-
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
May 13, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Nobody Died in Watergate
May 9, 2013 | 148 comments
-
Benghazi Bullchips
May 6, 2013 | 184 comments
-
Obama’s Thin Red Line
April 29, 2013 | 207 comments
-
Why Has No One Taken Credit?
April 22, 2013 | 189 comments
Loose Canons
Can Mitt Close the Deal?
He has three weeks left and if he can’t — forget about it.
Cold, bleak February has turned into a happy time for us. It’s given us a short break from the constant barrage of debates, speeches and “crucial” primaries in the Republican presidential nomination contest. February has given us, and the candidates, a bit of time to think. Let’s make the most of it.
The nomination is still up for grabs. Mitt Romney has the clearest path to it but Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul are all promising to take it all the way to the convention. To those who natter about how cool a “brokered” convention would be, I say don’t wish for something because you might get it. (Among other frightful questions, who can be the brokers? It’ll be a food fight that benefits only the media.) The Republican Party is too weak and fractured to come out of such an event united and strong enough to win in November.
So let’s assume that Romney is the nominee. The arithmetic is pretty simple. Mitt Romney plus an energized Republican base can beat Obama in November. Romney without an energized base will lose. But the Republican base is conservative, and Romney hasn’t closed the deal with conservatives. Can he?
Let’s face it: Romney isn’t one of us. At CPAC last Friday he said he governed Massachusetts as a “severely conservative” Republican in the tone of voice my late maternal grandmother used to say she was severely constipated. We know his record as state candidate and governor, and national candidate since 2007. We need not rehearse it here. Suffice it to say that it defines him as a transactional conservative. He will apply conservative principles as a business owner might apply production scenarios and estimated profit margins to negotiating a deal. They aren’t part of his core, but will be useful tools for him in campaigning and, if he wins, governing.
Romney has run as a technocrat, the kind of expert the Eurozone imposes on desperately failing economies. But technocrats don’t win American elections. Skilled, passionate politicians do.
Romney’s failure to convince conservatives isn’t entirely his fault. There is a mood among conservatives this year created by Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain. We’re sick and tired of compromise candidates foisted upon us because they were supposed to be electable. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” turned out to be the oxymoronic “big government conservatism” that paved the way for Obama. McCain was never a conservative, just an arrogant Washington insider. It was only fitting that Dole ended up flakking for Viagra after his campaign. This time, all of the candidates we thought best to take on Obama chose not to run.
The debates haven’t helped Romney. He’s neither evidenced the kind of passion for conservatism the base has been looking for nor has he explained his economic or foreign policy ideas in terms that were clear or compelling . In his most memorable moments in these debates — the challenge to Rick Perry for a $10,000 bet, and the rejoinder to Santorum that Obamacare wasn’t worth getting angry about — Romney was aloof in one and dismissive of the passions that animate conservatives in the other.
In his CPAC speech, Romney tried to connect and failed. I did a double take when he said that his test for continuing a government program was whether it was worth borrowing from China to pay for it. Huh? I thought conservatives judged the parts of our oversized government by the terms of the Constitution, especially the Tenth Amendment. If the government shouldn’t be in the business of doing something, it should be legislated out of it. Romney doesn’t get that.
Conservatives believe that we have too much at stake this year to trust anyone who isn’t an ideological conservative. Judging by what’s gone on since 2009, a lot of us conclude that if Obama wins a second term, our nation may not survive it.
Rick Santorum had it right in his CPAC speech. Why would independents and Democrats vote for a Republican when his own party isn’t enthusiastic about him? Romney’s enthusiasm gap is his biggest vulnerability. If he can’t energize the Republican base and achieve the level of enthusiasm needed to ensure voter turnout, he can’t win in November.
Romney can’t close the deal with conservatives. So are we left with Mark Levin’s idea that it will be up to us to drag him across the finish line?
If the 2012 race is determined by the relative strengths of the conservative media and the mainstream liberal media, Levin’s scenario is possible. Talk radio and publications such as The American Spectator will have a huge impact on voters. And in what is sure to be the most expensive and negative campaign ever, more and more people will be listening to us and reading us because the politically active liberal media has lost a lot of its credibility.
The lack of enthusiasm for Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum is already evidencing itself in the lower primary turnouts since South Carolina. Compared to 2008, turnout was down 58% in Missouri, 26% in Nevada, 23% in Minnesota, 14% in Florida and 6% in Colorado. This was despite constant attention to those races among the conservative talk radio and print media. (When I guest-hosted the Michael Savage show on February 1, the callers wanted to talk about the primary contest to the exclusion of almost everything else.)
For all the enthusiasm we can generate, it probably won’t be enough. We can help, but our help won’t be decisive. Barack Obama is a skillful campaigner whose principal skill is motivating his supporters. To defeat him, Romney will have to do the same. But Romney — if he wants to win the nomination and gain momentum to November — will have to be passionate, credible, and constantly conservative.
There are things such as Obamacare, the loss of personal freedoms, and Obama’s tsunami of spending that are worth getting angry about. Romney needs to convince people he shares their anger and will act to remove the reasons for it if he wins the presidency.
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (344) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/13/can-mitt-close-the-deal
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- A President Loses His Power
- Obama’s Drone War
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Steve| 2.13.12 @ 6:33AM
No.
Jack in Wi.| 2.13.12 @ 7:09AM
The party is way too fractured to be re-united. The country doesn't want warmonger, chickenhawks who have no solutions, but more of the same. It always has been Ron Paul or ruin. He has been right on the problems for decades and is the only one who has a program to get us out of this mess. The elites of the party and the neocons like Mr. Babbin have led the party and the country over the cliff.
Innovate| 2.13.12 @ 8:11PM
There is no way that Ron Paul has a strong enough response to the current challenges facing the United States. His foreign policy is all wrong in terms of bringing the troops home to stay when Iran is threatening war with nuclear capabilities, Syria going down a path that could lead to war, and the economic challenges of our most significant trading partners imploding (Europe). Ron Paul would also be eaten alive by Congress and all we would have is a stalemate. Oh ya, that's what we have now under Obama. Why should the rest of the United States even consider Ron Paul when he ideology is so far to the right that the left will no longer pay any attention to him?
Jack in Wi.| 2.13.12 @ 11:23PM
Your 3 stooges have no solutions and no answers for anything but more of the same. Ron Paul has a program to balance the budget and get us out of these senseless wars. He has been right on the problems and the solutions for decades. End the wars. Close the foreign bases. Bring home the troops. Slash the Federal Budget 1 trillion dollars and get it balanced in 3 years. He has put a program out there. Your boys do nothing but use talking points and huff and puff about how we are supposed to be in endless wars. Endless bailouts and endless wars for Israel are not a winning platform.
Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 1:14AM
Ron Paul has a idea to cause another Holocaust, it's called his idiotic idea of Foreign Policy.
He doesn't understand the concept of religious fanaticism that we see in the despots controling Iran.
The Bruce| 2.14.12 @ 1:22AM
"The elites of the party and the neocons like Mr. Babbin have led the party and the country over the cliff."
Jack, don't you understand it's a "garbage in, garbage out" system? The party doesn't "pick" people to run for the Presidency. Among the people brave enough to run in the Republican primaries -- those people brave enough to endure the MSM onslaught against them, we now have 4 (count 'em, FOUR) candidates running for the Presidency -- let's take a look at each:
1) We have a Libertarian (Paul), pretending to be a conservative, that would allow Iran to get nukes and proceed with its intended goal of wiping Israel off the map (making a second Holocaust popular with you and Clint).
2) We have a second candidate (Romney) that, while having good hair and a youthful appearance, hasn't exactly jazzed up the base, even though Indies like him more (look at the negative voter turn-out among the conservatives/indies in States that he'd won so far).
3) Then we have the perpetually fat, white-haired "outsider" that fed at the government trough for almost three decades (Newt). Supporter of the individual mandate. The guy that wants to "line up" activist judges (so much for Constitutionalism). The "Constitutionalist" that vowed to pen "a thousand" executive orders on his first day in office. Tyrant, ad nauseum. The guy that supported "Cap and Trade." The professional idiot that sat on the couch with Pelosi just a few years ago.
Then we have our fourth candidate: A guy that has grabbed the reigns of social conservatism, not realizing that in 2012, "it's the economy, stupid." Yes, Santorum. I like the guy but, apparently, his campaign staff is putting their bucks on the wrong pony. They didn't get the memo on the economy. We need economic reform (now) far more than social.
Let's get to brass-tacks... some of us wanted another Reagan. What we got, at best, was another McCain, Dole, GWB41, Kerry, etc, etc.
Grab your ankles, folks. The seat-less, Obama, bicycle ride you're about to experience is only the beginning, though I'm assured your pain will diminish over time.
RJ| 2.14.12 @ 1:55AM
Steve,
Your entry is worthy of the Nobel Prize in Literature. Truly excellent. Concise, complete and authoritative.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.14.12 @ 6:46AM
Brevity, RJ.
Brevity.
Jay| 2.13.12 @ 6:41AM
Betteridge’s Law of Headlines
“…This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word ‘no’. The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullsh*t, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.”
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_Law_of_Headlines
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.13.12 @ 10:03AM
First of all: What Steve said.
Second of all: When will the Old Guard go away, and let us fix this Country?
Ya wanna bet that Dick Lugar likes Romney? Ya wanna bet that Orin Hatch likes Romney? What about Chuck Grassley? What about that Idiot - Susan Collins - and that Hatchet Face - Olympia Snowe - from Maine? We know that The Blob, from the early X-Men Comic Books, likes Romney. We know that Ann - I really need to get La*d - Coulter likes him. We know that Karl Rove, Billy Krystal, and the "Former" Republican Representative, from the Trailer Park District in the Panhandle of Florida, who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome likes Romney. You know who he is. He's the Retarded guy on MSNBC. I realize that could be ANYONE on that Station, and that Clarification is in order.
He's the one in the Morning, who makes you remember the movie: "SLING BLADE" every time the Camera moves in for a close up.
We need someone who's REAL. We can't elect a Weather vane. We can't elect Silly Putty. We can't elect Tobor the 8th Man, and we can't elect a guy who finishes every line with: "Yeah. That's the ticket." At least, that's what you think you hear.
How does he run as anything, but what he is? He's an Ex-Governor of the only State that George McGovern won. The State that saw fit to send a MUDERER to the U.S. Senate, time after time. A State that kept a TRAITOR in the Senate. A Man who committed TREASON, when he offered HIS HELP to Soviet Premier Yuri Andropov, in thwarting OUR PRESIDENT - Ronald Reagan - in their upcoming Meetings. A Traitorous POS, from a Family of Hitler Lovers, Jew Haters and Whore Mongers, who should be DUG UP from Arlington National Cemetery TODAY, and dragged off to the nearest Land Fill, for Re-Burial.
That's the State that Romney's bragging about.
How will he go up against the Marxist/Muslim/Half Breed, when it comes to Mittbama Care? How can he say, with a straight face, that: "I will repeal Obama Care, while, at the same time, DEFEND his own Government Health Care DEBACLE? What will he say when HAMAS' Deliverer reminds everyone that HIS OWN PEOPLE pranced, happily, to the White House, at Abu Hussain's invitation, so they could offer their help, in creating Obamacare?
What will he say when David Gregory, or Wolf Blitzer, or any other Obama Acolyte in the Left Wing Media asks him what the Founders of MORMON thought of "The Negro". What will he say when asked what his Church' Founders said about their "Flat Noses"?
You can pretend that his Mormon Religion isn't gonna be a problem, the way old guys like me, tell ourselves how good we look, and how: "If I wasn't married? I could get all of these Hot Chicks".
They will tie this to his neck, like a Millstone. You think that the Catholics are freaked out, now? Just wait till Brigham Young's Boy, gets going.
Romney is a DISASTER. He's got NOTHING to run on. No accomplishments that he would dare bring up. "Neither does Obama."
That's true. But, the one thing he does have, is the Oval Office. That's something. And, you can't beat Something, with Nothing.
Putting "Mormon" next to all of his Nothing, only makes it WORSE.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 11:47AM
Wait.. you are saying that pretty much everyone loves Romney. But then you say pretty much everyone hates him.
Seems like you are unable to make sense of your own positions.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.13.12 @ 3:55PM
Actually, dumb*ss, I'm saying that the ESTABLISHMENT OLD GUARD like him.
I understand that you might be too stupid to follow along, but, thankfully, I don't give a sh*t what you think.
Occam's Tool| 2.13.12 @ 7:21PM
TLP: I kind of like Santorum, and I think a Santorum/Rubio ticket could go places.
Why don't we have a Republican candidate who is like Jim DeMint on domestic issues, and Jim DeMint on foreign policy issues? Who has the ability to dissect issues of a Jim DeMint, and the gravitas and intelligence of a Jim DeMint? You know?
Innovate| 2.13.12 @ 8:18PM
Actually, what is most likely to happen is that should Santorum or Gingrich take the nomination, they would likely choose Romney as VP just to attract the independent and right-leaner Democrats. This is especially true if the nomination goes to a brokered convention in an effort to shore up as much excitement for the party as possible. Still, Santorum and Gingrich don't have anything to be excited about either. So, what is the difference between Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich in this run for you? Probably nothing!
I realize you don't care much about what people think on this blog. Personally, that is alright because the more you say this to people, the more likely you are to loose all kinds of respect and make your posts a waist of time and effort. Deal with it.
Garbonzo| 2.13.12 @ 12:17PM
I think racist fools like you will have a problem with Romeny's Mormon Faith!
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:23PM
Heck even Obamabots and Mittbots are the same.
Criticize Obama and you get called Racist.
Criticize Romney and you get called a bigot.
Thank you for demonstrating why I think Obamney is no different from Obama.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.13.12 @ 4:00PM
My dear Garbonzo. Like the other Dumb*ss, that went before you - Charles - you seem to be too stupid to understand the words that are coming outta my mouth.
I never said that I have a problem with him being a Mormon. I said that Obama, and his Sycophants, would rake him over the coals, about it.
Maybe, if you took your hands out of your pants while you're reading, you might not write such stupid comments?
darcy| 2.13.12 @ 3:13PM
Great comments, TLP. You do not hold any punches; and I admire that!
Woodrow| 2.14.12 @ 12:29PM
darcy - No, he doesn't hold any punches, just as when someone vomits, you could say they're not holding anything back. Spend much time in the gutter?
darcy| 2.14.12 @ 3:46PM
What a sweetheart you are, Woodrow.
Drew| 2.13.12 @ 10:26PM
Your rhetoric is extremely divisive and crude. How about trying to come across a bit more intelligent than angry? Attempting to connect issues you have with the state of Massachusetts with Romney is a logical fallacy. None of those attributes of the state have anything to do with him nor anything to do with his governing of the state.
Second of all, Romney is not a disaster. He's an extremely talented and competent executive whose a living example of how fiscal conservatism can make an entity successful. So when you say no accomplishments, you seem to be forgetting Bain and Bain Capital, the Salt Lake City Olympics he turned around, and a massive state budget deficit in MA he turned into a surplus while cutting taxes with an 85% Democrat legislature.
Finally, he can and will successfully argue against and repeal Obamacare. Romneycare was designed by a state, for a state, to solve a particular state issue, and deal with a particularly small state population, the 6% insured in MA at the time. The bill was largely meant to address the freeloading people without insurance would do in the Emergency Room. The bill was created to make it so people had to either pay for insurance or pay for a fine that helped curb the cost of this freeloading.
So, for Obama, to take a bill that was designed for a state, and blow it up into a national plan is absolutely unwarranted and reprehensible. Let's remember that Romney did not raise taxes, did not run a budget deficit, and did not force the bill through like Obamacare was. There's a HUGE difference between the two bills, and he will be able to successfully argue against Obamacare.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.14.12 @ 7:17AM
Obviously, you're too stupid to understand what I've written. Perhaps you'd be better off partaking in what CLINT has to say. Or our Resident Flaming Homo, who's name escapes me at the moment.
"Logical Fallacy".
Really? And, WHOM, pray tell, out their in the Hinterlands, is gonna think that?
Do you have a Television? Have you seen a T.V. GUIDE?
The American people are only gonna HEAR that they not only both have a Government Run Health Care deal, but that Obama got all the Details, from ROMNEY'S PLAN.
What part of that don't YOU understand, Genius?
RJ| 2.14.12 @ 2:02AM
"Mitt Romney, Ex-Governor of the only state McGovern won." I like it.
Mark Ryan| 2.14.12 @ 2:58AM
First, I'll be surprised if Mr. P*nnell's post is not removed when whoever it is that actually checks these sorts of things comes into work and has the awareness to grasp what it is Mr. P*nnell has said. Assuming that doesn't happen, I would like to say that Mr. P*nnell's post is helpful to me. This is because I am dismayed at the way Congress and the Supreme Court have abused the commerce clause to do pretty much whatever Congress wants. Restrict Farmer Filburn's private wheat garden? Commerce clause. Force Americans to buy insurance under Obamacare? Commerce clause. Yet, all it takes is one post where Mr. P*nnell demonstrates religious intolerance, racist language, and calling someone "retarded" to remind me that the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was indeed passed under the Commerce Clause, not the 13th or 14th amendment. Thus, I still have hard time discounting this use of the commerce clause when there are those who are willing to go all 1700's on Obama by using terms like "half-breed." Mr. P*nnell has a constitutional right to express these ideas privately. But he does not have the constitutional right to do so here. I hope this website feels the same way. Please be on time this morning, comment editor.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.14.12 @ 7:08AM
Yes. Silence me. Hurry. I don't have the right to say things that Mark Ryan doesn't like.
Please.. Be a dear, will you? Tell the Class where my "RACISM" is. Is it "Half Breed"? Is that the new "N" word? Apparently my "LIST of words that may no longer be spoken" is not as up to date, as Mr. Ryans'.
You want Racism? How about this Black President, having a Black Attorney General running a BLACKS ONLY Justice Department?
Does THAT bother you?
What about this Black President, and his Black Attorney General, RUNNING GUNS to the Drug Cartels, in Mexico, so they can kill BROWN PEOPLE, so this HALF BREED MARXIST MUSLIM can use their dead bodies as Props, to push through Legislation to take away all of the Guns from the WHITE PEOPLE?
Ya don't believe me? Ask CBS.
Does THAT bother you, Dumb*ss?
Religious Intolerance? Really?
Perhaps you could put that example down, as well?
You sound so Noble. So wonderful. And, you're right. I don't have a Constitutional right to be on this site. But, then, nobody's twisting your pretty little arm to read it, either.
Tim the Enchanter| 2.14.12 @ 9:34AM
Tim... you'd be a lot of fun at a party. I sincerely believe that.
Jay| 2.13.12 @ 6:43AM
Millions of registered Republicans will stay home if Romney is the nominee.
There is little difference between Obama and Romney. Vote for either.
Both Romney and Obama want to continue the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere overseas, they each favored the bail-outs, both are pro-gun control, and neither is really serious about a meaningful reduction in taxes or the size of government.
The only difference I see is that Obama has been relatively consistent in his abortion policies; I am not sure where Romney stands this morning on the issue of abortion.
Romney and the country club set who let him get this far are destroying this party.
LoachDriver| 2.13.12 @ 11:18AM
Jay, I agree with you 100% & I'm one of those millions of conservatives who'll not vote for Romney in the general election, if he's the nominee.
Romney has proven he cannot be trusted on issues of concern to conservatives. There's nothing he can say or do at this point which will persuade me that he can be trusted.
Romney's most honorable move at this juncture would be to withdraw from the race to be the GOP's nominee.
Jeamar| 2.13.12 @ 11:46AM
And who do you suggest replace him? There is no more enthusiasm for the remaining candidates. The men conservatives hoped would run for president have all refused (in essence abandoning national needs to serve their states). Perhaps they feel NO republican can really win; perhaps they think they Republic will sink even further and they can be a shoe-in in 2026. Who knows?
Jeamar| 2.13.12 @ 11:50AM
Sorry. Needed a little editing there before the "submit" button. They may be setting their sights on 2012. Whatever. I am getting more stressed by the day by the ineffective conservative/Republican campaign.
Jeamar| 2.13.12 @ 11:51AM
_____ it! 2016. I think senile dementia is really taking hold today.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 12:23PM
There is very little good reason to believe a Republican will win next year -- ANY Republican.
However, one Republican will cause the democrats to spend more money and possibly help Republicans gain the Senate as well as the House: Mitt Romney.
Because only Romney gives Obama a run for his money.
Mtncougar| 2.13.12 @ 2:06PM
"only Romney gives Obama a run for his money"
Unfortunately this is not true. The leftist media have treated Romney with kid gloves compared to Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich (and coming up on Santorum). Polls that show Romney doing well against Obama are NOT taking into account that the media destruction machine hasn't unleased on Romney yet.
Haven't you wondered why?
Bain Capital. It is Romney's achilles heel and he will be crushed. He's the prototypical country club wall street corporate Republican rich guy. His record at Bain Capital record will be used to destroy him.
You should study it, since Bain will be the reason we will lose in 2012 if Romney gets the nomination. Here's a place to start (below). It's an easy-to-understand interview with a Reagan conservative venture capitalist about Bain...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:24PM
Glad I'm not the only one that has noticed this.
Romney is the absolute worst choice for nominee.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 2:29PM
"Unfortunately this is not true."
Yes, it is objectively true.
ANYONE facing obama will face an onslaught of negativity. The difference is...Mitt has been facing that for 5 years now and has been fully vetted. He still scores high against Obama.
Anyone else.. already scoring lower, would be further destroyed by Obama's negative press.. and would go even lower.
I don't believe you are a conservative since you are excited about anti-Capitalist propaganda and since you are smoking crack about how things work.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:16PM
Romney hasn't been vhetted because that information hasn't been released to the public, the media has been stockpiling it gleefully, knowing that if Romney is the nominee, Obama will have an easy win once they reveal Romney's baggage.
darcy| 2.13.12 @ 3:30PM
The drones (with whom we are infested), the brainwashed (ditto the first), and the rank Marxists will gobble up the media lies -- it's what they want to believe.
It may be that our country will be destroyed before it can rise from the ashes. Nevertheless, I pray daily, fervently, that God will spare us, have mercy on us, even while I know we DO NOT deserve it.
2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people which are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."
Our land needs to be healed from the scourge of God-hating Marxism.
Woodrow| 2.14.12 @ 5:12PM
darcy - On the one hand you applaud the entry of the prodigious, pernicious poster, Pennel, T.L., (like that?), then in another post you quote scripture. Which part of his post did you like most? The ending where he accused the previous poster of masturbating? Or are you able to filter out the constant stream of filth he litters his posts with?
Woodrow| 2.14.12 @ 5:14PM
BTW, darcy, I agree with you about the scourge of God-hating Marxism in this nation...
Woodrow| 2.13.12 @ 11:50AM
LDriver and Jay -
Like most conservative Republicans, I find little to like about Romney, (or any of the field), but unlike you, I will not be staying home on election day. Maybe you don't really believe that Obama is a far, far, worse option than Romney. Explain how not voting at all is a reasonable option. Are you really so principled that you would place a vote for Obama, by default?
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:25PM
If you look at Romney's record as Governor, you'd probably change your tune. He did the same thing in 2005 that Obama is doing now, concerning religious groups.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 2:31PM
This ridiculous lie about Romney doing the same thing to religious groups in 2005 should be utterly rejected by conservatives.
It is a total lie. Complete and utter hogwash.
Romney vetoed the bill and was overridden. His hands were tied. But he opposed it.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:18PM
His hands weren't tied, he could have publicly came out against it, he could have supported a push to take it to court, and it would end up in Federal Court because it directly challenges the 1st Amendment.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:20PM
So Charles, either he was fine with it, or he gives up when he faces serious opposition from Democrats.
Take your pick, either way it is about as bad.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 11:51AM
So, LoachDriver, as a RINO is perfectly content to see Obama win re-election.
The question is: Should Republicans and Conservatives pander to RINO's like LoachDriver? He wants us to.. but should we?
Anthony| 2.13.12 @ 11:58AM
You two morons will hand this election over to Obozo with this thinking, and put the final nail in America's coffin.
I don't like Romney either, but if you actually think that there is no difference between him and Obozo, you guys got your heads up your asses.
Obozo is a Marxist out to destroy America, Romney is just a RINO, big difference.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:26PM
Anthony, I seriously suggest you do some research into Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts, he did the same thing in 2005 that Obama is doing to religious groups now.
Anthony| 2.13.12 @ 3:15PM
Yeah, we know all this, that's why Romney can't seal the deal. That said, it does not make Romney a MARXIST!!!
What part of that don't you people comprehend???
Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 5:33PM
How about you look at what happened in Maine. Got a question are all Massachusetts politicians like crooked Chicago Politicians, or is it just Romney?
Garbonzo| 2.13.12 @ 12:33PM
Oh you "conservatives" are full of you know what. Your boy Rick Santorum is not conservative. He is a first rate DOUCHE BAG! Career political hack turned scumbag lobbyist. Let me tell you Teavangelical bigots how this really works. You can threaten to stay home all you want, but you are a minority of "conservatives" who will in affect choose to vote for Obam. See, on the other hand, I am a registered independent. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. Nominate Romney, I donate money to the Romney/RNC and most likely vote Republican down ticket. You "conservative" bigots nominate Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrinch, I vote for Obama just to rub your noses in it! Trust me, I speak for many fellow right leaning independents! Nominate Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich at your own peril!!!!!!!!
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:27PM
Even Mittbots and Obamabots act the same.
Woodrow| 2.13.12 @ 3:15PM
Garfield, you don't like Romney...fine. In fact you say he and Obama are no different. Here's one important way they're different: One is anti-capitalist, anti-Wall Street, and one is not. If nothing else, Romney will be a shot in the arm for Wall Street. If Wall Street does well, everyone's pensions/retirement plans should stop bleeding red. If we continue down the path we're on, this country will be in very bad shape. BTW, what's your plan? Besides despising Romney.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:53PM
I actually think Newt Gingrich is our best candidate against Obama.
Newt made his fortune from being a writer, he's first generation rich.
Obama would have a hard time using class warfare attacks without looking like an idiot.
SUBVET| 2.13.12 @ 8:46PM
Garbonzo.......TLP was right you need to start using both hands to type.
Marshall| 2.13.12 @ 9:15PM
Agree w your sentiments. So called "true conservatives" are enjoying their 15 minutes of fame then they can go back to having sex w farm animals. Rush, Levin, Palin are all playing you guys like a trumpet. Try thinking for yourselves, you'll see santorum will lose woman's vote big time and we'll be stuck w Barry
rballardweed| 2.13.12 @ 3:41PM
Great! Be it on your heads when Obama takes our debt to $50 trillion!!
Drew| 2.13.12 @ 10:30PM
So, are you saying that as a conservative you're not concerned about balancing the budget. Because, he's balanced budgets as an executive in business and government his entire life. And to me, that makes him seem like someone who can be trusted to cut, cap, and balance the budget and reduce its share of GDP. If that's not important to you, and you won't for that over Obama, then you are not a conservative. You just don't really care more about your country than your ideology.
Clint| 2.13.12 @ 6:49AM
No MormoneyCare.
We Got No More Money.
Dick Nome| 2.13.12 @ 9:47AM
More bigotry from the Islamist Firster Clod.
Clint| 2.13.12 @ 10:30AM
That's A Lie.
You're A Liar , And Your Mommy Knew What She Was Doin' When She Named Ya.
I Like Real Mormon Men, Like Doc Halliday And Harmon Killebrew, But , I Ain't Votin' For Some Guy Named After A Baseball Glove.
Your Guy Baseball Mitt Is A RINO-CINO Patrician Fop.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
WL| 2.13.12 @ 10:48AM
Awe, come on Clint...where are the hateful blurbs about all of the Jews...and how they are duping all of us????
The Tea Party Rebellion AIN'T BIGOTS like you!!
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 11:53AM
So Clint is another RINO. Won't vote for the Republican if the Republican has a name he doesn't like.
How many RINOs are there on American Spectator?
Are you all secretly democrats?
Clint| 2.13.12 @ 7:01PM
That's A Lie.
I'll Match My Conservative Creds Against Yours Any Day, Charles.
I Won't Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman.
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Dick Nome| 2.13.12 @ 12:52PM
Well Islamist Firster, I bet you do like Mormon Men, good buddy. Jim McGreedy did too. BTW, I'm not a Romney fan. I'm not going to say who I prefer either.
Clint| 2.13.12 @ 7:04PM
Apparently, Dick Knob's Good Buddy Is Jim McGreedy.
Does Your Mancrush Bibi Know.
We Already Know What You Prefer, Sugar Pockets.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:29PM
Seriously most Mormons (unlike Romney) are decent people, and are not left-wing radicals...
Mormons have a reputation for largely being Conservative, Romney seems to be an exception to the rule.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.13.12 @ 6:54AM
The conservative base gave you John McCain/Sarah Palin. That sure worked out for the best.
benny havens| 2.13.12 @ 7:19AM
Sorry Mr. O’Stalin, the conservatives didn’t give us McCain. The establishment Republicans did. The Country Club Republicans did. The left wing media had their hand in picking and promoting McCain.
The Republican establishment, with their grease pencil boards, examines the numbers. They work in their percentages and fractions and conclude, this guy has the best chance of winning. Oh, he also has the money.
Wait a minute, what about those pesky conservatives and Tea Party people? Don’t worry about them. We’ll pick a conservative to be the running mate and that will appease them.
Sound familiar?
Nixon - Agnew
GHW Bush – Quayle
Dole – Kemp
GW Bush – Channey
McCain - Palin
So please don’t blame the conservatives for promoting McCain.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.13.12 @ 7:39AM
It's ridiculous to assert there are no conservatives in the Republican leadership. However, as it turns out, the conservatives don't hold the cards in the election. Here's a good article that shows McCain lost not because of conservatives staying home, they didn't, but because McCain ran a lousy campaign:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2.....y-and-that’s-why-the-establishment-acts-like-it-is/
There is a belief on the right that John McCain lost because he was too liberal and conservatives chose to stay home on election day. Some who hold this belief threaten to go Scozzafava on the GOP and refuse to work to stop Obama if Romney (or in fewer cases, even Gingrich, Perry, or assorted others) gets the nomination.
This is a comforting view for many conservatives – it means we didn’t actually lose the 2008 election. It is the cousin of the liberals’ belief that conservatives won the 2004 election only because we were better wordsmiths, a view that was equally unproductive for any other purpose than making George Lakoff famous.
The evidence does not support the claim that McCain lost because conservatives did not show up at the polls. Considering the economic conditions, the unpopularity of the incumbent Republican president, and Obama’s well-funded and well-run campaign, it would have been extremely difficult for a Republican to win no matter they were.
However, even putting that aside, the evidence also quite specifically is not consistent with the claim that conservative discontent could have made the difference. Depressed conservative turnout did not happen.
A Washington Post poll taken the day of the election of registered voters found 34% conservatives, 21% liberals, and 43% moderates. The last 15 daily polls the Washington Post conducted before the election averaged 21.4% liberal, 41.2% moderate, and 34.2% conservative.
The national exit poll showed that those who voted were 34% conservative, 44% moderate, and 22% liberal – pretty much mirroring the registered voters. This is actually remarkable, considering the advantages that Obama had over McCain in funds and underlying economic and political conditions. If anything, we should have expected turnout to skew against conservatives.
It is possible that the Obama campaign may have done a better job of registering voters, although that cannot account for that large a percentage of the electorate. Also, the difference between registered voters and adults is tiny, and surely the number of disgruntled conservatives who refused to vote for McCain make up a fairly minuscule proportion of the not-registered-to-vote population.
Clint| 2.13.12 @ 8:03AM
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
McNasty Was Ahead By A Few Percent After The Republican Convention & Then He Supported TARP.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
corvair| 2.13.12 @ 8:18AM
Three out of five is pretty darn good! Where would we be if those three lost?
Garbonzo| 2.13.12 @ 12:43PM
Your right, conservatives did not nominate McCain in 2008, they all supported Romney! That said, do Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck, Carl Palidino, Joe Miller, and Sharon Angle ring a bell? Imagine how much different this country would be right now if you Teavangelical freaks had not screwed that all up!
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:31PM
I'm a Conservative and in the 2008 primary I voted for McCain cause Huckabee had dropped out and I didn't believe anything that Romney was saying.
Drunken Sailor| 2.13.12 @ 2:46PM
"Teavangelical freaks ". Your really shooting for the Mr. Congeniality prize aren't you? And I am supposed to believe your a right leaning independent? Don't think so.
RJ| 2.14.12 @ 2:39AM
Well let's take a look at it -
Delaware: this race was winnable, but it is disconcerting that "Republican" Mike Castle was already making deals with Harry Reid on what legislation he could count on Castle supporting. I wonder if he even talked to Mitch McConnell. Castle was likely to be another Specter or Chafee; no big loss.
Colorado: a close race going against the best state Democratic organization in the nation. Do you think the guy Ken Buck defeated in the primary would have won in the finals? It was a disappointing loss, but probably not winnable.
New York: (Paladino ran for Governor) Joe DioGuardi lost in a blow-out. I don't remember him as a Tea Party candidate, nor do I remember a top-notch candidate entering the race. Which GOP candidate do you think could have won New York? These aren't the days of George Pataki.
Alaska: The GOP Rino, Lisa Murkowski is senator today so no difference. However, when you look at her voting record, it was worth a shot to get a conservative in her place.
Nevada: Before Sharon Angle entered the race, there were concerns that previously announced GOP candidates were weak. Angle's campaign was done in by the money and influence the Senate Majority Leader brought to the race. The Club for Growth thought she was the best GOP candidate in the field and supported her. Losing this race was very disappointing, but I don't see another candidate doing better.
The Tea Party exists because we need a change and the GOP establsihment seems to just keep going along with wasteful, intrusive, corrupt government. At some point, you wonder if these guys are incompetent or actually are fall guys for the other side. They keep acting like the "New Jersey Generals" playing against the Harlem Globetrotters.
For many of us, elections are not about whether the Dems or the Reps hand out the goodies. What we want is an honest, lawful, effective and limited government- something which reflects the Constitution, but has been denied us all too often by both parties' establishments.
former Republican| 2.13.12 @ 8:00AM
The base hated McCain. Party elites and their lapdogs in the media gave us him.
You've spent too much time in the salt mines, Mr. Stalin.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.13.12 @ 8:07AM
He couldn't have made it at the convention or through the states without some conservative support.
In fact, all the pundits are claiming Romney can't make it because he doesn't have that support.
In essence, if you're right they're having it both ways, i.e., candidates can't win without the conservative support but if they do get the nomination (Like McCain) the conservatives had nothing to do with it.
You better get back to the salt mines.
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 12:09PM
McCain got the nomination in 2008 because the final alternatives -- Romney and Huckabee -- looked so weak. Romney still has that weakness problem, making it difficult for him to get a majority even in Maine.
Actually, though, I could accept a Romney ticket this time around. Santorum/Romney could do the trick, especially if Pres Rick promised to put VP Mitt in the position of Chief Bookkeeper for the nation.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:33PM
I didn't support Romney in 2008 because I always got the feeling he was lieing to me, and his record supported that feeling.
When it got down to my state, the choices were between McCain and Romney, and McCain was a much better choice cause he actually had integrity in 2008.
W| 2.13.12 @ 10:44AM
McCain was the nominee because he won the primaries. In the election he received a highter percentage of the conservative, or base, that GWB. McCain lost becaue he received about 8 to 10% fewer votes from Hispanics and independents, plus Obama got 96% of the black vote instead of th ususal 90%, over 80% of the Jewish vote, and 55% of the Catholic vote.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion, and who cares about the opinion of a former republican who votes for Obama, or did not vote for the Republican nominee which helped Obama.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.13.12 @ 11:30AM
The article above shows he had the conservative support. Don't let the facts get in the way of your alleged facts.
W| 2.13.12 @ 12:05PM
Bill,to whom did you adress your comment?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.14.12 @ 5:27AM
You. What did the Hispanic vote have to do with conservative support within the party? That's a total red herring.
W| 2.14.12 @ 7:01AM
You did not understand. McCain got a higher conservative vote than GWB. But McCain got fewer Hispanics and independents. That is why he lost. Did not say McCain had no conservative support.
Indy| 2.13.12 @ 7:00AM
Team Romney:
Norm Coleman - ObamaCare will not be fully repealed.
Pam Bondi - RomneyCare in all 50 states
WIllard Romney - It's nothing to get angry about...
GOP - eat your peas and vote Romney
Von Mises Jr.| 2.13.12 @ 7:18AM
Indy is spot on. Norm Coleman is already lowering expectations on ObamaCare. Romney defends RomneyCare and if you listen closely, he says he will change it, not end it.
The Catholic Church that normally avoids political statements has stood firm on ObamaCare once they realized the assault on their First Amendment rights. But paying for contraception and abortion is only the first major issue. IPAB "Death Panels" should be very motivating for those Christians who escaped liberals abortions.
nedb| 2.13.12 @ 8:01AM
If Romney is the nominee and if he manages to win in November, and he doesn't repeal Obamacare outright, (I'm assuming a bill is on his desk from the new congress within weeks of his taking office), then it will mean the end of the republican party.
A third party will form, (Probably based on the TEA party infrastructure), a large number of Republicans will bolt to the new party and and so will the money.
Within 2-3 election cycles the Republican party will have gone the way of the WHIG party.
John - TMF| 2.13.12 @ 9:54AM
The repeal won't pass a Democrat filibuster in the Senate if Romney is nominated, and manages by some cosmic fluke to win in November. It would take a genuine Conservative with an enthusiastic base, and long reach down ticket for the repeal to occur.
1. He will have zero coat-tails. The mythical "moderates" don't vote for Conservatives for Senate and Congress... They vote for whom the pop culture tells them. Their chief motivation is how "cool" they will look doing it. In 2008 it was the height of "cool" to vote for "The One".
2. McCain lost because Conservatives stayed home... The Romney bought and paid for fake statistical trope that he ran a bad campaign is bogus. Campaigns don't win or lose elections, this is from long political experience, partisan enthusiasm is what wins elections - McCain could have run the most brilliant campaign this side of Reagan '80, and still lost. The enthusiasm was with the Left in 2008.
3. Romney is a Liberal Democrat posing as a Republican because that's the only way he got even a remote shot at a weak plurality run at the Kennedy/Dem machine in the PRM.
4. The Establishment dodge that Romney governed as "conservatively" as he could given the nature of Massachusetts is damning with faint praise. It means he's a weak, craven opportunistic pol who is possessed of absolutely no political principle whatsoever.
4. Romney would likely lose to The Democrat Establishment Puppet Obummer, because the accepted order of the Elites is that Democrat Establishment runs things, and the Republican Establishment is too busy digging for the scraps from the table of power to care. Romney is most likely to go along with that arrangement.
Last, as an addendum to the first point of this response, there must be a strong principled Conservative in the White House in January 2013. There is absolutely ZERO chance of putting any sort of pressure on a Romney Presidency to be anything else but a "Tax collector for the welfare state" go along to get along, Democrat puppy.
The only way to win is to take the pledge and prepare.
Willard Milton Romney is a Limousine Liberal Democrat, therefore I WILL NOT vote for him, EVER!
r/John - TMF
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 12:25PM
So John-TMF is another RINO.
Why are there so many RINO's on American Spectator?
John - TMF| 2.13.12 @ 12:51PM
wait.. cough.. snort.. snicker..
The laugh a minute crowd strikes again. How much does the Romney PAC pay you to monitor sites and shill for him? Or do you volunteer for him like all of those folks bussed into the CPAC convention?.
I suppose a life long Conservative (Fiscal, National Defense, and Social) would look like a RINO to a Romney-ite. If your mental picture of the GOP is Romney-esqe/Establishment Democrat lite... sure. Believe what you want. Hey if you really want to win at all costs, why not nominate Hillary! NLN? She's more conservative than Romney (just ask Ann Coulter - Romneycare = Hillarycare) and actually has a set unlike the metrosexual Mittster... She keeps a stainless steel pair in a pouch - left pocket of the pants-suit.
But saying that Romney is electable and "conservative" is Democrat Establishment Agit-Prop disinformation for the former, and a flat out lie for the latter.
A Romney nomination will probably result in a repeat of the McCain 2008 "victory". If Romney does encounter some wrinkle in a parallel dimension enough to win in November, his Presidency would look like Nixon's without the benefit of having opened relations with China (as problematic as that move has been...) He'll be rolled by the Democrats and fail miserably just like in Tax-a-chusetts.
It's time to take a stand against being used by the Establishment. No more phony Republicans who beg for table scraps from the Democrats. No more the nation cannot survive the continued election of Democrats (with or without "" around them.)
-Still giggling about that one.. RINO... yeah... that's rich.. Conservative... yeah... but if the test of being a Republican is to vote for a Liberal Democrat for President... I'll pass.
-TMF
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 2:33PM
John.. you are a self admitted RINO. You are a RINO. Regardless of your prior record, you have admitted moving to the RINO camp and declaring that you will not vote Republican if you don't like the Republican Candidate.
That is RINO.
Shoe fits.. Take it out of your mouth and wear it.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:36PM
I agree with TMF, I'm likely to vote third party.
Romney has a record in Massachusetts, that is exteremly similar to how Obama has been governing.
rballardweed| 2.13.12 @ 3:48PM
Well, I agree with Charles. He has brought up a very good point.
And 3rd party candidate?? Who? Daffy Duck? There isn't going to be a meaningful T.P.C. Go ahead and cast your symbolic vote and watch President Obama take this thing to $50 trillion. Good idea.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:56PM
I wouldn't be considering third party except for the fact Romney's record is too much like how Obama would govern.
Okay we have Obama taking the debt to $50 trillion, but Romney brings it to only $49 trillion, so we should all vote for Romney.
No, the fact he'd run up debt like Obama means he shouldn't be elected either.
darcy| 2.13.12 @ 5:22PM
I agree with you, TMF, about Romney.
There's little daylight between Romney and Obama -- as far as the former having ANY desire to decrease the size of government. That "severe conservative" comment was from the Twilight Zone. But as a manager, of sorts, I'm sure Romney would like to play around with the prize -- if he could get it -- and divide up the spoils among his friends.
But have I missed something? I know with whom you are not smitten -- understandably. S0 which candidate do you favor?
Teaghan| 2.13.12 @ 8:20AM
I'm betting there will be forced aboritons and sterilzations as well as the death panels. How will the feminazis and PP defend them. I suppose they won't because they won't have to.
I think our nation is done for folks. obamacare cannot and will not be reversed. It's tenticles are already out and changing our lives, taking over our lives.
Indy| 2.13.12 @ 8:24AM
Von Mises Jr. - thank you, you bring up a good point which is not receiving much attention, the IPAB is dangerous not just for Christians, for all of us.
Not sure if you read PJM but I think this post would interest you, I know you and other regulars at TAS would have some good comments to post, I may add some later after work, it's a busy Monday, have a great day all
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012.....candidate/
Von Mises Jr.| 2.13.12 @ 9:16AM
Hi Indy. I check PJmedia often for columns by VHD for his historical content, Rubin and Leeden for Middle East news, and Klavan for a laugh. Great site.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 11:56AM
Romney has sworn over and over that he WILL repeal Obamacare.
There is no reason to doubt this.
However, there is plenty of good reason to suppose that he will have to replace it with something. At the very least he will need to institute some sort of reforms to provide for pre-existing conditions and to permit companies to compete nationwide.
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 12:13PM
And that "something" will likely be Obamneycare.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 12:20PM
So your contribution to discussions is to basically demagogue.
Anything, including doing nothing can have a label on it. Your post is utterly meaningless proving you are an idiot or a troll.
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 1:17PM
What I'm attempting to say is that only the very naive take Romney at his word about anything. Mitt has few convictions, only positions that he changes as easily as most change their underwear.
His single prominent conviction is that he wants to be President. He blathers on about how he "loves" America, but his only genuine loves, other than his family and his hair oil, are money and personal advancement. The man is hollow, and only fools and others whose first love is money are taken in by him.
Many conservatives backed Romney against McCain, but after four years of practice and observation poor Mitt still hasn't memorized his lines. It's time to kick him off the stage in favor of a conservative understudy before Obama beats him like a red-haired stepchild.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:37PM
I am a Conservative and supported McCain over Romney.
I'm actually wondering what took you so long to figure out that Romney was a lieing snake (would have said weasel but that would be insulting decent weasels everywhere).
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 2:42PM
"What I'm attempting to say is that only the very naive take Romney at his word about anything."
So, without any justification at all, you call him a liar.
You are a scoundrel.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:23PM
Remember him denying knowing about an advertisement that in the same debate the moderator pointed out that it had Mitt Romney saying:
"I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."
rballardweed| 2.13.12 @ 3:57PM
Nice. Yeah, didn't you hear his voice? he was right there when the thing was being shot! Garfield, you know they can take his voice and stick it on the end of "his" ad without him having heard it, right? It's called a voice recorder bro. You think he'd lie about something so benign??
You people who are saying he's a liar clearly have no idea who he really is. Please talk to someone who really knows him. I've asked dozens of people and they ALL say the same thing. His #1 problem is that he's an incredibly nice, humble guy... which makes him a BAD politician. The way your characterizing him is simply untrue.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 5:27PM
It was his campaign that did the ad, he's responsible for it.
Indy| 2.13.12 @ 5:24PM
Why then did Coleman say what he did same for Bondi? If he is going to replace it with something, what is it? He should be telling us specifics now, such as more HSAs, supporting the sale of insurance across state lines, etc.
What conservative position has Romney gone to the mat to defend? You may trust him but I don't, he says he's governed as a severely conservative governor, just what does that mean? Any specifics you can provide would be most welcome and please don't say balanced budgets because that's a state law. Severely conservative, that's a good one.
Clint| 2.13.12 @ 7:26AM
" LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Congressman and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the Obama Administration’s announcement that religious organizations must pay for contraception and sterilization under the national health care law:
“Forcing private religious institutions to pay for contraception and sterilization as part of their health care plans is a direct assault on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. On my first day as President, I will reverse this policy. Repealing the unconstitutional monstrosity known as ObamaCare is a major part of my Plan to Restore America.
“I am the only GOP presidential candidate who has consistently opposed the federal promotion, funding, and mandating of contraception and abortion. Unlike Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, I never voted to provide taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. And unlike Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts health care plan contained a contraceptive mandate similar to the one contained in ObamaCare, I have never supported any government health care mandates."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
corvair| 2.13.12 @ 8:29AM
Why would you support a candidate who has opposed all these things are are now standard policy. It shows me that he has accomplished nothing except "flap his gums". A true sign of a great leader.
Clint| 2.13.12 @ 9:23AM
For The Same Reason That There A Tea Party Rebellion Going On.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Fred Farkel| 2.13.12 @ 9:49AM
Romney/ Paul , that's the ticket! Get on board.
Clint| 2.13.12 @ 10:35AM
You're The Chairman Of The Israel Firster Smear Bund Bores, Fartel.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 12:15PM
Clint continues his appeal to potential supporters.
Dick Nome| 2.13.12 @ 1:12PM
Kinda draws them like flies... so to speak, what??
Clint| 2.13.12 @ 7:08PM
You Hang Around Bibi's Fly, Israel Firster Sugar Pockets.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:39PM
I hate to say this, and I can't believe I found a Republican that I would support Ron Paul over said Republican (because Paul's foreign policy is nuts).
If you look at Romney's record, he did the same thing to religious institutions in 2005, that Obama is doing right now.
martin j smith| 2.13.12 @ 7:42AM
I the current Republican Presidential race is for real and theatre, here is my take: Romney very weak. Paul-not acceptable across the board--except for Obama. Newt--if he doesn't show some common sense in who he is and what he plans to do then he will not make it. he has a chance but he must do something. Santorum may catch fire but will he get a stronger support than Romney ? If these candidates do not may it then there will be a brokered convention and a NON ROMNEY and NON SANTORUM will be chosen but it will be a popular and well spoken person--some one that a large number can agree on and support.
If this is all theatre--the choice for the convention is already made--just waiting for an introudction.
Clint| 2.13.12 @ 8:13AM
There's A Tea Party Rebellion Out Here, Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Smith.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
former Republican| 2.13.12 @ 7:58AM
Republican Media Meme #1: Mitt Romney is Inevitable
Republican Media Meme #2: Mitt Romney just has to "close the deal" with conservatives.
How about this, Mr Babbin? There is no "deal" to be closed, no magic words to be uttered. Conservatives have a clear view of Romney's record, and no matter how many times he calls himself conservative, they aren't going to support him.
May I suggest a more fruitful line? Here's one
Can Mitt Romney win the GOP nomination despite opposition from Conservatives?
Or how about this
Can Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich "close the deal" with party bosses?
Or this
The Electability Argument is dead. How do we drag this guy's sorry carcas across the finish line?
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 11:59AM
Electability is sort of dead. Obama is almost certain to win.
The issue will be -- how can we best pressure Obama and the Democrats.. how will they be most pressured to spend money on elections that they would otherwise have in the bag -- so we can get the Senate and the House.
Not sure on that answer, but one thing is for sure. If Romney is the nominee for President, he (like anyone else) will not win, but he (unlike everyone else) comes the closest and thus injures their coffers the most.
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 12:24PM
Where would we be if it weren't for the pessimists?
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 12:26PM
It does not matter. Pessimists do not control things.. neither do optimists. It is irrelevant. You would be right were you are, with or without them.
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:37PM
What has changed from two weeks ago that makes Obama a lock!? Obamacare? A horrible economy? Socialism?
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:41PM
Romney managed to alienate Conservatives to the point they would all have coin tosses at the voting booth if the choice was between Romney and Obama.
Yeah Romney, managed to turn a sure win in 2012 into a probable defeat. What is it with Republican elites that they always manage to snatch defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
rballardweed| 2.13.12 @ 4:02PM
Keystone pipeline?? Catholic contraception insult?? Appointments during Congressional recess?? The list goes on and on...
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 5:30PM
And what will Romney do to abuse power as well.
Look at what happened in Maine, whole counties had their caucuses pushed back by the Party Establishment and are now told their votes won't count.
Oh those counties happened to be heavily Ron Paul support.
I don't like Ron Paul, but any candidate that pulls stunts like what Romney is (and yeah I hold him responsible) doesn't deserve to be the nominee much less President.
corvair| 2.13.12 @ 8:22AM
The operative thought here is "we won't survive an Obama second term"
Mitt IS the most conservative in the race. Listen to Ann Coulter. She has taken the time to look hard at his background and comes out strong for him.
Do you seriously think that a candidate that has four years experience as a junior member of a law firm hired right out of law school, and then went full time into politics as a legislator in DC has any clue how to solve our pressing economic, energy, deficit, and debt problems?
Get real he doesn't stand a chance against the Obama machine.
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 12:32PM
Who is this "Mitt" of whom you speak? Is it Massachusetts-Mitt, the leftist answer to Ted Kennedy? Or is it moderate-conservative Mitt, the slick-looking android constructed in time for the 2008 race for the Republican nomination? (You know, the one who couldn't beat Angry John McCain.)
Or could it even be Hyper-conservative Mitt, the newer, shinier model designed to take on Obama? Enquiring minds want to know.
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:35PM
Perhaps you'd rather have Obama!? Romney was a Republican Governor for the ultra- liberal State of Massachusetts. What do people expect from him!? He says he will repeal Obamacare. Good enough for me.
If Romney is nominated and "pure" Conservatives don't vote for him, I will blame those fools for the destruction of this Country that 4 more years of Obama will cause.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:42PM
I actually would pick neither, Obama and Romney are too similar to be a real choice.
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:36PM
Romney was a Republican Governor for the ultra- liberal State of Massachusetts. What do people expect from him!? He says he will repeal Obamacare. Good enough for me.
If Romney is nominated and "pure" Conservatives don't vote for him, I will blame those fools for the destruction of this Country that 4 more years of Obama will cause.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:43PM
Boy are you gullable.
His own staffers have said he isn't planning on repealing Obamacare.
George Soros actually wouldn't mind a Romney Presidency.
Derek Leaberry| 2.13.12 @ 8:40AM
Perhaps Romney should look to the Log Cabin lads, GOPProud, Bones Coulter or Olympia Snowe to bail him out.
Volunteer| 2.13.12 @ 8:55AM
Conservatives who can't see a difference between Romney and Obama are like the liberals who dislike Obama because they think he's too ready to compromise with Republicans (because he's "center-right" on the political spectrum!). I suspect the number of them who will sit out the election if Romney is nominated is only slightly larger than the number of liberals who left the country after saying that they'd leave if George Bush was re-elected.
I suggest they consider how conservative they could be while trying to govern a state as blue as Taxachusetts.
Tommy Frisco| 2.13.12 @ 9:45AM
Volunteer,
Reagan won Taxachusetts in 1980 and 1984 with the same conservative message he gave the other 57 states. Romney cannot blame the Democrats for his liberal record in Taxachusetts.
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:34PM
Romney was a Republican Governor for the ultra- liberal State of Massachusetts. What do people expect from him!? He says he will repeal Obamacare. Good enough for me.
If Romney is nominated and "pure" Conservatives don't vote for him, I will blame those fools for the destruction of this Country that 4 more years of Obama will cause.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 5:31PM
Then why does he constantly defend Romneycare, which Obamacare is based on...
crookedwren| 2.13.12 @ 9:04AM
In this article, you have cited nearly all the reasons NOT to go with Romney.
If he's making blunders now on camera (i.e. "I don't care about the very poor. . . "), what's he going to do when he goes up against the Teleprompter-User-In-Chief?
And didn't McCain actually win in more states than Obama? Didn't Obama win the Electoral College votes?
And why aren't we concerned about THOSE States? Who is going to win in those states?
I suspect that you and Anne Coulter have been thinking about those Electoral College votes and believe that only Romney (out of these candidates) can get those vital States.
Otis the Hand | 2.13.12 @ 9:05AM
Why did CPACers vote for such an obvious interloper? Is their brand of conservatism as shallow as Romney's? That is all.
Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 10:03AM
My understanding is that Romney bought CPAC. But it's not the first time conservatives have held their nose to vote for someone they knew wasn't really conservative: Dole, McCain, and now Romney.
They've bought into the electability argument, and the fact that the RINOs keep losing doesn't seem to penetrate the adamantine pragmatism that they've adopted, or that "conservative" leaders have been spouting at NR and AmSpec.
In my opinion, this election is really a referendum on the Republican party.
Tommy Frisco| 2.13.12 @ 2:29PM
Just like he bought Nikki Haley's and Marco Rubio's support.
Otis the Hand | 2.13.12 @ 7:54PM
Rubio has not endorsed Romney, or anyone else.
JohnInFlorida| 2.13.12 @ 9:41AM
Babbin says ... "So let's assume that Romney is the nominee. "
No, let's NOT assume that Romney is the nominee. Because, if he is, Obama wins and USA becomes USSA.
former Republican| 2.13.12 @ 10:02AM
Virtually all GOP pundits have changed from "he's Inevitable" to "he's the obvious nominee, how does he 'close the deal' "? As usual, the pundits will be the last to figure it out.
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:31PM
If Romney is nominated and you "pure" Conservatives don't vote for him, I will blame you fools for the destruction of this Country that 4 more years of Obama will cause.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 1:39PM
Feelings mutual, because I'll blame you for handing the person that is some much like Obama, the nomination.
I'm sorry but I would be vote for Ron Paul before I vote for Obamney, and I think Ron Paul is nuts when it comes to foreign policy.
If you look at Obamney's record, he did the same thing in 2005, that Obama is doing to religious groups now. He has no credibility on this, on Obamneycare, etc.
former Republican| 2.13.12 @ 1:57PM
I could care less who the "severe conservatives" blame. You're backing a stiff. Prepare to lose.
Art Mooney| 2.13.12 @ 9:47AM
Romney has no reason to be running at this point.
It's not like he has any grass roots support.
People don't like him. That isn't going to change.
loulou| 2.13.12 @ 9:54AM
I got news for Babbin: NOTHING can energize conservatives to support Romney.
Sarah Palin energized conservatives for McCain but we're done holding our noses.
George| 2.13.12 @ 10:05AM
I didn't understand until recently that it was Sarah Palin herself, and not Trig, for which she plyed the politically correct speech suppression tactic for us all to stop using the term "retarded". After her last remarks of "rallying behind our nomineee to beat Obama" and "a brokered convention wouldn't hurt our party", all in the same breath ... that kind of mental retardation used to require wearing a helmet.
Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 10:13AM
Troll.
Anthony| 2.13.12 @ 10:36AM
Right on loulou, and if you need more proof of no good deed goes unpunished, and more Palin Derangement Syndrome; HBO has a special on Palin coming out that trashes her big time.
It even hints that loser McCain lost because of her.
It even has her making the Russia comment, which of course, she never said, it was Tina Fey, yet HBO has it in this POS special.
I bet McCain and his goons encouraged HBO to do this crap hit piece, so that McCain can continue to live in his la la land of how wonderful John McCain is.
Tommy Frisco| 2.13.12 @ 9:56AM
"Can Mitt Close The Deal?"
Does Mitt have enough money to buy this election?
How can Romney convince conservatives to ignore his record?
How can Mitt destroy his last two GOP rivals?
How can Mitt convince conservatives that milque toast moderate win elections?
George| 2.13.12 @ 10:00AM
You left out the most important objective to being conservative: it works, it's successful, it wins. Conservative values have won out over liberal/markist/sociocentric BS everytime. Romney knows how it works, is successful, and is a winner. He is the true conservative in the race. The real question is who is the real GOP electorate ... championed by the likes of Sarah Palin, a loser's loser?
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 1:26PM
We can be sure Sarah Palin's IQ is at least twenty points higher than George's. In fact, a sure mark of the "below average" mind is the belief that Palin isn't bright.
She manages to use proper English most of the time, as well, unlike this troll that calls itself "George."
marvin anderson| 2.13.12 @ 10:10AM
as a former democrat considering becoming a republican,i now find i am not extremely conservative so like ROMNEY i am not accepted in the republican party either.i am socially liberal but morally conservative but no way could i vote for Santorum or Gingrich but i could vote for Romney,but since after reading articles like this and seeing republicans eat their own candidates,meaning their rejection of Romney i guess i find myself a man without a political party...four more years of Obama ...my god help us.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 1:42PM
Marvin if you look at Romney's actual record, you'll find that he has no credibility. He mandated religious groups to pay for abortions while Governor of Massachusetts (not sure if he went to the level of Churches but he certainly did for hospitals), he has no credibility.
albert constantine jr| 2.13.12 @ 9:39PM
Among the current qualifications for registration in the Republican party is the ability to use the Shift key in order to capitalize the first word of each sentence, proper nouns, etc.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.13.12 @ 10:15AM
As usual, I wake up on Mondays with anticipation about what Jed has in store for me.
Mitt Romney's "severely conservative" line was important in a few ways. It showed how uncomfortable he remains in marketing himself as a conservative. And it showed yet more gaffe potential...I can just picture Axelrod cutting the tape to make Romney look like a "severe" conservative who "doesn't care about the very poor." Ugh.
One question I have, and I'm asking this of myself and not just of you, is whether the GOP base will be sufficiently energized even if Romney himself isn't particularly inspiring just because of the intense desire to beat Obama. I'm not saying this is a good argument to support Romney...just wondering if it could happen that way, i.e. that the base is inspired but not so much because of the nominee. Seems like a very weak strategy but maybe the best we have.
I continue to believe that Rick Santorum would get destroyed in an election against Obama. Look at what happened to Ken Buck in CO and it will be exactly the same thing...except that Santorum really is the social issues extremist that they made Buck look like out here. Yes, Santorum has less personal baggage than Gingrich and his supporters keep touting that. But his well-publicized positions on social issues, including contraception, would cause the biggest "gender gap" in our modern history, and Obama will win by 10 points in a year that otherwise I'd expect to be 2 or 3 points one way or the other. Here's a perfect example of what will happen to Santorum: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/.....th-control
I have heard Santorum say too many times that he "supports the 10th Amendment, but..." with the next few words always being some social issue he wants to federalize. His economic populism stinks too. If Santorum is the nominee, I'll probably vote libertarian again. Not certain yet, but to me he sounds like the Kathleen Sebelius of the right.
Regarding CPAC, I was really unimpressed by Santorum's speech. I was grabbing sound clips for my radio show and listened to Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney (as well as Palin), and could only find 2 parts of Santorum's speech that I wanted, whereas I found half a dozen from each of the others. (Didn't actually play that many clips on the air, though.) Santorum was flat, mostly uninspired and uninspiring, and also fumbled a few times that made him sound less intelligent than the others. And I'm not just saying this because I'm not a big fan. In fact, I listened to Santorum's speech twice (once more than any of the others) to try to find material, but just couldn't find much worth repeating. Romney's speech was mostly better than average for Romney, but still not nearly as compelling or even as convincing as it needs to be...which is exactly the point you make.
Very cool that you got to guest-host for Savage. I hope someone decides you should be the permanent host of your own show.
loulou| 2.13.12 @ 11:14AM
Sometimes I wonder why you're even writing a column. You're all over the place and worrying about the quality of a SPEECH??
Go vote libertarian. Buh-bye.
Tommy Frisco| 2.13.12 @ 11:14AM
Ross, this makes twice now that I've read a comment from you where you claim to be a libertarian. That's difficult for me to understand considering all of your columns supporting Mitt Romney. Romney should be your least favorite candidate. Is your friend, Ann Coulter (Three Cheers For RomneyCare) also a libertarian? And you guys wonder why the GOP is in disarray?
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 12:49PM
Jed Babbin implies that Romney needs to take a crash acting course in order to "close the deal" with conservatives. But "acting conservative" is what got Romney in trouble in the first place. Most Republicans see him as insincere.
If I understand correctly (and I hope I don't) Babbin suggests Romney call out the names of conservatives in each speech, as if some kind of mantra -- ReaganBuckleyGoldwaterBurke -- will do the trick. Weird, no?
Then there's the "passion" problem. The only thing that seems to excite Mitt are figures. As I see it, figures could possibly do him some good. If he can get certain figures to stand on the stage behind him it might create enthusiasm. Right now I'm thinking Coulter, Nikki Haley and the Huntsman daughters -- bikini-clad, of course.
Anthony| 2.13.12 @ 10:22AM
As I said in a previous post, Romney can't speak conservative even with a teleprompter. He is clueless about what conservatism is, because at his core, he is coreless.
He is another nasty, vicious, establishment RINO, like McCain and Dole, that has little chance to beat Obozo, especially if he dons his mittens after trashing all his R rivals and does an McCain lite on Obozo.
Romney had best find his conservative soul, and find it damn fast, or he is toast.
Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 12:02PM
If he hasn't found it by now, it's not likely he ever will.
Anthony| 2.13.12 @ 12:59PM
True, but what the hell can one offer up for hope?
Daniel Izzo| 2.13.12 @ 10:31AM
The point of this artcle and many others is you treat the lack of Romney's core as perception. Maybe just MAYBE it is not a perception but reality. Romney has no core or passion for anything conservative. It is fine and good but he is running for the nomination of the wrong party.
David| 2.13.12 @ 10:38AM
Santorum will provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.
Remember, Newt, Mitt, and Barack all hold the following positions.
They believe in man-caused global warming baloney, and the regulations and restrictions that have resulted from such thinking. Santorum does not.
They supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.
They support and/or supported individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum never has.
They all criticized Paul Ryan's plan to get our fiscal house in order. Santorum embraced it.
Santorum is of the opinion that ILLEGAL immigrants have not broken ONE law (by crossing the border) as many claim, but that they have continually been breaking America's laws by working here, driving here, etc., and should NOT be rewarded for doing so.
Santorum cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper.
Santorum cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear.
Santorum cannot be accused of stating his positions based on the particular audience in front of him at the time.
Santorum is a fighter for what he believes and has always been the underdog in heavily democratic and union PA, and except for once, he has always been a winner. He has been able to convince democratic voters to stick with him for the very reason that he stuck by his conservatives principles.
It is clear that Santorum has been the adult in this race. His criticisms have been on the other candidates' records and he does not distort or misrepresent their records as they do to one another.
It is also clear that he has been the true, principled, consistent conservative his entire politcal career.
Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 12:05PM
I wouldn't have a problem voting for him, but he doesn't have any significant leadership experience. Unlike Obama, he would be cut to pieces by the press for all the gaffes he would make as he learns on the job. I'd rather see him as Vice-President first.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 1:45PM
I have to agree with you.
How about we do a Gingrich/Santorum ticket and let Santorum get some experience first in the executive branch?
I think Gingrich could probably get 2 terms, and Santorum could probably get 2 terms.
Vern Crisler| 2.13.12 @ 1:57PM
One can only hope....
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:39PM
Anyone but Obama!!
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:47PM
What's the point in beating Obama if we just put someone in his place that continues Obama's policies.
This race isn't about kicking Obama out of the White House, it's about stopping Obama's policies, removing Obama from office and thrown into the unemployment lines is one part, but we need someone that is determined to stop Obama's destructive policies.
Romney is more apt to continue Obama's policies, so I don't care if he can "supposedly beat Obama," when he probably has no intention of getting rid of the destructive policies.
martin j smith| 2.13.12 @ 10:43AM
Its about Romney Care and Obama Care and the deficit. Romney is the worst possible choice next to Ron Paul. Romney's baggage is too close to Obama's policies and thus impossible for me to justify him being the presumed nominee.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.13.12 @ 10:59AM
First of all: What Steve said.
Second of all: When will the Old Guard go away, and let us fix this Country?
Ya wanna bet that Dick Lugar likes Romney? Ya wanna bet that Orin Hatch likes Romney? What about Chuck Grassley? What about that Idiot - Susan Collins - and that Hatchet Face - Olympia Snowe - from Maine? We know that The Blob, from the early X-Men Comic Books, likes Romney. We know that Ann - I really need to get La*d - Coulter likes him. We know that Karl Rove, Billy Krystal, and the "Former" Republican Representative, from the Trailer Park District in the Panhandle of Florida, who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome likes Romney. You know who he is. He's the Retarded guy on MSNBC. I realize that could be ANYONE on that Station, and that Clarification is in order.
He's the one in the Morning, who makes you remember the movie: "SLING BLADE" every time the Camera moves in for a close up.
We need someone who's REAL. We can't elect a Weather vane. We can't elect Silly Putty. We can't elect Tobor the 8th Man, and we can't elect a guy who finishes every line with: "Yeah. That's the ticket." At least, that's what you think you hear.
How does he run as anything, but what he is? He's an Ex-Governor of the only State that George McGovern won. The State that saw fit to send a MUDERER to the U.S. Senate, time after time. A State that kept a TRAITOR in the Senate. A Man who committed TREASON, when he offered HIS HELP to Soviet Premier Yuri Andropov, in thwarting OUR PRESIDENT - Ronald Reagan - in their upcoming Meetings. A Traitorous POS, from a Family of Hitler Lovers, Jew Haters and Whore Mongers, who should be DUG UP from Arlington National Cemetery TODAY, and dragged off to the nearest Land Fill, for Re-Burial.
That's the State that Romney's bragging about.
How will he go up against the Marxist/Muslim/Half Breed, when it comes to Mittbama Care? How can he say, with a straight face, that: "I will repeal Obama Care, while, at the same time, DEFEND his own Government Health Care DEBACLE? What will he say when HAMAS' Deliverer reminds everyone that HIS OWN PEOPLE pranced, happily, to the White House, at Abu Hussain's invitation, so they could offer their help, in creating Obamacare?
What will he say when David Gregory, or Wolf Blitzer, or any other Obama Acolyte in the Left Wing Media asks him what the Founders of MORMON thought of "The Negro". What will he say when asked what his Church' Founders said about their "Flat Noses"?
You can pretend that his Mormon Religion isn't gonna be a problem, the way old guys like me, tell ourselves how good we look, and how: "If I wasn't married? I could get all of these Hot Chicks".
They will tie this to his neck, like a Millstone. You think that the Catholics are freaked out, now? Just wait till Brigham Young's Boy, gets going.
Romney is a DISASTER. He's got NOTHING to run on. No accomplishments that he would dare bring up. "Neither does Obama."
That's true. But, the one thing he does have, is the Oval Office. That's something. And, you can't beat Something, with Nothing.
Putting "Mormon" next to all of his Nothing, only makes it WORSE.
loulou| 2.13.12 @ 11:08AM
Thank you again, TLP.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 11:12AM
This fellow is might have been a good bureaucrat, but he doesn't seem very good at reading the tea leaves.
He thinks that an energized Republican base will beat Obama. This has been the silly mantra of tea-party and uber conservatives for months now.
ITS WRONG.
Obama will almost certainly win, NO MATTER WHO RUNS.
But if Republicans nominate someone more centerist, at least they will not get totally SLAUGHTERED at the polls.
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 12:52PM
Why don't we nominate Eric Holder? That sufficiently "centrist" for you?
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:30PM
Your arrogance is reminiscent of Obama and the other socialists. You will eat your words.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 11:16AM
I seriously do not get it.
Why do otherwise intelligent conservatives CONSTANTLY fail to notice that month after month, poll after poll, over and over again, repeatedly....
Obama beats VERY conservative candidates by double digits.
Obama barely beats Mitt Romney by 2% or less. Sometimes he losses to Romney.
WHY does this not matter?
If you say "we have a long time till November" you LOSE. These stats are very persistent. Very very persistent lasting over YEARS. And Obama is even on an upswing.
So really.. what makes you guys IMAGINE that going more conservative and alienating the squishy, soft, and easily frightened center is going to win the election?
Why do you think that hoards of bloodthirsty conservatives will win when MOST of the country does not like us?
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.13.12 @ 11:46AM
Jimmy Carter was ahead of Ronald Reagan, right up until the end.
Deep Breath.
The Muslim/Half Breed has 10 more Months to do damage. What he did to the Catholics, may very well be repeated again, and again.
I have FAITH that he will be unable to control his Megalomania. He is a Sociopath with a Marxist Ideology. He is a Classic Narcissist, who's Greatness can only be appreciated in an 80,000 Seat STADIUM.
Hail Caesar. Hail Nero.
HEIL OBAMA!
His Narcissism will be his undoing.
Trust me.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 12:05PM
So, you are trusting in a last hour, hail mary pass.
I would rather not take that risk.
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 12:56PM
Charles the First is right. Let's simply wait until the next nationwide poll showing Obama 1% in front of Santorum or whoever, and just quit right then. What's the point of waiting until that big poll in November?
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 2:45PM
You are kind of an idiot.. .suggesting things that have nothing to do with what I said.
Get off the crack, democrat.
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:42PM
I agree wholeheartedly. This dispute over conservative purity will ultimately get Obama re-elected. Time to vote for whoever the Republicans nominate, period!!
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:01PM
Even if the person plans to continue Obama's policies, sorry but I think that would be more destructive to this country because then our opposition to Obama's policies loses its legitimacy and they can just claim we voted against Obama because we are racist.
Seriously, we have to make this about Obama's policies, not simply Obama.
former Republican| 2.13.12 @ 1:59PM
You missed the last Rasmussen poll, showing Romneycare down 10 to O, and 4 Santorum within 4 of O.
martin j smith| 2.13.12 @ 11:26AM
Because Polls are phoney and prove zero that is why people do not buy them.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 11:45AM
I can buy that *possibly* people do not buy into polls. But if they don't that is silly and stupid because polls are shown to be *generally* correct when they have been *consistently steady*.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 11:45AM
I can buy that *possibly* people do not buy into polls. But if they don't that is silly and stupid because polls are shown to be *generally* correct when they have been *consistently steady*.
somnolence| 2.13.12 @ 11:37AM
YES
John D. Jopling| 2.13.12 @ 11:40AM
Mr. Babbin, are you actually among the "us" you refer to who doubt the U.S. can "survive" if President Obama is -relected? Or are you one of the "us" who simply and cynically employ this kind of ludicrous hyperbole to appeal to the Know-Nothings who dominate the GOP electorate these days? Either way, you should be embarrassed.
Bradford| 2.13.12 @ 11:45AM
Mitt was the conservative darling of all conservative radio/news media back in 2008. If anything he has moved even FURTHER to the right since that time. The relentless attacks calling him a RINO, etc by those same supporters now is flat out ridiculous. If he loses the general because the far right sits on their hands, the blame sits squarely with the freaks on the far right! (yes Rush/Laura, etc. I am talking about you...remember who you supported in 2008?)
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:02PM
And I thought they were being idiots supporting Romney in 2008, thankfully a lot of them figured out who Romney really is.
David| 2.13.12 @ 11:48AM
Get a grip, Charles. Where did RINOs like Bob Dole, Juan McCain, both Bushes, etc., get us? Nowhere.
Where did Ronald Reagan get us? Well, until they lost their way, running on Reaganism got CONSERVATIVE repubs to the first takeover of Congress in 40+ years.
The voters do not want squishy. Santorum can provide what the voters want in a non-threatening manner.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 12:08PM
Get a Grip David.
The Tea Party is more hated in this country than Obama.
Figure it out.
And Reagan only SPOKE conservative words. He did not govern as a Conservative. Think I'm wrong? Under Reagan Deficits and social spending increased radically. And he even raised taxes.
You loons on the far right forget that stuff.
The voters ARE squishy. At least the voters that count. Loons on the right are matched by loons on the left. What's left? Squishy center!
If you do not get that squishy center.. you lose.
And you Tea Party idiots do not understand this. The center HATES you guys.
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:26PM
What about today's Democrats comprised almost entirely of the radical left and socialists!!? Does the center love them!? If today's Democrats were honest, they would rename their Party more appropriately to Socialists.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 2:46PM
The center does not love them, but the center does not fear them.
It does fear the TeaParty.
Indy| 2.13.12 @ 5:42PM
The center does not fear the Leftists, and make no mistake, that is what the Democrats have become, the party of M. Moore, Code Pink, George Soro... If the center doesn't fear them, it's because they have no clue. I work with some wonderful people, they are busy with their families and jobs, sadly, they are not paying attention other than 30 second sound bites. The media has done a good job of tainting the Tea Party as radicals but please tell me what is extreme about small limited government, living within our means, abiding by our Constitution? A vote for any D is a vote for Obama, Reid and Pelosi. The Leftist media controls the message, they get their marching orders from the WH and they are good foot soldiers. We have much work to do to educate voters. The debt / GDP ratio will only get worse, spending is the problem.
I don't like any of the candidates running but in the end I will be voting ABO. The A team chose not to run so we have this lot to pick from, how sad for our country.
loulou| 2.13.12 @ 2:43PM
"The center HATES you guys."
So why vote for a centrist?
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 2:47PM
You do it to avoid having a socialist.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:02PM
Why should we vote for the media's definition of a centrist?
Remember the media considers Obama to be a centrist.
somnolence| 2.13.12 @ 11:50AM
This intransigence works both ways: if Romney ISN'T the nominee I will just stay home. Neither faction can win without the other; guaranteed. So let the gradual destruction of America begin.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 12:09PM
somnolence is excited to see America destroyed and wants to help.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 12:25PM
Can Romney close the deal? I hope so.
Romney will be a great president. Finally, we have a candidate who is an outsider and can come in and dismantle the corruption and bloat in Washington. This is exactly what he did with the Olympics.
Reagan was hamstrung by the Dem majority in congress. Romney will have Paul Ryan leading congress and they will make a great team.
Both Santorum and Gingrich are DC insiders to the core. Dr. Paul has been in DC many years but is also an outsider.
Dai Alanye | 2.13.12 @ 1:32PM
Why is it that the "outsider" Romney is so beloved by the Washington and Wall Street establishments? Because Romney's claim to be an outsider is every bit as phony as his claim to be a conservative.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 1:45PM
Your response defies logic. The only reason Romney lost to McCain last time was he was the outsider. He is still the outsider. He is getting support from all quarters BECAUSE he is the only one to defeat Obama and that's what ALL quarters want.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 1:50PM
Romney lost because McCain was more of an outsider than Romney, and McCain actually had some principles.
I don't agree with McCain on a lot of things, and I think he's starting to lose it now, because the McCain of 2008 would never support a dishonest used car salesman as the Republican nominee.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 2:16PM
LOL Mr. Romney is one of the most honorable men every to run for President.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:05PM
So now you're saying Romney is more honorable than Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, etc.
Have you lost your mind?
Romney couldn't even admit he was behind the smear job on Gingrich when it came out that the ad said at the end: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."
You're telling me that is honorable?
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 10:17PM
Please reread my comment. You accused me of something I didn't say.
Regarding the debate, Wolf made the mistake. Wolf asked Romney about a TV ad and then went on to quote a radio ad. That is why Romney was confused..
Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 5:38PM
TV ads and Radio ads are sometimes both the same recording, just you don't see the images while it is a radio ad.
loulou| 2.13.12 @ 2:45PM
At least McCain served in the military.
But did he have some principles? No. Unless you count compromising with the enemy, grovelling and reaching across the aisle.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:06PM
He didn't run around smearing people he was running against in the primary like Romney did in 2008.
Rick| 2.13.12 @ 12:43PM
Why Romney when you can vote for a bigot like Santorum?? This way we can keep our country divided another 4 years!!
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:20PM
No, instead we should vote for 4 more years of Socialism so that all semblence of self-sufficiency and integrity disappear forever from this Country. Liberalism is for the lazy, the blameless, the angry, and the dishonest.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:49PM
Why are you pushing that we nominate someone that would continue Obama's policies if he beats Obama in november?
We can't fixate on simply beating Obama at the expense of neglecting the goal of undoing Obama's destructive policies.
Bill| 2.13.12 @ 12:53PM
Romney's records:
1. Romneycare
2. liberal stances on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and climate change
Romney's advantage:
1. Money
2. Organization
3. Private sector experience
Romney's weakness:
1. ROMNEYCARE
2. "New England big-government liberal RINO"
wanne be the President? You wish!
obamanable | 2.13.12 @ 1:17PM
If Romney is nominated and you "pure" Conservatives don't vote for him, I will blame you fools for the destruction of this Country that 4 more years of Obama will cause.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 1:51PM
If you study Obamney compared to Obama, their policy positions (based on records not rhetoric) are so similar you would think they were the same person.
Bill| 2.13.12 @ 1:51PM
If Romneycare=Obamacare
then
Romney=Obama
No big deal!
Morris Fiorina| 2.13.12 @ 1:00PM
I'm not a Romney supporter, but in response to Santorum's (and your) observation, one of the reasons independents would vote for him is BECAUSE his own party doesn't like him.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 1:52PM
Trust me, once you study Romney's record you'd actually be liable to vote 3rd party if you don't like what Obama has done to this country.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 2:20PM
I have studied Mr. Romney's record and he has the best skills to turn this country around. He is a DC outsider that will root out corruption and shrink the size of government. This is exactly what he did in MA against long odds. The hacks in MA hate him.
Why would Romney veto liberal bills from the 85% MA legislature? I'll tell you. He was protecting the taxpayer. I thank him every day.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:51PM
So he vetoed a bunch of bills that were too nutty for even him.
You need to look at some of the stuff he did in 2005, then look at what Obama is doing now, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the record shows that Romney isn't even remotely conservative.
Him calling himself a "severe conservative" as though it was a disease, shows his real beliefs.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 2:36PM
The REASON, I am for Romney, even though he is not as Conservative as I am, is because of his record.
He has a definite record of effectiveness in fixing broken things.
We need that.
You suicidal ideological purists need to realize this: YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE SILENT MAJORITY.
You are a minority and the middle of the road people fear and hate you.
loulou| 2.13.12 @ 2:47PM
Fixing what? The Olympics??! I don't give a rat's a** about the Olympics.
Why would I vote for a middle of the roader who fears and hates me?
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:52PM
So you support Obama forcing religious groups to fund abortions?
Romney did that in 2005, as Governor of Massachusetts.
Drunken Sailor| 2.13.12 @ 2:55PM
"YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE SILENT MAJORITY."
Hell from what I have read of your post you don't either. You are far from silent.
martin j smith| 2.13.12 @ 1:02PM
Wrong about polls--There is not one MSM poll maker that has an honest balance of the electorate and Since it is very clear that the Republican Leadershit is pushing Romney I would certain;y include FOX in the MIX. But more important is this matter: If the base does not like R
Romney--not because of his attire o his physical appearance but his lack of ideas that show he is the wrong guy then that is the bottom line and it is up to Romney to persuade them they are wrong. If he continues to go negative then he has nothing to offer. Over and out.
Obamanable| 2.13.12 @ 1:14PM
Jed Babbin says: " Conservatives believe that we have too much at stake this year to trust anyone who isn't an ideological conservative." Conservatives, now is not the time to insist on ideological purity. There is simply too much at stake. If conservatives too rigidly adhere to this principle this time, Obama will be re-elected to another term and this Country will be unsalvagable. Romney is supremely preferable to Obama. So, if he is the nominee, go out and vote to oust Obama and the Socialist Democrats!!!
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:09PM
How is replacing one liberal (from Chicago) with another liberal (from Massachusetts) going to help matters any?
While I want to beat Obama in November, I want to beat him with someone that will fight to undo Obama's destructive policies.
This isn't simply about beating Obama just to beat Obama, kicking Obama out of office is pointless if the person that beats him has no intention of removing Obama's destructive agenda.
Drunken Sailor| 2.13.12 @ 5:20PM
Garfield, I understand your angst but let me put it to you this way. If you have to eat a shit sandwich do you want the special larger version that is one our plate now or a junior sized one? Of course you want neither but if you have to eat one what do you do?
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 5:36PM
I'd tell the person pushing them on me to go jump in an active volcano.
Look at what happened in Maine with whole counties being denied the right to have their voices heard, and you're telling me he is significantly different from Obama? He's just as bad as Obama.
Merry Crystal| 2.13.12 @ 1:34PM
Romney will crush Obama, come November.
Just you wait and see.
What can't continue, won't.
Even "only" nine more months of worsening news will be more than adequate to wake up the crucial swing voters, so that 55% of the people will be so scared they will be GLAD to throw Obama out!
By the way, if it's Santorum, the same thing will happen.
somnolence| 2.13.12 @ 1:44PM
No, Charles, the ones that truly want America destroyed are the ones who stay home in November. I made my statement to make a valid point which is undeniable: neither faction within the GOP will win with the continued bickering and also if somebody is picked out of the blue at the Convention that didn't have the courage or wherewithal to run in the primaries. Somewhere the twain must meet in order to prevail over Obama in the fall. Seriously, I don't see Romney losing in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, and California in the primaries for starters.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 1:53PM
I don't plan on staying home, I just don't plan on pulling the lever for Obamney or Obama.
There isn't any significant difference between the two.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 2:38PM
Somnolence... so you were being ironic?
It did not come across very clearly as irony.
somnolence| 2.13.12 @ 1:54PM
B.S. to that last post.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:19PM
I'm not B.S.ing, I've studied the situation and have found Romney has no significant differences compared to Obama.
If you look at who all was running ads against Gingrich in Florida, it was a combination of Obama superPACs and Romney superPACs and the Romney Campaign.
Obama is terrified of Gingrich.
Soros approves of Romney.
Also on Cap & Trade, watch Gingrich's actual testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzDutBRMsXw
He dropped his support and really rips Democrats a new one, he dropped it as a Private Citizen long before he decided to re-enter politics.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 2:24PM
Since all the GOP candidates have the same positions (except Ron Paul on foreign policy) you must believe the are all the same as Obama.
Why does the DNC and Axelrod only spend money attacking Romney? It is because he fears Romney.
I saw John Kerry's debate with Newt on cap and trade. Kerry was in shock that Newt agreed with him. Do you know who paid for the ad with Nancy Pelosi and Newt on the couch? George Soros. Yes, the same George Soros that you now appear to believe.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:31PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzDutBRMsXw
Watch what Gingrich did when the chips were down and the situation actually counted. He testified against Cap & Tax, he ripped the Democrats a new one.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 10:20PM
That's great was this after the sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi in the George Soros paid ad.
Does Romney get any credit for being the first governor to pull out of the regional New England cap and trade consortium?
Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 5:41PM
Of course it was after that advertisement.
He had been approached about an environmental ad and he said okay. He wanted to show that Conservatives care about the environment too.
When he found out the real agenda, he testified against it.
I think the Democrats were expecting him to testify in favor of it, and were in shock when he testified against it.
Bill| 2.13.12 @ 2:27PM
Mr. Garfield, you're right, and I admire your judgement. Romneycare is killing Romney, while Santorum is downed by his pro-union stance. Gingrich has some issues on climate change and personal life, but he can oversome those and can debate Obama like a college-professor. Romney and santorum lacked any debate skills.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:56PM
Santorum has a justifiable excuse for his pro-union votes because of the state he was supposed to Represent as their Senator.
It's some of the other things that hurt Santorum.
Right now who the hell cares about Gingrich's personal life issues. The day when something like that actually is a real issue (because the mess caused by the idiots in D.C. and we can even go back 10 years on it, and Gingrich would still be blameless), our country would be in the middle of an economic boom.
Greg| 2.13.12 @ 2:24PM
TO ALL ANTI ROMNEY POSTERS OUT THERE:
I love Santorum and Gingrinch, but I also like Romney. If Romney becomes our nominee, I can't see the logic of not voting for him. We need to win this election! Forget your wounded pride and vote for whoever the nominee is to help reverse the socialistic slide our country is in. How anyone can sit this election out because "their guy" didn't make the cut is beyond me. Its petty and childish and really sucks (to be honest). So please, for the sake of the country, stop acting like children who don't get their way and takes their ball home with them. I admire your quest for conservative purity and I wish it was attainable now be it isn't. We need cool heads to prevail. I can't financially afford more democrats and liberalism in our government.
Bill| 2.13.12 @ 2:28PM
McCain could not win in 2008, Romney is no different than McCain, and Romney cannot beat Obama, either.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 2:33PM
I respectfully disagree. Romney and McCain have very little in common.
Romney has successful executive experience in the public and private sector. He turn around a corrupt and bankrupt Olympics and that is EXACTLY what we now in DC.
The only people against Romney now are ignorant of his record and skills OR want the Obama and the DC bloat to continue.
Bill| 2.13.12 @ 2:37PM
Gingrich turned around an economy with over 280 million people, creating 11 millions jobs between 1994-98, and he never get credited for that. Romney is a "New England Big-government Liberal RINO." Santorum is an ex-union-thug.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 2:48PM
Newt did a lot but you overstate his accomplishments.
You call Romney a big government RINO. Please explain why a RINO would veto 800 liberal bills from a 85% dem legislature? Please explain how a big government RINO would actually shrink government by removing patronage departments and slash the number of state workers while in office?
I could go on about numerous Newt flip flops and big government positions he had after he left office and made millions on K street. The sad fact is Newt and Santorum are DC and K street lifers.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:00PM
This is Massachusetts we're talking about liberal Democrats in Massachusetts would probably be considered totally insane everywhere else in the United States outside of New York, D.C., and San Franscico (spelling? not bothering to look it up at the moment).
A "Massachusetts moderate" would be considered a leftist progressive just about everywhere else in the United States.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 3:02PM
Romney's accomplishments against all odds in MA make them even more impressive.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:11PM
You can theoretically make that argument for Chris Christie, but to make that argument for Romney is laughable.
Woodrow| 2.13.12 @ 3:27PM
Bill, Newt did no such thing. He was the Speaker, the head congressman, who did a great job leading his fellow legislators and accomplished some great things. He was also a notorious compromiser. Not that we have to worry about Newt going much further, but if he did, what we'd have is a Lecturer in Chief, and compromiser-extraordinaire, not much more.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:12PM
What Newt did demonstrates he's a natural leader, that he can get things done. Think for a minute about how he managed to get a bunch of politicians to actually go along with conservative reforms.
George S| 2.13.12 @ 3:14PM
A better argument would be Romney as an executive turned MA around -- like Scott Walker or Rick Snyder in MI.
But when we tout his business acumen, there is one problem: the federal government is not a business! It does not produce wealth; it confiscates instead of asks; it hires or spends without regard to return on investment. So how does a businessman man apply his skills?
Romney has not dictated how and where he will cut spending. He has not put forward a blueprint for reducing the size and scope of the federal government (hint: supporting the minimum wage hike? What businessman sees a benefit in that?).
Romney promised to repeal ObamaCare. That I take his word for and will vote for him if he is the nominee. What other choice do I have?
George S| 2.13.12 @ 3:18PM
Sorry, I left out the word "if"... A better argument would be IF Romney as an executive turned MA around.
One word can make all the difference.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 3:47PM
Romney did turn MA around. When he came in the state was in fiscal crisis. He cut state government and closed down patronage for the first time in my lifetime.
Paul Ryan was on Laura Ingraham on Friday and he stated that Romney has the boldest and most specific medicare reform plan of ANY GOP candidate. Of course, we know medicare IS the biggest budget buster. He isn't endorsing any candidate but he gave Romney high praise. Romney has many other specific reforms like tying federal pay to private sector pay.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:10PM
Massachusetts is still in the state of a financial crisis and Romneycare was funded with Federal Tax money since its inception.
Charles| 2.13.12 @ 2:37PM
Hooray for Greg, who makes great sense.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:01PM
Greg, you need to do some research, Romney forced religious groups to fund/provide abortions in religious hospitals, etc. while he was Governor of Massachusetts. He did the same thing that Obama is doing now.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 3:03PM
Wrong. It was the courts. Romney fought it and was overridden. You are getting desperate.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:32PM
Stamping veto on it and doing nothing else, isn't fighting it. It's covering your rear and not taking responsibility.
He had the option to publicly speak out against it, to publicly support a court challenge to it.
Fernando| 2.13.12 @ 3:09PM
It is a shame there is not a candidate with integrity, decency, and a consistent message about how to reduce our federal spending and remove the government cronyism from what is left of our free markets. Maybe one will show up at the brokered convention.
somnolence| 2.13.12 @ 3:09PM
Ha, if Romney has no debate skills how come he beat both Newt and Santorum in the last two Florida debates handily?
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:33PM
He didn't beat them, the only reason he won Florida was he spent so much money on ads to smear Gingrich.
Zious| 2.13.12 @ 3:11PM
Conservatives have no trust in Mitt whatsoever. Don't know how that will help him close the deal. Mitt cannot connect at any level with the masses. He may be connecting with the classes but the voters seems to be getting further and further out of his reach. Santorum might just be able to squeeze through as his likability/favorability goes up. He just happens to be the other man standing not that someone special though so says www.sci-burr.com
Greg| 2.13.12 @ 3:15PM
GARFIELD,
I bet that if we could hang out together, we might find that we are of like mindedness on many issues. But where we split seems to be at the consideration of reality. If we can't except a candidate who is 80% of our ideology, why would we let a marxist back in for a second term who shares 0% of our ideology.
Look, I had to hold my nose to vote for McCain in '08 but the point is that I DID vote for McCain. Besides, most conservatives were on the Romney bandwagon back in 2008. So what has changed now?
Come on...you don't want to play apart in Barry's re-election, do you?
George S| 2.13.12 @ 3:27PM
All I want to hear from Romney is WHY he wants the presidency (this is his second reach, remember). When Santorum implored that we cannot afford to lose the high ground on mandated health insurance, he was saying what we are all crying out in frustration. Yet Romney shoots him down with nothing to get angry about? We are angry and want the nominee to be just as scared as we are. Instead, I fear we are looking at an opportunist who sees the trappings of power -- Gingrich comes in second but Santorum doesn't even register on the ego ambition meter.
The reason we were on the Romney bandwagon four years ago is the same reason we are hesitant to get on it now -- we didn't trust a nominee more hostile to conservatives than to Democrats.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 6:35PM
George, you are suffering from selective listening if you haven't heard why Romney is running. Obama's policies are destroying the country for our generation and future generations. He wants to unwind the damage Obama's down and he is making the proper case that he has the best leadership skills to undertake that challenge.
It appears that you holding Romney to a different standard than you hold the other candidates. All the candidates have egos but I don't see Romney's ego as a problem. In fact he almost seems too humble. IMHO, Newt is the only candidate (other than Obama of course) with an ego problem.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:39PM
Greg,
I don't believe Romney is even 20% like us in ideology.
I don't believe Romney has been honest with us.
Gingrich wouldn't be running if Obama wasn't causing the trainwreck that he is. Santorum may or may not have ran. Romney would have cause he just wants to be President.
Gingrich's reason for running is he's worried about his grandchildren's future.
Santorum is he's worried about moral decay.
Romney is running cause he wants to be President. He's been running for at least 6 years, and probably longer than that, he just couldn't run while Bush was in office without switching parties again.
Woodrow| 2.13.12 @ 4:19PM
Garfield, now that is the first time I've heard anyone attribute pure motives to any politician, much less Newt. I know sarcasm doesn't work well in these forums, but let me try....Oh, thank G*d for Newt. He's come to rescue us from these impure, lesser candidates. If Newt didn't have to be so busy correcting the other lying candidates nasty charges, and saving this country from Romney, he would be thinking about future grandchildren. Not only of his own, but those of the whole nation. Go Newt...and future Grandma Callista, (or whoever, in case he tires of Callista).
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 5:40PM
Would you want to go back to a workplace where you know everyone hates your guts?
I wouldn't.
Gingrich specifically said the only reason he's in this is his Grandchildren's future. I haven't seen him do anything that suggests it's simply cause he wants to be President. Gingrich seemed perfectly content with being a private citizen.
Jim Hodgen| 2.13.12 @ 3:25PM
So here's the deal Jed.
Not all Republicans are hard core 'conservatives'... whatever that means. Some of those that support the Republicans more often than not want to see someone that has the ability to get the job done be elected.
So with Gingrich, ask yourself what chance he has to be elected outside of about 10% of the electoral college vote tally... and the answer is none.
So with Santorum, ask yourself what he would do if by some circumstance he didn't also suffer electoral failure in the northern and western tier of states... what experience does he have managing large bureaucracies and bringing them to heel? None.
So you start out with the "...we won't settle for another McCain...". Who are you anyway, to say that the entire party has to put up with your absolutist screed? No compromise generally means no election in America... and when they get into office with a reduced majority in the house and a bare majority (if things go well) in the Senate, what kind of leadership will your 'no compromise' candidate be able to offer?
Your attacks on Romneys's character and capabilities are out of touch with the realities that we face and the characteristics that the next President will have to have to fix our problems.
I would encourage you and E. Erickson and the others that are doing your best 'Occupy' imitation to start thinking about what happens after the election... and get over the idea that the 'conservative manifesto' will be all that's necessary.
You getting your way is not going to get America better. You are starting to sound like a right wing version of Obama's approach.
There has to be a better way than the polarizing, pulverizing foolishness that the nominal Republican party is indulging in now.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:14PM
This isn't exactly a normal election year.
Obama has been worse that Jimmy Carter.
Reagan was supposedly unelectable, I think Obama and the left is worried that Gingrich would repeat history and beat Obama as badly as Reagan beat Carter.
ge20f| 2.13.12 @ 3:31PM
I can't figure out how conservatives are down on GW? After all, it was their goons who were yelling "4 more years" at all the Kerry rallies in 2004.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:40PM
George W Bush was obviously a conservative compared to Kerry.
That difference isn't as clear cut when you look at Romney and Obama.
Steve| 2.13.12 @ 3:38PM
What GOP voters have to decide is if we want a candidate who cannot go after Obama on healthcare or on social issues like religious freedom. in both areas, Romney is compromised by his own record. And since healthcare is intertwined with the overall economy issue, it really makes it tough on him. His business record is a plus but we need to determine if other candidates still running or yet to run could carry the overall GOP banner more effectively.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 3:44PM
I will go a step further, he is the only candidate that was running whom is compromised by his own record like this.
I think Romney's business record is a negative considering the kind of business he was in. Bain Capital didn't bring us Staples, Bain Capital was a minor shareholder.
Herman Cain's business experience was a positive for him, because he actually was running a business on the mainstreet level.
Romney's business experience can easily be tied to Wall Street. From a tactical standpoint Obama would have a field day against Romney. Whereas if he attacked Herman Cain on his business experience it would have blown up in Obama's face.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 3:49PM
Romney was on the board of directors for its first 15 years of existence. The founder of Staples acknowledges that Romney was critical to their early success.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:24PM
Okay, fine.
Look I know you are worried for this country, but you need to step back for a minute and consider this objectively.
I'm not simply against Romney cause I don't like him, there are some practical reasons that the political pundits either haven't figured out or are rooting for Obama so they just won't tell us.
1. Romney will not have a money advantage against Obama.
2. Obama has spent his entire Presidency blaming "the rich." Calling Republicans the Party of the rich. Blaming Wall Street.
3. Mitt Romney could be considered Wall Street Personified.
This is where a lot of people shouldn't have jumped all over Gingrich when he brought up Bain Capital.
Romney's business experience can be used against him, he's made it an issue and the left would be more than eager to paint him as a corporate raider.
This tactic wouldn't have worked on Herman Cain, won't work on Newt Gingrich, wouldn't work on Rick Perry, wouldn't work on Rick Santorum, and wouldn't work on Ron Paul.
What's Obama going to do bring up the fact Newt was a consultant? Does Obama really want scrutiny of how he used his position as US Senator to protect Freddie Mac?
Obama goes after Newt's family issues, okay what does this have to do with the pain people are feeling cause we are all out of work? He pushes too hard and it alienates people and they feel sympathy for Newt.
I mean seriously, stop and think about the campaign Obama plans to run, Newt Gingrich is the monkey wrench that can totally screw up Obama's re-election campaign. He's the hardest for Obama to go after without shooting himself in the foot repeatedly.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 6:26PM
I appreciate your analysis. Yes, all of the items you mention will be used against Romney. However, any successful GOP candidate will have to make this a referendum on Obama. This is the usual case in defeating an incumbent. It is clear to me that Obama and his protectors fear Romney. They are trying desperately to tear him down early. Look at the WaPost today. They had an article questioning how much impact Romney had at the Olympics. If you read the article there is no substance to it. They were clearly just looking for a negative headline.
I do respect Newt's work building the GOP majority in the 90's and his work on the contract with America. He has wavered of late but that doesn't matter much in the general election.
I vehemently disagree that Newt is the best general election candidate. He is the most divisive politician of the modern era. He has his base but he is hated by the left and many independents. Obama will use this to make the election about Newt and not Obama's policies. The second most divisive major politician of the modern era is Nancy Pelosi. Imagine if the Dem were stupid enough to nominate Nancy Pelosi. I believe Newt has another barrier too. He is very unpopular among women. I've seen this in the polls and with women friends I've spoken to. Newt's problem is he loses when he goes negative and he would have to go negative to have ANY hope against Obama. It is an almost impossible situation for Newt.
Romney is our strongest candidate. I also believe he has the leadership skills to be a great President. Santorum has a very thin resume. Career legislators rarely win as President. Executive experience is critical; especially when we are in crisis.
Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 6:14PM
I appreciate your analysis but I think you've overlooked some key facts.
Santorum's weakness is he's from the Bush years, and we all remember how Obama likes blaming Bush, more to the point he was in congress when this stuff was starting to come to fruition.
Gingrich left Government far enough back that he can't legitimately be blamed (at least in the public's mind) for the mess. Heck Democrats have to be extremely careful because if they start going after Gingrich in the wrong fashion it will alienate Clinton supporters.
Romney is our weakest candidate, he had trouble handling questions from Bret Bauir (spelling?) from Fox News without getting annoyed. He flounders like Obama whenever he isn't using a teleprompter.
Gingrich can turn many of his "negatives" into things that the public would find admirable.
1. He can show the ethics investigation was a farce, that the IRS later cleared him.
-- What this does is show that he was targetted by the elites in Washington, we all know how people think Washington is corrupt, now we have someone running for President that the elites actually concocted false charges to try to get him out of office.
2. The establishment on both sides hate his guts.
-- Look at Congressional Approval right now, it's in the toilet. The fact he is hated by people that the public completely despise could actually help him.
3. He has detailed plans on how to fix the problem.
-- This shows he isn't just rhetoric.
4. His "baggage" isn't as bad as we've been told and there is an added bonus in that if Obama isn't careful it will end up pushing the focus on Obama's "baggage."
-- What this does is prevent or lessen the Democrats' ability to attack Gingrich.
5. He will call Obama out on things.
-- He isn't afraid to call a spade a spade.
6. He doesn't get intimidated by the left-wing drive-by media. He takes them to task, Romney never has, the media has been covering for him.
Finally, we are not running against Bill Clinton here, Clinton knew how to compromise and be pragmatic. Clinton changed course because he realized early in his Presidency that he was screwing up badly and abandoned his earlier policies. Obama is an ideologue, he can't bring himself to admit that his policies are the problem.
In an ordinary election, Gingrich probably would be very unlikely to win, however his election is unique because we'd be pitting him against a Left Wing Ideologue named Barack Obama.
Gingrich would be easily able to show in the first debate that he has all the ideas of how to fix the country, and Obama just has his left-wing ideology.
We need someone whom can articulate Conservatism in a manner that can paint the "intellectual elites" on the left as being the real idiots (just they have silver tongues).
Romney doesn't believe in conservative values.
Santorum probably wouldn't hold up from the constant attacks.
Of the Candidates in the race, only Newt Gingrich fits as the right person for the job.
I will also point out that Gingrich is only unelectable if we let ourselves believe the Obama-loving media. If Gingrich was really as unelectable as they have claimed, they would be sabotaging Romney's campaign, not Gingrich's.
Keith| 2.13.12 @ 4:11PM
Jed. You really think the reason Dole and McCain lost was because they were viewed as insufficiently conservative? Dole lost because he was considered too old,73. He also was facing a popular incumbent. Dole's conservatism,or lack therof,was not the reason he lost. McCain lost because he was facing a very rough economy. Bush was extremely unpopular,and the economy looked to be in crisis mode. Plus,he picked a total idiot and clown for vp.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 4:25PM
Explains why the media couldn't find anything in those e-mails to use against Palin.
Greg| 2.13.12 @ 5:02PM
...and no matter how much crap is thrown at her and doesn't stick, as long as the general "misconception" in the media is that she is an idiot, our side won't give her a chance. I think Palin is damaged goods through no fault of her own. I would vote for her in a heart beat though.
Keith| 2.13.12 @ 4:29PM
I will vote for Santorum over Obama. Still,I think we are making a grave error to have him against be our nominee. His social views are extreme,even Mississippi rejected the Personhood amendment he supports. Some of his comments regarding gays will also be harmful. Not because he was going to get the gay vote,but because many people,even those like myself who do not support gay marriage,believe they deserve respect. I also have to laugh when he is given a pass for voting against right to work and striker replacement because he was from a union state. These same people give Romney no pass.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 5:42PM
I give Santorum a pass on the union vote because of the State he Represented. He has legitimate excuse in that regard.
I don't give him a pass on other stuff, and don't give Romney a pass on his baggage.
Roger| 2.13.12 @ 4:35PM
Shouldn't ousting Obama be enough to "motivate"conservative voters? I guess some would rather Obama be reelected. It's good for business. Looking at you El Drugbo,Loudmouth Levin,and most of the bloggers.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 5:43PM
It isn't about getting Obama removed from office, it's about getting rid of the destructive policies.
I don't trust Romney with removing said policies.
Slacker| 2.13.12 @ 5:09PM
Romney’s Mormon faith will cost him many votes and probably guarantee Obama’s reelection. Polite people don’t like this fact but, it is nevertheless true. Republican primary voters really fucked up.
Mitt can't carry the Mormon baggage in the general. A hostile media will brand Mormon culture as outside the mainstream –which will be easy because it is.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 6:12PM
You know they said the same thing about Obama's race in 2008. There are fewer bigots in America than you think.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:17PM
I am against Romney because of his behavior and his record. I couldn't care less if he was Mormon, Jewish, Southern Baptist, Atheist, Catholic, Methodist, Luthren, Johavah Witness, Amish, Quaker, or worships the Goddess Athena from Ancient Greece (this last statement was just to say something off the wall to show most people aren't taking issue with Romney on his religious background).
somnolence| 2.13.12 @ 5:28PM
I disagree on the comment about Quayle being a clown. The course of history might have been a lot different had he been the nominee in 2000 instead of Bush. Quayle was very astute about foreign affairs, and may have had a more incisive knowledge of the clandestine workings that may have prevented 9/11. Bush the Elder did not lose because of Quayle; that is simply baloney.
somnolence| 2.13.12 @ 5:29PM
Gingrich is far more Establishment than Romney, far more.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:19PM
Explains why the establishment hates Gingrich's guts and are fawning all over Romney like they want to have Romney's babies.
It was disgusting enough when Chris Matthews was fawning all over Obama (and wanting to get in Obama's pants).
Seriously, I think we can say Gingrich isn't establishment.
somnolence| 2.13.12 @ 5:31PM
No, Bush was almost as liberal as Kerry, if the truth be know. Jeb is the true conservative in the family, as even Mona Charen noted in the spring of 2000.
somnolence| 2.13.12 @ 5:35PM
Romney DID beat them effectively in the Florida debate. Santorum's charge against Romneycare bounced off Mitt, and didn't really stick. Romney COULD HAVE massacred(and still can) Rick with his noting the televised Santorum support in 2008. Once again, you can threaten away Romney all you want, but how are you going to get all of us P.O.'d, disenchanted lot to the polls with your great men Gingrich, Paul, or Santorum? You have no answer to that do you? So in the end this angry posturing really works both ways.
Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 5:44PM
Yeah Mitt claiming he wasn't responsible for an ad that had "I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message," on it.
His campaign is the only one allowed to put that on their ads, if other people do it they can get in serious hot water.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 6:03PM
You have Newt blinders on so you can't possibly be fair. Wolf asked Mitt about a TV ad and then went on to quote it. It turned out to be a radio ad. Any honest person would understand the confusion.
Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 6:15PM
Same ad can be played on both TV and radio you know.
somnolence| 2.13.12 @ 5:56PM
Elsewhere I read I comment that perhaps Fred Thompson should be picked by the Convention. I literally laughed out loud.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:20PM
At least I can vote for Fred Thompson with a clear conscious, can't do that with Obamney.
Eric| 2.13.12 @ 6:03PM
If people are rejecting a man because of his faith they are scum and should rott in hell. Romney has many issues,his faith shouldn't be among them.
Fred| 2.13.12 @ 6:27PM
Republicans and all conservatives need to stop the hate. Support your candidate. Don't demonize the other guy. All 4 are preferable to the pos currently occupying the oval office.
I blame the candidates for much of the problem.
I also blame the party leadership,as well as our conservative media.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 6:28PM
Fred, well said.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:23PM
This isn't about hate, this is about the fact I do not trust Mitt Romney. I do not believe a word he says.
This is about the stunts he pulled in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida.
This is about the shannigans in Virginia where election rules were changed.
This is about the disenfranchisement of voters in Maine so Romney would be declared the winner (which puts every primary and caucus that Romney won in question).
David| 2.13.12 @ 6:35PM
Fred, that is one big reason I support Santorum. He criticizes the other candidates' records and does not misrepresent them or distort them as the other candidates do to one another.
He has been the adult in this race.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 6:41PM
Except that is not true. He has clearly been misrepresenting Romney's positions on cap and trade and right to life.
He also claims that Romney will "give away" the Obamacare debate which is ludicrous because Romney and Santorum agree 100% on repealing Obamacare and the FEDERAL mandate.
However, I understand why he makes that argument because otherwise he would have nothing else to run on since he has no executive experience.
Mike Rizzuti| 2.13.12 @ 10:31PM
Except of course that the other day on Gretta he said both Mitt and Newt HAVE the same position as Obama on cap and trade, health care and abortion. Rick Sanctorium cannot win the general election. he is nothing but a big government social conservative like GWB on steroids.
Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 6:17PM
False.
Gingrich dropped said position on cap & trade, he actually testified against it and smacked down some Democrats in the process.
David| 2.13.12 @ 7:34PM
Hey worried, if you want to believe flip-flopper and flat out liar Mitt, that is your problem. I do NOT believe he will work to repeal it. His campaign manager has said he won't - only parts of it.
Santorum is right to say Romney will have to give up the healthcare issue to Bam Bam. Mitt IS ROMNEYCARE. I can't believe you are making that argument and because Rick points out that Romney will lose that as an issue, you accuse him of misrepresenting Romney in some way.
WOW - now I understand how so many of Romney's supporters were suckered in by him - simply put, you are morons.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 8:16PM
David, re-read your comment and decide who is the adult. I'll let others judge for themselves.
Innovate| 2.13.12 @ 8:44PM
The reality of the voter demographics, based on research done on Fox News is that 42% of voters are Independent, 30% are Democrats, and 28% are Republicans. In other words, the major parties are losing voters. So, the individual who is most likely to win is Romney.
Catelin Peg | 2.13.12 @ 11:28PM
God forbid!
Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 7:17PM
Many conservatives are Independents and are not Republican.
I don't think Romney will win as many independents as you would like to believe.
Brian| 2.13.12 @ 9:05PM
Santorum did a heck of a job serving 2 terms as governor of a fairly blue state. If you look at the other GOP senators they have had,they have been liberals like Hugh Scott,John Heinz,arlen Specter,Richard Schweiker.
albert constantine jr| 2.13.12 @ 9:46PM
I've looked at the postings of "Charles" throughout this thread, and the pattern reminds me of "Purp" pretending to be conservative. Did anyone else see the similarities?
Dave| 2.13.12 @ 10:17PM
Kind of like Santorum...at least he is a decent family man. Mitt is a decent family man as well that does not scare off conservative Dems and Independents.
Newt is a total creep that has no chance at all of becoming President. Not only would he lose in a landslide, he will give us back Pelosi as Speaker and leave the Senate in Reid's control.
Think about it, what states would actually go for Newt in the general? Not many.
Mike Rizzuti| 2.13.12 @ 10:27PM
If Mitt wins the nomination the party will disintergrate. There is no real difference between him and Obama. And, Rick Santorum would lose in the biggest landslide sine Mondale. The ONLY candidate with half a chance to beat Obama is Newt, no matter how much the sanctimonious Mittwits think otherwize.
Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 7:19PM
Many good leaders are not good family men.
The fact he's had personal issues doesn't mean he'd be a bad President by a long shot.
Mike Rizzuti| 2.13.12 @ 10:23PM
The only candidate who's managed to excite the base enough to increase voter participation is Newt. Even where he loses in the counties he wins voter participation goes up. He just doesn't win enough of them. I for one will NEVER vote for Mitt Romney, and the big government establishment social conservative Rick Santorum doesn't do much for me either.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 10:46PM
I vehemently disagree that Newt is the best general election candidate. He is the most divisive politician of the modern era. He has his base but he is hated by the left and many independents. Obama will use this to make the election about Newt and not Obama's policies. The second most divisive major politician of the modern era is Nancy Pelosi. Imagine if the Dem were stupid enough to nominate Nancy Pelosi. I believe Newt has another barrier too. He is very unpopular among women. I've seen this in the polls and with women friends I've spoken to. Newt's problem is he loses when he goes negative and he would have to go negative to have ANY hope against Obama. It is an almost impossible situation for Newt.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:26PM
Gingrich scared the establishment enough to help Romney in his smear fest of Gingrich.
Oh the Obama regime also contributed to the anti-Gingrich attacks, so it wouldn't surprise me if Gingrich isn't as hated as you believe. I also think he is very electable against Obama.
Catelin Peg | 2.13.12 @ 11:24PM
Mike I agree with you. I think Newt could have it in the bag if it wouldn't have been for the deplorable and very unprofessional tactics of Mitt Romney. I lost any respect I had for him when I saw the way he levied negatives that were horribly cruel. Who would want a President like that? I guess the situation is plain sad, that Mitt can't win unless he buries his opponents in tons of dirt.
Catelin Peg | 2.13.12 @ 11:19PM
Mitt Romney, needs to clarify his position on the important issues that concern all of us; the economy, religious freedoms, social issues of abortion, marriage, education, senior issues, immigration, the economy, etc. I personal am turned off the Mr. Romney after watching him since August. I find his tactic ruthless and deplorable....all I seem to come away with after watching him, is that he is awfully good at mean, cruel negative lies about other candidates. One thing to debate the issues, another to dig up incidentals and make a huge ugly lie about it, because he can't win any other way. No thank you - not Mitt Romney, he's too close to Obama's style.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 11:28PM
Fascinating. The exact opposite is true. His opponents are spreading lies about him and his record. They've personally and dishonestly attacked his character.
Please name one lie Romney has unfairly leveled at an opponent. Thank you.
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 11:38PM
You haven't been paying attention if you don't know Romney's plans. They are outlined on his website.
Paul Ryan was on Laura Ingraham on Friday and he stated the Romney has the boldest and most detailed plan for Medicare reform of any GOP candidate. And we all know that Obama has NO plan for Medicare reform. Medicare reform is so important because it is the largest budget buster.
Crassus| 2.13.12 @ 11:42PM
A conservative, a liberal, and a moderate walked into a bar. What did the bartender say?
"Hello, Mitt."
Worried for the country| 2.13.12 @ 11:49PM
You stole that from Foster Friess, Santorum's superPAC billionaire.
POST American| 2.13.12 @ 11:53PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
Romney's PRO 'Banker Bailouts'
---------------PRO 'OPEN borders'
-----------------PRO 'A--bore--shun'
-------------------PRO NAFTA/ GATT
----------------------PRO mandatory injections
-------------------------PRO carbon taxes
and architect of Obamacare.
FURTHER
Widespread voter FRAUD in IOWA
Widespread voter FRAUD in South Carolina
Widespread voter FRAUD in Florida
Widespread voter FRAUD in Nevada
------and NOW reports from Maine.
MAKE NO MISTAKE
---'SUB-Mitt ROME-knee' is a full-blown
captone Globalist.
WE are in the very 11th hour of the
CFR Globalist RED China handover and
world TREASON OP.
-----------------------BEWARE!--------------------------
jimD| 2.14.12 @ 1:44AM
Full disclosure here: I am an Australian, watching this primary process from afar (but I have lived in the US for an extended period, and have a great affection for it). I would like to raise some questions with you:
First, how does this person, (Timothy L. Pennell) get to use, in a posting on this site, a phrase such as "How will he go up against the Marxist/Muslim/Half Breed?" ? Do you consider this sort of language to be consistent with your NB below the comment box? You don't see any bigotry in his text? No "gross impoliteness"?
A more general question: why do so many of your respondents seem so full of the sort of hatred that is exemplified in Mr. Pennell's piece for any position that is not in their self-defined zone of acceptability? Do they think they can convince anyone who presently does not share their views to cross over, in response to the tone of these sorts of observations?
And finally, do these people really think of this sort of stuff as genuine conservatism? Do they think any sane and genuinely conservative candidate would want their support?
Mark Ryan| 2.14.12 @ 2:26AM
JimD, your post is spot on and hilarious. I would attribute the brazenness, lack of civility, intemperance, and the degree to which some can be influenced by contrived yet predictable campaign rhetoric to a perceived cloak of anonymity. Except for those that use their full name, middle initial and all. I would suggest a quick google search and I think you will find background material worthy to be used in textbooks when illustrating real life examples for the term "don't feed the trolls."
Worried for the country| 2.14.12 @ 12:24PM
jimD, welcome from down under. Your post is spot.
The only thing is would say is sometimes hate speech and bigotry needs the light of day to be called out. Censorship only allows it to fester.
Mark Ryan| 2.14.12 @ 2:03AM
My political views are more aligned with Santorum. However, Santorum will be at a serious disadvantage when his experience, specifically with regard to executive duties, foreign affairs, and most importantly, economic experience, is measured against Obama by the MSM and with the independents. Unfortunately, presidential elections are dictated by the independents and third party candidates. (If you disagree, please inform me of one that wasn't starting with Reagan). So this is my question to those supporting Santorum: How will Santorum as an alleged "truer" conservative than Romney help win over the independents? What are Santorum's selling points to independents....because I don't seem them. Please help me out here. Thanks.
Michael | 2.14.12 @ 3:35PM
To Romney's credit, he is a pretty good speaker and certainly has a good resume in both the public and private sector. Unlike Bush/Perry, he is articulate and intelligent.
The problem with Romney is he has no soul. He could have gathered a strong coalition of moderate Republicans to propel him to the nomination (similar to McCain) and likely a general election win.
However, the GOP party has kicked out all moderates, pragmatists, and secularists due to its infatuation with its hatred for Obama. So much as talk about raising the capital gains tax, taking a moderate stance on social issues, or talk about health care reform and you're labeled a RINO and boo'd.
Romney isn't going to convince the whackjob base of the party to like him, since he's not like them. Santorum is a much better fit for them. Romney will likely still win the nomination, but he has burned a lot of his appeal to moderates in the process.
It is probably in the best long-term interests of the GOP if they nominate Santorum, get annihilated in the general election, and move back to the middle in response to that. The people who form the 'base' should not be the same people who think Obama is a Kenyan Marxist.
An article on our site about the GOP's move rightward over the past four years:
http://www.politicallore.com/f.....tward/1823
Garfield| 2.14.12 @ 6:20PM
Yeah Romney is so good that he has to resort to rigging elections to win them.
Fact is once people realize the truth about Liberalism, most of the time they will reject it for Conservatism.
David J Farr | 2.15.12 @ 1:40AM
Dear Mr. Babbin, You think Mitt Romney wasn't passionate enough at CPAC? I thought he spoke with energy and to the point on our country's needs. Did you want a pulpit pounding preacher conducting a tent meeting? We need a calm resolute CEO with Romney's experience in business, Olympics & as a state governor. No one else in the race has his qualifications.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:27PM
I watched the speeches, and I also know that Romney packed CPAC with his activists to rig the straw poll.
Romney called himself a "severe conservative" like conservatism is a disease or disorder.
jstwndring| 2.15.12 @ 2:05AM
There isn't a thing this phony can do to convince me to vote for him. His years as governor tell me what he is. He is a Democrat posing as a Republican. His actions silence his words. No amount of feigned passion can erase the years of radical leftism from this guy. His campaign aid Norm Coleman has said Obamacare is here to say. What else needs to be said?