The American Spectator : The Mittens Come Off in Mesa

Kitty | 2.23.12 @ 6:34AM

FTA: Romney is the semi-reformed RINO dummy of high-priced ventriloquists -- a dummy whose words and robotic jerks come from the pushing and pulling of scummy strategists and pollsters who crawl along a corrupt corridor from Boston to D.C.

Which begs the question: If the Romney marionette is dragged to the right just to get elected, how will he govern once in office? At this point, it's alarming I feel the need to even ask the question. Plastic describes Romney to a T.

Fire Andy Reid| 2.23.12 @ 7:30AM

Is the GOP really going to nominate this fraud?

Looks like it. But at least that would provide clarity, as Romney is an almost perfect representation of the DC insiders, pros and pundit mouthpieces who make up whats left of the GOP in 2012.

Had enough? You don't owe these skunks your votes.

tim| 2.23.12 @ 9:51AM

thank you david axelrod

SpiralArchitect| 2.23.12 @ 1:23PM

yes, no need to vote.

An informal invitation is as good as a formal invite for Totalitarianism to preside.

To not vote is to aquiesce to Totalitarianism.

The American Hitman| 2.23.12 @ 1:36PM

I'll be voting, just not for your Plastic RINO messiah. fool

Sue Crimchesa| 2.24.12 @ 10:30AM

Good Luck to you in the wastelands

Republican sheeple| 2.23.12 @ 1:37PM

baaa-baaaa-baaaa

Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 1:58PM

You must be the star pupil of your special ed class. What DAZZLING intellectual acumen you posses.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:00PM

Committee for Libertarian Imbeciles Talking Over RIck Santorum was apparently in force at the Debates, Con. Of course, they've been in force at Ronulan HQ for some time. :)

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.23.12 @ 5:34PM

Even we sheep know all things being equal if nothing else the intellectually 'elite' liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizer party in chief will nominate the replacement of at least one supreme court justice if the intellectually 'elite' liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizer party in chief is given four more years.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 8:05PM

You'd better steel yourself, then. I doubt Obama will be defeated by this lot of midgets.

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.24.12 @ 1:34AM

Even sheep have a sense of humor.

Steel Wool.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

Jack in Wi.| 2.23.12 @ 12:53PM

I had to laugh at Santorum. The first statement he made was how he was going to cut welfare, food stamps and entitlements for Americans and keep all our foreign aid and wars going. Well I guess that funding Israel is far more inportant then letting granny stay on diaysis or grandpa keep his full Social security. After trillions wasted in the Middle East we are supposed to let Americans keep suffering so that this rotten policy can go on forever, until there are riots in the streets.

I work at soup kitchens and food pantries 3 days a week. There are 400 people alone in my organization. We supply over 1200 soup kitchens, food pantries, and shelters for the poor and destitute, in the greater Milwaukee area. Just our little organization. There are others that are even bigger. The food is provided mostly by generous businessmen who give us their old stock. I hauled 600 loaves of bread to one busy outlet on Monday. When I returned with some more bakery Tuesday, from another place, all my stuff was gone. This goes on everyday.

Santorum, Gingrich and Romney are for more of the same nonsense that has been going on for a couple of decades. If we attack Iran a these lunatics, will have us in another world war where gas will be rationed, or 20 dollars a gal., if you can get it. Millions of people wil starve in the third world, not counting those who are killed in the wars. Bring home the troops now. Close up all these foreign bases and start taking care of the problems of this country. Start thinking like Switzerland and Sweden, both rich and well defended countries. The world does not need us, except as an engine for growth and peace. For 20 years China has stood back and grown their economy, while we have wasted our resourses overseas, for no good reason.

Pfeufnik Punjewicz| 2.23.12 @ 2:39PM

What, no cheese? Your stuff has always been absent from your gourd. Romney/Paul 2012.

Lyneuss Fields | 2.23.12 @ 7:40PM

How can anyone look at this fraud's body language and not see that he is a complete phony. What does he think Santorum is, his f'n prop? Conservative voters need to get a grip and dump this jerk.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......gious.html

bigfoot9p6| 2.23.12 @ 8:03PM

You really think Paul would run on a ticket with Romney? Seriously?

Sue Crimchesa| 2.24.12 @ 10:18AM

Plastic, Robot, Fraud = OBAMA
Romney/Paul 2012 - A change we can believe in!

Quit throwing stones unless you are walking on water

Teresa| 2.23.12 @ 6:25PM

Thanks for your work Jack. I respect you!

This argument by George is insulting.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:04PM

Aid to Israel, even if entirely cut, is miniscule compared to the cost of SS for the Baby Boomers who failed to have enough kids. At 49, I do NOT plan SS into my retirement plans--- I assume it will be gone.

Your generation didn't have enough kids, Jack.

Jill Johnson| 2.24.12 @ 10:52PM

Looks to me like you make an excellent point. Charity for the needy (at least on one important level, the one you work at) can be handled just fine by private organizations and generous businessmen ... without any federal government involvement

PaulC| 2.23.12 @ 3:02PM

They aren't going to get my vote. If Romney's the nominee, I'll be sitting this one out. Four more years of Obama, as disastrous as that may prove to be, is still better than letting the Republican establishment ram Romney down my throat.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 3:53PM

After months and months of hearing this oft repeated phrase, I still don't know who exactly is this sinister Republican establishment trying to ram Romney down everyone's throat. Love him, like him or loathe him, it seems to me Romney's done what all candidates have done since time immemorial--thrown his hat in the ring, put together an organization, raised money and gone out the on the hustings. What has Romney done that is in any way different from what Santorum, Gingrich or Paul has done?

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 4:05PM

Republican establishment, insiders, ruling class, movers and shakers, GOP mgmt., elites:

Fox News, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Mike Murphy, David Frum, David Brooks, Bill Kristol, Mitch McConnell, Brit Hume, John Boehnor, Dick Morriss, Sean Hannity, Rich Lowry, Mary Matalin, John McCain, Colin Powell, etc.

Everytime they go on TV, it's obvious they are a promoting one candidate, Mitt Romney. They use liberal tactics. They think we're fools. They think we can't see thru their biased, slanted reporting and analysis.

Ann Coulter and Karl Rove are the worst. They are outright liars and have zero credibility.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 4:30PM

These are not reporters. They are opinion writers/commentators who are expressing an opinion just like Neumayr is expressing his opinion here. How is their advocacy for their preferred candidate, which you are free to simply ignore, ramming anyone down anyone's throat? They like someone. You like someone else. Why all the conspiratorial throat-ramming whining?

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 4:50PM

I never said they're reporters.

Even as opionators, they are part of the Republican establishment. They are operatives. They are strategists. They are consultants. They are prominent. They have lots of money. They are on TV all the time. They get invited to the fund raisers. They go to the parties. They have influence. They have followers. They influence donations. They influence public opinion. They get quoted. They, all of them, colluded to ruin Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich using liberal tactics.

They are the establishment that insults our intelligence.

You have falsely described me just like they do. You are whining, one of those constantly trying to get technical to discredit, rather than open your mind to what we are saying.

Just like when the establishment jumped on Rick Perry for using the word, "PONZI SCHEME" to describe social security. They immediately got technical and said Perry is wrong and dumb, S.S. is not a ponzi scheme... and Rick Perry wants to take away S.S. from senior citizens. Why did they attack a conservative candidate like that? Why did Karl Rove and Ann Coulter go on TV and outright lie about Perry? Why?

You are wrong as to what I'm oppose. They lie, deceive and slant. That's what I object to. Not disagreement. They have turned into liberals, using liberal tactics of lying, spinning, taking statements out of context, constantly saying Romney's inevitable.

Calling me dumb isn't going to get me to vote for Romney.

Willy| 2.23.12 @ 4:56PM

Please replace the tin foil in your hat.

Anne | 2.23.12 @ 6:40PM

Gee Willy, that contributes a lot.

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 10:36PM

well someone needs to bring Paul back to earth

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 5:49PM

I didn't call you dumb--I called you a whiner. Your side says we lie about Santorum and our side says you lie about Romney. In politics every candidate has passionate supporters and I actually enjoy the free and often heated exchange of opinion. What I reject in all the non-Romney supporters, however, is the paranoid delusion that Romney is somehow being foisted on you by sinister forces, when in reality it is nothing more than pundits expressing opinions.

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 6:49PM

Ann Coulter said I'm dumb, inferior.

You're the one whining about the definition of the word, 'establishment.'

I think you and others know exactly what we mean and are simply playing dumb to question us. I used other synonyms already to help you.

It is not a paranoid delusion. It's observation. I've been seeing it for almost a year.

They are using talking points. They are colluding and coordinating their actions and statements. Just as Rush does montages on how so many in the liberal media use the exact same words one day, the same happened against Perry and Newt. Drudge, Fox News, NRO, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove and others all on the same day, used the exact same unique words and phrases against non-Romney candidates. Gravitas. Maverick John McCain. Don't you remember when they brought out Bob Dole and John McCain to claim Newt is anti-Reagan and it turned they all knowingly took his words out of context. How can they think we wouldn't discover the truth? When we did, they dropped that talking point like a hot potatoe.

A Republican media establishment has emerged that is not honest. It's not disagreement or heated debate that I oppose. It's dishonesty.

If you (Ann and Karl) support Romney, that's your option. But don't lie to me to get my vote. Don't insult me. Don't act like liberals.

I disagree that they are simply expressing opinions. They are trying to deceive. It's intentional. Their tactics are the same as liberals. I've been witnessing this for my entire adult life. Now Republicans are doing it to me.

Perhaps that's where we part.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 7:11PM

I'm not whining about anything. I'm the one who recognizes that politics ain't beanbag. You're the one who keeps complaining about, heaven forfend, talking points!, coordination and collusion!, being lied to and somehow manipulated by pundits who openly and unabashedly support a particular candidate. If you disagree with Ann Coulter or anyone else, ignore her. But for heaven sake's stop whining that people who present the facts in a way that is most favorable to their preferred candidate are lying to you.

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 7:28PM

rightasrain,

You sound like a lawyer... where truth doesn't matter, just who can't present a convincing case, using any tactics available to win the argument.

Dishonesty and liberal tactics used against me and candidates is a legitamate subject. If you think it's whining, stop commenting.

"....present the facts in a way most favorable...." That's just a euphemism for lying. For me, it's unacceptable. I am not a liberal.

Conservatives don't like to be deceived. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but....

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 11:11PM

Of course the truth matters but who made you the arbiter of what is and isn't true? Presenting the facts in a way that is most favorable to you isn't lying, it's smart. Did you tell your future wife about your flatulence problem or your smelly feet on the first date? Santorum might have some lame-o excuse as to why he voted to fund Planned Parenthood but do you expect Romney or his supporters to point it out? No, the truth is Santorum voted for Medicare Part D, NCLB. Arlen Specter etc. If he has an explanation for all this, it's his job to put it forward, not Romney's.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:05PM

Romney is considerably better than Paul or Obama.

Jack apparently doesn't note how many of his food pantry clients have drug problems.

Anne | 2.23.12 @ 6:39PM

Paul: You are absolutely correct!

The GOP "Establishment" Ol' Boys Club has gotten just as corrupt (perhaps more) than the dems.

The Conservatives are fighting the battle on both fronts... within our own Republican Party, and against the liberals.

To this day, for example, the GOP "NON-Establishment" in VA are not willing to say that GOP "Establishment" wasn't behind the last minute VA change in ballot rules. And it is just a little too cozy that Bill Bolling, just happens to be the VA Lt. Gov AND Willard's VA campaign chair, AND just happened to hand deliver Willard's petitions to the VA Republican Party the day before the rules were changes.

And it goes on and on...

I'm not saying that I'm in favor of Palin running for pres., but the first thing she did when sworn into office as the Alaska Gov. was to start cleaning up the corruption IN HER OWN PARTY.

We need more of what Palin did, and someone with the guts to do it.

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 6:57PM

Anne, thanks.

Sarah never got credit for the work she did in Alaska.

The Republican establishment, instead of defending her, joined in the attacks. Heck, one McCain operative wrote a book about how dumb Sarah is. I can't recall her name, but I see her on MSNBC all the time, providing a 'Republican' point of view.

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 10:43PM

There is only one guy in this race that has ever cleaned up anything. There is only one guy in this race that has any executive experience. sorry that you are so stuck on your candidate that you can't see that. BTW that candidate is not Santorum

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:11AM

Oh yeah Paul, Romney, who has never worked inside the Beltway is an Establishment Guy and Gingrich and Santorum who have spent their entire career inside the Beltway are the "Outsiders".... Just like our Governor who never earned a paycheck that wasn't funded by the Taxpayers was an "Outsider".....

The only attempt at shoving or raming of a Candidate down anyone's throat is you and your buddies and Neumyer.... I like to call you the "Sharon Angle Crowd" or the "Christine O'Donnell Crowd"..... It was because of people like you that the Reeps were unable to control the Senate for the past 2 years.... Both NV and DE had winning Reep Candidates that were pushed aside in the Primaries so that we could run Candidates Angle and O'Donnell who didn't have a chance at winning.... The Bully tactics aren't working for you this time around though.... You and your buddies aren't gonna shove a candidate that can't win down our throats.... Romney cannot only beat Obama because of his apeal to folks in the middle of the Electorate, he can also fix this Economy which no other candidate on either side of the aisle can.... This coming Tuesday is going to be a bad night for you, so you might want to leave the TV off while all those Establishment folks tell you that Romney has won both Michigan and Arizona...

PaulC| 2.23.12 @ 4:58PM

What so offends me is that they're trying to pass Romney off as a conservative, when it's obvious to anyone whose been paying attention that he's never identified himself as a conservative nor attempted to act like one while in office. In fact, when running for office in Massachusetts, he liked to emphasize how much he had in common with Ted Kennedy. And he went on to match rhetoric with action, doing a great impression of Kennedy while he was governor. That would be enough to convince me that Romney is no conservative, but on top of all that, Karl Rove is supporting him, and Karl Rove, as we all know, doesn't support conservatives. I don't know what happened to Ann Counter, but it's not good. In short, most D.C. insiders are in Romney's corner, but no matter how much they huff and puff about Romney being the best, most electable candidate the Republicans have, they're not going to sell me on him. I think I can recognize a conservative, and Romney doesn't look like one.

Markus| 2.23.12 @ 6:15PM

Tou are a dinosaur just like those hicks in Boonyville, Idaho. The neo Republicans are moderate and socially liberal while being fiscally conservative. And those are the people who will decide this election. Wake Up, the 21st century is calling!

Adam| 2.23.12 @ 8:28PM

Neo Republicans? Sounds like (according to your description Markus) the same bunch of-out of-touch elitists that gave us Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, John McCain, and who tried to shove George H.W. Bush at us in 1980 as opposed to Ronald Reagan. Romney is simply the next candidate up in this distinguished line of spineless moderates, and make no mistake, he'll lose the same way Ford did in '76, Bush did in '92 (when Reagan's coattails weren't there to prop him up), Dole in '96 and McCain in '08.

You "neo Republicans" are the same bunch of losers today in the 21st century that you were in the last 30 years of the 20th century. Nothing has changed.

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 10:52PM

it is funny how one year Santorum states 4 years ago that Romney was conservative. Laura Ingram also stated him as a conservative and now in the last 4 years both have changed. Romney hasn't. Maybe Santorum is not able to recognize a conservative.

T Holcomb| 2.24.12 @ 1:17AM

You really need to take those blinders off! Mitt Romney doesn't have a Coservative bone in his whole body!!

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:15AM

No need to "fake it" Romney is a Conservative and he proved it in MA.... I get tired of regurgitating his Resume to you guys but the truth is that he is as conservative or more conservative than either Santorum or Gingrich.

Sue Crimchesa| 2.24.12 @ 10:29AM

Romney will be the nominee. Responsible citizens will vote for him (including independents and even high dollar Democrat donors) and we will finally get the transformation and change we can believe in. All these people sniping remind me of the current Congress. Get Real, Get Positive. GET BETTER

PaulB| 2.23.12 @ 5:04PM

We are especially disgusted with Karl Rove. He vomits out the same quality of rhetoric that we despise from the far left.

To think that we now have it coming from both sides!!!

We are witnessing the long term effects of neutering. No onions in the bunch...

Nite| 2.23.12 @ 8:24PM

You are correct. They have all been pushing Romney for all they are worth. Romney was pushed by the GOP establishment because it is "his turn". Have they not learned anything? The voters don't like Romney and it gets worse all the time.

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:20AM

What are you talking about???? The MSM has been torpedoing Romney for better than 2 years now and the Obama Minions are on Sunday Talk Shows shooting at him every week.... Meanwhile the MSM media's partners against Romney who include all of Talk Radio and most of the Talk Show Hosts on Fox News have are continuously bad mouthing him.... Romney has no "Safe Harbor" things to you Hard Right Evangelicals....When you post stuff like this it just makes me think that you and people don't have an ounce of objectivity in that walnut size brain of yours.

Anne | 2.24.12 @ 5:34AM

Poyman: I'm not sure what you're talking about...

"most of the Talk Show Hosts on Fox News have are continuously bad mouthing him [Willard.]

From the moment Willard formally entered the primary, FOX immediately started referring to him as the "frontrunner" and the "presumptive nominee" ... and that was long before the Iowa caucus.

I continued to ask, "Willard is the 'frontrunner' and 'presumptive nominee' based on what exactly?

Then a few weeks ago when Willard lost those states to Santorum, all of a sudden people on FOX were saying, "There's still a long way to go."

It's obvious that FOX has been in tank for Willard's GOP Establishment Ol' Boys Club from the beginning.

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:12AM

You forgot Drudge. He is totally in the tank for Mittens too, and it has become laughingly transparent.

Mittens has so much money he can just pay key people to be on his side. I'm sure that is exactly what he did. I wonder how much ad revenue or special deals he gave Drudge.

If Mittens wins the Presidency, I hope he has to spend every last dime he has to do it, including all the cash in his son's trust funds.

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 2.24.12 @ 7:29AM

Well, your list is factually incorrect.

Bill Kristol goes out of his way to promote anyone except Mitt Romney or Ron Paul.

Sean Hannity is in love with Newt Gingrich.

jstwndring| 2.23.12 @ 4:16PM

"What has Romney done that is in any way different from what Santorum, Gingrich or Paul has done?"

He passed the prototype to Obamacare.

Look, Romney is a total and complete fraud of a Republican, and he's the EXACT reason why the Tea Party formed in the first place. The Tea Party formed to do the job the leftists (like Romney) who dominate the Republican Party refuse to do, and that's to actually shrink the size of the federal government. If you can't figure that one out, you may as well vote for Obama. None of the candidates are ideal, but, Romney's actions drown out his words. His a political leftist through and through.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 4:31PM

I'm talking about his campaign not his substantive positions.

Mark in Seattle| 2.23.12 @ 5:10PM

Ann Coulter part of the establishment? Wow, I never thought I'd hear that one. Frankly, I think Coulter's comments on Romney make a lot of sense. While I understand that Romney is not as conservative as many (including myself) would like, the problem is that the other candidates simply suck. Gingrich says all the right things but is otherwise corrupt and arrogant, Paul's foreign policy is plain nutty, and Santorum's single-minded focus on social issues will earn him 40% of the vote in November. I would have much preferred Rubio or Daniels, or someone else with a stronger conservative record, but alas, they are not running.

Mark in Seattle| 2.23.12 @ 5:11PM

Sorry, my comments about Ann Coulter apply to this stream, but not this message.

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 5:27PM

Mark,

Ann Coulter said everybody who disagrees with her on Romney is 'stupid.' That's what liberals do.

She lies outright, but lies mosly thru omission. That's what liberals do.

Did you read her latest essay? It would be graded as an 'F' for bias and slant, leaving out all the important information a reader needs to make a judgement.

RCV| 2.23.12 @ 5:45PM

It never bothered you guys before when she was spouting the biased garbage you wanted to hear.

ID EST| 2.23.12 @ 6:17PM

that is to say, namely, in other words, of biased garbage, such as this example, to wit:

www.patriotpost.us/opinion/ann.....e-mandate/

to wit, such as this example, of biased garbage, in other words, namely, that is to say:

patriotpost.us/opinion/ann-coulter/2012/2/16/communism-by-insurance-mandate/

ID EST| 2.24.12 @ 12:19PM

That is to say, namely, in other words, for example, to wit, it never bothered you before when spouting your idiotic liberal stupidity while making a complete ass of yourself, so why no comment on her 'biased garbage' in the linked article she wrote, you ass?

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 10:58PM

Loved her latest essay. Maybe it is you that is out of step. Earth to Paul. Coulter makes no attempt to be unbiased. The difference is she gets paid for her opinion and will end up on the winning side in the end. You on the other hand do not get paid for your thoughts and most certainly will end on the losing side

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:23AM

In your case, it sounds like Ann might have a point.

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 2.24.12 @ 7:31AM

Actually Ann Coulter make some very valid points.

Michele| 2.23.12 @ 8:25PM

I will vote for either Romney or Santorum - who ever is the nominee. I am surprised any Republican would sit this one out - no matter who the candidate. Barak Obama is as scary as they come. His stimulus was Chicago style payback to all of his supporters. And we are just beginning to find out how really scary the Health Care bill is - it can take away freedom of religion - and now we see it can be used it to tell a company to give away a product free of charge.

There are 700 to 800 times in the bill that the HHS can determine...we are just finding out a few of those rights the administration gave themselves that gives them the ability to do an end run around the democratic process. Scary as all get out and you are not going to vote for Romney or some other Republican because they are too liberal or too social conservative (as some R's - not me- think Santorum is).

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 11:00PM

finally some sanity in the discussion

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:15AM

Do you really think Mittens will repeal ObamneyCare? If Obama is the Father, he is the Grandfather of that horrendous legislation. Mittens is as Progressive as they come. My prediction: If Mittens becomes Pres, ObamaCare will still be law (with minor tweaks) when he leaves office.

Bobloblaw| 2.23.12 @ 6:02PM

For the first time since 1992, I will not cast a vote in the general election

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:07PM

Bob--ya gotta vote against the Bummer.

Adam| 2.23.12 @ 8:35PM

I detest the idea of voting for Romney as well, but not taking the oportunity to vote against Obama is even more detestable. If you held your nose and voted for Dole in '96 and McCain in '08, surely you can do the same and pull the lever for Romney this November.

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:17AM

I'll vote for any Republican nominee against Obummer, but that is it. I will never send a contribution to Mittens campaign. I hope he has to spend all his cash and his sons' trust funds down to zero to beat Obama.

B Teri| 2.23.12 @ 9:01PM

Its not just four years of Obama - its DECADES of far left/progressive Supreme Court appointees. Any of the primary candidates would be better than Obama ABO ABO ABO ABO ABO ABO ABO ABO ABO ABO

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:19AM

Do you really think Mittens court nominees will be any better than Obummer's? Perhaps by a little bit, perhaps not at all. Mittens is a Progressive. His record in MA is clear.

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:26AM

Yes, absolutely.... You and your ilk like to take shots at "W" but he has done the best job in appointing Conservative Judges than any Republican President in my lifetime (I'm 60)... Romney would appoint the same type of folks.

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 2.24.12 @ 7:33AM

Yes, I do feel that his appointments would be much better than Barrack Obama and to even suggest that there would not be a huge difference is evidence that you are not looking at his real record, but simply listening to the constant barrage of attack ads.

LMA| 2.23.12 @ 10:03PM

There are a lot of insane comments on this page but yours wins the prize. Thinking that Obama would be better than Romney is just unhinged.

Sue Crimchesa| 2.24.12 @ 10:19AM

You are the problem, not the solution

Bobloblaw| 2.23.12 @ 6:00PM

Romney might be the nominee, but he will never be President

Anne | 2.23.12 @ 6:44PM

Yeah, remember what Coulter said at the 2011 CPAC.

"IF we don't nominate Chris Christie, then Romney will get the nomination, and we'll LOSE!"

Wonder who promised Coulter what?

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:22AM

Mittens probably gave Coulter her next non-refundable book advance.

Anne | 2.24.12 @ 5:47AM

Andrew P: Well, apparently Willard has been out there making promises ... and who knows how many and to whom.

If you recall, a day or so before the Fla. primary Pam Bondi, Fla. Atty Gen, during an interview slipped and said that when Willard won the gen election she was going to be helping him get the states set up with ObozoCare.

Which, of course, brings up another point with Willard.

While Willard categorically claims during the debates that he's going to repeal ObozoCare, he's also on record saying that he'll fix what's wrong with ObozoCare (surprise, surprise, surprise.)

And then there's this...

Romney Admits He Won’t End ObamaCare
http://www.westernjournalism.c.....obamacare/

At the end of this video Romney admits he will keep large parts of Obamacare.

Anyone who votes for Willard has to be as gullible as those who voted for Obozo

Sue Crimchesa| 2.24.12 @ 10:25AM

Someone needs to do something about aspects of healthcare in the U.S. Not obamacare, but a responsible President and Congress will tackle issues with common sense.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.23.12 @ 8:58AM

Kitty, if you listened to Rush yesterday, and you follow Romney's campaign in general; then it is clear that he is not being pulled to the right save a few cleverly ambiguous statements.
He earlier and repeatedly said he would repeal ObamaCare. Norm Coleman (Adviser) is already setting expectation he cannot. But if he does, he states he will replace it. The conservatives just don't want socialized medicine, PERIOD!
Second, his new tax plan excludes the top 1%. He has at best adopted the strategy of class warfare used by the left. At worst, we know that "fat cats" and "the top 1%" along with "millionaires and billionaires" means anybody making over the average income. In Obama's "Social justice" world, if the average income is $50K, then if you make $51K, the $1K above the mean will be redistributed to the guy making $49K.
Perhaps if Bush II was our "compassionate conservative," Romney will be our "social justice conservative."

Alan Brooks| 2.23.12 @ 9:38AM

"In Obama's "Social justice" world, if the average income is $50K, then if you make $51K, the $1K above the mean will be redistributed to the guy making $49K."

It is way deeper than that;
you use the state to deny access to markets by other nations to keep America #1- and your families on top. But it is going down for you and you will have to accept that America is no longer the colossus bestriding the Earth, and that your families can't be on top of the game.

Tough shit..

Von Mises Jr.| 2.23.12 @ 10:12AM

The initial tax code ramifications will be to redistribute current wealth. In the long run, you are correct that if the median income is now $50K, under socialism it may be $30K, or inflation will make it appear so.
The problem with socialism besides inability to calculate prices, lack of motivation to perform and the tyranny; is that without property rights and free markets, capital formation stalls. Socialist countries have people living in truck containers and shacks. That is because it makes no sense to build or fix up a nice dwelling if the government may take the land or your dwelling. And people do not invest in plant and equipment when they cannot keep the profits. So you get government ordering the manufacture of shovels, while Cat stops making bulldozers, loaders and backhoes. It solves Obama's problem of "shovel ready" jobs.

Alan Brooks| 2.23.12 @ 10:44AM

"The problem with socialism"

Problem with capitalism is when you get around to having trade wars in the age of WMDs that go down in price but up in bang for the buck.

JJ| 2.23.12 @ 11:39AM

Obama never said he wanted to distribute the wealth to other Americans. It would be wrong to assume that is what he meant. He instead is distributing american wealth to the rest of the world.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.23.12 @ 3:10PM

I think he is doing both. Solyndra and all the green energy is redistribution from the middle class that will bailout his friends like George Kaiser. Nobody knows where the money is, but somebody got it.
Agenda21 is the grand scheme for the rest of the world along with Ben "the bank" Bernanke who is unaudited and alleged to have given out some $16 trillion nobody knows where it is or what the arrangements are except the inner circle.

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 4:08PM

I think it's a long-term plan to re-direct capital from conservatives to liberals.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.23.12 @ 11:46PM

Good point Paul. From the producers to the lazy, scheming takers. That's why socialism always fails. When half figures it is easier to mooch and the other half decides not to work for their benefit.

AaronM| 2.23.12 @ 4:32PM

Actually, he very clearly stated that. He clearly stated that he wanted to "spread the wealth around" in 2008. He has very consistently done everything possible to take wealth from the top (except is buddies) and pass it to the poor.

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 5:31PM

He's giving taxpayer money to solar investors who donated big bucks to his campaign, and giving rich union workers our money.

LMA| 2.23.12 @ 10:09PM

Prof. von Mises would object if he could to anyone so foolish using his illustrious name. While a President can't repeal anything by himself, Romney is committed to granting a waiver to the states (which the President can do) and seeking repeal in Congress. The tax proposal is a welcome development and absolutely does not adopt class warfare. At the most you can say that it retains the progressivity that the overwhelming majority of Americans expect the tax code to contain. You can believe that the tax rate should be simply flat and, heck, I'll agree with you. But it's a loser argument politically. Just ask Steve Forbes. Try to pay closer attention - you might actually learn something.

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:35AM

You're wrong on both of your accusations and if Rush (one of the Romney Hating Cheerleaders of Talk Radio) said it then he is wrong....

1!) He has repeatedly said that he would repeal Obamacare immediately upon taking office even if it means using the "nuclear option" in the seante.... And he said that he would begin the process on day one by granting "waivers" to any state requesting it until the apeal can be completed.... He did say that Health Care will remain an issue and that will need to be addressed but he said that that will have to come from the individual states.

2) His Tax plan includes the Wealthy getting a reduction from 35% to 28%.... Don't know where you got the "no decrease" for the 1% folks.

Anne | 2.24.12 @ 5:55AM

Poyman: Yes indeed Willard has repeatedly said that he would repeal ObozoCare.

But then, if you recall, during an interview just before the Fla primary, Pam Bondi, Fla Atty Gen. said that when Willard wins, she'll be working with Romney to get the states set up with ObozoCare.

Not sure how that's going to work if he repeals ObozoCare.

And then there's this little gem...

Romney Admits He Won’t End ObamaCare
http://www.westernjournalism.c.....obamacare/

At the end of this video Romney admits he will keep large parts of Obamacare.

Anyone who believes anything Willard says is as gullible as those who voted for Obozo!

Alan Brooks| 2.23.12 @ 9:30AM

"Only to reveal the knuckles of a RINO turned 'severely conservative' phony."

You've run those sort for two decades. Is conservatism dying?- did it already die, pushing up daisies with WFB, Goldwater, Reagan?
Or are you clueless? why is it with all the first rate people you have, you are maneuvered into running second rate candidates?

SeymourGlass| 2.23.12 @ 11:16AM

"You've run those sort for two decades."

And won, half the time. Your point?

tim| 2.23.12 @ 10:04AM

what a devastating piece.

im sure obama loved it.

glenny| 2.23.12 @ 12:39PM

Tim, you're spot on.
This election is not about the Repub nominees. It's about Obama.
If O wins, the only US currency worth a damn will be gold, silver and ammo.
glenny

republican sheeple| 2.23.12 @ 1:39PM

baaa-baaaa-baaaa

Clint| 2.23.12 @ 6:37AM

We Ain't Votin' For Some Guy Named After A Baseball Glove.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Mike Hawk| 2.23.12 @ 6:55AM

Even if Rube Paul is his VP?? Tsk Tsk!!

Clint| 2.23.12 @ 7:09AM

Even If Ricky Specter-Santorum Is His VP.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Mike Hawk | 2.23.12 @ 8:10AM

Bob (with one 'o' Casey) for Senate too, huh??

Clint| 2.23.12 @ 6:37PM

Do Your Homework RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooge, Hawk.

" -Santorum’s Liberal Voting Record

Rick Santorum voted with Barbara Boxer with this: S Amdt 3230 – Gun Lock Requirement Amendment

Rick Santorum voted for H J Res 47 – Debt Limit Increase Resolution – Key Vote

Rick Santorum voted for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill

Rick Santorum voted for HR 1 – No Child Left Behind Act

Rick Santorum voted to confirm President William J. Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.

Rick Santorum voted for HR 3448 – Minimum Wage Increase bill which allows punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed.

- Allows damages for emotional distress to be taxed.

- Repeals the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered automobiles and light trucks.

Rick Santorum Voted to confirm President William J. Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the third four year term.

Rick Santorum voted for the protection of Abortion Clinics

I would add that this list just scratches the surface of Santorum’s career-long liberal voting record. As Sen. Rand Paul said of Santorum to CNN on Monday:

“He voted to double the size of the Department of Education… He voted to expand Medicare and add free drugs for senior citizens and he has voted for foreign aid. Those are not conservative principles. Seventy-seven percent of the American people are opposed to foreign aid and Rick Santorum has voted for it every time it’s come down.”

dd| 2.23.12 @ 8:22PM

Please explain why you think "expanding Medicare and adding free drugs for senior citizens" (a bill sponsored by Bush) is a "liberal" voting record. Or again, how voting for putting Greenspan (no liberal himself) in the Fed Reserve-- which Bush also supported-- is "liberal." And "no child left behind" was a Bush proposal, too.

But of course, you can't really satisfy anyone that Rick Santorum is a liberal. Under your definition, only an anarchist looking to blow up the fed building, a Timothy McVeigh, qualifies as conservative.

Well, and who ultimately CARES about labels? Figure out a way to fix the country and LEAD, and you've got my vote.

Mitt Romney has a better claim on that than Rick, sorry.

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 11:10PM

"Please explain why you think "expanding Medicare and adding free drugs for senior citizens" (a bill sponsored by Bush) is a "liberal" voting record. Or again, how voting for putting Greenspan (no liberal himself) in the Fed Reserve-- which Bush also supported-- is "liberal." And "no child left behind" was a Bush proposal, too." Does it expand the role of the Federal Government? If the answer is yes then it is Liberal not conservative.

T Holcomb| 2.24.12 @ 1:27AM

The answer is no, it did not expand the role of Government.

tim| 2.23.12 @ 10:05AM

not. happening.

Mac Jehoff| 2.23.12 @ 11:53AM

TPINO dork from Devon main line bum bandit wants Barry to win so he and the cheese magnate from Wisconsin can carry on bashing CINO-RINO TSA contingent for not electing the old phart from Tejas, Ron Paul.

Mike HAwk| 2.23.12 @ 12:12PM

Yins mean the old phart crackpot from Pittsburg.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 1:20PM

Lord, when I found out that he was from Dormont, where I currently live, I almost puked.

Yinz guys need ta leave Ron alone!

:-)

Clint| 2.23.12 @ 6:43PM

"So far what we have is four candidates who are all serious about cutting spending, but are also very serious about cutting taxes," says Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan organization. "And in most cases they would cut taxes by more than their spending cuts, which would make the overall deficit situation worse."

The lone exception is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose plans would actually shrink the debt by more than $2 trillion over the next decade.

"He tops the group in terms of the kinds of spending cuts he's talking about — at over $7 trillion in cuts, which is by far the greatest amount of any specific cuts that anybody has offered," MacGuineas says.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:08PM

Clint hears the Merkavas in his back yard, coming closer....

riccardo| 2.23.12 @ 8:55AM

I am a long time Freedom Works member, and will easily vote for Romney.
He's got executive experience, which the others lack. He's dealt with political opponents in Mass to actually accomplish something. He left his state with a 2B surplus without raising taxes, and he pardoned no felons!
The only thing that bothers me about Romney is that he's allowed his republican opponents to frame him as a moderate. He's no more moderate than say....Ron Reagan.

Indy| 2.23.12 @ 9:20AM

Excuse me, Romney is no Reagan, not even close. Reagan would never use OWS language, i.e. 1% v. 99%, he spoke for all Americans.

Romneycare = Obamacare
Romney has supported cap / trade
Romney has not ruled out a VAT

Romney is no conservative, Reagan was there is simply no comparison

Do you honestly believe Romney will completely repeal ObamaCare? His advisors Norm Coleman and Pam Bondi have said some alarming things in interviews, Bondi would be his point person on healthcare, she's on board with RomneyCare in every state...sorry, that's a show stopper.

You may trust Romney but many like me do not. You should learn more about Reagan, listen to his speeches, read "In His Own Hand" Reagan so easily talks about our Founding Principles, Mitt could not defend capitalism at the beginning of the campaign, he had to hire Bachmann's debate coach to get his talking points down...come on, the guy is a programmed technocrat. Reagan was a leader and a conservative.

brad| 2.23.12 @ 11:12AM

are you sure he didn't mean ron reagan jr.?

Indy| 2.23.12 @ 11:31AM

Silly me, thanks for pointing that out, it all makes sense now. Your post is spot on!

MissouriConservative| 2.23.12 @ 3:53PM

Obviously you are a Democrat troll to keep saying Romneycare=Obamacare. That is tantemount to saying Corolla=Ferrari. While they both have four wheels, brakes, steering column and headlights, that hardly makes them equal. First of all Massachusetts was 2 billion in debt and Romney eradicated the debt before working on health care, second even the Heritage Foundation lauded it in the original form as a way to keep our co-pays and employer provided insurance from being scalped by the federal mandate to treat anyone at the ER, regardless. That is why my insurance picks up the tab for $10.00 aspirins. Romneycare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts. It was accomplished with bipartisan support, not rammed down their throats. The state mandate per James Madison, Ronald Reagan and John Hancock is constitutional. The federal mandate is not. Seventy pages compared to 2700 pages and I could go on.

Gingrich and Santorum have made their recent living as pseudo lobbyists. Why do you think Newt has not been able to cough up a single document for the "historical advice" he gave to Fannie/Freddie for 1.6-1.9 million of our taxpayer dollars. If one thinks a former Senator, who played the DC games will fix it, just vote Obama, he fits that bill.

Paul B| 2.23.12 @ 5:21PM

Well if you are going to start throwing names around why don't you cop to your own title Mr. "MissouriConservative".

Your real name is "Seminar Poster"! I bet you are not even from Missouri..

If you are not a liberal under cover then you are a fool. Romney care WAS the model for Obama Care and that is an uncontested FACT.

I also do not believe that Romney will honor a complete reversal. We would not vote for him unless he wins the primary.

Indy| 2.23.12 @ 7:22PM

A Democrat troll...I've been called many things but never that, you could not be more wrong. I'm a conservative and honest enough to speak the truth. I don't like any of the candidates so I'll be holding my nose and voting ABO. Romney is no conservative. He's an admitted progressive.

Even Romney's own advisors admitted RomneyCare was the blueprint for ObamaCare. Both are government run programs with a mandate to require citizens to buy insurance just for breathing. Expanded government coverage, higher costs,

"White House visitor logs obtained by NBC News revealed that three of Romney’s healthcare advisers had up to a dozen meetings with senior administration officials, including one in the Oval Office presided over by President Barack Obama.

“They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model,” MIT economist and Romney healthcare adviser Jon Gruber told NBC."
http://michellemalkin.com/2012.....obamacare/

"Health care costs in Massachusetts, as in the rest of the country, continue to grow faster than wages and inflation. … Consistent with that finding, Massachusetts continues to struggle with escalating health care costs, reflecting the decision to defer addressing costs in the 2006 legislation so as not to hold up the expansion in coverage.

The authors conclude that based on the Romneycare experience, Obamacare will improve coverage and not kill employer-based insurance, but containing costs will be a “considerable challenge.”

http://blog.american.com/2012/.....obamacare/

If SCOTUS 1> upholds the law as Constitutional or 2> punts on the decision and delays until 2014...do you believe Romney will go to the mat to repeal ObamaCare? You may, I don't, his advisors already put their cards on the table.

ABO it will be but I could not be more disappointed with the field.

Chaz| 2.23.12 @ 9:31PM

I absolutely believe Romney will repeal Obamacare.

As disappointed as you are in the field.. there are no better candidates.

You need to sort out your priorities and determine whether you want to support Obama or support the Republican Nominee.

There are no realistic, alternative options.

Indy| 2.24.12 @ 6:42AM

Hi Chaz, I have already stated I will vote for the GOP nominee, voting against BHO is a no-brainer. I had hoped in this critical election cycle, I would be voting for someone but it simply is not to be. I will do my part to volunteer to do anything I can to support fair elections. I will give my time to scrub voter rolls, serve as a poll watcher, work voter registration drives and those types of things I believe in. I will make phone calls to support conservatives such as Ted Cruz in TX. I have been engaged for a long time, my priorities are set.

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:38AM

You are of course correct. The Supreme Court is the ONLY realistic path to repealing ObamneyCare. And I expect them to punt it to 2014 on the anti-injunction act issue.

Repealing it legislatively will require large GOP majorities in both houses of Congress - at least a 10 seat margin in the House and at least 55 Senators. Any realistic assessment of the landscape says we will not have those majorities in either house next year. Pelosi is more likely to be speaker next year than Boehner, even if Mittens wins, and 52 Senators is the realistic max.

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 2.24.12 @ 7:56AM

Taking a realistic viewpoint on the Republican Party's chances to defeating Barrack Obama.

The problem with Rick Santorium is the perception of his singular focus on Social Issues and his hardline stance on many items such as birth control. In the general election, Rick Santorium will likely lose the majority of Women's votes and will will not pick up any of the contested states. The math is against him even with an unpopular Barrack Obama.

The problem with Newt Gingrich is his extensive baggage and his inconsistant record. He comes across as angry, not as cheerful that he described himself as. The Obama Attack Machine will have a heyday with the furtile fields of sound bites that Newt Gingrich has provided them.

The porblem with Ron Paul is the perception by many Republicans that he can't win, that he is a bit goofy. I doubt that he has enough support to win the primary, but in a general election he would fair better than either Rick Santorium or Newt Gingrich.

The problem that Mitt Romney has is totally in the primary election. For a various reasons there is a number of people who a very opposed to his as the nominee. For some evangelicals it is simply because he is a Mormon, for others it is because he is rich, and for others it is because he is from a liberal state and needed to temper his positions in order to get elected in the first place. Mitt Romney has the best chance against Barrack Obama in the general election, but it will not be a cakewalk to unseat a sitting President even if Barrack Obama is unpopular.

The question is do we vote for who we feel is the most perfect conservative only to lose and have nothing or do we take a pragmatic view and have a much better chance of winning.

This being said, I don't believe that either Rick Santorium or Newt Gingrich qualify as Fiscal Conservatives and in my opinion the country needs a Fiscal Conservative much more than we need a Social Conservative.

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:30AM

Debt is irrelevant at the Federal level. The US Government is the sovereign currency issuer. Under a non-convertible fiat currency as we have had since 1973, the Federal Government must run persistent deficits forever, since that is the only way net new money is created. A State like Mass, as a mere currency user, must balance its budgets. Mittens balancing the State budget is no excuse for ObamneyCare. The fundamental issue is liberty, not financial management.

Chaz| 2.23.12 @ 9:36PM

You are correct that Romney has not ruled out VAT. Which he should rule out -- and he has not.

You are not exactly correct the has supported cap and trade -- although almost ALL of the candidates have said various things that look like support. But Romney is on record as opposing Cap and Trade.

And Romneycare=Obamacare only to anyone who wants to be superficial.

You need to figure out if you are going to help defeat Obama and the democrats or not -- whether you like the Republican candidate or not.

I have already made my decision. I will vote to replace Obama -- and replace him with ANYONE. That is why I try not to speak bad about ANY of our FINE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES... a great field!!

Indy| 2.24.12 @ 6:57AM

Romney does not rule out the VAT because nobody asks him. This is what primaries are all about. If he is to be the nominee (I will vote for the GOP nominee), I want him on the record as being opposed to a VAT. This is where the other candidates drop the ball. I suspect Newt does not bring it up because in the past he entertained the idea. I have no idea what Santorum's position is, if he is opposed to it, he is missing a chance to challenge Romney on a key issue. Ron Paul won't bring it up, he is cleary opposed to taxes but he's in an alliance with Romney.

Yes, you are correct, my comment was misleading, I should have stated Romney's support of a cap / trade compact for power plants, the Regional Greenhouse Initiative, he later withdrew his support

I judge a man by the company he keeps, I just do not trust Romney.

"One of Mitt Romney’s biggest financial backers has given millions of dollars to an environmental group seeking passage of a cap-and-trade program to battle global warming — a policy that Romney has bashed on the stump.

Julian Robertson, founder of the hedge fund Tiger Management, has given $1.25 million to Restore Our Future, the super-PAC supporting Romney’s White House bid, according to Federal Election Commission filings."

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wi.....ade-effort

Steve| 2.23.12 @ 12:55PM

"He's dealt with political opponents in Mass to actually accomplish something."

Romneycare?

jstwndring| 2.23.12 @ 4:37PM

"He left his state with a 2B surplus without raising taxes........."

This is a disingenuous claim made by Romney and his campaign. The only reason he didn't have to raise taxes implementing Romneycare is because he is getting federal money to pay for it. All the other states are contributing to Romneycare. What a scam! He was able to get federal funds designated for some other useless and un-needed program diverted for his pet program. He was not being fiscally responsible. Give me a break.

Mike Hawk| 2.23.12 @ 5:49PM

Romneycare/ Medicaid is driving Mass. broke.

Scorpio51| 2.23.12 @ 4:55PM

Riccardo, surely you gest. You have not done your homework on Mr. Romney. He is a moderate progressive that has flip flopped on many issues just to suit an occasion.

He was the author of RomneyCare. That was a template of ObamaCare, which is socialized medicine, not a conservative healthcare plan in the least.

Romney will be the type of President to just "manage" the decay. I don't want that.

We're going off a cliff and need BOLD solutions. I would expect something better coming from a Freedom Works member.

T Holcomb| 2.24.12 @ 1:30AM

If you really believe that then you no absolutely NOTHING about Ronald Reagan!

Paul J| 2.23.12 @ 9:03AM

Okay, so you think the party elite is going to let the tea party have anything to do with the brokered convention, there focus has been on the Tea Party not Obama

Alan Brooks| 2.23.12 @ 9:31AM

I like how Clint writes, you Philly guys are as funny as New Yorkers. Baseball glove indeed.

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:36AM

"We Ain't Votin' For Some Guy Named After A Baseball Glove."

Now that IS funny. Good one, Clint. But what about RuPaul being the baseball glove's butt boy?

JJ| 2.23.12 @ 11:40AM

Yet, your guy Ron Paul is allied to Mitt. Explain that.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 12:21PM

Mitt offered Paul the VP, yes?

JJ| 2.23.12 @ 2:04PM

My guess it would be his son the VP or Paul sec or Treasury.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 2:35PM

Everybody has a price, ask Niki Haley.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:10PM

Wow, if Mitt gets nominated and Rand is the VEEP, watch Clint's neck snap from the strain.

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:41AM

If Mittens falls short in delegates and Paul puts him over the top, then there will be a VP named Paul. Paul is Mittens insurance policy, since Paul's supporters are punching above their weight in the delegate selection process.

Chaz| 2.23.12 @ 9:36PM

Clint .. you prefer to see Obama win.

Why are you democrats trolling this page?

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:38AM

You're no Tea Party Person Clint.... You're a Political Bully that is frustrated that your Mob is not big enough to forece a losing nominee down our throat...

I'm a Tea Party Person, and I like Romney alot.

Appleby| 2.23.12 @ 6:42AM

I am glad I was in church while all this was going on. Sounds as if I didn't miss a thing.

Kitty | 2.23.12 @ 6:49AM

Me, too! I was at Mass getting ashes and totally forgot about this debate.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 12:22PM

Crazy devout right wing fanatics. Good for you and may God Bless you both.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.23.12 @ 6:50AM

Mitt Romney talks about cutting taxes and free enterprise and you find that depressing? You sound like a liberal.

Fire Andy Reid| 2.23.12 @ 7:27AM

He's a fraud. They don't come any more transparent.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.23.12 @ 8:49AM

You sound like a liberal also.

republican sheeple| 2.23.12 @ 1:41PM

baaa baaaa baaaa

VBMax| 2.23.12 @ 2:48PM

Are you aware that your posts add nothing to the debate?

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.23.12 @ 5:54PM

Even sheep are aware this poster should serve as a warning of what is inevitable, should conservatives continue to focus on economic and political rights, at the expense of equally important social rights, and continue to allow the fckewes in society to tyrannically oppress, to the ultimate detriment of all.

Somewhere, to day, sheep are being sodomized.

We sheep, todate, have been unable to determine if this is occurring comparably to the dialy abortion rate of humans.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:11PM

"Hey, I was just helping that sheep over the fence!"

50% of New Zealand sheep have heard that line.

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.23.12 @ 7:32PM

We of the ovine species imagine you of all the human species would not be surprised that the second largest demographic of our organization after sheep victimized by intellectually 'elite' liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers is a tie between sheep victimized by raghead diseased swine dung eating sand pounding jihadi infidel sodomizers and sheep victimized by kiwi sodmizers.

The first two ovine demographic groups have placed their hope for change in the Tea Party while the third demographic group has learned to swim across Taupo - when the kiwis chasing them realize they are in contact with clean fresh water they panic and quickly develop muscle cramps and hilarity ensues peace be upon them.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

albert constantine jr.| 2.23.12 @ 10:48PM

OT, don't forget the punchline from the joke about the farmer and the ventriloquist:

"Don't believe a word the sheep says. Everyone knows she's a liar".

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:40AM

Well, at least the last three letters in your acronymn accurtely describe you.

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.24.12 @ 12:29PM

Even sheep know newbies who have yet to read approximately 786 fckewe posts may be rushing to judgement.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

Scorpio51| 2.23.12 @ 4:58PM

Mitt talks a good game, but you better watch out, he's liable to change his mind.

Mike Hawk| 2.23.12 @ 6:57AM

I am beginning to dislike Romney more than McCain. THese are not debates, but a TV game show. Enough already.

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 9:08AM

Yes, except McCain never pretended to be a social conservative. I think George knocked this one out of the ball park today.

Dick Nome | 2.23.12 @ 9:18AM

McCain just pretended to be a Republican. He did pretend to be a social conservative when he ran for office, most recently when he vilified JD Hayworth and spent $25MM dollars. This from Mr. "take the money out of politics" (McCAin-Feingold) and Mr. Recpectable Campaign .

W| 2.23.12 @ 10:10AM

What is your definition of a is a social conservative?
McCain had a solid pro life voting record.

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:39AM

Actually, I was thinking the same thing. Romney is despicable. I was undecided about holding my nose and possibly voting for Mitt but now I just don't think I'd be able to do it.

W| 2.23.12 @ 7:09AM

Mr. Neumayr
This is the worst political commentary I have read in some time. There is no objective analysis and only personal attacks on Romney.
You sound like Carville/Begala/Axelrod.

JKS| 2.23.12 @ 8:15AM

The truth hurts. The man hasn't taken a position in his life. I'm surprised he's running for president. That would nail him down to a single position. It is something he has never held - a single position. He is a fraud and I won't vote for him in any election for anything.

W| 2.23.12 @ 8:20AM

The truth is you will vote for Obama.

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 9:09AM

A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.

W| 2.23.12 @ 10:10AM

If Romney is the nominee, will you vote Romney or Obama?

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:40AM

That's a tough question.

I'll cross that bridge when the time comes but at this point I'd say no, I can't vote for Romney.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 10:56AM

W:
Likely, for the first time in my life, I would not cast a ballot. "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper."

We might also ask why the Mormon church is so keen on getting a President. LDS voters will allow that issue to trump all others. It is something the church has wanted since Joseph Smith himself ran.

Not a peep about domestic energy policy like why do we export domestic production? or anything about the armed invasion AZ is suffering and why the Federal government is suing the State to prevent them defending their own interests.

W| 2.23.12 @ 11:21AM

Al Adab and loulou, et al.

It is a big mistake to stay home and not vote for Romney if he is the nominee. We need to beat Obama.
On every issue we care about Romney is better than Obama, from Supreme Court justices to agency heads to drilling for oil to immigration, etc.

I think we will have to schedule an intervention for anyone thinking of staying home!

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 12:31PM

As always W, I appreciate our conversation. To me, the long term world historical perspective comes into play.

If, a big word, the collapse of the American Republic is only less likely under a Romney administration by a matter of pace, slow motion if you will, (which I believe) as against the headlong pace of this administration, them it is imperative that the blame attach to the Leftist centralizers and not to those who ostensibly (like Romney who only proposes to manage it better not to end it) oppose the legitimacy of the social welfare state.

Mankind will, following the end of the US, enter a new dark age of tyranny and only if the blame attaches correctly will mankind have a early chance of rediscovering the value of freedom.

I simply do not see how those who accept the legitimacy of a centrally planned, redistributionist economy can find a way to restore any political, social or economic Liberty to the citizens. We have fallen very far and I must wonder if not too far to recover.

AaronM| 2.23.12 @ 5:02PM

"We might ask why the Mormon church is so keen on getting President. LDS votes will allow that issue to trump all others. . . ."

Al Adab, you don't know what you're talking about. The Mormon church has nothing to do with Romney's candidacy. As a matter of fact, many Mormon members are supporting Ron Paul adamantly. Of course any group would like one of "their own" to be successful. (Think Kennedy and the Catholics.) But I can tell you that the Romney's Mormonism does not trump everything.

Last night Romney clearly talked about energy, military, and numerous other issues. Romney has one of the strongest records of any candidate on securing the border.

Sorry, T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" does not apply.

AaronM| 2.23.12 @ 4:54PM

You know. People who say they "I won't vote for Romney in any case" are either Obama liberals or stupid idiot fools. Or you have only 2 cents worth of information . Or you have some personal bias that won't let see beyond 30 second sound bites.

Romney has a very strong conservative record. Here are just 10 specifics:
Romney cut taxes 19 times in MA
Romney balanced the budget each of the four years in MA
Romney vetoed 800+ liberal bills. (It will be hard to find any governor even CLOSE).
Romney turned a 3Billion deficit in MA to 2 Billion surplus.
Romney opposed the auto bailout and has consistently stated that the a managed bankruptcy would have been better.
Romney gave over 15 million in church AND charitable contributions.
Romney fought against stem cell research.
Romney has turned around numerous companies into long-term profitable companies.
Romney turned around the SLC. They asked him; he didn't volunteer.
Romney's family life is everything social conservatives say is good.
Romney is probably one of the very best executives in the country or in the world.

I could go on an on. If any of you "conservatives" don't get it and "won't vote for Romney no matter what", you are blinded by some other bias and are a fool.

Obama will do everything he can to grasp more power, to destroy the Constitution, and to destroy our ability to produce energy. He will continue to dismantle our military.

If you are so blind as to say Obama = Romney, they should take away your license to think.

glenny| 2.23.12 @ 12:30PM

I don't care who the Repub nominee is, HE GETS MY VOTE in November.
Romney/Santorum/Newt/Paul on a BAD day are WAY better than Zero on a GOOD day.
If these Repub candidates win in November and don't toe the line in office, they'll have to answer to us in 4 years.
Zero won't give us the time of day if he wins in November.
glenny

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:13PM

A good point, glenny, and since Ron doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, I agree with you.

glenny| 2.23.12 @ 12:34PM

A "NO" vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.
I have LOTS of problems w/ Romney but if he gets the nomination, HE GETS MY VOTE.
Obama MUST lose in November.
glenny

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:18PM

Well guess that's a reason why Romney shouldn't be the nominee.

I don't particularly want to have to have a coin toss over who to vote for.

I think Obamney would be just as damaging to this country as Obama.

Mimi| 2.23.12 @ 8:16AM

Mr. Neumayr, This is the BEST political commentary I have read in some time....
it's like you took a picture and described the scene!

tim| 2.23.12 @ 9:54AM

they may have bribed him to write it.

who knows?

Erwin| 2.23.12 @ 5:18PM

I think your right. I would like to see a rebuttal to this from the Romney Camp. Its easy to lob grenades when nobody strikes back.

MassManny| 2.23.12 @ 5:42PM

Educate yourself. Take an honest look at Romney's record. "Plastic" is too kind a word. How about "liar"?
http://massresistance.org/romney/

c. j. acworth| 2.23.12 @ 7:12AM

"One suspects that Romney's low surrogates paid punks to...loudly boo his opponents."

I'm no fan of Romney, but unless Mr. Neumayer has some evidence for this accusation he should drop it.

Dick Nome | 2.23.12 @ 9:19AM

Paulbots do this kind of thing for free. Romney didn't have to pay them, he just had to ask his pal Paul to have them show up.

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:41AM

How are the Clints and Jacksh*ts of the world going to handle their man being Mitt's butt boy?

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:14PM

Loulou: please note my commentary on C. Elegans, the self fertilizing hermaphroditic roundworm, and Clint's parentage. That should answer your question, madam.

tim| 2.23.12 @ 9:55AM

this was a ridiculously childish piece.

onr big temper tantrum

tommike| 2.23.12 @ 4:53PM

I listened carefully to the crowd's responses when the four candidates were introduced at the start of the "debate." Romney's applause was by far the loudest and most enthusiastic. Also, as the night went on, I was perplexed as to why some of Romney's less-than-stellar comments generated the kind of applause and cheers normally reserved for Ron Paul.

Romney was burned once by not packing his supporters into a debate hall (South Carolina). He has made sure (in FL and AZ) not to repeat that mistake again.

cali| 2.23.12 @ 7:14AM

Nicely stated!!
For once I'm glad someone other than myself noticed this 'robotic, plastic, jelly-spined, monoton, programmed puppet'!
At this point, Romney has become a nuisance; trying sooo hard to convince us of 'his severly and new conservatism'.
Does he not understand or get it that we do not want him, nor trust him? He is not our choice, but that of the establishment.
What he has in common with Obama is his determination, and demand to be our president; that he deserves it, and it's his turn! If he could, he would force us to vote for him. So far, his campaign is so negative; with his wealth he tears down anyone running if he feels that it's a threat to him.
One could determine that he works for the left, doing their dirty work in falsely accusing others what he does himself, or worse.
Romney just needs to take a hike; fade into the woods, and just live us alone. Romney, and his pals, the establishment just can't understand that many of us will not vote for him, come hell and high water; and rather sit this one out.

tim| 2.23.12 @ 9:55AM

david axelrod thanks you for your cheerful comment! :)

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:44AM

Amen, cali.

Romney showed that his plastic persona has an evil streak. I addition he puts his dog on top of his car speeding down the highway and he thinks that is clever?!

Robo| 2.23.12 @ 3:53PM

Yes, why would we want a guy that's been successful in business, for the Olympics, and as a governor. Use your head, who else has that kind of experience?

You made a valid comparison only with the wrong person. Santorum is the Obama of the Republican Party. Meaning he's a better person, but his experience is almost identical - meaning not there. He's been a politician his whole life. If you want things to remain the same, vote for Santorum. If you want someone that actually has experience fixing things in the real world, vote for Romney. It's that simple. Whether Romney can fix things is up for debate, but the others have zero chance at fixing things or beating Obama.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 7:16AM

Santorum gets clobbered by Romney but somehow Romney's victory is hollow and dispiriting. Santorum got the front-runner treatment and was exposed as the hypocrite (Planned Parenthood, Arlen Specter, earmarks, debt ceiling raises) that he is. Santorum went along to get along as much as any other entrenched, soul-selling member of Congress. The only thing dispiriting here is Neumayr's mean and petty column.

JKS| 2.23.12 @ 8:17AM

Romney's victory is hollow because he is hollow. He has not a single conviction. He is worse than McCain.

riccardo| 2.23.12 @ 8:50AM

www.mittromneyhasnocore.blogspot.com

tim| 2.23.12 @ 9:56AM

deep!

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:47AM

Only as deep as plastic robotic Romney.

He might think he won the "debate" with the help of RuPaul but actually he came off as creepier than ever.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 11:02AM

Is there no intellectual honesty left on the Republican side? I'm for Romney but even I admit he's had a terrible past few weeks. Last night, however, Romney had a good debate and Santorum had an awful one. Not having the grace or class to give credit where it's due is just as unbecoming in a Republican as it is in a Democrat.

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 11:48AM

We're talking about the future of our republic--I don't need to see tag team wrestling. I don't call robotic preprogrammed responses good debating.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 1:49PM

No, actually we were talking about the debate.

VBMax| 2.23.12 @ 7:41AM

I hope everyone understands that it is a crapshoot with any of the candidates as to how they will perform as president and it will be up to us and the Congress to hold their feet to the fire. Having said that I don't find fault with the way Romney presented himself last evening and would walk through broken glass to get to the polls and vote for whoever is the Republican nominee. Anyone but Obama.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 11:24AM

Well said. I may sound like a staunch Romney supporter but I'm more of a realist. I believe Romney is the only one of the four capable of beating Obama. Santorum may play well in the primaries but I think his overwrought social conservatism and past statements will be a disaster in the general. But if he or Newt or Ron is the nominee, he will get my vote, my time and my money. Funny thing though, I don't see the Santorum supporters saying the same thing about Romney.

fmm| 2.23.12 @ 11:49AM

How is it overwrought to hold onto time tested conservative social issues that formed the basis of this country's culture and lead to the great accomplishments of the past? Disparagement of such is leading the charge into social anarchy which leads to economic disaster. The founders well knew that our Federal Republic experiment could only survive if the populace remained morally upright. Read your history.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 1:40PM

Reasonable minds disagree on this, but I believe there is a fine line between advocate and fanatic on the social issues and Santorum has crossed the line into fanaticism. I don't want a Republican nanny any more than I want a Democratic nanny. For example, last night Santorum said he tried to atone for voting to fund Planned Parenthood by proposing another federal program to preach abstinence.True conservatives would shun both ideas. I want my politicians, both Republican and Democrat, to stay out of the piety business and leave me alone.

Pecos Pete| 2.23.12 @ 7:41AM

I didn't watch nor listen to the "debate" in Arizona. But, Mr. Neumayr's column is so obviously "snarky" that it should be ignored.

tim| 2.23.12 @ 9:58AM

its so ridiculously damaging to our chances to defeat obama - he should be ignored from now on.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:13PM

Beating Obama is pointless if we replace Obama with someone that will continue Obama's destructive policies.

The man that wrote this article is only voicing what a lot of other people think of Mitt Romney.

I'm an American first, and I'm not going to vote for Romney simply cause the Republican party tells me to, especially when I think Romney would be just as damaging policy-wise, and even more destructive to the country than Obama, cause we would lose credibility.

Edward Cropper | 2.23.12 @ 7:55AM

It must be terribly difficult for NEUMAYR to type with his head up his ass.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:17PM

Mr. Cropper: Brilliant website. Brilliant.

nathan| 2.23.12 @ 8:07AM

Listen to Romney on Sean's show yesterday. He said he would reduce taxes by 20 percent. He would repeal Obamacare. He would do a number of things. But notice what he DIDN'T say.

He didn't say a word about repealing the misnamed unconstitutional Patriot Act. He didn't talk about repealing the Fifth Amendment destroying language in the NDAA. He didn't say a word about ending the non judicial execution of Americans abroad not on the battlefield. No mention of stopping the abuse of detainees.

In other words, he has no intention of defending personal liberties should he become president and neither does Santorum. Romney won't seek the repeal of the NDAA language because he wants the option to use the powers in that bill granted to the president to detain Americans indefinitely without judicial oversight. No president, republicans included want any restrictions on their powers. The only candidate that would stand up for individual rights in this campaign is Ron Paul and most of you don't like him. Some of you may have cause to reconsider when you or a family member are being held without trial a few years from now on the orders of a republican not democratic president. And being "enhanced interrogated" in the process. You may then come to realize that the "enhanced" part of the interrogation really is torture. By then it will be too late, too late for us all.

VBMax| 2.23.12 @ 8:16AM

You make a good point about the NDAA. I wish there had been a question about that in the debate.

Casey Abell| 2.23.12 @ 8:07AM

Too bad your boy Rick Sanctimony lost. But you're making yourself look even sillier than usual with the bit about Romney's "paid punks." Got any other amusing conspiracy theories? Who killed JFK? What about Area 51?

Mike Hawk | 2.23.12 @ 8:12AM

Stacked the audience with Paulbots. Were they wearing their new tinfoil hats?? Were Clint and Jack there??

Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 1:22PM

Who needs conspiracy theories when there's a distinct possibility that Mr. "Super Conservative" Paul might be back room dealing with Mittens to get his son a VP nod?

Whatever will you Paulistinians do if he sells y'all out like that?

Casey Abell| 2.23.12 @ 3:23PM

"Who needs conspiracy theories when there's a distinct possibility that Mr. "Super Conservative" Paul might be back room dealing with Mittens to get his son a VP nod?"

Hey, that's more fun! Why stop with the son? I bet Paul is getting some child brides for Mitt, too. Ain't that what Mormons do?

Tinfoil, baby, tinfoil.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 4:35PM

I don't know what Mormons do. I know what hucksters who claim to be conservative do. Lie about being conservative.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 6:20PM

Paul is not a Conservative, he is a Libertarian and subject to the errors which that view contains.

Clint| 2.23.12 @ 6:49PM

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

PattyMor| 2.23.12 @ 8:08AM

Chris Christie once said, past is prologue. He said it to disparage, Newt's irrascable personality. However, I think its more profound than he meant. Of all the four remaining candidates, only Newt has the conservative accomplishments: took over the House and became Speaker, balanced the budget and passed welfare reform. That's good enough for me. And I don't care that the guy is one his third marriage. We need a leader who can pare down the government; and we need it Stat. Like a code blue patient, the U.S. government is on life support (printing money). And we need this Titanic turned around and Newt's my guy.

Mike Hawk | 2.23.12 @ 8:46AM

(Krispy Kreme) Chris Christie is not so erudite. The phrase comes from Shakespeare (aka Edward DeVere 17th Earl of Oxford)

Antonio:
She that is Queen of Tunis; she that dwells
Ten leagues beyond man's life; she that from Naples
Can have no note, unless the sun were post—
The Man i' th' Moon's too slow—till new-born chins
Be rough and razorable; she that from whom
We all were sea-swallow'd, though some cast again
(And by that destiny) to perform an act
Whereof what's past is prologue; what to come,
In yours and my discharge.

The Tempest Act 2, scene 1, 245–254

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 9:11AM

DeVere didn't write Shakespeare's plays.

Dick Nome | 2.23.12 @ 9:20AM

He sure as hell did, who do you think wrote them??

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 9:39AM

Shakespeare.

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 9:50AM

From wikipedia, where Mere distinguishes between the Earl and Shakespeare:

(2) Francis Meres' 1598 Palladis Tamia, which refers to him as Earle of Oxenford, lists him among the "best for comedy". Shakespeare's name appears further down the same list.

so the best for comedy amongst us bee, Edward Earle of Oxenforde, Doctor Gager of Oxforde, Maister Rowley once a rare Scholar of learned Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, Maister Edwardes one of her Majesty's Chapel, eloquent and witty John Lilly, Lodge, Gascoyne, Greene, Shakespeare, Thomas Nash, Thomas Heywood, Anthony Munday our best plotter, Chapman, Porter, Wilson, Hathway, and Henry Chettle.[24]

Dick Nome | 2.23.12 @ 10:12AM

You've got to do more research than Wikipedia. Go to http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/ and also read Sobran's book "Alias Shakespeare" for starters. Unless of course you have already amde up you mind. An uneduated country bumpkin didn't write the greatest literauture in the English language. I've been studying this for 25 years.

Mike Hawk | 2.23.12 @ 10:30AM

I would concur. William Shakespeare was apparently Oxford's pen name as it would be disgraceful for a nobleman to be publishing and or writing poetry and theatre. I was in Stratford upon Avon in 1985 and first heard of the authorship question when a guide mentioned it there. Seems there is a lot of doubt going back to Mark Twain and Orson Wells to name a couple of notables. There is also too much in the writings that are autobiographical of Oxford for anyone else to have produced them. Notably Oxford's familiarity with Ovid, Italy, and both Latin and Greek literature in their original untranslated versions. The Folger Shakespeare Library has Oxford's Geneva Bible and there are hundreds of underlines and notes relating directly to the plays and poems. We know Shakespeare is filled with references and phrases alluding to the Geneva Bible.

We have no indication the Stratford man, Shaksper, as usually spelled, was even literate.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 11:01AM

Authorship? Try this one: Who wrote the Q' aran?

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 11:28AM

A guy named Looney is the one who invented the De Vere theory in 1920. No competent scholar accepts the non-Shakespeare claim; it's pretty much the province of conspiracy-oriented types or idle revisionists. See the exhaustive discussion at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.....authorship

RCV| 2.23.12 @ 5:52PM

Well, if Wm. Shakespeare was illiterate, it would have been pretty dumb for Oxford to have chosen him to attribute his works to. This, like most conspiracy theories, has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 11:21AM

Sobran ended up as an anarchist flake. The Wikipedia entry is pretty thorough. You underestimate the power of genius.

Mike Hawk| 2.23.12 @ 11:25AM

Sobran was a recognized Shakespeare expert.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:20PM

Yes, and a recognized flake as well.

For example, there is much to be considered in the fact that the greatest American philosopher of the 20th Century was a longshoreman, and the greatest American playwright of the last 30 years did his reading and thinking while driving taxis.

And, of course, Spinoza was a lens grinder.

Dick Nome| 2.23.12 @ 11:44AM

In that case (being an anarchist flake has no connection to being a Shakespeare scholar, it's called a straw man argument) how do you respond to Dr. Roger Stritmatter??

Kingofthenet| 2.23.12 @ 12:00PM

Joe Biden said it long before Chris...but not as long ago as William S.

Lee Ghume| 2.23.12 @ 12:03PM

On the door of a pub named the Will Shakespeare in Stratford-upon-Avon I saw a sign on the door to the Gents' loo with this verse: "Enter this room quietly, tread softly through the door; because bigger piles of s**t than you have slipped beneath the floor."

albert constantine jr.| 2.23.12 @ 11:09PM

The best joke I ever saw on a sign was tacked up in the hallway of a second floor flophouse: "Please don't flick your cigarette ashes on the floor. The cockroaches are getting cancer".

skip| 2.24.12 @ 1:55AM

Carved sloppily on the wall of a tavern without ashtrays where ashes and butts and peanut shells were meant for the floor: "I f**ked your mother". Carved more neatly below this was: "Go home Dad you're drunk".

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:49AM

But Bill Ayres wrote Obama's autobiography.

W| 2.23.12 @ 11:32AM

Who wrote Hillary's billing records for Whitewater?

Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 1:23PM

Mark Rich.

W| 2.23.12 @ 2:43PM

Mark's wife paid a million bucks to the Clinton Library for Mark's pardon, and the wife personally "delivered" it, as they say, to Bubba.

GREAT IDEA: Let's have the AmSpec blog meeting at the Clinton library!

Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 4:35PM

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

GREAT idea!

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:22PM

But where can you eat in Little Rock? (I admit, the idea of a blogger convention in Clinton's Erection for TAS is amusing)

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 10:09AM

It's interesting that the Tempest was written about 6 years after De Vere's death.

Dick Nome | 2.23.12 @ 10:14AM

Not so. Evidence suggests it was written or started in the early 1600's and later finished by by another hand. Your dates are based on the assumption the Stratford man wrote them. Dates for any of the plays are hard to determine.

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 11:32AM

Of course, anti-Shakespeareans have to back date all of Shakespeare's post-1604 plays since that's when De Vere died. The evidence indicates several plays were written after 1604, including Tempest.

Mike HAwk| 2.23.12 @ 11:50AM

On the contrary, evidence shows they were performed before the death of Oxford. Why do you say the Tempest was written later??

BTW, nobody is 'anti-Shakespearean', the debate is Oxfordian vs Stratfordian and the Stratfordian is fading.

Casey Abell| 2.23.12 @ 12:04PM

"BTW, nobody is 'anti-Shakespearean', the debate is Oxfordian vs Stratfordian and the Stratfordian is fading."

One thing that faded fast was the Oxfordian movie Anonymous. Did that thing last a week in the multiplexes?

Anyhoo, it's nice to get into an argument over Shakespeare on this thread. Maybe Neumayr thinks "paid punks" from one side or another are influencing the debate.

But hey, who knows if Neumayr is really writing this stuff? Maybe it's ghosted by the current Earl of Oxford! (Is there one? Just googled. No, sadly.)

Mike HAwk| 2.23.12 @ 1:13PM

There is one, but he isn't a decendent of Edward DeVere. Edward's son Henry the 18 Earl died without children and thus ended the line. A cousin assumed it. Oxford did have an 'illegitamate' son and a living decendent Charles Vere.

Casey Abell| 2.23.12 @ 3:27PM

Well, there is an "Earl of Oxford and Asquith." Sort of looks like private property of the Asquith family, first created back in 1925 for British politico H.H. Asquith.

Man, I'm glad they stuck that thing in the Constitution about no titles of nobility. We might have Bill Clinton, Lord of Little Rock.

Jim| 2.23.12 @ 9:23AM

Amen, someone who knows what they are talking about. Newt is the only choice at this point. Mittens is a menace, destroying any challenger with his money while proping him up as a false conservative.

Rob Seabrook| 2.23.12 @ 8:10AM

Yet, you and the rest of the National media continue to marginalize Ron Paul, who is not a fake conservative, is for the constitution and individual liberty. All in the hope to sustain your warmongering Military Industrial Complex and status quo crony capitalism. Nice job!!

Dick Nome | 2.23.12 @ 8:48AM

Ron Paul marginalizes himself. He is a crackpot and no conservative. He, just last week, poo-pooed social conservatives as irrelevant. He is a neo-progressive confederationist.

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:51AM

Ron Paul did indeed marginalize himself last night. He used to be like a benign crazy uncle but he let his nasty side out when he acted as pit bull for Mitt. Sit, stay RuPaul.

naql| 2.23.12 @ 2:01PM

We'll see who is marginalized after you Neo-Cons reject Paul's Libertarian message and you have your arses handed to you in the general election.

Mike HAwk| 2.23.12 @ 3:19PM

77 yr old crackpots don't get elected POTUS

naql| 2.23.12 @ 5:33PM

And neither will Saint Santorum, Plastic Man, or the Gingrinch. Libertarians have will have a suitable alternative in former NM Governor Gary Johnson, who is neither 77 nor a "crackpot". Either way, you're not winning without us and we're not voting for this ridiculous assortment of Neo-Con clowns.

naql| 2.23.12 @ 5:37PM

Social "conservatives" ( I have never been able
to figure out why having Big Government trying to mandate morality is a conservative position.) are the vestigial tail that the Republican party will need to shed in order to evolve.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 6:17PM

It is not a Conservative position. Activist Conservatism is only percieved from The Left which fears a Conservative majority would attempt to "rule" as they do. Conservatives respect the rule of law even when they disagree that some such should be the law. True, they work long and hard to change law, but that is in keeping with our national principles.

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 9:12AM

He hangs out with the Lew Rockwell crowd. They hate Sarah, Rush, Buckley, Reagan, Lincoln, Washington, Hamilton, and Madison. In what way could he be called a conservative?

Dick Nome | 2.23.12 @ 9:22AM

They also hate Rush, Marl Levin, common sense and worship the Articles of Confederation.

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 9:40AM

And I just remembered, they hate biblical Joseph, and also American soldiers.

naql| 2.23.12 @ 10:38AM

"No, 'tis slander,
Whose edge is sharper than the sword, whose tongue
Outvenoms all the worms of Nile, whose breath
Rides on the posting winds, and doth belie
All corners of the world."

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 11:32AM

Yes, a good description of the Lew Rockwell site.

Crassus| 2.23.12 @ 10:25AM

Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:25PM

I'm sorry. Legalization of Heroin is Conservative? Support for Same-Sex Marriage and Bigamy is Conservative?

Must be a different Ron Paul.

VBMax| 2.23.12 @ 8:19AM

Most telling quote of the night was from Santorum: "Politics is a team sport" as he attempted to justify his past votes and positions.
Problem is the only losers are the American people; the politicians on either side win no matter what. I believe Newt is the only one who has the means and vision to make any profound changes.

VBMax| 2.23.12 @ 8:31AM

I just want to warn commentors that there are Obama acolytes on every political website posing as "conservatives" etc. The intention is to depress voter turnout by disparaging any of the Republican candidates. And from what I have been reading, they are somewhat successful in their efforts.

tim| 2.23.12 @ 10:00AM

seems our columnist here may be one of them!

Aaron Burr| 2.23.12 @ 3:42PM

I've had the same suspicion about Neumayr for some time. I think he's actually a deep cover Democrat mole planted to sow dissent among the Republican ranks. How else can you explain anybody being stupid enough to think that not voting - and thereby helping to guarantee Obama another term - is even remotely acceptable. Buckley had it right. Realists vote for the best candidate available even if he/she isn't the perfect embodiment of all their hopes and dreams. Children stay home, hold their breath, turn blue and then bitch about how bad things are when they turn out badly.

Alexander Hamilton| 2.23.12 @ 6:26PM

Isn't it really an argument whether the duel be 4 paces (2012-2026) rather than 24 paces (1988-2012)?

(Somewhere Near Weehawken)| 2.23.12 @ 7:12PM

( 2012-2016, that is, heh heh - trigger finger fell asleep - hmm . . . that gives me an idea for a neat little federal 'accounting' trick . . . I'll need something I can call a 'Treasury' . . . and something I'll call 'Credit' . . . hmm . . . )

Marlowe| 2.23.12 @ 8:32AM

Like him or not Gingrich stood above the others in this debate like the Colossus of Rhodes. He and only he has any familiarity with "The Voice of America" he always manages to couch his answers in the argot of freedom and self-government.

Meanwhile his opponents engaged in trading insults and debate coach pablum trying desperately to score cheap political points. The CNN Marxists of course did their best to marginalize Newt, it was impossible not to hear his voice as he sang the song of America.

It was like being in church singing a hymnn when you realize that Pavaratti is two pews behind you and the best plan is to shut up.

None of these fools even know the lyrics let alone the tune. Next time listen to how Newt manages to weave the great truths of America-ltd gov't, freedom. responsibilty--seamlessly into his answers. In the last 60 years on Reagan has managed to do this better.

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 9:14AM

While I wouldn't use such flowery metaphors to describe a politician, I understand the sentiment, and agree wholeheartedly.

tommike| 2.23.12 @ 5:02PM

Amen to that. Newt stands head and shoulders above the rest in his ability to articulate a clear vision for the future. His ability to envision and communicate is sorely lacking in America today. But unfortunately, too many Americans are too uninformed to realize what they may be passing up.

naql| 2.23.12 @ 6:40PM

The only "colossus" Gingrich reminds me of is the vengeful, Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from the Ghostbusters movie.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:20PM

Have you had your vision checked lately?

dd| 2.23.12 @ 8:36PM

LOL. Yeah, let's elect Newt to lead a 4th of July Parade, something he's truly qualified for. As for the job of President, which requires some finesse, he'd be a disaster.

dd| 2.23.12 @ 8:36PM

LOL. Yeah, let's elect Newt to lead a 4th of July Parade, something he's truly qualified for. As for the job of President, which requires some finesse, he'd be a disaster.

dd| 2.23.12 @ 8:36PM

LOL. Yeah, let's elect Newt to lead a 4th of July Parade, something he's truly qualified for. As for the job of President, which requires some finesse, he'd be a disaster.

dd| 2.23.12 @ 8:36PM

LOL. Yeah, let's elect Newt to lead a 4th of July Parade, something he's truly qualified for. As for the job of President, which requires some finesse, he'd be a disaster.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:15PM

Seriously, enough with the spam.

Big Tony| 2.23.12 @ 8:33AM

With the possible exception of my LDS friend I don't see how anybody could get excited by Romney. But he may be more conservative than his record indicates. People seem to forget that the government steamrolled the LDS over polygamy and while I think polygamy is bad for society at large it's nothing compaired to killing the unborn.

Louis Jenkins| 2.23.12 @ 8:42AM

Let's face it. If Romney is nominated he will shift the GOP further to the left. Whether he gets elected or not. And during the next election, 4 years from now, the GOP will have a more leftist candidate, and so on. It is getting increasingly difficult to tell Romney from Obama, although he's doing his best to be otherwise.

tim| 2.23.12 @ 10:00AM

boy that comment is big stupid!

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:53AM

No, your comments are stupid, tim. You're either a Romneybot or an Obamabot and you are worthless.

riccardo| 2.23.12 @ 8:46AM

Any author who uses the words "unmolested' and "Newt Gingrich" in the same sentence, should be ignored.

If you think Romney is plastic, you're not paying attention...
www.mittromneyhasnocore.blogspot.com

Mimi| 2.23.12 @ 9:08AM

We can't reject Newt and the moral strength and courage he displays. He is the only one who looked and sounded like a LEADER. He gets it, the WHOLE picture ! For the security of this nation via foriegn affairs and fiscal sanity, our future should be placed at this hour in Newts hands!

Vern Crisler| 2.23.12 @ 9:14AM

Dittos...

tommike| 2.23.12 @ 5:06PM

I love to listen to Newt's speeches. Every time I come away amazed at his ability to identify what lies at the root of the problem (usually, the problem is a failure to understand and apply the Constitution) and to envision a way to bring us back to where we should be.

david| 2.24.12 @ 3:38AM

yeah....keep flipping from newt to santorum. true losers

JimP| 2.23.12 @ 9:32AM

Amen, Mr. Neumayr! You nailed it.

tim| 2.23.12 @ 10:01AM

look two geniuses. obama luvs you guys!

republican sheeple| 2.23.12 @ 1:43PM

baa baaaa baaaa

Ward Bond| 2.23.12 @ 9:34AM

A question: With the animosity between the Ruling Class Republicans and the Conservatives, would the Conservatives give their whole hearted support to the "chosen" Romney? Conversely, would the Ruling Class rather have obama than a Conservative?

Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 9:37AM

I'm not convinced that this debate advanced the ball for anyone. And I CERTAINLY don't buy the spin that's being repeated today about how Santorum didn't do well. We'll see how the polls & the voting results bear out, but I'm thinking that the field will stay in the same spots they're currently in.

The establishment will continue to help Mitt crap on Santorum, just as they have anyone who's challenged the "inevitability" of his nomination. All this talk of a brokered convention, all this talk about how Rick can't win because he's "too religious" is all CRAP. Its the powers that be in the GOP peeing their pants that Mr. Electability is vulnerable. Yeah, Santorum's "too religious." Well, we have a guy right now who's about as religious as Marx was, so why would the converse be so bad? Besides, anyone who thinks that "Rev." Wrong's "church" had ANYTHING to do with spreading the word of G*d needs to have their heads examined.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 5:46PM

I watched the debate all the way through, and I say this as someone whom watched it and don't really care what the pundits say.

Santorum blew it, he was struggling the first half of the debate, he found his footing in the 2nd half but the damage was done. In fact, Santorum was doing so poorly fielding attacks from Romney, that Gingrich finally stepped in by pointing out Romney was being a hypocrit.

Romney damaged himself badly as well, he seemed unbelievably petty. He got called out by Gingrich for being a hypocrit (concerning the earmark issue), in case people didn't notice.

Gingrich probably won this debate by primarily going after Obama. He complimented Ron Paul on some positions, and he disagreed on other positions that Paul has.

Gingrich seemed focused on the issues and what had to be done to fix things throughout the debate.

Paul did well in the 1st half but imploded on foreign policy (as usual).

Thing Santorum people need to recognize, Gingrich could have stayed silent and let Santorum continue to be pummelled. Gingrich chose to step in, I don't recall Santorum stepping in when Gingrich was being smeared in Florida (well he bashed Gingrich and Romney but given how Romney is now treating Santorum).

I think Santorum owes Gingrich an apology, now that he knows the kind of shannigans Gingrich was having to put up with.

naql| 2.23.12 @ 6:41PM

Saintly Santorum got his clock cleaned by Paul and Romney.

tim| 2.23.12 @ 9:49AM

what a devastating piece.

im sure obama loved it.

David W| 2.23.12 @ 9:53AM

The nomination of Romney to the GOP may be its death - the conservatives will say "the hell with the GOP establishment/elite" and start a third party that will actually care about saving this country - Romney and his buddies probably could care less.

tim| 2.23.12 @ 10:03AM

so w is your middle initial huh?

david w. axelrod

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:56AM

No, let the GOP establishment start a third party or join the Democrat Party. They need to be purged from the Republican Party.

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.23.12 @ 10:01AM

A plague on (almost) all your houses. The problem, cretins, is Obama. And a vote for Romney is not a vote for Obama, nor would a Romney presidency be indistinguishable from the second term of Obama- which most of the posters and this shrill screed from Neumayr are doing their best to insure. Is Romney perfect? Of course not. Is he better than 4 more years of the POS we have in office now and the agenda he will foist in a second term. Hell yes. Gingrich? Santorum? Paul? You cant be serious

VBMax| 2.23.12 @ 10:15AM

"Is Romney perfect? Of course not. Is he better than 4 more years of the POS we have in office now and the agenda he will foist in a second term."

Just a thought: What do you all think the price of gas will go to in Obama's second term?

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.23.12 @ 10:31AM

I believe there are those on the Left who will not rest until we have gas prices at levels comparable to those in Western Europe, and will oppose any expansion of domestic oil production or the importation of oil from Canada

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 11:08AM

Any distinction between a Romney administration and a second Obama one is solely to be found in the speed of the collapse of the US. The final result will be the same because the GOP establishment (or whatever one may care to call them) simply refuses to contest the legitimacy of the social welfare state. To them it is a matter of managing such a government better, not reducing its size or scope.

Should the final collapse occur under a GOP administration then History will place the blame in the wronmg quarter. It is imperatrive for the future Liberty of mankind that blame be placed squarly on the Centralizing/Leftist agenda. For Freedom to be someday rediscovered, future generations must know which model stands for liberty and which for tyranny.

W| 2.23.12 @ 11:56AM

Al Adab
I think the only realistic method to shrink the welfare state is to reduce the scope of government by reducing taxes, and eliminating as many agencies as possible. It will take some time but only conservative-libertarian Republicans will do it. But in the meantime we cannot elect Obama who will only increase the nanny state, like LBJ did.

The Dem base supports the nanny state. There are bloggers here who want the government to increase its power by passing laws they favor, such as a National Right to Work Act when that matter is already governed by the states.

The only candidate questioning the welfare state is Ron Paul, and he is not electable because of his views on foreign policy, especially terrorrism and Israel. He does make a good point that to reduce the power of the government you have to reduce taxes and stop passing a federal law for every problem that arises. Rick Perry had a good idea to make Congress part time so they stop passing so many laws and creating more agencies that issue more regulations.

The last serious candidate to question the welfare state was Goldwater.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 12:40PM

W:
We are on the same page here. See my above to you as well. If only a Conservative/Libertarian can reverse the statist trend, is there a purpose or profit in electing other? Perhaps 1964 was the last chance and all that has happened since is a "holding of the line" if you will. Too late? Are we simply delaying the inevitable?

There is a serious Constitutional question as to whether Congress can abrogate its legislative function to executive branch agencies which issue regulations by the volume.

The election of a "moderate" republican President and certainly without the Senate does little, I fear, to accomplish any purpose.

turboline| 2.23.12 @ 1:34PM

Don't forget, everyone: Secession. I would include states like Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas, maybe Kentucky, Tennessee, Arizona, and Georgia, in the list of states that will -- if our trajectory does not change -- move to leave the Union.

Back in the 1860's there could be logical and real reasons to preserve the Union. Today? Not at all. No more.

To those who find this alarming or concerning, too bad. It is coming, and it is coming for a whole host of reasons.

The liberals in Washington, D.C., the northeast, the rust belt, and the Pacific states want their way and the destruction they pursue? Well, others are going to do what is necessary, and that is to depart a sinking ship.

This does not mean that this will be a set of states with animosity or enmity for the remaining United States. We can perhaps have borders just like what exists between Canada and the U.S. today.

But the ideas of secession are real. Every one of the states I mention above has thinkers, speakers, discussion groups and people in the statehouses who are more than just a little sympathetic to this idea.

VBMax| 2.23.12 @ 2:03PM

Well, I agree with you. Months ago I posted that I could not see how we conservatives could coexist any longer with progressives. Putting up with progressive rule is like acquiescing to being a slave. The only problem is that there are plenty of progressives and useful idiots in all the states that would shoot down any attempt to secede.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 2:25PM

turbo:
Any new civil war will not be fought between the States as none of them (Texas or Alaska perhaps excepted) have the unity of thought to pull out intact. Should ballots fail any resort to other means will pit neighbor against neighbor and city against rural interests. The result would be anarchy and the collapse of the federal republic.

RCV| 2.23.12 @ 5:59PM

And I and others firmly committed to preserving the United States assure you that any such effort would be met with the same response and with the same result as last time.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 6:13PM

Interesting question, "Would this administtration roll the tanks to put down OWS style rioters?" It is most likely that the rioters would come from the ranks of those on the government dole who see themselves losing bennies, rather than from those who would wish to maintain their liberties.

naql| 2.23.12 @ 7:33PM

Tyranny?

S-ET| 2.24.12 @ 12:51PM

The self-evident truth you and these others might contemplate this time is those firmly committed to preserving the United States Constitution by utilizing their 2nd Amendement rights this time would be firmly committed in opposition to you and these others who assuredly are the oppressors of liberty this time who would be met with the same response and with the same result as last time.

W| 2.23.12 @ 1:42PM

Al Adab
We agree on the diagnosis and prescription, but have a slight disagreement on what to do when we do not have the perfect choice, such as a Goldwater, Coolidge, or Taft.

I don't think it is too late. Conservatism and libertarianism (smaller government type like PJ O'Rourke) is getting more popular.

We have to use the same methods the Left did. They elected congressmen and senators that kept passing laws and appointing their people to the agencies to pass regulations. The moved the ball downfield slowly. They also lied as when Hubert Humphrey stated that the Civil Rights Act would never lead to affirmative action.

But we cannot afford more of Obama. If Obamacare is not repealed then it may be too late. Once there is a single payor system, or a functionally similar system resulting from regulation, then the feds will control every aspect of our lives. People will get used to it, especially those that do no

The courts have ruled that agencies can issue regulations that are necessary to carry out the functions of the law that created the agency. The question is always have they exceeded their ministerial role and moved to issue legislation. The problem is that it puts the burden on the citizen, or company, to prove the regulation is not valid. This is caused by a lazy Congress that passes a law, creates an agency, and allows the agency to roam.

Perry and Paul had a good point that they need to stop passing laws and creating agencies for every perceived problem.
We do need a real conservative, not compassionate, with any of our candidates.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 2:22PM

W:
True enough. It was a long term incrementalist strategy that got us into this mess. The question is whether we have the time for a long term incrementalist strategy to get us out. Does the situation require long term treatment or radical surgery?

W| 2.23.12 @ 2:46PM

Al Adab
Do both. Move to repeal Obamacare and eliminate the Dept of Education. Simplify the tax code to shrink IRS, etc. Abolish as many agencies as possible.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 4:20PM

W:
There you have it. Do we have a candidate who would follow your prescription? Do we have enough time - in your prognosis - to allow it?

W| 2.23.12 @ 4:39PM

Al Adab
I believe all four will follow it if we have Congress to push them and back them up. We need a bold Speaker, like Newt was in 1994, and an agressive Majority Leader, with the president. Jim Demint should be Majority Leader, and Cantor or Ryan in the House. We have no choice but to do it. I am an optimist, We can do it.

SeymourGlass| 2.23.12 @ 11:19AM

Emilio: for once, we agree. Better to have somebody who, when he caves in, caves to the conservative side (Romney) rather than one who, when he caves, caves to the liberals.

Pick your poison.

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 1:00PM

Seymour:
Might I call to your memory President Nixon who, for all his greatness in foreign policy, "caved" to the Conservatives but nonetheless governed his administration as no less the centralizer for it.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:22PM

Actually Romney tends to go left that's his natural tendency.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:27PM

Dear Emilio: you have an excellent point. An Obama re-election, and "History is made in the Dark."

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 3:07AM

Obama's price of gas? It will go to 11.

Anatole Pushkin| 2.23.12 @ 10:03AM

Romney and Paul. with the collaboration of the moderator who looked like a closet somethng,signalled the attack and fake Republican Ron Paul immediately chirped, "He's fake!" I admire Santotrum's reaction. That being Ash Wednesday night, he just contained himself. The winner was Rick Santorum. He won by default. In normal debates with judges who impose the rules, Paul could have been immediately eliminated and
sent to the doghouse of Seamus, Romney's favoite delegate. Obviously, Paul is the puppet of Ventriloquist Mitt Romney. They are both RINOS.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 5:48PM

The fact Gingrich had to jump in to stop Romney's beatdown on Santorum, shows that Santorum didn't win last night.

Though Romney was unbelievably petty.

I think Santorum may have put some issues to rest, but he showed he can't handle the spotlight.

Anatole Pushkin| 2.23.12 @ 10:03AM

Romney and Paul. with the collaboration of the moderator who looked like a closet somethng,signalled the attack and fake Republican Ron Paul immediately chirped, "He's fake!" I admire Santotrum's reaction. That being Ash Wednesday night, he just contained himself. The winner was Rick Santorum. He won by default. In normal debates with judges who impose the rules, Paul could have been immediately eliminated and
sent to the doghouse of Seamus, Romney's favoite delegate. Obviously, Paul is the puppet of Ventriloquist Mitt Romney. They are both RINOS.

Anatole Pushkin| 2.23.12 @ 10:03AM

Romney and Paul. with the collaboration of the moderator who looked like a closet somethng,signalled the attack and fake Republican Ron Paul immediately chirped, "He's fake!" I admire Santotrum's reaction. That being Ash Wednesday night, he just contained himself. The winner was Rick Santorum. He won by default. In normal debates with judges who impose the rules, Paul could have been immediately eliminated and
sent to the doghouse of Seamus, Romney's favoite delegate. Obviously, Paul is the puppet of Ventriloquist Mitt Romney. They are both RINOS.

Anatole Pushkin| 2.23.12 @ 10:03AM

Romney and Paul. with the collaboration of the moderator who looked like a closet somethng,signalled the attack and fake Republican Ron Paul immediately chirped, "He's fake!" I admire Santotrum's reaction. That being Ash Wednesday night, he just contained himself. The winner was Rick Santorum. He won by default. In normal debates with judges who impose the rules, Paul could have been immediately eliminated and
sent to the doghouse of Seamus, Romney's favoite delegate. Obviously, Paul is the puppet of Ventriloquist Mitt Romney. They are both RINOS.

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 10:57AM

Ditto, ditto and ditto.

Bradyp| 2.23.12 @ 10:03AM

This current group of candidates does not contain one that will defeat the current President. They are a very flawed group. It is hard to believe that this is the best the GOP can do. No wonder half of the party wishes someone else was in the race.

VBMax| 2.23.12 @ 10:16AM

No, I only wish Obama weren't in the race.

Anatole Pushkin| 2.23.12 @ 1:43PM

All things being equal, it's not the candidate at the end of the day but the primary voters. If Romney the RINO is the nominee, then President Obama will win hands down. Christians can never vote for a Mormon because Mormons are polygamists and the founder was a fraud. He concocted the tale that he restored the Church of Jesus Christ byrewriting the Holy Bible. But then, we cannot stop events from happening. If Santorum wins, Christians will no longer matter anyhow because they are not a political power, which is humanly speaking partly correct.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:24PM

I won't support Romney cause I think he's a slimeball and would be just as destructive as Obama.

Who the flip cares if he is Mormon, I don't care if he was a Catholic, Methodist, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, etc.

Bob Grant| 2.23.12 @ 10:19AM

I simply can't rip a candidate as Mr. Neumayr does who might very well be our nominee in the general, and one who I must support 100 percent should it happen.

He went over the line from sharp critic to a saboteur who will make it that much more difficult to unseat the dictator.

Way to go!! I hope you feel better about yourself. I guess you'll always have THAT as a consolation prize.

OregonBuzz| 2.23.12 @ 10:21AM

Uh, George could you tell us how you really feel? Actually I couldn't agree more with your analysis of "Teflon Mitt". I pegged him for a RINO from the opening bell. I'm still a Newt fan even with all his supposed "baggage". Let those among us without sin cast the first stone.

Stroker97| 2.23.12 @ 10:24AM

I don't know how anyone can say that Newt is not the most conservative candidate after last nights debate. What about it Tea Party members? Santorum admitted that he went along to get along at the consequence of his principles. A true conservative can't, in good faith, pull the lever for either Santorum or Romney at this point. Newt blew them both out of the conservative pool last night!

tommike| 2.23.12 @ 5:09PM

I could vote for Santorum if he ends up being the nominee. But given the choice, I'd take Newt.

Art Mooney| 2.23.12 @ 10:29AM

I don't think we've ever seen a candidate in political history so thoroughly rejected by the public as Romney. Yet he continues.

There's persistentancy, then there's weird.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 11:09AM

How has the man who has won 2 primaries where delegates are actually awarded and has consistently polled as the number one or two primary candidate and very well against Obama been so "thoroughly rejected by the public?" As Newt said last night, you can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts.

Bob Grant| 2.23.12 @ 11:22AM

Many presidential candidates are on the weird side: Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, Edwards, T. Kennedy, Gore, Nixon, Perot, Clinton (to many), Gore, ...

K garner| 2.23.12 @ 2:08PM

Rejected he is winning????? What the crap are you talking about??????

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 5:50PM

His smear machine is getting people not to show up at the polls and be disgusted in general. That's not winning.

Romney can't run on his own record so he resorts to smears.

K garner| 2.23.12 @ 6:11PM

Every campaign smears. That is the name of the game. Didn't Newt call Mitt a liar. That would be a personal smear!

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:25PM

No, because it would be the truth.

For Romney to have ticked off Mark Levin like that, Romney really took it way too far.

Ground Control| 2.23.12 @ 10:57AM

The circular firing squad continues to fire, and fire blanks at that. That's why these bums are all still standing. How hard is it to just focus on the REAL problem, the Bozo in the White House? Show me ONE candidate who will stay on topic and blast the most easily blasted incumbent President in history. Focus on the stupidest man in American Politics and how his actions are directly and deliberately destroying private property, creating misery and poverty, and destroying prosperity and economic growth. This should be easy, but not one of these "candidates" is willing to do it.

loulou| 2.23.12 @ 11:00AM

I'm a little tired of the clever phrase, "circular firing squad" and think it would be honorable for Romney to drop out. If that doesn't happen I agree with Palin--let the primaries play out. I want to vote for Newt or Rick.

GregA| 2.23.12 @ 1:22PM

I'm a little tired of the clever phrase, "RINO," when it's the guy in the White House who's the real enemy.

RND| 2.23.12 @ 1:47PM

GregA, we're all tired of RINOs and what that stands for.

So you are saying the Boehner-Cantor show is not also your enemy? Name one big thing that they've orchestrated and won as the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives. Just one.

GregA., we presently have two parties that have thoroughly damned your life. Or are you unaware of the now $59,784.34* that you personally owe due to their malfeasance over the last 40 years? (And that is just what they are officially letting us know about)

*actually this figure is much higher because to achieve it they always divide by every American living in America. Well, do we think that the penniless, the homeless, the mentally infirm, the dying, the children under 18, those in prison, and those here illegally will be aiding to pay for this racked up debt that skyrockets by the day?

Oh, and if Obama is the real enemy (yes, he is an enemy for sure), which of your GOP heroes is firing weekly debilitating broadsides at POTUS and the administration every week?

I don't think I even heard one GOP Catholic make a strong opposition to the President in the last two weeks, have you?

naql| 2.23.12 @ 10:20PM

And that is why there has never been a better time to vote Libertarian.

*Our* candidate will have a succesful conservative record as a two term Governor who cut taxes 14 times, never raised them, entered office with a deficit, balanced the budget and left a surplus, and vetoed more spending bills in a bipartisan fashion than all other 49 governors combined. He will have sensible positions on social issues, which is that most, if not all, of them are not the government's business. He will honor our military alliances and commitments while ending unconstitutional military interventionist police actions we can no longer afford.

The Republicans *could* have had him, but they preferred the crop of smarmy neo-conservative non-starters you're arguing about now. We will have the vote of anyone who recognizes that reducing the debt is the paramount issue, and all those who reject the leviathan police state to "protect" us all from terrorists.

K garner| 2.23.12 @ 2:07PM

Why again should Mitt the clear front runner drop out? Are you smoking some of that moon dust Newt is selling?????

Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 4:17PM

Clear front runner? He continues to garner his same 30% or so, AZ may give him more with so many Mormon voters and fewer competitoers, however the non-Romney vote remains larger than the Romney vote. That might qualify as a plurality but hardly makes him a mandatory nominee. Hasn't the GOP followed these types to defeat - going back to Tom Dewey - enough to learn not to follow them again?

K garner| 2.23.12 @ 6:12PM

Who has garnered more than 30%%$%%%% YOu make absolutely no sense. He is WINNINg

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:27PM

Actually I think Newt's moon colony has a greater likelihood of coming true than Romney actually following through with his promise to fight to get Obamneycare repealed.

Tom Bond| 2.23.12 @ 11:09AM

I saw Newt rise from the ashes last night. He clearly stayed above the fray and acted perfectly Presidential. Mr. Neumayr, THANKS for reporting what I saw!

K garner| 2.23.12 @ 2:06PM

Yah for the moment then the real crazy uncle will show his face again. Moon Juice anyone?

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:28PM

Newt's Moon colony is actually more likely to be a reality than Mitt Romney actually following through with his promise to repeal Obamneycare.

Tom Bond| 2.24.12 @ 2:30AM

Ten four...

OLDRAY| 2.23.12 @ 11:10AM

Congratulations Mr Newmayr..A really great article. Romney is a disaster for the GOP and probably for the USA. The GOP should dump him now or the voters will dump the party in November. We need a conservative President with courage and brains. Newt ,Palin, Rubio and there are others. But NOT Romney. He will lose and cost us the House AND Senate. This is a vital election for the USA and Western civilization.

TRW| 2.23.12 @ 11:17AM

Would someone here explain please who George Costanza is? A real person? During the start of the debate Mitt said it, yes, but I surely don't get it. "As George Costanza would say, quit when they are applauding." Something like that. Is George Constanza a contemporary of George Burns?

Thank you for the help.

SeymourGlass| 2.23.12 @ 11:21AM

Ever heard of "googling"? Or was there some kind of subtle point you were trying to make with your question? I.e. you're above midbrow culture.

Yukon| 2.23.12 @ 1:51PM

Seymore G., if you don't know, don't take up space. The questioner is not just asking for who this name is, the questioner seems to be asking context. As in,what context did Mitt Romney have in mind when he used this name? I don't know, otherwise I would try to help the questioner.

JJ| 2.23.12 @ 2:20PM

Ironically the guy who played Costanza's boss just recently botched his suicide attempt.

SeymourGlass| 2.23.12 @ 2:52PM

Sorry, Yukon, but you're wrong on this. He/she is asking who Costanza is, not what the context of the reference is. "Seems to be" seems to be existing only in your head.

Obamanot| 2.23.12 @ 4:14PM

I don't believe George Costanza ever said anything of the sort.

albert constantine jr.| 2.23.12 @ 11:26PM

In case the answer isn't farther down the thread, George Costanza was the character on Seinfeld played by Jason Alexander. He was loosely modeled on Larry David, who was co-creator of the series with Jerry Seinfeld. George's character was probably the biggest loser of the clique, as he was lazy, often unemployed, selfish and many other characteristics usually considered undesirable.

As Jerry Seinfeld's character was a stand up comedian (and so was David's in real life), comic performance advice would sometimes be a plot subject. I believe the reference of "quit when they're applauding " stemmed from an episode where he decided to leave a meeting at work at on a high point after getting a laugh, rather than wait for the meeting to end of its own volition.

And with that:
"Good night everybody, I'm outta here."

Marco2| 2.23.12 @ 11:28AM

Whew! Just what was that stinking turd floating in last night's debate punch bowl? OMG, it was not ready for prime time St. Rick! Is it back to the moon king or are you "real conservatives" finally ready to get with the program?

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 11:39AM

If they have a scintilla of objectivity or humor, even the Santorum supporters should get a laugh out of your comment. Very funny.

Kingofthenet| 2.23.12 @ 11:49AM

-- Romney remains the smarmy apple polisher who likes to narc on his misbehaving classmates --
NOBODY likes a RAT!

SeymourGlass| 2.23.12 @ 11:56AM

A lesson you learned from experience, I'm sure.

K garner| 2.23.12 @ 2:04PM

isn't that what every campaign is doing a gotcha kind of politics. But for some reason when Mitt calls the rest out of their not so conservative voting record people cry foul. WTH?

steve brown| 2.23.12 @ 12:00PM

Do you actually receive a paycheck to write this kind of crap?

Bill| 2.23.12 @ 12:06PM

Guess Who?
Voted for
1. Raising debt ceiling 5 times
2.Planned Parenthood
3. Medicare Part D
4. NCLB
Voted against
1. Right-to-Work law
Ans: "Keystone RINO" Rick Santorum

Simon Templar| 2.23.12 @ 12:13PM

It really is amazing how the two progressives, Paul and Romney, have cleared the field of all the real conservatives and continue to use the same tactics the Left does on conservatives. Yes, a large part of the electorate is that stupid that they can not see this and the hypocricy.

Those that do not want Romney or Paul need to ignore them, these damn stacked debates, and continue rejecting him. The vast majority of republicans and conservatives are both social and fiscal conservatives. Remember this and not be pushed around by the progressive libertarians and establishment RINO's.

Mike HAwk| 2.23.12 @ 1:05PM

Paul is a paleo- progressive isolationist more comfortable with the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:31PM

Yes, but Romney can be worked with, and pushed around by the Conservative Congress. Paul reaches across the aisle WAAAAAY too much, and accomplishes nothing.

That being said, Simon, I like Rick, with Newt as my second choice. Romney is preferrable to Obama. And your comments are right on target, as usual, 99%.

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 3:01AM

We aren't going to have a conservative Congress. The Dems will take back the House, and the GOP is likely to have a bare majority in the Senate - even if Mittens manages to win.

Gary| 2.23.12 @ 12:16PM

It is too bad that you cannot write with a sense of balance, but as Malkin would say you seem to be unhinged about Romney.

THE Truth!| 2.23.12 @ 1:11PM

America is supposedly a Christian majority nation. There is the Judeo-Christian culture, the Protestant work ethic, etc.

In the current GOP presidential primary, there exists one Mitt Romney, member of the church of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ, better known as a Mormon.

A MORMON!

I think a lot of the resistance to his candidacy from the right is based on mostly unconscious prejudice to that “weird” and “alien” religion. Reading Ann Coulter today, especially her list of specific hot shots oh so out there trying to railroad the Mormon, it popped out---BIGOTS!

Of course, anybody worth their salt wouldn’t PUBLICLY confess to this bias, but we all know there are things we do, as well as hard core beliefs, which we are NOT conscious. of Once, a dentist asked if I grind my teeth, because there was blatant evidence of such action. I said, no way, as I thought back on my normal “mouth posture”---with the tongue resting on the roof behind the top teeth, WHEN AWAKE. Ah, but what about when asleep?

Here’s an insuperable proof that I’m correct---

What if Romney was a mainstream Christian, say like George W. Bush? Make a page with a line down the middle, and put an X for Bush on one side and a Y for Romney on the other, and then put each guy’s positions on all the hot button issues, along with what they’ve done over time.

There’s no doubt, in my opinion, that Romney would come out more conservative than Bush.

To my mind, the fight against Romney (by people like Limbaugh, Kristol, Levin, etc.) is probably due to their fear of what Obama is NOW doing, and would do in the future if reelected, more than their built in prejudice against Mormons. If Romney were a Bush-like Christian, I bet he’d be close to being lauded as the next Reagan.

And, on polls against Obama, he’d be solidly ahead.

Conservatives, purge the bigotry from your own heart! See Romney sans the Mormon tag, see what he’d DO, if elected, and wake up to the truth, that he is quite in tune with conservative values. And, gee whiz, he could even be likely to GROW while in office.

Santorum is a LAWYER!

Romney is a businessman, which means he is tied to CREATING wealth, not distributing it. As a retired controller, for small businesses, I can relate! He is driven to do what WORKS, what literally produces a POSITIVE bottom line.

A piquant incident in my local library perhaps demonstrates my main point about Mormons. Most days there are three of four or so young guys, in white shirts and ties, using the free computers, as I do. Last Saturday, this fellah asked what a bunch of guys in ties was doing on a weekend, dressed like that---as if he REALLY didn’t know. Another man said, derisively, “They’re Mormons.” You could FEEL the “throw them off the island” animus, throughout the room!

Yes---Mormon bigotry is alive and well.

And, that’s THE truth!

K garner| 2.23.12 @ 2:02PM

Incredible insight into the heart of the Republican party....

turboline| 2.23.12 @ 2:07PM

TT, it is not bigotry. It is grave concern about what are Mormons and what really is their doctrine. My information is not current, but non Mormons in Utah's biggest couple of cities were truly the recipients of hostile and real bias in the mid 1990's. Is it any different today? I personally cannot say. But that was beyond weird in the 1990's.

What I can say is that the present-day "I am a Mormon" campaign is creepy. It is all over the internet now, you know. It is in journals and magazines. Very slick. Full color. Good looking people doing outdoorsy, cutting edge stuff. You've seen it. It is obviously a very large, well resourced, multimillion dollar campaign.

Most Americans do not think of faith groups in American needing to ever do this. A local church might use local advertising (local paper, local radi0 at most) to help inform people nearby, but a national slick, Madison Avenue multifaceted campaign smacks of something else entirely in mind.

Most Americans are right to have some healthy skepticism about this. It is odd. It is creepy. It does not seem authentic at all.

JJ| 2.23.12 @ 2:13PM

I fail to see any difference throwing out the religion card and throwing out the race card. Neither seems to require and empirical evidence. Hence we have the Democrats saying that people don't like Obama because of his race, and Romney supporters saying we don't like Romney because he is Mormon. Both really are just ignorant statements.

tommike| 2.23.12 @ 5:20PM

I would assume that many Mormons oppose Obama and would object if someone accused them of doing so because of racial prejudice. They oppose him because of his policies.

Yet those same Mormons for some reason have a hard time understanding when other Republicans reject Mitt Romney based on their uncertainties about his true positions on the issues. They accuse us of being anti-Mormon bigots. To quote Andy Dufresne, "HOW CAN THEY BE SO OBTUSE? IS IT DELIBERATE?" Maybe.

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:59AM

His Mormonism is irrelevant. Mittens is a liberal progressive who is the Grandfather of ObamneyCare, and all his attempts to pretend to be a conservative make me despise him even more.

GregA| 2.23.12 @ 1:20PM

Can we, and by "we" I mean the nation, really afford the luxury of this kind of in-fighting? OK, we get it: Mr. Neumayr doesn't like Mitt Romney. But if he becomes the nominee, what are you, Mr. Neumayr, going to do to assure that he defeats Barack Obama? I'm persuaded that this country cannot survive another Obama term. But it might happen if Mr. Neumayr and others can't bring themselves to choke-down a "RINO."

JJ| 2.23.12 @ 2:09PM

Hence we are fighting to keep that RINO from getting nominated. The sooner he is out the better.

Bill| 2.23.12 @ 1:21PM

I enjoyed the bloody wrestling match between Romney and Santorum, while Gingrich and Paul stayed on the sideline, smiling and breathing fresh air coming out from the AZ desert. Romney knew his Romneycare is killling his campaign ans Santorum was shaky and exposed last night, and looked unable to debate a teleprompter guy like Obama. Gingrich will pass on in AX and MI, but will come out strong in the Super Tuesday. Bad news! Romney and Santorum cannot seal the deal. Newt "old man in the sea" Gingrich is live and alive and poses a great threat to rest of the GOP contender.

JJ| 2.23.12 @ 2:08PM

I imagine Romney will get some kind of reward from Obama in 2013. Maybe the head of the Federal Cap and Trade bank.

Bill| 2.23.12 @ 2:22PM

and Santorum will be his labor secretary aiding and abiding those union thugs. I don't like neither of them.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 1:28PM

I wonder what the Paultards will do if this rumbling about a possible back room deal between the supposedly conservative Paul & the supposedly conservative Mittens turns out to be true?

Is a group KoolAid session too much to hope for? Paul, party of however many, your flight for Guyana leaves from gate B-12 in 10 minutes. Please have your boarding passes out & ready.

JJ| 2.23.12 @ 2:06PM

Notice how the Paulites refuse to admit the obvious.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 2:32PM

Oh, I'm sure that the obfuscation points haven't been circulated yet. Give them time. You gotta have a plan to polish a turd THAT big.

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:34PM

"Captain, is that a Ronulan SpaceCraft attempting to dock with the FSS Romneycare?"

"Yes. Fortunately, in vacuum, turds freeze dry smellessly."

Dixon| 2.23.12 @ 1:46PM

That was one "severely enjoyable" tutorial on "earmarks" last night!

Yep, I was completely convinced:

Had Mittens defeated Teddy while running as an Anti-Reagan, pro-abortion, independent/progressive, big gov guy, I am absolutely certain Mitt would have been the new Lion of the Senate, fighting to end earmarks for MA and the Country forever!

Even when he's scoring smear points, he comes off as dishonest.

While I was not on the fence of Mitt, until last night I was standing next to it...I am on the other side of the pasture now.

K garner| 2.23.12 @ 1:59PM

You sound like a very big cry baby that your man Santorum sucked air last night. Santorum is no more conservative than Romney so what is your deal?????

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:31PM

I'm not a Santorum supporter, never have been.

That said, I would trust Santorum to fight for Conservative values over Mitt Romney.

I think Newt's "moon base" that people like to take him out of context, has a greater chance of becoming reality than Romney keeping his word on working to repeal Obamney care.

P.William| 2.23.12 @ 2:04PM

George, I like reading your pieces, but this one was really somewhat nasty. Your dislike is so obvious, it borders on hating the man. I agree he can seem robotic and he can look forced, but I believe he's a HUGE improvement over the current WH occupant. Yes, I know, they all are, M. Mouse would be, but still you seem unhinged here. He may not have been conservative all his life, ok. I registered with the GOP in 1980, but wasn't always rock ribbed through & through. Now I am, and I would dare anyone to tell me otherwise. Lighten up a little. Have a cup of decaf or better yet, a drink. It's ok.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:34PM

I wish I could agree Williams, I was looking forward to November 2012 and Obama being voted out.

Romney managed to succeed in making me seriously think about voting third party or vote for Obama.

I think Obama has been the most destructive President in my lifetime, unfortunately I think Romney would be just as destructive.

My choice is Newt, though if Santorum is the nominee I could support him.

I cannot support Romney with a clear conscience, and to me that is extremely scary.

J.C. Sampsell| 2.23.12 @ 2:08PM

Plastic Mitt couldn't even get the George Costanza quote right! Perhaps if he was wearing his jeans and t-shirt (as I'm sure he does everyday when he's being one of us average joes), he would have felt more relaxed. Can't decide whether I should run to the bathroom and puke or shower every time I'm forced to listen to the Massachusetts Sleazeball.

Nick099| 2.23.12 @ 2:10PM

Great article. I saw the whole debate and Newt just out-classed everyone. From big-vision to specific plans. From economics to foregn policy the man has a grasp and depth of understanding that no one else up there at that debate table has. They are each a one dimensional aspect of a multi-dimensional Newt.
Paul on fiscal discipline. Romney on business. Santorum on social issues. Listen to what they say. With the exception of Paul, they are all taking a part of Gingrich's positions. Romney on cutting taxes across the board. Santorum on "war on religion." And no one...no one...can handle debates like this man. No one can put Media in their place like Gingrich. And NO ONE on the Conservative side understands how NOT to fall into the leftist language trap better than Newt.
Gingrich is the man with the plan and no, I do not give a darn how many skirts he chased as a young man...and neither should anyone else with half a brain.

Steven| 2.23.12 @ 3:24PM

The fact is the left wing media has been out to destroy Newt Gingrich since he appeared on the scene, because they recognize a clear political foe when they see one. The "baggage that Newt Gingrich has pales in comparison to the baggage that surrounds the current administration, yet the left wing media would have us believe that Gingrich is not fit for the job, suggesting he [doesn't have the temperment] to be POTUS. Older, wiser, more focused, Gingrich would likely get quite a bit done - and he's proven it!

ERIC HOLDER was too busy selling weapons to the Mexican drug cartels. Didnt have time to investigate wall st crooks..... Maxine Waters husband owns a small bank that received 20 million in TARP funds. Charlie Rangel tax evasion. Kerry and his boat docking scandal saving 500,000 in sales tax docking it in different state than where he lives? Corzine missing 1.5 billion in investor money? Obama waisting 2 years forcing Obamacare down our throats instead of jobs bills and deficit reform? Pelosi, her husband, and brother in-law, using insider trading to loot our country? Many other politicians doing the same. Little tim geitners OOPS! I under-payed my taxes? And who could forget the male call-boy service being run out of Barney Franks condo? There all the same ethically. DEN OF THIEVES! But Newt is worse? I think not! Ill vote for him, twice if I can get away with it. Hes the perfect match to preside over that den of thieves!

1) The national media no longer has a virtual monopoly on the news agenda and narrative. The growth of the internet, blogosphere, independent citizen journalists, conservative radio, etc... serves as a firewall against the near total coordinated character attack on Gingrich in the mid-90s. Much of his popularity downfall was the direct result of his inability to effectively defend his reputation and public perceptions in the face of the hysterical left who had just had the snot beat out of them in the 1994 elections.

2) The political landscape then and now. Obama is an unmitigated disaster for this country and the pump is well-primed for somebody to step up and be boldly conservative and tap into this chance to roll-back the leftist, big-government onslaught in a rather significant way. People everywhere truly sense the urgency of what lies ahead for the US and the world if we do not change fundamentally the size and scope of government as it's structured now. Mitt's probably a good man with a good heart, but it's unlikely he's got the sand or the vision to lead boldly. Newt does.

tommike| 2.23.12 @ 5:24PM

Good comments. Thumbs up.

Stan| 2.23.12 @ 2:18PM

Istead of focusing on how pathetic Santorum was you are saying Mitt just too rough for little Dick.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:35PM

Actually Romney just showed he was incredibly petty.

mdepie| 2.23.12 @ 2:30PM

I think we may be failing to understand what is happening hear. True Romeny is likely to get the nomination, but the nature of this campaign is going to guarantee Obama wins the general election. I initally will sympathetic to Santorum viewed Romeny as acceptable. While not a Newt fan I witnessed what was an obviously orchestrated attack waged by surrogates that was in fact dishonest ( really I do not recall Newt as anti-Reagan, He has his flaws but thats not one.) I then saw a similarly dishonest campaign against Santorum. I Santorum's record pretty well since I was a PA resident during much of his Senate terms. The simple truth was that he behaved like a moderately conservative Senator, easily more conservative than Romeny, very pro-life, but his conservatism was sometimes overruled by a desire to be a team player supporting Bush ( no child left behind, Medicare part D) and Specter (at the time the arguments to support Specter were identical to those arguing Mike Castle should be supported over Christine Odonnell, Odonnell would lose And A RINO is better than a Democrat. True Toomey ultimately was a better candidate then Odonnell, but the times were different, he was not seen as a definite win, and Specter at least preserved Republican Control. After seeing a candidate I was actually fairly enthusiastic about attacked in ways that are unfair, this does not make me super enthusisatic about Romeny, and honestly I am not alone. I imagine some of the Gingrich supporters feel similarly. Sure when push comes to shove, and if its not raining , and the lines at the polls are not too long Republicans will still vote to remove Obama from office, but if anyone thinks this is not going to drive down Republican enthusiasm they are insane. So it does not matter how much some people dislike Santorum because he is too pro-life, etc.. at the end of the day hating Santorum or ridiculing Gignrich does not make me like Mitt any better. I am not convinced an election between Obama and a technocratic Eastern Republican whose vision is his biography is a winner. I am amazed anyone really does.

Kathy| 2.23.12 @ 2:37PM

Shame on the American Spectator for publishing such extremely skewed, divisive, and ridiculous commentary on Romney. To take any of this seriously shows a real lack of judgement and information of who Romney is and his record. The only conclusion I can come to as to why people oppose him so vehemently really boils down to his being Mormon. I do support Romney, but even if I didn't, this article would still reek of un-insightful and rabid hatred that removes any of its credibility and persuasiveness and in my opinion taints the American Spectator's credibility.

Romney is the strongest leader, the most even keeled, the best equipped to handle all of the problems facing our country right now. This argument that he is plastic or cannot be trusted is absolutely ridiculous and comes back to, again, the issue of his religion. He really lives his squeaky clean mormon faith which makes him a squeaky clean guy. Kind of like how people see mormon missionaries as weird or un-relatable. You want him to have a couple of affairs like Newt or leadership inexperience like Santorum to make him more real or relatable, then your assessment of good leadership is severely flawed. Go Romney!

Kingofthenet| 2.23.12 @ 11:06PM

Maybe just not believe in the Book of Mormon, the magic glasses, the golden book that disappeared...etc,etc.

Not Mitt| 2.23.12 @ 3:15PM

Way to play the Religion Card! It's got nothing to do with his religion at all! It's got everything to do that his record is that of a moderate. He has changed his stance on key conservative issues in the past decade, and had the audacity to criticize Santorum for earmarks support, when Mitt supported the TARP bailout. That's a mole hill to a mountain in comparison. We tried running the moderate to beat Obama in '08, and it failed miserably because the base of the party stayed home rather than vote for someone they didn't trust and couldn't get excited about. The same thing will happen if we nominate The Mass Moderate! It's all about winning the critical swing states. The last 3 elections have proved that. Santorum can win those heartland, rust-belt states that we absolutely HAVE to have. Romney can't (as you will soon see in the next couple months) win them. If we don't learn from our mistakes, we are destined to repeat them.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:36PM

Even Mitt's supporters act like Obama supporters...

Chaz| 2.23.12 @ 9:27PM

Well... if Santorum can win those Rust Belt States.. in a GENERAL ELECTION against Obama -- who currently HOLDS SWAY in Michigan... lets see Santorum beat Romney in MI, OH and PA. Guess what? In PA, where they know him best, Republicans do not want to vote for Santorum. Are you SURE he can win the Rust belt?

Steven| 2.23.12 @ 3:23PM

"….the truth is, there can be no civil discussion, no “honest exchange of ideas,” with Leftists. It’s useless to try — in fact, it’s actually counterproductive, and even dangerous. You can’t have an honest exchange of ideas with people who are fundamentally dishonest, who try to hide their intentions and their agenda behind a smokescreen of lies. And if you think that isn’t what they’re up to, you need to go back and reread their playbooks — Alinsky, Gramsci, and Cloward-Piven, among others — again."

-Mike Hendrix

“Because according to the fascist morons of the Left, the only way to end “hate” is….mindless, blind, vicious hatred of anyone who doesn’t think like they do, which is both their stock in trade and their raison d’etre.”

-Mike Hendrix

“In fact, leftism has failed utterly. It has failed everywhere and it has never done anything else but fail. From the murderous, leftist tyrannies of the Soviet Union and China to the soft but nonetheless oppressive and stagnant socialism of a moribund Europe, the relativist, wealth-crushing, overweening state has revealed itself to be an engine of misery and collapse.”

-Andrew Klaven

“After the Soviet collapse, Marxism is a relic, a pathetic anachronism reduced to its last redoubts: North Korea, Cuba, and the English departments of the more expensive American universities.”

-Charles Krauthammer

Tom| 2.23.12 @ 3:46PM

I thought Newt was awesome last night. I want him for president. The statement he made about the way King was questioning Republicans about birth control and had never questioned Obama about infanticide was spot on. His statement that one of the things he would do would be to change the federal government personnel system to something akin to the private sector articulates a brilliant idea. His continued push to make people understand that we need to open up American energy supplies is on the money. He is also correct about education. The more the government gets involved, the worse the results are which are coming out of our schools. These aren't the only things he talked about. He showed himself to be a master of pretty much any topic (as he has before) and a man with some really great ideas for turning around the country. I think he would make a great president. He's already done the things, such as balancing the budget, that the others have only talked about.

tommike| 2.23.12 @ 5:28PM

I share your enthusiasm for Newt. Unfortunately, large numbers of people allow their perceptions of him to be shaped by the irrelevant trash that the media throws out there.

Garfield| 2.25.12 @ 3:27PM

Who cares what the polls say, we all know that they are conducted by a corrupt media anyways. Don't give them credibility they don't deserve.

Beppo| 2.23.12 @ 3:49PM

Face it guys, we're screwed. I see Romney has now fallen below 40% v Obama on Ras tracker and the one is now over 60 on intrade. Were going to be stuck with Romney whether we like it or not because the big guys want it that way.

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 4:11PM

Is it really more rational to believe that there are some shadowy "big guys" out there hypnotizing everyone into voting for Romney than it is to believe that he is simply out-campaigning, out-organizing, outsmarting, out-debating and yes, outspending the competition?

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:38PM

All he's doing is out-spending everyone and launching an all out smear campaign cause he can't run on ideas.

Well considering Obama will have more money to spend, I seriously doubt Romney can beat Obama.

Chaz| 2.23.12 @ 9:24PM

The truth is... that other candidates have far less money to spend than Romney -- but OF THE MONEY EACH CANDIDATE HAS... Romney by far and a way, spends the least percentage of his money on negative ads.

That's a fact.

Garfield| 2.25.12 @ 3:29PM

He had 65 ads bashing Gingrich for every ad that Gingrich had going in Florida.

Oldefarte| 2.23.12 @ 3:53PM

Oh hades-no, don't even consider voting for that vile Romney if he's the Republican nominee. Let's all be dumbarses and re-elect El chosen One so as to assure the re-installation of Madame Nancy etc to their rightful positions of political power. Omy my, oh hell yes:
'....Pelosi: Catholic Church Secretly Wants Govt Contraception Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:23 PM...By: Richard Wagner
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says the Catholic Church wants the federal government to enforce contraception because the church, by default, has failed to do so.
"Ninety-eight percent of women in childbearing age that are Catholic use contraception,” Pelosi, a Catholic, said in a speech at Texas A&M University in College Station.
“So, in practice, the church has not enforced this, and now they want the federal government and private insurance to enforce it. It just isn't consistent to me," a CNSNews.com report quotes the California Democrat as saying.
Americans should pray for successful implementation of President Barack Obama's mandate that insurance companies provide healthcare plans with contraception, including sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, Pelosi said.
"Abortion should be rare and safe," she said, so contraception offers women a logical choice.
"The same kind of science that can help women with the size and timing of their families is the same type of science that can help with infertility and other health issues that women face. So let's be prayerful of that and how we go forward on that," Pelosi said in response to a question from the audience.
The Catholic Church opposes Obama's mandate, scheduled to go into effect Aug. 1. All 181 Catholic bishops in the United States have denounced the regulation and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have called it "an unprecedented attack on religious freedom.”......'

Mimi| 2.23.12 @ 6:00PM

O.F...I'm sick and tired of the Libs constantly saying....98% of Catholic women use birth control!
For Gods Sake, Crying out-loud, How many Catholic women gave birth last year?....HUH? Does anybody know the Number of Baby's that were BABTIZED ?? No, they ALL don't use birth control...You NEVER trust LIBBY'S numbers!

Lawrence Baker, Jr.| 2.23.12 @ 4:07PM

You seem to be just another "trash & destroy" type - Romney's accomplishments in business, as governor and life will not be dimished just because you have a personal dislike. He is endorsed by good conservatives and his peers. You seem extreme against Mitt and he doesn't deserve it. Good people deserve respect.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:39PM

Seriously I don't like Romney because of his behavior, and his outright dishonesty.

I don't hate the man, I hate his behavior.

R. Freedom| 2.23.12 @ 4:07PM

Contributors donate to politicians’ campaigns in exchange for protections, favors, & rewards. As a consequence, we pay more for goods and the costs of government skyrocket.

Newt & Santorum have both made and brokered these kinds of deals. If we elect them to the highest office in the land, aren't we green-lighting these kind of activities for other politicians? On the other hand, if they lose because of them, that will send an entirely different message to the politicians.

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 4:10PM

Why doesn't Mitt Romney want to cut spending?

Chaz| 2.23.12 @ 9:22PM

Mitt does want to cut spending. He just knows that the Government is sort of like a cancer in the economy -- that if you destroy it too fast, too hard, or the wrong way, you could kill the patent as well. The extraction of the Government from our economy cannot be poorly handled or we will go into a pretty rough decline.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:20AM

What Mitt says he will do, and what he actually ends up doing are often totally different things.

Nathan Baker| 2.23.12 @ 4:14PM

With friends like the editors of the supposedly conservative American Spectator bashing Mitt
Romney, the conservative Republican front runner, and best chance at retaking the White House, who needs enemies? It is fascinating and telling that the same lines of attack that Slate and President Obama's SuperPAC are making on Mitt Romney are here mimicked by the American Spectator, less convincingly I might add. It is almost as if the Spectator would like to see 4 more years of an Obama Presidency. Keep that Romney-bashing up and you will find your readership dwindle to leftists and lose your credibility with the conservatives that form your primary customer base .

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:22AM

You actually lost all credibility when you started claiming Obamney was a conservative.

A Massachusetts moderate = far left liberal everywhere else in this country outside of California.

Jabber3| 2.23.12 @ 4:17PM

I don't come to this site often but after reading this article I am wondering who is George backing for the Republican nomination. Ron Paul?

Doctor Chaos| 2.23.12 @ 4:22PM

"secularist bigots" - wow, angry whites dudes gone wild. There is nothing more overtly bigoted than today's so called social conservatives (moral marxists). What an amazing collection and outpouring (article and comments) of mindless, irrational, puerile nonsense. Is that banjos I hear playing in the background?

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:36PM

Master Chaos: yes, I keep forgetting the erudite discussions Occupiers have while defecating on police cars. What wit and sophistication!

Doctor Chaos Heal Thyself| 2.24.12 @ 1:13PM

There is nothing more overtly bigoted than today's attitude of prejudice, discrimination, injustice, unfairness, and intolerance against moral conservatives by so called 'intellectually elite' liberal stupid lying idiots who are actively oppressing liberty mindlessly, irrationally, nonsensically. Is that trumpets from above that can be heard?

Chris| 2.23.12 @ 4:24PM

But I guess Obama's lies are just fine. Typical liberal bullshit. Offer proof for some of your assertions. Obama is the biggest con artist in the history of the Presidency, you gullible liberal chump.

Doctor Chaos| 2.23.12 @ 6:30PM

I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian (and not the lame Ron Paul type). Both sides of the current political BS-a-thon are full of their post modernist delusions.

Doctor Chaos Heal Thyself| 2.24.12 @ 1:20PM

There is currently no one more overtly delusionally stupid than a lying liberal idiot stupidly lying in overtly liberal idiotic delusion that he the overtly idiotic delusional stupid liberal liar isn't even an overtly delusional stupid lying idiot liberal.

Scorpio51| 2.23.12 @ 4:39PM

Mr. Neumayr I applaude your article which is spot on.

I am terrified of Romney being the nominee and he will lose against Obama. This is 2008 all over again.

Chaz| 2.23.12 @ 9:19PM

No matter who the Republican Nominee is... he is likely to lose. But Romney is the LEAST likely to lose. This means that the Democrats will have to work harder to defeat him and if they focus on Romney, then perhaps we can take the Senate and keep the House and thereby stymie Obama's plans.

Why do I say that Obama is likely to win? Winning pretty much always falls into line when 1. You are the incumbent, 2) the economy is improveing (it is) and 3. You are fighting a war and clearly winning or getting us out of a war we have been in a long long time.

Obama passes all those tests.

You folk who think that anyone but Romney could win are smoking crack.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:21PM

Actually Romney is the most likely to lose, because he is so much like Obama, many Conservatives cannot support him.

Steve| 2.23.12 @ 5:00PM

You democrats filling up the republican rooms trying to make Romney look horrible, ALL our canidates are competing for first string, we the coaches are choosing who we want, in the end we are on the same football team and we will all compete together to win, if you dont agree with this you shouldnt be in the republican party because every canidate wants Obama out more than anything, in the end all canidates will back one another. I am a Tea Partier from Florida which is a HUGE swing state and i can honestly say that Romney would take this state from Obama. Romney/Rubio... Romney has flaws, Obama is much worse and has destroyed the DEM party as we seen 2 years ago in those races... As Romney said this election is not dividing us but preparing us... Im a Romney support HUGE Activist for him but no matter who wins they are better than Who We Got

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 5:56PM

Actually,

I'm a conservative whom has had it with the Republican establishment trying to force Romney on us.

I have had it with Romney's dishonest smear campaign.

Romney is seriously getting me to consider to vote for a third party or flip a coin as to who get's my vote.

Last night proved to me Santorum can't handle the pressure.

The best candidate to not only beat Obama, but to also reverse the destructive policies of Obama is Newt Gingrich.

If Santorum wins the nomination, I will support him as long as Obamney isn't on the ticket.

I will not support Obamney as our nominee, I don't really care who the VP pick is at that point.

Tom| 2.23.12 @ 5:06PM

Steve thanks for your comments, we argue right now and im undecided who i will support but Obama is outta the question no matter who wins this GOP Race. Obama is who we need to thank because after this race Republicans and Tea Party members will come together very strong and Romney will bring in Independants and Even Dems over, this is a HUGE Election and anyone who wouldnt support our "Team" in the end shouldnt even waste time watching these debates... I live in Michigan and im leaning towards Romney right now and My Wife is Def Gonna vote for him, but I feel he is The most Fiscal Conservative

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 5:57PM

Sorry but this conservative will flip a coin because I think Romney would continue the destructive policies and we lose our credibility as well.

88Cra5Y909| 2.23.12 @ 5:10PM

Steve nice comment, im a Newt Support from Georgia. He has my vote, Romney is not my choice outta who we have, but im a True Republican and I dont think newt will win out I think Romney is gonna take this, and im really impressed with how this primary has went, its great seeing this, all these people on here talking about I COULDNT SUPPORT MITT or i cant Support NEWT OR RICK its rediculous, Grow Some People... Obama is the Enemy to what we believe in, Back who we like, Stick with our Party

Nelson| 2.23.12 @ 5:23PM

How do you get published on this site? Your column is filled with conjecture and pejorative arguments. You actually argue (in adjacent paragraphs no less) that Romney was wrong to bring up Santorums flip flops because they are ancient history then immediately skewer Romney for stuff that happened 10 to 20 years ago.
Amazing.

MassManny| 2.23.12 @ 5:36PM

How about reminding voters that Romney was on the same page as Obama, recommending "age-appropriate" sexuality education? Look at his phony abstinence education program, and acceptance of the Mass Dept of Education Frameworks on "health education." http://www.amycontrada.com/Rom.....peech.html

Anne | 2.23.12 @ 7:24PM

MassManny:

The Amy Contrada site is EXCELLENT.

Stan| 2.23.12 @ 5:38PM

I can't wait until the NY primary to vote for Mitt.

PaulC.| 2.23.12 @ 5:39PM

I guess I've grown tired of waiting for the Republicans to nominate someone who understands clearly that continuing down the path we're on, passing ever larger budgets, piling on more and more debt, infinitely expanding the size of the government, is very bad policy, and very bad for our future well-being. At some point, we really need to insist that the Republican Party, including every incumbent Republican and every Republican hopeful, understands this and vows to do everything possible to put us on a better course. Republicans always talk a good game when they're in the minority, but then act very much like Democrats, or just like Democrats, when they assume the majority. I'm a conservative first, a Republican second, and over the past decade the Republican Party has consistently failed to behave in a principled conservative manner when it's been in a position to make, or remake, policy. Enough is enough. My patience has run out, and trying to push Romney on us is just plain insulting. If the Republican Party can't do better than that, it should pack up and go away.

Matt Braynard| 2.23.12 @ 5:50PM

"One suspects that Romney's low surrogates paid punks to enter the debate hall and loudly boo his opponents."

Really? Any evidence?

Mitt is cruising for an easy win in AZ. It's not hard to believe that he can get a crowd of volunteers together just as he has in many other states (I am such a volunteer. ) He had to in Virginia to get on the ballot, something the 'paid punks' that Newt hired botched.

It is sad that this is the article I see when I also hear the appeal to make a contribution to Spectator.

GEORGE NEUMAYR wouldn't qualify for an internship at any respectable publication but here, they let him publish his blogspot-quality drivel. So sad, Emmett, so sad.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 5:58PM

Because it would be just like Romney whom bussed in people for C-PAC.

Mick| 2.23.12 @ 6:12PM

George, you just failed your English paper. No subjectivity. No clear and valid reasoning. Your bias is manifest in your title and immediately causes readers to narrowly consider your viewpoint. Sadly, it appears Mitt Romney must have stepped on your toe when you were trying to get a scoop on horrendous op-ed writing. Wow, you have issues dear boy. Time to try something new because writing is not your profession.

Boaz| 2.23.12 @ 6:38PM

Cheap and inauthentic is what this type of writing is. All emotion and little thought. just like a liberal. I see you are very good at calling others names (mittens is not clever) but not too good at making a logical case. If you don't like Romney, explain why in coherent terms not the third grade dribble presented. Don't waste my time with the "He's a jerk" type stuff. I expect better from The American Spectator.

Anne | 2.23.12 @ 6:50PM

Boaz: Can you come up with one (just 1) issue that Willard has not flip-flopped on?

NO you cannot.

While gov of Mass he backed every liberal agenda, and now LIES about it.

For example, he claims that he was tough on illegals, and had his state law enforcement aggressively arrest them.

The FACT is, he never did that until the LAST MONTH he was in office.

And he never once addressed the two or three sanctuary cities in Mass.

He's been back and forth on TARP and federal bail outs, but you never hear his admit that the took $400Mil in fed funds to get RomneyCare off the ground.

Take a look at www.whichmitt.com

Anne | 2.23.12 @ 6:51PM

And Boaz: While with a straight face, Willard says in every debate that he's "repeal" ObozoCare.

Yet....

Romney Admits He Won’t End ObamaCare
http://www.westernjournalism.c.....obamacare/

At the end of this video Romney admits he will keep large parts of Obamacare.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:41PM

As I said, Gingrich's "moon base" is more likely to be reality than Romney repealing Obamacare (even if Romney is President).

Bobtag| 2.23.12 @ 7:05PM

George, how much did you have to pay the American Spectator to post this article online for you? This is the most pathetic piece of drivel I have ever read by a supposedly professional organization. Somebody better start checking your pieces before letting them be posted. Why don't you just say you hate Romney it would be a lot simpler. By the way many many people respect Romney and KNOW he would be a great president!!!!

Anne | 2.23.12 @ 7:22PM

Apparently not as many as there are anti-Willards.

One HAS to ask why, with Willard campaigning for at least six years, and out-spending every other Republican candidate, his numbers aren't better....? Much better, as a matter of fact?

richm| 2.23.12 @ 8:04PM

Looking at Obama and the Republican candidates, Romney is the only capitalist left in race!

porno | 2.23.12 @ 7:10PM

The loopholes are the big problem. While many exemptions have the best intentions behind them, a system like ours encourages companies to essentially buy preferentially treatment from Congress.

Curt| 2.23.12 @ 7:11PM

Neumayr and followers look like what Rush calls "seminar callers," Dems who are aching for four more years of their Teleprompted Messiah.
The AS is not what it used to be.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:44PM

Who the hell is Neumayr?

For the record, I voted for Bush in 2004, and McCain in 2008.

I didn't have to hold my nose over it, why, cause I knew they would be better Presidents than whom they were running against.

I can't support Romney in 2012 if he is the nominee, because I believe he will be as bad as Obama or worse than Obama in the fact he destroys our credibility too.

I don't have this issue with any of the other candidates still in the race.

JerryP| 2.23.12 @ 7:14PM

Some excellent points, George, but don't hold back - how do you REALLY feel about Romney?

Kent| 2.23.12 @ 7:24PM

I have a different opinion about Mitt Romney.

richm| 2.23.12 @ 7:42PM

Romney will win Nov election easily if the pro-Obama media slips up and facts on dismal economy leak out.

If not, Obama and his elite media will prevail.

Garfield| 2.23.12 @ 7:45PM

If Romney is the nominee, it doesn't matter who wins.

Obamney would still be in the White House, Romney and Obama are so similar I'm suprised they aren't the same person.

richm| 2.23.12 @ 7:56PM

One of the two could not run a hot dog stand.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:28AM

I don't think either one could run a hot dog stand.

1. I would be afraid I'd die of food poisoning if it came from Romney's hot dog stand.

2. Obama would never get around to actually cooking the hot dogs, and would probably go out of business inside of a week. Plus he'd be losing money every time he sold a hot dog. Top that off I'd still be afraid of dieing of food poisoning.

I don't trust either one of them as far as I could throw the Empire State Building.

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:51AM

Obama will only lose if gasoline goes to $11 .... and it just might.

ECM| 2.23.12 @ 7:56PM

The general view is that Santorum got hurt, because Romney/Paul said he betrayed conservative principles. Yes, I understand that this is a Republican primary, but isn't the real fear with respect to Santorum is that he is too conservative to win in November? If he goes out and says, yeah, sometimes I go along to get along, to me that kinda helps him. I'm not sure that the Romney strategy made all that much sense. His Arlen Specter gambit in particular backfired. First, it showed Santorum as willing to support someone, who obviously differs from him politically. And second, it showed him as strategic vis-a-vis SCOTUS. Like Santorum was supposed to know that Specter would be the 6oth vote on Obamacare.

Romney may have been a good law student and good business student. He was certainly a good business person. But there are other kinds of intelligence, and I am not sure he has those.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:29AM

Actually, I think Santorum did get hurt, that said I think Ron Paul lost a lot of credibility, and Mitt Romney looked extremely petty.

dd| 2.23.12 @ 8:11PM

Ha, Ha. Neumayr, you nailed it. You ably characterized Romney's fake and slick exterior. . .

but your medicine is worse than the disease. You say:

Remind Americans that the Democrats are the party of killing the unborn, some infants, the annoyingly disabled, and the inconvenient elderly. Remind Americans that Obama wanted elementary school students subjected to the sick sex ed propaganda of Planned Parenthood. Remind Americans that Obama is not at war with radical Islam but with orthodox Christianity.

All of this would simply alienate the great majority of the American electorate. Mainly, because it is so radically false, a hypothetical, an empty charade.

But that is exactly why any of the current Republican runners for Pres. will go down in flames in 2012 against Obama. Your one sane and principled nominee, Huntsman, left. You have your Fortune 500 nominee, and then a bunch of retrogrades whose ability to synthesize a coalition is going to be nil. Newt is a throwback to the '80's and Santorum to the '50's. And neither is truly qualified, temperamentally, to be president.

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 8:13PM

Does it seem that all candidates -- Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum -- except one -- Romney -- spent a lot of time defending themselves from cheap, coordinated attacks from the establishment?

Romney is the only one who has not had to defend himself from lies, deception and misinformation.

Chaz| 2.23.12 @ 9:14PM

You are incorrect. Romney has also had to defend himself from lies, deception and misinformation.

Have you seriously been asleep this campaign season? You haven't noticed that he has been the main target of attack by many ads -- including the Democrats -- who would rather see anyone but him run against Obama?

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:30AM

Actually, the media has been covering for Romney the entire time.

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:48AM

Romney has orders of magnitude more money than all his competitors. He can buy off the "establishment". All they see is his money.

richm| 2.23.12 @ 8:16PM

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe”
Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy

When I read this, I nearly wept. Romney and the Republicans are right. Our country is being run by idealistic juveniles.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:30AM

Seriously you shouldn't say stuff like that.

You're insulting idealist juveniles everywhere.

lila| 2.23.12 @ 8:25PM

Well, I'm not the most political, but even I know that Obama voted against a bill that protected late term children from being aborted because the bill's legal wording threatened all abortion, even early abortion from rape and incest. To top that off their was already a law in place to protect late term infants from abortion in Chicago passed years ago. It was a bogus bill that covered no new ground other than to threaten abortion for every reason. So that is a dishonest argument made by the right. Also, as for the sex-ed for 6 year old children, they already have it in all public schools, the only thing it teaches is the difference between "good touching and bad touching". It also teaches stranger danger. The main point is to tell an authority of some kind if your privates are being touched in a weird way. I find it sick to think teaching children to protect themselves is wrong. I mean, coaches and priest are well known for being perverts often. The guy who write this piece is probably in favor of the catholic church keeping the child molestation secret. That makes me wonder about him. gross.

Mrs. Vito| 2.23.12 @ 11:47PM

OMG, Lila! Your facts are so wrong! Leave the 'politics n' stuff' to the grown-ups, and go weave a basket!

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:32AM

lila,

I think you need to find a new source of information aside from Obama's media matters...

Orygun| 2.23.12 @ 8:48PM

I would say all this talk of not voting is just what the left operatives are trying to promote. Keep your eye on the prize which is getting the marxist out of office. I have my preference for president but I also know that destroying the country that generations of our relatives died to preserve is just plain wrong. I am sure that when it comes time to do the right thing all this rhetoric will be just that and we all will rally around anyone who professes to save our republic. We can keep their feet to the fire after they get there!

Chaz| 2.23.12 @ 9:08PM

I notice that George Neumayr is also a phony -- readily misleading with half truths.

He claims that evidence of Mitt not be a conservative is that he is willing to let women have a roll in combat.

All 4 candidates are willing to have that happen. So now are they all liberals?

That's not George's only sin in this article.. he prevaricates constantly through the whole thing. But that one little comment is the most easily discerned and telling comment in the article that is easy for anyone to test without any explanation from sideline shooters like me.

But.. now, lets find out who the REAL RINO is - eh George? When Romney is the REPUBLICAN NOMINEE - are you going to VOTE REPUBLICAN or stay away? eh? fess up.

Why does American Spectator cowtow to phony RINOs like George Neumayr anyway?

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:33AM

Okay I'm now thinking of using a dice to determine who I vote for if Romney is the nominee.

Thank you Mittbots for showing that Obamney is probably even worse than Obama.

Chaz| 2.23.12 @ 9:12PM

Whole Page of comments is full of RINO's.. people who claim that they won't vote for a Republican under various conditions that they unilaterally declare is necessary -- such as the Republican must be one person or must not be another person.

Well.. RINO's -- that is what you are -- RINO's if you won't vote for the Republican. You have no dedication to the Party and will not support its candidate. You might as well be Democrats.

Whoever the Republican Candidate is... I will support. Because it is very important to get rid of Obama. People who think its more important to skewer themselves on "principle" than get rid of Obama -- are RINO's and deserve the label.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:40AM

I'm an American first and a Republican Second.

I cannot vote for a man that I view is as destructive or potentially more destructive than Obama.

Your candidate, Mitt Obamney has demonstrated that he would be just as destructive and divisive as Obama.

So I will not support him, furthermore Romney is a RINO, in fact he was a Democrat whom only switched parties so he could run against Ted Kennedy for the US Senate. He was trying to be more liberal than Ted Kennedy.

I cannot support Romney, and I will not support Romney. If the Romney is the Republican Nominee, then quite frankly the Republican establishment deserves to lose in November and I feel really upset as an American that the country I was born in is going to implode.

Jozy Wales| 2.23.12 @ 9:23PM

I can't believe that so-called conservatives /Republicans could be as out of touch with reality as these comments reveal. Many must be Obama supporting trolls because real Republicans Conservatives know Obama is the Apocalypse . Another 4 years of the America hating Muslim as President will finish off this country. Obama makes Bill Clinton like look Abraham Lincoln. Obama not only is by far the most incompetent President whose understanding of basic economics is equivalent to the typical 3rd grader, he despises America, especially white America. Yet, some posters who claim to be Republicans sound like 5 year olds who will stay at home on election day and allow Obama ,Reid and Pelosi to reach their goal of destroying our country. Are the Romney haters going to hold your breath too if Romney gets the nominatinn?

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:41AM

You are out of touch with reality.

PCP Smoker| 2.23.12 @ 9:31PM

I turned it off when Romney described himself as "resolute." I'm so glad the stupid party is going to nominate one of these losers again. Then again, an orange tree will be better than Socialist Hussein.

Beverly| 2.23.12 @ 9:37PM

George, that is the most despicable article I have ever read by a "conservative." Mr. Romney is so close to perfection in a candidate that I believe George is jealous and sees Romney as "too good to be true". Look again, George, Romney IS the truth.

POST American| 2.23.12 @ 9:44PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

--PRO NAFTA/ GATT
----PRO 'Carbon Taxes'
------Even recently PRO OPEN Border
---------PRO 'Banker Bailout'
-----------Architecht of 'ObamaCare'

"Make NO mistake --Romney's a Globalist."
-ALEX JONES

WE WON'T.

As the ANTI-Constitutional NDAA 1021
sits on the books ----as TSA rolls out on
hghways, streets, and cities across America
--and as Pelosi calls fro TOTAL surveillance
and monitoring while in RED Chna
---and Ginsburg commits TREASON by
dissing the Constitution while visiting the
land of 'De---NILE'
--FORGET the 'Mittens'!
------and GET a load of 'SUB--Mitt'
------------------------------------'ROME--knee'.

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 10:28PM

Earth to Mr. Neumayer. I don't know what your agenda is or whether you are stupid, a bigot, or both. Someday however you are going to have to come to terms with this or see BHO get 4 more years in the White House. Santorum is out of his league. He has never run anything, is the least fiscally conservative of any on the stage, and probably the least intelligent. I don't believe I will ever get the chance to vote for him in the general election yet if by some chance he actually pulls it off, I would hold my nose and vote for him. Anyone but Obama in 2012

Henry Beecher| 2.23.12 @ 10:51PM

Mr. Neumayr -- this article is disgusting. I thought this was a conservative site. It appears that the republican's worst enemies are found within our ranks. What justifies the emotional over the top vitrolic criticism? I'm not in the habit of quoting Democrats – especially those from Illinois. But all this criticism of Romney is ridiculous and brings to mind the words of Adlai E. Stevenson: what we need “is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime”. So it is with Mitt Romney. His lifetime of turning around financially troubled companies, the Olympics and the state of Massachusetts speaks with more power than any outburst of emotion from an angry, bitter, enraged George Neumayr. I won't vote on emotion, I'm voting for someone who has a record that speaks louder than the campaign rhetoric. I look at what people have done not what they say they'll do. Unfortunately, Mr. Santorum's record on fiscal responsibility or donating to charity is not what this country needs.

Mrs. Vito| 2.23.12 @ 11:42PM

Henry, did you even read the article? Apparently not all way, but let me clarify: ROMNEY DOES NOT HAVE A CONSERVATIVE RECORD AS GOV. OF MASS.!!! Yes, he's a stellar capitalist, but he's no conservative. The truth hurts!!

valwayne| 2.23.12 @ 10:53PM

I conserder myself a conservative which means my priority above all others this year is to insure that the worst, most arrogant, most extreme left wing disaster to ever sit in our White House is defeated. Of the 4 remaining candidates Gov Romney is the only one that built the kind of organization and raised the kind of money necessary to win the nomination, and beat Obama in Nov. None of the other 3 candidates put the kind of effort into building their campaigns that Gov Romney did, and it shows. Sen Santorum, unfortunatley, showed last night why he very likely can't beat Obama. Speaker Gingrich has already showed us why he can't, and Ron Paul wouldn't have a chance. That leaves Gov Romney. So I think conservatives should stop whining, realize that the future of our country is a stake and get behind Gov Romney. Knock off the nonsense!

WL| 2.23.12 @ 11:24PM

I sure missed out on this one...430 comments!!!

But I have to say....Mr. NEUMAYR....your columns HAVE TO BE getting on some radars in a good way...

Your stuff in this column...is the stuff we have been looking for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mrs. Vito| 2.23.12 @ 11:38PM

George, a spot-on, outstanding article!!

Matt| 2.24.12 @ 12:13AM

The article's author, George, provided a moment of rare clarity in an otherwise muddled definition of social conservatism. And it should be horrifying to any thinking American.

In a nutshell, he called Romney out as a hypocritical moderate (and certainly not a conservative!) b/c Romney gave Planned Parenthood a few bucks (even though Romney was a staunchly pro-life governor, when policy actions really matter), said he would not discriminate against gay citizens of Massachussettes (as the residents of Mass. he represented overwhelmingly were proud of being an accepting state), and, WORST OF ALL, he said he would consider allowing women, who want to, to serve in military combat rolls.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. In today's Republican party, if a candidate was ever remotely pro-choice at any times in their lives, if a candidate decides to listen to the will of the people and decline to impose homophobic laws on his state, and if he suggests that women should be able to have the option to serve their country in combat..... this person is NOT a conservative.

George, the fact that you state such claims without a hint of shame, or even a sense of audacity, is, at best illustrative, and at worst profoundly disturbing.

Keep it up!!! You are literally writing the opposition research yourself.

Ford| 2.24.12 @ 12:17AM

This article sums Romney up perfectly. The Stepford candidate, stuffed full of information and rolled out on the stage with a shallow narrative which is safe but uninspiring. Conservatives need to let it be known we will never support Romney.

Matt| 2.24.12 @ 12:30AM

But if you can't get republican primary voters (the most conservative group in our country) to reject Romney, how are you going to win a general election among independents and democrats, who find intolerance towards gays, women who want to serve their country, and people who have earned the right to depend on medicare, disability and social security???

As I said before, the sooner you recognize that the views you apparently consider socially acceptable are anathema to minds not infiltrated by the rhetoric of Jerry Falwell and Ted Haggert, the more successful you will be.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 2.24.12 @ 12:23AM

Spot on commentary. Somehow the plastic non substance stammering Romney seems to get by without the media scrutinizing him for his shallowness.

Personally, the best part of the whole 2 hours was Newt derailing John King's question and going on the offensive against Obama's Mr. Hyde, monster side.

I applaud Newt Gingrich for speaking out! Finally, a politician points out Obama's support for death and destruction, for not only the pre-born, but those infant lives, surviving abortion.

What we need next, are some politicians finally connecting some dots and publicly proclaiming that we have a sitting president who is actively committing crimes against humanity. Please read the following and the remainder of the message as it logically and morally substantiates the aforementioned assertion about Mr. Obama:

"The President of the United States: A Sex Offender? - Why Obama's support of the abortion industry is the worst molestation of youth:"

.......Applying the definition of a sex offender to those who hide their (genocide) crimes against humanity by “serving” in political office:

What greater sexual offense can there be against individuals than the destruction of their sexual identity from the very beginnings of their innocent lives, by the total destruction and elimination of those very lives? Yet, umpteen politicians continue to function as sex offender predators, committing the most egregious and heinous of sex crimes – that being the total annihilation of their victims. Sexual molestations are committed by virtue of individual sexual identities being totally eliminated from present and future populations vis-à-vis the abortion industry process.

Consequently, I submit that our USA President is “Chief Sex Offender,” by virtue of him holding the highest political office in the nation. His past and present record in support of unrestricted, unnecessary, abortions, partial birth abortions and even infanticide (of those babies, surviving abortions), automatically, (sadly and pathetically) make him not only responsible, but accountable for multiple crimes against humanity and their (would be) posterity........

Link below to entire topical message:
http://www.thechristianmessage.....ender.html

Matt| 2.24.12 @ 12:41AM

Pastor, ummmm, let me just say this. First, let's just ignore the irony in a religious leader calling ANYONE a sex offender, given the track record of high profile pastors, as well as the Catholic church.
Secondly, ignoring the basic fact that Obama's vote re: "infanticide" was a symbolic vote to protest a small group of right wingers trying to usurp the Constitution via anti-abortion leglisation... it was symbolic b/c the "infantilization" (as you call it) bill was NOT going to pass, and Obama knew this. At least stick to the facts when making your points.
Finally, let's focus on your profoundly gutsy argument that our President has commited "heinous sex crimes." Perhaps as a Pastor, you were too busy studying biblical "law", circa 10AD to study actual Unites States Law. But let me give you a little tip... If something is considered a constitutional right (whether it be freedom of speech, gun rights, the right for a woman to vote, abortion, etc) upholding such a right is, by definition, NOT A CRIME.

You get it my friend?

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 2.24.12 @ 7:25PM

Matt; Re: Your 2.24.12 @ 12:41 AM comment,

First of all, I am not surprised that you would be so quick to defend Obama. I would not doubt that you are one of his minion apologists.

Secondly, if makes no difference if a person is a sex offender, as I have evidenced. Just because some professed people of faith, (aka, priests and pastors, or, even, for that matter, taxpayer funded public school teachers) are called out on their sex offenses against the innocent and unwilling, does not mitigate the reality of sex offenses being perpetrated.

Thirdly, it makes no difference as to the political maneuvering motivations that you suggest were behind Obama's "symbolic" vote. He still voted for the destruction of infants surviving abortion to be abandoned and die. In that vote, he illustrated for all, his Mr. Hyde monster nature.

Fourthly, you need not lecture me about what is American Constitutional law and what is considered a "crime." You and many others know that Roe v. Wade is bad law. Certainly, it is not according to God's moral law. Furthermore, the unrestricted abortion "rights" that came out of Roe v. Wade was [is] based upon poor judicial decision - just like the infamous Dredd Scot decision which eventually became overturned. Roe v. Wade's decision is evermore being challenged in the light of new medical and scientific realities. Hence, Roe v. Wade is antiquated and Neanderthal.

Matt - Perhaps, in time, after thinking all of this through, you might (by the grace of God) "get it."

Chaz| 2.24.12 @ 1:00AM

So now... an internet Pastor condemns Obama -- who despite his obvious socialism and incompetence as a President -- is apparently a good father and a good husband, and also this same "Pastor" condemns Mitt Romney, an obviously devoted husband and good father -- and endorses Newt Gingrich -- a serial adulterer who was willing to let his daughters see him in flagrant violation of ordinary morals, decency and marriage vows -- when they were small girls even. His sexual predations were legendary in Washington and he and Clinton would get together to brag....

But this Pastor calls Obama a Sex Offender while letting Newt with all his Crimes... right off the hook... and at the same time he attacks Mitt Romney.. a faithful good man -- because he is not exciting enough.

Remember when Jesus spoke about hypocrites and whited sepulchres? Well.. now you get a taste of what Jesus was referring to from our good Pastor here.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 2.24.12 @ 7:44PM

Chaz,

Obama is self condemned. And, eventually, he will receive his ultimate condemnation, unless he is repentant before the Lord of all. I was merely pointing out something of pertinant significance since most people continue to ignore his egregious moral crimes against humanity, vis-a-vis his support of abortion genocide.

Secondly, you would like to condemn me and call me a hypocrite for my support of Newt Gingrich? You utilize as your flaccid argumentation that Obama is a good father. Utilizing your line of reasoning I probably could have made that claim about Quadafi's family love for his children.

Thirdly, why do you seem to begrudge me a political choice between Romney and Gingrich? Then, you illogically bring up Gingrich's past sins of the flesh, totally ignoring the reality that they were in Gingrich's past and that he has publicaly fessed up to them and turned his life around and apparently made his peace with God. Why would you begrudge a human being a turn-around? Even Creator God forgave King David for his murdering and adultery sins. Are you standing in higher judgement than God?

Fourthly, you bring up the skeptics age-old (worn out) argument about casting judgment. Essentially, you call me a hate-monger, insinuating that I am a bigot and hypocrite. It would do you well to further educate yourself. May I offer you my assistance in that effort? Please reference [below] the following:

Absolutes and Christ’s often misunderstood words of “Judge not…..”

http://www.thechristianmessage.....often.html

Finally, please attempt to reserve a place for Christian pastors to have and to speak their say in the political process. The American 1st Amendment and free speech is also afforded to them.

Matt| 2.24.12 @ 12:24AM

If the author of this article, and apparently many of the posters here, were voting in the 30's-50's, they'd be arguing that segregation was a conservative "value" worth upholding. If you all were voting in the 60's and 70's, you would be outraged at any politican who argued that interracial marriage discrimates against fellow, law-abiding citizens. In the 80's, you'd be arguing that a law that allowed police officers to barge into bedrooms of same-sex consenting adults and haul them off to prison was a law worth upholding (government intrusion in our lives be d*mned). Would women be allowed to vote? or would that be like allowing women to serve their country in combat zones??

You people would be so much more successful if you truly understood how your views come off to those of us who are Christians, but not fundamentalist evangelicals, steeped from birth in the fire and brimstone theology of judge, divide, and conquer.

I mean, it's just really, really a shame.

JaxJM| 2.24.12 @ 12:51AM

Why do so many conservatives (including this author) insist on cannibalizing our own? Romney is a perfectly fine candidate - as are Santorum and Gingrich. Paul is OK but for his lunatic foreign policy position. Let's all take a deep breath and work together, please, to defeat Barack Obama.

naql| 2.24.12 @ 1:38AM

Well, I would, but you just said my guy's foreign policy position was "lunatic", whereas I happen to think the other guys' are wrong-headed and ruinous, so there you are. Way to contribute to the unity.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:43AM

Romney is not one of our own.

Romney is a liberal Democrat trying to pose as a Republican.

I will not support Romney if he is the nominee, and I don't care who his VP pick is.

Obamney = Obama.

Anne | 2.24.12 @ 6:07AM

Garfield: And every time Willard opens his mouth, he sounds more and MORE like Obozo!

During the last debate, when Willard said ...

“… the reason we have Obama Care is because the Senator you supported over Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, the pro- choice Senator of Pennsylvania that you supported and endorsed in a race over Pat Toomey, he voted for Obama Care. If you had not supported him, if we had said, no to Arlen Specter, we would not have Obama Care”

... I almost fell over.

We cannot afford to replace a narcissistic megalomaniac who cannot tell the truth about anything with another narcissistic megalomaniac who cannot tell the truth about anything.

david| 2.24.12 @ 3:36AM

oh and the others up there are "true conservatives" does anyone really buy this smear post?

Kelsonus| 2.24.12 @ 6:52AM

I would have loved to share this on Stumbleupon and other outlets, but the pop up recording will prevent me from doing so

lcdlover | 2.24.12 @ 10:34AM

Hello
One of the things that bothers me about Romney is his apparent lack of intellectual prowess. One gets the impression that Mitt is not a big reader of history, for example. I think a president should be grounded ion a deep knowledge of American history, The Constitution and the founding fathers, all the other Presidents, both World Wars and The Civil War of course. I like my leader to exhibit a strong historical ken and be able to display that expertise with perspicacity.
This is one reason I prefer Newt Gingrich.
Of course, you guys kicked Newt to the curb like a dog, because he has "baggage".
Getting back to Roment though, does he display any inkling that he is well read, or even pick up any books other than briefing books supplied by his "handlers"? We know he watches "You Tube" as he stated so in this debate. He did "write" one book but one wonders if that was written for him or he was at least assisted in that effort. Newt has written 20, both fiction and non-fiction.
With Newt what you see is what you get. Mitt is a bit of a cypher.
Mark Twain: "The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."
Mitt gives the Impression that he is a mile wide, but an inch deep. He comes to the debates prepared with talking points and no one is going to throw him off those. For example, at the end of the debate the moderator asked all the candidates to clear up some misconception that the public may have. A good opportunity, but Mitt chose to deliver his prepared lines. When the host pointed out that he was not responding Romney got testy: "You get to ask the question you want and I get to give the answer I want." Was he trying for his own Newt vs the media moment or was he simply unable to veer from his script?
Also, Mitt this week had just come out with a pretty good supply side pro-growth tax reform plan. Larry Kudlow praised it up and down and I believe the WSJ gave it high marks as well. How come there was no mention of this at all by Mitt during the debate. Is he even aware of his own tax proposals? Again one gets the feeling that he is just not well schooled in even these wonkish economic matters, supposedly his forte.
It just seems like Mitt is out there as a figurehead and that there are these shadowy "handlers" behind him. Newt doesn't need handlers; maybe just "baggage handlers".
I guess I'll vote for Romney if it comes to that in the general, but I am not happy with him as the intellectual captain of the conservative movement.

Worried for the country| 2.24.12 @ 7:22PM

Romney was valedictorian at BYU and had top honors with his Harvard MBA and law degrees.

Maybe he was faking that too.

Garfield| 2.24.12 @ 1:29PM

People you need to get out of the tunnel vision of simply wanting to beat Obama.

While we need to beat Obama, we need to realize that we have to beat Obama with someone that will not rest until they undid Obama's policies.

The Establishment claims that Romney is most likely to beat Obama, and thus must be the nominee. Well I disagree because Romney is too much like Obama.

More importantly, Romney is more likely to continue Obamacare instead of working to repeal it.

Beating Obama is pointless if the candidate that beats Obama has every intention of continuing Obama's destructive policies.

That's why I cannot support Romney, even against Obama.

Worried for the country| 2.24.12 @ 7:20PM

There is ZERO evidence of any of your claims. The result of your argument is the equivalent of an Axelrod troll.

Apparently, you are against the following:
-cutting the federal workforce
-repealing Obamacare
-repealing dodd-frank
-medicare and ss reform
-pro growth tax policies
-expanded oil drilling
-strict constitutionalist judicial nominations

Garfield| 2.25.12 @ 3:35PM

http://www.westernjournalism.c.....obamacare/

End of Video, he admits he won't repeal Obamacare, just try to tinker with it.

If you have any sense you repeal the entire thing so you don't end up with an even larger mess from Congress.

Worried for the country| 2.24.12 @ 7:24PM

George Neumayr really embarrassed himself with this piece. Are mulligans allowed in journalism?

POST American| 2.25.12 @ 1:01AM

----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------

Consider, as we stand, perhaps 2-3
years from open receivership to
the Globalist created, US taxpayer
empowered and underwritten
RED China 'mere--ICK--CULL'

Consider carefully:

the brazenly ANTI-Constitutional NDAA 1021's
passage (secret arrests/ EXILE/ execution)

the call from Pelosi for yet more FULL
spectrum tracking, monitoring and
surveillance --while visiting RED China

the brazen act of TREASON by sitting
justice Ginzburg, dissing the document
she's sworn to uphold ---while standing
on the 'Banks of De---Nile' in 'E---jipped'

Consider

This MAY BE our LAST properly,
or even nominally, American presidential
election.

Consider the TROJAN HORSE continuity
that is

---------------'SUB--Mitt' 'ROME--knee'-------------

CON---sider ----DEEPLY

JonB| 2.25.12 @ 4:33AM

If this is what passes for the "true conservative" movement, you guys really should get the F out of my Republican Party and go commit political suicide with your own Evangelical Party and take Rick "I voted for Planned Parenthood before I was against it" Santorum along with you.

The Republican Party in its century and half of history has always been dominated by the ideals of economic and social freedom, and not that of a Christian theocracy.

GoGoGoJonnyGoJonnyBGood| 2.25.12 @ 1:19PM

"...His mother told him "Someday you will be a man"..."

JonB 2/23 @ 3:03pm @ "Obama's Corporate Tax Hike":
"the author of this article is lying and deceiving"

'true conservative' 2/23 @ 4:17pm:
"perhaps you could cite a single sentence in the article that is not factually correct"

'conservative true' 2/23 @ 5:13pm:
"perhaps you could cite a single sentence in the article that is not factually correct"

JonB:
2/23 @ 2:32pm: [no untrue sentence of article cited]
"...I appreciate your brain dead reply..."

2/23 @ 2:35pm: [no untrue sentence of article cited]
"...Why do Republicans turn so quickly to insults and lies...even they don't believe in the shit they spew forth..."

2/24 @ 2:37pm: [no untrue sentence of article cited]
"...for your inaccurate figures..."

2/24 @ 3:07pm: [no untrue sentence of article cited]
"...BU$H...by having his dad's buddies violate...BU$H...created the lies...lied..."

2/24 @ 4:10pm: [no untrue sentence of article cited]
"...The entire article is based on the absolutely false premise..."

2/24 @ 4:12pm: [no untrue sentence of article cited]
"...the money they steal...you just ignore all these facts..."

2/24 @ 4:16pm: [no untrue sentence of article cited]
"...ignore the main points of an issue to lie about Liberals..."

True Conservate True| 2.25.12 @ 1:45PM

The author of the post 2/25 @ 1:19pm cites as inaccurate in the 2/25 @ 1:19pm post the first two responses posted by JonB that did not cite a single sentence in the article that is not factually correct: these first two responses by Jon B were at 2/24 @ 2:32pm and at 2/24 @ 2:35pm.

Go Go

Go Jonny Go

Jonny B Good

Perhaps his mother was cited inaccurately...

Gretchen| 2.25.12 @ 4:32PM

Thanks to Mr. Neumayr's excellent article I now know why I have never liked Romney -- he's a phony as a three-dollar-bill!

Cpm| 2.26.12 @ 12:52AM

Self-described 'conservatives' throwing around the term 'RINO' has become as meaningless as lefties throwing around the term 'nazi'. It is lazy and weak.

SouthWestie| 2.27.12 @ 1:31PM

I'm a REAL conservative! Nooo you're not, I'm the REAL conservative. You're a RINO! Nuh-uh, you're a RINO! Nu-Uhhh... I know you are but what am I?!?! Really? Is this what political discourse on the right has come to? Of course Neumayr notes that when "Romney bested a rattled Rick Santorum" his "victory.., looked hollow and dispiriting." To turn a blind eye to the various inconsistencies on "conservative" issues in the other candidates lengthy political careers, while heaping criticism on Romney as inconsistent is disingenuous at best. The big question for the amnesiacs that blindly worship at the temple of Rush, Levin, and Hanity is where were the critics of these "conservative prophets," who were enthusiastically endorsing Romney in 2008 and now have conveniently flip-flopped on their support for Mitt RINO Romney?

Political Discourse| 2.27.12 @ 5:19PM

The debt is almost 16 trillion, experts can't agree whether unfunded liabilities are 110 trillion or 220 trillion but agree it is somewhere within these two numbers, obamacare is still pending but every obama ass kissing organization including public unions currently has an exemption from the preliminary stuff to it, just to begin to name a couple of political issues needing discourse, but the "big question" for "REAL" conservatives is who some prominent talking heads endorsed 4 years ago in "2008"? And "I know you are but what am I?!?!"? How about: you are as meaninglessly "weak" as "Cpm".

Cpm| 2.27.12 @ 11:38PM

If you simply must have RINOs, they are the self described 'conservatives' who vow they won't support the ticket if their guy isn't the nominee, handing Obama 4 more years. That's as 'limp' as 'Political Discourse'
.

Political Discourse| 2.28.12 @ 2:36AM

True or false, Cpm actually bothered to state: conservatives throwing around the term 'RINO' has become as meaningless as liberals throwing around the term 'nazi'.

Just to clear the air, is that less lazy and weak, as lazy and weak, or more lazy and weak than liberals throwing around 'racist'? Bigot? It's all Bush's fault? It's all Reagan's fault? Bible thumping fascists trying to control our bedrooms and outlaw contraception? Blindly worshiping amnesiacs of opinion talk radio hosts election cycle flip-floppers?

LMM| 3.14.12 @ 7:08PM

George Neumayr's bashing of Mitt Romney is exactly the kind of stuff that will elect Obama. One can and should discuss a candidates policies and proposals. But, professing to know his thoughts and bashing every utterance he ever made that one disagrees with is to severely limit the number of people able or willing to seek the presidency. Even if Mr. Neumayr doesn't agree with any of Romney's policies, he should be able to acknowledge that Romney is a very moral and ethical person with a lot of knowledge and talent.

The American Spectator

Political Hay

The Mittens Come Off in Mesa

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (531) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Kitty | 2.23.12 @ 6:34AM

Fire Andy Reid| 2.23.12 @ 7:30AM

tim| 2.23.12 @ 9:51AM

SpiralArchitect| 2.23.12 @ 1:23PM

The American Hitman| 2.23.12 @ 1:36PM

Sue Crimchesa| 2.24.12 @ 10:30AM

Republican sheeple| 2.23.12 @ 1:37PM

Con Chef (NB) | 2.23.12 @ 1:58PM

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:00PM

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.23.12 @ 5:34PM

Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 8:05PM

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.24.12 @ 1:34AM

Jack in Wi.| 2.23.12 @ 12:53PM

Pfeufnik Punjewicz| 2.23.12 @ 2:39PM

Lyneuss Fields | 2.23.12 @ 7:40PM

bigfoot9p6| 2.23.12 @ 8:03PM

Sue Crimchesa| 2.24.12 @ 10:18AM

Teresa| 2.23.12 @ 6:25PM

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:04PM

Jill Johnson| 2.24.12 @ 10:52PM

PaulC| 2.23.12 @ 3:02PM

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 3:53PM

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 4:05PM

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 4:30PM

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 4:50PM

Willy| 2.23.12 @ 4:56PM

Anne | 2.23.12 @ 6:40PM

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 10:36PM

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 5:49PM

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 6:49PM

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 7:11PM

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 7:28PM

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 11:11PM

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:05PM

Anne | 2.23.12 @ 6:39PM

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 6:57PM

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 10:43PM

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:11AM

PaulC| 2.23.12 @ 4:58PM

Markus| 2.23.12 @ 6:15PM

Adam| 2.23.12 @ 8:28PM

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 10:52PM

T Holcomb| 2.24.12 @ 1:17AM

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:15AM

Sue Crimchesa| 2.24.12 @ 10:29AM

PaulB| 2.23.12 @ 5:04PM

Nite| 2.23.12 @ 8:24PM

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:20AM

Anne | 2.24.12 @ 5:34AM

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:12AM

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 2.24.12 @ 7:29AM

jstwndring| 2.23.12 @ 4:16PM

rightasrain| 2.23.12 @ 4:31PM

Mark in Seattle| 2.23.12 @ 5:10PM

Mark in Seattle| 2.23.12 @ 5:11PM

Paul from SA| 2.23.12 @ 5:27PM

RCV| 2.23.12 @ 5:45PM

ID EST| 2.23.12 @ 6:17PM

ID EST| 2.24.12 @ 12:19PM

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 10:58PM

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:23AM

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 2.24.12 @ 7:31AM

Michele| 2.23.12 @ 8:25PM

Kodiak| 2.23.12 @ 11:00PM

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:15AM

Bobloblaw| 2.23.12 @ 6:02PM

Occam's Tool| 2.23.12 @ 7:07PM

Adam| 2.23.12 @ 8:35PM

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:17AM

B Teri| 2.23.12 @ 9:01PM

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 2:19AM

Poyman (also a Texan)| 2.24.12 @ 3:26AM

Uomo Del Ghiaccio| 2.24.12 @ 7:33AM

LMA| 2.23.12 @ 10:03PM

Sue Crimchesa| 2.24.12 @ 10:19AM