenn beck program this morning. a friend sent it out to everyone as she was shocked, she is a wall streeter and she though romney got the most donations from wall street)

In other words, is this just your opinion or can you back it up?

Posted by: tinsley at February 29, 2012 12:40 PM (oZfic)

393 Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 12:31 PM (aBlZ1)

I thought we aren't allowed to speak about romney's mormonism. This morning someone who is old but smart told me that romney if he is the nominee will eventually have to give that same kind of JFK speech about religion and he reminded me that BO gave a similar speech.

Posted by: tinsley at February 29, 2012 12:42 PM (oZfic)

394 "Our economy is in a WORLD of hurt, and social cons just want to keep talking about abortion and gay marriage and now birth control. You know who that helps? Obama."

If your crew wants to run the government, you are responsible for the whole enchilada.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 29, 2012 12:43 PM (3GtyG)

395
Our economy is in a WORLD of hurt, and social cons just want to keep talking about abortion and gay marriage and now birth control.
Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 12:31 PM (aBlZ1) Good thing we have true fiscal cons like Romney to force huge new healthcare spending and global warming programs on us. That's sure to save our floundering economy.

Posted by: Sad Dad at February 29, 2012 12:46 PM (WYTHl)

396 "I'm guessing that Santorum hit his high water mark and there is going to be no "third look at Gingrich".A good solid conservative candidate, who was prepared to run for president, had some level of charisma, and was not a complete social con warrior (I'm not saying not a social con, just someone more politically astute than Santorum when discussing social issues) would have won this thing in a cake-walk. [snip]

Jeebus, Monkeytoe, that was a thoughtful post. ROGER THAT, AMIGO!!

Posted by: JewishOdysseus at February 29, 2012 12:47 PM (l23WN)

397 Wait, I know! Let's nominate Romneycare to beat Obamacare next fall! That's probably going to work out REALLY well.

He is, after all, the "safer" choice.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 29, 2012 12:47 PM (EjhWd)

398 Did they poll Romney voters yesterday to see how many of them are aware that Romney passed Obamacare in Mass. when he was governor, by chance?

I would venture to guess a majority of them have no idea.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 29, 2012 12:48 PM (EjhWd)

399 We are fucking doomed if Romney is the candidate. 4 more years of Obama is what you will get. How about the promises to build the fence? How about if we just let that shitsucking Upton have another chance light bulb regulations would be rescinded? Conservatives just exist to be shit on. We are just supposed to vote correctly then stfu. I wont fucking do it.

Posted by: Dumpsterjuice at February 29, 2012 12:52 PM (B6U0F)

400 Reagan Democrats, maybe?

I don't believe there are any Reagan Democrats left. They became Republicans long ago.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at February 29, 2012 07:54 AM (+zL0z)

********************

Actually I think they still exist.

Catholics almost identify as "Democrat". It goes back to first Catholic President ever- John Kennedy.

I've heard Catholics threatened by-"your grandfather would roll over in his grave if you register as a Republican!"

No joke.

So they can be pretty damn Conservative yet "identify" as Democrat.

Posted by: tasker at February 29, 2012 12:55 PM (r2PLg)

401 Assholes. I'm surrounded by Assholes.

Posted by: Rick Perry at February 29, 2012 12:58 PM (U4ceb)

402
3) Socons sweep the election and can legislate morality nationally.



I hate to tell so-cons this, but I think #1 is way too possible, and
#2 is barely winnable. #3 isn't going to happen anytime soon outside of
Utah.


Posted by: sexypig at February 29, 2012 10:30 AM (wWV5q)



Here's my beef as a socon with your description of #3. Morality is legislated right now, with or without socons. When the gov't says it's okay to murder your unborn baby, that's a moral judgement. When the gov't says it's not okay to murder your unborn baby, that's also a moral judgement. The SoCon position may be a legislated morality, but the non-SoCon position is too. The question is not IF the gov't legislates/pushes morality. The question is WHOSE morality will the gov't legislate? (And yes, as a secular society, that morality should not just be what I like as a Christian, but sometimes what is Good is not Popular)


What the Socons are looking for is to push back liberal/leftist morality legislation that has been continuously advanced over the past decades. Those who tell SoCons to shut up are endorsing the status quo of liberal/leftist morality as protected and enforced by law. From a socon perspective, you're surrendering to the liberal agenda, you've only set it up so that it blows up after you're dead and gone.


Do you seriously think that "fiscally liberal" legislation that penalizes hard workers and gives welfare to deadbeats has no moral component to it?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 29, 2012 12:59 PM (v3pYe)

403 @395 Massachusetts was going to pass their own version anyways on the blueprints they gave Romney. Romney did try to veto the proposals that the Democrats inserted after the fact such as the employee mandate. They just overrode him like 90% of all the vetoes that Romney did during his administration.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 29, 2012 01:02 PM (et2m1)

404 I'm not a Republican but I am registered to vote and intend to vote several times for Obama unless you nominate a true conservative like Santorum. All my friends say they'll do the same.

Posted by: curious kitteh at February 29, 2012 01:03 PM (W7ffl)

405 OK I see where you are saying the Reagan Democrat is dead-that they are just JFK Democrats.

I'm not so sure about that.

I don't think a guy like Mitt can get them, but Giuliani would have, and perhaps Chris Christie before he got too full of himself with the helicopter lift.

I'm not too sure about Rubio he might be a little too straight laced.

Posted by: tasker at February 29, 2012 01:04 PM (r2PLg)

406 @404 a true social conservative that is. Note the social part.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 29, 2012 01:04 PM (et2m1)

407 Romney carried conservatives, Republicans, Catholics, those who believe working in business is better prep for the presidency than working in government, and those who are most dedicated to voting against President Obama.And yet Santorum will come away with at least half the delegates, and may come away with more.

Posted by: YFS at February 29, 2012 01:05 PM (hOpqT)

408 To elaborate, Santorum is a big government "conservative" which he wants to dictate morality should he be given executive power.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 29, 2012 01:05 PM (et2m1)

409 " If Romeny wins it will be fun watching you try to spin his "pragmatic" decision to "fix" Obamacare keeping the good parts and getting rid of the bad ones. "

They already have spun it. They can't do a damn thing without 60 votes in the Senate, see you in 2014. And 2016. And 2018...

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 29, 2012 01:09 PM (3GtyG)

410 Massachusetts was going to pass their own version anyways on the blueprints they gave Romney

*********

Could the MA legislature technically have passed it without some co-operation from Romney?

He could have vetoed the whole thing He didn't win enough good will to be viable for re-election by letting it get through.

And he still argues that it was the right thing to do.

Posted by: tasker at February 29, 2012 01:12 PM (r2PLg)

411 It's starting to look like my "Santorum is the best because of brand differentiation" theory is wrong. Ah well -- so long as Romney really does beat Chairman Zero, I will be happily, ecstatically wrong.

Posted by: Severian at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (3xodR)

412 ConservativeMonster

Yes but the word 'morality" is now a dirty word.

That's how Democrats win, it's the war of semantics. That's why abortion gets translated to-"Pro-Choice."

Posted by: tasker at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (r2PLg)

413 "In short, in Michigan, Romney carried... those who believe working in business is better prep for the presidency than working in government, and those who are most dedicated to voting against President Obama."

This blog would be a lot better off without this kind of asinine crack which is wholly unsupported by the polling data. We get it, you hate Santorum and are afraid he'll outlaw your penis or something.
Write about something else where you can maintain at least a sham of dignity and reason.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 29, 2012 01:27 PM (r4wIV)

414 "To elaborate, Santorum is a big government 'conservative' which he wants to dictate morality should he be given executive power."

Funny how when actually in government with the power to craft and pass laws he never did any such thing. Almost as if that statement is a vapid, hysterical lie.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 29, 2012 01:28 PM (r4wIV)

415 I looked at the exit polls, where did they note "white collar professionals" because BO has collected more donations from Wall Street than any other president in history (per the glenn beck program this morning. a friend sent it out to everyone as she was shocked, she is a wall streeter and she though romney got the most donations from wall street)
In other words, is this just your opinion or can you back it up?

Posted by: tinsley at February 29, 2012 12:40 PM (oZfic)

This is from an article in National Jorunal today, entitled "Michigan Could Be Romney's Battle of the Bulge":

In both states, Romney continued to demonstrate formidable strength among the key components of the GOP’s managerial wing of more affluent, well-educated, secular, and moderate voters, according to exit polls posted on CNN.com. In Oakland County, a classic white-collar suburb outside Detroit that has trended Democratic in general elections since 1992, Romney crushed Santorum by about 20 percentage points or nearly 30,000 votes (with almost 90 percent reporting). That roughly equaled his overall statewide margin with nearly 90 percent of the vote counted.

In all five states for which exit polls have been conducted so far, Romney has run best among voters earning at least $100,000 annually and he continued that pattern on Tuesday night. Among those affluent voters, Romney beat Santorum by a solid 15 percentage-point margin in Michigan and routed him by over two-to-one in Arizona.

Likewise, Romney ran 9 percentage points ahead of Santorum among Michigan voters with at least a four-year college degree, and routed him by 21 percentage points among those voters in Arizona. In each state, voters who do not identify as evangelical Christians comprised about three-fifths of the vote: Romney carried them by 15 percentage points in Michigan and almost twice that in Arizona. In every state with an exit poll so far, Romney has won a plurality of voters who do not identify as evangelical Christians, at least 37 percent in each case.

Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 01:28 PM (aBlZ1)

416 "Romney voters were indeed the most resolute:
of the 62% of GOP primary voters who said they will definitely vote for
the GOP candidate in November, 50% went for Romney; only 36% picked
Santorum."

That's very interesting.

It's also disturbing that there is a very large percentage of the GOP that is saying they may not vote against Obama. It's important folks do that.

IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT that folks try to bring these guys into the GOP. And you can't do that merely by calling them zealous purists. For one: that just won't work. that will only convince them the GOP has zero intention of ever actually earning the vote. A lot of folks are absolutely convinced that the GOP must collapse before the spending and government intrusion can be fixed by a superior party. They even think it's worth four more years of Obama to get there.

I disagree with that. I'm not promoting that idea.

But you've got to make the case that the GOP has learned its lesson. Unfortunately, no one with a brain trusts Romney at all, given his flip flops on everything from Ohio's union reform to abortion to voting in the wrong party's primary. Romney will not be able to convince anyone the GOP will stop making mistakes like increasing the debt ceiling to avoid a Gingrich level fight.

So what do we do?

1) it would be better to nominate big goverment Santorum over big government Romney. Santorum is more honest.

2) if that doesn't happen, something else needs to get these folks to the polls (for GOP congressional races perhaps). someone else needs to convince these people that the GOP has changed at a fundamental level. Romney has been awful about appealing to the right because he's trying to preserve the ability to run way to the left as soon as he's nominated (mark my words).

Of course, beating Obama is mostly a function of the economy, but these races can get really close and the people who are frustrated with the GOP are actually pretty damn justified.

Posted by: Dustin at February 29, 2012 01:31 PM (wcT+8)

417 Credit to Romney for doing what needed to be done to win yesterday in Michigan. The next week should be critical for putting away Santorum.

Unfortunately for Romney, there is another caucus and another nationally-televised debate before next Tuesday. Washington State has more delegates available than either of yesterday's contests. RS has been doing a bunch of work in WA and polls ahead there. How much Tuesday eats into his polling is yet to be seen.

RS's people are doing a good job of being gracious about the losses and emphasizing a more subtle pitch for women voters for the next set of contests, as well as making sure everybody knows that RS will get half the delegates from Michigan.

Romney's speech last night was pretty good. So was Santorum's.

Romney is apparently pressing what he sees as his advantage regarding the MI robo-calls pitched to Dems with talking points and a pretty aggressive new ad today. We'll see if that is effective in Ohio. We've already been deluged with Romney attack ads for weeks here. It might just be another log on the fire of negativity from Romney and be minimally effective.

My biggest hope for Tuesday next is that Gingrich loses Georgia. Not because I have anything against Gingrich, but because I think a Romney-Santorum 1v1 will clarify things immensely. I do think Santorum will weather yesterday better than Newt has obviously not weathered losing in Florida.

Frankly, if I were the Romney people, I wold want a 1v1 where I could clearly win outright. That would put to bed the biggest problem Romney has which is the perception that he can't win over the base. In a 1v1, he either will or he won't. Either outcome is good for the party.

We either get a Romney who wins outright and thus commands the loyalty of the whole party legitimately. Or we end his ambitions finally and for good and move on to someone else.

This process has been very good for the party. Romney is immensely better than 2008 (although he was starting from a pretty low baseline of talent, politically). The wannabes have been eliminated. Newt will be the next one of those to go. And the final not-Romney is actually a guy who is pretty damn good at politics or he wouldn't be the last man standing.

I would note that the anti-Mormon hits are just now starting to come out from the MSM. Be prepared, Romney-bots. If Obama's people are willing to take on the largest religious group in America in a frontal assault, they won't hesitate to throw every dirty trick in the book at a fringe religion like the Mormons.

Assuming Santorum can be vanquished, the real fight will only be beginning.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 29, 2012 01:33 PM (dcoFe)

418 Yes but the word 'morality" is now a dirty word.



That's how Democrats win, it's the war of semantics. That's why abortion gets translated to-"Pro-Choice."

Posted by: tasker at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (r2PLg)



Republican and conservative are dirty words as well. You'll excuse me for not giving up words just because they're unpopular. Keep surrendering every word that you have, and soon you'll have no words to defend yourself with.

That would be fatal to conservatism - but hey, people want libertine sex and no moral scolding. Fair enough, but don't be surprised at the end of that path.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 29, 2012 01:46 PM (sGtp+)

419 I knew the Mittster could pull it off!
Romney/Rubio 2012!


RETIRE05

Posted by: retire05 at February 29, 2012 01:47 PM (PloFs)

420 "Romney is apparently pressing what he sees as his advantage regarding the MI robo-calls"

Yeah, that's how they have operated from the beginning. When Perry made a mistake, the press and Romney happily made the entire race about that one thing. When Newt did, same. Now Santorum did, and same.

The race should be about these guys's records. Santorum is the guy with welfare reform who never supported the individual mandate and is brutally honest even when it hurts him. Romney has a record of killing jobs and saying the ind mandate is conservative, and is very poor on credibility due to the flips.

But if you have enough money, you can plaster a state in ads about one mistake your opponent made. That has worked very well in the primaries.

I hope Newt drops out and endorses Santorum. I hope the right sees the problem in time.

Posted by: Dustin at February 29, 2012 01:48 PM (wcT+8)

421 " would note that the anti-Mormon hits are just now starting to come out
from the MSM. Be prepared, Romney-bots. If Obama's people are willing to
take on the largest religious group in America in a frontal assault,
they won't hesitate to throw every dirty trick in the book at a fringe
religion like the Mormons."

It's going to be hideous, and even Republicans who can't stand Romney should stand up against it.

Posted by: Dustin at February 29, 2012 01:49 PM (wcT+8)

422 New Romney bumper sticker; "SQUISH, its whats for Breakfast".
Heres another nice slogan for the general: "If you like Obamacare, you can keep Obamacare".
Worthless Fuck.

Posted by: Rich K at February 29, 2012 01:49 PM (X4l3T)

423 And we're tired of being bashed as Theocratic Fascists and having the Establishment that depends on our votes act like they're ashamed of us in public and screwing us over once they're in office... when all we are doing is defending the values that have made Western Civilization possible against those who want to tear them all down.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 08:33 AM (azHfB)

This, a thousand times this. Bravo.

"Thank you for stuffing envelopes, manning the phone banks and boosting the GOTV efforts. Here's your executive orders, token values speech(es) and maybe a Supreme Court appointment that won't blow up in your face. Now get back to the kids' table and shut up."

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at February 29, 2012 01:50 PM (W54Uh)

424 "If you like Obamacare, you can keep Obamacare"

witty. I like it.

"Now get back to the kids' table and shut up."

That's what it comes across as. I don't know that the beltway guys realize that, but we expect more out of the GOP now than we did before. Romney is proof we won't get it.

Fear of Obama's next term is all they've got. Granted, it's enough for me, but it's fundamentally weak. This could be a disaster.

Posted by: Dustin at February 29, 2012 01:54 PM (wcT+8)

425 "Someone please explain to me, WITHOUT drifting into social-con territory, how Santorum is more 'conservative' than Romney."

Um, Santorum didn't use his position to take over the healthcare system.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at February 29, 2012 01:54 PM (EjhWd)

426 " how Santorum is more 'conservative' than Romney."

Santorum is plainly more conservative than Romney.

It's rather easy to show. Santorum co wrote Welfare reform. He was part of a real success against a furious democrat fight. Romney never was.

Santorum never supported the ind mandate. romney, to this day, tells us that the government controlling your economic choices is fundamentally conservative. That's worse than just supporting it. That's shifting the entire political spectrum radically to the left.

Romneycare, day one, when Romney signed it, had planned parenthood provisions in it. It subsidized abortion on day one. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fund that no matter what you think of abortion as a social issue.

Romney also increased taxes by nearly a billion dollars as governor. In 2007, Governor Romney proposed (AKA, this was what Romney wanted rather than what democrats asked for) a 10% increase to the annual budget. That's a massive increase. And MA already had one of the worst most bloated budgets in America. Romney made it much worse. He also also had the gun tax, $100 a pop. Romney signed that. He proposed a $75 gun tax/fine, too. Why would a conservative do such a thing?

Romney also appointed a lot of democrats to the bench. Over 75% of his appointments to the bench were democrats, and the democrat party had no control over this process. Such appointments only had to pass Romney's appointed "Governor's Counsel".

I could go on all day.

Santorum has a mixed record and doesn't have my libertarian streak, but he's honest with me about it, so he has credibility on his excellent energy and foreign policy platform, and his other conservative views. I'm not saying Santorum is the gold standard for Conservatism.

But Romney sometimes has actual contempt for conservatives... cynically talking about inciting us with incendiary comments... Romney has done a very poor job catering to Tea Party folks this entire season.

Posted by: Dustin at February 29, 2012 02:08 PM (wcT+8)

427 Oh yeah, and Romney claims he never raised taxes by calling his hundreds of millions of fee increases 'not a tax', the billions of Romneycare spending 'not a tax' and the hundreds of millions of 'closing the tax code loopholes' not a tax.

That too is liberal. When citizens pay more for government mandates and programs, that's a damn tax.

Posted by: Dustin at February 29, 2012 02:10 PM (wcT+8)

428 "Could the MA legislature technically have passed it without some co-operation from Romney? "

Yes. They had 90% of the Commonwealth seats. Why do you think they overrode Romney so much? Abortion fundings? He vetoed but they overrode. Employee mandate? He vetoed by the overrode. There's probably a list of major veto's that he did during his administration somewhere. He issued over I believe around 2000 vetoes during the 4 years he was governor and 90% of them were futile.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 29, 2012 02:10 PM (et2m1)

429 @427 Because they are not taxes in the first place.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24609.html

Taxes is mandatory for EVERYONE such as property taxes, state taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 29, 2012 02:14 PM (et2m1)

430 "Mitt’s victory also shows that if you have a well-funded SuperPAC
capable of unleashing millions of dollars in attack ads, you don’t need
principles, bold ideas, or heartfelt convictions."

OH THE HORROR - Mitt is evil because he can raise money and support.

Let's support those poor underdogs that can't even get organized enough to get on key state ballots. Shame on Mitt for trying to run an organized campaign! Shame on Mitt for getting people to support him with money instead of just good feelings.

I bet that rich jerk even has the gall to drive a Cadillac - just like some of the medicaid patients I see coming through the Pharmacy drive through.

Posted by: Evan at February 29, 2012 02:16 PM (N80tW)

431 Yes. They had 90% of the Commonwealth seats. Why do you think they overrode Romney so much? Abortion fundings? He vetoed but they overrode. Employee mandate? He vetoed by the overrode. There's probably a list of major veto's that he did during his administration somewhere. He issued over I believe around 2000 vetoes during the 4 years he was governor and 90% of them were futile.

***********************

Cripes I keep forgetting how blue MA is.

You still have the problem of why Romney still insists it was a good thing.

He doesn't make the argument that you do.

Posted by: tasker at February 29, 2012 02:19 PM (r2PLg)

432 Posted in another thread but more appropriate here:

Santorum did manage to bet Mitt in one key demographic - look at all the dems a union thugs that supported him in MI. He got over 50%. Maybe we should get Santorum to run since he gets so much support from the Kos kids, unions and even Obama might vote for Santorum.

Glad that Santorum is such a true conservative AND he gets the dem vote.

Posted by: Evan at February 29, 2012 02:20 PM (N80tW)

433 Santorum secured a minimum of half the delegates from Michigan. He won 7 of the 14 CDs and gets one of the two statewide delegates. There is one CD that is still undecided, so RS may actually get a majority of the delegates from MI.

Obviously, he still trails Romney substantially in delegates overall.

WA is awarded proportionally. 43 delegates at stake. Last poll was from a week ago and RS up 11 on Romney in WA. I'm sure a poll will come out in the next day or so with more current numbers.

Romney is betting all on Ohio for next Tuesday. Rob Portman with an op-ed in this morning's Cincinnati Enquirer pushing Romney.


Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 29, 2012 02:32 PM (dcoFe)

434 "Because they are not taxes in the first place."

Sorry, I disagree for two reasons.

One, a fee for buying a gun is a tax. Forcing someone to pay for Romneycare is a tax. Even if they don't get insurance at all, and pay the penalty, I consider that a tax. Look up the word tax in a dictionary. Any time I have to pay for government programs, that's a tax.

The second reason is that romney was a big spender. Three out of four years as governor, he proposed budget increases. Note: that's not the democrats overriding him. That's Romney proposing an increase. In one year, that increase was ten percent over a single year. That's stunning, especially when you realize MA was already spending wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much on government. When you spend too much, a tax increase is inevitable. Romneycare itself has cost 20 billion so far. Romney never had to pay for that via tax increases, because it mostly kicked in after he was gone, and even then, a lot of that is just debt. It's still yet to be paid for. But spending by government, eventually, leads to tax increases of some kind.

" Why do you think they overrode
Romney so much? Abortion fundings? He vetoed but they overrode."

That's utterly untrue. Romney signed Romneycare into law, and that Romneycare he signed had planned parenthood provisions that amounted to a $50 co pay per abortion.

the 'democrats did it' excuse is simply not accurate.

Furthermore, there's a reason the state didn't have all this stuff with the three prior GOP governors in MA. When Romney negotiated so far to the left as to sign into law gun fines and abortion funding, the democrats naturally moved to the left just a little more than Romney.

Consider New Jersey. Christie fights loudly, pounding the podium if necessary, and insists the democrats are wrong when they are spending too much. Romney, on the other hand, negotiates with democrats to a mere ten percent increase in spending. In the latter case, the democrats wind up demanding much more.

And Santorum... he is flawed, but he's actually done even better by fighting successfully for welfare reform and insisting the ind. mandate is wrong from the start. With Santorum, at least on some issues, things actually get more conservative instead of having things go more liberal and a rewriting of who is to blame.

If Romney is president, I'm sure the democrats will be blamed as things get more liberal. But guess what: I mostly care about the results rather than the blame.

Posted by: Dustin at February 29, 2012 02:34 PM (wcT+8)

435 "Santorum did manage to bet Mitt in one key demographic - look at all the
dems a union thugs that supported him in MI. He got over 50%."

Yeah, 51%.

"Glad that Santorum is such a true conservative AND he gets the dem vote."

That's a straw man argument. Santorum is a big government squish. Romney is a bona fide liberal.

And on unions, Romney is a true flip flopper, such as his shameful behavior in Ohio on question two. He will actually say three things in three days, transparently just obeying the polls and the reactions from the voters. Right now, Romney is right about unions. I admit that much. I just realize he's insincere.

"He issued over I believe around 2000 vetoes during the 4 years he was governor and 90% of them were futile."

Another point is the veto process in MA is very unusual, and a lot of this is for show. The fact is that Romney repeatedly did liberal things when democrats had no control over it. They had no control over Romney's judicial appointments or his budget proposals or his signatures on bills, and all of those were simply very, very liberal.

MA actually was willing to elect Republicans as governor for a long time, but after Romney, nope. Why? I think because independents saw a GOP that ceased to mean anything. Some of these people actually care more about character than ideology. This is part of why Santorum is so superior with independents than Romney, even though Santorum is more socially conservative... or perhaps because of that.

Posted by: Dustin at February 29, 2012 02:38 PM (wcT+8)

436 Incidentally, as someone who personally knows Sen. Portman and has worked on his campaigns since 1996, I find myself disagreeing with him for the first time ever on his endorsement of Romney.

Romney had better win Ohio for Portman's sake. He has enormous goodwill in this state, particularly in SW Ohio, and if Romney steps on his dick here, Rob will feel some backlash from the rank-and-file voters.

That said, I am not voting for Romney on Tuesday.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 29, 2012 02:38 PM (dcoFe)

437 I really hate to see you guys saying gingrich should drop out. I don't think any of them should drop out, I don't think there is a clear front runner yet. There haven't been enough contests and I think most republicans don't want to be mcshamed and forced to take romney.

It's interesting I gave more money to Santorum and Gingrich today. I don't want them to drop out. And I read somewhere that mittens isn't raising money as easily as he once did.

The rumor is that romney has finally teamed up with Rove. Been trying to find out if that is true.

Romney thinks he can make up for his shortcomings by picking an uber conservative as his VP. He also thinks his pick will help him sure up the one part of the country where he can barely get noticed. A sarah palin type of surprise pick.

Have been seeing romney commercials here for at least 2 weeks. We do not vote until April 24 and NY is a horse of another color. We will get annoyed at having to mute and skip all the political commercials.

I'm also hearing that someone is asking for a re count in both MI and AZ owing to the messes in places like Maine and Iowa.

Posted by: tinsley at February 29, 2012 03:32 PM (oZfic)

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

Posted by: steevy at February 29, 2012 04:41 PM (7W3wI)

439 The GOP is ALSO is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

There will be a fail-duel. And whoever wins we lose.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 29, 2012 05:27 PM (a9mQu)

440
tasker @400:

I've heard Catholics threatened by-"your grandfather would roll over in his grave if you register as a Republican!"
No joke.
So they can be pretty damn Conservative yet "identify" as Democrat.
I am starting to think American Catholics are the Religion of Stupid the way Republicans are the Party of Stupid.

Posted by: Fed-up Catholic at March 01, 2012 12:14 AM (F0o5k)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0761 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0209 seconds, 449 records returned.
Page size 287 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