The American Spectator : The Unorthodox Frontrunner

Booger | 11.18.10 @ 6:24AM

From the desk of Mitt Romney:

My Fellow Republicans,

At this time I wish to solicit your vote to be nominated as the G.O.P. Presidential candidate of 2012. There are many great reasons to vote for me, and I would like to list them here:
1) Health Care. It's a big issue, all right. It's the reason we hold the House of Representatives now, and picked up a few seats in the Senate. Well, I know more about government takeovers of health care than anybody else in the whole Republican party. I was for it before I was against it (learned how to do that in MA politics) and now I'm for it AND against it, a truly original position! I'm a veritable kama sutra of positions on health care, so you're sure to like on of them!
2) Social issues. Pro-life or pro-choice? Me too! Personally against gay marriage but willing to put it into practice anyway? Me too! Member of a conservative religion but love liberal government social policies? Me too! And let's face it, nobody wears a suit and tie to church better than I do. I'm a veritable Charlie Crist of positions on social issues. Just let me know which one you like.
3) We don't need the NRA vote or the right-to-life vote or the citizens opposed to Obamacare vote, or the traditional marriage vote to win anyway. We need the more enlightened vote of the Northeastern Moderate Republican if we're going to win this race, and I've got that vote wrapped up!
4) I guarantee I can carry Utah for the Republican party this time!
5) I may get a bigger minority of the vote in Massachusetts than the Republican normally does!
6) I have the best hair in the race, even better than Palin!
7) If you don't vote for me it's because you're an anti-Mormon bigot!
I look forward to serving as your nominee in 2012, and have already secured a promise from Charlie Crist to serve as my running mate, which should give our ticket that much loved "regional balance". Michael Steele says we're a perfect couple and a sure thing. Look forward to getting your checks in the mail!

Your 2012 Republican Nominee,

Mitt Romney

wodiej| 11.18.10 @ 7:05AM

LMAO!! This is one of your best Booger..and I couldn't agree more.

Booger | 11.18.10 @ 8:50AM

8) Mitt Romney: He's not just Obama-lite, he's Obama-white!

http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/

Sheila| 11.18.10 @ 11:03AM

Really on-point satire today, Booger! One minor addition - don't forget that female commenter here who always insists she couldn't support Chris Christie because he's fat, and Romney's slim - so add that to the hair issue!

Booger | 11.18.10 @ 12:06PM

9) Mitt Romney: I'm not a RINO, I just play one on TV!

http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:03PM

Spot on, Booger. You know, I think people are counting out Bobby Jindal way to soon. Conservative, articulate, and competent.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:03PM

Sorry, Booger. Tired. "too soon." Jeez.

JmsA| 11.18.10 @ 5:25PM

I believe Governor Jindal indicated he would not be seeking the presidency in 2012.

Nostrildigit| 11.18.10 @ 9:45PM

Suggestion to Mr. Klein and all TAS writers:
Enough already! Give us a 1-year break on this type of foolish waste-of-time speculation on '12 pres candidates. Beginning Nov 2011, we can select among the most effective ones who have lead the all-crucial conservative charge in 2011. These way-early polls merely serve to take our eye off the ball of the here-and-now. I think that the libs want these polls (which inevitably feature the candidates from the last round) to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:43PM

I like Christie but I'm concerned that his obesity could hinder his POTUS campaign. It's not about looks for me--it's about his health. Would he be able to withstand the extreme physical rigors of a stressful campaign for the presidency?

Myth, on the other hand, is a joke.

Mark| 11.24.10 @ 1:47PM

Christie should go on Huckabee's show, then after taping the two could have a serious 1-on-1 about weight loss.

I Hate The Stupid Party!| 11.18.10 @ 12:46PM

BINGO!

Mike Rogers| 11.18.10 @ 7:19AM

Bravo, Booger - another great satire :)

If Palin can win over some skeptics (not by moderating her positions, but by improving her presentation of them), or if Pawlenty can get out and about enough to overcome the ho-hum factor, Romney won't be the presumptive anything, thank God!
His book and eponymous "No Apology" tour brilliantly epitomize what is right and wrong about this man: No apologies for America - Good; No apology for MassCare - BAD!

I met the man in NH, and praised his integrity and business acumen, then asked why he did not denounce the obvious failures of the MA health care legislation. He leaned forward, got real intense, and asked if I realized what a small portion of the MA budget it was, then told me it was providing almost total coverage. If the recently publicized cases of the bureaucracy harassing people too poor to buy insurance in order to collect the fines does not change his mind, he's a lost cause.

PS - The Hermanator for President!

Hu| 11.18.10 @ 1:51PM

I'm from Minnesota and please do research on Tim Pawlenty. He is as squishy as they come. He was for global warming until the tide started to turn. He signed a bill at the 11th hour to allow Minnesotans into Obamacare. He did this literally at the 11:30 pm so as keep any dissent in the dark.

Tim Pawlenty is not a conservative and should be looked into seriously before he gets any further into the 2012 election.

No more Newt, Mitt, Huck and TPaw - as conservatives and in my case a Tea Partier we must find a better candidate. Maybe Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Thune, or Christie! or someone yet under the radar.

serfer62| 11.18.10 @ 7:02PM

Thune! Are you nuts? He's the guy on the Gang of 14 that stopped conservative hudges getting a floor vote, stopped drilling in the USA, stopped the tax cit from being perment!!! And you think he's presidental material!?!

dadfly| 11.18.10 @ 11:35PM

no way to thune. he just voted yes for S.510, the FDA take over of our food supply.

Kralux| 11.20.10 @ 3:06PM

Ron Paul is your man. you should listen to him on YouTube. I am sure you'll like him.

Ole Sarge| 11.20.10 @ 8:00PM

Thune is showing his true colors, he has jumped on S501, joined by a herd of leftist R's.

http://www.americanthinker.com.....in_th.html

Charles| 11.18.10 @ 9:01AM

Mitt Romney is a ad excuse for a Republican. He is not a conservative. He converted late to many subjects conservatives hold dear. he laid the grown work for Obamacare, and he still won't own up to how wrong MA is for that. Unless you are conservative like Jindal or Palin you should not be moving forward in this process. And yes we need to purge the wimpy middle of this party.

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:22AM

One of the most absurd comments I have read since the election.

Charles| 11.18.10 @ 2:19PM

he is a SAD excuse for a Republican. No conservative would have passed his healthcare debacle, no one! He is not about advancing conservatism which is the only cure for the statism we face. He was good for blue MA, a good cabinet man, but he should not get close to the GOP nomination.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:27PM

Better get used to them, James. RINO Romney will NEVER be POTUS.

We already ran a RINO in 2008--how'd that work out for us?

Michael| 11.18.10 @ 5:42PM

Um, that's bc he picked a right wing extremist of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Up until then, they were neck-to-neck.

steve brennan| 11.18.10 @ 10:20PM

Excuse me but that is simply untrue. He was behind when he chose Palin and it vaulted him 3 points ahead. the press attacked, the ecomomy imploded, he started running all over the place and basically self destructed. He was a pathetic candidate. I remember it clearly including the timeline. Your point is bogus. Just sayin'.

suzette rodgers| 11.19.10 @ 4:18PM

Mc Cain was far behind before Sarah was announced and then he surged until the left started all the lies. Sarah was the reason so many held their nose and voted for him.

Charie| 11.20.10 @ 10:45AM

As the saying goes, you're entitlted to your own opinions but not to your own facts, Michael. Totally untrue. McCain was dead in the water until he announced Sarah Palin as his running mate. All those at the convention were snoozing until she strode on stage and electrified everyone there. I watched it and saw the crowd response.

McCain had been dropping farther and farther behind and I think it was McCain snatching at a straw to pull himself up and he got lucky! The fact that he's a RINO (Have you forgotten McCain/Feingold?) had everything to do with conservatives staying home on election day 2008.

bookworm| 11.23.10 @ 11:04PM

If that's true ... well then, thanks ever so much conservatives! You saddled us with this COMMUNIST!

Michael| 11.18.10 @ 5:42PM

Um, that's bc he picked a right wing extremist of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Up until then, they were neck-to-neck.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:40PM

Wrong, troll! McCain's campaign got a huge boost in the polls when he chose Palin; it was after the old RINO bungled his handling of the financial crisis that his numbers tanked.

RomneyCare = ObamaCare. Nothing more needs to be said.

Paul| 11.22.10 @ 10:36AM

Palin, right wing extremist?

I'm a right wing extremist. Palin is no extremists. Trust me, I'm the kind that mumbles about "..all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC"

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:05PM

Charles---I think it was a typo, but what a brilliant one. "ad" excuse for a Conservative, indeed! No substance, all flash.

bus| 11.18.10 @ 3:58PM

I asked a friend of mine from Mass. why in the world they had a Rep. governor when Mitt was in office. His response was that every once in awhile the electorate elected someone honest to help keep the graff in check.
Interesting--not my words.
He can solve the healthcare problem by pointing out that he was Governor of a very liberal state with a very liberal legislature, that everything was debated and discussed above board and he signed on to it because it was the will of the people. Very unlike the way Obamacare was shoved down or up the American body politic. Imagine a politician serving the will of the people. He could also mention how after finishing his term he moved out of the state because he recognized what a disaster socialized medicine was.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 4:22PM

RomneyCare is bankrupting Mass. and its stink is gonna follow Romney wherever he goes.

Dwight| 11.18.10 @ 8:25PM

You're just repeating an absurd myth Patriot. Can you provide any actual evidence that "RomneyCare" is bankrupting Massachusetts?

beebop| 11.19.10 @ 8:59AM

Google it. Unless you're just blowing smoke.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:05PM

Yup. All you have to do is google the economic destruction RomneyCare is inflicting on Mass.

Mr. Potato Head, Esq.| 11.18.10 @ 10:08PM

Dear bus:

It's hard to shine the Mitt turd because underneath it's still a turd. Running Mitt takes off the table one of the most disturbing policies of the Obama regime. All Obama would need do in a debate is smile, turn to Mitt, and say, "Well, we patterned Obamacare after Romneycare."

Moreover, I just read that the state of Mass has hired big gun lawyers to chase down those who failed to pony up for Romneycare or pay the automatic fine of $2,000 per year.

That too is coming to an Obamacare near you.

I'll tell you, Palin has had Obama crapping his pants since he caught wind she was nominated for vice president. She is the anti-Obama personified.

dakealo| 11.19.10 @ 12:29AM

Palin? Romney? Jindal? Huckster? Thune? TPaw? Newt? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO and HELL NO!! Good God; almighty NO!

Perhaps Ryan or Christie or Paul (father or son)

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:08PM

Neither Paul.

Kralux| 11.20.10 @ 3:11PM

Why not? They are the only true conservative and real independent politicians with complete integrity. Most others are puppets for special interest groups like the weapon industry and such...

Ole Sarge| 11.20.10 @ 8:07PM

The son maybe, dad, he is a few bricks shy of a full load, liberalism with a pretend dash of Conservativeism is not good for anything. Why do you think he has never gotten past go?

Charie| 11.20.10 @ 10:52AM

I thought Ryan was the fair haired boy, too, but I'm beginning to rethink that. It sounds to me as though he simply wants to "re-do" Obamacare rather than throwing the whole anti-Constitution law out. He must believe that Americans actually wanted the government to take over healthcare. I know some do, but the majority don't.

Just the thought that Romney signed onto a bill that fines citizens $2,000 for not submitting to staterun healthcare makes me shudder.

Don't put your faith in Christie, either. He is strictly a fiscal conservative. I think he has a lot of ideas that conservatives would not be able to swallow.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.18.10 @ 9:16AM

Booger,
The danger posed by the “Tea Party for Romney” mob descending on your home with pitchforks and torches must not be much of a deterant.

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:24AM

Michael,

Yes, the party of three persons will be a formidable foe.

There is no national energized Tea Party group with unified leadership. There are only sound bites from former Tea Party leaders.

There are only little dogs who are barking at the caravan.

Dan FItzgerald| 11.18.10 @ 2:16PM

...and 3 new US Senators, 30 new Representatives.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:37PM

Keep whistling past the graveyard, James. Insult the Tea Party at your own peril, moron. LOL

Myth can't get nominated without Tea Party support.

RCV| 11.20.10 @ 6:14PM

"insult the tea party at your own peril"? What are you going to do? Call out the Paul Goon Squad on him?

Charie| 11.20.10 @ 10:56AM

>>> "Pitchforks and torches!

Charie| 11.20.10 @ 11:00AM

Have no idea of where the rest of my post went.

I suppose the Tea Partiers could borrow them from the MSNBC talking staff..

This is the best laugh I've had since the other Michael Liberal posted!

James | 11.18.10 @ 9:21AM

Haha booger....

Very comical..... but Romney haters are going to have to grow up someday and stop presenting White House talking points or former rival's attaching points from 2008.

Governing is not like reading the Bible and finding absolute positions of doctrine and sticking to them.

Governing requires a flexible approach to emerging problems.

Who would have thought that Ronald Reagan's "no-turn down" policy whould have required Sate governments to enact health care reform to require that all residents have health insurance?

So Romney, the business man, offered a bill to cover the shortfall, which Newt Gingrich called "practical."

When are Romney haters going to have to finally admit that the liberal legislature altered Romney's bill and overrode him?

When are Romney haters going to start admitting that Romney, who has always acted "pro-life" in his personal life, and switched his political position when he vetoed an embryonic stem cell research bill in 2005?

And, when are Romney haters going to remember that Romney endorsed Tea Party winner Marc Rubio for Florida Senate.

It seems that the only arguments that Romney haters can make are the ones that are fabricated out of whole cloth.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 10:14AM

A few questions:

1. If Mitt Romney is such a brilliant choice to be the nominee, then why did he lose to the inept John McCain in 2008? If he couldn't beat the guy who couldn't beat Obama then, why should we believe he will be the man to beat Obama in 2012 if Obama runs again?

2. What has happened since 2008 to suddenly make Mitt Romney a better choice? (The answer is not Obama - I don't know about everyone else, but I want a Republican nominee I can wholeheartedly support REGARDLESS of whether Obama is the alternative, since after all, Obama hasn't won HIS party's nomination yet).

3. What has Mitt Romney done since 2008 to demonstrate that the failure to nominate him in 2008 was a bad decision? (Not what has Obama done - what has MITT ROMNEY done?)

The long and the short of it is that we need a candidate people can vote FOR, not merely someone to hold a place on a ballot for people who want to vote against OBAMA. We need to not just win in 2012, we need to win with someone who can lead the country out of the morass it's in now and into a better future. Mitt Romney offers nothing new, nothing that's not been tried and failed before.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 12:36PM

I am meh on Romney as a candidate. If he is nominated I'd vote for him. But because he lost the nomination to McCain last time around hardly disqualifies him in '12. Reagan lost to Ford and that certainly did not make him unqualified for running for President.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 2:04PM

Obviously, Romney's as free to run as the next guy, and there have certainly been times in the past when he, or someone like him, WOULD have been the best choice. Now is not one of those times.

The comparison to Reagan/Ford is '76 is not a good one, remember, Ford was the incumbent. There's a big difference between challenging a sitting President from your own party and running against many to challenge the sitting President from the other party.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 2:11PM

Your point on Ford is a good one. However, it is also important to remember that Ford was a damaged incumbant who had was tied to political scandal. This was not a situation where In many ways the 2008 election was an outlier, there was no incumbant running for the nomination which was a boon for McCain in the primaries and a burden in the general. He never really had the opportunity to run seperate himself from a vastly unpopular President of his own party.

I still think my larger point stands: Romney's loss to McCain is not what disqualifies him for President. Lots of politicians lose elections, the question is always what is learner. My problems with Romney are not he ran a bad campaign but that he'd be a bad President.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:30PM

Romney's a democrat-lite RINO--he'll never beat Obama.

The Big R| 11.18.10 @ 5:08PM

I agree that Ford was a weakened incumbent, certainly not as strong as if he had been elected to the office in '72. Still, I'm trying to think of a single time when a sitting President lost to someone within his own party, and at least since the primary era, I can't think of one.

There is another difference between Reagan/Ford in '76 and Romney/McCain in '08 - Reagan and Ford were not of the same mind. Reagan was a pure conservative, Ford was an establishment Republican.

There were, therefore, stark differences between Reagan and Ford. That's not the case with Romney and McCain. Politically, they're pretty much the same. Reagan in 1980 was definitely NOT a rehash of Ford in 1976. That's just not the case with Romney.

Bob Miller| 11.18.10 @ 3:59PM

What exactly would Romney do to reactivate the private sector?

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:42PM

We already know what Myth did to screw up the Mass. economy.
RomneyCare = ObamaCare.

Booger | 11.18.10 @ 12:26PM

"Romney has always acted 'pro-life' in his personal life"..... Well, I am SOOOOOO glad to hear that Mitt hasn't had an abortion. Hitler never actually PERSONALLY killed a Jew, either.

Patrick| 11.18.10 @ 2:28PM

John Kerry acted "pro-life" in his personal life too, so that doesn't hold water.

Iska Waran| 11.18.10 @ 1:04PM

So you're in love with Mitten. Mitten supporters fall into two camps: those who could grudgingly support him because he's the least bad candidate and Mormons who love him because he's a Mormon but who try (unsuccessfully) to find other plausible excuses for their affection. If there's anything more unseemingly than a Romney hater, it's a Romney lover. Romney might be barely acceptable, but Romney love is incomprehensible except as being an outpouring from his co-religionists. That's your right as a Mormon, but your protestations will influence others about as much as does the fervent love of Obama's black supporters.

Patrick| 11.18.10 @ 2:34PM

Very true. I will add that there is also a tremendous liability with such an attitude.

Catholics did the same thing in 1960, and it took fifty years and the abortion issue to BEGIN to purge the Kennedy Cult.

jeniwren| 11.18.10 @ 3:18PM

Its ridiculous to say that Mormons vote for Mormons just because they are Mormon. Harry Reid is also a Mormon and if you talk to most people of that faith, they will tell you they would support just about anyone but him. Althought I do believe he will have to address Romney-care, Romney's appeal is his experience and ability to pull an organization back from the brink and that's where this country is. "Its the economy stupid." I consider myself a conservative and for me the social issues take a back seat to our economic crisis. I also like his stance on national security. He would do what it took to keep our country safe.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:33PM

It's ridiculous to say Mormons WON'T vote for Myth because he's a Mormon. Many will--admit it.

The Tea Partiers will not turn out for him.

RomneyCare disqualifies Myth from ever being our nominee. He has only himself to blame.

bc3b| 11.18.10 @ 9:12PM

What does EVERY member of Congress from Utah have in common (other than being male)? Hint: they're not all Republicans.

jorge| 11.18.10 @ 11:33PM

Harry Reid is a Jack Mormon! I'm from Utah, Mormons vote for morons!

Dan| 11.19.10 @ 7:49PM

So, the less than 2% of Americans who are Mormon managed to vault Romney to a close second place to McCain for the Republican nomination??? Those Mormons are miracle-workers, I tell ya!

bookworm| 11.23.10 @ 11:20PM

I thought Huckabee ultimately came in second.

Mark| 11.24.10 @ 1:54PM

Huckabee was the last candidate to drop out of the GOP primaries, so I would call that a second-place finish.

Charles| 11.18.10 @ 2:28PM

He did not have to do a damm thing with health care in MA. He could have presented a bill that got rid of state mandates for health insurance, and lowered the barriers to other insurance companies from coming in. He could have proposed a bill that let people open up medical savings accounts that were tax free. Did he James !? No he proposed Dem lite and they took it to statist

Remind me again buddy where was Romney in advancing conservatism this past year. How about 3 steps behind Palin and DeMitt.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:35PM

I agree. RomneyCare disqualifies Myth from ever being considered our nominee.

Klein likes Myth because they're both elitist RINOs.

JRd| 11.18.10 @ 9:00PM

If Myth is the Republican nominee I swear I'll vote for 0bama. From now on if I have a choice between progressive and progressive lite I might as well vote for the real Marxist.

sheryl| 11.18.10 @ 9:47PM

hyperbole alert!

Christopher Holland| 11.18.10 @ 11:16PM

More like lowperbole than hyperbole!

beebop| 11.19.10 @ 9:03AM

' And, when are Romney haters going to remember that Romney endorsed Tea Party winner Marc Rubio for Florida Senate ...'

Dude ...

Try MARCO Rubio and he is the new US SENATOR from Florida.

Maybe "Romney haters" will learn something at the same time the "Romney lovers" do. Me? I couldn't hold my nose and vote for him. He is as fond of hearing himself talk as 0bama.

Alan Brooks| 11.18.10 @ 12:58PM

"Despite his many political liabilities [snip]"

Good, now Obama is sure to win- unless Joseph Smith returns from the grave.

Alan Brooks| 11.18.10 @ 6:05PM

Mormonism doesn't bother me, but it is no more Christian than Islam; Jesus is considered a prophet- nothing more.
That is, Mormonism is in no way relatable to real Christianity as a canonistic, genuine faith.

You can't dress a cow up as a horse.

VegasNative| 11.18.10 @ 6:28PM

Sad to see bigotry and ignorance is still alive and well. The name of the "mormon church" is the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Jesus Christ is the focal point of the church and if you did even 5 minutes of study you would know that.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:44PM

Brooks is (one of) our resident Fascist-Liberal troll. Don't expect religious tolerance from a screwed up liberal.

Christopher Holland| 11.18.10 @ 11:19PM

But you can bring along a sack full of manure and say that you had a horse, but it got away. You try that stunt all the time. Its just a sack of manure.

l. Maloy| 11.18.10 @ 12:59PM

Sorry Mitt, I am an Independent and you will not get my vote. You flip flop and are an elitist arrogant white Obama. In no way would you be able to win against him and we can't afford to have Obama anywhere near the Oval office following the 2012 elections.

Rufus Choate | 11.18.10 @ 1:36PM

Booger,
Great post and hilarious. Romney is not going to be the choice in 2012. He is least tarnished model of 2008 and we all know how that turned. He was the handmaiden of William Weld the Queen bee of the classical RINO hive mind.

Ileen Cuccaro| 11.18.10 @ 1:53PM

This is hysterical, LOL

Susan| 11.18.10 @ 4:09PM

Great! after reading a few sentences, I wanted to shout "SAYS WHO", "There you go again" picking our candidate for us!

D. D. Edwards | 11.18.10 @ 4:09PM

You nailed it Booger, well written and that is my take too. He and Hucks are too much ol' guard GOP, not conservatives. I like Jim DeMint myself.

Mark| 11.18.10 @ 5:25PM

Booger- Oh Boy! Romney! I can't wait!

charles| 11.18.10 @ 5:53PM

Romneycare. It didn't fly and neither will his campaign. His flip flopping on issues for political favoritism along with passing of his devastating healthcare program for MA tells me that a leopard doesn't change his spots. He has more flip flops that Gov. Crist.

As far a Romney, "That dog don't hunt".

I will never vote for him

John Wolf| 11.18.10 @ 7:39PM

Spot-on satire! I live in the state which he graced with extremely expensive, dysfunctional "pre" ObamaCare and the incredibly unConstitutional "Gun Control Act of 1998." If the Republican party pushes this shyster-or other ones like Newt Gingrich on us for 2012, it should be readily evident which side the party is on.

Washington Dem| 11.18.10 @ 8:39PM

This is pretty entertaining and you've pretty much captured the whole Romney personna.

Mouth Of the South| 11.18.10 @ 8:43PM

Booger is a blogger idiot!
Romney is the Man to Get this Country turned around. Get behind the man and into the game with support. Enough of the Liberal whiney MSNBC Mentality!

Person of Choler| 11.18.10 @ 9:10PM

Booger nails it.

sheryl| 11.18.10 @ 9:15PM

This post is as pathetic as the name Booger.....LMAO what kind of loser names himself Booger

sheryl| 11.18.10 @ 9:49PM

Bad satire. Bad name.

Luanne| 11.19.10 @ 9:00AM

I hope and pray you do not run for I could not vote for a republician I guess i would not vote for president at all. I am a dihard tea Party person i think you are a flip flopper.

Aaron's cc | 11.19.10 @ 12:02PM

How can NOBODY notice the obvious, that Romney'd be a male Meg Whitman at the national level, giving Obama a second term just as eMeg gave Brown another term, despite the anti-left tsunami of 2010.

Both Romney and Palin should use their considerable talents to ensure that conservatives win and that whoever wins has considerable coattails in 2012 so that we take back the Senate, too.

Right now I'm thinking Perry-Christie. Love to see Palin at the forefront of fundraising for the party and Romney and Gingrich in advisory capacities.

Howard| 11.19.10 @ 7:44PM

I have a lot in common with CFR member friend Gingrich. Why not a ticket of Romney and Gingrich. It would be as good as Dole and McCain

apodoca| 11.21.10 @ 9:20AM

Thanks for the morning laugh. Romney, the unorthodox frontrunner! The writer of the article must be piping something, for real, cuz he's seriously delusional. He must be a Romniac.

A NEW ERA DAWNS| 11.22.10 @ 3:29PM

Romney is an evil Wall Street goon who plans on shutting down FREE SPEECH with the help of The Mormon Taliban! Only Sister Sarah Barracuda Mama Grizzly with the help of sled-racer FIRST DUDE can avert this tragedy of human history. There on the horizon, Mama Grizzly arrives on her sabre tooth tiger carrying her shotgun accompanied by that He-Man, that sled-racing vortex of conservative fury, FIRST DUDE! Not far behind is their court jester, Glenny Beck singing songs of faith, honor, hope, charity and Constitutional wisdom. A New Day begins...

WE WILL PREVAIL!

FIRST DUDE - MAMA GRIZZLY 2012!

NVA Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:32AM

Romney is to repealing healthcare, what John McCain is to immigration.

Rommney 2012 = John McCain 2008 with more personal cash, better hair, better temperment and the same lack of fight against progressivism.

His campaign to date has been marked by nothing but caution and managing to the audience of establishment Republicans. I am confident that today's establishment Republicans will be much smaller going into 2012 than it is now. There are a lot of primaries and the Tea Party(s) are aiming at them. They will be used to defeat as many go-along-get-along Republicans as it is possible to remove them from power prior to 2012 general elections.

He's not been nick-named mittens by a lot of grass roots organizations for nothing.

Demonstrating a willingness to FIGHT and ROLL BACK government is Romney's hurdle. I and many like me don't see the type of happy WARRIOR we need right now in Romney. Technocrats have brought us to the brink and now the technocrat of technocrats is going to lead us where? to MA? - !!!???

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:30AM

NVA Patriot:

The Tea Party candidates will have two years to do something. If they fail, or just amount to a lo of blustering ad criticisms without offering real solutions to real problems, the Tea Party is over.

This is year 1 of the Tea Partier effort - it's not year 150.

They still have to "do" something. They have to effectively work with Democrats and persuade others to vote with them. Get it?

They have to "go and get along" with the moderate Republicans and Democrats - as Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency.

So much for the Tea Party hard line, eh?

Feels good in theory but in practice it won't work.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 10:28AM

Oh, you mean like Reagan "went and got along" with the Dems running the House during his terms, right?

Going along to get along is fine in some situations, but if your being devoured by a lion, is it really wise to "go along to get along?" If the guy driving the bus is driving it over the cliff, is it really wise to "go along to get along?" Or should you maybe jerk the wheel out of the idiot's hands and put the bus back on the road?

Also, going along to get along requires BOTH parties to . . . well . . . go along to get along. I've seen a lot of Republicans accommodate Dems over the years, but for some reason, the Dems always take the "My way or the highway" approach, which seems to always lead to them getting their way on everything of substance because they can always find enough Republicans who just want to, "go along to get along."

How about this for a change. Instead of going along with everyone else, why don't we take the lead and say, "Follow us America!" Why don't we try a little LEADERSHIP for a change?

sam vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 10:28AM

James, sounds like MSM talking points. You obviously don't have a clue what the Tea Party is. Go back and do some homework before you toss around ofuscations.........

Michael| 11.18.10 @ 5:44PM

Considering that the Tea Party lost the Senate of what should have been easy pickups for Republicans, James is correct. It's easy to pick up backwards, redneck districts in the House. Those flip all the time back and forth. It's the Senate where it gets much much harder.

Badnewzbearz| 11.18.10 @ 6:10PM

The tea party lost the senate? This is so wrong, and completely ignores the fact that the RNC never had money on the ground for Sharron Angle and others. The NRSC also poured money into Fiorina's losing campaign at the expense of supporting Angle, Buck, O'Donnell and others. And without the tea party, we would never have Rubio, Toomey, Johnson, etc.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:47PM

The Tea Party saved the Republican Party from destruction. Funny how liberals and RINOs lie.

sheryl| 11.18.10 @ 9:52PM

the de facto leader of the tea party couldn't get her man elected.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:13PM

There were no Tea Parties in 2008, moron.

Charie| 11.20.10 @ 11:20AM

Absolutely Right, Sam. He has no idea of what Tea Partiers are. Lefties can't get over the fact that these were spontaneous uprisings by angry and scared citizens because for the past 50 years liberals have had everything organized for them.

Every single sign I see at Tea Parties is homemade by the people of all ages who attend.

Maybe my feelings are just hurt because no one told me how well organized we are and I should wait for someone to hand me a printed sign and tell me what I should think and say.

One more thing: If practically no one attends these Tea Parties, the way the news media would have it, why are their Liberal friends so afraid of us?

You know what Conservatives should fear? When Liberals stop contradicting themselves.

NVA Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 2:14PM

I guess you didn't notice 2 November and the Earmark Ban in the upper and lower houses of Congress.

Rest assured the Tea Party is doing something - we are re-asserting the Constitution as the governing principle of our Republic vice progressivism administered by judges and an unresponsive bureacracy.

To the dregree that the Democrats continue to support and advocate for the positions of George Soros and Karl Marx, we won't be working with them. Our objective is defeating them and tossing them and progressivism on the ash heep of history.

As they say, "Buckle up" ;)

John Wolf| 11.18.10 @ 7:51PM

The "tea party" notwithstanding-if we the people are not able to achieve the nomination of a real alternative to the rapidly advancing statism, rapidly expanding government and expensive and harmful foreign meddling, I fail to see what difference electing another "moderate" will do. As to the elected "tea party" people-many found it expedient to run as "outsiders." A few, like Sen.-elect Rand Paul and Sen. Jim DeMint, actually have convictions. It will be up to them to set the agenda and set the example. It will mean standing up to the bullying tactics of Obama and his fellow travellers. It will mean refusing to consort with the mealy-mouthed "moderates" (now there's a word....) on matters of Constitutional principle. Somewhere, somehow, a stand has to be made, and those men were elected in order to make it. Speaking of "going along to get along-" why is it that the Democrats are never asked to do so-even by Republicans?

Charles| 11.18.10 @ 5:55PM

I highly agree with your assessment.

Ret. Marine| 11.18.10 @ 6:41AM

A hugh difference here with all the so-called runners. The political pain was yet to be felt by the incoming liars of 08. The people are now awake and taking no prisoners. These supposed leaders are last weeks what if's, nothing else. they are all established RINO's one and all with the exception of Sarah from the clan of Alaska, and the public is going to take into account the disaster that was McCain. He was no fighter, he may have had a hard time during his days as a hero, but not as a legislator. He's a RINO, period. Which makes him and anyone resembling these traits a no go from the start.
We need fresh blood to lead this Conservative Charge ahead, not the washed up typical washington culture of corruption. There is a reason for the name change from this place to the "district of Corruption, they earned it and they can't be trusted and the last election did nothing but reinstate the fact.
You would have done a better job of this article had you scoured the country for some new blood to write of. We the People have seen all that is bad about this culture of entitlement creatures known from the district of corruption. We've had enough already.

dinfl| 11.18.10 @ 10:33AM

hear, hear! well said...

Appleby| 11.18.10 @ 7:14AM

Please, no recycled RINO candidates with recycled campaigns that will start up right where they were defeated last time.

We have two years to find another Ronald Reagan. If Simon Cowell can do it, the Republican Party can do it! How about a new reality show called *Who Wants To Be POTUS?*
We know what we want in a President; why not put out a casting call and invite everybody in the country who meets the Constitutional requirements (and LETS SEE THOSE BIRTH CERTIFICATES) to regional try-outs. Everybody welcome! Invite America to call in or tweet their votes and weed the candidates down to a dozen Finalists, then send them on tour by bus (to avoid those nekkid scanners and pat-downs) and YouTube and teevee and radio and any other method of their choice. As a grand finale, put them in front of Congress with a personally written State of the Union Address, without a teleprompter. Pass out their speech ahead of time and grade it severely on spelling (NO TWEETSPEAK), grammar, punctuation, paragraphing, proper language (no *reigning them in* or *baited breath* or *wreckless spending*) and general literacy. Put it on PPV and use the money earned to pay down the National Debt. In fact, hold telethons during the run-up to the Finals -- text to a certain number to support your choice, and $5 will be charged that you otherwise would waste on Beatles downloads. (Let them have Meet and Greet sessions where eager fans can pay extra for an Enhanced Pat-Down of the candidatePlease, no recycled RINO candidates with recycled campaigns that will start up right where they were defeated last time.

We have two years to find another Ronald Reagan. If Simon Cowell can do it, the Republican Party can do it! How about a new reality show called *Who Wants To Be POTUS?*
We know what we want in a President; why not put out a casting call and invite everybody in the country who meets the Constitutional requirements (and LETS SEE THOSE BIRTH CERTIFICATES) to regional try-outs. Everybody welcome! Invite America to call in or tweet their votes and weed the candidates down to a dozen Finalists, then send them on tour by bus (to avoid those nekkid scanners and pat-downs) and YouTube and teevee and radio and any other method of their choice. As a grand finale, put them in front of Congress with a personally written State of the Union Address, without a teleprompter. Pass out their speech ahead of time and grade it severely on spelling (NO TWEETSPEAK), grammar, punctuation, paragraphing, proper language (no *reigning them in* or *baited breath* or *wreckless spending*) and general literacy. Put it on PPV and use the money earned to pay down the National Debt. In fact, hold telethons during the run-up to the Finals -- text to a certain number to support your choice, and $5 will be charged that you otherwise would waste on Beatles downloads. Hold Meet and Greet sessions where eager fans can pay extra (money applied to reducing the debt) for an Enhanced Pat-Down of the candidate of his or her choice.

When the field is narrowed to three candidates, have these people cross-examined by Dun & Bradstreet and the results released in full.

On Election Day, after rigorously checking credentials, each voter will be handed a one-page, not multiple-choice series of questions about the three candidates, and if the voter knows nothing about him save that he is Cute, or Cool, Maaaaan, or if the voter believes that the candidate will pay his mortgage, fill his gas tank, and punish his (American) enemies, he or she will not be issued a ballot. Enough is enough.

The winner of the election will get one term, with a limited travel and entertainment budget, and the Congress will run the country according to the Constitution. If he or she does an acceptable job, jump into the mix again! If not, go home with lovely parting gifts and get a real job.

This system cant possibly be worse than what we have now, and everybody understands how it works.

When the field is narrowed to three candidates, have these people cross-examined by Dun & Bradstreet and the results released in full.

On Election Day, after rigorously checking credentials, each voter will be handed a one-page, not multiple-choice series of questions about the three candidates, and if the voter knows nothing about him save that he is Cute, or Cool, Maaaaan, or if the voter believes that the candidate will pay his mortgage, fill his gas tank, and punish his (American) enemies, he or she will not be issued a ballot. Enough is enough.

The winner of the election will get one term, with a limited travel and entertainment budget, and the Congress will run the country according to the Constitution. If he or she does an acceptable job, jump into the mix again! If not, go home with lovely parting gifts and get a real job.

This system cant possibly be worse than what we have now, and everybody understands how it works.

Appleby| 11.18.10 @ 7:17AM

I have no idea what happened to my post above; sorry for the very odd format!

wodiej| 11.18.10 @ 7:18AM

Well Booger's post says it all about Romney. God help us and I mean that literally if people support him against Obama. Romney is a RINO. I think Palin is our best bet. Our best strategy is to stick together, polls be damned and get her nominated.

Palin is a constitutional conservative, she has values, she has executive experience, she is passionate and energetic about righting the American ship. She has a proven track record of success not only while serving in office but supporting candidates to help take back the House and getting people out to vote.

For some Republicans I think their only opposition to Palin is the fact that she is a woman. I am confident she would pick the best experts to be in her cabinet and a very qualified VP.

We shouldn't be worried if she runs-we better be worried if she doesn't.

sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 10:32AM

The ruling class would like nothing better than to shove another loser of a candidate down our throats,,, Romney is being put out there by Northeastern elites. He's a yawner and a loser in fly-over country. Nothing Massachusetts produces in terms of government is sellable in Red States. A deliberate road to failure......

dinfl| 11.18.10 @ 10:39AM

sam vaughn...
you have read my mind...again, the elites and repubiks are trying to tell us who, what, where and when! i say to them all...'go pound sand'!!! NO MORE! we will not be told who will be good for the party...we will decide 'who is GOOD for the country'!!!

Michael| 11.18.10 @ 5:45PM

Yes, run Palin - as Democrats are salivating over that pick.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:48PM

If that's true, why do you constantly attack her?
I notice you fascists NEVER attack Myth!

Cris Worth| 11.18.10 @ 7:40AM

This is simple, if Romney wins both Iowa and NH he is the nominee, if it's a split he is still the favorite but it will be much more difficult for him. If he loses both he is out and a dark horse could emerge and win the GOP nomination. So all you anti-Romney forces you need to marshal your forces and nip it in the bud beat Romney in Iowa and NH and he is gone.

Big Tony| 11.18.10 @ 8:06AM

I watched Dick Morris on Fox last night he was saying that with 70% of Republican voters watch Fox that money, NH and Iowa will not dominate the republican nomination process this time around. I hope for the sake of the country he is right.

Cris Worth| 11.18.10 @ 9:03AM

I beg to differ, if Romney wins both two things will occur as follows: a winnowing out effect reducing the field to but a few and the full force of the GOP establishment backing him. Romney won't do well in the Southern primaries, the last hope for a challenger but he will do well elsewhere including California and win the nomination.

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:34AM

Palin and Huckabee split the Evangelical vote and Romney narrowly takes Iowa.

Romney takes New Hampshire.

Favorite son De Mint takes SC.

Romney takes Florida.

Romney takes Michigan.

Romney takes Nevada.

Game over.

Dustoff| 11.18.10 @ 10:00AM

Romney loses to O-bummer.

You missed that part.

Twinkie King| 11.18.10 @ 1:33PM

I voted for McCain/Palin in '08. That was after McCain had pretty much endorsed Obama and thrown Sarah under the Couric/SNL/MSM bus, squandering all the "oomph" she had given his lackluster campaign. - I won't vote RINO ever again. (Sarah CAN function without a TELEPROMPTER. Yes, she can! Period.

Michael| 11.18.10 @ 5:47PM

Sarah threw herself under Couric's bus in her disaster of an interview, which even she admits. Don't blame McCain for that. So now SNL, a comedy show, is also to blame? Go figure. "Sarah CAN function without a TELEPROMPTER" - you're right, she has to instead write it on her hand to remind her about tax cuts, and lifting the American spirits, as apparently it's too much for her brain to hold.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:50PM

RINO McCain lost because of his weakness, just like RINO Myth will lose to Obama if he's nominated.

The Tea Party will make sure Myth is not our candidate. 2008 is so yesterday.

Eli| 11.19.10 @ 1:25PM

1. Romney lost to McCCain for two reasons 1)because several of the early states offer open primaries and McCain was admired by moderates and some democrats for his perceived maverick philosophy. 2) The GOP has a long history of nominating the perceived heir apparent.

2. The economy is in a horrible state of stagnation and high employment. Who better than Romney with his clear understanding of economic matters to address this economic malaise?

3. Read Romney's recent book or even his writings that are normally in the Wall Street Journal. I guess it would have made more sense for him to contract with TLC in a reality show about him and his family in Alaska.

Grow up. Mitt Romney, like every GOP candidate (including Reagan), is imperfect. Reagan was divorced, provided amnesty to illegal aliens, oversaw great deficit spending and there are indications that he may have been sympathetic to the pro-choice position in the 1960's. But Romney is smart (Graduate with Honors from Harvard Law and Harvard Business Scohol-Baker Scholar meaning he graduated in the top 5% of his class; head of Bain Capital in which he was responsible for launching hundreds of companies that created substantial wealth and employed hundreds of thousands of people; won Governor of a very liberal state; saved the 2002 Olympic games etc., etc. These are real life accomplishments that no other prominent GOP candidate can claim. Personally, I'd prefer Jindal in 2012 but he doesn't seem to want to run for president just yet.

Dan| 11.19.10 @ 7:54PM

Wrong. Romney will have Obama for lunch in the Presidential debates.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:15PM

Don't think so. Obama would nail Romney's butt over RomneyCare.

Mev| 11.18.10 @ 10:27AM

It'll never happen. Huck would throw his support behind Palin in Iowa before he'd let Mitt take it. (see WV `08)

Patrick| 11.18.10 @ 3:04PM

Very true.

Also, Huckabee will probably not get as much traction this time around. Much of the Evangelical establishment was looking for the closest match for Bush (ie: "compassionate conservative"), and Huckabee was it.

This isn't 2008, or most any political time for that matter. By nature, most conservatives are not prone to activism, especially demonstrations. The Tea Party movement is unique in this matter, and should not be discounted.

My own prediction is that the future nominee will not be from the pool of likely candidates mentioned at this time. Following that in likelihood would be Palin or Jindal.

Regardless, I still take sick pleasure in telling my liberal colleagues that Palin will, without any doubt, be the next nominee. I then suggest that Hillary will run against Obama again, and the winner will be sandbagged by the loser out of sheer spite. The looks of abject horror are simply too sweet to resist.

RCV| 11.19.10 @ 11:21PM

No, the difference is that even if HC did challenge Obama for the nomination -- which she will not do -- the Obama and Clinton supporters will back and work for the Democratic nominee after the primaries, as they did in 2008. As any perusal of this site confirm, that will not happen on the GOP side: the three basic factions -- social conservatives, libertarians and traditional Republicans simply will not accept a nominee from any faction but their own. That will again be the fatal GOP conundrum in 2012.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 10:34AM

Other than the names you mentioned, who are you assuming will also be in the race? It matters. For example, if Marco Rubio runs, you still think Romney carries Florida?

I think we're going to see a lot people at the start of things, and I'm not yet convinced that either DeMint or (gasp) Palin is actually going to run.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:17PM

Rubio would have to start campaigning now if he wants to be POTUS in 2012. He's young, he's got a lot of time.

bookworm| 11.23.10 @ 11:52PM

So do I -- but the trouble with Dick Morris is that he's usually wrong!

Brian G.| 11.18.10 @ 7:41AM

For the record: Maurice Clemmons wasn't "suspected" of murdering 4 police officers in cold blood. He did it. He planned it in advance and gunned them down while they were drinking coffee on the Sunday morning after Thanksgiving last year. No one disputes this.

Thankfully, one of the officers he murdered got off a round and hit him in the stomach. He lived, ran for a few days and then tried to kill another officer in the midst of the biggest manhunt in WA state history. The cop he targeted put a bullet in his noggin and Clemmons is now swapping stories with Hitler in hell.

Huckabee is a good man, but he let Maurice Clemmons out despite the fact that the prosecutor who put him in jail in the first place begged him not to. Mike Huckabee should never be elected to any office ever again.

IRatiocinate| 11.18.10 @ 4:40PM

Please get the facts straight. Huckabee 's only action in this instance was to reduce the sentence of a teenager sentenced to more than 100 years for non-violent crimes. If you or I had been given that option, I believe we would have taken it.

Last summer, current Arkansas governor Mike Beebe released Clemmons--not sure of his age at that time, but some decades removed from his teens, who was then in jail for a number of felony charges, including child rape. He had been denied bail.

If you want to go after Huckabee because of crimes Clemmons committed after a later governor released him, you will also have to get all upset at every doctor who may administer life-saving measures to a child who grows up to be a criminal.

You are denigrating a good man without cause.

Michael| 11.18.10 @ 5:49PM

Yeah, equating a doctor giving life to a child, to a governor who lets a man go who ACTUALLY COMMITTED a crime. Yeah, that's the same thing (sarcasm).

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:52PM

I hope Myth is paying you well for your BS, troll.

Forget it though--he'll NEVER be nominated. RomneyCare sealed his political fate.

IRatiocinate| 11.18.10 @ 9:52PM

I stand by my comparisons--they are valid.

A doctor does not "give life"--he does his job by prescribing and administering treatment according to his training and license.

A governor does not "let a man go"--he DOES HIS JOB by reviewing, and if he deems appropriate by virtue of his mandate and power of office, correcting injustice. A teenager who has not committed a violent crime but who has been sentenced to more than 100 years needs his governor to do his job just as a child who has fallen out of a tree and broken his wrist needs his doctor to do his.

It was Governor BEEBE who released a violent criminal. Governor Huckabee reduced an egregiously harsh sentence for a teenager who was not a violent criminal.

konastephen| 11.20.10 @ 3:48PM

I stand by IRatiocinate. Good comparisons, good facts (I checked). Perhaps the difference in political philosophy here goes deep. Logically it should. Liberals view Man as inherently good... unless he's a sick, twisted individual in which case Liberals have no answer but vilification, sometimes medication, usually incarceration and then they forget. Conservatives, particularly those of Huckabee's faith persuasion, view Man as inherently fallen which means that there's a bent towards evil in everyone. Redemption is available to everyone, especially young people who might have gotten off to a bad start. Young people are more able to repent and change but no one is beyond hope. In the end the conservative view of Man is by far the more hopeful, certainly the more realistic and without doubt the view that Huckabee applied in his decision in this case.

I would much rather have a Huckabee (or a W) deciding these cases than someone who hypocritically and self-righteously thinks bad people are sick and need diagnoses, medication and/or incarceration.

Lawrence of Lutz| 11.18.10 @ 7:46AM

George I didn't want to be re-elected, Bob Dole wasn't the man to run against Clinton and McCain was a loser from the word go. Republicans, you have this election to find someone who is not a RINO (or country club republican) or there will be another party. Enough of this "me too" socialism. Time to look closely at the Constitution and limit the Federal government.

Chuck| 11.18.10 @ 7:48AM

That dark horse could be Marco Rubio. If Sarah Palin wins the nomination I recommend she pick senate-elect Rubio as her running mate.

tj| 11.18.10 @ 12:56PM

OOOOOWWWW I like Chuck!!

Mark| 11.24.10 @ 2:11PM

IF Palin pulls off the nomination, then she will have to find someone as her running mate who can somehow make BOTH the GOP Establishment AND the Tea Party crowd, if not happy, at least from killing each other.

And since the VP is always only "one heartbeat away" from becoming POTUS, she will need to find someone who can avoid being labeled "inexperienced" by the MSM.

There is one person who can fill this role. This person has support within both the Tea Party crowd and the GOP Establishment. And by 2012 will have had 12 years serving in office -- as Governor.

Of Texas. Palin's VP choice should be Rick Perry.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.18.10 @ 7:50AM

No.

Bob| 11.18.10 @ 7:55AM

I wonder who Glenn Beck will support. Beck is a Mormon and Romney is a Mormon. If Beck supports Romney this will anger his conservative audiences and his popularity and ratings will drop.

Ret_Vet| 11.18.10 @ 12:01PM

Bob, Reid is a Mormon. Did Glenn Beck support him? No! I sense a little hostility toward Latter Day Saints. As far as trust, Romney is a good pick. Those who support Palin failto realize that the independents will no doubt vote against her. Romney can unite the indepenedents vote.

Patrick| 11.18.10 @ 3:09PM

At the cost of the base staying home.

There is an animus against the LDS, but I think most of the _irrational_ disgust with Romney is from the adoration of uncritical Mormons.

The rational disgust with Romney is that he is a wet noodle.

John DuBose| 11.18.10 @ 7:57AM

The health care bill that Romney signed in Mass. was simply the best a Republican could do in a super liberal state. What the Deomcrats wanted to do was much worse. You should give him a pass on that one. I think that he can handle the job and is electable whereas some of the other possible Republican candidates are not.

Big Tony| 11.18.10 @ 8:17AM

The "best a Republican could do"? Did someone steal his VETO power? I've had it with giving RINO's a pass. If the republicans nominate Romney we can expect a 3rd party conservative to run and 4 more year of Obama.

Mev| 11.18.10 @ 10:30AM

"Did someone steal his VETO power?"

I don't think you understand what Romney was working with. Go look in your favorite political dictionary under "Super-majority". Romney line-item vetoed a large number of things in MassCare, which the legislature promptly overrode.

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:36AM

Newt Gingrich this week:

"Governor Romney's made very clear that he favors absolute repeal of Obamacare and that he believes it's not accurate and not fair to try and compare the two and I think you have to start with that and I also think in all fairness to Governor Romney that he vetoed many provisions that the liberal Democrats in the Massachusetts state legislature added to the bill and they overrode his veto so I think if you're going to go back and look at the original Romney bill you'd have a much better bill and a much more practical bill than what the liberal Democrats did to the legislation because they literally overrode his veto on a whole series of items."

buckeyeman| 11.18.10 @ 10:32AM

I feel so much better now that I know that Romney and Romneycare have been defended by Newt Gingrich.

Red State| 11.18.10 @ 10:41AM

James,

Don't discourage Tony with Facts. These guys live in a world of absolutes and gumdrops. "Romney Care" was much stronger before the libs in MA got a hold of it. And it was a good solution for that State. Romney has always promoted individual states to make those decisions and not the Feds. MA got what they wanted through a liberal state congress. Healthcare in Texas, Idaho, Florida would look totally different due to the different ideology of their citizens. It's time to vote a grownup into office that has economic experience and can turnaround this country from the havoc of Obama. He polls the best nationwide than any other candidate. Palin would get crushed. There are already 57% disapproval nationwide. That's not going to change by giving people tours of Alaska

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 10:44AM

Of course, if we apply that political model nationwide, we don't get Obamacare as it turned out, but we still get a healthcare bill that will destroy the healthcare system and ruin the economy. It'll just take longer to do it. I guess that's a win if you're planning on dying before the policies enacted under the theoretical "Romneycare" bill would kill you.

I understand that Romney could do nothing to stop the govt takeover of healthcare in Ma. I don't fault him for not stopping it. I fault him not making them override his veto of the whole thing. Sure, the resulting bill would have been worse, but the people of Mass. would have been faced with the STARK reality of who's to blame. By negotiating to modify the inevitable nightmare, Romney provided the Dems cover. They can claim it was bi-partisan, when it really wasn't, and when it fails, blame a Republican for not letting them do EVERYTHING they wanted.

The fact is, if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

Tim the Enchanter| 11.18.10 @ 11:00AM

Not MY dogs- they don't have fleas.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 11:43AM

OK, OK, OK. The fact is, if you lie down with dogs - other than "Tim the Enchanter's" dogs - you wake up with fleas.

Is that better?

Patrick| 11.18.10 @ 3:12PM

But I would rather lie down with dogs than with Dems. Fleas are nothing compared to what they give you.

Dixie Pixie| 11.18.10 @ 7:57AM

Before the last Presidential election cycle wasn’t Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani the presumptive front-runners. To my eye, Mitt Romney looks like another governmental drone certain to continue the current Democratic Party policies.

If the present TEA Party trend continues, the populace will be looking for a outsider to Washington to clean up the system. Mitt Romney is not that person.

johnny| 11.18.10 @ 8:01AM

Christie, Rubio, Ryan, Jeb, Jindal, Palin -- all of these are better than Romney, Huckabee, Daniels, etc. Christie's got the record now; Rubio is articulate and passionate; Ryan is brainy and thought-out; Jeb is the better Bush; Jindal is smart and honest; Palin is enthusiastic.

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:38AM

None but Romney could attack moderates or independents like Romney can.

The country is 55% Democrats and 45% Republicans.

What is the point of electing a Republican nominee that will fail?

buckeyeman| 11.18.10 @ 10:35AM

What's the point of electing a Republican who will govern like a Democrat/socialist?

Twinkie King| 11.18.10 @ 1:41PM

You said it !!!

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 10:57AM

Really?

From the October 26, 2010 American Thinker:

"The October 25, 2010 Battleground Poll is no different: 62% of Americans described themselves as "conservative," and only 35% described themselves as "liberal." Only 2% of Americans call themselves "moderate," and another 2% of Americans were unsure or refused to answer."

Where are you getting your numbers? And when did it become lawful to register only as a R or D? In the county I inhabit, more people are registered unaffiliated than either?

Also, "None but Romney could attack moderates or independents like Romney can." How, by pandering to them? Did Reagan pander to moderates to get their votes? Did Obama? No. Both those men presented a strong "vision" for the future and moderates followed them. McCain tried pandering to moderates. How'd that work out?

The idea that a candidate (regardless of party) has to cater to moderates is, IMHO, one of the greatest fallacies of American politics. Moderates, by definition, are wishy-washy. They have no strong views. You do not pander to the wishy-washy, you LEAD them. Moderates will support someone with a strong vision and firm convictions about the direction in which they want to lead the country. The only time pandering to them has worked is when there was no visionary in the race. If we nominate a candidate with vision, he or she will attract the "moderate" vote. If we nominate someone who plans on getting the moderates by pandering to them, we will get four more years of Obama.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 12:49PM

Of course Obama pandered to the middle. He ran as a moderate. Remember, he was going to balance the budget? Of course it was all with a wink and a nod to his base, they knew he was going to govern from the left. But he did not for the most part campaign from the left. He was a bi-partisian, post-racialist candidate.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 2:20PM

You must have been watching a different campaign. Here is what I remember:

1. He campaigned to repeal the "Bush tax cuts for the rich," promised to, "spread the wealth around," and spent much of the campaign playing class warfare and demonizing anyone who worked for a living.

2. He was going to pull out of Iraq - whether it was a good idea or not - since would never have voted to troops there in the first place if he'd been in the Senate at the time.

3. He was going close Guantanamo Bay - though he had no plan for what to do with the detainees, and end the use of "torture" to get information.

4. He was going to end the "Bush" wiretaps in the name of Civil Liberties.

5. He was going to provide a path to citizenship for illegal aliens . . . uh . . . I mean undocumented Democratic voters.

So, which of those do you consider pandering to the middle? Almost no position Obama took during the campaign was "moderate" and the only people I recall claiming he was "middle of the road" was himself and his sycophants in the MSM.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 4:14PM

Yes, we were watching different elections.

The 'spreading the wealth around' was a gaffe exposing his true intentions, not a constant campaign theme.

He campaigned as a pragmatic centrist that would reach across the aisle in a non-partisan way. He promised not raise taxes on any earning less than 250K an year. He promised to go through the budget with a scalpel. His rhetoric on healthcare was pretty mainstream at the time, most people wanted healthcare reform. He in no way publicized what the final result would be.

Even his promises on Gitmo and Iraq can be seen as pandering, since he has not enacted any of those promises. Maybe you and I did not want the war to end early or Gitmo closed but to say that viewpoint was mainstream is delusional. Most Americans at the time wanted us out of Iraq, there is ample polling data on that.

He campaigned as a fervent supported of the 'good war' in Afghanistan. This was a classic pander; he no more believed in that war than I do the Easter Bunny. He did it simply to appear to be someone who was not a pacifist anti-war zealot.

Yes, there was ample evidence that he was a left wing extremist. His voting record, when he actually voted, was awful. His associations and friendships were almost exclusively radical. But his campaign rhetoric was for the most part consistently center-left. If he had campaigned as he had governed even McCain could have beaten him.

bookworm| 11.24.10 @ 12:01AM

VERY well said.

JeffW| 11.18.10 @ 11:03AM

100% are either Republicans or Democrats? And just where do you think the independents fit in?

Simon Templar| 11.18.10 @ 12:17PM

Your equating party affiliation/registration with political orientation or philosophy..they are not the same. Did you ever here 0f Reagan Democrats? What the hell do you think makes up the Tea Party. This is a center to right country in terms of political and social values...more and more Americans are discovering this fact every day. Actually the numbers are 4o percent conservative, 4o percent independent, and 20 percent liberal. Tons of studies back this up.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 12:55PM

You are correct, most studies show the country as significantly more conservative than liberal. What doesn't show that, for the most part, are actual voting trends. When there are Democratic majorities in Congress they are larger than Republican majorities. This should be impossible in what is considered nominally a center-right nation.

Some of the disparity between the percentages of people who consider themselves as conservative and liberal is the simple fact that the conservative brand is more attractive. But true conservative policies have not been. Even with heathcare, a true monstrosity, the numbers are almost equal between those who favor repeal and those who do not. Hell, a large part of those who do not like the law do not like it because it did not go far enough.

Iska Waran| 11.18.10 @ 1:16PM

Gallup put self-described liberals at about 20%, conservatives at about 40% and moderates at about 40%.

I agree that Palin and Hucklebee would go down in flames. On paper, Mitten might look OK. As shown by these comments, though, he is demonstrably unacceptable to a majority of conservatives. We tried nominating the most-hated republican last time. Why do it again? Palin, Romney, Huckleberry, Gingrich and Jindal would all likely lose. We need someone else.

Person of Choler| 11.18.10 @ 9:20PM

45% + 55% adds up to 100%, which leaves no room for independents, who are becoming more important in national elections. I question the numbers.

George| 11.18.10 @ 12:31PM

Jeb Bush is as RINO as McCain!!

Patrick| 11.18.10 @ 3:15PM

Please, end this dynasty!

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:54PM

Please!! NO MORE BUSH FAMILY RINOS!!

coal carrier| 11.18.10 @ 8:05AM

If the Republicans nominate Romney, he will lose. Why? The Left has already laid out their mantra against him. He voted in a government healthcare system in Massachusetts, which was the predecessor to Obamacare.

Remember GHW Bush, “read my lips”, the left didn’t let anyone forget that statement.

I’m all for a woman in the Oval Office, especially one who can field dress a moose on her own.

JP| 11.18.10 @ 9:27AM

You might as well wait for the second coming of "Silent Cal", for all the good the Palin candidacy will do. If the Midterms showed us anything, it was the limits of Palin and the Teaparty. I mean, her own hand picked man in Alaska (Miller) got waxed by an old RINO who was pronounced DOA.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 11:01AM

Nationwide, 87% of candidates endorsed by the "Tea Party" won. Sounds pretty strong to me.

I'm not necessarily a big fan of a Palin candidacy though. I think she may actually have a more positive impact by NOT running.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 12:57PM

Can you site your 87% number? I have problems with it because I'd think we would have seen more R's elected and frankly there is no 'Tea Party'. Are are groups of local and state organizations who share a roughly similar ideology.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 2:45PM

I saw that presented on FoxNews, though now I'm thinking it was 83%, not 87%. It was presented at the time as including not only the House, Senate, and Governor's races, but State house races as well.

You're right that there is no "Tea Party," just a group of similarly aligned local organizations. But I think the "Tea Party" movement is a big reason why we saw as many R's winning as we did. The fact is that in many places, the Democrats are simply better at getting people to the polls and are therefore, I think, likely to be over-represented in any election in an area with a a strong Democrat party.

By the way, I am not a member of any "Tea Party" organization, and have never been to any "Tea Party" rally. Apparently, I do share the point of view of a lot of people who are involved in that movement.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 4:18PM

I've seen numbers all across the board, from a low of 33 to the 87 percent number. What I have not seen is any real data on it.

I think more important is how those candidates most associated with the 'tea party' and limited government govern. If they do a good job, propose good solid laws, and are not co-opted by the establishment then the cause of limited government will be furthered.

Melvin| 11.18.10 @ 8:12AM

Romney, Huckabee, !NO! But Hell no! These guys are establishment Republicans. Especially Romney, this guy is a chameleon and is very good at it. Johnny has it right Christie, Rubio, Ryan, Jeb, Jindal, Palin.
I know no one wants to hear the name of Bush, but Jeb is the Bush that should have been elected and not the other two, "New World Orderers."
Romney is a slicked down Kirby Vacuum salesman, who will have us sucked in before we realize it. Romney needs to be painted with, "Established, Establishment, Establishment. "

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:39AM

Melvin,

Give yourself one.

Intelligent Design| 11.18.10 @ 8:13AM

The tide has thankfully turned, and Romney is too liberal for American voters. The majority want Romney-Obamacare to be repealed, and the federal government cut in half. We want to defund the UN, close down the Departments of Energy and Education, exit Iraq and Afghanistan, profile Muslims at the airport, bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, close down Amtrak, cut the State Department's budget in half, and station 25,000 troops (or whatever it takes) along the Mexican border. We want the federal income tax dumped and the Fair Tax enacted. I nominate Rick Perry, Governor of Texas.

arlo price| 11.18.10 @ 9:51AM

BINGO!!!

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:59AM

Newt Gingrinch said of Romney this week:

"Governor Romney's made very clear that he favors absolute repeal of Obamacare and that he believes it's not accurate and not fair to try and compare the two and I think you have to start with that and I also think in all fairness to Governor Romney that he vetoed many provisions that the liberal Democrats in the Massachusetts state legislature added to the bill and they overrode his veto so I think if you're going to go back and look at the original Romney bill you'd have a much better bill and a much more practical bill than what the liberal Democrats did to the legislation because they literally overrode his veto on a whole series of items."

The wet dream you posted above is the only thing you'll be cleaning up in 2012.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:56PM

Crude troll. You make Romney look even worse--if that's possible.

Myth's a political goner--RomneyCare ensured it.

Dan Jones| 11.18.10 @ 11:58PM

But ... Perry is a Texas toll-road advocate, in bed with those who stand to gain. Bad sign, methinks

bookworm| 11.24.10 @ 12:07AM

It all sounds good except for closing down Amtrak. It might be Socialist Railroad, but it's the only civilized way to travel. Now, if they break it up and privatize it ... what do you think is the chance of that?

Old Soldier| 11.18.10 @ 8:15AM

If the GOP nominates Romney, it will signal the end of the Party. Conservatives like me will be gone forever.

Call it a Tea Party, Federalist or Conservative Party - it will replace the GOP by the 2016 cycle if the GOP decides to commit suicide.

Warrior | 11.18.10 @ 9:44AM

Agree with you with the exception that I already left the Republican party. While holding my nose for the somewhat right of center W, I could not remain in the party that nominates McCain. The reason you have so many independents throughout the country is because the Republican party does not represent Conservatives.

If you get a chance and it is available, listen to the Angelo Codevilla interview on Mike Church's radio show this morning.

Kralux| 11.20.10 @ 3:25PM

Old Soldier, I agree with you! Let's vote Ron Paul 2012!

Derek Leaberry| 11.18.10 @ 8:19AM

Only a fool would trust this chameleon and modern day Talleyrand as the Republican or conservative candidate for president. Better to have four more years of Obama. Obama's presidency has born a multitude of political fruit for the Republicans so far.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 8:43AM

We Tea Party Rebels are urging our Tea Party Kingmaker & The Senate's Point Man Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina to run for The Presidency in 2012.
Creds: founded and ran his own company, holds a Masters in Business, a former Congressman & now a Senator.

The Tea Party is inside The Congress & The GOP.
Now We Seize The Executive & More Congressional Seats in 2012.

Carpe Diem.

Derek Leaberry| 11.18.10 @ 10:08AM

I second the nomination, Lisa Murkowski, Lindsey Graham and John McCain be damned.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:09PM

Thanks, Tim*, for joining the pro-Israel camp and standing behind the great Conservative Jim DeMint.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 2:35PM

I'm An America Firster, Not An Israel Firster AgendBoy like You Tool Job.

Now You Know What To Do, Get Bent.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.10 @ 6:12PM

Occam's Tool,
Isn't it fun goosing the kid until he wee wees. heh?

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:59PM

Ken, you do yourself no favors attacking a patriot like Tim*.

I stand for America first--don't you?

victor| 11.18.10 @ 10:40PM

"Patriot":
"I stand for America First--don't you?"

Yes, but do you stand up for America's Friends and Allies?

Actually, you do not, as is the habit of Ron Paul and his followers, you are very selective in who you stand up for and Israel is not one of those Allies that you stand up for.

America first does not mean we abandon our allies or throw them to the wolves.

Your sort of "Patriotism" is not what Patriotism is all about.

And neither is calling my wife a worm for defending herself against your ilk for adding to her posts under her name, and for your constant attacks.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 11:29PM

Uh Oh ! Israel Firster AgendaGoofy Victor-Margie Is Back In The Building.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

victor| 11.19.10 @ 12:20AM

Ron Paul, whose side are you on?

By Paul Ibbetson Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Everybody takes sides. When the chips are down on important issues, everybody can eventually be found on a side of their choosing. Those that claim to be neutral on the important issues of life are either ignorant of the reality of where they truly stand or are attempting to deceive someone. Percentages are higher on the latter, which is unfortunate because it creates a disingenuous world where people carry false banners of affiliation and advertise ideological beliefs that contradict the way they really think and act.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s interview with Don Imus over the Israeli embargo of the Gaza Strip raises a number of disturbing questions about where this self-proclaimed Republican stands on a number of important questions. Ron Paul, a longtime isolationist, shocked many when he not only admonished Israel’s lawful blockage of the Gaza Strip, but also said that Israel’s actions were nothing short of an act of war. When Imus mentioned that Israel was not attempting to stop humanitarian aid in the region, rather weapons being smuggled to the terrorist organization Hamas, Ron Paul released a tirade of unbelievable statements.

Paul legitimated the terrorist organization Hamas and attacked both Israel’s and America’s attempts to restrain terrorist organizations using boycotts and embargoes. Specifically, Paul denounced actions taken against known terrorists and enablers in Palestine, Iran, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. According to Ron Paul’s thinking, the terrorist organizations and the countries that harbor them have been victims of Israel and America’s inability to continue to reach out in friendly dialogue. Ron Paul told Imus, “America should tell Israel they are on their own.” Paul’s assertion that we should abandon our ally Israel is shocking but it is only the tip of the iceberg of the congressman’s misguided thinking. If we are to question Ron Paul’s anti-Israel stance, should we not also question his overt anti-America stance?

“Blame America first” rhetoric
Ron Paul’s interview with Don Imus is riddled with “blame America first” rhetoric. Paul starts like a modern day liberal by minimizing radical Islamic terrorism and placing the terrorists as victims and America as an imperialistic aggressor. The congressman also shows how naive he is regarding the differences between past aggressors of the world and the modern terrorist. Highlighting this point, Ron Paul casually says of Hamas, “Yeah, they’re probably not the best people in the world, but you know, didn’t we talk to the Soviets…?” This disconnect from the realities of terrorism combined with a “blame Israel and America first” mentality does not represent the Republican Party and is not in the same universe as conservative values. Ron Paul not only sounded like a Democrat when talking to Don Imus, but his rhetoric embraced the worst of the beliefs and values of the modern liberal. Ron Paul’s own words demand that he be asked, “Whose side are you on?”

The assertion that because America supports elections in the world we must also support and lift up terrorist organizations such as Hamas is more than simply wrong, it’s repulsive. If Ron Paul really believes that, then his long-term view of the world can be measured in inches. Americans have the sense, the ability and the right to reject terrorist organizations no matter how they come to power. America doesn’t abandon its allies for its enemies. Israel is being attacked by Hamas daily and it is here that war has been declared, not in the country’s attempt to safeguard itself through embargoes.

We all take sides and we are all accountable to which camp that places us in. Ron Paul does not have to adhere to conservative values or even to the Republican Party. He is not required to be a friend of Israel or even to have positive American sentiment, but he needs to be clear about where he stands, which camp he really calls home. Ron Paul, whose side are you on?

Tim*| 11.19.10 @ 9:18AM

Uh,Uh,Uh Israel Firster Fanatic Fat Ass Victor-Margie !
I've Noted Your Sneaky-Assed Obsessional Attempts To Try To Get In The Last Word.

Do Your homwork Crazy Joisey Broad.

"Michael Scheuer, who is the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit and author of the book "Imperial Hubris", endorsed Dr.Paul's view of foreign policy at the "Educating Rudy" press conference that was held after the FoxNews debate. Michael Scheuer is a man that has dedicated years to studying and tracking Bin Laden and Al qaeda . Is he clueless as well? Does he not know better than both Mr.Farah and Dr. Paul the reasons why Al qaeda attacked us?"

victor| 11.19.10 @ 10:23AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IynTKIRCaeA

STEIN: Why should we stop them? Because they are terrorists and murderers and they're very anti-American.

PAUL: Why are they terrorists?

STEIN: Surely congressman --

PAUL: Why are they terrorists?

STEIN: They're terrorists and murders because they are psychos.

PAUL: They're terrorists because we're occupiers.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:31PM

Your wife is a lying worm just like you. No one is posting under her name, nitwit. Nice try though. Margie's a coward who won't take responsibility for her own hateful and bigoted comments about Catholics. Shame on both of you.

Patriotism is standing up for your own country first, Victor--you don't seem to understand that basic fact.
Cite me one example where I "threw Israel to the wolves?" You and Margie are both liars.
I do support Israel, but not at the expense of my own country. You never defend America first and I thinks it's disgusting.

victor| 11.20.10 @ 3:19AM

Interesting that you are now replying and speaking for *Timmy, eh?

Speaking of taking responsibility, are you going to do so for posting under assorted names?

"I do support Israel, but not at the expense of my own country."

In the same way that RonPaul "supports" Israel?

Or in the way *Timmy supports Israel?

"You never defend America first"

I'm sure that you can prove that with one of my posts, eh?

Thought so, Liar.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 11:34PM

Kenny The Squirrel Is Gettin' All Gay.

Rick T| 11.18.10 @ 7:29PM

I agree, Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, or Jan Brewer as VP.

idalily| 11.18.10 @ 11:03PM

I agree. Go DeMint! I don't always agree with him on social conservatism (being more of a States Rights fiscal conservative myself) but I would support DeMint in a heartbeat because he is a man of PRINCIPLE with the heart of a lion. That's what we need right now. And given the other candidates in the front row, he's the only one except Sarah I can say that about. Sarah, IMO, is unelectable. Not her fault, but she would be crucified by the media. DeMint has more experience and he's got guts.

logmank| 11.18.10 @ 8:45AM

Like many other posters, it is my conviction that if the Republicans nominate any of these RINO's (Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, etc.), it will be the end of the party.
Surely we can come up with some new blood - a new face. Otherwise, there will be a third party candidacy and four more years of Obowmao.
I, for one, refuse to go to the polls again in November, 2012 and hold my nose and vote for a Republican RINO. Period.

P.Smith| 11.18.10 @ 8:48AM

First off I could never vote for someone who is a Mormon, much one who has been a bishop and a stake president and who knows what else within the cult, and I believe many Christians feel the same way. I would suggest that anyone who believes that the Mormons are simply a Christian denomination should do some real research into the issue. Many of the beliefs of the Church of Latter Day Saints fall into the realm of bizarre and I would seriously question the judgment of a man who believes it. Here’s a question: Does Mitt Romney always wear his magic underwear? Because if he doesn’t he is not temple-worthy; if you don’t know of what I speak off look it up.

Second of all, this guy has flipped on so many issues, that there is no way he can be trusted.

Third, my wife says that you should never trust a man who is prettier than his wife…I’ll defer to her on this…. though I would say Mr. Romney’s wife is nice looking.

As far as Mormons go there was an interesting article in Forbes Magazine about 10 or 15 years ago which basically stated that the Salt Lake City Utah had such a high rate of Securities Fraud and other financial scams that the Security and Exchange Commission put an office there many years ago to deal with the situation. What is interesting about this is that there are many cities which are far larger than Salt Lake City which do not rate a SEC branch office, but Salt Lake City apparently has one of the highest per capita financial fraud rates in the nation. The Forbes article went on to say that if you were researching a company into which to invest and you learned it originated in Salt Lake City Utah, your best bet was look elsewhere.

James| 11.18.10 @ 10:05AM

P.Smith:

Yes, and aliens landed and the government has their spaceships stored under the White House in case the people riot.

Your anti-Mormon code talk is absurd. Mormonism is a legitimate Christian faith with scriptures, authority, miracles, witnesses, and results.

The cult-talk may be great at your Baptist BBQ, but you can't support it here.

A new and important study of religion in America has, among other things, a good deal to say about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Recently published under the title American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, the sociological study was conducted by scholars Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell and yields valuable insight to the nature and social effects of American religion. Drawing from in-depth new surveys, the study’s authors affirm that in many respects, religion in America exerts a healthy influence upon American society — one that typically promotes generosity, trust, neighborliness, and civic engagement. And while Mormons are a relatively small component of American society, the study data reveals that they play a conspicuous part in American religious life.

Among the study’s findings related to Latter-day Saints are the following:

* Mormons are among the most devout religious groups in the country.
The American Grace study assessed a composite measure of “religiosity” that measured individuals’ levels of religious observance, the strength of their religious convictions about God and their faith, and the degree to which they feel their religion is personally important. As a group, Mormons registered a high level of “religiosity” (American Grace, 23-24).

* Mormons are among those most likely to keep their childhood faith as adults.
In an age of American religion where people often depart from the religion of their upbringing and where switching between religions is becoming more common, the study indicates that individuals raised as Latter-day Saints are among those most likely to keep their faith (137-138).

* Mormons are unusually giving.
Among the study’s larger conclusions is the fact that, in general, religion in America contributes to civic virtue, altruism, and good neighborliness. Study data, meanwhile, indicate that collectively Mormons are among the most charitable of Americans with their means and time, both in religious and nonreligious causes (452).

* Mormons are relatively friendly to other religious groups.
The study also reports that Mormons are among those most friendly toward those of other faiths. Relatively speaking, the United States has not been the scene of deep religious conflicts; it is and has been a place of remarkable religious tolerance and pluralism. Nevertheless, the study’s authors point out that Americans are divided by religion, and hence, American society is susceptible to religious discord. Indeed, American religious (and nonreligious) groups have various feelings about one another. While data suggest that Mormons are among those viewed least positively by many American religious groups, they themselves hold relatively positive views toward members of other faiths, including those outside of Christianity (505-508).

* Mormons are among the most likely to believe that one true religion exists, but also that those outside their faith can attain salvation or reach “heaven.”
The scholars behind the study conclude that while many American religions make claims to being exclusively “true,” few religionists in the United States actually believe that “one true religion” exists. Of all American faiths, Mormons are most likely to affirm that there is a “true” faith (546). However, in what might seem a paradox to those unfamiliar with Mormonism, study data also indicate that while many Mormons believe that there is a “true” religion, Mormons are also the most convinced of any group that those outside their faith — including non-Christians — can “go to heaven” or gain salvation (535-537). While this belief is general among American believers, it is, according to the study, strongest among Latter-day Saints.

Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religious Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010).

Ryan| 11.18.10 @ 10:29AM

I don't remember if it was a round-and-round with you or someone else, but there ARE genuine theological and historical concerns about the Mormon faith. P. Smith may have been a little vitriolic, but he wasn't lying.

I fully acknowledge how moralistic they wind up being - for the most part. However, the more that I see it, the more often it appears that it's a religion of control and power - and that they have the same issues, or worse, than other faiths.

James| 11.18.10 @ 12:11PM

P Smith has inaccurately characterized Mormonism as a faith.

1. P.Smith's disrespect for a religion is not evidence against it. There is plenty of inaccurate and outright deceptive information on the internet about Mormonism. When we "dig deep" into the historical documents of Mormonism, and ancient Christianity, Evangelical Christian criticisms fall away. Your disagreements with Mormonism don't count as evidence that it is false.

2. Romney hasn't flipped so many times that he can't be trusted. This is yet another false characterization that when applied actually hurts the conservative cause. Romney switched his position on abortion from a political position of pro-choice to pro-life. He was always pro-life in his personal life and as a lay minister for the Mormon Church, counseled women against abortion. In 2005, as Governor of Massachusetts he vetoed a embryonic stem cell bill. Conversions to the pro-life movement are welcomed by genuine conservatives. The double speech of conservatives on this is hypocritical.

3. Absurd.

4. Mormon porophets and apostles regularly counsel members to 1) be honest in all of their dealings, 2) spend only within their means, 3) buy modest homes they can afford, 4) save for retirement and for disaster or emergencies, 5) avoid speculative investments. Utah is not the "fraud capital of the world" because the majority of its citizens commit fraud but because a large number of Mormons are VICTIMS of fraud. That there are dirty Mormons or Mormons who don't follow their faith is an indication that men are corruptible regardless of the commandment to be otherwise.

Additionally, your prejudices against Mormonism do not align with the realities of Mormonism.

You can criticize Mormonism from your own theological point of view, but Mormonism triumphs in practical life.

In other words, while you're denouncing Mormonism because it doesn't agree with Creeds or YOUR particular interpretation of the Bible, bible believing Christians are receiving great personal benefits of faith and results from it. These results undermine the claims that we must worry about "genuine theological and historical concerns" about Mormonism. Mormonism has created a people of great faith in Jesus Christ and the WILL to actually do his teachings consistently.

The United States government doesn't exist to prop up the traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible. The Jews had a wonderful and long tradition that became corrupted and was rejected by the Savior.

Merely repeating the talking points of ex-Mormons who were excommunicated by the Church, (control and power) or claiming that because the Church is lead by a central authority of men who are prophets and apostles, makes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints an attractive organization.

Because of Mormonism's deep resource of on-point doctrines Mormons do not face widespread alcoholism, tobacco addictions, teen pregnancy, broken marriages, child-less marriages, local corruption, local abuse, financial scandals, etc. A recent study showed that Mormon youth know and read the Bible more frequently than other Christian youths.

So, your vague and groundless characterization that the Mormon faith is plagued with "issues" is unfounded. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the most successful home-grown Christian church in the history of the world.

Ryan| 11.18.10 @ 12:33PM

I STRONGLY disagree with #1, and it's NOT just because of personal opinion. Mormonism has some SERIOUS factual issues about its historical claims - wheels, horses, and the like - that completely call everything else that it does into question; not to matter its complete disagreement with basic protestant theological positions at its core.

2. If a personal belief doesn't play out in public life, it's not a belief, it's political expediency. There are plenty of pro-choice people who want fewer abortions. Romney was the governor of MA. You HAVE to hold a certain amount of liberalism to hold that position.

4. I don't doubt the character of many Mormons; however, is that character a result of overbearing control or the life-changing work of the Gospel? Ex-Mormons have a HUGE point to make because of their reasons for leaving - particularly how some are treated afterward by the Mormon church.

James| 11.18.10 @ 1:48PM

Ryan:

Your claim that it is a serious factual issue that the anti-Mormon interpretation of archeological requirements for the Book of Mormon is absurd.
The lack of discovery for steel, or wheeled chariots does not create "serious" issues for Mormonism. Why? Because there are "other" evidences we can turn to that "are found" and test the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an ancient record. So, Ryan, if you have 1000 evidences of its authenticity compared to a handful of "not found yet" which pulls more weight? The "found" evidences. The 1000s of evidences are indirect proof that the Book of Mormon comes from an ancient record. These refute your claim above. Furthermore, OF COURSE it disagrees with Protestant Theological positions. But this isn't a serious problem. The majority of the Christian faith (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Greek Orthodox) are at odds with Protestant theological positions. If we are counting up majorities - then the Protestant theological view is at a loss. Ever heard of John Henry Newman - a staunch defender of the Protestant faith? He converted to Catholicism.

2 The abortion switch is old news. Address the facts Ryan. Romney vetoed a bill for embryonic stem cell research in 2005. Furthermore, abortions were mandated to be constitutionally guaranteed by the MA Supreme Court long before Romney arrived.

4. Ryan, I really don't think you've thought carefully through this argument. A Church, such as the LDS faith, has a series of doctrines that must be upheld in the faith to protect the integrity of the faith. When former Mormons don't want to live up to the faith, a covenant they freely make, and are excommunicated, they don't like it. They want to "be Mormon" and "live contrary to the teachings." There is no serious scholarly authority on the planet that takes anti-Mormonism seriously. So you agree with ex-Mormons when they agree with you, but you'd be quick to disagree with them when they disparage Protestantism. Can you see why your argument is invalid?

When the Mormon Church excommunicated a member, it does "nothing" after a member is excommunicated.

There is no "control" issue in Mormonism except it will not tolerate "false doctrine" to be preached in its Churches. This is necessary and desirable.

Ryan| 11.18.10 @ 2:35PM

Here's the historical problem.

It's a wheel. It's a horse. It's STEEL. These aren't SMALL matters historically - they are items that civilizations are BUILT upon. THAT is why the historicity is called into question. A wheel is SUCH a major device that if it was discovered, then EVERYONE would be using it. "1000s" of "discoveries" (I've seen the list, and not many historians outside of Mormonism take it seriously, when they would some things in the Bible) that are minor don't overshadow the issue that there are major technological developments that native Americans NEVER had that they WOULD have adopted were they around.

The issue with the second point is that Mormons more or less consider themselves Protestants, but their core beliefs are both a rejection of those things that Protestants AND Catholics share (like the Trinity); also, there are other issues - like salvation through grace, not works - that are in direct contradiction.

3. An abortion switch is an abortion switch, and Romney was STILL the governor of Massachusetts, which means he had a certain amount of liberalism. Also, the unethical way his campaign is being run - buying votes at straw polls, acting like the presumptive candidate - isn't exactly coinciding with what he states to believe.

4. I get the overall point you're making here.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:00PM

It's not Romney's religion I object to--it's his RINO policies I abhor.

Charles James| 11.19.10 @ 12:09AM

People that have not done more than superficial investigation should really read the work of those who have done more. See http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_.....sms/Metals

and associated links, then come talk to us about steel, etc. And leave your talking points behind please.

James| 11.19.10 @ 6:00PM

Ryan:

I hear what you are saying, but you're overstating the requirement for a specific type of archeological evidence and the amounts.

In the Book of Mormon, there is no detailed widespread use of steel, or the wheel according to the text. The Book of Mormon doesn't speak of one nation but several groups and "tribes."

But the point is, when we don't find a certain kind of evidence initially, we look for other types. And if we find the other types, then we have a reason to keep looking and a justification for a certain kind of belief about the Book of Mormon.

Today, evidence for the Book of Mormon is many degrees beyond coincidence.

But, if you're stuck on wheels and steel, something you should consider is the history of the Chinese Han Dynasty. They built their entire civilization on a horse culture over hundreds of years. Yet, to date, there hasn't been a single horse bone found dating to that time period. But, we know from other evidences that the horses existed. Should we force the Chinese to retract their history? I don't think so. Anyway, you get the point.

Most Christian groups that criticize the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church use information from spurious or unreliable sources. But, as long as it placates them for the time being, many Christians are satisfied with these sources. They "want" Mormonism to be false, and look for the nearest "source" that will confirm their beliefs. This is just massive self-deception going on.

The Book of Mormon "today" is defensible and the evidences are piling up.

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 10:59AM

How and why did theis debate devolve into a discussion of LDS? Read the above post by James and change the word Mormon to Muslim and see if it fits.

Can I assume James you follow the Pearl and Doctrines and Covenants?

Iska Waran| 11.18.10 @ 1:24PM

I knew you were a Mormon as soon as you showed your man-love for Mitten. No one is so pro-Mitten except Mormons. That's fine. You should just come out and say "I love Romney because he's a Mormon like me!" Don't waste your time trying to justify his vacillations on the issues or glorifying his single term in elected office.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:04PM

Romneybots desperately want to make our objections seem like Religious bigotry so they can distract from Myth's disastrous policies like RomneyCare.

Ain't gonna work, Mythbots! Sorry.

Utah Tea| 11.18.10 @ 10:26AM

We are discussing Romney, here, not bashing Mormons, who happen to be more Tea Party than most Republicans. And Utah may be high in SEC cases, but those aren't necessarily Mormon. And Utah leads the nation in marriages, birthrates, and is among the top in high school graduation and college education, and has by fare the lowest rate of children born out of wedlock--the new most-meaningful statistic. So if you must condemn Mormons, praise them as well.

Utah did go Tea Party by electing Mike Lee and Jason Chafetz over mainstream Reps like Bennett and Cannon.

That said, I think the wind has shifted to the Tea Party, anti-ruling class, and Romney is ruling class. Think of him as Bush without an accent. He supported TARP. He probably would have supported Stimulus and ObamaCare if they were proposed by President McCain.
My guess--prediction--is that Sarah Palin would beat Mitt Romney in a Utah Republican primary. And nationwide. The choice is similar to Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan in 1976. If Obama wins, the nation will go FDR Depression.

James| 11.18.10 @ 12:13PM

Keep on drinking the kool-aid.

The tea Party hasn't done ANYTHING yet! The candidates haven't done anything yet.

Holy cow, I am amazed at the delusional state of Tea Partiers.

Get a grip.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:05PM

Keep attacking the Tea Parties, fool. Let's see how well your boss does without their support.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 1:17PM

Please do not compare Palin to Reagan. Reagan had decades in the public sphere, he had written exetensively, gave countless speeches, and was governor of a large state for 8 years. Palin has neither the breadth nor the depth of Reagan's experiences. Perhaps, in time she will. But in no way does she now.

bookworm| 11.24.10 @ 12:17AM

This is disappointing. I grew up in those liberal public schools in the '60s, and we were taught that John F. Kennedy put to rest "the religious issue." I guess not.

ConantheContrarian| 11.18.10 @ 8:51AM

Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty. I could live with either as president. Perhaps DeMint. They have their faults, but they are mature men.

Iska Waran| 11.18.10 @ 1:19PM

Amen

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:06PM

DeMint--but not the other two.

O'Riley| 11.18.10 @ 8:53AM

Here here!

srucpa| 11.18.10 @ 8:54AM

If Romney get in- I am not voting. Probably the first time in 35 years.

O'Riley| 11.18.10 @ 8:56AM

Not to confuse the author or his audience, my comment (above) was in support of Derek Leaberry.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.10 @ 8:57AM

Here is my thought.

Palin has not even announced yet and is within 3 points of Romney who eeeeeverybody knows is running.
I shall not predict until you all read her latest book, but I have not read fresh words and thoughts like hers since Ronald Reagan.

OKOK, she was the designated "cheer-leader" by John McCain, and she did a great job of stirring up the base in spite of his RINO campaign staff.

If she indeed runs as number one on the ticket, she will "dial it back" a notch and demonstrate her weight in the gravitas department.

Did you guys watch her "coolness under fire" when their boat got stuck too close to those grizzly bears? Oh yeah. She would be my welcome partner in a bear-fight.
I saw the trailer of her interview with Barbara Walters coming up on ABC. Of all the MSM types, I respect Walters most. Let's see how that comes out.
Then get her darned book and examine her thoughts yourselves.

IF she wins...we got a grizzly bear on our side, and when a grizzly charges...there is NO deflecting her.

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:44AM

Ken:

Grizzly bears don't actually run the world's most important government in the world - we need experienced and successful leaders who have a proven track record for fixing things - that's Romney - like it or not.

Sooner or later you're going to have to move past White House talking points, and get to the facts that matter today.

Remember, the Senate AND the Presidency are still controlled by Democrats.

The country is not going to elect an ultra-right winged candidate.

Furthermore, you have to remember that the Tea Party candidates haven't fixed anything yet.

Now comes the HARD WORK.

What if they turn out to be ineffective? Game over for the tea party.

buckeyeman| 11.18.10 @ 10:43AM

"Grizzly bears don't actually run the world's most important government in the world - we need experienced and successful leaders who have a proven track record for fixing things .." Like Obama? (and Rahm Emmanuel, Van Jones, Janet Napolitano, and .........)

But how did we get Obama?? By nominating a jellyfish like McCain.

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 10:55AM

James, James, James:
It was the old experienced Washington hands who we let get us into this mess. The break with the past needs to run wide and deep. Mitt ain't it.

james| 11.18.10 @ 11:41AM

You can thank Evangelical Christians for giving us McCain.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 11:46AM

And your reasoning behind that is . . . ?

victor| 11.18.10 @ 10:51PM

James:
"You can thank Evangelical Christians for giving us McCain."

Actually the Left under the command of Marcos Moussaka, a compliant press, other misguided fools who were told that a "Moderate Republican" was the answer and numerous open primaries that allowed all sorts of mischief makers to cast ballots resulted in McCain being the eventual candidate.
By the time the primary took place in New Jersey, there was only one left.
I would much rather to cast my ballot for Fred Thompson, but he dropped out before I could vote for him.
Imagine voting for Thompson/Palin in 2008.
We would not be suffering under an Obamanation right now.

That is the lie that is still being peddled by you Flamin' Liberals and the Lapdog Press.
Anything to not take responsibility for the McCain Debacle, eh?

How's that Hoax and Chains workin' out fer ya boy?

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.10 @ 11:04AM

James,

I'm sorry. Your thinking is muddled and no conclusions of victory except possibly in the person of Romney?

I am saddened that you cannot pick up on analogies or parables.
Sarah is not "far right" any more than Reagan was. She is straight unwavering right-down-the-Center....just like a grizzly.
...except she is upbeat and friendly like Reagan.

Guys like you just make me tired.
The "tea-party" conservatives just won the first battle with the RINOs in DC, ie: the earmark moratorium. Each journey begins with a single step. They yanked the RINOs' reins and took that first step.
Romney is a good man. I just don't particularly want him to be President. On the other hand, I would vote for him in a minute before ANY Democrat/communist, (pardon the shorthand).

Conversely, I would WORK HARD for Sarah, and you know what? She is smart enough to enjoy and appreciate Mitt's visits to the Oval office.

James| 11.18.10 @ 11:42AM

With Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee, we're guaranteed 4 more years of Obama.

She can't win blue dog democrats and independents.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 1:20PM

Unless she changes, agreed.

Sadly.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:09PM

And Romney can't win Conservatives. We don't need to run another RINO like McCain, it didn't work out too well for us then.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:13PM

Concur. I LOOVE Sarah. On the other hand, Jindal and Rubio and DeMint are all good guys, too.

But, Jesus, not Romney. We need a guy/gal who will make people run to the polls. Rubio/Jindal would rock the Dems back and hard.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 1:20PM

I like Rubio, he shows promise. But could we let him be Senator for a bit before we start pushing him to be President?

Dai Alanye | 11.18.10 @ 11:46AM

This Romney worship by "James" is absolutely idiotic. Mitten's governing experience includes one term in Massachusetts that can hardly be called successful. He is a flip-flopping chameleon-like backstabber who was cordially hated by all the other Repub candidates in the 2008 nomination run. He lacked (and probably still lacks) the ability to relate to ordinary Americans, nor can he think on his feet well enough to handle hecklers. In short, despite his painted-on smile he lacks the common touch and is ineffective at handling criticism. His 2008 campaign speeches were primarily paeans to his own abilities and accomplishments, although he has recently improved somewhat in this regard.

We don't (and probably can't) know what Romney truly believes, but we can be certain he'll be beaten by any determined campaigner the Dems put up.

And let us not forget his fumbling statement that a son who worked on his campaign was performing the equivalent in government service as a man who joined the military. On top of everything else Mittens is a blockhead when it comes to a sense of proportion.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 12:55PM

Ken,

With all due respect (your posts are always interesting to read), I have issues with candidates who direct would-be-supporters to buy their book(s) for insights on what kind of leader they would be. Let the candidate use the public outlets to do get their message across.

As far as Sarah is concerned, her interview with Baaa-baaa Waaa-Waaa is more of the same. It is the same personality-driven messaging to which she's accustomed.

I would advise her to take the training wheels off (FOX News) and get out of her comfort zone. There are many outlets which would allow her to get her message across and at the same time begin to transform her image as an intellectual lightweight to a more serious politician. A few examples would be a one-on-one sitdown with Peter Robinson over at National Review (a relatively friendly venue; Charlie Rose at PBS (a relatively fair venue); Jake Tapper (Same as CR) and even venture out for a one-one with someone over at CNN, like Wolf Blitzer.

There are many venues that would allow her to display her gravitas (if she possesses any), to move beyond the FOX News training ground, or another book, Twitter posts, etc.

This is what I'm waiting for and if she fails to do so I won't have any other choice but to prevent her from winning the primary.

I believe many, many people share my sentiments.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 2:51PM

I agree. I'm a fan of Sarah Palin, she's had an ENORMOUS positive impact on conservatism, but she needs to step into the lion's den and chew up a few lions.

Mimi| 11.18.10 @ 8:59AM

I have had my eye on....A Mark Levin DARK horse run in 2012....ever since his Book came out in March of 2009. I don't know where he is at or even if it is anything he would choose to do.....But he would sure bring about a world full of Conservative converts...He already has!!

Old Soldier| 11.18.10 @ 9:27AM

The debates would be the most entertaining tv in history.

Denver Todd| 11.18.10 @ 9:03AM

I think that one thing that will make Romney an attractive candidate is that he is manly and masculine, while Obama is not. In a debate, Romney will come off as a fatherly leader, while Obama will appear as a whining wife.

dnha14| 11.18.10 @ 9:04AM

Lord help us if this Romney nomination becomes reality.

Steve A| 11.18.10 @ 9:17AM

Give me Christie / Rubio for 2012. I will tell you what though. If it does end up Romney & you baill out & Obama gets back in then you have no right to complain. I voted for McCain & I think he is a closte Progressive because it was either that or what we have now. You have to order what's on the menu, like it or not.

Fred| 11.18.10 @ 10:48AM

Hallelujah Steve. One reason Obama is president now is the purist morons who would rather have an uncompromising leftist president than a compromising conservative one. Romney is hardly my idea of an ideal president either, but if the alternative is Obama? C'mon, that's a no brainer. And a third party bid would only ensure 4 more years of Obama. In our system third parties cannot win; they can only cause one of the major parties to lose. And which party do the purist nutjobs think a tea party candidacy would cause to lose? Wake up people! And a Palin candidacy would be a disaster for Republicans. Rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, for better or worse, the public's mind is made up on Palin. Nominating her might feel good, but read the d**n polls. She couldn't get elected dog catcher in a general election. That's not going to change in two years. The first order of business in 2012 has to be to get rid of Obama. No conceivable Republican candidate can possibly be worse than O.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 11:53AM

The primary reason Obama is President now is because McCain refused to stand up to him, or stand on his principles, when it really mattered. As soon as McCain signed on to TARP, he was done. At that point, he minimized the importance of any policy differences between himself and his opponent, therefore establishing that 2008 would be an election on style alone. At the same time, he betrayed the fiscally conservative principles he had espoused throughout his political career. How absurd is it to crow own about a few billion dollars in earmarks after having endorsed a $750 billion bailout - i.e. - the biggest earmark in history? It was hypocritical. Had he stood up against TARP - even if he had failed to stop it - he would be President McCain today.

idalily| 11.18.10 @ 11:09PM

Can we PLEASE accept facts? Christie has said flat out numerous times he WILL NOT RUN for President. Take him at his word, please.

JP| 11.18.10 @ 9:21AM

Here is a baseball analogy:

Imagine a MLB division made up of the following:

Baltimore Oriorels, Chicago Cubs, Pittsburgh Pirates, Washington Nationals, and Seattle Mariners.

Now imagine if a sports writer opens up an article predicting that the (fill-in-the-blank) will win that division in a very tight race. Your reaction? Simple: "Who Cares?" would be the likely one. Obama will bury any of the possible GOP candidates. It's that simple.

One could argue that Mitt has advantages that other canidates do not. That is akin to saying the Pirates have advantages over the Orioles and Nationals. They all three stink. Mitt will never get conservatives on his side. And Palin will never break out of her Teaparty bubble. One can say, that Palin is the only person who can get the base fired up. Others will argue that Mitt has a better camapign organization and he has done this before. He is a proven winner in both business and politics. These are all valid arguements. But in truth, niether can win in states like Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. Obama can and he will. And wishing for a return of 1932 type of recession in order to get your man or woman into the Oval Office is something the Koz Kidz dream of.

And behind the scenes looms Jeb Bush.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 9:33AM

A Romney nomination = 4 more years of Obama. It's that simple.

Among the many things we learned in this last election cycle, one was that the Republican party, and in particular, the conservative movement, is filled to overflowing with young, capable, electable talent. Why would we even consider nominating a worn out retread of a proven loser?

Jindal, Christie, Rubio, Ryan, Bachman, and Palin range in age from 39 to 46. They came of age during the Age of Reagan, not the Age of Aquarius. ANY of them would be infinitely superior to any of the old farts who ran in 2008.

The McCain's, Romney's, Huckabee's, and Gingrich's of the world need to step aside. Their time has gone (if it ever came in the first place). Unfortunately, they, like the current liar in chief and his evil entourage, are products of the same selfish, hedonistic, immature, "If it feels good, do it," generation which thinks it's smarter than everyone else and therefore has the moral authority to tell everyone else how to live. That means they're not voluntarily going anywhere they don't want to go, so we'll have to "assist" them to the door.

A new generation of conservatives have arrived, THEY are the future of the Republican party, and ALL Republicans need to look to them for leadership.

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:56AM

Yet another absurd comment from a Tea Party leaning member who doesn't understand how governance works.

The question is "WHY" should Republicans look to Jindal, Christie, Rubio, Ryan, Bachman and Palin?

What set of principles do THEY bring to governance that have been tested?

Governing is not merely declaring your conservative positions and having the rest of the country follow - you have to persuade and debate HOW to solve government problems.

Out of your list above, only Palin would have a chance to win the nomination - but which states would she win? Iowa? Some southern states? It would be Huckabee all over again and it will be Obama all over again in the General ELection.

The only candidate with a chance of beating Obama is Romney, like it or not.

So, if you want to put one of those in office, then look to the VP of Romney or realistically look at 2020.

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 10:49AM

James,
If as you say Romney is the only Republican who could beat Obama, then I say re-elect Obama. The policies would be the same but only differ in magnitude. Why have Republicans get the blame for big government again when it is the Democrats who live for it? Let the blame lie where it bel;ongs.

Daniel| 11.19.10 @ 12:14AM

Re-elect Obama. And give him another bite at the Supreme Court apple. Sorry, but no. The precarious majority we have now is just abut the only thing (barring a real heavyweight conservative Congress) that fends of the barbarian statist socialist hordes.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 11:23AM

"The question is "WHY" should Republicans look to Jindal, Christie, Rubio, Ryan, Bachman and Palin?"

Another question is, have you been paying attention at all?

Jindal has been one of the most effective governors in US in LAEDING Louisiana through some very tough times. He's not afraid to make tough calls and tough decisions, and he's not afraid to get out in front and LEAD.

Chris Christie has provided solid, common sense LEADERSHIP in a state that is traditionally solidly blue, has been willing to catch absolute hell from critics while standing for what he believes to be best for his state, and has parlayed that resolve into legislative action to shrink the size of NJ's government.

Marco Rubio is inexperienced, I'll give you that, but he is an outstanding campaigner who brings the fire and passion of LEADERSHIP to what he says and does that inspires people to vote for him. Bachmann has some of those same qualities.

Ryan has experience in legislative branch and is a LEADER on the cutting edge of government economics and how to get same under control.

Next question.

"What set of principles do THEY bring to governance that have been tested?"

See above, and by the way, what set of principles does Mitt Romney bring to governance that have been tested and DIDN'T fail? To the extent that Romney has principles of governance (and frankly, based on his record as governor of Ma, I've seen little evidence that he has), they are the same principles whose application has gotten us in the mess we're in now.

Citizen Jerry| 11.18.10 @ 11:51AM

Looks like James is trying to be the smartest person in the room. Rather presumptuous to declare Mitt the RINO as our only hope, like it or not. My guess would be ... not.

James| 11.18.10 @ 1:47PM

The smartest person in the room makes valid arguments. Valid arguments with true premises are the most likely to be true.

The tea Party thinks it can shout its way into influence or worse, shoot its way into power.

Think again.

Instead make good arguments.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 2:55PM

With all due respect, James, much of your argument today on this issue has been pure ad hominem attack on anyone who disagrees with you. That's not valid argument.

Earlier, I put several serious questions to you about Gov. Romney. It was your chance to show us all how wrong we are, but you have yet to respond. How about some "valid arguments with true premises" there?

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:16PM

I've always been an admirer of the Enterprise. Your analysis is perfect.

idalily| 11.18.10 @ 11:14PM

Give it up. Romney cannot energize the base. He's got Romneycare around his neck when health care is on everybody's radar. He is UNELECTABLE. He might be ok to indies, but not to the base. He's also, IMO, a Ken Doll, a fake and a political opportunist who is out for what's best for him, not what's best for the USA. He didn't have the guts to stand up to the MA legislature, he sure won't be able to stand up to China, Iran and Nancy Pelosi. Romney? No, thanks. I want a POTUS of principles, not plastic.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 4:37PM

I agree. I don't want to have to vote for Romney. Nope.

I believe the best ticket would be a tough sell:
Barbour/Petraeus

A good ticket because:
The mess that the country will likely face in 2012 will require a "co-presidency", one that will exclusively focus on military/foreign policy and the the to focus on domestic/foreign policy. I believe these men both know where the levers are and how to use them. They would be effective from day one. This arrangement would be similar to Bush/Cheney...........the assumption being they would work well together.

A tough sell because of Barbour's deep southern accent, history as a lobbyist, and considered by some as an "elite" or "good-ole-boy"

This ticket would inspire confidence in America, something that will be needed in 2012.

Mimi| 11.18.10 @ 9:35AM

No one who ever ran should try again....nada! They all need to be put to bed! We need the heart and soul of a strong CONSERVATIVE...with the clear and bold voice of a REAGAN. Not the right time for a BUSH! Just find me a Patriot....Who loves the country and loves us the PEOPLE (for once)!!!! I have one of my son's a wonderful coach... One of his sayings is..." CREAM RISES TO THE TOP" Just watch!!!

buckeyeman| 11.18.10 @ 10:50AM

"No one who ever ran should try again....nada!"

Did you forget that Reagan ran for the presidental nomination in 1976 against sitting president Ford?

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 11:40AM

Conservatives have not forgotten 1976. Cheny and Rumsfeld; Bush and Ford all opposed Reagan then. The accomodationist wing of the GOP has led us to defeat time after time. Why would we ever follow them again?

Bob Cotten| 11.18.10 @ 9:37AM

HL Mencken on the nomination of Calvin Cooledge: "It is as if a starving man, set before a table an acre in area and prepared by the world's master chefs should elect to turn his back upon the feast and stay his stomach by catching and eating flies." My God! Of all the double-dealing weasels to choose from out there, why couldn't we just cut straight to the chase and get Lindsey Graham? Where is John McCain when you really need him?

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 11.18.10 @ 10:05AM

I think I’m but echoing many of the thoughts posted above. Adding my two bits worth, I’m personally sick and tired of holding my nose when I vote. I started by simply pinching the nostrils between my thumb and the first finger, but with the new coloring book ballots, I needed to keep both hands free, so I graduated to wearing a nose clip. This year, a plastic pincher was insufficient, so I wore a gas mask. Yet the RINO nominee for the capital city bordello from my district still lost. Once again, I wasted that vote. Never again. Either the RINObli-c0ns nominate a candidate I can fully support, or else my vote, which will never go for a dim o’wit, will be cast for another. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again shame on me.

As far as beavisbud winning another term, at this point it’s not even clear he will be the dim o’wit nominee. sucker-tarry madam klinton or joe bite-me are more likely. I would not even be surprised if bite-me will be working out of the oral office before then.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
Don’t Tread on Me.
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Attributed to Albert Einstein at http://www.brainyquote.com/quo.....33991.html
Only 794 days to go

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 10:46AM

Good morning Gill,
Yes, I too am tired of always having to vote for a lesser of two evils. Tired of choosing massive big Govt or slow bigger govt. Enough. We need to present A Choice, Not an Echo, to borrow a phrase. No more accomodationist Republicans. Let the Left accomodate us for a change. It is they, not we who need to compromise.

bob alou| 11.18.10 @ 10:07AM

Mr. Klein, I disagree. I have held my nose and voted for the least objectionable republican candidate for most of my life. However, if Mr. Romney is the candidate I will not vote for him, or anyone of his ilk. Winning elections with people who are willing to compromise away our rights is what got us into this mess in the first place. Lord, protect me from "reasonable" men. Lord, protect us all.

S.L. Toddard| 11.18.10 @ 10:07AM

There is no bigger flip-flopping RINO in the GOP than Mitt Romney.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.18.10 @ 1:00PM

Yes there is, it is Christ. He flopped around so much he is not even a Republican anymore.

RCV| 11.19.10 @ 11:33PM

I could be wrong, but I think you mean Crist. That other fellow was not known for "flopping around".

RCV| 11.19.10 @ 11:34PM

I could be wrong, but I think you mean Crist. That other fellow was not known for "flopping around".

Jeff| 11.18.10 @ 10:10AM

I cannot think of any circumstance where I would vote for Mitt Romney. If he were the GOP nominee I would simply refrain from voting.

manonthestreet| 11.18.10 @ 10:16AM

Are you kidding me? If Romney is the nominee,watch out for a third party candidate.I don't believe Romney will win.
Out of everyone so far,I like Palin.Why? Because i know she will not go with the flow and she has the backbone to stand up against the machines and her love for America is beyond compare.

Jerry| 11.18.10 @ 10:18AM

I WILL NOT vote for Mitt the RINO.

Mitt may just get O elected again.

So sad for America.

Hank| 11.18.10 @ 10:19AM

Mitt Romney? Sounds vaguely familiar, just can't place him.....

Oooh yea!! Phony.

But great hair. Wait, that was John Edwards; now there is untapped potential!!

Resume condition normal.....

NeilBJ| 11.18.10 @ 10:21AM

The more that I learn about what's wrong with America, the more disillusioned I become with the establishment Republicans, even the conservative ones.

My views are now more in line with those of Congressman Ron Paul. In particular his advocacy of Austrian economics (free market economics) and his desire to reign in the Fed (he knows he can't eliminate it) are the issues that concern me the most.

Unfortunately, I don't think most Republicans are ready for Ron Paul. Certainly, the general electorate isn't.

For me the survival of America depends on a sound and moral (moral = gold) monetary policy. Until we get rid of the something for nothing mentality of the Federal Reserve System, there is no hope.

Ivy| 11.18.10 @ 2:19PM

Absolutely on the money, Neil.

I've read Dr Paul's book, _End the Fed_, and he has an incredibly good grasp of what's wrong.

I also believe he has what it takes to stand up to the establishment, and is certainly not one to "go along to get along."

If the United States are to survive, we must abolish the FRS.

The General| 11.18.10 @ 10:24AM

I think that former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum should give some thought to entering the race. He is a real Reagan conservative and pro life, strong military, lower tax rates and strong on capitalism. If he does and loses the nomination he would make a very good vice -presidential candidate as well.

loulou| 11.18.10 @ 11:11AM

I like Santorum but he is not conservative presidential material. He supported Spector against Toomey and is an establishment Republican.

Too much wobbly potential.

Dave Williams| 11.18.10 @ 10:24AM

No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!
That old RINO needs to have his horn sawn off and be put out to pasture before he can lead us to another glorious Dole / McCain debacle. Tea Partiers, get ready to rumble!

James| 11.18.10 @ 10:46AM

Palin was McCain's runing mate and she defended and what the country to elect McCain.

Isn't Palin the favorite among Tea Partiers?

I am beginning to believe that Tea Partiers have short attention spans or problems with long term memory.

James| 11.18.10 @ 10:46AM

Palin was McCain's runing mate and she defended and what the country to elect McCain.

Isn't Palin the favorite among Tea Partiers?

I am beginning to believe that Tea Partiers have short attention spans or problems with long term memory.

JeffW| 11.18.10 @ 11:25AM

And I am beginning to believe that you dislike the Tea pary and what it stands for. Especially if they do not support Romney. Your blind faith and worship of Romenty reminds me of someone else. Oh wait now I remember it is the same flavor of loyalty that Obama's supports give him. Blind, ignorant faith.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:10PM

Mythbots hate the Tea Parties because they know Myth can't win their support.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 11:34AM

"I am beginning to believe that Tea Partiers have short attention spans or problems with long term memory."

And you wonder why so many people don't like establishment Republicans? With arrogance like that?

Here's a clue, bud - you're not going to convince any "Tea Partiers," as you call them, to support your preferred candidate by insulting them. You will, however, effectively reinforce in them just what it is about establishment Republicans, RINO's, whatever you want to call them, that they so strongly detest.

Grow up.

Chris| 11.18.10 @ 10:33AM

Romney cannot be elected. Mass. health care..and he is a RINO..nuff said
I know Palin would make a GREAT president. She is a true conservative. She would surround herself with good people. She would make a great commander-in-cheif. Her surpreme court appointments would be true constitutionalists. She would stand up to all the world's bullies and put the USA first. WHY do I say this. Because in every office she has held she has governed this way. Most of all SHE HAS GUTS! Way! more then almost any other republican politician. And as a wise man once said "she's got guts and guts is enough".

Doctor Right| 11.18.10 @ 10:37AM

Has TASOnline gone completely insane?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, guys, but let me break it to you:

Mitt Romney will NEVER be President of the United States. And he will NOT be the GOP nominee in 2012.

Don't get me wrong; in another era, Romney would have made a fine President. He's smart, well-educated, is pro-business, and understands economics. But that era is past. Romney is Conservative-lite, he's not a "movement" leader. I don't recall seeing him at ANY Tea Party rally during the last 2 years, and that was obviously a calculated move to maintain a separation between himself and "the radicals". In addition, he's a notorious flip-flopper, and he comes across as a disconnected blue-blood. That last point is admittedly not fair, for I personally believe Romney to be a humble and decent man...But that's not how he'll be perceived or portrayed.

Romney aside, the GOP-establishment needs to understand a few things before the campaign begins in earnest in 2011:

We, the grass-roots, Tea-Party, Conservative activists have had ENOUGH of your crap. We would have thought, based on the recent mid-term elections, that you that clearly, If you intend to try and foist Romney on us, you don't.

In furtherance of that point, the era of backroom deal-making amongst the RINOs and GOP establishment-types is OVER. We are not only sick of liberalism, we are sick of you. To that end, consider yourselves to have big, fat TARGETS on your backs. We will be watching all of you VERY closely, and any of those that stray from the path of recapturing our country and restoring our Constitution to it's rightful place can join Mike Castle in the unemployment line. This obviously means that RINOs like Olympia Snow and Susan Collins had better be careful, but it also means you, Mitch McConnell, and you, Dick Lugar, and you, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of you fools, too.

The 2012 nominee, by definition, will need to be someone who is attractive to the grass-roots - period. To that end, we will NOT support another establishment candidate like that idiot John McCain.

Remember: We are focusing like laser beams on the House and Senate, too. In 2012, we can take over the Senate, and build a majority that can effectively block ANYTHING a re-elected Obama wants to do. If that majority is veto-proof, then Obama becomes officially irrelevant.

So if you jerk-offs intend to nominate another RINO, we'll simply walk away, and vote 3rd-Party for the President, and GOP for all the House and Senate Seats.

Got it?

Let's hope so.

RCV| 11.18.10 @ 12:07PM

Exhibit A on why I'm confident about Obama's reelection in 2012. The GOP is a coalition of unreconcilable factions that will not unite in the next two years behind any candidate who has a chance of attracting the independent and Democratic voters necessary to win.

Doctor Right| 11.18.10 @ 12:54PM

And, of course, the Democrat Party is a united brotherhood and sisterhood, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, and marching in lock-step towards a common goal, right?

I guess you weren't paying attention to the 43 Democrats who voted AGAINST Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday?? Gee...How many of those are going to become Republicans before 2012???

And who says Obama will be the nominee?

Get a friggin' clue, please.

JeffW| 11.18.10 @ 12:58PM

"The GOP is a coalition of unreconcilable factions" And the Democrats are united? Have you been paying attention? Hillary supporters are P.O's at the party, The bizarre far left is mad Obama didn't go far enough left (Ask Pelosi). The Gay/Lesbian faction is mad about DADT. The hispanics are mad about Amnesty. You name the "Victim" group on the left and I garuntee they are mad at one of the others. That has always been their way.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:21PM

Well, RCV, if Obama gets re-elected in 2012, there won't be a Democratic Party by 2016. That young man is the most incompetent party manager I've ever seen, and that includes Carter.

I don't agree with you often, but at least you phrase things in complete sentences without vulgarity, and I try to disagree with you in same.

But I think you underestimate the degree of Obama dislike out there. Most Americans really get angry about being unemployed while some dude is eating Kobe beef and bowing to foreign dictators. Sticks in the craw.

RCV| 11.18.10 @ 2:17PM

I'm fully aware of the current state of Obama's unpopularity, and I think you're correct in identifying the primary source of it: it's the economy, stupid, as James Carville so famously said.

But the tea party faction aside, I don't believe the current dislike of President Obama among the general public is personal. On the contrary, the surveys I've seen show that his personal approval rating is good - what people are dissatisfied with is the lack of progress on the economy.

More importantly, what will happen in 2012 won't be an up-or-down vote on Obama. It will be an election, a choice between two candidates. As I look at the Republican field, here's what I see: those candidates who engender the greatest enthusiasm among conservative activists -- Palin, DeMint and a few others -- have the least chance of successfully attracting the necessary independent and Democratic votes for election. Those Republicans who have the strongest chance of attracting those independent and Democratic votes are also the folks who will lose the enthusiasm of the hard-core of the party if they get the nomination. It's this conundrum that I believe will spell defeat for the GOP in 2012. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think so.

If Obama is reelected in 2012, the Democratic Party will be just fine. The energy will be directed toward the manuevering for the 2016 race.

Steve A| 11.18.10 @ 4:02PM

The fact of the matter is this: 2 years prior to the 2008 election, The Savior was barely on the radar. It is WAY too early to predict what will go down in 2012. Further, The Democratic Party is increasingly becoming extremely polarized hard left & has officially left the "just fine" reservation.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:12PM

We'll own the House and Senate in 2012, so Obomber's policies will be dead in the water anyway.

Ryan| 11.18.10 @ 10:38AM

I don't know if I have a horse in the race yet. If Palin was governor of any other state than AK (a state where the governor's job is to not screw up too bad), I might jump on board there. She's doing her darndest to emulate Reagan's run, but I don't think she quite has it in her background to pull it off.

I LIKE Huckabee, and think that the criticism is WAY overblown, but word is he's not running.

Santorum I could probably get behind - probably the closest to my values.

Romney simply hasn't proven solid conservative values, and people in the South would stay home if he were the nominee - simple as that. He was a Republican governor of the most leftist state in the union. No matter how much explaining he and his supporters try and do there, the fact remains that it's STILL Massachusetts, and you can only be so conservative there in any case.

His campaign has also been "buying" the presumptive candidate position and straw polls (the Southern PAC meeting in New Orleans was the prime example). Not exactly the most ethical and proper way to pull that off. They're acting like they deserve the nomination (and apparently were during the 2008 campaign as well).

No thanks.

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 10:39AM

Attractive candidate, but count me out. He is after all still his Father's son and a representative of the accomodationist wing of the GOP. They have opposed the Conservative Movement for fifty years. Why reward them now that once again Conservatives are in the ascendency?

James| 11.18.10 @ 10:44AM

The Tea Party hasn't done anything yet. You've elected a few people to office. Fine.

Now YOUR candidates have to actually "DO" something.

Without a majority, how do you intend to "DO" something?

What's that? You're going to have to "get along with Republicans and Democrats"? Huh?

I thought the Tea Party candidates were going to just walk in and announce their presence and the rest of the U.S. Government would fall all over you.

Get a grip Tea Partiers - the real work hasn't even begun yet.

And before you dismiss Romney as a "RINO" or merely the "ESTABLISHMENT" look to the integrity of one of your own - Jim Demint.

Scroll down to the videos by Jim Demint about Romney.

Then answer these questions:

1. Why does one of the tea Party leaders speak differently about Romney than you, one of the Tea Party voters? Why is your message inconsistent with his?

2. If you claim that "things have changed" since then, please tell me the "changes" that make the real difference.

3. And, if you say that Jim Demint has changed his mind about Romney, when he has endorsed Tea Party candidates and helped elect conservative Republicans, please explain the rational when Demint praised Romney's on health care reform.

Go ahead - let's here some of the great Tea Party intellect.

buckeyeman| 11.18.10 @ 11:00AM

Why does the government always have to "DO" something. Why can't they just "laissez nous faire" (leave us alone). The proper role of (the federal) government is to protect us from foreign aggression and to protect us from domestic fraud and theft.

Hopefully the tea partiers will UNdo a few things, starting with Obamacare.

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 11:04AM

You are becomming tiresome James. It is only when Conservatives had led that the GOP has enjoyed success in the last fifty years. Accomodationists like your friend Mitt have opposed them every step of the way. Besides, why do you propose that we Conservatives take marching orders from our opponants like yourself? Mitt ain't it.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.10 @ 11:53AM

James,
Copy/pasted from above:

James,

I'm sorry. Your thinking is muddled and no conclusions of victory except possibly in the person of Romney?

I am saddened that you cannot pick up on analogies or parables.
Sarah is not "far right" any more than Reagan was. She is straight unwavering right-down-the-Center....just like a grizzly.
...except she is upbeat and friendly like Reagan.

Guys like you just make me tired.
The "tea-party" conservatives just won the first battle with the RINOs in DC, ie: the earmark moratorium. Each journey begins with a single step. They yanked the RINOs' reins and took that first step.
Romney is a good man. I just don't particularly want him to be President. On the other hand, I would vote for him in a minute before ANY Democrat/communist, (pardon the shorthand).

Conversely, I would WORK HARD for Sarah, and you know what? She is smart enough to enjoy and appreciate Mitt's visits to the Oval office
............................................
Now allow me to let you "here" ("hear" is the proper term, lightweight), some tea-party intellect.
If you still cannot "here" (hear) the avalanche crashing down on the communists, (pardon the shorthand), led by the Tea-Parties, then you are deaf.
Let me 'splain it to you in one syllable words. The Tea Part-ies are sim-ply the tip of the spear. They were not too so-phis-ti-ca-ted this first time a-round. True 'nuff.
But!
We are mad. We are pissed.

OK, I have already gone over your head, so the remainder of my remarks will be to the true intellectuals here, (not hear).

Ladies and gentlemen, most of you hear (heh), have read and applied my book-length published works, both fiction and non fiction, for many years. My newest work is a work of fiction.

I could not publish it as non-fiction without being thrown in jail. Neither could I publish it under my normal pen-name you all know, without putting a Muslim terrorist on my front porch with a bomb.

I am even now writing the sequel.

I am 65 years old. I cowered under my high-school desk during the Cuban missile crisis. I watched the Soviet Union "Domino" 30 some odd countries during the Carter years. (I ran development projects in many of those countries.)

But, never before have I witnessed the "barbarians" INSIDE OUR GATES as I am witnessing now.

Let us not be mistaken. Our President is one of those barbarians. He is on THEIR side. He declared it himself when he called US "enemies".

If you want to begin to peer into the future of the next two years, buy the darned book!
www.texassaidno.com (to read chapter One).

PS: I'm the guy who has offered a money-back guarantee on every book I have published over the last twenty years. That stands today.
(Haven't gotten one back yet, (smile), but the offer still stands.
Best regards
Old Texican

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:26PM

Let me recommend the book of my friend above. I like to read 3 or 4 books at one time, and I put them down to do this. From page 1, the book was interesting. From page 6-154 (the end) it grabbed you by the throat like a mama grizzly and wouldn't let go.

I love military/future conflict SF. I thought Tom Kratman would be hard to approach, let alone equal. This one is fantastic and painfully believable. Get it, guys!

www.texassaidno.com .

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 3:12PM

Occam,
Allow me the privilage to second your comment re: our Friend Ken.

Old Soldier| 11.18.10 @ 1:17PM

The only thing I want Congress to "do" is to cut, repeal, reduce, and go the hell home.

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 2:28PM

Well Old Soldier, you just got my vote.

idalily| 11.18.10 @ 11:21PM

Romney did something. It was called Romeycare, and he signed it.

Oh, he also ran in '08 and failed to win the primary.

NO ROMNEY.

James| 11.18.10 @ 10:47AM

Here are the Demint videos:

http://www.rightspeak.net/2010.....or_19.html

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 12:59PM

"In just about 14 days our country will take a decided turn, and the direction will depend upon you all. I know many of you have been working double, triple or even quadruple duty for local and state campaigns (and even some Draft Jim DeMint ground work), and I’m confident all of the hard work will soon pay off.
We here at Draft Jim DeMint will be working without stop these next two weeks to ensure conservative candidates cross the finish line first on November 2nd. So, for the next two weeks we would like to ask all of our grassroots supporters to focus on local and statewide races. If you’re in an area with a strong conservative candidate and things are looking good, then please call a neighboring campaign or a statewide campaign to see how you can help. There are a number of critical races throughout the country where victory or defeat could rest upon your shoulders.
Thank you again for your support and action, and good luck to all of you and your candidates.

Draft Jim DeMint

Currently, Jim DeMint is very popular with the Tea Party, Evangelicals, Southern Conservatives, and the far right. My own opinion is this. As a Mitt Romney supporter, I'D WELCOME a Jim Demint candidacy. I could see him winning South Carolina and being very a formidable candidate in a few other southern states."

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 1:06PM

Apparently, even Romney supporters would support Our Tea Party Kingmaker & Presidential Candidate Senator Jim DeMint.

"Currently, Jim DeMint is very popular with the Tea Party, Evangelicals, Southern Conservatives, and the far right. My own opinion is this. As a Mitt Romney supporter, I'D WELCOME a Jim Demint candidacy. I could see him winning South Carolina and being very a formidable candidate in a few other southern states."

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 1:20PM

"Some will argue with those last 2 videos that, that was then and this is now. My response is, What would Romney have done since 2008 that would change DeMint's feelings towards him?"

ANSWER: 1. That was when Romney was running against Clowns like McCain & Huckabee.
2. Jim DeMint is preparing to run for The Presidency in 2012 Now.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:29PM

Tim*, DeMint thought Israel's response in Gaza was just fine. I agree with him ( in all things I've read---if you bothered to read my comments you would see that I'm quite consistent) but I fail to see the consistency in what passes in your addled mind for logic. (I await the inevitable blankety-blank followed by an obscene physical demand.)

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 1:51PM

Get Bent You Creepy Little Trolling Horse's Ass.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 4:36PM

If anyone is a Creepy Little Trolling Horse's Ass, it's you, freak.
You're a disgusting, filthy, lying anti-semite.
You also post under NUMEROUS screen names, including regulars here in order to set us against each other.
Today I suggest we have found out who you are:
Bob Armstrong.
Read this folks:
Under Tyrrell's article today:

Bob Armstrong| 11.18.10 @ 1:59PM
http://www.cosy.com/Liberty.htm

Welcome to the Sheeple , Emmitt .

Anything but recognize our defense of anti-democratic zionist supremacism ethnic cleansing against all our founding principles as the central motivator of the hatred directed against us .

Ron Paul brilliantly points out the useless absurdity of the TSA's sheep training : http://dailypaul.com/node/149693 .
~~~
You all will find the violent, anti-semitic, Libertarianism (he even quotes Lenin) that Timmy* espouses.

Tim* here was the only poster here whose punctuation was obvious. So much so that as he chose different monikers to post under, it always gave him away. (That of placing his commas and periods, et al always 2 spaces after his words). As I repeatedly pointed this out to fellow posters here, he now makes certain to punctuate correctly.
Except today.. oops. If you go to his website, you will see the punctuation in all its original glory.
So what's the point?
The point is to prove that some people just cannot conceal their insanity.
And of course to expose, yet once again the hateful and lying human being that goes by the name of Tim*, if it's him...
I report, you decide.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 6:13PM

Uh Oh ! Crank Lady Alert !

You Are So Freakin' Paranoid Nuts Crank Lady Margie.
Apocalyptic Crank Lady Sybil-Victor-Margie Thinks I'm Every Other Dude, for The Umpteenth Time.
She's Lookin' Under All The Bushes For Me.

I Got $ 1,000.00 Sayin' That Ain't Me Crank Lady.
Put Your Money Where Your Big Mouth Is Paranoid Israel Firster Smear Merchant AgendaKook Victor-Margie,

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 6:33PM

LOL. $1,000.00? And what am I betting against, punk? Thin air?

You're a lying little garbage man.

God is still watching you.

Do you really agree with Lenin's quote? Because it certainly suits you and your disgusting White Supremacist mouth.

We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, towards those who disagree with us."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 6:54PM

Golly Gee Whiz , Apocalyptic Crank Lady Sybil-Victor-Margie, It's Obvious.
I got $ 1,000.00 on the table that says that poster ain't me.

This Ain't Rocket Science Paranoid Crank Lady.

Now, Put Up Or Shut Up You Crazy Ass Fanatic Israel Firster NutBag.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 7:06PM

God will shut you up, punk.
He knows you and He sees you.
He doesn't appreciate what you do.
The fact that you have used my name to post anti-Catholic statements after my posts in order to turn others against me.
You talk about slander and nutbag and all of the other filthy lies that you spew?
It's YOU, punk.

So answer the question punk: Do you agree to Lenin's statement, above?

Because it IS IN FACT WHAT YOU PRACTICE HERE!

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:16PM

Look out, Tim*!! Margie's gonna get her gun!

Nice try, Margie; trying to blame the proof of your anti-Catholic hateful bigotry on Tim*. What a sleazy worm you are, gutless, too.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 7:31PM

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha !

Thanks For The Warnin' Patriot !

I mean to kill you in one minute, Victor-Margie. Or see you hanged in Fort Smith at Judge Parker's convenience. Which'll it be?
Fill your hands, you bitch!

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 7:33PM

Look who's back~ another scumbag Timmy* lying garbage lady.
You're both SCUM.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 7:40PM

SCUM : Society of Catholics Upsetting Margie.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 7:45PM

If you're a Catholic, Santy Claus is real.
You're a Godless, lying, filthy, disgusting human being who posts using my name and adding anti-Catholic statements to my posts.
You know it, I know it and God knows it.
You can play the Catholic card here all you want.
You're a phony little twerp.
The Catholics I know, including my own family are NOTHING like you!
God will be the Judge of ALL of us.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 7:52PM

Now, Go Tell Your Catholic Parents What You Think Of Our Catholic Pope, Our Catholic Priests, And Our Catholic Church, Lapsed Catholic Screwball Crank Lady Victor-Margie with the Big Bad Ax To Grind.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 8:04PM

I am NOT a lapsed Catholic. I am a Christian. Catholicism isn't something I can agree with, according to my conscience, or according to the Bible. I've had a lot of debates here and always about DOCTRINE and that is all, and I do NOT hate anyone but I DO despise YOU and your lies! Many have attacked me for disagreeing with them~ which is what you're doing now~ and that is NOT my problem, it is YOURS!
You use the issue to attack and also you HAVE posted using my name to add to my comments AND GOD KNOWS IT!
I am a Christian and I don't have to lie to make my point.
I have never had a problem with Catholics my entire life.
Anyway, you are hiding behind this right now~ YOU are the person with the "agenda" here.
You always accuse those who not Paul-bots of having an agenda but in reality~ YOU have one.
You are a rabid hater of Bible believing Christians and Jews, and anyone who else who dares to oppose your anti-semitism and anti-isolationist views.
You're a Toddard type.. and in the same vain a lying deceitful snake.
The Paul-bots and Paleo's are some of most vile human beings I have EVER come across.
And you will NEVER shut me up.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 8:11PM

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 8:18PM

And I'll ask the question again: would Ronald Reagan approve of Ron Paul's statement when he proclaimed it on national television, "They're terrorists because of us!"
He, much like yourself! no EXACTLY like you, cannot conceal your insanity.
Quote Reagan all you want. Anyone in their right minds know that Reagan was pro-Israel, and that he simply would not approve of this.
Ron Paul blames America for terrorism. And YOU agree!

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 8:42PM

Ronald Reagan:
“The United States has thus far sought to play the role of mediator. We have avoided public comment on the key issues. We have always recognized and continue to recognize that only the voluntary agreement of those parties most directly involved in the conflict can provide an enduring solution. But it’s become evident to me that some clearer sense of America’s position on the key issues is necessary to encourage wider support for the peace process. . . . the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel.”

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 8:15PM

Memo to Anti-Catholic Crank Lady Victor-Margie: We Catholics Are Christians Too.

Now Stop Annoying The American Spectator Readers.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 8:21PM

I don't care what you call yourself:
Christians don't lie.
Christians don't slander.
Christians believe what is written in the Bible.
Christians do not hate fellow Christians and conservatives.
Christians don't blame America.
Christians are pro Israel.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 8:26PM

There Ya Got It Crank Lady.

By Your Own Standards You're Not A Christian.

Ya Lie,Ya Slander, Ya Hate Your Fellow Christians......

Go Away Now.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 8:31PM

YOU accuse me of lying, yet YOU are a liar.
I have not lied.
I HATE liars, and YOU are same.
And I won't go away as long as you continue to post your filthy accusations and add to my posts.
Snake.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 8:54PM

Enough !

Get A Life & A Therapist.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 7:17PM

Hey Anti-Catholic Screwball Sybil-Victor-Margie, I Challenge Your Anti-Catholic Bigotry Face Up. I Don't Need To Punk Your Fat Ass on Your Anti-Catholic Agenda.

Now, I Want My $ 1,000.00 Crank Lady Sybil-Victor-Margie.

Pay Up & Shut Up You Crazy Bitch.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 7:36PM

God knows what you do.
He's going to care care of it.
Lying scumbag.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 7:46PM

You're Annoying The Other American Spectator Readers Again.

I Can't Play With You Anymore.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 7:50PM

LOL. Since when do you care about such a thing? With your vile hate filled posts!
Ranting on and on with nothing but cursings and filth?
But yes, do crawl back into your hole where you belong.
For now, anyway. Until the next time you decide to accuse someone who is a decent conservative of being something that they are not.
You won't EVER hear the end of me.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:40PM

Not only are you a liar, Margie, but you're a hate-filled, foul mouthed bigot, too.

Your violent fantasies and threats to other posters cross the line. No one at AmSpec creeps me out like you!

victor| 11.20.10 @ 3:04AM

SoCon:
"Not only are you a liar, Margie, but you're a hate-filled, foul mouthed bigot, too."

Doesn't it cause you to recoil in shame lying like that?

Margie| 11.20.10 @ 11:33AM

She has no conscience, therefore no shame.
"Patriot" SoCon is a liar and a coward!

James| 11.18.10 @ 10:47AM

Here are the Demint videos:

http://www.rightspeak.net/2010.....or_19.html

ann| 11.18.10 @ 10:47AM

I don't understand the issue of "name recognition"
Most people did not know who obama was until he ran for president. I never heard his name and I hope after the 2012 election I never have to hear his name again.

MikeN| 11.18.10 @ 10:52AM

Why couldn't Lamar Alexander earn the next-in-line nomination?

He takes Tennessee away from Gore too.
How about Mitch Daniels or John Kasich?

loulou| 11.18.10 @ 11:13AM

MikeN: Have you learned nothing!?

Alexander is a RINO.
We'd get Tennessee regardless. We don't need Alexander for that.

dadfly| 11.18.10 @ 11:55PM

alexander, another statist who voted yes on S.510, the FDA take over of our food.

Howard| 11.18.10 @ 11:02AM

I guess it boils down to a half loaf or none. I live in MA, Romney was reasonably conservative as a Governor. He is not conservative enough for me, but he is far better than having Obama reelected. As much as I liked Angle, Buck, Miller and others, the sad fact is that Pat Leahy is in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee, not Sen. Hatch. So more liberal judges will be appointed and Dinghy Harry will control the proceedings. I dislike moderate Republicans, but, I despise liberal Democrats.

loulou| 11.18.10 @ 11:14AM

The lesser of two evils? Nope. Never again.

Robert Pinkerton| 11.18.10 @ 12:26PM

"The lesser of two evils?" If the Society for Creative Anachronism ever fielded candidates, one could vote for the candidate who is medi-evil.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 4:41PM

So Lou, you'd vote for whom? It is all well and good to say Never again but what does it solve? By all means support the best qualified conservative candidate in primaries, move the damn party right. But if it is Romney vs Obama I am voting for Romney.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:18PM

Romney's a big government Progressive like Obama--it'll just take a little longer for Romney to destroy our country.

There's no damn difference between the two of them.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 11:49AM

While Palin remains the biggest GOP star and has a passionate following, when you get beyond her core supporters, voters are deeply skeptical of her ability to be president. An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken last month found that even conservatives are divided -- with just 45 percent saying she's qualified to be the nation's top executive and 48 percent saying she isn't. Tea Party supporters are split 48 percent to 48 percent on the question. Meanwhile, among the public at large, just 27 percent view her as qualified compared with 67 percent who say she isn't. Were Palin to run, she'd have to prove that she could build a functioning national political operation and translate her celebrity into actual votes beyond her fan base - Philip Klein, American Spectator 11/18/10

My suggestion to Sarah Palin and her followers is to seriously address this issue - and now! By failing to do so only underscores the perception she's unable, or unwilling, to recognize things as they are, not what she wants them to be. By not doing so only provides yet another reason to question her ability to lead.

My belief has always been for her to follow the template of Hillary Clinton.

I guess many supporters are assuming she will destroy her opponents during the debates and all of these concerns will just go away, and the remaining detractors will flock to her. Her sheer personality will save the day. To me, this is the Barack Obama strategy of 2007-08: something we rail against on a daily basis.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 12:03PM

I agree. I love Sarah Palin for her courage and her willingness to take a stand on things that matter, and she is a more skillful politician than she gets credit for. But I just don't see her overcoming all the negatives. I sincerely believe that there is a group of people in this country (and I don't mean liberals) who are unwilling to listen to what she says enough to understand that she makes more sense then they've been led to believe, and who therefore will not vote for her under any circumstances. My fear is that, in her futile efforts to reach those people, she may well suck all the oxygen out of the room.

I absolutely do NOT want a Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich type candidate, but I'm just not convinced Gov. Palin is the right person either.

James| 11.18.10 @ 12:27PM

The Big E:

Palin takes a stand when she can't deliver on it. I think you just want a talking head that will say what's on "your mind" nevermind that she can't deliver on it.

Palin is reactive not "proactive." She's prone to paint herself into a corner and not a very good predictor.

Most Tea Partiers confuse conservative rhetoric and conservative policies.

It does not take a genius to say what's on your mind. This is why she doesn't appeal to have the country - the only part that agrees with her are those whom she agrees with.

We need a leader who can build a consensus.

Remember, Tea Partiers are going to have to work with Democrats and "negotiate" with them.

Democrats are not just going to say, "oh, you've said what's on your mind, gosh! That's leadership."

No, they are going to say, "well Mr./Mrs. Tea Partier, thank you for your opinion, but we'll do something else."

THEN! Is when the real work begins - TO CONVINCE A MAJORITY OF LEGISLATORS TO DO WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.

To do so takes sound argumentation, conviction and statistical results. Otherwise, the very enthusiastic Tea Partier will have NO influence.

This is the difference between Romney and everyone else. Romney understands this and has the greatest chance of being listened to by Democracts and Independants. Republicans and Tea Partiers ALREADY know that we need cut taxes and reduce spending - duh!

It's convincing the Democrats to support our positions.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 3:15PM

1. Where, in any post in this or any other thread, have you ever seen me endorse Sarah Palin for President? Even in the comment you responded to I expressed my concerns about her candidacy. Do you not read? Or do you just not understand the English language?

2. "We need a leader who can build a consensus." Well, that depends on the consensus the leader builds. If the only consensus he can build is one in which all the conservatives roll over and the liberals do what they want, then frankly, no, we don't need a leader like that.

3. "Remember, Tea Partiers are going to have to work with Democrats and "negotiate" with them." Why? The Democrats won't work with us, they never have. Their definition of working with us is us giving in to whatever they want. If that's what we have to do to "work with Democrats" then frankly, I rather not work with them at all. Why would I want to work with them to achieve their goals, when they won't work with me to achieve ours?

4. "Romney understands this and has the greatest chance of being listened to by Democracts and Independants." Why? And why is this a good thing in the first place? Do you really think that the Amazing Magical Romney is going to walk in to DC and suddenly all those left wing Dems are going to see the light and be persuaded by his smooth tongue? If you do, then you have more in common with the throngs of mindless numbskulls who elected the current POTUS then I thought, since your reasoning is similar to theirs.

Oh, and by the way, what were Romney's great accomplishments while he was governor of Mass? Which one's would NOT have been trumpeted by a liberal Democrat had one been in office at the time?

(Sorry. I forgot. You don't respond to questions).

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 4:47PM

James,
Exactly how many elections has Romney won?

How did he move his state to the right during his term in governor?

What actual evicence do you have that he will be able to articulate conservative policies ably enough to convince democrats?

Where did he do that in his term as governor? A major excuse used by Romney and his supporters about healtcare reform in Mass. is that the legislature overrode his vetoes making the bill worse than the one Romney signed. If he is so great at reaching across the aisle to convince Democrats why did he fail so badly at it when given the chance?

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 5:22PM

Tom, you're wasting your time asking James questions. He won't answer them (I assume, because he can't).

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 5:44PM

Big E, you're probably right. But one can always hope. I honestly do not understand the romance with Romney, he has very limited accomplishments, and is awful at advocating for limited government.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:20PM

James is a paid Romneybot troll with an agenda.

I do find it funny that he attacks the Tea Party though. I'm sure Romney hates the Tea Party folks as well.

James| 11.18.10 @ 12:15PM

Bob:

Palin is a sweetheart but she doesn't posses the skills to solve tough problems or work with a diverse group of people.

Palin is great at a Baptist BBQ. She's wonderful at speeches during 4th of July.

But, she's a lousy debater and creator of good ideas to solve tough problems.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 1:11PM

I agree that's the perception of her anyway. You might just be right.

It's very simple for me. If she cannot grasp the fact that she has a REAL image problem, one that is not entirely manufactured by the "lame stream media", then she does not have the ability to be introspective, and thus, unqualified to be president.

She might be eliminated early on if she fails this simple test.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 3:21PM

"If she cannot grasp the fact that she has a REAL image problem, one that is not entirely manufactured by the "lame stream media", then she does not have the ability to be introspective, and thus, unqualified to be president."

Best assessment I've seen of her weaknesses thus far. My concern is that if she runs without having addressed these issues in advance, she will draw so much fire than it will be impossible for the other candidates to get their message out. In a year where our best candidate may turn out to be someone who is not well known nationally before the election, that would be a very bad thing.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 2:59PM

Sorry, Bob Grant but you've got to be kidding me! You're gonna reference Klein's quoting an ABC/WaPo poll??!! LOL. Klein isn't exactly on Sarah's side either if he's going to do this.
Please!
And just what exactly do you suggest as to "Addressing this issue?"
Tell Sarah she needs to change her voice?
Tell her to suck up to Katie Spurious on her next interview?
Tell her to not seem so... all American maybe?
Since when should a real conservative do one thing differently in order to try and please the media? And isn't it really the MEDIA both you & Klein are "concerned" about?
Isn't this the same baloney they said about Ronald Reagan?
Did he try and change himself for the sake of perception by anyone?
And aren't you the one who not too long ago posted at length here about your personal dislike for Sarah?

What a joke! It isn't that Sarah's "personality will save the day" because it isn't about her personality. It's about the fact that she is a woman of substance and she is a real conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
She fully understands what makes this country great. If we are not able to recognize this in a person then we are doomed.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 3:26PM

You also left out the fact that I mentioned I would support her if she wins the primary so maybe, just maybe, I have more important concerns than just not liking her personally. Admittedly, there are some aspects to her personality I find off-putting but can be overlooked if she changes her approach.

The author to this story just stating cold hard facts that you seem to want to deny; which by the way, proves my point.

LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. You tell me how will she expand her base without changing course? Her numbers have not changed ONE IOTA since she was thrust into the limelight 2 years ago. Will a reality show do it? Will her daughter (who has her own issues) do it? Will her non-stop personal vendetta against the lame stream media do it?

I'm guessing the average family in Keokuk Iowa has much bigger issues than some of the things Sarah focuses' on when she's in front of a camera.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 5:12PM

What course does she have to change, pray tell?

I cannot for the life of me figure out where all of you who speak thus are talking about that makes a bit of sense.

So how does Sarah need to "change?"
Sorry but you can say that "I prove your point" but I think you prove mine.

What's to change? Those of us who know the real thing when we see it don't want Sarah to change an iota, not for anybody.

My goodness she hasn't even begun to run!

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 5:50PM

Marge, poll numbers reflect the cold, hard facts. Science, reality. If she and her staff are looking at them (of course they are) and don't find the need to change, this is proof positive she does not need to run.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 6:43PM

Mr. Grant,
I'm still asking~ change what?

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 6:01PM

Margie,
After watching part of Palin's Alaska, I must ask, why would she abandon that life to sit in Washington? Not me.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 6:42PM

Hi Al Adab,

We don't know that she will. And she's said something to the effect that if need be.. and so she doesn't know yet. But we're talking maybes here. Is maybes a word? I'm sorry, Sheila will have to correct me.. it proves I must be a scumbag.. sorry I digress here.

I'm just sticking up for her because I know she's got what it takes, and she needs not change a thing IMNSHO. (That means In My Not So Humble Opinion for those of you in Bob Grant country). Anyhow, I personally do really prefer a man for the job because that's just who I am and I do hope a man with Sarah's guts and gusto applies for the job. Because if there isn't a man with at least her level of spirit and enthusiasm and it's just going to be another wet noodle~~ how on earth are we going to unite conservatives who want to get behind someone who means business?!
I know you know what I mean. :^)

Robert Pinkerton| 11.18.10 @ 12:00PM

"For better or worse, Republicans have a tendency to pick the person who is seen as the next in line for the nomination, which is one reason the GOP has ended up with lousy candidates such as Bob Dole and John McCain."

Though I may ignite a firestorm with this comment, I respectfully submit that the above quotation applies also to George W. Bush: His initial nomination appeared to me as a sign that the Republican party is played out. Mr Bush benefitted immensely from the opponents he faced.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:22PM

No argument here! W has been an unqualified disaster for the Republican party.

Thank God for the Tea Parties.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.10 @ 12:00PM

Bob Grant,

Well stated!
Get her newest book. (and see my posts above please.)

Get my book too, and watch for the sequel due to be published in January.

Louis Jenkins| 11.18.10 @ 12:02PM

A vote for Romney may be a vote for Obama. Let's be careful here folks and wait and see. Really, we don't have to jump into the fire until next summer. Let's look at all the candidates and pick the best for the election, which may or may not include Romney.

Ret_vet| 11.18.10 @ 12:04PM

For my money, a winning duo would be Romney and Rubio or Romney and Bachmann.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:23PM

Not RINO Romney--not this time.

mustang1b| 11.18.10 @ 12:08PM

The Repubs (or opposing party to the Dems) had better field a very strong candidate for the next presidential election. That should not be Romney.

james wilson| 11.18.10 @ 12:14PM

I don't doubt that Romney could win a general election. That is exactly what worries conservatives.
We don't want to know how to make Washington work, Mitch, we want to know how to make it stop.

James| 11.18.10 @ 12:19PM

James Wilson:

Out of all of the Republican candidates, Romney polls highest among blue-dog democrats and Independents.

This is the STRONGEST evidence that Romney could win against Obama 1) to beat Obama and 2) to prove that he's superior to other Republicans.

This is why it is a waste of time with the rest of the Republican candidates this cycle.

If you want to remove Obama and put a man in the White House who will reverse Obama care, cut taxes, cut the pork spending, and champion conservative values - it's Romney.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 3:29PM

"This is why it is a waste of time with the rest of the Republican candidates this cycle."

You have GOT to be kidding. No one else should even run? They're wasting their time? We shouldn't even hear what they have to say?

"If you want to remove Obama and put a man in the White House who will reverse Obama care, cut taxes, cut the pork spending, and champion conservative values - it's Romney."

Oh, so in other words, if we elect him, he will act completely contrary to the way he's acted in office before. And I should go on what you say, not what his track record is, right? Oh yeah, and no one else should even run, right? We should just ANNOINT the man.

James, with every post, you sound more and more like a Republican Barack Obama.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 4:50PM

James,
You are smart enough to know that any polling is useless at this point in time. Otherwise we'd be discussing who President Hillary or Rudy were going to be running against and not who Obama is going to be running against.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:24PM

Myth is probably rigging the polls!

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 12:34PM

...or as Barry Goldwater once put it, "I am not interested in making government more efficient, for I aim to reduce its size". Conservatives, even after fifty years of fighting, still stand for that proposition.

Frank Drackman | 11.18.10 @ 12:18PM

Can't see it, Romney's got Keith Olbermann Hair/Noone in Michigan gives a flip that his dad was Governor 50 years ago/Sara Palin will bitch slap him like the little rich sissy boy that he is
seriously, Romney's like George W. Bush without the rogish dark side that women secretly love..
and Who cares that he ran the Olympics??? Is it THAT hard to run the Olympics, give me someone who's managed a Bronx Mickey D's anyday of the wekk

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:24PM

LOL!

Delphine| 11.18.10 @ 12:29PM

No to Romney!

thatcher| 11.18.10 @ 12:33PM

Having Romney as our nominee will have the same result as when Dole was our nominee. People won't get out and fight for Romney.

James| 11.18.10 @ 12:36PM

The Big E:

Did you actually vote for Reagan? I did. I was adult during his presidency. how about you?

Your rhetoric is a non-sequitur to the real issues.

Here's your argument:

1. We need someone with leadership who will lead in Washington.
2. Leading means preaching low taxes, less government spending, (other conservative principles and NOT getting along with Democrats.
3. Democrats will automatically fall into line because Tea Partiers will "lead" simply because they preach tax cuts, cuts in spending, etc.

What? Are you ill?

This is absurd!

The issues isn't "stating" that we need a return to conservative principles it is 1) to get majorities that will implement them, 2) or convince blue dog democrats and independents to vote with Republicans.

Romney is poised to be the man to LEAD this charge.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 4:02PM

Yes, I voted for Reagan, eagerly, and I proudly called him my Commander in Chief when I served in the US Army during his second term. I also worked in one of Jesse Helms' campaigns, as well as for several other less well known local and state candidates. As for who's the adult . . . we'll let the readers of this thread decide, since as far as I can tell, you haven't acted like one yet.

Your recitation of the points of my argument are so utterly inconsistent with anything I've said that I can only conclude that you either haven't read what I've written or can't understand it.

Since it could be a communication problem, I will explain.

1. We need a strong candidate who can get people to energetically work and go to the polls in 2012.

2. That person also needs to be someone who has the leadership ability and competence to stop the bleeding and start leading us in the right direction.

3. That person cannot lead us in the right direction by accommodating the policies of those who have gotten us here in the first place, or by just watering those policies down and saying, "Hey, it could have been worse." "It could have been worse" is not a valid justification for doing something stupid.

4. Mitt Romney has a track record as Governor of doing EXACTLY what we DO NOT NEED - i.e. - accommodating the other side and then defending himself by saying, "It could have been worse."

5. Mitt Romney CANNOT defeat Obama in 2012 because, as should be evident to anyone who's actually been reading the comments on this thread, CONSERVATIVES WILL NOT SUPPORT HIM, and may even put forward a third party candidate. I'm not saying that would be the right thing to do, but the REALITY is that is what they WILL do. Their lack of support, especially if they do field a third party candidate, DOOMS any hope Mitt Romney had of beating Barack Obama.

6. THEREFORE, he is the wrong man for the job because:

a. He cannot beat Obama because he has no support among conservatives, and

b. If elected, he couldn't do the job anyway because he's too accommodationist.

Now, if you don't agree with my position, fine. That's your right. Reasonable men may disagree on matters of great importance. If you cannot understand my position, you're an idiot, and need to go back to Club Penguin.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:32PM

This guy gets it.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:26PM

Hi, Sapwolf! Haven't seen you around these parts for quite a while!

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 8:59PM

I come here once in awhile. Usually it's a ridiculous column and writer who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:44PM

True enough. There are a lot of anti-Palin squishes who write for TAS.

I couldn't care less what they think--it just makes me more determined to work for Sarah!

Bob Grant| 11.20.10 @ 9:27AM

Your a good soldier.

Simon Templar| 11.18.10 @ 12:37PM

Here we go again, as Reagan once said. The same old horse shit from the same old shovelers..the media, talking heads, RINO establishment, the elite pundits and so-called conservative columnist. Now, we all have to shut up and get in line and get behind a Mass. RINO or else risk complete destruction as a Republic at the hands of a socialist narcisist. You know...according to this columnist..George Washingtion could not get elected..he would be too conservative. Of course, this precaution is always totted out to Republican and conservatives every election..no one ever hears the elite media say that the Democrats must be careful and nominate a more conservative Democrat that could reach that 40 percent of the electorate that identifies as conservative nor that 40 percent of center moderates that are independent. No..they run whatever they like, govern any damn well they please..and the hell with the rest of us....the gigs up! The PEOPLE will decide this time around..not fucking Iowa, the Washington elite, MSNBC, RINO establishment, or the damn media. As far as compromise, what a load of crap. The only thing that is compomised in politics and Washington is people's morals, ethics, principles, and the reason they were sent there in the first place!

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 4:06PM

Simon, I agree with you 110% but please, watch the language. My 10 year old sometimes reads this site.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.10 @ 6:53PM

Big E,
doesn't your ten year old know what horse-poo-poo is?
Sometimes you teach me stuff, and sometimes you are a little too citified. Take your kid out to a farm!
Now...cow poo poo is a pile, whereas horse poo poo come in little balls. When they dry, you can have a southern snow-ball fight with them.

On the other hand when cow poo poo drys you can have a lot of fun tossing it like a frisbee. (except no one wants to catch it.) Heh

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:29PM

There's a lot at stake, Big E. Sometimes adults just need to tell it like it is.

Watch your 10 year old.

Simon Templar| 11.18.10 @ 12:54PM

James writes, The issues isn't "stating" that we need a return to conservative principles it is 1) to get majorities that will implement them, 2) or convince blue dog democrats and independents to vote with Republicans. Romney is poised to be the man to LEAD this charge.

The issue is awakening the public at large to the impending destruction of the Republic and the fact that all the Romneys in the world of typical politics as usual will not save this country. What the hell just happened in the last election? Yes, the issue is returning to the founding principles and values of this nation and electing very serious candidates like the ones being sent that WILL NOT COMPROMISE! Democrat Socialist politicians and their support in the media will not fall in line nor compromise but will continue to mislead, agitate, and obstruct the will of the majority of the people. I suggest you wake up to the reality and the facts right in front of your face. America is at a cross road..this is not the politics of 40 years ago.

James| 11.18.10 @ 1:23PM

Simon:

Why is it that the Tea Party thinks that along holds purists principles.

Worse, your preaching of vague and general rhetoric is meaningless to solving problems.

Standing on a soap box is easy. It's why Tea Partiers like Sarah Palin so much.

But solving problems is much more difficult Simon. The entire country is not going to change their views overnight just because you say that we should "return" to founding principles.

This is just plain good-ole rhetoric. great for 4th of July speeches.

In our REPUBLIC, you have to speak like a man with a vision - like Romney.

Here's his platform:

1. Defund, and repeal Obamacare.
2. Extend the Bush tax cuts - even to the richest Americans.
3. Cut spending - dramatically.
4. Put American on a clear and definitive path to balance the budget. Real results. Cut government programs to do so.
5. Institutionalize an ear-mark ban.
6. Enact genuine tax reform.
7. Strengthen the military.
8. Expand trade for American businesses.
9. Among others....

This is NOT typical politics as usual.. this is a conservative cause.

The last election saw a huge surge in candidates who said they will try to enact the conservative causes above.

Romney is leading the charge among Republicans to turn this into reality.

Blue dog dems and independants are not going to follow Tea Partiers just because they get on a soap box. This is the genuine naivete among Tea Partiers currently.

Romney is the only GENUINE candidate doing the work to turn these causes into a reality.

You're not going to "SHOUT" your way into power.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 1:43PM

Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey.
5 Tea Party Senators & 43 Tea Party Representatives Won from States across the nation.

And Tea Party Kingmaker Jim DeMint is preparing to run right now, for The Presidency in 2012.

Obviously, Now, DeMint Knows He's a Better Candidate than Romney.

victor| 11.19.10 @ 11:23AM

*Timmy:
"And Tea Party Kingmaker Jim DeMint is preparing to run right now, for The Presidency in 2012."

Aaaand you base this on what, exactly?

Senator DeMint has not staed any such intention. As a matter of fact, he has ruled OUT such a run.

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyf.....wants.aspx

David Brody: “There are folks in the Tea Party movement that seriously want you to run for President. Would you consider something like that?”

Senator Jim DeMint: “Well I guess I’ve learned not to rule out anything in life but right now it’s the last thing I want to do.”

Why are you pushing so hard to get this man to run, eh?
What is your own stake in this?
In other words, what do you have to profit by this?

A man convinced against his will,
is of the same opinion still.

Simon Templar| 11.18.10 @ 1:51PM

Really, that's odd... all that supposed standing on soap boxes with generic meaningless fourth of july rhetoric just lauched the most historic election win in the nation's history both at the state level and the national level. Hmmm. Good-ole-rhetoric? You give yourself away there! Oh, yeah, it was real easy, marching and traveling around the country, raising funds by the millions, knocking on millions of doors, and being called racist and performers of homosexual practices. Walk in the park! By the way we do not need the ENTIRE country, we need to wake up the majority. Looks like we have had some success in that and it is growing everyday. romney is not leading shit. We have had enough of a man of vision..by the way that sounds quite fascistic...and what makes you think he will lead the initiatives you list above? Did he in Mass.? He is great at running in front of the crowd when it suits him. Blue Dog dems? Idiot..they were all thrown out of office in the last election. look, You are nothing but a liberal, excuse me, socialist troll, do not want to offend true liberals...get lost..find your way back to Huffington. Lord, am I tired of responding to such dribble. You use the typical rhetorical techniques of the classic trolls out here....

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:29PM

B*llsh*t!

Romney has been sitting on his *ss while Palin and DeMint and the TPM do all the heavy lifting.

They fight day in and day out the Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Soros agenda.

Mitt is the "Hollow Man".

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:32PM

Yup. Myth is the oily used-car salesman of Republican politics.

We Conservatives don't like to be represented by phonies.

Rob3rt| 11.18.10 @ 12:59PM

This entire discussion and you people haven't said a word about one of the best who represents true conservative values. If you like Rubio, you'll love Gary Johnson.

http://ouramericainitiative.com/about-gary-johnson

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:32PM

Sorry---I lived and practiced medicine in New Mexico. Johnson was a nightmare in that state from a health care, particularly a mental health care, perspective. His stupidity contributed to a psychiatrist shortage that in turn increased Albuquerque's murder rate. Hint: it wasn't a left-wing or a right wing or a payment issue. It was a quality of care issue.

Dan Fitzgerald| 11.18.10 @ 2:34PM

YES!!! Gary Johnson would make - by far - the best Republican nominee, and would easily be the best President of our lifetimes (an admittedly low bar).

Not only a true believer in limited government, but a true practitioner of the craft.

Ron Paul said that if he (Dr. Paul) doesn't run, he'd endorse Gary Johnson.

Good article:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan.....-2012.html

Achilles Toejam| 11.18.10 @ 1:02PM

Romney equals the epitome of RINO. I need to know nothing more about the man and the way he lied about a talk show host interview with him in Des Moines Iowa accusing the host Jan Michelson of WHO radio trashing his religion and having hidden cameras, both are bald-faced lies!

Podcasts are available from the station website you can listen for yourself. Romney is nothing more than a slimy political chameleon who panders to whatever crowd is before him and paid back the gay lobby for supporting him by needlessly and shamefully instituting same-sex marriage in Massachusetts on his own and against their constitution after a court opinion that the legislature adhered to the will of the people, they rightfully and constitutionally disregarded that opinion.

Peter Giustra| 11.18.10 @ 1:03PM

If Romney gets the Republican nomination..Then its time for a CONSERVATIVE THIRD PARTY...Hes a RHINO

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:26PM

I agree.

The nomination of Mitt Romney will lead to a new third-party of conservatism/libertarianism.

The old GOP will then die out over the next ten years like the Whigs.

somnolence| 11.18.10 @ 1:06PM

Rephrase the question. Do you really believe that a majority of independents would support Obama over Palin? I'm skeptical that they would. Palin just might be in the position to do something unprecedented. There is nothing that says she has to remain in the GOP, and that includes money-raising ability. Now, I know that I've raised some ire by that statement. But if three or four parties run at over 10% of the popular vote she may move in for the kill. Ohio will be a very interesting race. Are you going to tell me that Romney has a lock there? I don't believe it.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:25PM

Palin is polling ahead of Romney in Ohio.

She and her husband Todd have WAY more in common with union members in Ohio because they are ex-union members BOTH. They can speak to the concerns of those middle-class voters. Ohioans don't like how Mitt is part of the Wall Street crowd that gets bailed out when they have losses.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 6:03PM

Speaking of Todd, has he been fully vetted? Don't you think that would be a good thing considering he is a potential co-president?

People think this through!!!!

This is not playtime!!!

Think what a Sarah/Todd presidency would look like.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:33PM

Did you whine this much when Hitlery was second in command?

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 9:04PM

Todd was fully vetted in 2008 so he's clean.

ROMNEY ....IS.....PLAYTIME!

Let's see...what would a Sarah/Todd presidency look like?

Great looking runner as POTUS with dynamite legs from her running, and a Hillbuzz 100% Scott Brown -approved hottie as hubbie.

Pretty damn good I'd say compared to the hunky bald Daniels or the high school gym coach Pence or the aw Shucks howdy-doody T-Paw, or the chubby-Huck, or the gray-haired nerd Newt.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:46PM

Mitch will need a stool to see over the podium.

Terry Ott| 11.18.10 @ 1:07PM

I'm not sure if it is a good thing or not a good thing that you are not yet talking about Mitch Daniels. It could be a good thing because of the advantage in picking up momentum later ... like making that strong surge in a horse race when coming around the final turn with the opposition starting to tire (or in this case, becoming tiresome and "overexposed").

But if there is no meaningful consideration by late 2011, we will have done ourselves a disservice.

idalily| 11.18.10 @ 11:32PM

I'd support Daniels. Totally.

That said, my dream ticket would be DeMint/Daniels. Daniel's more centrist social issues take would balance DeMint's harder line. Both are staunch fiscal conservatives. Neither are plastic, both have principles. And they should make John Bolton Sec of State. Sarah should be Energy director or head up the RNC.

Finbarr Moran| 11.18.10 @ 1:17PM

Does everyone remember that insipid liberal blowhard, Lawrence O’Donnell?

Appearing on the McLaughlin Group during the ’08 primary, he went into one of characteristic rants. This time it was an indirect slam at Romney via the alleged the racism of the Mormon religion.

Don’t think for a minute that the rest of the ruling class’s Greek chorus, the mainstream media, will not pick up Larry’s ruminations about Mormons if Mitt gets the ’12 nomination --especially when he would be running against a black.

What the hell is happening to TAS? Today, RET is telling us to deal with feel-ups from TSA morons who could not pass muster for the police department. And now another so-called TAS conservative pundit is singing the praises of an uber-RINO in the Tea Party era!

I am amazed that Regnery is permitting this buncombe!

James| 11.18.10 @ 2:01PM

Finbarr:

O'Donnel's absurd comments against Mormonism will flop. His arguments consist of soubd-byte one liners that will quickly be addressed.

As a Mormon, I am not afraid to tangle with O'Donnel - Mitt Romney isn't afraid either.

If O'Donnel thinks he has a sure argument against Mormonism's racist past, then he'd better be prepared to address how Joseph Smith was the first white leader of an all white Christian Church to ordain a black man to the priesthood in 1836 nearly 30 years before the Civil War.

So, Finbarr, imagine this - O'Donnel comes on and makes disparraging comments about Mormonism's past, and then Romney states:

Mormonism's first prophet ordained a black man to the priesthood in 1836. What were other Christian churches teaching in that year?

O'Donnel.... "uh.... I dunno."

Bring it on Finbarr - we're not afraid to remind people that most Baptist Churches remain heavily segregated because of racism from both sides even today.

In the Mormon Church, there are black Bishops leading white congregations and black General Authorities of the Church.

I can see the day when the LDS Church will have a black President.

JeffW| 11.18.10 @ 2:34PM

Now I understand your devotion to Romney (I suspected as much). I have nothing against the Mormon religion. But I do question why someone would blindly follow someone simply because they are of the same faith. I like Romeny and think he would be great in financial matters but do not at this time think he is the best Presidential canidate. And neither will many others until he gets more Proactive explaining himself on the healthcare issue and why he passed it. With the current bad taste in everyones mouth with the current Obamacare plan, he has a anchor tied around his neck.

Finbarr Moran| 11.18.10 @ 2:56PM

Did you even remotely comprehend my bloody post, James? If you had you would not be telling ME to bring it on. I have Mormon friends, James, so I know that that the charge would be a load of corn, James.

James, this would not stop the mainstream media, not just O’Donnell, from interviewing just the right people who will to make oblique insinuations that LDS=KKK ergo Mitt=KKK. This will be aimed at black and urban liberals who will immediately cross Mitt off the list. This, despite him being a strong bet to govern to the center-left and disappoint more on the right.

So you bring it on with Mitt, James, and then enjoy Obama II.
BTW#1: Someone who cannot discern the gist of my simple post on a web site deserves a bleeding RINO for the job.

BTW#2, Finbarr is a most respected, even sacred, name among the Irish. Have you got a problem with that, James?

Have a great day, James.

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 6:06PM

LDS President? Yes, just as Catholics will soon see a black Pope in the form of Cardinal Arinze .

Manonthestreet| 11.18.10 @ 1:23PM

How's Romney on the Social media? I didn't think so.
There's only one out there that can take Obama down from her facebook page,that's Palin.

Laura Grantham| 11.18.10 @ 1:30PM

Deep in the heart of Mississippi in the adult Sunday School class of the First Baptist Church in the spring and summer of 2008, the consensus was that Hillary Clinton was the most appealing presidential candidate. No Republican was attractive - not Romney, not Rev. Huckabee, and certainly not McCain. No one liked Hillary's stance on the issues and certainly no one would actually vote for her, but she was reluctantly admired for being the only candidate of either party to show she had a backbone.

If the R party continues to trot out the same-ole, same-ole, they won't win in 2012 either.

Palin, for whatever reason, is not liked by women (at least that's what I heard from women when I moved to Florida in the fall of 2008).

Pick someone with a backbone: Haley definitely has a backbone and let's you know where he stands.

Christie of NJ -- gotta love his backbone.

Romney will get you four more years of (D).

EMT1| 11.18.10 @ 1:45PM

You baptists found Hitlery the most appealing? interesting.....

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 6:26PM

Laura, I've heard similar statements. Females, conservatives included, have serious issues with her. Their dislike of her is all over the place so I don't have a good explanation but can only conclude that if she splits the conservative female vote, she obviously doesn't stand a chance.

I completely agree that Hillary, regardless of what you think about her policy positions, brilliantly moved her political career forward. She did every thing right.

Sarah, not so much.

(is now covering head in anticipation of predictable attacks)

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:39PM

Hitlery moved her political career forward brilliantly? Really? You mean by sleeping with Billy boy? Talk about nepotism!

You're entitled to your opinion--lots of folks fear Sarah, but you're wrong about her appeal to Conservative women. Many of us will work our tails off for her. Myth, not so much--in fact nothing.

jack carlson| 11.18.10 @ 1:36PM

If the Republicans have any sense at all, Mitch Daniels will the nominee. He DOES have one thing that all the others lack, a track record of success. And, he is a genuine good guy.

These two criteria should carry him a long way. They would definitely carry him through Iowa and New Hampshire. Although "social" issues are more important in South Carolina, Daniels "walks the walk" on these too.

I don't see South Carolina going against him because of these.

Terry Ott| 11.18.10 @ 3:52PM

I think you are right on Jack. There is a tone running through this thread that America is ready for an "Unpolitician". Seems to me there is now, and will be even moreso by 2012, a push away from "celebrity" candidates and "image" candidates.

Increasingly, the mood is: "Government and governing are 'serious business'". That's the key to a Daniels candidacy. If I am right, it won't matter that he isn't flashy and in fact it should help.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:41PM

Mitch Daniels--LOL!

idalily| 11.18.10 @ 11:34PM

Why not Daniels?

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:48PM

He's a midget and a socially Conservative squish.
No thanks.

Margie| 11.20.10 @ 11:29AM

Talk about ugly, "Patriot" SoCon:
Mitch Daniels is a midget, and Chris Christie's too fat?
You have the judgement skills and the mouth of a SNAKE, just like your phony pal, the anti-semite hating Timmy*.
You make a great pair.
Bound and determined for Hell.
That IS where liars go:

"And He said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
"Behold, I am coming soon, bringing My recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of Life and that they may enter the City by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood." Rev. 22:10-15.

somnolence| 11.18.10 @ 1:38PM

Palin is indeed liked by women. Just go to Facebook, don't take my word for it. Haley Barbour reminds many of old Southern guard paternalism deeply entrenched. He is a good guy, but really the same old story---namely too many ties to lobbyists. It is really time to declare war on CBS, MSNBC, etc. and think about vigorous, young fearless blood. The time for Palin is now.

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:41PM

I like the way you think!

idalily| 11.18.10 @ 11:38PM

Please, people, face the facts about Sarah. She is NOT electable. Two years and her favorables have not moved. Despite her Facebook presence, she has too much baggage. Not her fault, but facts are facts. Indies, esp. Indie women WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. Her demeanor is too cheerleader. Her voice is shrill. Her sentences run on and on and on. Give it up, people, please. She can't win a general election.

I love Sarah. I think she'd make a fine head of the RNC. Or Energy Secretary. But not POTUS.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:49PM

No one has Sarah's charisma, especially Mitch!

Aqua Buddha| 11.18.10 @ 1:40PM

Wasn’t anyone paying attention to the mid-term election results? No more business as usual. Professional politicians have job approval ratings lower than lawyers and repo men. People don’t want the “next man up”, the Republicans’ favorite m.o. They want the UnCandidate. Romney doesn’t fit the job description.
BO is ripe to be plucked. Let’s do it!

EMT1| 11.18.10 @ 1:42PM

Mitt Romney = GHW Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain. RINOs all.

No to Huckaphony either! He talks a big game, just like Mitt for brains, concerning conservatism, but their actions speak louder than their BS spewing.

Jed | 11.18.10 @ 1:43PM

Mitt 2012!

EMT1| 11.18.10 @ 1:46PM

Then it will be Obama II '2012 if that happens.

Moey| 11.18.10 @ 1:46PM

IMHO Sarah Palin is DOA as a GOP candidate. She is just as divisive as Nancy Pelosi except on the other end of the scale. She is certain death for the GOP if she is a candidate for president. Her progra Sarah Palin's Alaska was disgustingly nauseaus!

I think if Mr. Romney had a running mate like Rubio or Ken Cuccinelli (if the Virgina lawsuit is successful) I think that would be a winner of a package. The old guard needs to step aside and make room for some new blood and they need to ALL GET TOGETHER AND WELCOME EVERYONE INTO THE TENT! If they don't the GOP can kiss the election goodbye!

EMT1| 11.18.10 @ 1:54PM

Who builds "the tent"? All these repubicans ya'll think will win are nothing but democrat-lite (Mitt for brains, Huckaphoney, John "reach across the aisle to slap a republican in the face" McCain, et al.) If the libtards constitute how the "tent" is built, then count be as a libertarian!

Moey| 11.18.10 @ 2:25PM

If Ken Cuccinelli gets his lawsuit expedited to the US Supreme Court - he is going to skyrocket into prominence. He would be an very big boon to the ticket!

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:46PM

Sarah's Alaska was the most highly watched TLC program debut in the network's history. 5 million people watched it. Jealous?

Sorry to break it to you, but RINO Romney IS the old guard. lol

Andrew| 11.18.10 @ 1:46PM

Romney is the frontrunner now just like Rudi was the front runner in 2006 for the 2008 election. How'd that turn out?

James| 11.18.10 @ 1:52PM

Romney is the front runner with a lot of conservative and moderate Republicans behind him and he polls highest among blue-dog democrats and independents.

Tea Party leader Jim Demint is also close friends with Romney and campaigned for him in 2008.

Did Rudy have any of that going into 2008?
Nope.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 2:09PM

Jim DeMint is preparing right now to run for The Presidency in 2012.

We Tea Party Rebels are gonna Eat Romney's Lunch.

victor| 11.20.10 @ 3:01AM

*Timmy:
"Jim DeMint is preparing right now to run for The Presidency in 2012."

Aaaand you base this on what, exactly?

Senator DeMint has not stated any such intention. As a matter of fact, he has ruled OUT such a run.

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyf.....wants.aspx

David Brody: “There are folks in the Tea Party movement that seriously want you to run for President. Would you consider something like that?”

Senator Jim DeMint: “Well I guess I’ve learned not to rule out anything in life but right now it’s the last thing I want to do.”

Why are you pushing so hard to get this man to run, eh?
What is your own stake in this?
In other words, what do you have to profit by this?

A man convinced against his will,
is of the same opinion still.

RCV| 11.22.10 @ 2:14PM

And if he were planning to run, how embarrased would he be to find that his main cheerleader is a foul-mouthed junior-high kid, who's anti-semitic, anti-Israeli and a racist to boot?

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 4:16PM

Haven't seen a lot of conservative Republicans behind him on this site. Seen a lot saying they'll stay home or vote third party instead. Reckon that would help his chances?

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 7:48PM

Conservatives can't stand RINO Romney. His candidacy is DOA.

Citizen Jerry| 11.18.10 @ 1:53PM

The new Congress haven't even been sworn in and already the quantity of manure being shoveled down at Mitt Romney for President HQ is mind-numbing. I'm sure they already have bumper stickers, posters and boaters ready to go.
It just reminds me why Mr. Know-It-All was only p0pular on the old Bullwinkle show.

somnolence| 11.18.10 @ 1:57PM

Marco Rubio need to finish his six year term as a freshman U.S. Senator. Who in Florida would be a stellar replacement? I just don't think Gov. elect Rick Scott has the conservative credentials that Marco does, and we all know about a certain man named Crist. Rubio is too obvious, and it gives a heads up to the political enemy. It does not ensure the GOP gets the Latino vote either. He is of Cuban ancestry, not Mexican, and at times there is a pronounced cultural difference in each respective community. There has to be an element of surprise; never give your enemies a hint. That said, it wouldn't remove the RINO at the top of the ticket. Sorry, no go.

Kevin| 11.18.10 @ 1:57PM

Mitt Romney can EASILY explain away RomneyCare. He just to say it was tried at the STATE level and proves that it should not be implemented NATIONWIDE. Keeping it at the state level allows people to flee to states that have the type of plan they like. With a nationwide program you have to leave the country to escape.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 4:18PM

A better explanation would be that he did everything within his power to stop it, he warned the people and the legislature what a disaster it would be if it passed, but they wouldn't listen, and overrode his veto.

That would be a great explanation. Of course, that's not what happened, is it.

Long Ben| 11.18.10 @ 2:00PM

The problem with Romney is the light way he threw over Biblical precept for mere public office in Massachussetts . Joseph Smith was outhouse crazy , and Mormonism's embrace of bigamy at it's inception marked it as heresy . Because bigamy is clearly proscribed by the very Prince of Life , Messiah Jesus in the gospels . And in Orthodox Faith it is forbidden to add or subtract from scripture . The book of mormon is all unauthorized addition .

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 4:58PM

Ben,
How do you feel about that new fangled New Testament?

Perry de Havilland | 11.18.10 @ 2:04PM

Romney is *everything* the Tea Party came into being to oppose... he is a principle-free political weathervane. If he gets the nomination then the Republican party has learned NOTHING.

James| 11.18.10 @ 2:21PM

I think the "Tea Party" has been hijacked by the Constitution Party.

There is NO national Tea Party. There are pockets of Tea Partiers with their own "buttons" that they think will make the difference in a America - usually along the lines of Abortion.

thanks for the White House talking points though.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 3:05PM

Wrong AgendaBoy.

"The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal."

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 4:22PM

You know what would be cool, if in 2012, in addition to running candidates in Republican primaries to take down the RINO's, the Tea Party ran some folks in the Democrat primaries to take down the Blue Dogs. Don't laugh, here in NC, I know a lot of life long Dems who are just plain fed up with left wing nutcases running their party, and wish - sometimes openly - that an organization like the Tea Party would come along and help them take THEIR party back.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 5:31PM

Abso-freakin'-lutely Big E !

We Tea Party Rebels have been spitballin' the idea of runnin' Tea Party Candidates in certain Democratic District Primaries.

Proud Mormon| 11.18.10 @ 2:08PM

To all of you Palin palookas and Mormon bigots Willard Milton Romney is going to be our 45th President January 20, 2013.

EMT1| 11.18.10 @ 2:11PM

That's all we need: democrat-lite.

Mormon Girl| 11.18.10 @ 2:15PM

Second the Motion! I love Mitt Romney, I swoon over him. He is so handsome and charismatic. I am taking a break from studies at BYU next fall and going to Iowa to work on his campaign. I will do everything I can to beat the woman from Wasilla.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 4:30PM

Replace the names "Mitt Romney" with "Barack Obama" and "BYU" with, oh say, "Harvard" and you sound just like one of the Obama Girls from 2008. Hope your understanding of the issues runs deeper then theirs.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 8:34PM

What's the issue with Romney being a Mormon?

Hussein Obama blew that argument out of the water with him being either an:
(a) atheist or
(b) moooslam

A Mormon sounds just fine with me.

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 3:59PM

Oh dear Allah, I hope not.

Will Berg| 11.18.10 @ 2:11PM

ehh..Romney's about as principled as Palin...

EMT1| 11.18.10 @ 2:13PM

got no argument from me on that!

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:51PM

Liar. Romney doesn't have any principles.

RomneyCare proved it.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 2:12PM

Over Our Tea Party Dead Body's He Will !

Jim DeMint For President In 2012.

James| 11.18.10 @ 2:16PM

Jim Demint will campaign in 2012 for Romney just like he did in 2008.

Watch Jim Demint praise Romney here.

http://www.rightspeak.net/2010.....or_19.html

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 2:24PM

Horseshit ! There Was No Tea Party In 2008 Propaganda MormonBoy.

Jim DeMint's Preparing to run for The Presidency in 2012 Himself right now.

Romney will campaign in 2012 for Jim DeMint after We Give Romney A Primaries Beatdown.

james| 11.18.10 @ 3:32PM

Tim:

It does not matter that there was a Tea Party in 2008. Jim Demint is preparing to run, most likely, but will become Romney's VP choice in 2012.

Regardless, Jim Demint will not beat down Romney in the way you suppose. If he does, all Romney has to do is play these videos in an ad and it would destroy DeMint's credibility.

DeMint will support Romney - mark it here and now.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 5:21PM

Who You Horsecrappin' Mormon AgendaBoy?
Of Course it matters, Look at What Just Happened in The Midterms And Who Our Tea Party Kingmaker Was. Answer: Jim "In Your Face" DeMint.
All Jim DeMint has to do is Run for The Presidency,which He is preparing to do right now.
That says it all PropagandaBoy.

Ask Jim DeMint ,Who Will Make A Better President Now & See What He Tells You Mormon AgendaBoy.
Then Get Back to Us.

James| 11.18.10 @ 4:10PM

Tim,

Watch the videos and listen VERY carefully to the words Jim DeMint uses to describe Mitt Romney.

Nothing has changed since then, except Romney has raised millions for conservative Republicans and got many of them elected, MORE than Palin or Huckabee.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 5:23PM

Asked & Answered Mormon AgendaBoy.

Now Get Bent.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 7:30PM

Everyone's an agenda person to this idiot.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 11:22PM

Now, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie Tell All The American Spectator Readers What You Believe About James Mormon Religion.
You're Up Religious Hypocrite Bigot.

Margie| 11.19.10 @ 12:28AM

Uh, Derrrr~ whack job anti-semite freak boy Timmy* just got done calling someone a "Mormom Agenda Boy" and now he's sticking up for them?

You're such a two-faced liar!
Stupid fool.

Tim*| 11.19.10 @ 9:31AM

Caught Ya Again Anti-Catholic Anti-Everybody Elses ReligionThat Doesn't AssKiss The Victor-Margie Agenda Religion.

I Noted Your Obsessional Attempts To Try To Get In The Last Word.

I Say Mormons Go To Heaven When They Die. Now, Tell Us Where Practicing Mormons Go When They Die.

You're Up Fanatic Crazed Joisey Bigot Victor-Margie

Tim*| 11.19.10 @ 9:37AM

Oh ! I Forgot.

I Say Practicing Jews & Muslims Go To Heaven When They Die Slandering Fat-Assed Joisey Bigot Pig Victor-Margie.

Now Tell All The Practicing Jews & Muslims Where You Say They Go When They Die.

Let's See Ya Get In Your Obsessional Last Word Joisey Fanatic NutBag Victor-Margie.

Margie| 11.19.10 @ 2:00PM

Timmy*:

Take heed yourself:

"And He said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
"Behold, I am coming soon, bringing My recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of Life and that they may enter the City by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood." Rev. 22:10-15.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:54PM

Margie, lying is a sin against God. Remember?

I've read your ugly anti-Mormon posts, or are you going to try to blame those on Tim*, too? You have no shame, you worm.

victor| 11.20.10 @ 2:58AM

Margie's not Anti-Anyone, TimPat, She is Pro-Truth.
Are you?

And speaking of shame, it's a shame you cannot tell the truth, eh?

Margie| 11.20.10 @ 11:25AM

"Patriot" SoCon:
READ THE ABOVE VERSE FROM THE BIBLE!
YOU LIE!

James| 11.18.10 @ 2:13PM

Now watch Long Ben, you're about to be schooled by a Mormon.

1. Romney didn't ignore or reject ANY biblical concepts for public office.
2. Joseph Smith is the founded of a world religion that was just found to do a better Christian job than many main0line Christian Churches.
3. The LDS Church discontinued the practice of plural marriage in 1890. However, Abraham and Jacob were both polygamists. Jacob had 4 wives from whom the 12 tribes of Israel descended. When a Christian wishes to receive grace, they want to be adopted into the House of Israel - a polygamous house. How ironic.
4. A closed Canon is a post biblical invention. For 100s of years, there was no "closed canon" until Protestantism. It wasn't until the 1550s that the canon was closed. So, Ben, please tell the "divine" connection between the last book of the Bible and the "closed canon" doctrine in the 1550s.
5. In truth, there is no Biblical edict of a closed canon, there is only the later interpretation of the Bible 1500 years after the death of Jesus Christ when such a doctrine arose.
6. If Catholics and Protestants can close the Canon in the 1550s based on their vote, then certainly Joseph Smith can reopen it based on a visitation from God, or the very least based on his personal freedom.
7. By divine declaration, many times, The Book of Mormon is authorized scripture available for mankind. Obviously Catholics and Protestants don't agree that it is additional scripture but how and why is that significant when they invented the closed canon doctrine in the 1550s?

Ryan| 11.18.10 @ 2:24PM

3. Polygamy was NEVER condoned in scripture. Ever. It was actually condemned in the OT. There were a couple of times where it was practiced, even by "God's chosen," but they almost always resulted in catastrophe of some sort that God had to divinely repair later.

Standards for the closed canon arose as early as the 300s, if not before. Either something is canon or it isn't - it's not something we really get to define, particularly without real apostles (those who saw Jesus in physical form).

James| 11.18.10 @ 3:26PM

Ryan:

Your explanation of polygamy is not justified by the history of the Bible or supported by Biblical scholarship.

At the same time that God made his most serious covenant with Jacob, Jacob was having sex with four women.

Allowing unhindered IS condoning. Codifying a practice into the Law of Moses makes it a law. Making it a law, it becomes legal and God's law at that time. There are over 40 documented polygamists who practiced it under the Law of Moses - God's law. The claim that it wasn't condoned or that it was condemned in the New Testament is also not supported. Greeks saw plural marriage as abhorrent, (they tolerated multiple sex partners, but not plural wives.) Israel was a polygamist nation for hundreds of years, and even new Jewish converts to Christianity remained polygamists until around 250 AD.

The claim that Biblical polygamy resulted in catastrophe is absurd. The covenant with Abraham was that his seed would be numbered very high. This was literally fulfilled by the polygamy of the House of Israel.

Regardless of your feelings of whether or not God condoned it (which is false, all Christians seek to be adopted into a polygamous house, if they want to be the seed of Abraham.

Concerning the Canon, your opinion doesn't align with Christian history. Please cite the name the Church council that "closed the Canon" in the 300s. If so, explain the various list of canonical books over the centuries in opposition to a closed canon in the 300s. Explain the different Canon of Martin Luther, and the multiple canons that exist today in many of the Christian denominations throughout the world.

In fact, the canon was not closed at all until dogmatic articulations of the canons were made in the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, in the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and in the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox Church.

In view of these articulated and differing canons, Joseph Smith has every right to declare any canon he wishes and have it be just as legitimate as the rest. In the case of Joseph Smith, he was visited by the resurrected persons of Peter James and John to restore authority of to declare a new open canon of scripture. These four men saw Jesus in physical form.

I acknowledge that you do not believe that Joseph Smith saw God in physical form, but his claim does fit the pattern of the New Testament.

Regardless, the point is, that Christianity today, in its splintered varieties, can hardly realistically and authoritatively claim that 1) there is a definitive canon, and 2) that it is closed.

Ryan| 11.18.10 @ 4:14PM

Check the qualifications for Deacons and leaders in the church - "husband of one wife." That's pretty explicit.

Allowing unhindered is NOT condoning. One is passive, the other active.

Jacob's children didn't exactly get along, did they? Neither did his wives all that much.

NO polygamous relationship in scripture had good consequences come out of it. Jealousy among siblings; jealousy among wives; drawing away from God to follow the gods of other wives, etc.

Adam had one wife. God has but one - Abraham's seed, which is NOT divided - both covered by Grace from the Cross.

Origen had made statements about a canon, and St. Augustine more or less considered a closed canon in the 300s, and there wasn't anything written after the first century that was ever even CONSIDERED in the entire debate anyway. Were it "open" there would have been plenty of other candidates through those years until the 1500s.

James| 11.18.10 @ 10:57PM

RyanL

Uh.. Ryan, there were "many" canon candidates during that time. Many churches had different canons during that time. But I'll address that in a minute.

While true that Bishops could have only one wife at that time, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and others could have more than "one" wife. You say this is explicit but it falls short of being universal or absolute.

Later Bishops within the Christian tradition would have no wife at all. Then again, the wife idea came back into vogue - the ever changing world of traditional Christianity - it's hard to keep up sometimes.

As it relates to polygamy - allowing unhindered adultery while in direct communication with man IS condoning, especially while making your highest covenant with a man who is having sex with 4 wives.

Did God forget that adultery was contrary to his highest covenant in that moment? Nope. He knows that adultery and covenant cannot coexist. Therefore, it was lawful for Jacob to have sex with multiple wives, otherwise God made his highest covenant with an open and flagrant adulterer.

This is not possible. God doesn't make covenants with flagrant adulterers, therefore, Jacob's wives were all authorized in God's eyes.

Tell us the principle that God works through where he makes his highest covenant with a flagrant adulterer.

You also didn't address that plural marriage was codified in the Law of Moses. In the Bible, polygamy was legal. Why do you feel justified in mocking and disparaging God's law?

Your claims that the House of Israel struggled or didn't get along or felt jealousy as attributable directly and exclusively to plural marriage is absurd. You can't support this claim seriously.

If you seek to belong to Abraham' seed, you seek alignment with polygamous prophets and a polygamous house. I find that quite ironic. In short, according to your interpretation Abraham and Jacob were flagrant adulterers.

About the Canon... neither Origen nor Augustine declared a closed canon. Lists of canons were passed around for hundreds of years. How could this be, if there was a single canon officially declared in the "300s" which is vague. Also, what about the time between 33 AD and 300 AD? Was there a "true" single canon then? If the apostles all died out, could the canon have been still open? Can other persons decide the canon other than Apostles? You didn't cover this.

Was Luther's 1550s canon valid? Did his supersede the canon in the "300s"? If so, why? If not, why not? Cite the Bible for the answer.

If there can be so much variation over the centuries, then Joseph Smith can have his own canon too. There is no scripture or authoritative Christian precedent to stop him. Do the Catholics say that the Protestant councils are scripture? Do the Protestants say that the Catholic councils are scripture? Who is right? How do you know?

Ryan| 11.19.10 @ 8:46AM

There were legal issues in the OT that occasionally regulated, but did NOT create or ACTIVELY endorse, polygamous marriage.

Later Bishops followed Paul's recommendation (not instruction) about not being married. That's in the Bible.

Ummm...Abraham WAS a flagrant adulterer. Remember Hagar? That didn't go well. God made all SORTS of covenants with adulterers in Abraham's line (Jacob, David, Solomon) - he also forgave them their sins, because they believed and He credited it to them as righteousness. I am part of a covenant that God made with SINNERS. Not just polygamists, but murderers, adulterers, betrayers, TERRIBLE fathers, and the like. All forgiven by His grace, through faith, not of any good they did.

I don't think that you understand the Abrahamic covenant. It wasn't something that Abraham could keep in any case. God passing through the split bull on His own essentially meant that He was going to keep both sides of the deal - His AND Abraham's, and that He would take the punishment for it being broken - which He did on the Cross.

The proof that it was contrary to what God wanted was in the results - no polygamous marriage had a positive result. God made no active blessing upon the practice.

In the NT, you cannot point out a single apostle or verse that shows that any had multiple wives; there is nothing spoken about it other than the limitations placed on deacons.

And at the end of the NT, in Revelation? One bride. That's it.

Issues with polygamous marriage:
Jacob: Had one wife he didn't want. Showed excessive favoritism to Rachel and her children over Leah - who bore him Judah.
David: Where to begin...
Solomon: Israel led continuously astray because of his multiple political marriages. Children and household continuously at war with each other.

THAT'S pretty much just off of memory.

For the Canon, I didn't state there was a "single Canon," but the idea was bandied about for some time, and most of the books were settled. Luther was wrong on his ideas about pushing those books out.
And we don't "decide" what the canon is. It's not deciding, it's figuring out - the Canon is its own authority; it's just finding what authority we follow. The Canon became set by finding those standards that the books that belong had in common. The book of Mormon doesn't meet those standards.

The Bible has no "list," if that's what you're trying to drag out of me; just a commonality of standards and a few references (such as Peter calling some of Paul's writings "scripture.") given throughout.

And again, all the books considered were written no later than the 1st century.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:56PM

Sorry, James. We know you Romneybots want to make this about Romney's religion--but it's not.

Myth's RINO policies are what we detest. He'll NEVER be POTUS. Sorry.

e. cowan| 11.18.10 @ 2:15PM

I heard him in a radio show interview, where he claimed that we '....need illegal immigration...illegal aliens keep the economy going...'
Maybe with unemployment at over 14% in some states (the real rate being 17+%), he has changed his mind. Even if he has - he can just as easily change it back. He probably does or will support Amnesty - the DREAM Act - etc and all those other ideas which will do nothing except encourage another 10-12 million aliens to violate US law and come here illegally - assuming (logically) that eventually they too will be given amnesty. It is a never ending cycle of law breaking.

OLDRAY| 11.18.10 @ 2:18PM

Romney ,if you want a guaranteed loser. He RUINED Mass with his health plan . He has about as much crowd appeal as a wet sponge. I trust him about as much as I trust McCain. Palin ran Alaska well. She has solid conservative ,pro-American principles and stands by them. In many ways she reflects America. AND she can draw crowds And is an effective campaigner for Republicans. A great ticket would be Palin/Rubio..The country needs a really renewed Republican party. The new congress gives us hope for change.

Matt Simon| 11.18.10 @ 2:23PM

Good article. My only beef is that you didn't mention the most ideologically consistent, issues-first candidate of all, Gary Johnson. His record of keeping government small and efficient as governor of New Mexico provides a more compelling resume than the record of any candidate mentioned.

Gary| 11.18.10 @ 2:26PM

Guys, forget about RomneyCare, even without it, Romney was one of the worst Governors in the country.

This supposed financial genius ran on creating jobs, and yet his state was dead last in job creation in his first year, in relatively good times.

When he left office, Mass was 47th out of 50, ONLY because of Katrina and no jobs being created down there.

Past that, this political coward has been hiding under his desk for two solid years while Sarah Palin has been out there almost very single day taking the fight to the Obama regime.

Thanks to her hard work we just saw the largest shift in Congress since 1932.

680 democrats lost their jobs in state houses, with one state electing a Republican majority for the first time since Reconstruction after the Civil War.

Even now, Palin has been out there sounding the alarm on QE2. Loudly.

Where the hell is Romney? He's supposed to be the big bad financial genius. Where the hell is he? This should be his shining moment.

The fact is, Sarah Palin is the only serious leader really taking this issue on.

Romney is an absolute joke. He would be the worst mistake we could ever make. Even if he COULD beat Obama (doubtful) he would only slow down our march to full on communism, not stop it and turn things around in the other direction.

Just another elite, establishment hack.

James| 11.18.10 @ 3:35PM

Gary:

You said:

"Even if he COULD beat Obama (doubtful) he would only slow down our march to full on communism, not stop it and turn things around in the other direction."

Based on what policy or principle that Romney has advocated or advocates presently?

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 4:38PM

"Past that, this political coward has been hiding under his desk for two solid years while Sarah Palin has been out there almost very single day taking the fight to the Obama regime."

Excellent Point No. 1 - Where has he been? Why hasn't he been out their leading the charge? What's he been doing? Standing around with his finger up in the air trying to figure out which way the wind's blowing?

"Where the hell is Romney? He's supposed to be the big bad financial genius. Where the hell is he? This should be his shining moment."

Excellent Point No. 2 - If the BIG ISSUE today is the economy, and if Mitt were such a sharp guy on economic affairs, and IF he were ANY KIND OF PRINCIPLED LEADER AT ALL, he would out there everyday shouting from the ROOFTOPS about what needs to be going on to straighten things out. Of course, he supported TARP, before he opposed it, or was that the other way around?

Joe Evins| 11.18.10 @ 2:30PM

Ron Paul is the only republican in the national spotlight worth voting for, and one of the few I'd vote, Mitt Romney...well I think I'd just have to vote third party.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:57PM

Not Paul, Myth or a third party. We Conservatives have to own the Republican party.

Dennis| 11.18.10 @ 2:30PM

If only we had a couple more years, for Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio to gain more national recognition. The dilemma is that we MUST beat Obama in 2012 but we also MUST nominate someone who will be the anti-Obama, someone who will be a STRONG conservative, who will push to turn back the socialist tide, and who will be seen as very honest, sincere, patriotic, and capable. Romney seems to fall short on some of those counts. We need a Reagan, and the closest thing we may have is Rubio. Another good option may be Mike Pence.

somnolence| 11.18.10 @ 2:30PM

I'm certainly not a "Mormon bigot." I could care less if the candidate of my choice is an atheist or agnostic. Abraham Lincoln never joined a church. As a matter of fact, I supported Mitt Romney in the primaries in 2008 all the way up to the time he withdrew from the race. I despise all religious bigotry (although at the moment I'm not too fond of fundamental Islam). There have been young Mormom missionaries who dropped by my residence while I was raking leaves. They gave all appearances of being nice young gentlemen, and even offered to help me rake. I simply told them that I was of another religious persuasion, but I wished them all glory under the Almighty. I had an uncle who became Mormon by marriage. I do know that he also never gave up cigarettes or coffee until the end. Palin is no more "divisive" than Mitt or Obama or Hillary or others. And I do wish ALL newly elected members of Congress and the Senate would honor their committment to voters to at least serve out a full term. But a precedent has already been set there numerous times, so it is now irrelevant. Fortunately, not even Charlie Crist's pardon of Jim Morrison can now save him, other than underground mischief or lobbying.

Jaggers| 11.18.10 @ 2:31PM

Booger, you're a great satirist. Who is your candidate for 2011?

James| 11.18.10 @ 2:35PM

Old Ray:

For Palin to win, she'll have to win a majority of voters. She polls low among blue-dog democrats and independents.

How do you propose a Palin win?

Albert| 11.18.10 @ 2:47PM

"In 2008, Romney earned himself a reputation as a flip-flopper as he dramatically attempted to reshape himself as a stanch conservative despite having previously staked out liberal positions on abortion, guns, immigration and a litany of other issues." First, I beleive the word is "staunch." (I don't type well either.) Second, this sentence demonstrates exactly why Romney should NOT be the Republican nominee. I don't trust him. Let him PROVE his conservative credentials before moving on to the White House. Perhaps if Romney joined the Tea Party movement and adopted its positions, I might re-examine his candidacy. But as for now, there is no way I would vote for him.

gary | 11.18.10 @ 2:51PM

2012 will have plenty of tax issues and we're becomming ripe for trashing the whole system. Over Romney's dead status quo body that is.
FairTaxNation.com

Hebron | 11.18.10 @ 3:08PM

Folks, stop hammering around and trying to figure out how some half hearted Republican maybe get elected. Everyone get behind Mike Pence of Indiana. He has the qualifications, is clean as far as I can find out, and is a true blood conservative.

For pete's sake, let's get together before the primaries begin and put this guy in the front seat.

I almost didn't vote in 2008, I only did because I didn't want Obama to win. I hope that doesn't be the case again. Romney, Gingrich, Palin, Huckabee, et al, might make a fair president. But we don't want a fair president, we want one who will stand up and answer the peoples calls.

Michael Handley| 11.18.10 @ 3:15PM

I might consider him but I don't know enough about him yet. He needs to get out and make some speeches. I do like his record so far..

Carol | 11.18.10 @ 3:09PM

no way do I want someone who lost to run again

Dutch| 11.18.10 @ 3:09PM

GOOD GRIEF! Tone things down! We're sounding like liberals.
Romney would is an acceptable Republican candidate by any sane measure. Wish we had him in there now.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:59PM

You're wrong, Dutch--Progressive RINO Romney is just democrat-lite. I'll never vote for a RINO again; McCain cured me of that!

TINA| 11.18.10 @ 3:10PM

Romney is a RINO and will not get my vote
Out of all of the candidates mentioned the only one I would even consider voting for is Palin.
She is the only reason McCain got my vote.
If the Republican party candidates are the same "good ole Boys" they put up last time then the United States will see 4 more years of Obozo.

Patriot| 11.20.10 @ 12:59AM

I agree!

Michael Handley| 11.18.10 @ 3:12PM

In the 2112 election, i'm not looking for anyone who has run for the office before. I want to see someone who is not being talked about on the national stage yet, but someone who has a lot of practical experience in problem solving and a lot of common sense. You know, someone who might just be able to bring some sanity back to Washington. I don't know who that person is but I am looking.

Viper1| 11.18.10 @ 3:32PM

It is astonishing that people on both sides of the political fence continue--perhaps because of some deepseated, perverse need to do so--continue to marginalize Palin despite the fact that she continues to almost effortlessly navigate the land mines placed in front of her.

James asked a fair question but one which suggests he is unaware of how Palin could win a national election. The answer seems pretty obvious: first get the nomination and given the trajectory Obama is on, cash in on what may be my November 2012 a MASSIVE ABO segment of the election--"ABO" being anybody but Obama.

Given that polls indicate the democrats suffered a historic defeat two weeks ago with less than 25% of the electorate voting because it was believed the republicans were a better alternative but because they were enraged about democratic hubris and incompetence, it is not a reach to suggest a President could be voted in merely on the basis because he or she was simply not Obama nor could inflict much more harm on the country.

Never underestimate the compelling power of being considered incompetent. (A few weeks ago polls suggested Palin had clawed her way back from 25-points down to Obama to eight 54-46.
And suffice it to say, we are not inside the two-minute warning, here. There is more than enough time for Obama to make the requisite number of grievous miscalculations to sink him. Furthermore,
Palin is not in a position to make the magnitude of mistakes a President can.

Insofar as "blue-dog democrats" go, they are a non-factor in the equation. Independents, of course, are essential to election, and they have and are abandoning Obama at Warp speed, while Palin is picking up traction with them, slowly but measurably.

The really important face-down card on the table, however, is hispanics. They, too, are no longer enamored of Obama and with the elections of Marco Rubio and Susan Martinez--both strong backers of Palin-- there is a chance enough hispanic voters could be pryed away from the left to help Palin while eroding Obama's diminishing number of supporters.

Finally, Romney is far from nailing down the nomination. Right now he has a three-point lead over Palin and Gingrich. Try this hypothetical on: There is no clear-cut leader with a majority of the delegates in his pocket approaching the convention. Romney holkds 48% of the delegates, with Palin having 35%, Gingrich, 12%, and Rubio with 4% as a write in.

So, we have a "brokered convention" with the two likely leaders trying to cut deals with the lesser candidates. 1923 is the best example of this happening with 1976 running second.

Soooo...Gingrich realizes he is done and Palin offers him the V.P. slot in exchange for his delegates. Now she's 1% behind Romney and pushes ahead when Rubio (who INVITED Palin to Florida even when he was spanking Charlie Crist) does some horsetrading with him (a sweet cabinet deal so he won't have to make his run in 2020 with a long congressional record) and Rubio sends his 4% of the delegates Palin's way and it's turn out the
lights for Romney.

And Obama? He still thinks he's cruising and he's bought into the "Please let it be Palin" business.

During the debates he is grievously unprepared for the fact that she knows more about the energy--national security--national debt problem than any politician in either party (which she does) if you watched her 2009 speech on the subject and Palin keeps working the energy issue into the debates like a prizefighter using body punches.

(Also, free of McCain's disastrous shortleash to go after the skeletons in Obama's closets, Palin hits the campaign trail with this challenge:)

"Let's make a deal: total candidate transparency. Nothing is off limits--except family and kids. They can talk to anyone they want about me; see any records (Palin knows they already have tried and fired blanks) but the President has to do the same. Let's see those college transcripts. See what was going on with Tony Rezko and Alexi Giannoulis. Find out how it was sealed divorce records of his opponents while running for congress were leaked to the press. Is it a deal? Can we play "Get to Really Know Your Commander in Chief?"

Palin has one thing no0 other candidate on the right has shown yet: fearlessness. Who else has had the chps to say they can beat Obama. Romney may think it but he hasn't said it.

It's this kind of near recklessness that often makes one the best trial attorney, surgeon, quarterback, or fighter pilot.

People may hate it but they don't know what to do about it.

James| 11.18.10 @ 3:45PM

Viper1:

Palin IS a sweetheart but your comments are just dreams of grandure for a gal who won't be able to appeal to a majority of the population.

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in HIGH NUMBERS do not believe that she has the experience, the business smarts, the management acumen to actually "DO" the job of President.

How does this sentiment change between now and the 2012 election with just speeches?

being outpsoken is a "populist message practice" but it doesn't translated into powerful management skills.

Saying that we need change when so many people are suffering is "reckless?"

Saying that we can't afford Obamacare when the country is broke is "reckless" and courageous?

And remember 2008? The COUNTRY rejected Palin in the general election, overwhelmingly.

Palin may inch her way to the nomination but she'll go down in flames propelling Obama to another 4 years.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 5:49PM

Romney was unable to win the nomination in 08. What makes you think he can win the general election in 12?

I do not think Palin is electable, but the country rejected McCain not Palin.

MrsPie| 11.18.10 @ 3:33PM

MARCO, MARCO, MARCO! Stale old Repub party...bring in the fresh faces.

Alan| 11.18.10 @ 3:37PM

Mitt has to take responsibility for the debacle here in Mass. called RomneyCare. He had the responsibility of vetoing this and letting this mess be the wholly owned subsidiary of the democrat controlled legislature. On the flip side, if he had acted on illegal immigration in the first month of his administration rather than the last month, this matter may have gone differently. Mass. taxpayers have had to pay $35.7 million in free emergency health care so far this year on 52,000 illegals under the administration of Deval Patrick.

James| 11.18.10 @ 3:46PM

No Alan, Romney is NOT responsible for Romneycare and its problems.

He proposed a different bill altogether which the MA legislature changed and overrode him.

To lay these problems at the feet of Romney is to make a bold face lie.

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 3:56PM

Brother James,
Give it up. He signed the bill afterall and what business is it of government to ration or provide any type of care?

James| 11.18.10 @ 4:06PM

Al:

Romney responded to the Health Care crisis because of the mandate signed by Ronald Reagan that no one could be turned away from emergency room visits.

In MA, people weren't getting insurance, only to show up and expect their "government health care."

Why?
Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which the Democratic Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed in 1986, providers of medical care must give stabilizing care to people who need it, regardless of ability to pay.

To close the shortfall, a new mandate was made to prevent citizens from running up the tab on government.

Without Ronald Reagan's mandate, there would have been no need for Romney's privatized insurance mandate to close the gap.

So by criticizing Romney, you're actually criticizing the greatest conservative of them all - Ronald Reagan.

What do you think is going to happen to the debate when the public finds out about this?

They'll understand Romney's rationale to support Reagan's law and balance the budget. By the way, States can constitutionally make and enforce those kinds of mandates - Federal Governments can't.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:22PM

You do realize you are only digging a BIGGER hole for Romney when you try to defend the indefensible?

Give it up. The only way he wins the primary is if the conservative vote is split. If Huckabee does not run, Palin will beat Mitt. Huck knows he can't win because he can't raise the money and he is another one-trick pony for socons but that is it.

James| 11.18.10 @ 5:30PM

Sap:

These are the FACTS of the case, not just the talking points of the Obama White House.

Romney has already announced that he'd but a stake through Obamacare faster than anyone, defund it and repeal it.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 5:52PM

The numbers do not back you up. Those able to pay for hospital visits are made to pay. The fact that hospitals could not turn away emergency room visits did not mean they are not able to charge for them. The costs of un-reimbursed care is extremely small and could have been handled in ways far less expansive than MassCare.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 9:07PM

The problem you forget is that Mitt is

NOT a man of his word.

If Palin made the commitment, you and I both know it is GOLD. Same with DeMint.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:01PM

It's disgusting that Mythbots pretend that Romney is not responsible for RomneyCare. They sound just like the despicable Nanzi Pelousy.

Romney Can't Win| 11.18.10 @ 3:37PM

I believe that Republicans should learn from the Democrats who found an unknown rising star in their ranks who had the charisma and the skin color and the oratorical skills needed .... none other than Barrack Hussein Obama. It did not matter that he was inexperienced, unqualified and an unapologetic leftist radical. He was pretty and he talked good and did I mention, he had the correct skin color. Not only did all of those things win him the nomination over the "can't lose" candidate and the old guard politicians, they also won him the Presidency over a weak RINO Republican.

So who is this unknown Republican star? It can't be Romney. It can't be Palin. It can't be Gingrich. It can't be Huckabee. Pawlenty? Good grief!

Only two choices make sense: Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. Both can stand up to the barrages and attacks from the liberal media and the lying Democrats. Both have a talent for speaking. Both are good conservatives. But only one of them has a good skin color, Rubio. (Sorry, Chris)

I think the Republican ticket for 2012 should be Rubio-Crist. That is a winner!

Al Adab| 11.18.10 @ 3:55PM

We assume you meant Rubio -Christie as the other would have both from the same state which is not allowed.

James| 11.18.10 @ 3:58PM

Romney will take the nomination in 2012 and beat Obama. DeMint will be his VP.

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 4:43PM

Romney doesn't have the courage to put a stake through the heart of ObamaCare. He never had the courage to reign in spending in Massachusetts and never produced anything of consequence. He just "compromised". We need a Commander in Chief who will defend us not compromise....

James| 11.18.10 @ 5:28PM

This is absolutely false.

He's already announced that he'll put a stake through Obamacare by repealing it completely.

He didn't compromise with the MA legislature. They overrode him.

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 5:54PM

James,
So Romney is unable to convince Democrats to cross the aisle? What exactly is the justification for his election then?

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:02PM

Myth can't get Conservatives so he'll never be POTUS. Sorry.

Tim*| 11.18.10 @ 5:00PM

Asked & Answered Mormon AgendaBoy.

DeMint is preparing to run for The Presidency now.

Romney can carry his jockstrap, if he's a good boy.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 8:49PM

OMG! How anti-Mormon of you! Why, you BIGOT!
You anti-Mormon fat assed white pig! How DARE you!

HAhaha! Hypocrite.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:04PM

Foul-mouthed worm Margie has struck again!
Tim* didn't say anything bigoted toward Mormons like you have, weasel.

Margie| 11.20.10 @ 11:22AM

Foul mouthed, you say? hmmmm.
Get ye behind me, Paul-bot!

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 4:51PM

I like the idea of a Chris Christie candidacy. It takes some serious cajones to do what he's done in NJ, you've gotta respect his results.

I also like Bobby Jindal. He's been a strong governor during a difficult time, got done what had to be done even in the face of opposition from FedGovt itself.

I like Rubio, I think he could be a future star, but I'm not sure he'll be ready in 2012.

I want to hear more from Pence and Ryan. I like what I've heard from them so far, but I don't feel I know as much about them as I should.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:15PM

Christie is not a conservative outside of the New Jersey state budget. No go. Although his videos smacking the teachers union are political porn.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 5:32PM

I agree that Christie's not as conservative as Jindal, Rubio, etc. But the fact is he's shrinking the size of NJ's govt and moving the state to the right. It's hard to argue with results like that.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:19PM

Unlike Palin, Rubio has little leadership experience. At best, he would be a VP and learn the first year.

Christie is not a conservative and thereby should not be POTUS. He is a one-trick pony on state budget issues.

The GOP candidate must be a conservative across the board to attract all in the tent plus be able pick off Reagan Dems.

idalily| 11.18.10 @ 11:46PM

Christie has repeatedly said he WILL NOT RUN. Give it up people.

Mrs. Pie| 11.18.10 @ 3:40PM

Who the hell was Obama a few years ago? He was the "rising star" of the Socialist, er uh Democrat Party. I don't think I want to have to choose between the "lesser of two evils" again...Newt, Mitt, ugh. New blood, that's the ticket.

konastephen| 11.18.10 @ 3:45PM

Klein is dead wrong. Mitt is not a real conservative and he's far from likely to walk away with the GOP 2012 nomination. Even real old conservatives like Dan Quayle have noted as much recently. This midterm primary season ought to be an indicator to analysts like Klein that Reagan conservatives are not the ignorant stepchildren that Bush Sr. so blithely abused anymore. We voted for Reagan the way many young people voted for Obama this time around. Since Reagan we've figured out what we believe and why. We know that he was who he said he was and not who Dan Rather and Peter Jennings said he was. We're all grown up now and we can spot a faker when we see one. Besides his questionable conservatism, which seems a lot like Bill Clinton's in that he puts in on with his Brooks Bros suits in the morning, Romney is a Mormon archbishop and anyone who knows anything about the teleology of the Mormon Church knows that we don't want them running the world's number one superpower. Regardless, there will be enough people both in the GOP and the nation to make Mitt moot in 2012.

reformist55| 11.18.10 @ 3:48PM

For better or worse, Republicans have a tendency to pick the person who is seen as the next in line for the nomination...........who are the "Republicans" we are talking about here? Certainly, not the people "Republicans". This is hierarchy talk that is being thrown out by the hierarchy to get the lowly people "Republicans" to thinking they have no choice but Romney. WE, the people will not be fooled again. So, wise up Good Ole Boys, you are done!

Sally| 11.18.10 @ 3:58PM

Fox New is propping up Sarah Palin. Without Fox, she wouldn't be popular.

Concerned Conservative| 11.18.10 @ 4:42PM

Ditto on that.

Palin couldn't even finish her Governorship. And people actually believe she's qualified to be leader of the free world?

Please...

IRatiocinate| 11.18.10 @ 4:51PM

I really like Sarah Palin. She had good reason for stepping down before she finished her first term as Governor--and I think she has made good effective use of her celebrity since then. She clearly is going to continue to be an influence for conservative values.

But I agree, resigning as governor pretty much obviates any run for office on her part.

We are all assembling "dream teams"--and I can see Sarah Palin in a cabinet post in a Huckabee administration.

I don't want to see Romney anywhere in elected office. Surely he can buy his way into a university presidency somewhere.

konastephen| 11.20.10 @ 3:54PM

I can't agree with you here, ratiocinate. Why would stepping down as governor rule her out for the presidency. She showed that she cares more deeply about the values we in the Tea Party all share than she does about holding office. That's the opposite of all the RINOs and all the country club elite power-mongers. By stepping down for the sake of conservatism Palin proved that she is exactly the kind of person we want for POTUS.

konastephen| 11.20.10 @ 4:12PM

And as to Huckabee... I like the guy. But he could turn out to be no better than W (God bless him). He's that evangelical who has no real grasp of realpolitik or economics.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:09PM

No Fox is not. There are plenty of people at Fox that don't like Sarah. The off-stage people love Sarah, but the on-stage egos are divided.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:06PM

Fox is responsible for Palin's huge following!! I haven't heard that one yet! What a joke.

LG| 11.18.10 @ 4:30PM

"Romney appears to be the most likely to win the right to challenge President Obama."

If you haven't noticed Klein, most of us just aren't into Governor Goodhair. Try to spin his flip-flops and RomneyCare all you want, we aren't buying it! We will make up our own minds as to who should take on Obama.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:07PM

Governor Goodhair! LOL!!

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 4:33PM

Sally, are you an Obamanista?

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 4:36PM

We had McCain shoved down our throats as the only winnable candidate and look where that got us Sally? No, I don't think Sarah is the most qualified but she says what she means and her values are American values. I'll take that over "establishment" candidates anyday.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:09PM

Talk about a no-brainer. Concerned, get over your mancrush on Myth--he's married!

Concerned Conservative| 11.18.10 @ 4:40PM

Romney / Rubio 2012. It's really a no-brainer. If we conservatives nominate Mama Grizzly, we will basically be handing Obama his second term.

And there's far too much at stake to let that happen.

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 4:46PM

Romney is not a conservative, he would do worse than McCain.

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 4:55PM

I agree with your concerns about Palin, but if all we can come up with is Mitt Romney, then Obama will enjoy his second term.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:07PM

If Palin proves herself in the primary, a Palin/West or Palin/Rubio ticket will defeat Obama assuming the GOP/Indies/TPM rally to fight Obama and the Statists.

Negro X| 11.18.10 @ 4:46PM

Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

MrsPie| 11.19.10 @ 7:43AM

True wisdon

IRatiocinate| 11.18.10 @ 4:43PM

All this fuss over ONE poll? In 2010? Really?

The Democrats are clearly afraid the GOP will nominate Huckabee--other polls show he is the one who can beat Obama.

But c'mon--none of these people have even announced intention to run yet.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:05PM

If you really believe the Dem-pushed polls that show Huckabee winning the GOP nomination, and that they really are afraid of him, then you are just flat out nuts.

Huckabee is a socon at best, and a spendthrift as governor, and released over a thousand prisoners for his Christian vanity.

He is a bad bad man who played the religion card against Mitt Romney in 2008.

Look for a new third party rumbling about by 2013 if Romney or Huckabee are thrown up against Obama.

The Republican Party is STILL the stupid party if we put either of those two up.

Palin/West 2012
Cuda & the Colonel

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 6:12PM

But will Todd get along with Colonel West. If he doesn't, it's a no go!

Another thing you have to worry about with this disaster (Palin announcement) that's about to be unleashed on the republican party.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 7:28PM

Come to think of it, why not a West/Palin ticket? That sounds really good.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 8:04PM

Make sure it goes through Todd first.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 8:46PM

I bet he'd prefer V.P. to President but I think he'd back her for Pres.. but who knows?

Eli| 11.18.10 @ 4:47PM

I'm a white dude, hard core Tea Party member and retired Marine (and not Mormom, not that it should matter). I really liked Palin when she was selected by McCain. Her speech at the Republican National Convention was sharp. She was an asset for McCain. However, her performance against the idiot Biden in the debate was weak.

I'll vote for a ham sandwich over Obama in 2012 but I really hope that Palin does not win the nomination. She's really not that smart and resigning as governor without offering a lucid explanation made her seem unstable. A lot of the other stuff she does (constant Facebook, Twitter, repudiate, the new Alaska TV show, third rate books) make her seem like a joke to people outside of her hard core blind supporters.

She will not defet the Democrat Candidate for President in 2012. The Republican Party reached its highest levels of popularlity a couple of weeks ago and she still trailed Obama in a hypothetical matchup by double digits. Her negatives are way too high. A vote for Palin is a vote for Obama.

The world will never be fair for conservatives. Biden is no brighter than Palin and he has said as many dumb things (if not more) than she has. But the media treat us differently and this will never change. See the world as it is not as it should be. The MSM will never give Palin a fair shot and she lacks Reagan's wit and intelligence to overcome that.

Mitt's not perfect but he would probably defeat Obama. He's legit, accomplished and very smart. As a Tea Party Conservative who wants the GOP to be viewed as the party of intellectulas I would prefer Jindal.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 4:59PM

Misogynist?

Look, the danger of Mitt is if he DOES win. Then we are stuck with a wobbly, no cajones wimp who will not stop 'leviathan'.

By the way, you are NOT TEA PARTY if you are for a Rino establishment pompous, flip-floppin big government punk like Mitt.

Tea Party? BS!

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:02PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11.....f=magazine

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 5:17PM

Excellent. Cold hard reality.

My sentiments exactly.

I disagree, however, with holding our noses and voting for Romney. One reason is many Palin followers, I'm afraid, will sit out the election because of the perceived slights on Sarah By the RINO'S, "lame stream media", crypto-liberals embeded within the party, or Justin Beiber.

My hope is Sarah is smart and will not decide to run and another candidate will announce that will be palatable to all republicans.

Bigfoot| 11.18.10 @ 6:27PM

Two words: Rick Perry.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 9:14PM

If Palin does not run it is because she sees a solid conservative of courage stepping up to the plate.

That would probably include only Rick Perry, Jim DeMint, or maybe Mike Pence. Of those three, Perry would be the best due to executive experience like Sarah. Rick has said he is not running and I'm sure Sarah will want to find out if he is running.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 10:03PM

Sarah, for some inexplicable reason, is the self anointed conservative sage. All things conservative must first pass the Sarah test.

If she's going to be our conservative sage, can we at least first find out exactly just WHAT HAS SHE READ? Or moving forward, the only books deemed worth reading are ones penned by Sarah?

Come on people, she' s one lady who served a half a term in a small state. Her opinion about potential candidates should hold no more weight than any poster on this site.

This is just too bizarre for me.

Maybe Katie Couric was not so off base after all.

Sapwolf| 11.19.10 @ 12:21AM

The Bible - although I don't know which version.

WSJ, Thomas Sowell, Hayek, C.S.Lewis "Mere Christianity", tons of online news sites depending on the writers and articles, Alaska news, Mark Levin's "Liberty & Tyranny".

She even signed my "Rules for Radicals" in Milwaukee and knows the enemy's playbook.

I don't know if she has gotten to my copy of Kirk's "The Conservative Mind" yet.

The chick is an avid reader. Like a sponge.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:18PM

Not one Republican attacked the Left like Palin after Obomber was elected. Not one. She had more courage and more grit than any Republican man on the national scene. Myth was MIA during that time, and he has earned my eternal contempt for his conspicuous absence.

Palin earned my respect and admiration for her stalwart defense of our country during those dark days, and I will never forget her for it.

Bob Grant| 11.20.10 @ 9:19AM

She's earned my respect as well. This does not mean a trip to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

MrsPie| 11.19.10 @ 7:48AM

Yeah....let's get out of the box here. THIS IS OUR TIME. If we don't make it happen in 2012 there may be no hope.

IRatiocinate| 11.18.10 @ 4:47PM

As for Romney--he will never get the votes from three large blocs:
1--those who are pro-life
2--those who are pro-choice
3--those who only give their votes to candidates who have demonstrated a clear understanding of their own values and who have proven steadfast no matter to whom they may have been speaking.

Romney? He's the "I'll say anything to get elected to the highest office money can buy" guy.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 5:06PM

This is why the primary will be a total clusterfark. For those reasons why you said Romney wont get the votes, the opposite can be said of Sarah.

I see the Sarah/Romney camps destroying each other and leaving the party in total chaos. I see many from either camp refusing to support the opposing winner.

A third candidate needs to emerge to coalesce the party.

May I suggest Barbour/Petraeus?

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 5:12PM

What the heck is wrong with you people?

Haley Barbour? Another old, overweight white guy with a thick drawl?

Somewhere Axelrod is praying for this.

Get REAL people.

You will need a MOVEMENT to defeat Obama, and that movement is the Tea Party. Without it, the GOP cannot take the White House, let alone take the Senate.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 7:23PM

I do like Haley Barbour a super duper lot and if it were up to alone and I was able to, I would make him President. No, I'm not for a King! I said that just to show how much I like the guy. He is so cool. Cool I say? Yes. He is a steady, strong super conservative man and you can't get any better than that.
Having said that, I don't know that the voters would go for him because of how they look at things.. not wanting another politician from way back, etc. etc.
But! IF he were to run with some GUSTO~ the kind that Sarah has.. can he? Would he?
Anyway, he WOULD make a good President, IMNSHO.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 8:09PM

Well, Well, We finally agree!!!

I think he would make a GREAT president. Many people would think he's uninspiring but what I think is more important this time around is competence. He's got tons of it; know his way around Washington, etc. He could hit the ground running.

Now if we could change his amnesty position. I'm guessing he'd pivot to the right if he runs.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 8:43PM

And actually we've had this same conversation before. I've always been pro Barbour.. since posting here for around 2 years or so. Like I say to my enemies~ go check the archives! LOL.
I don't know his amnesty stance, are you saying he's for it? I couldn't tell you my own as it is so complicated an issue. I suggested an immigration moratorium (for all) just for a few years the other day and was accused of lovey dovey-ness toward the Muslims.
I couldn't tell you what to do on the issue of what we do with the present illegals.. maybe he has a better idea? I just know I'm for the rule of Law and don't think we ought to allow illegals!

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 9:07PM

He's for limited amnesty but you know where that leads. He admitted, however, that the problem is different in Mississippi than say, Texas or Arizona, so his stance could be different if he governed those states. Sounds likes he's given himself wiggle room - very smart - and suspect he would move to a protect-the-border-first stance.

I just read Mexifornia by Victor Davis Hanson which gives another perspective on the issue. The writer is a farmer and college professor from Central California and has lifelong knowledge of the problem and interesting suggestions. I would recommend it.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 8:23PM

"...Another old, overweight white guy with a thick drawl?"

As opposed to the soothing voice of Sarah Palin?

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 9:17PM

Not sure I get the point. Sarah could quote from an upper-division engineering textbook and it's still music to Sap's ears.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:22PM

Barbour's not exactly easy on the ears either you know, and he's too close to RINO GWB.

No thanks.

Mrs Pie| 11.19.10 @ 7:52AM

Yes, yes, yes!! Are you Repubs listening? We need a rising star. Sarah Palin is a fine person but not presidential material. She has too much baggage. perceived or real.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:24PM

Baloney, Mrs. Pie. Peddle your pastries elsewhere please.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 5:17PM

There will always be super factions amongst conservatives. Yet we just elected how many conservative Republicans to office because we all got super angry?
I'd say there is a smaller faction that is anti-Palin than there are conservatives who are like Sarah~ and that is ~ Reagan conservatives! And they make up a super large swath of Americans!
Thank God!!
Go Sarah!

Sam Vaughn| 11.18.10 @ 4:51PM

Romney is not a conservative. He may be able to get the Republican "ruling class" types on board but not conservatives. The only people hoping he get's the nomination are Democrats.......

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 4:56PM

Common Sense
Convictions
Courage
Charisma

Sarah has all four, but none of the others have all four at this time. If one does, Sarah will endorse that candidate. However, I think Sarah is gonna have to run to prevent another Rino from getting the nomination.

If Huckabee does not run, Sarah Palin will win the nomination and defeat Obama.

She FIGHTS! The others lack cajones.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 5:18PM

Amen!

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 5:27PM

I don't see it that way. If she possessed even half of those C's you listed, why did she quit her governorship? - an epic failure if she plans on running for prez.

I'm not here to be involved yet another Sarah pissing contest. I'm just throwing out alternative solutions for those people who are desperately searching for a way to win in '12.

Sapwolf| 11.18.10 @ 9:19PM

"I resigned because of frivolous ethics complaints filed through a loophole in Alaska's laws that enabled opponents of my Administration to pin down over 80% of the time of government workers, force me to spend my own money to defend myself while governor, and cost the state over two million dollars. Since I finished EVERY major objective of my first term early, and knowing these attacks were because of me, I stepped down to allow the Executive branch to function properly and then stepped UP and took the fight NATIONALLY against the most leftist President and administration in US history knowing full-well that it may destroy my political future. There are other things more important than me, including my state and my country and I chose to STAND UP and do something about it."

That's why lazy one.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 9:46PM

That sounds like a wonderful story and told with such enthusiasm.

I have no problem with Sarah. Her heart seems to be in the right place. I just hope she continues see the big picture and will do the right thing if need be.

Like she said above "...there are other things more important than me...", so if the writing's on the wall, I'll trust that she'll adhere to those words.

David | 11.18.10 @ 5:27PM

Regarding Chris Christie's weight and his health, we just elected in the year 2008, a black man (with blacks overrepresentation of heart disease and diabetes) who SMOKES. Of course, no repub smoker could ever even get the party's nomination because of the media. If Christie were to run against Bam Bam, repubs can always ask the voters, which is worse? The overeater or the chain smoker? I heard someone who knows Obama refer to him as a chain smoker, despite Bam Bam's claim that "I sneak a cigarette once in a while. That is why during the campaign Michelle said that their daughters think their father stinks when he is in bed.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 5:36PM

Well, a room temperature, Weekend-at-Bernies Christie propped up behind the oval office desk is would be an improvement over our current occupant.

David| 11.18.10 @ 5:40PM

As some have stated, "being a Mormon shouldn't matter". True, it shouldn't, but it does. It matters in the same way that no Muslim or Buddhist or Christian Scientist can win the repub nomination. They may believe in Jesus, just as Mormons believes in Jesus; but, what is important is WHO the three above-mentioned believe that Jesus IS.

A Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Whiskeypalian can all be nominated by the repub party and win in the general election. Mormonism is NOT a Christian denomination. It is a perversion of WHO Jesus is.

I have no problem with Mormons as responsible citizens. I do have a problem when what they teach perverts the Christian faith.

That is why Romney will not be the repub nominee. Trust me, the Hucakbees in the repub party will make sure of that with their "off-the-record" and "backhanded" comments to the media. Like Huck's comment furing the primary when he claims he thought they were off the air: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers?"

Stephen| 11.18.10 @ 5:42PM

Philip,

Interesting angle on the next historic election. Actually using a best of the worse analogy is something that would be expected from the GOP executive team that reelected the same Senator to head the Senate re-election committee who picked more losers for the Senate primaries than the vast unwashed Tea Party team.

What will really solidify the next Republican Presidential and you touched on it, is the nominee which can bring the process, the media control, and a fervent following together in line with the primary process. The team that surrounds the candidate will be the key to who wins the nomination. This being a process oriented competition the key is who is the last man (or woman) standing. If all of the above elements are equal for the top three then what will be left is personality, toughness and charisma, in other words message and messenger. The key to watch is what is most difficult to see for the non politically trained (most Americans), the process. There will be some surprises in the national organizations of the individuals now in the 12 in ‘12 gang of non-candidates. Be careful in your choices, if you mix a powerful personality with a superior national structure, you may have whittled the field down to less than three.

S.J. Herman

Conservative_Monster| 11.18.10 @ 6:03PM

Mitt Romney? er .... NO

Bigfoot| 11.18.10 @ 6:19PM

You are assuming, I presume, that Rick Perry is telling the truth when he says he has no intention of running.

PCP Smoker| 11.18.10 @ 6:32PM

No way. Not willing to concede the socialist healthcare as a political issue. The man could not get it done in 08. He needs to be lining up for the VP position.

Citizen Jerry| 11.18.10 @ 6:35PM

Is the James "I'm smarter than you are" filibuster hour over yet? Just wondering.

John Bailo | 11.18.10 @ 6:36PM

You're kidding right? A big lib like Romney hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hades? Same with Huckabee -- after he turned Maurice Clemons loose, he'll be Dukakissed away.

Palin is favorable with 80 percent of Republicans.

And Republican is more and more the mainstream party...in fact, the only party that matters.

Case closed. Palin 2012.

Ran / Si Vis Pacem | 11.18.10 @ 6:40PM

"Despite his many political liabilities, Mitt Romney is the candidate most likely to [get his ass kicked by Sarah Palin for] the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Margie| 11.18.10 @ 7:13PM

Love it!

WAKE UP| 11.18.10 @ 6:42PM

The fact that Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich are even on the list shows that the GOP still doesn’t get it. Until names like West and Bachmann are there, it’s not The List.

Simon Templar| 11.18.10 @ 6:43PM

Well, James..still spinning the bullshit for Romney, attacking the Tea party, and Palin? Its amazing anyone is still responding to your dribble. All these arguments absolutely are ridiculous. One thing is pretty damn clear and in agreement with most Americans...I will make it clear for you....We do not give a rats ass for CARREER POLITICIANS like Romney anymore! The nice hair, good looks, visions, cute rhetoric, mass appeal, photogenics, educational background, the fucking books they read, nor the magazines they read. Nor are we interested in the opinions of the media nor conservative columnist who predict elections two years in advance. We the People will decide..and if that sounds like some more fourth of july soapbox for ya, then move to Europe or San Fransico..cause we are not going down with a fight this time nor stopping...right Margie, GMZ, Old Texan, and on and on?

James| 11.18.10 @ 8:37PM

Simon:

It's not BS. These are the facts you're going to have to confront. You believe that just because a person can shout rhetoric, that you happen to agree with, that it means they are qualified to be President.

You're in for a huge awakening and the country isn't going to buy it. Now isn't the time to take a chance on competence. So when you say educational background and experience doesn't matter, you've lost us all.

You're not going to SHOUT or curse your way into power or influence.

The majority of Americans are not going to vote for a Tea Party Candidate president until they can demonstrate competence.

So far, Tea Party candidates have done NOTHING to improve the country - so far, all we have are promises.

And let me tell you, we'll ALL be watching carefully, and if Tea Party candidates don't deliver - they are out, and the tea Party will come to a quiet end.

No Tea party candidate is going to solve a single government problem without competence and the ability to build a concensus no matter what you've been telling yourselves at your rallies.

The "high fives" are over Simon, and now it's time to go to work.

It doesn't take a genius to say "repeal Obama care."

sheryl| 11.18.10 @ 9:58PM

"We do not give a rats ass for CARREER POLITICIANS like Romney anymore!"

Sarah Palin has been a career politician longer than Mitt Romney.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:26PM

Stop lying, Romneybot. RomneyCare has destroyed Myth's chance to be POTUS and he has only himself to blame. Sorry.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.18.10 @ 6:47PM

I don't like many things Mitt Romney has done, or not done.

For instance he's a chronic waffler. Mitt, if you read this get some gonads and quit talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If you believe in capitalism then support it in all it's forms.

Have some principles. I truly admire what you have accomplished in your life but as a politician you have no character.

In the final analysis it's the character that counts.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:27PM

I agree. Myth's got no guts and no integrity.

mossomo| 11.18.10 @ 7:04PM

Whoever advocates Romney as a candidate has fully ignored the results of Nov. 2. The People have spoken: we need to deconstruct the nanny state, return to the Constitution and fix the budget. Romney is only good for the budget. We, the Tea Party, are not going to support cocktail circuit Republicans anymore. The game has changed - we are the grassroots. Romney doesn't have our vote and we WILL NOT tow the line. What doesn't the GOP get with the Marco Rubios of the last election cycle. You need to listen to the people.

James| 11.18.10 @ 8:45PM

Mossomo:

Better check the radar - last time I checked the write in Republican in Alaska won the election - not the Tea Party Candidate and the Tea Party failed to give us a control of the Senate.

Just so you know, it doesn't take a genius to say, return to the Constitution and fix the budget. As if to say that all you need to do is flip a awitch and it all works well for the American people and Economy.

This is why the tea Party will be a short run - after the pre-game show, you've got to win the game.

Saying, "hey, I think we should make more touch downs than the other team." Isn't going to be the "winning strategy.

It's how the game is planned.

Romney understand the game like no other candidate from the perspective of business and government.

sheryl| 11.18.10 @ 9:33PM

"Romney understand the game like no other candidate from the perspective of business and government."

I agree 100%.

idalily| 11.18.10 @ 11:53PM

If he understood the process that well, he'd have gotten the nomination in '08. He didn't. And he signed Romneycare. Game over.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:30PM

I agree. Keep attacking the Tea Party, Mythbots--that's a winning strategy. Morons.

The Republican party would be dead without the Tea Party folks, and it would be the fault of RINOs like you!

Rick T| 11.18.10 @ 7:55PM

I get tired of the idea that "independent voters" wouldn't support Palin. That's rubbish. Who do you think independents are? CONSERVATIVES. There's more of us than libbies. Go Palin.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 8:15PM

Disagree. She has problems with other conservatives as well.

Word to the wise. Take off the cheerleading skirt and examine her based on reality, not the way you would like it to be before it's too late!

Simon Templar| 11.18.10 @ 8:34PM

Word to the wise..so did Ronald Reagan..some so-called conservatives like the Bush's and others thought he was a crazy old man...of course most of it behind his back. This is not about Palin..its about the people choosing who they want, not the establishment. Goldwater ring any bells for ya..or do you still not get it.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 8:48PM

The Palin/Reagan comparisons don't compute. I just love how all the Palin followers try to force that Reagan template, even though it doesn't fit. The main difference is the elites back in '76 and '80 didn't like his brand of conservatism, not because there was widespread belief that he was unfit to be president, that he wasn't qualified. Nonsense.

With Sarah, it's completely different. People have a genuine belief that she doesn't have the temperament, judgment, or skill set to be president.

True, she has some executive experience as governor but her actions the past two years doesn't reflect well on her image as a legitimate candidate.

That's not just my opinion but many.

Sweep it under the rug at your own peril. Maybe it's good that she's not getting it. The problem might solve itself.

Simon Templar| 11.18.10 @ 10:18PM

They said the same things about Reagan. He was a dunce, unfit for president, an actor playing at governor, crazy, dangerous, and on an on. You were probably not even born yet. I was there. Her actions do show well and she grows in power and popularity everyday. Does that mean she should be the next President or she is the best candidate? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. You still do not get it.
We the People will hopefully pick the next president not on the media elite's approval nor the Washington elite's, nor the RINO endorsement, nor the hogwash smear campaigns, nor the judgement of columnist, or the misguided blogger. She may well not have the temperment as you say but how could we find that out in the hurricane barrage of smear, untruth, idiocy, lies, and slander that is out there pretending to be so objective and impartial. Me thinks it is not Palin's qualifications that are really at issue here..are they?

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 10:27PM

Go ahead. I'm interested in hearing your analysis of the alleged pathologies afflicting me that prevent me from realizing Sarah's greatness.

Simon Templar| 11.18.10 @ 10:45PM

You still do not get it. Last time. No one is saying she is the greatest and you must realize it or else. She has a right to run and be treated fairly like anyone else. All the candidates have flaws and strengths. We the people will decide who is best for the job and will no longer leave it up to the elite, the media, the pundits, or buy into the propaganda and smear machine. But most of all we will not lend ourselves to the idea that a true conservative can not win the white house. With all the din and the tidal wave of slander around this woman, it makes it more difficult for anyone to run and more difficult for the public to make the right choice. Can you understand this?

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 11:12PM

Simon:

I think more and more people understand and factor in the "lame stream" media's slander. They know the news industry is a joke. Dead.

Sarah brilliantly uses this to her advantage. She continues the battle, making a small fortune along the way.

My point is people are, or will soon be, tired of this nonsense and will look for a candidate that will focus solely on the issues that concerns them, not Sarah's agenda.

Her attempts to be all things to all people (celebrity, pundit, presidential candidate, etc) will surely backfire. My guess is after 8 weeks of Sarah Palins Alaska, she will have officially "Jumped the Shark".

She just comes across to me as more self indulgent than a potential presidential candidate who's attention should be on the epic problems facing us today. Her tweets not withstanding.

Like I've posted previously, I don't question her conservatism (although upon more intense investigation, that could be up for debate), just her ability.

Of course, you will respond for the umpteenth time that I don't get it so, by all means, let me have it.

Diane| 11.18.10 @ 8:31PM

If the Republicans can't come up with a better candidate than these, we'll be seeing Obama for another 4 years.

James| 11.18.10 @ 8:39PM

Palin is a sweetheart but she doesn't know how to govern. Her run will be a political show because she really doesn't want the headaches - she wants the media contracts. This is just who she is - warts and all.

Romney is the competent and most appealing of the bunch to the most Americans.

sheryl| 11.18.10 @ 9:22PM

Quite right. Sarah's leaving her governor's post early is non-starter. She should have toughed it out and didn't. She needs some time to repair that.

Romnycare was a governing decision that everyone in a leadership position deals with bad or good.

Tea Partiers have to decide if they want leaders to listen to their citizenry as Mitt did in MA with healthcare or if their attack of Mitt is just poltics as usual....can't have it both ways folks.

Simon Templar| 11.18.10 @ 10:30PM

Maybe you could have sent her a few million out of your pocket for the mounting legal fees she was paying out to defend herself against the dozens of false accusations and law suits that were nearly bankrupting her and the state of Alaska. You people are idiots and are apparently very uninformed...and that's being nice about it. If you do not like her religion, anti-abortion, or other positions then just say so. If you have some real objections to her candidacy then state them. Otherwise, spare us this drivel..it not even original..I can get this over at the huffington post.

Sapwolf| 11.19.10 @ 12:33AM

James,

You are certifiable. You have not even looked at what Sarah did as Governor of Alaska Check it out here and remember she did this in only 2.5 years:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3544.....plishments

James, you have no clue what the real Sarah Palin is. Your words completely betray you have done very little research at all.

I've been following politics my entire life and I'm telling you Romney's quest for the White House is DEAD. I even voted for the guy in 2008 because Huck played the religion card against him.

STOP IT. Get over it. He is not gonna make it.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:31PM

Romneybots remind me of mindless Obamabots.
Clueless.

Spook| 11.18.10 @ 8:52PM

Too bad you ignore the new conservative movement. We stayed home because the establishment republicans ran McCain and will do so again if Palin isn't the republican candidate.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 9:21PM

Spook. So it's scorched earth policy all the way?

You will sit and let BO finish off our country 'cause your girl didn't win because of some perceived slight?

That doesn't sound very patriotic to me!!

Sapwolf| 11.19.10 @ 12:36AM

That's not scorched earth Bob.

Palin will beat Obama because she only needs the following states: IN, OH, VA, NC, FL and one of the following: NH, WI, IA, CO, NV, NM

That's it. ANY Republican can beat Obama if he keeps screwing up and keeps pulling left.

We need to make sure we win with a conservative/libertarian so we can begin to DEFUND the Progressive Left.

In case you don't understand, we are in a civil war between the enemy, the Progs, and us, the Cons.

RCV| 11.22.10 @ 2:10PM

Even in Virginia, Palin runs worse than any other GOP contender against , as shown by a poll just released. She has higher negatives -- over 50% -- than any other candidate. If the GOP wants to commit suicide again, you have my very best wishes!

Concerned Conservative | 11.18.10 @ 9:20PM

It's January 20th, 2013. There on the horizon we can see the powerful FIRST DUDE carrying Queen Of The Universe, MAMA GRIZZLY onto the steps of the White House.

King Myth and his legion of Romney Trolls lay scattered upon the desolate landscape. Upon the ashes of The Socialist Destroyers and Romney Trolls, a new day begins.

The Court Jester, Glenny Beck is singing songs of Honor, Faith and Charity, the constitution restored, honor, faith, hope, honor, hope, faith, charity...

Concerned Conservative | 11.18.10 @ 9:23PM

Once QUEEN MAMA GRIZZLY begins the New Age of Conservatism and Constitutional Wisdom, the evil Myth Romney will plan his revenge... but it will be foiled by that He-Man of strength and power, that sled-racing vortex of virility and manliness, FIRST DUDE!

She's beginning her acceptance speech as the new era dawns...

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 9:31PM

Mama Grizzly makes it to Washington?

Gee, I figured their first executive order would declare the new permanent location of the White house to be in Wassilla. The new oval office will be the recently converted FOX studio.

idalily| 11.18.10 @ 11:59PM

Okay, I might be changing my mind about Sarah. The idea of the Wasilla White House, with liberals having screaming fits aobut it and the useless White House Press Corps freezing their butts off does have a certain appeal...

Seriously, though, I agree with you, Bob Grant. I like Sarah, but I don't think she's electable. And, sorry, Sarah lovers, but she's no Reagan.

Bob Grant| 11.19.10 @ 1:35PM

A voice of reason.... you have a good point about the media freezing their **s off.

I can see it now. The Palins taking a 3 week Christmas break. The media has no choice but to cover it. Candy Crowley - no peppermint stick - can hardly get the words out of her frozen mouth while reporting a live feed when out of no where Todd speeds by her in his tricked up snow mobile, performs a perfect 360 right next to her, covering her entire body in fresh Alaskan power. He speeds off into the horizon, no hand on the throttle, 'cause he's got a Keystone in one hand and trying to light a Marlboro in the other.

Good times.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:34PM

Bob, are you and Concerned the same troll? Both of you always show up to bash Palin and it's getting old.

We get it--you hate her! We also don't give a fig what you think. No Romney ever!

Bob Grant| 11.20.10 @ 8:55AM

Show me one posting where I mentioned him remotely in a positive light. You can't 'cause I didn't/haven't/wont.

I goof on Sarah and family 'cause they are so in-your-face, as though they goad people to do so. In their eyes, it seems, any publicity is good publicity.

Another among a growing list of reason I have SERIOUS concerns about her ability to lead the country.

Brad| 11.18.10 @ 9:24PM

Nominating Romney for president will finish off the Republic.

rk| 11.18.10 @ 9:29PM

the line against Romney will be pretty easy for the Obamabots.

Mormon...he's crazy in the head for believing that stuff...even crazier than most Christians. The media will have many specials on the details of Mormonism

Bain Capital...he's laid off a million people...he is what is wrong with this country. Too many Wall Street rich white men running us off the cliff

Rich...oh, did I mention he represents the rich white guy? How can someone like that be the President of the people

sheryl| 11.18.10 @ 9:54PM

so you think people are either religious bigots, believe in class warfare or are racists.....sad world you live in.

rk| 11.18.10 @ 10:35PM

hmmmmm....well, liberals engage in class warfare all the time. James Carville just said that Romney was an "old white guy"...same as McCain.

http://hotair.com/archives/201.....time-soon/

(scroll to the second vid)

Liberals have already attacked Romney on the laying off people issue....prepping the battlefield in 2008

I assume the liberals do this because they think it works (cf. Bob Shrum). But, no, my world is not sad.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:36PM

Sheryl, stop playing the religious bigotry card please. That's so 'liberal' of you.

re: Brad| 11.18.10 @ 9:30PM

I totally agree, Brad! Once Romney finishes off the Republic and shuts down Free Speech, you will see First Dude come into ACTION!

He will be a Sled-Racing, Fist-Pumping tornado of unbeatable conservative strength and wisdom! And once MAMA GRIZZLY shows up on her Sabre Toothed tiger holding that shotgun...WATCH OUT! It's Restore The Constitution Time, Baby!

It's all in Glenn Beck's new book. Just call:
1-800-FIRST-DUDE to order. Supplies are limited.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 9:49PM

Your pimping this book hard. Methinks your getting a handsome commission. No?

Le Cracquere| 11.18.10 @ 9:35PM

I said it in 2008 after rereading "Henry V," and I'll say it again: Romney's the kind of guy who before the battle of Agincourt on St. Crispin's Day, would have offered his troops a PowerPoint presentation featuring a new mission statement.

Roy| 11.18.10 @ 9:45PM

Marco Rubio!

narciso| 11.18.10 @ 10:00PM

It's funny, Romney chose not to run for a second term, leaving no capable successor and his state in the hands of Deval Patrick, who was reelected by the splinter campaign of Cahill, the Bloomberg
figure in this race. Than he quits the Presidential
Run, during the New Hampshire primary. By contrast, Sarah left the state in the hands of Parnell, who still continues to support her big initiatives like the AGIA line. Eight corporations
based out Washington, sponsored Murkowski's run. Her father's political connections, the judge
who unsealed Miller's personnel file, the rewriting
of the writein candidate rules, the pressure on the radio talk show host, all this secured her apparent
victory

Sapwolf| 11.19.10 @ 12:40AM

Plus the fact that Murk is a mod at best and took votes away from a weak Dem candidate.

dadfly| 11.18.10 @ 10:20PM

the situation is dire. as our republic burns down around us (today they threw on another can of gasoline in the form S.510), nothing less than a president approaching the character and courage of a founder will keep us off the rock. does romney == founder? any founder? no, i think i and my tea party friends will prefer a quick, clean burn and a dice roll with a third party conservative. better the possibility of a phoenix like rise or a quick death vs a long slow death under another rino.

DRayRaven| 11.18.10 @ 10:26PM

Looking at our list of front runners so far, Obama can take solace that the Republicans will have a downright lousy nominee come 2012 - especially if it's Romney.

I'm done holding my nose and voting for the GOP nominee just because he's better than the Democrat. If we wind up with Romney or Huckabee, I'm voting third party. I'm not too thrilled about the rest of the pack, either.

leveut| 11.18.10 @ 10:31PM

Palin is a popular and likeable person. She makes nice speechlets. But does she actually know anything substantive about anything substantive?

John Bolton for President.

Sapwolf| 11.19.10 @ 12:47AM

Yes. But you need to READ it.

Did you read her letter to the new freshman Representatives. The same one the soon-to-be House Speaker Boehner tweeted over to them:

http://www.conservatives4palin.....er-to.html

How about her Hong Kong speech and all her Facebook columns and other writings at other publications?

She has been fighting almost every day. She leads the fight along with DeMint and the TPM.

The other GOP prospects rarely get in the fight.

In the GOP debates, Sarah will ask them where were they when she was out doing the heavy lifting against 'leviathan'? They will squirm and look awkward because they know they were afraid and did not give it their all for the cause of restoring the republic.

Bob Grant| 11.19.10 @ 1:26PM

Speechlets. Nice. Heh Heh

DRayRaven| 11.18.10 @ 10:33PM

John Bolton? You might as hold out for the GOP to nominate Christine O'Donnell. It's not gonna happen.

Sapwolf| 11.19.10 @ 12:49AM

I have heard a lot of talk that Bolton would be a possible Sec. of State in a Palin administration.

Great choice. Bolton is not all enamored with the UN Human Rights guys.

Osamas Pajamas| 11.19.10 @ 2:20AM

Bolton does not suffer fools gladly, as indeed Jeanne Kirkpatrick did not. He'd be great to have at State or the UN!

somnolence| 11.18.10 @ 10:44PM

I will never be enthusiastic for any more of the same old guard that "know their way around Washington." That goes for that entire dubious Beltway and Georgetown snootiness. So, Bob Grant, it is O. K. for numerous pols over the years to abandon their senate seats or governorships to run for President OTHER than Sarah Palin. That appears to be what you're saying. Recall Gov. Roosevelt, both Senators Kennedy, etc. all leaving before their terms were up. Palin was busy fighting the BOGUS charges against her in Alaska, which were on a pathetic scale similar to the "lie inside a smear" that Brett Kimbrough tried to use against Dan Quayle in 1988. We don't need any more Washington insiders like Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, etc. I know that it's causing me to yawn.

Bob Grant| 11.18.10 @ 11:35PM

That phrase "Washington Insider" has been so abused and bastardized, I don't know what it means anymore.

It can be thrown at anyone who appears to have spent too much time in Washington, never mind the fact that they might have performed well.

The fact that supporters refuse to even consider the many, many problems facing a Sarah-Todd Palin presidency is scary in an of itself.

So yea, call me overly cautious when I think Haley Barbour, who would be acceptably conservative to most on this site, would preferable to a Sarah-Todd Palin.

Sapwolf| 11.19.10 @ 12:54AM

Conservatives will not walk barefoot on glass for Barbour. Nice guy, but not the favorite of the conservatives/libertarians. He lacks charisma and we are not sure how much he will fight against the Progs. We need someone who has not only convictions but the courage to push it even if the Dem thugs begin rioting in the streets over cuts to discretionary spending.

I don't see Barbour being gutsy enough for the struggle.

Osamas Pajamas| 11.19.10 @ 2:17AM

But I like Haley Barbour! He's likely to stand up in public and state that OhBummer couldn't hit a bull in the ass with a banjo --- and that'd be just the preamble....

Bob Grant| 11.19.10 @ 1:23PM

I disagree! I believe he would be the perfect foil to obama. He could run on states rights, obama's past failures in dealing with states, namely those southern red states.

Just look at that potential coalition of Gulf State Republican governors going after Obama. With Haley being the leader, they could in unison indict him - and his attorney general - on a litany of issues ranging from universal health care to the Gulf oil spill fiasco, to off-shore drilling, to interstate commerce . The list is endless!

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:39PM

What is it with you and Todd Palin? Feel a little threatened b his virility? That's understandable.
He's not running for POTUS you know.

Bob Grant| 11.21.10 @ 9:02PM

Tell me more about his virility since I, to date, haven't given it one second of thought. Sounds like you have some insiders info.

RCV| 11.22.10 @ 2:08PM

Yes, there's nothing more "virile" than a guy who sits home and lives off his wife's earnings.

A NEW ERA| 11.18.10 @ 10:52PM

Romney is an evil Wall Street goon who plans on shutting down FREE SPEECH with the help of The Taliban! Only Sister Sarah Barracuda Mama Grizzly with the help of sled-racer FIRST DUDE can avert this tragedy of human history.

WE WILL PREVAIL!

FIRST DUDE - MAMA GRIZZLY 2012!

James| 11.18.10 @ 10:58PM

LOL - This is the perfect Tea Party Candidate logic! Perfect!

sonny| 11.18.10 @ 10:55PM

That's all we need, another Liberal Republican RINO Bush RomneyCare President..
Romney would lose the Presidency, for sure.. and thus, any hope for America's Economic, Political, and Social Recovery, and Prosperity..

Janice Fortin | 11.18.10 @ 10:59PM

The paratrooper is back! So the first issue is to make sure no more obamanations are parachuted to whom she considers mindless peons. And stand at attention, alert to all speeches, stance on all issues and best of all, to the PRO AMERICAN
voice.....never diminish USA by settling for less...not ever again. There are several excellent candidates, not well known by all. Do all you can to support them. For now, keep your eagle eye on every single move to prevent slight of hand tricks ruining the very significant and memorable Midterm Election of 2010.

Janice Fortin | 11.18.10 @ 10:59PM

The paratrooper is back! So the first issue is to make sure no more obamanations are parachuted to whom she considers mindless peons. And stand at attention, alert to all speeches, stance on all issues and best of all, to the PRO AMERICAN
voice.....never diminish USA by settling for less...not ever again. There are several excellent candidates, not well known by all. Do all you can to support them. For now, keep your eagle eye on every single move to prevent slight of hand tricks ruining the very significant and memorable Midterm Election of 2010.

Janice Fortin | 11.18.10 @ 10:59PM

The paratrooper is back! So the first issue is to make sure no more obamanations are parachuted to whom she considers mindless peons. And stand at attention, alert to all speeches, stance on all issues and best of all, to the PRO AMERICAN
voice.....never diminish USA by settling for less...not ever again. There are several excellent candidates, not well known by all. Do all you can to support them. For now, keep your eagle eye on every single move to prevent slight of hand tricks ruining the very significant and memorable Midterm Election of 2010.

Truth| 11.19.10 @ 12:17AM

Romney is a freckin loser and I won't ever vote for him.

Wayne Peterson| 11.19.10 @ 12:43AM

I liked Romney for 2008, but much has changed in two years. I can't help but feel that choosing Romney would be settling. He is the safe pick, too safe for what this country needs.

I don't have anyone in mind right now but the GOP needs to pick a conservative visionary, a person who just gets what the mood of the country is right now. This next year is for that person to emerge.

Sapwolf| 11.19.10 @ 12:56AM

Romney just does not inspire.

America needs a leader.

Romney is 'staff'.

Sarah is 'line'.

Bob Grant| 11.19.10 @ 4:02PM

And I thought Obama had a monopoly on audacity...pfft.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:41PM

Bob/Concerned, you really should get over your mancrush on Governor Goodhair. He's married you know.

Osamas Pajamas| 11.19.10 @ 2:13AM

Romney's Mormon religion isn't a problem for me --- it's his statist religion that disqualifies him as a conservative --- RomneyCare was as bad an idea as OhBummerCare, and he is not a Constitutionalist.

ml| 11.19.10 @ 7:15AM

The conservatives will not vote for Romney. The Republican Party will lose the election in 2012.

Over50| 11.19.10 @ 7:47AM

I think Romney would make a fine candidate for President - as long as he is nominated by the Democrats.

Did the GOP learn nothing from the McCain disaster?

Bob Grant| 11.19.10 @ 3:57PM

He was such a disaster the mamacudagrizzlypitbullwithlipstiphockeymom endorsed him. She under cut a true conservative.

NOW!!!!! the Arizona snake is about to vote for the DREAM act.

Disgrace.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:41PM

What a hater.

victor| 11.21.10 @ 10:25AM

Bob Grant:
"the Arizona snake ( McCain ) is about to vote for the DREAM act.

Disgrace."

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:41PM

"What a hater."

Are you sticking up fo McCain?

Disgrace!

MrsPie| 11.19.10 @ 8:07AM

Well, his Mormon religion is a problem for me. I am a conservative Christian and I could not vote for a Mormon. And yes, Mormons do believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers as Mr Huckabee stated. Does that matter to alot of people? Probably not. But does that matter to serious thinking Christians? I'm guessing it does. Mormonism was not yet invented at the time of our Founding Fathers. They did not have to confront it.

somnolence| 11.19.10 @ 9:15AM

I would also imagine that a great many Mormons think what they like, aside from the teachings of the church. Like anything else take the good, leave the bad. I am more than tired of some Fundamentalists at time, and I can tell you that I really admire everyone that has a private relationship with an all benevolent, redeeming figure. Everyone's relationship to a religious doctrine or figure is different. Again I say to some people religious affiliation means a great deal. To myself and millions of others it doesn't. Deeds and acts also win over words most of the time. There are many positive aspects of Mormonism, like a healthy outlook on mind and body and love of the family. I will not become a member of that denomination(I've never been real active in any church, though I am a lagging member of one), but I will never condemn it as a whole because I know of its many charitable works. Huckabee belongs to a church that is also not as pure as the driven snow. We can all look with a discerning eye upon the mechanisms of a church, and frown when it goes astray. However, none of us is in the position to be the ultimate Judge. Romney' religion remains irrelevant to me.

HoweeCarr| 11.19.10 @ 10:14AM

I'll ask again- which iteration of the Mittster are we going to get this time? In his '94 Senate race vs. Ted Kennedy he was the fully moderate/Rockefeller Republican; in his '02 Governor's race he positioned himself as a more-sober version of Bill Weld, fiscally conservative/socially vaugely libertarian; once he got Potomac Fever around '06 he tacked Hard Right, alienating many of his local supporters in the process by bashing his homestate while doing a 180 on most things he campaigned on just 2 years before... all the while foisting RomneyCare upon Massachusetts!

Which Romney will we get this time?

The guy is a f*cking chameleon- just say no to Mitt.

HoweeCarr| 11.19.10 @ 10:17AM

PS: Gary Johnson in '12.
True conservatives don't need government telling them how they must conduct their affairs, be it economically or socially. Those who can't think for themselves and need their government to think for them will, of course, support one of the statists... Republican or Democratic.

somnolence| 11.19.10 @ 10:21AM

It always bothers me that Mitt or any other candidate feels like they have to compromise their conservative stances to win over moderates to liberals. That is part of the crux of where we are today. Please, no more Washington insiders, no more compromisers, no more pragmatists. We need more constitutionalists who live by the Bill Of Rights, not interpret them.

Terry Ott| 11.19.10 @ 11:30AM

I have not, in the past, paid much attention to a candidate's religious affiliation. Didn't seem very pertinent. Reading through this thread has changed my thinking. I now understand that a person should be evaluated primarily on the reasonableness of the tenets and beliefs of his/her religious affiliation.

This will make things a lot easier for me going forward. I simply need to look for the agnostic and if none is running I can stay home. For sure it rules out voting for Christians who believe that stuff about a virgin birth, rising from the dead, wine becoming blood, purgatory, baptism, and the like. What a liberating discovery this is.

Thank you everyone who helped reveal this to me. You deserve a special place in Heaven should there be such a place.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:44PM

Sorry, identity politics BS doesn't fly here. You should go back to HuffPo where you belong.

Yosemeti Sam| 11.19.10 @ 11:34AM

Um, highest PRIORITY for Conservatives should be to OUTLAW any participation by Democrats in any Republican primaries.

THAT would winnow the GOP wheat candidates from the chaff ones.

MrsPie| 11.22.10 @ 10:08AM

I agree!

RCV| 11.19.10 @ 11:52AM

There is NOTHING you can do to stop people from reregistering before a primary to vote in an election they want to effect.

somnolence| 11.19.10 @ 1:07PM

Terry, I'll even go so far as to say that I really don't care if someone running for office is an agnostic, atheist, or devil worshipper or voodoo practitioner. As long as they don't let their religious or pagan beliefs run over their political decision making. And yes, I am a "Christian", or one who most certainly believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, I consider that to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. So yeah, I TRULY don't have any qualms even about an atheist running for President, as long as his personal demons don't overrun my beliefs in a Divine Entity.

MrsPie| 11.22.10 @ 9:55AM

As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. Personal beliefs always determine how we think and act. The strongest inclination of the mind will determine the result of your decisions. I am not trying to change anyone's opinion, I am just stating mine. In order to confront evil, you have to determine what is evil. If you don't think that what happened on 9/11 was evil, you will probably not pursue the perpetrators with any real zeal. Hence, we have the Obama affect.

manonthestreet| 11.19.10 @ 1:09PM

SARAH PALIN WILL TAKE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT'S DOWN.
PRESIDENT PALIN,GET USE TO IT.

Bob Grant| 11.19.10 @ 3:51PM

Typical meaningless bromides. Snore.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:45PM

You should know something about meaningless bromides, troll.

Bob Grant| 11.20.10 @ 8:44AM

Another label, how unexpected.

Caped Crusader| 11.19.10 @ 1:12PM

The big problem with Romney is not his Mormonism but the that he is wrong on most of the issues of today that people are concerned about and he is history and not the future as are Gingrich, Huckaby, etc. We are tired of these old and elegant RINO Republicans who are in reality Dem-light. They are all unelectable as was McCain -- old worn out faces and compromisers.

jstwndring| 11.19.10 @ 3:19PM

This--exactly. I'm sick of the compromisers within the Republican party that want to get along with Democrats. How can you compromise with the enemies to our Constitution? We are where we are because of these clowns. Why would we want more? I hope WE the people get to select our presidential candidate this time via the Tea Party.

Bob Grant| 11.19.10 @ 3:47PM

Just be careful about who you call "Washington insider", "elite", "RINO", ....alot of good politicians have been labled as such just because they...GASP...voice their concerns about a Sarah-Todd Palin presidential run.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:46PM

Romney is a RINO elitist and we won't elect him dogcatcher. You both belong in the democrat party.

Bob Grant| 11.20.10 @ 8:43AM

Get a grip bud, that is if you care about the future of the conservative movement. Label me all you want but unless we coalesce and - GASP - compromise with one another - among conservatives, that is - you can say hello to Hussein Obama for another for years and we are finito as a country.

The labeling one another at this website is getting absurd.

somnolence| 11.19.10 @ 1:15PM

To ManOnTheStreet: Amen, brother.

loopdog| 11.19.10 @ 2:18PM

Where is Mike Pence?

jstwndring| 11.19.10 @ 3:15PM

Romney? Nope. Not interested.

Mormon Girl| 11.19.10 @ 4:53PM

My friends and I at BYU have volunteered to work on Mitt's Iowa campaign. New Hampshire is in the bag so the nomination comes down to Iowa. One group will work in Iowa during the summer and the other in the fall right up to Election Day. Winning Iowa and New Hampshire will send Palin into exile on the Arctic Circle and guarantee Mitt the nomination. Poll taken between us want Mitt to pick Marco Rubio as his running mate. A Romney/Rubio ticket will beat Obama and that old fogey from Delaware.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 11:49PM

You sound like that lovesick Obama girl. Romney is at the top of the ticket not Rubio, and he will lose to Obama just like RINO McCain.

David| 11.19.10 @ 5:23PM

Regarding Palin's decision to resign as governor, it makes me cringe as much as anyone. Then I recall the reasons(s): the primary one was that she was getting sued left and right for all kinds of frivolous wrongdoings. Those legal bills were her and her family's responsibility. The State of Alaska was not paying to defend her. If she had stayed for 2 more years, she would have had to declare bankruptcy.

Sally| 11.19.10 @ 5:34PM

Can someone help me understand....

If Roe v. Wade is law, why is Romney's late conversion to a pro-life position of significance?

somnolence| 11.19.10 @ 6:27PM

Palin will have enough money to go as far as she wants to in 2012. Sorry to burst your bubble, but winning Iowa and New Hampshire are not in any way, any sphere, a mathematical certainty to winning the nomination. Now if you want to talk Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Carolinas, etc. I'll listen. Otherwise your meandering fall on deaf ears.

mavigozler | 11.20.10 @ 12:20AM

Well, the readers of The American Spectator have spoken, and it is a resounding "Anyone but Romney!" I think some even intimated they'd rather have Obama, because at least he's no slippery target for keeping hate properly focused...and they'd have a better chance of getting a nutjob Tea Partier in the White House in 2016 if Obama continued and really brought this country to its knees as his predecessor did.

But seriously, editors and readers of the Spectator,...

You managed to get many members of the House and a few in the Senate with new freshmen whackjob teabaggers in government.

(Congratulations, by the way, on a job well done, despite not getting the more celebrated Tea Party nutjobs O'Donnell, Anglin, and Miller elected...and why was that so? Rand Paul, you say? Just about anyone gets elected by the hillbillies of Kentucky, and Mitch McConnell should be proof of that.)

But back on topic: feeling good about what you've accomplished in 2010, you must be beaming with (over)confidence about what might happen in 2012.

Clearly the few intelligent and educated among the Spectator readers out there are not taking the half-governor Sarah Palin seriously and never have. You have failed candidates Anglin, Miller, and O'Donnell who will clearly be available, but they have added one word to their resumes: LOSER! Even the many losers who make up the Spectator loyal readership (and its contributing editorial staff?) recognize that they don't want to put a national choice with that kind of characteristic tag.

So you don't really want Romney, who is NOT a RINO, by the way. Romney represents in fact "establishment Republican Party." He is what the Republican Party is (and should be?) when it is not driven to Tea Party hateful extremism. Oh, yes, on each and every issue, including the social issues, he might even steer to left-of-center. It is perhaps the true nature of a properly balanced individual.

The RINOs in fact are the Tea Partiers: Rand Paul, Rubio, and many others who only put the "R" at the end of their name because they knew that the likelihood of getting government power had its strategy based on "primarying out" the more establishment candidate, and they all did that. (Again congratulations.) Ask Paul, Rubio, Anglin, O'Donnell, and Miller if they would have rather put a "TP" (I just laughed a bit here) after their name, and they would say yes reflexively in unison.

So you have two years now to put flesh on those Tea Party bones. Will you again put a RINO to primary out all the other contenders (especially the Romneys)? Or will you try to run a legit 3rd party alternative and do what John Anderson, Perot, and Nader could never do?

C'mon you teabaggers!! Stop deriding what's out there: either shut up or put up!

Patriot| 11.20.10 @ 1:15AM

Thanks for the advice, Mavi, but after the brutal shellacking we just gave you Leftist losers, I think we both know who will prevail in 2012.

Now go back to your boyfriend--I'm sure he's breathlessly awaiting your --ahem-- attention. Grow up, pervert.

RCV| 11.20.10 @ 2:31PM

Don't let the midterm results go to your head, Mr. "Patriot". It was only two years ago that we gave you a shellacking. The public is fickle, especially in off years when turnout is low. You'd better deliver, and deliver well. 2012 is two years away, and as we've seen, much can change in two years, and will.

Bob Grant| 11.21.10 @ 8:55PM

don't worry, the public sentiment will be against the dems two years from, more so than it is now. The only question is to what degree will the republicans screw up another once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Another thing. Quit picking on Mr. Patriot, he knows not what he types.

RCV| 11.22.10 @ 2:05PM

That's always the question, and I think I know the answer...

BCinTN| 11.20.10 @ 2:33AM

Where is Duncan Hunter (senior, not the son)? His 2oo8 interview with George Stephanopoulis was brilliant. He wanted to re-negotiate all our trade deals with China and others so the US actually benefits. I looked at his voting record and it was flawless. And, he helped get the border fence built in San Diego that DID work.

TeaBagger| 11.20.10 @ 10:49AM

Tea Party = Constitution Party

Tea Party Master| 11.20.10 @ 10:59AM

In January, Tea Party candidates will propose that all Americans return to the founding fathers interpretations of the Constitution:

* Slavery will be reintroduced!

Also, "TPs" (tee pees) will be required as the new dwelling place for Tea Party candidates and their cult followers.

A message from Thomas Jefferson seems apropos: (Tea partiers... apropos is pronounced ap-prah-poh and means "fitting in this context)

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

"That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; that those who exist not can have no use nor right in it, no authority or power over it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by the same divine beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot bind a succeeding one by its laws or contracts; these deriving their obligation from the will of the existing majority, and that majority being removed by death, another comes in its place with a will equally free to make its own laws and contracts; these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer." -- Thomas Jefferson to T. Earle, 1823.

Ted R.| 11.20.10 @ 7:57PM

Oh I have to say it cheers my Liberal Heart to read through the all the comments here. Democrats desperately hope that you Cons would be fool enough to nominate Palin - it would prove, once for all, that you were the Party of and for Dunces.

The best contender you currently have (not that that's saying much) is Gingrich. He's actually got a brain, and nobody should underestimate his political skills.

For all that, though, there's just one person in the country who could defeat President Obama. You hard-right types will never take my advice, so I feel free to come right out and tell you who:

Condi.

somnolence| 11.20.10 @ 9:48PM

I'm sure that after the Debacle of 2010 conservatives are going to be paying a lot of attention to liberals denigrating or estolling Palin. The present occupant of the White House would be damned lucky to beat Joe The Plumber either in a debate or general election. All of your collective pointings to the dunce cap corner ring with desperation and futility. You display nothing but fear and envy when it comes to Sarah Palin, who has an overabundance of worldliness and common sense in comparison to your pathetic nihilism.

Ted R.| 11.20.10 @ 11:42PM

Hah. We have you right where we want you...

I admit that Sarah does make us a little afraid. A country that elected George Bush Junior not once, but TWICE - is not a country that can be absolutely counted on to NOT elect George-Bush-in-a-skirt. But that possibility is remote. So, bring it on, Sarah! YOU BETCHA you're going to make the Repub nomination process a howler!

mark mitchell| 11.20.10 @ 11:00PM

PHILIP KLEIN R.U.KIDDING. ME.? You must be, because N-O-O-O-O-OBODY is a more RINO candidate than the MITT. He's a walking talking JOKE as a candidate, &, yes, even STIFFER & MORE CLUELESS sounding than my personal favorite JOKE CANDIDATE RINO, Bob DROOL; & I was FURIOUS that he was the candidate against that supremely sly dog, "Slick Willie."
Y' know, one of the HUGE problems that Republicans face in '12 is that all those mentioned here as potential candidates EXCEPT ONE have ZERO charisma, & that one is SARAH PALIN, & she's LOADED with it, so I say: GO SARAH IN '12!!--GOD BLESS ALL--MARKRITE

somnolence| 11.21.10 @ 12:56PM

We "Know Nothings" have news for all you Establishment lovers. The GOP candidate in 2012 will not win without our votes. Would we dare allow the Kenyan to get back in the White House. That might be the scenario. I'm also sick and tired of the John Warners, Lisa Murkowskis, Mike Castles , Charlie Crists and other sore losers.

Ted R.| 11.21.10 @ 1:19PM

I wouldn't be so sure of that. McCain was nominated in '08 because you guys weren't the majority of primary voters. Your volume is much in excess of your numbers. You're going to get another lamestream candidate - but probably not till after you rabid Cons cause a bloodbath in the primaries.

Condoleeza Rice is still your best chance in '12.

Simon Templar| 11.23.10 @ 2:14AM

And you are a little sniveling liar. McCain was winning the election up until your October surprise. A lot has changed since then comrade. It is our intention that we will continue to move forward....each day your socialist agenda and overeach is being exposed..more and more Americans are regaining their history, their sense of exceptionalism, and focus. You are scared shitless..we can smell it. This past election was a stunner for you. Your media propaganda machine is crumbling....states are rebelling..more and more people are joining the Tea Party. The Democratic Party is disintegrating...they are running away from your messiah. Beck and O'Reilly are polling equal to your community organizer. LOL. Indepedents are breaking 6 out of ten toward the Republicans and demanding smaller government. No one trust your state media...58 percent want ObamaCare immediately repealed. Palin scares the hell out of you..which says more about you than it does Palin and everyone has noticed. Palin's ambitions are really irrevelant..she will run or not run..she will compete like everyone. She loses in the primaries then so be it. What is most vividly revealing is your hatred and behavior towards her...and that is really the true issue here. You doth protest too much and expose your true selves. America is waking up.

RCV| 11.21.10 @ 1:48PM

That is why the GOP will almost certainly lose in 2012. The only candidates who could win the general election are unacceptable to the tea party constituency. As the 1964 anti-Goldwater bumper sticker put it, "I'd rather be far right than President."

somnolence| 11.21.10 @ 2:09PM

I believe that the correct saying should be we would rather be conservative, both socially and fiscally, which Condi Rice certainly isn't, than pragmatic and compromising any day of the week. The year 2008 was the last year of my life to support a pragmatist, first Romney in the primaries, then McCain in the general election. The only reason I supported the latter was the choice of Palin. That is the only reason. If Haley Barbour, Colin Powell, Tom Ridge or another of that stripe was chosen I would have stayed home on election day. I have voted for too many pragmatist in my lifetime. I have the right not to vote for another. We're gradually losing a little freedom each day, and I will not be a contributor to the "dazed sheep in a line" phenomenon.

RCV| 11.22.10 @ 2:04PM

Excellent! And that what's what we're counting on!

David| 11.21.10 @ 3:07PM

Condi is pro-abortion. No way she can win the repub nomination.

Sally, Romney's sudden conversion to the anti-abortion position is important because anyone who was EVER pro-abortion has shown an utter lack of a moral compass. Life is the ultimate question, and if a politican gets that wrong, in my opinion, it disqualifies the person from ever holding public office.

Balios| 11.21.10 @ 10:46PM

I would dearly love to see a Forbes/Rice ticket. I love and respect them both. Everyone else is too lightweight. Ford? How bout Bill Ford? Dear Palin has too many enemies and detractors. She would be a GREAT replacement for nitwit Michael Steele.

A NEW ERA| 11.22.10 @ 3:22PM

With the help of Sled Racer-Alpha Man FIRST DUDE, Sister Sarah Barracude Palin will reunite the Neanderthals of this country and TAKE IT BACK. We will defeat the Socialists, The Maoists and most importantly THE ROMNEY BOTS and their EVIL wall street goons! The ROMNEY BOTS with the laser eyes and evil Mormon Death Grip! Romney will NOT suppress Free Speech...not if FIRST DUDE has anything to say about it!

Palin / Beck 2012!

Jim Wilson | 11.22.10 @ 7:21PM

A lot of these comments remind me why conservatism never ever wins--always snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican."

Self-described Reaganites might want to remember that when throwing around RINO like it's the ultimate insult and curse rolled into one. Reagan was a mixed bag too before he rose to greatness. He signed the first no-fault divorce law while Gov., not #1 on the list of Great Conservative Ideas. The inability to permit the slightest deviation from perfection is always going to bring failure. We will never get a perfect candidate; I've never seen any candidate that I can give 100% agreement at any level. In every case there is something I dislike, find distasteful, or with which I must cordially disagree.

Romney isn't my dream candidate; actually I don't have one, because I would never be fool enough to expect perfection. I know I wouldn't take the presidency under any circumstances I can imagine. Romney has a couple of major plusses, however; he is something of a turnaround king, and that's something we could use a lot right now. I'd rather have him as SecTreas if it were up to me, but it won't be. He has also done a lot to boost a lot of candidates around the country, and has built a lot of bridges. He's got some strength.

I'll vote for any of the current Republican hopefuls against Obama. And for those who actually are anti-Mormon, remember what happened here in Arizona. Matt Salmon, who was an excellent Representative who actually left after 3 terms as promised, is a Mormon. He was up against Napolitano. Another fellow ran independent to ensure that the Anti-Mormons had somebody to vote for. He drew just enough support away from Salmon to give Napolitano the governorship--and without that she never would have received her current position. But at least they didn't have to vote for a Mormon with a 99% conservative rating in the House.

From the comments herein it begins to look like Obama is going to retain his tinfoil throne come 2012, because those who love to name others RINO are in fact themselves RINOs--working hard to elect socialists rather than taint their supposed purity.

Simon Templar| 11.23.10 @ 1:45AM

Wilson...conservatism never ever wins because for the last century too many people who call themselves republicans do not truly believe in the founding conservative core principles of this nation. Each election the public, particularly the conservative public, is convinced that it must abandon these core purist principles and run a more reasonable candidate always compromising and bending towards the progressive and socialist elements that continue to gain more and more power from the last round of elections. Now, here we are in 2010. Take a look around! After a century of growth of Big Government in collusion with Big Business..we got ourselves a real bonafide radical leftist in the whitehouse and the republic is hanging by a thread. The ideas of our founding fathers are now presented as archaic, purist, extreme, out-dated. Much of the public is ignorant and historically illiterate. Washington elite now sneer at such ridiculous ideas of fiscal restraint, small government, and self-government and moreover the populist uprisings like the Tea Party are seen as passing disruptions..annoying nusances that come with democracy in action as GWB put it. They will pass and then onto same old business as usual. So, what now? Drop the aspirations for true conservatism and step back form the purist positions? Another round of the same shit, eh? I say, hell no! I say we demand more. We vet the candidates more than ever and hold them to the purity test as best we can determining which candidate has the highest integrity towards these principles and is the least likely in corrupting them. No one is looking for perfection. We are looking for sincerity and integrity..the time has come to expose the progressive agenda for what it is. The time has come to stand with those that stand for liberty and shout proudly these purist conservative principles....because if you do not defend them unflichimgly, they will be lost forever...and the likes of Ted R and his ilk will rule with unbridled tyranny.

catherine | 11.24.10 @ 4:29AM

go on

Santino| 12.7.10 @ 9:33AM

Nominate Romney and I'll have to vote Libertarian again. Any Charlie Brown who lines up to kick this Lucy's football deserves what they get.

The American Spectator

Political Hay

The Unorthodox Frontrunner

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (764) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Booger | 11.18.10 @ 6:24AM

wodiej| 11.18.10 @ 7:05AM

Booger | 11.18.10 @ 8:50AM

Sheila| 11.18.10 @ 11:03AM

Booger | 11.18.10 @ 12:06PM

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:03PM

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:03PM

JmsA| 11.18.10 @ 5:25PM

Nostrildigit| 11.18.10 @ 9:45PM

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:43PM

Mark| 11.24.10 @ 1:47PM

I Hate The Stupid Party!| 11.18.10 @ 12:46PM

Mike Rogers| 11.18.10 @ 7:19AM

Hu| 11.18.10 @ 1:51PM

serfer62| 11.18.10 @ 7:02PM

dadfly| 11.18.10 @ 11:35PM

Kralux| 11.20.10 @ 3:06PM

Ole Sarge| 11.20.10 @ 8:00PM

Charles| 11.18.10 @ 9:01AM

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:22AM

Charles| 11.18.10 @ 2:19PM

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:27PM

Michael| 11.18.10 @ 5:42PM

steve brennan| 11.18.10 @ 10:20PM

suzette rodgers| 11.19.10 @ 4:18PM

Charie| 11.20.10 @ 10:45AM

bookworm| 11.23.10 @ 11:04PM

Michael| 11.18.10 @ 5:42PM

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:40PM

Paul| 11.22.10 @ 10:36AM

Occam's Tool| 11.18.10 @ 1:05PM

bus| 11.18.10 @ 3:58PM

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 4:22PM

Dwight| 11.18.10 @ 8:25PM

beebop| 11.19.10 @ 8:59AM

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:05PM

Mr. Potato Head, Esq.| 11.18.10 @ 10:08PM

dakealo| 11.19.10 @ 12:29AM

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 10:08PM

Kralux| 11.20.10 @ 3:11PM

Ole Sarge| 11.20.10 @ 8:07PM

Charie| 11.20.10 @ 10:52AM

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.18.10 @ 9:16AM

James| 11.18.10 @ 9:24AM

Dan FItzgerald| 11.18.10 @ 2:16PM

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:37PM

RCV| 11.20.10 @ 6:14PM

Charie| 11.20.10 @ 10:56AM

Charie| 11.20.10 @ 11:00AM

James | 11.18.10 @ 9:21AM

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 10:14AM

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 12:36PM

The Big E| 11.18.10 @ 2:04PM

Tom| 11.18.10 @ 2:11PM

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:30PM

The Big R| 11.18.10 @ 5:08PM

Bob Miller| 11.18.10 @ 3:59PM

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 6:42PM

Booger | 11.18.10 @ 12:26PM

Patrick| 11.18.10 @ 2:28PM

Iska Waran| 11.18.10 @ 1:04PM

Patrick| 11.18.10 @ 2:34PM

jeniwren| 11.18.10 @ 3:18PM

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:33PM

bc3b| 11.18.10 @ 9:12PM

jorge| 11.18.10 @ 11:33PM

Dan| 11.19.10 @ 7:49PM

bookworm| 11.23.10 @ 11:20PM

Mark| 11.24.10 @ 1:54PM

Charles| 11.18.10 @ 2:28PM

Patriot| 11.18.10 @ 3:35PM

JRd| 11.18.10 @ 9:00PM

sheryl| 11.18.10 @ 9:47PM

Christopher Holland| 11.18.10 @ 11:16PM

beebop| 11.19.10 @ 9:03AM