The American Spectator : Line Up and Shake Hands

Text Size

Line Up and Shake Hands

By Ross Kaminsky on 4.11.12 @ 6:09AM

Santorum supporters are understandably upset — but so upset that they’d prefer to see another Obama term?

Following Rick Santorum’s graceful exit from the Republican presidential primary on Tuesday, pundits were speaking as much about what the former Pennsylvania senator did not say as what he did say.

In particular, Santorum described wanting to help Republicans beat Barack Obama, keep the House and take back the Senate, but he made no mention of the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

Nerves are raw, with Santorum, under the additional pressure of having a very sick daughter, feeling unjustly swamped by the Romney campaign’s money and aggressiveness — much as Newt Gingrich apparently still does. It’s not just business; it’s personal, at least for now.

And it is not just Rick Santorum who feels injured; plenty of his supporters do as well. Some are saying (such as in comments on these pages) that following Santorum’s exit, they will not vote in November, or only vote in House or Senate races, or even give up their Republican Party registration.

But if I may offer an overused expression: Really? Really?

Santorum’s supporters are, if they are anything, passionate about ending the Obama administration’s intentional shredding of the American fabric, whether in the social, economic, or political arenas. We all should be so passionate.

Barack Obama is, with his every law and his every regulation, trying to do just what he promised us he would: fundamentally transform the nation, namely the nation that his wife had never been proud of until he was nominated and about which his minister of 20-years said “G_d damn America.”

As promised, with Obamacare, he is orchestrating a de facto nationalization of the health insurance industry, which is to say transforming the way Americans deal with the most personal and most critical decisions we face.

He promised us that he wanted to bankrupt coal companies. With recent EPA regulations, he is well on his way toward that transformation, a first big step toward another energy-related promise: to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

He promised us that “No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” With his sweet nothings whispered to Russian President Dmitry “Vlad’s sock puppet” Medvedev about future “flexibility,” Obama made clear his intention to further weaken the United States’ position as the world’s only military superpower.

Those are the promises he keeps.

A promise he has not kept — not that anyone who understood the man believed it was anything but a sop to gullible independent voters — was that he would “cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” Under Obama’s budget proposals, we have trillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future, with the national debt increasing by more than 80 percent in the next ten years, from $10 trillion to just under $19 trillion, a level of debt that would make Greek politicians giggle at their own relative fiscal conscientiousness.

Are many Santorum supporters — some of the nation’s most ardent believers in the promise of America — really going to take their marbles and go home rather than support Mitt Romney’s efforts to unseat a president who is arguably the most destructive (of the American exceptionalism that he disdains) in our nation’s history?

If that is really what they think, then perhaps the nation is better off without them. More likely, only a single digit percentage of Santorum’s supporters (or Newt Gingrich’s, though perhaps not Ron Paul’s) will be willing to sacrifice their country in November. More will, like Quin Hillyer, disavow responsibility for Romney’s eventual results while pledging to do what they can to help him beat the current occupant of the White House.

Conservatives and libertarians alike have valid concerns about Mitt Romney. It remains depressingly difficult to tell just what the man actually believes. It remains a black mark on his résumé that he is the father of Romneycare. It remains troubling that one can imagine the John Kerry windsurfing ad with Romney filling in, given his changed positions on everything from minimum wage to mandates to climate change. I could go on.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (435) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 7:27AM

Milt Romney has absolutely NOTHING to offier the working class, small business owners, and people with strong conservative social values. He can get his support from the Republican elite who financed his campaign, because he won't get it from me.

NO Romney; not now, not in November, NEVER!!!!!

Stuart Koehl| 4.11.12 @ 8:00AM

Well, then, let's not hear anything from you for the four years following the election; you forfeit your right to complain.

mjs_pa| 4.11.12 @ 8:29AM

Well that statement is more reflective of obama and the GOP establishment than that of a true patriot. When do conservatives ever shut down debate in such a tyrannical fashion.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:25AM

MittBots aren't conservatives. That's why they support a Massachusetts liberal.

TrueBlue | 4.11.12 @ 12:41PM

I think he's referring to the fact that if you don't vote you forfeit your right to complain about the winner. Even if you don't like the candidates (and I dislike Romney myself) if you don't vote for Romney OR Obama, what do you have to complain about? You chose not to participate in the first place.

Can still have debates and discussions on what is being done wrong with everything else, but when it comes to whoever is President (or any other position you refused to vote on) your opinion means very little in my book.

Voting is the responsibility of every citizen in this country, just as getting a job and supporting oneself and your family is the responsibility of everyone who is able. It's the shirking of responsibility that got us in this mess in the first place.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:49PM

So if Hitler runs vs. Stalin and we don't choose one or the other we have no right to complain about tyranny?

That's backwards.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:54PM

You're equating Hitler and Stalin with Obama and Romney???

Do you realize how utterly stupid that comparison is???

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:08PM

I'm not comparing either. The illustration was to point out that refusing to choose between Evil and Evil does not deprive one of the moral high ground, but rather ensures they maintain it.

Socialist A and Socialist B won't be getting my vote. I don't vote for socialists.

Get it?

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:36PM

No.

Mitt Romney is neither "evil," nor a "socialist."

Is he the perfect GOP candidate? No. But we haven't had one of those since 1984.

Sitting on your hands on election day and sulking is stupid.

Get it?

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 1:56PM

RomneyCare is a Socialist Program, Romney is one of the fathers of that program. This is proof that Romney is in fact a Socialist. ObamaCare makes Obama a Socialist, Romney doesn't get a free pass because he is a Republican, be it in name only.

Jalsis | 4.11.12 @ 3:12PM

Mit Romney is a sock puppet for the Wall Street banksters. The same folks who pay you to shill for him.

Die Fledermaus| 4.11.12 @ 4:53PM

And what is Romney going to accomplish? Nothing. Will he truly downsize the massive federal leviathan? No. Fire useless employees like at GSA? No.

Romney will be worse than W. Bush in his "conservatism" and give us more spending, more waste, more BS and more of the same.

Obama destorys America by 2017, Romney just drags it out until 2020.

He's spend MILLIONS of dollars of his and others money ripping his opponents and never runs of what his so-called strengths beyond political rhetoric and platitudes.

And now his people except all those he trashed to shut up, smile and shake hands? Get a life.

Go ask Guliani and Fred Thompson why they haven't endorsed the idiot. They hate him and his bully tactics.

Romney makes GHW Bush look like Reagan.

Marco2| 4.11.12 @ 11:31PM

Oh no, lacking endorsements from the New York City slicker or "take a nap" Thompson (now his was a campaign to remember!), how can the Mittster carry on? Were I him, I think I'd rather have them from the Bushes, Rubio, Ryan, DeMint, and just about any other prominent Republican one can think of who's made one.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:30PM

"Mitt Romney is BOTH "evil," AND a "socialist.""

There, fixed it for you.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:28PM

Some of you GOP hacks would insist on voting for Hitler or Stalin IF they were whom the Republican establishment decided should be their nominee for President.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:05PM

Which they'd happily do if either had gone to an Ivy League school.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:26PM

"Voting is the responsibility of every citizen in this country, just as getting a job and supporting oneself and your family is the responsibility of everyone who is able."

What third world banana republic did you come from????

I have NO moral or legal obligation to vote. As an American citizen come election time, I have the RIGHT to:
1. Vote for the Democrat
2. Vote for the Republican
3. Vote for some obscure and irrelevant third party.
4. Not vote at all.

How I vote, and whether or not I vote, is MY business, and MINE alone. It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

One third is absolutely certain, I WILL NOT vote for whatever garbage candidate the Republican Party sends my way. I do not owe the GOP the snot out of my nose. And I certainly am NOT going to vote for a liberal Democrat like Romney just because the GOP establishment rammed him down our throats.

And if you don't like my stand on this issue, then that is YOUR problem, not mine.

W| 4.11.12 @ 10:37PM

We don't care how you vote. Go vote for Obama because you are an Obama troll.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 11:31PM

And you are an igornat ass.

W| 4.12.12 @ 3:39PM

You again prove you are an Obama troll because you do not deny it. Name calling is not a denial.

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 10:44AM

By supporting Romney you forfeit all your conservative credentials. That line works both ways.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:12PM

Utterly illogical.

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 12:29PM

Utterly illogical to support a socialist liberal moderate like Romney.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:55PM

...So your answer is to sit on your hands and help a DIE-HARD MARXIST win re-election??

You're a fool.

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 1:57PM

Yeah that kind of talk is sure to score you countless converts to vote for Romney! Given the choice of the Marxist and the Socialist I choice neither. I'm not a slave to the two party system of the mentality that allows that system to exist.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 3:58PM

Whoa.

You're such a bold, free-thinker...I'm really impressed.

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 4:55PM

The constant insults by Romney's Snob Mob show just how desperate they are and just how close they are to cracking.

Die Fledermaus| 4.11.12 @ 4:57PM

And the choice of a Marxist wannabe like Romney is better?

The faster the feces hits the fan the better chance true conservatives can turn around this federal mess. Romney is just a screen door in front of the fan hoping to catch some feces before it flies into the blades.

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 10:39PM

So your answer is to insult conservatives you expect to vote for Romney. Pretty nonsensical.

richard ryan| 4.11.12 @ 12:01PM

You go Tom!!!!!!!! You rock, buddy. Imagine, while standing in line to get your weekly food ration, how satisfied you will feel about stopping Mr. Romney. And when the government agents show up at your door in 20 years and confiscate your home for the good of the state, you can rest assured that you didn't contribute to that damn MODERATE getting in the white house. It's gonna be SWEET!

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:36PM

Listen, Dickie. Each and every election, we hear stuff like, "This is the most important election ever. If those evil Democrats it is the end our country. You MUST support the Republican candidate, even if you don't particularly like him, or America will be destroyed!!! BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!"

Well, Dickie, I've survived four years of Carter, eight years of Clinton, and four years of Obama during my adult life. So I can take four more years of Obama. So take your doomsday nonsense, AND STICK IT UP YOUR ARSE!!!

richard ryan| 4.12.12 @ 3:36PM

Tom, you best get your head out of the sand. You are obviously an ignorant little piss ant. Look at the numbers, look at the facts. Start with national debt plus unfunded liabilities. Educate yourself.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:11PM

EXACTLY RIGHT.

The problem is that the rest of us, the ones who "get it," will have to suffer from the idiocy of those who don't.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:38PM

Dr. WRONG, the problem is that the rest of will have to suffer from the stupidity of GOP hacks like yourself who will continue to vote for whatever piece of garbage politician the Republican Party establishment tosses our way.

sleon| 4.11.12 @ 12:22PM

Right. let's keep voting for the lesser of two evils, because that's been working so well.

I have a better idea. Lets stop voting for people we know will be bad for the country, even if there's someone on the ballot that could be called 'Worse'. And if you do vote for someone you know is not good for the country, you forfeit your right to complain. Now, THAT makes sense.

TrueBlue | 4.11.12 @ 12:44PM

Better idea, vote for the lesser of two evils, and then during the next primary season (even incumbents have to go through primaries, they just aren't generally reported on) find another candidate willing to challenge them. Even if the person loses it gets the point across that you're dissatisfied with the one currently in office. It works with Congresscritters, the President is no different.

If you vote for someone who is bad, then you man up, admit you made a mistake, and vote for someone else the next time. People make mistakes, not everyone is perfect. But not doing anything is far worse than making the wrong decision.

sleon| 4.11.12 @ 2:45PM

I've heard that 'next primary' scam used before to get people to vote the status qua. The 'next primary' has happened several times, to no avail.

If you vote for someone you know is bad, it's not a mistake; it's deliberately choosing evil.

stonebender| 4.11.12 @ 2:51PM

yup. choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:41PM

"But not doing anything is far worse than making the wrong decision."

That is utter nonsense. In the case of the 2012 election, NEITHER Obama NOR Romney deserve my vote; and NEITHER one of them will get it.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:56PM

Equating Romney with Obama on ANY level is intellectually stupid.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:09PM

The category is "Presidential Candidates Who've Implemented Socialized Medicine". Go!

Whoops, looks like Doctor Right was WRONG.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:39PM

Again, equating Romney with Obama on ANY level is stupid.

Romney has stated categorically, and for the record, that he will do whatever he can in his power as President to undo ObamaCare. Doubtful that he could ignore that pledge.

Additionally, if the people of Massachusetts want to do away with RomneyCare, let them elect public officials who'll do it.

And to all those who think ObamaCare is the ONLY peril facing our nation...get real.

Whoops...looms like Teflon93 just got schooled again by Dr. Always-Right.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 2:03PM

Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare---and the guy who Romney chose to draft it did the same for Obama. His name is Jon Gruber. Go look him up, Dr. Dimwit.

Romney says a lot of things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 4:36PM

You have to measure what Romney would have done with the BHO policy decisions of the last 3 years:
1) Stimulus: given half were tax cuts, Willard would have agreed
2) Romneycare er Obamacare: absolutely
3) Bin Laden: probably not, as the tactical decisions would require a committee of analysts.
4) Debt ceiling without spending cuts: absolutely
5) Dodd Frank: don't know. His anlaysts would suggest he was pandering to his inner demons by not addressing the calamities of 2008.

A distinction without a difference is no distinction at all. His experience is running a VC firm, running one of the biggest pork barrel projects: Olympics, and the bluest state in the nation where he distinguished himself with legislative overreach and tax manipulation, and dismal job creation. His not seeking re-election as a plebiscite on his record is also revealing.

The emperor has no clothes.

Die Fledermaus| 4.11.12 @ 4:59PM

Pretending Romney is nothing like Obama is retarded.

I suggest you get help now before IPAD cuts off your treatment.

Anthony| 4.11.12 @ 2:32PM

Hey Teflon, are you really that stupid naturally, or do you just work damn hard at it?
Guess who said this: "This is the most dangerous election of our lifetime"?
Answer: Wayne LaPierre
And guess who Mr. LaPierre was NOT referring to?
Answer: Mitt Romney.
Now go away troll and go play with your anatomically correct Ken Doll.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:15PM

Go play with yourself. I'm an NRA Life Member, pal---what the hell are you?

Anthony| 4.11.12 @ 3:32PM

Well, if you're NRA, as you claim that you are, then you get LaPierre's message, and it ain't Obozo and Romney are the SAME!!!
So, I'm back to asking the same question, are you naturally stupid or just diligent at it?
P.S. The LaPierre quote was taken from this month's NRA magazine which I happened to have on my desk as I wrote my post to you.
Also, go to Drudge and see what the Ex. Director of the Black Panthers had to say about white people, and Eric Holder praising Sharpton.
Still planning on sitting out the election genius?

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:56PM

What did Romney do for the 2nd amendment in Mass?

Try your Google and see all the leftwing dirtbags Romney embraced---all while passionately denying he wanted to "return to Reagan/Bush". The picture of Romney smiling with Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquidick) while signing socialized medicine into law is worth 10,000 words to non-MittBots.

Or wait a few days until Axelrod gets around to thrashing him for all his flipflops. You'll have plenty of examples then.

Anthony| 4.11.12 @ 9:05PM

God, you are thick!!! It' not about what Romney did or did not do for the 2nd Amendment.
Yes, we know Romney is not our candidate. WE GET IT MORON. Do you get what Obozo will do to America in a 2nd term?
I thought the folks who read TAS were the brightest and best informed. WRONG!!!

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:07PM

Yeah, you think because Romney has the magic (-R) that he's pro-2nd amendment, but can't point to anything he's done to protect gun rights.

Moreover, since Fast n Furious fizzled, you can't point to anything Obama has done regarding gun control. It's strictly a backburner issue for him and will remain so in all likelihood.

Meanwhile, you like the guy who resurrected socialized medicine after we killed it in 1994.

You are a GENIUS.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:48PM

Doctor WRONG is either incredibly stupid or shamelessly dishonest.

Let's see, from Romney, we get:

-Romneycare.
-individual mandates
-support for gay rights
-ordering Catholic hospitals to dispence contraceptives.
-a miserable economic record in Massachusetts as Governor.
-sending people to the unemployment line by taking over their companies while at Bain.
-selecting liberal judges.
-the mother of all government bailouts with the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.
-attempting to beat Teddy Kennedy in an election by running to the LEFT of him.

If you like Barach Hussein Obama, you should LOVE Mitt Romney!!!

Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:42PM

Ross, Stu, since I am not an idiot, I am voting for Romney, and will be his precinct Captain. As I said before, the only guy I could not do this for was Paul, who is as clueless as Obama.

By the way, Stu, who was that Roman Emperor who retired after regularizing the Eastern and Western Empires?

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:18PM

It's going to take MUCH more than some Romneyzoid punk to dictate to me how I exercise my First Ammendment rights.

W| 4.11.12 @ 10:40PM

There is no first amendment right to comment here. The first amendment applies to the government restricting speech. If you were a real conservative you would have known that. You are a lefty liberal using this phony first amendment argument. You sound like the Purp, or you are the purp.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 11:35PM

Go screw yourself, you worthless pile of dog excrement.

W| 4.12.12 @ 1:01PM

About the level of intelligence and class from an Obama troll, right Purp?

SaintVince| 4.11.12 @ 11:26PM

Wrong. We continue, continue, continue, continue, to WONDER WHY our country is in decline yet we are a step away from nominating the weakest of the Republican candidates. A liberal Republican running against a liberal Democrat (Marxist) who is going to effectively energize the 24hr news cycle voter by magic dust and straight faced lying with every word he says. And everyone is going to look at Obama vs. Obomney and see no noticable difference in policy. The way this A-hole got nominated was disgraceful. Not anything about his own ideas but used $$ to trash (lie) about his competition. Even IF Obomney wins, we are still going to wonder 4 or 8 years later why our country is in decline. We can not, maybe because we are just not effing smart enough, find a way to nominate or elect someone who is for changing the direction of the country even thought 66% of people believe we are going in the wrong direction. Obomney will change nothing!

Bottom Line--I am as conservative yet thoughtful as they come, but I WILL NOT vote for Obomney purely based upon the R next to his name. OBOMNEY HAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN ORDER TO EARN MY VOTE! He has so much work to do and I am so disgusted at this ass that I am, as of this moment, voting for Obama in order to plunge this experiment further into the crapper in order to wake people up (specifically the Republican establishment) and nominate/elect someone who will move us in the right direction quickly. If we continue to nominate moderates, voting for Obama is not going to matter anyway. THINK about that before you spew your BS about how much better Obomney is going to be vice Obama. The question is, "quicker decline vs. managed decline." That is our choice in Nov. Nice work A-holes. Obomney has to EARN my conservative vote and worry about me just like he and the establishment have worried about the precious moderate/independant 20% because not only will I not vote for Obomney (If he doesn't somehow repair the damage) but I will swing 180 out and vote to ensure another Obama win. Eat that Obomney supporters.....twisted up in knots trying to defend and justify Obomney positions that he has championed from the same position as Obama!

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 9:50AM

I completely agree Tom.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:48PM

Thanks, David.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:10PM

Did anyone ever tell you that you have an uncanny ability to see "the BIG picture?"

...I didn't think so...

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 12:30PM

The BIG picture is that both Obama and Romney are too similar and alike for Romney to stand out and not fail.

TrueBlue | 4.11.12 @ 12:47PM

There is one major difference between the two. Romney won't screw over businesses that actually have the ability to make money.

As much as I dislike the majority of his stances, I can at least see him allowing use of the nations resources rather than driving us into the ground.

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 1:58PM

When he was Gov of Mass his state was nearly dead last in job creation so I don't agree with you.

Stormzeye| 4.11.12 @ 6:55PM

That's because it already had plenty of jobs.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:54PM

That is total nonsense.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 10:02PM

You're right David. Romney's Massachusetts was 47th in job creation during his term.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:50PM

"There is one major difference between the two. Romney won't screw over businesses that actually have the ability to make money."

He did EXACTLY that while at Bain. THOUSANDS of Americans lost their jobs because of the greed of Mitt Romney. He is NO friend of small business.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:11PM

That's absolutely absurd.

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 1:59PM

I know, it is absolutely absurd that the GOP would force a Socialist upon the Conservative base. Crazy.

richard ryan| 4.11.12 @ 2:25PM

The Doctor is correct. It is absolutely absurd to call Mitt a socialist. If Romneycare gets under your skin so much, go back and research his battles with the Mass. legislature. The end product was not what he envisioned. Bad idea? yes. Socialist? NO.

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 2:47PM

RomneyCare is a Socialist program. Romney is one of the Fathers of that program. He is a Socialist. HE micromanaged it. HE owns it.

Anthony| 4.11.12 @ 3:53PM

Hey genius, see my posts to your intellectual equal, Teflon.

Jack in Wi.| 4.11.12 @ 12:31PM

Nixon 1968 got 43% of the vote. Humphrey 42.7% of the vote, Wallace about 14%. Nixon ran an abiguous campaign, offering pablum and peace. In 1972 Nixon ran as the guy who got us peace and was bringing the troops home.

In 1976 we had a bitter fight right up to the convention. Ford was so much of a Rockefeller Republican that he made Rockefeller Vice President. He had to take Dole as a sop to conservatives but it was best he lost a close election. If he had won the Republican Party would hve been in the wilderness for decades and there would have been no Reagan victory.

In 1980 Reagan won the nomination against a group of country club Republicans with Bush the last one standing. The old guard ran a third party run by moderate Republican John Anderson and liberal Democrat Pat Lucy from my state, e3ven thoughReagan made a fatal mistake and put Bush on the ticket. They reached a high water mark of 15% in the polls ending up with over 7% on election day. They tried to sink Reagan just like they did Goldwater in 1964. In 1964 they didn't set up a 3rd party, but voted for and campaigned for Johnson.

Bush Sr. won as Reagan's heir, but he was always and Eastern elitist. His victory in 1988 was the last solid Republican win. In 1992 he got only 37% of the vote against Clinton's 43%. Perot got about 19%. The year before in 1991 he had popular approval rating of about 90% after the Iraq war. so much for war being a winning issue.

In 1996 Dole improved the Republican vote but only got 43% of the vote. He was a loser from the first day he ever entered the race.

In 2000 Gore won the popular vote by half a milllion votes and lost the electoral college by a few hunded votes in Florida. Bush had all the support and money of the Eastern elites and a pleasent Texas drawl to fool the boobs in the Bible belt. He ecked out a narrow victory in 2004 by using every tool as a sittingPresident and Rove using every trick in the book to get out every conservative vote possible. His best idea was pushing anti gay marriage referenda in key states to get the boobs to the polls.

In 2008 we had the mad bomber McCain running against Obumbler the peace candidate. McCain wanted to pick his fellow mad bomber Liebermann as his running mate. Such a ticket woul have been lucky to get 35% ofthe vote. He put Sarah Palin on the ticket because the convention never would have allowed such a ticket. She got the party up to 47% of the vote and saved a lot of down ticket Republicans from a worse slaughter.

Now they are sticking us with the Mormon warmonger liberal who can't even get 50% of the vote in the Republican primaries with all the money and elite support possible. Obama will win re-election because he will run as the peace candidate again, even though he is a warmonger. The Federal Reserve is flooding the country in money to puff up the economy for the election. I voted for all these other so called candidates ever since Goldwater in 1964. Why the hell should I keep doing the same old insanity till my dying day? To hell with the Republicans.

Marco2| 4.11.12 @ 11:40PM

Before Ford offered Rockefeller the vice presidency, he offered it to Goldwater, who declined it on the basis that he thought he was too divisive. Of course, Goldwater wasn't a real conservative either, was he? And old Sarah one note sounds a little dumber every time she opens her yap. That babe is so yesterday's news.

Skippy| 4.11.12 @ 2:42PM

Moron.

Stan Redmond| 4.11.12 @ 2:43PM

Unfortunately we, Americans, are in the 2004 position the democrats were in. "Anybody but Bush" is now "anybody but Obama." We must vote Obama out of office. WE MUST VOTE OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE. This country as we have known and loved is over if that man is reelected. This is not an exercise in hyerbole. Get off your high horse and vote for the republican.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 4:02PM

EXACTLY.

The time for internecine squabbles was during the primaries. That's over.

I said a long time ago that I would support WHOMEVER the GOP nominated, even Ron Paul.

The small men with small minds will stand "on principle" and drag the rest of us down with them.

Meanwhile, the only "principle" that matters in 2012 is getting rid of Obama.

canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 4:39PM

No, the senate is objective #1. The purse must be seized. Willard would not have governed any differently in the last three years.

There is no way he will sign a law that will stick to his record.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 6:22PM

True but how do you ensure the Senate isn't packed with the usual RINOs?

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 8:06PM

>>True but how do you ensure the Senate isn't packed with the usual RINOs?

Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund is a good start. I won't life a finger to help Romney (I will hold my nose and vote on election day); and neither will I contribute to the RNC. But I do make a monthly donation to:

http://senateconservatives.com/

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:08PM

I like DeMint but he's endorsing Romney, isn't he?

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 1:26AM

Stan, I would argue that you have never tasted freedom unless you were born before 1930. If you're using a computer I doubt you were. Talk about the "good ole days" of when there was a steady decline of our society to the point where a single Marxist can just push it over the edge with 4 more years as President yet we nominate a moderate/liberal Republican and we are somehow going to go back "to the good ole days of freedom."

Not Special Ops Bill| 4.11.12 @ 4:12PM

Keep your eye on the ball: Obama must go. Romney is not a good conservative choice (or so it seems at this time - much remains to be seen) at present, but he's infinitely better than Obama.

canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 4:40PM

What evidence do you have of this?

Serious question.

I am only working for my rep and senate campaigns. Seize the purse.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:55PM

Romney is NO conservative choice at all.

Brubaker| 4.11.12 @ 6:16PM

So you support Obama. Okay, but take responsibility for it when Obama's excesses continue for another four years.

Honestly, your comment sounds like something that an eight-year old child might say.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:56PM

No, they are both garbage. The difference is that I see through Romney's act, and people like you don't.

Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 7:27AM

Get real. Ron Paulbots might take their marbles and go home. We Santorum supports will follow Rick and support the ticket. Listen to what Rick says. We are not bitter either, at least most of us. We have a dislike for Romney and his scorched earth McCain style against his fellow Republicans. Romney has a problem now. If he is the nominee he has to put the 'Reagan Coalition' back together. He pretty well fractured it with his gutter tactics (Rube Paul, his pal, excepted). He never got over 50% of the base vote. He better take Obama headon rather than using the McCainesque 'civil' campaign plan. Obama's thugs are going to come to the street fight with zip guns and switchblades, Romney better not show up with boxing gloves. Queensbury rules will not be in force.

Mimi| 4.11.12 @ 9:09AM

Mike....You sure got it right! Mitt was MEAN with MONEY ! He better plan on getting much MEANER and with MORE MONEY with Obama.
The Mc Cain plan of playing it nice and civil got us NO-PLACE. The guy has almost taken the country down!

MarkieMark| 4.11.12 @ 12:20PM

Romney agonistes can talk all they want about "the base" and "true conservatives" until they're blue in the face, but the fact is that they are a noisy rabble who didn't win, and can't win, apparently, so they waste their energy screaming into the internet void instead of accepting the reality that they represent not just a rump minority in the general population, but a rump in the Republican party as well, and yet have neither the gumption nor the wit to actually win national elections. It seems they'd rather just sit in their underground bomb shelters and polish their consciences.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:50PM

We won 56 house seats in 2010.

Name the last RINO to win the White House.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:09PM

That should be +56 House seats.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:13PM

George W. Bush
George HW Bush
Richard Nixon
Dwight Eisenhower

...gee...that was hard.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:36PM

W and HW ran as conservatives, as Nixon famously did ("Silent Majority"). Eisenhower ran as a cultural conservative.

But thinking is hard, isn't it, Dr Wrong?

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:45PM

Not for me.

For you, it's a major undertaking...

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 2:04PM

Wow, the precedent of Rubber v. Glue is cited.

You are an intellectual giant. If by "giant" you mean "midget".

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 4:03PM

Did Father Flaherty drop his ring-finger in your rectum?

You are as dumb as ever.

SeymourGlass| 4.11.12 @ 5:45PM

Doc, we're in synch when it comes to presidential politics. But, please, drop the "Father Flaherty" jokes. It reminds me of the tenor who sang the great aria, then cut a tremendous fart. It's the fart we all remember.

Tarr| 4.11.12 @ 2:36PM

T93, I'm with you regarding Willard. He's electoral poison and will govern as a progressive.

However, Eisenhower was not a conservative, cultural or otherwise. The rise of the conservative movement in the 50s was largely fueled by a reaction to Ike's "middle of the roadism" and "me-tooism". Ike was an able administrator and patriot but not a conservative.

Nixon rejected movement conservatism. He believed in the necessity of an energetic state both domestically and for preservation of national security. He largely disdained conservatives. He had greater contempt for the Left elites.

Therefore, a conservative vote for Ike or Dick could be justified. The same does not go for Willard. The tide must be turned against the Left and Willard will not oppose them in a meaningful way.

Skippy| 4.11.12 @ 2:56PM

"Thanks for that!"
BHO

Tarr| 4.11.12 @ 4:33PM

"We are working towards the same goals Barack. I'll succeed in putting a GOP stamp on your agenda." -Willard

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:16PM

Two words for you to check out, Tarr: "Operation Wetback".

I stand my ground on Ike.

Tarr| 4.11.12 @ 4:28PM

Big Labor was the most powerful opponent of open immigration in the postwar period. It was a consensus across the sane political spectrum. It was not a conservative/liberal dividing issue at the time.

Ike was an Old Guard Republican not a conservative. Robert Taft was "Mr. Conservative" and an inveterate opponent of Ike.

Movement conservatives pushed hard to nominate Taft not Ike. After the defeat of Taft National Review could barely endorse Ike and published an editorial lukewarmly endorsing with "We Prefer Ike".

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:46PM

Cultural conservative is what Ike was---I didn't make any other case for him, nor did I claim he was the most conservative candidate. He was, however, a lot closer to Rick Santorum than Mitt Romney----can you imagine Ike embracing gay marriage, the violation of religious conscience, and taxpayer-funded abortion?

On the history you are correct, and of course postwar conservatism was not fully formed till Ike left office anyway.

Tarr| 4.11.12 @ 6:29PM

There were no national cultural issues that divided the nation on the order of abortion, gay rights etc. Truman was as culturally conservative as Ike. The social revolution was fermenting outside of national politics. Until the New Left transformed the Democratic party, it wasn't clear that it would be the agent for cultural upheaval in national politics.

The early conservative movement made their earliest marks in opposing Eisenhower republicanism.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 7:28PM

Well, not quite on Truman. But Ike was a cultural conservatism, and early conservative movement leaders didn't oppose Eisenhower on grounds that they thought he was too into Bill Haley.

Tarr| 4.11.12 @ 10:19PM

Conservative movement leaders had no problem with Eisenhower on any cultural issue. Most rejected his making peace with the New Deal. National security conservatives (like James Burnham) wanted a "rollback of Communism" and not just a continuation of Truman's containment policy. The great traditionalist conservative Russell Kirk summed up the attitude to Eisenhower: in responding to Robert Welch's (founder of the John Birch Society) crazy accusation that Ike was a communist, Kirk replied:“Ike’s not a communist, he’s a golfer.”

My understanding is that Ike was a Little Richard fan.

Jack in Wi.| 4.11.12 @ 6:58PM

Dr. Right is always wrong. Eisenhower ran as the peace candidate against an extreme liberal. Nixon ran as the peace candidate and as a conservative. The Bush boys ran as conservatives. When Bush sr. showed his true colors he was swamped. Dole, Ford, Bush in 1992, and MCain ran as moderates. They all lost badly except Ford who made it close. In the final days of the election he reached out to conservatives. Romney can't even run a a moderate. His record in the one elected job, he ever had is that of a big government, northeasten, liberal. We may as well nominate Lincoln Chaffee. In fact he would be a great idealogical running mate for Romney.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:58PM

EVERY significant victory for the Republicans for decades has been a CONSERVATIVE victory.

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 1:40AM

Mawky Mawk, this is the type of arrogance that pushes the base away from your liberal Republican "savior." It's not sour grapes it's literally a matter of the direction of the country. You Obomney supporters RAIL that unless we defeat Obama then all is lost for the country. You don't understand....with our without the conservative vote Obomney is a loser. It's already lost from "go." You RAIL how important it is to get rid of Obama but didn't have the sense to vote for the conservative. For that I can not help that your "savior" is going to lose in Nov....with or without my vote. I am so pissed off at the disgraceful campaign run by your "savior," which has effectively given this election to Obama, that I am not going to stay home and suck on those "sour grapes" but I am going to cast a vote for Obama. The establishment and you dumbasses must learn that 1. you can no longer nominate liberal Republicans....we end up in the same place as voting for the liberal Democrat, and 2. the way to energize the base is not to insult conservatism and the very voting block that you MUST have to win. Forget the "independants," forget the "moderates" that you so enthusiastically pander to....Obomney needs the base and he has destroyed that support. And you have done your best to mend bridges I see by insulting the very group you need to win. BEST of luck fool.

Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:44PM

Mike:

and that's why I want to know more about the Obama Gay Bathhouse rumors. Seriously, if we've got crap, time to fling it. (Or, maybe wait until October, but dig for it now. Scorched Earth MUST be done against Obama.)

SUBVET| 4.11.12 @ 7:51PM

The question who is Reggie Love ??

Appleby| 4.11.12 @ 7:43AM

Not voting for Mitt Romney. I have to answer to a higher authority than the Republican National Committee. I have seen nothing whatsoever about Mitt Romney that convinces me that he knows people like me exist, much less that he has any interest in rolling back the tide that is swamping us. He would probably not be worse than Obama, but he isn't going to be any better.

I think it's time to stand back and let the country crash, and then join the revolution on the side of the angels. You can bet that when the clouds grow black and the storms begin, Romney will pile his family into Air Force One and head for the Riviera, where he will send messages of encouragement to the revolution and tell us he "has to protect my family". This man is no George VI; he isn't going to be out among the populace showing us how to live...because he is 100% clueless about the way we live. Y'all may elect him because the Elite tell you to, but you ought to know right from the beginning that when you toss him the ball, he's going to duck and let it go right on by.

Stuart Koehl| 4.11.12 @ 8:01AM

And let's not hear anything from you, either, for the duration of the second Obama Administration. Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, and perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Clint| 4.11.12 @ 8:10AM

Uh Oh !

The RINO-CINO Serial Traitor To Conservatism Arlen Specter/John McCain School Of "Lesser Evilism".

Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 9:41AM

Go campaign for Bob (with one 'o') Casey Clint. He's your guy, you helped put him in office.

Clint| 4.11.12 @ 6:08PM

Why Don't Ya Try & Make Me, Little Micky Hawklette.

Ricky Santorum Supporting The RINO-CINO Arlen Specter, Helped Put Him In Office.

Casey's An Asshat Like You, Little Micky Hawklette.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:15PM

You're an idiot. A joke.

You have nothing to contribute, and even less insight.

The vast majority of people on this board either laugh at you or pity you because they think you're mentally challenged.

Your incessant robo-posts are beyond dumb...they're indicative of a small mind with very little imagination.

Dolt.

Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:46PM

Mike---Dr. R's comments, were, of course, directed at one of our mutual Bete Noires, Clint, not you.

Dr. R, I hope you had a lovely, lovely Easter, sir.

Mike Hawk| 4.11.12 @ 2:09PM

Thanks, but I could tell that. Dr R 's distaste for our roboposting Paulbot is known.

Clint| 4.11.12 @ 6:14PM

Tool Job's The RINO-CINO ,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman,Mittens Romney, Back In June.

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 4:59PM

Again, the constant insults by Romney's Snob Mob show just how desperate they are and just how close they are to cracking. It's a clear sign of weakness.

Clint| 4.11.12 @ 6:11PM

You Seen So Upset & PMS'yAgain, Dr.Reich

Dr.Reich's The Flunkie Stooge,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

Steve| 4.11.12 @ 8:18AM

Try thinking a few moves ahead, Stuart, instead of simply vomiting onto your keyboard. IF you take the position that without RADICAL change the country will crash economically and culturally in the next few years; IF you accept the fact that Romney is an empty suit incapable of leading the fight for the changes necessary to avoid disaster; THEN it makes strategic sense to let the failure occur on Obama's watch and tag the Left with the disaster.

Not that it matters. Establishment Repubs play rough only with conservatives; they'll roll over and let Obama bitch slap them into ground. Romney will be crushed in the general election.

mjs_pa| 4.11.12 @ 8:35AM

I agree. I hate to make the comparison of being in an "abusive" relationship, but lets face the facts: that's where we find ourselves in.

Also, if the table was turned, and Santorum had won the nomination, all of these RINOs would have taken their money and talents and joined obama in supporting his re-election. We only need to look at how they abandoned Sharron Angle, Joe Miller and Ken Buck in 2010.

Mark MacInnis| 4.11.12 @ 9:14AM

I don't accept the premise that Romney is an unacceptable president. The leadership will come from the House (Ryan!) and the new Senate, if we hang together. I have said it before, and I'll say it again. It matters LESS that we have a true conservative in the White House than that we KEEP the House and take back the Senate. Romney will sign whatever they put before him.

For all of you who are staunchly opposing a Romney presidency: Pray tell what is your plan to survive a second Obama term? Is Romney an ideal candidate? No. But IF elected, and with a conservative House and Senate, the country will step back from the precipice and have a bit of breathing room.... I would prefer Rick or Newt. The prospect of either of them debating Obama filled me with hopeful glee. But make no mistake, despite my disappointment, I will vote for Romney. I will vote against Obama. I will vote for Republican representation in my house district and in my state for the Senate.

The "because they didn't pick my candidate, I'm gonna take my ball and go home and pout" mentality is one we cannot afford in the battle against Obama and his treason. So, please, I am begging you, on bended knee if necessary: Don't do this. Don't stay home. We need every vote in the Senate, House and Presidential races.....

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:39AM

You RINOs are so full of crap. This whole cycle---and the last one---was all about making sure a conservative didn't get the nomination for you clowns.

Romney is the weakest candidate in the field against Obama---he can't take Obama on where he's weakest, which is Obamacare, the economy, and on his sociopathic love for infanticide that creeps most people out.

Peddling the lie that "Congress will keep him in check" is pathetic---especially since you idiots have been undermining every weak-tea effort in Congress to fight Obama. You didn't want to fight on the budget. You didn't want to fight on the CR. You didn't want to fight on the debt ceiling. You don't want to repeal Obamacare.

And after an entire primary cycle sliming conservatives in the most dishonest and public fashion possible, now you come demand we vote for you?

You know where you can shove it, pal.

Pistol Pete| 4.11.12 @ 12:27PM

Well, if you're so right, then why didn't your favored candidate(s) win the nomination? It's because, no matter how righteous you believe your views are, clearly the majority of the Republican primary voters, never mind the general electorate, simply don't agree with you. Win the nomination, or the general election, and I'll be right there with you. Until then, I'll stay right here - in the land of reality.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:47PM

1) the primary schedule packed blue states upfront. Look at Romney's wins.
2) the money was split among several Not Romneys and Romney pissed away millions in negative ads against conservatives
3) Democrats voted in open primaries for Romney because he's the weakest candidate against Obama.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:47PM

Blah-blah-blah-blah...It's all a "conspiracy...blah-blah-blah...

Romney was NEVER my first choice. In fact, he wasn't even second or third.

But he won the nomination. That's life.

It's not always "fixed" when your guy loses.

Grow up.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 2:04PM

Empty chick emotion in response to facts.

As usual.

Go change your panties.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 4:05PM

BWAH-HAH-HAH!!!

The blubbering school-girl who's taking her dolls home to play by herself accuses someone else of being "a chick"!!!

You're funny, Barbie...

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 5:48PM

You're the one voting for a doll, dummy.

Dressing him up like Reagan only makes you---and him---look ridiculous.

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 1:55AM

Win the nomination all you want. Obomney will not win in Nov. He can't. He's a losing ticket.

Splat| 4.11.12 @ 10:17AM

Don't stay home. We need every vote in the Senate, House and Presidential races.....

NOT true. The GOP has repeatedly denigrated conservatives and considers us an embarrassment to their 'enlightened' policies. Since conservatives are such a burden to the GOP, I will do the right thing and not make the GOP's job any harder by supporting them. Thus, I'm sitting this one out. Besides, there are more moderates and independents to get votes from.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:23AM

You should become an independent, Splat. My wife and I did yesterday; it's going to be wonderful to suddenly have our votes desired, not to mention the immediate increase in our wisdom and intellect in the eyes of the punditry.

Kaminsky, come shine my shoes. I'm an Independent now and I want to see you beg for my vote.

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 10:50AM

Welcome to our side. I have been an independent since Nixon. I will vote for the occasional conservative Republican like Reagan, but I have a simple rule. Only vote for conservatives. Without our votes RINOS would be Democrats. Then we would have a true 2 party system. As it is now, the GOP is too busy running interference for the Democrats.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 11:48AM

I would be independent except that I want to be able to participate in the caucus process here.

As for your shoes, I doubt they're worth shining.

But seriously, and I'm done sinking to your name-calling level, this is not about me wanting your vote.

This is about you, Romney, and Obama, and you have to make your own decision.

What I think about your vote is not (and should not be) any more important to you than your opinion of my vote is to me.

And for the record, it is possible that I won't vote for Romney if he can't make a case that he deserves to be president for any reason other than to get rid of Obama.

If he sounds like he'll be as bad as W, I'd rather try to survive Obama (or leave the country) than support the total destruction of the GOP brand.

And that's not because I love the GOP (I think we're all clear on my views there), but because the Democrats are a lost cause and the GOP is, unfortunately, the only realistic hope to return this country even slightly toward abiding by the constitution. THAT is my highest priority.

Can we call a truce on the name-calling? Anyway, I'm willing to unilaterally disarm on that one since acting like you probably damages my credibility.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:17PM

Don't bother; they're falling on their proverbial swords because so they can bask in their self-images as "men of convictions", when in fact, they have no convictions at all save their own selfish feelings.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:10PM

Sure---but you'd have more credibility if you didn't tag it with "since acting like you probably damages my credibility".

I like my aggression straight up, not passive, myself.

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 10:41PM

Well with the success of the incessant call for Santorum to drop out of the race, there was no chance to vote for him anyway.

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 1:58AM

Well said Teflon. The fact of the matter is that Obomney has painted himself into the corner of having to pander to the "middle 20%".........AND conservatives. I'm not becoming an Ind but I am demanding Obomney supporters suck my cock at least verbally because he needs EVERY vote to win......and that is probably not enough.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:18PM

"THEN it makes strategic sense to let the failure occur on Obama's watch and tag the Left with the disaster."

That has to be one of the STUPIDEST posts I've ever read.

Your contention is basically that the country should collapse just to prove the point that leftism doesn't work???

WHAT?!?!?

Did it ever occur to you that the country as we know it - or wish it to be - might not survive if it collapses???

Or that millions of people will suffer needless hardship???

And even putting ALL that aside...what makes you think the Left would ever be held accountable for their crimes?? By whom, exactly??? The media???

Dream on.

You're not "thinking a few moves ahead." You're talking out of your ass.

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 10:43PM

So you would rather have us fail under Romney?

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 8:28AM

Deal----so long as we never hear from you MittBots again.

Appleby| 4.11.12 @ 8:32AM

Ditto. And when you start wailing that Mitt didn't deliver what you imagined he would deliver, but instead has simply created another Imperial Presidency, be prepared for a loud chorus of We Told You So. I spent the whole of Jimmy Carter's presidency apologizing to my international friends about him and reminding my American friends that I did not vote for him and they did. I'm ready for Round 2.

Skippy| 4.11.12 @ 3:00PM

"Thanks for that!"
BHO

Craig| 4.11.12 @ 11:37AM

A far more accurate way to put your argument is to state that having to only eat half a fecal matter sandwich is better than having to eat a whole one. While some may believe that, others would prefer to starve. We know it will hurt, but we also know that if we don't take a stand and refuse to eat now, fecal matter sandwiches will continue to be proffered for ever more.

Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:47PM

As Patton said, "better a good plan violently executed now, than a perfect plan too late."

Clint| 4.11.12 @ 6:18PM

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

SaintVince| 4.11.12 @ 11:46PM

Stewy, the point is that half a loaf is not good enough. And Obomney is half a loaf. "Good enough" is not good enough this time. We need a R nominee that is a stark contrast becasue half-way good enough of a half loaf is just going to slow the train down, not halt it from going off the cliff. In this case "good enough" is the enemy of what our country needs.

W| 4.11.12 @ 9:01AM

I agree with Stuart.

You want Obama to win so our country crashes and then maybe have a right wing revolution?
Anyone who wants Obama to win for any reason is not a serious person.
If you cannot tell the difference between Obama and Romney, or any other Republican, then you have nothing to add.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:27AM

Romney isn't "any other Republican"---he is a liberal.

You people haven't done the most basic homework on the guy.

In his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

W| 4.11.12 @ 12:48PM

Romney will work to cut taxes, reduce the deficit, allow for drilling of oil, appoint conservative judges, and not increase the nanny state. And we won't have the class warfare and racial warfare language daily from Romney. And no Michelle telling us what to eat. That along should convince you!
You are ready to accept the reality of four more years of Obama, knowing what he had done the past four years, because you believe Romney may be liberal? Obama appointed Kagan and Sototmayor, are you willing to accept Justice Holder and Justice Sebellius for the next 20 years?
Your candidate lost. My candidate lost to McCain and I voted for McCain, who irritates me to no end, but he is 1000% better than Obama
Teflon, from your past comments you strike me as a serious, intelligent person. I do not believe you will not vote for Romney and and give Obama a two vote edge.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:56PM

So you say, but he hasn't done any of that. He raised taxes ("fees") in Mass, he gave the Nanny State it's biggest shot in the arm thru Romneycare (after we'd killed ClintonCare dead with Harry and Louise), he appointed liberal judges, he embraced Cap N Trade.

C'mon, W---you're sharp and principled; do you utterly discount Romney's actual statements and record? Why are you convinced he's done an about-face?

W| 4.11.12 @ 1:25PM

Teflon,
Romney wants to win and be a two term president. Therefore he has to govern as a conservative
Republican, otherwise, if he raises taxes like
Bush 41 he will be a one termer.
The argument you have is that Romney may not be conservative enough for you. I understand that. But there is no question about how Obama has governed and will govern if re-elected. Obama has been awful for conservatives knowing he had to run again in 2012, think how worse he will be in the next four years with no restraints that he has to run again? Romney may be too liberal or moderate for you, but I guarantee you that Obama will be not liberal or moderate but a hard core lefty totalitarian socialist. Not ever a close call.

Even if we have a Republican Congress, Obama will veto any bill he does not like, such as repeal of Obamacare. We will not have 67 votes in the Senate to override any veto.

If Obama wins, Obamacare is here to stay and will never be repealed. Just like Carter's Energy Dept and Education Dept. Do you think Ford, a moderate, would have created two useless Cabinet depts like Energy and Education? Education was Carter's payback to the teachers' unions.

If Obama wins, the lefties will control the Supreme Court for the next 20 years with Kagan, Sotomayor, Justice Eric Holder, and Justice Sebellious.

I would vote for any Republican, Newt, Romney, Santorum, Cain, etc. instead of Obama.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:38PM

No, my argument---and the evidence bears it out---is that Romney is a LIBERAL.

And as a liberal he believes that governing left will get him reelected.

That's why he didn't tack right at all during the primary. And why he has no conservative advisors.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:39PM

And Romney nominated liberal judges. Go look it up.

W| 4.11.12 @ 2:03PM

All the judges and most lawyers in Mass are probably liberal. And Romney was dealing with a legislature controlled by the Democrats at about 80%.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 2:05PM

Yeah, and what do you think his excuse will be in Washington?

He served one term in Mass and ran away from Deval Patrick like a little girl.

Skippy| 4.11.12 @ 3:01PM

"Thanks for that!"
BHO

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:18PM

Hey, I can cost Romney another vote by voting for BHO. And hasten the odds of a conservative in the White House by 4 years.

How do you like that, genius?

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 4:09PM

You're an idiot living in a fantasy world.

The mere idea that 4 more years of Obama will usher in a new era of Conservative Goodness is stupid beyond words.

If Obama's first four years of disaster didn't wake the public from their reality-TV-induced stupor, what makes you think that the next 4 years will, dumbass???

Especially if Obama has free reign to implement ObamaCare, appoint literally hundreds of judges, institute cap-n-trade, etc, etc, etc..????

Seriously...you are too moronic for words. You have a child's understanding of politics and the world.

Please take your dimwitted half-thoughts somewhere else...like nickelodian.com?

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:48PM

It's precisely what happened after Carter's victory in 1976.

But you are a fool.

SeymourGlass| 4.11.12 @ 5:53PM

The Yankees also won the series, TWICE, soon after Carter's victory.

Will this also happen?

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 6:21PM

Sure---so long as Romney doesn't seek to socialize baseball.

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.11.12 @ 11:51PM

Right on Teflon. These Obomney cats are twisting themselves in KNOTS trying to look past the facts (blah blah governed in 80% Democratic state, blah blah) and looking past major issue positions that he championed from the same side as Obama. Nice work with the arguement.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:20PM

What makes people think that if the country collapses there would be a right-wing revolution????

More likely, Obama and the left would use it as an excuse to seize total power.

Ever hear of "the Soviet Union"??

W| 4.11.12 @ 1:27PM

Obama, as a totalitarian, would welcome it so he could impose more control.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:49PM

Exactly.

Either that, or you can exist in a fantasy-world where all those on the left suddenly realize the error of their ways and become torch-bearers for Conservatism is a re-born America.

BarocheDique | 4.11.12 @ 9:55AM

You people are absolute morons. You really claim to answer to a 'higher power' and believe that four more years of Obama is the price to pay for your guy not getting the nomination? Really? Its people like you APPLEBY that will be the downfall of freedom and liberty in America. This is not a game or a joke and if you actually do sit out and allow this abomination of filth to get four more years to complete his destruction, then I say you are just as much an enemy of the people as he is, for allowing it to happen when you could have acted and stopped it. You make me sick.

splat| 4.11.12 @ 10:24AM

WRONG Baroche. The GOP doesn't need conservatives because they have more moderate voters than there are conservatives. The GOP has made it clear that they hate conservatives and wish we weren't around. We are just giving the GOP what they want- no conservative voters to tarnish the party further.

Skippy| 4.11.12 @ 3:12PM

"Absolutely right!"
BHO

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.11.12 @ 11:54PM

Splat, exactly correct. What? You're not going to "get in line" and vote for the "R" canidate regardless of how he got nominated or what he stands for? What? You actually THINK about your vote and don't just accept the sh!tpile the Republican establishment pays to get put on the ballot?

Peppermint Tea| 4.11.12 @ 11:50AM

Didn't the whole dog-on-the-stationwagen show us that Mitt is one of us?
Welcome Mitt! says Redneck America.

richard ryan| 4.11.12 @ 12:11PM

I would much rather see a solid conservative in the White House. But we now have a choice between collapse or reform. We have representative government, but that does not guarantee we always get the guy that matches our philosophy 100%. I can see sitting out an election on principle 20 yrs ago, but in 2012 our very way of life is at stake. If you prefer revolution to the steady but sure return to sanity that Romney/Ryan budget discipline will provide, good luck sir. Total economic collapse may lead to change, but I don't think it would be the type of change you envision.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 7:29PM

It's collapse and Democrats get blamed or collapse and Republicans get blamed. There is no Reform choice---Romney is no reformer and never has been.

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.11.12 @ 11:56PM

Hear, Hear Teflon. There is a false arguement throughout that says that somehow Obomney will turn this mess around. HE HAS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED THAT HE HAS NO INTENTION OF DOING THAT. He will only manage the decay.

Skippy| 4.11.12 @ 2:57PM

As a Canuck, will you be voting at all?

John - TMF| 4.11.12 @ 7:59AM

I have no desire to see a Liberal Democrat elected.

by either party.

Willard Milton Romney is a Limousine Liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican; therefore I WILL NOT vote for him, EVER!

I will either abstain or write in a responsible Conservative candidate for the Presidency. I will have choices for the House and Senate thankfully.

The New Federalist Party has a nice ring to it.

r/TMF

Stuart Koehl| 4.11.12 @ 8:02AM

Yet another self-destructive idiot.

John - TMF| 4.11.12 @ 8:19AM

No Stuart, The GOP self destructed when they chose to nominate a Liberal.

I have held my nose and been played for a chump long enough. I will vote for Keith Fimian and George Allen in the Primary. I will repeat that in the General election.

Stuart, we have rarely disagreed, and when we have it's been polite. This is the first time you have called me a name. Romney sure is a uniting factor [/sarc off]

I have been clear in my reasoning and plain about what I expected. Romney is such a poor choice, he is no choice. For Conservatives to again be maneuvered into voting against their interests is most disappointing.

I am not going to be Nixon's buttboy "no where else to go" voter.

I have been presented with no choice, a Liberal Democrat versus a "Liberal Democrat". The nation will chose a Liberal Democrat every time.

The Establishment fix is in, and I am no longer going to be a party to it.

-John - TMF

W| 4.11.12 @ 9:03AM

Another Obama voter.
You post every day to tell us how principled your are and therefore cannot vote for Romney but you will allow a socialist to win.

John - TMF| 4.11.12 @ 9:27AM

So you allow a fascist to win instead? Even Goldberg over at National Romney Online is starting to get nervous. Romney's last little speech sounded more like that old fashioned Government-Business Partnership gig.

I abstain. I am a Conservative, I am no longer a Republican. I will vote for Republican candidates if they espouse Conservative values. If not, until a viable conservative party alternative grows from the ashes of this disaster, I will remain an independent.

I will write in either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum (probably Rick Santorum because he's a class act.)

I will vote for Fimian and Allen. And then I will pray that we survive the next four years.

One thing that I am positive of is that IF (big if) Romney gets elected; Conservatives who held their noses and listened to their fears to vote against a bugbear will end up disappointed. Romney's will revert to form and toe the Liberal line... look for tax increases, global warming, gun control... liberal judges... Just like he did in the PRM. He's Nanny Bloomberg with better hair and the same keys to the same Country Club wash room.

And what did you think that I meant by pledging to never vote for Romney? That it was some sort of ruse? Or that I was going to "change" my mind because I was called so many names that I just had to jump on the anti-Obummer Gremlin being towed by Mittster's AMC Pacer campaign?

I keep my word... unlike Romney who will tell anybody anything to get what he wants.

I'm watching this train wreck from the sidelines...

If Romney wins, and by 2015 he's governing as a severe conservative... well I'll admit I was wrong. Somehow I really don't think that it will be necessary, though.

Peace, Love, and Bobby Sherman,

TMF

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 11:06AM

Well said!

As much as Kaminsky and his fellow MittBots want to claim this is sour grapes of the moment, many conservatives have been saying this since the beginning of the primary. It is a matter of principle, not pique.

During this primary, I supported fully half the Republican field---Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, and Perry. The MittBots supported Romney---period---all while claiming I and other conservatives were "purists". It is to laugh.

The RINO Establishment embraced Romney at the very beginning of the campaign---laughably insisting the primary was over before a single ballot had been cast. They are drones.

Now, some principled conservatives will support Romney hoping against hope that he'll be better than Obama, or (delusionally) that Tammy Faye Boehner will "keep him honest". You can tell them from the MittBots because they aren't the ones demanding other conservatives do the same---they recognize a vote for Romney as a deeply-troubling prospect for conservatism. I disagree with them, but have no quarrel with them.

The FauxCons, the MittBots, the RINOs---all one big happy family of weasels, Quislings, and backbiters---need to be purged from the GOP if it is to survive. I don't think it will---I think the Republican Party no longer has any core principle save lust for power and thus has nothing to say on the great issues of our day beyond "Me Too" to the Democrats. It needs to go the way of the Whigs.

And the Tea Party needs to replace it outright.

W| 4.11.12 @ 12:50PM

Romney a fascist??
That proves beyond any doubt you are a lefty Democrat.
Whenever one of you lefties have no argument, call the other a fascist.
If you really had any principles you would just admit you are an Obama voter.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:28AM

Romney is a socialist---that's what drafting, implementing, and defending socialized medicine makes you.

This election is now socialist v. socialist.

You MittBots can piss off. You got your socialist candidate; now try and get conservatives to vote for the guy.

Skippy| 4.11.12 @ 3:13PM

"Absolutely right!"
BHO

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:19PM

Well, he's got my vote now.

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 12:00AM

W, you don't know what "principle" is. You CERTAINLY must not have conservative priciples because if you do...you are having to twist your sh!t in knots trying to justify voting for Obomney. Accusing someone else of being unprincipled and an Obama supporter because they will not vote for a liberal democrat in Obomney is rediculous.

W| 4.12.12 @ 12:45PM

Another Obama troll.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:21PM

...But he's standing on "principle"!!!!

Kitty | 4.11.12 @ 8:03AM

Yes, it's true that Romney's ruthless, aggressive tactics helped get him this far in the nomination. But don't forget he had the full backing of the GOP elites, and he enjoyed a fairly compliant media for a while.

You say you take Romney at his word that lessons from politics, business, and daily life have caused him to become more conservative over time. Then you turn right around and admit (with a straight face?), He needs to show more commitment to conservative principles, particularly in terms of economics... That's exactly why some of us can't trust Romney, why we consider him just another RINO who will say anything to get elected. And guess what?

We were burned in '08 and it looks like once again we'll have to suck it up and pull the lever for another flip-flopping RINO.

As to the Republican Party, they can go to....

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 10:53AM

That compliant media (just compare the treatment of Romney to Bachmann for example) was the tip off that the fix was in for Romney.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 11:09AM

Did you notice, Pete, that no sooner did Santorum withdraw than Andrea Mitchell announced she is investigating LDS' history on race relations?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s.....w-it-deals

Precisely as many a conservative predicted would happen.

It's the McCain playbook all over again.

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 12:07AM

Teflon, again, superb work. I could care less what Obomney's religion is. Obomney supporters continued to talk about Obomney being "the only one who can win against Obama," but during the primary it was "ludicrous" to examine the effect Mormonism will have on the phyche of the voter. It was OFF LIMITS to suggest that we examine how Mormonism will be negatively protrayed and thus make Obomney "unelectable." SURPRISE! Democrats and the Democrat media will not make Obomney's religion "off limits." McCain-type losing proposition.......again. We can not learn, we can not learn, we can not learn, we can not learn, we can not learn, we can not learn.....

W| 4.12.12 @ 12:46PM

Another Obama troll.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 8:07AM

We now have "Progressive (R)" vs. "PROGRESSIVE (D)."

Yes, I will vote for the lesser of two evils on election day, but won't lift a finger nor donate a dime to help Romney / the Ruling Class Republicans.

The GOP hasn't nominated a conservative since 1984, nearly 30 years. I'm sick of the Ruling Class playing us into voting for the lesser of two evils (who generally go on to lose anyway), and were Obama not such an existential threat to this country I'd be inclined to stop playing their game and stay home.

Romney, like all moderate / establishment / Ruling Class Republicans won't undo what Obama has built, he'll merely be a good steward of it until the next Democrat President comes into office to recommence another "great leap forward."

With the nomination of Romney this will not be "an historic election" -- the 100 year Progressive agenda of eroding our Republic and Constitution, which began in earnest 100 years ago with the 1912 election of Woodrow Wilson, will continue "business as usual."

Unfortunately we're rapidly approaching the "tipping point" of irreversibility (if we have not already passed it).

If it is possible to puke in heaven, the Founding Fathers must surely be doing so now.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 8:32AM

And note this is after 2008, when the phony RINO "electability" meme was completely debunked when their perfect candidate got whipped by an inexperienced Marxist extremist, and after 2010, when the Tea Party drove the most historic Congressional turnaround since 1948, beating even the earthquake of 1994.

Instead, Kaminsky and his prissy little Establishment GOP girls put the fix in to make sure a conservative never got the nomination. Wasn't hard to do---they just rang up their Ruling Class friends to endorse Little Lord MittleRoy and pursued a primary schedule front loaded with brie-eating states like the ones in which they reside.

Meanwhile, the South---which the GOP MUST win to win the presidency---is solid no longer.

Time for a Tea Party.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 8:27AM

Yes, really. I filled out my voter registration change form yesterday and mail it today along with my wife's. That's two fewer votes in crucial NC---a must-win state for the GOP---and all because RINOs like Kaminsky stabbed conservatives in the back two election cycles in a row.

And why did they do it?

Because they'd rather have a 2nd Obama term than a social conservative in the White House.

Screw you, Kaminsky.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 9:49AM

Thanks for being my point.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:51AM

Good luck replacing our votes, you FauxCon whore.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 10:39AM

Good luck living under another term of Obama, blowhard.

By the way, how did I "stab conservatives in the back", especially in 2008? I didn't support McCain.

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 10:54AM

If we do, it will be the fault of those pushing Romney on us.

Skippy| 4.11.12 @ 3:14PM

"Absolutely right!"
BHO

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 11:15AM

Good luck getting your reputation back on the right, you RINO weasel.

Speaking of 2008, let's hear Kaminsky in his own words (http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/responding_to_rusty_about_mccain):

"I am not a "good Republican" in the sense of supporting the party blindly. My interest is in good government. I believe the GOP may be capable of it. I believe the Democrats are incapable of it. If the GOP nominates a candidate who is just barely better than a Democrat, if you adjust for expectations he's actually a lot worse than the Democrat.

And, as I said the "cap and trade" issue is truly huge. It's the biggest threat to the American economy in my lifetime...maybe in the nation's history. And I don't believe I'm exaggerating. If McCain is President, cap and trade will definitely pass. If a Democrat is President, maybe enough Republicans will stand up against it to either keep it from passing or at least to get it changed to a less malignant form of cancer...something which a cure may be found for before it kills us, a cure like another Reagan Revolution after 4 years of a President Obama or President Hillary.

Don't forget, with all of McCain's talk about "reaching across the aisle to get things done", that bipartisanship in Washington means conservatives voting for big-government liberal bills, such as increasing SCHIP, or the Farm Bill, or the Highway Bill. It's never liberals crossing the aisle to vote for liberty, limited government, or free markets. So, in my view bipartisanship is not only over-rated, it's generally dangerous. The last thing this country needs is a "bipartisan maverick Republican". It just means he'll sell us completely down the river, just as he did already with McCain-Feingold and as he tried to do with McCain-Kennedy (immigration) and as he's trying to do with McCain-Lieberman ("climate"). He's a megalomaniac, he's dangerous, and even though he's definitely better than either Democrat, I still kinda hope he loses.

I thought George W. Bush was better, on paper, before his first election than John McCain is now. Much better. And I voted Libertarian in that election; I've never voted for W. If I couldn't vote for W because he wasn't solid enough on fundamental American principles, then I certainly can't support John McCain."

So let's see, while conservatives held their noses and voted for W twice and McCain once, Mr Line Up and Shake Hands was preaching a very different line just 4 years ago.

No wonder you love the Flip-Flopper.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 11:22AM

You miss the point even when it's right in front of you.

I didn't support McCain because he was many of the things that people claim of Romney now. My take was that we would get cap-and-trade with McCain, which would have been even worse than Obamacare.

But now we've been through four years of Obama and the country has been awakened to the danger of "Progressives." I don't think we can go another 4 years with this president and survive relatively unharmed.

So, while Romney was something like my 3rd or 4th choice in 2008, I am far more motivated to beat Obama than by anything else in politics.

And for the record, I didn't mind that Obama won in 2008 because I believe we're living Atlas Shrugged and I think it took something like Obama to wake up the nation rather than more "boiling the frog."

I don't like Romney a lot more than you do, but at this point I'm not willing to hand the White House back to Obama because we have a less than perfect candidate.

It is not 2008 anymore.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 11:39AM

No, it isn't---so why are we running the guy who lost to McCain and is using McCain's playbook?

Why have you forgotten 2010 and the tremendous Tea Party victories?

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 11:52AM

Of course I did not forget. I'm much closer to Tea Party views than any other group.

We are running the guy who lost to McCain because he won. He's not my favorite guy any more than he's your favorite guy. After all, on these pages I wrote articles preferring both Pawlenty and (especially) Daniels to Romney.

By the way, I hardly think I'm a "MittBot", the latest evidence being that I dedicated a paragraph in today's article to Romney's flaws.

You seem to think (or at least write) that anyone who disagrees with you is an unthinking robot having his strings pulled by someone else.

It's an intellectually dishonest way to argue, and you will note that I have never said that you or other Santorum supporters are "robots", with all the connotations of that description.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:05PM

No, you say we're "injured", "taking our marbles and going home", "willing to sacrifice the country", etc.

But hey, who's being dishonest, right?

You've stated when pressed you oppose Santorum because you don't want a social conservative on the ticket.

That's enough to overcome that whopping few sentences of "flaws" you've uncovered though, right?

Romney being a liberal, though, is a much bigger problem for conservatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

And it's intellectually dishonest---to say the least---to claim that those of us witholding our votes on principled conservative grounds are "sore losers".

Your strings have been pulled all along---you embraced the phony "electability" meme the RINOs have pushed despite the clear evidence to the contrary in 2008 and 2010---because your disdain for social conservatism made it an attractive narrative.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 12:11PM

I didn't say I don't want a social conservative on the ticket. I said I didn't like Santorum's repeated statements implying he would use the federal government to impose his views on social issues on the rest of the nation. There's a very big difference.

And I did not say "sore loser" in my article!

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:33PM

No, you said it in your comments: "MJS, I never said that most Santorum supporters are "sore losers", but you can see in these comments that many are."

C'mon, man---be HONEST. You can MittBot around all you like but denying what you say and believe when it's black and white in the comments is pretty weak.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 1:06PM

Also, I didn't say you were doing the things you named in your first paragraph above. I said that was the choice you had to make.

As far as "injured", why wouldn't you be? That was not an insult.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:45PM

C'mon, Kaminsky---you wonder why conservatives think Romney's used car salesman sliminess has rubbed off on you?

I'm not "injured". In fact, on the very night we won those 2010 elections I said, "No worries---we've got two years to screw this up and run a RINO". It's not a surprise and the GOP implosion probably hurts you more than it does me. It's not my party anymore.

And "that was the choice you had to make" doesn't ameliorate the nonsense proposition that we who are refusing to exercise our franchise---one many of us served in the armed forces to preserve, not incidentally---in protest are "taking our marbles and going home" like petulant children.

Sorry, buddy---with the election down to Socialist A and Socialist B, I can't vote for either. and I voted for McCain last time around.

There are many of us doing the same---and I don't hear a single one doing so because "THEIR" candidate didn't win.

What I do hear is a lot of MittBots demanding we support THEIR candidate despite the sleazy campaign he's run and his leftist governing record.

You might want to think about that a bit before the next article.

Kitty | 4.11.12 @ 12:13PM

I think it took something like Obama to wake up the nation rather than more "boiling the frog."

But isn't that what we've got now? Look, I agree with you that we should vote for the "R" guy. But it seems like we haven't made much progress at all, and I blame the GOP elites for that. From the beginning, they foisted this guy on us and tagged him the most electable. And let's not forget front-loading the primaries. I feel like I'm fighting the GOP along with the Dems. And should Romney lose in Nov., we not-Romney people will get blamed.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:57PM

We already are. It's the same playbook as McCain ran in 2008.

It's always the same self-serving playbook.

Kitty | 4.11.12 @ 1:14PM

Correction: Isn't that (the boiling frog) what we'll have with Romney?

Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:49PM

Hey, I like you, Landtzman, Ross. Takes a lot to piss me off. Let's see...calling me a Nazi (Reid Smith) or being Clint or Jack, I suppose.

Guys, not to put too fine a point on this, but Obama is Satan. Really, Satan. Is Romney Satan?

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:23PM

Teflon93 is a "Father Coughlin Catholic".

When he says "RINOs like Kaminsky", what he really means is "damned Jews."

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 2:07PM

Teflon93 is a "Fulton Sheen Catholic".

When he says "RINOs like Kaminsky", he means "Kaminskyite RINOs".

I'd guess Kaminsky is actually Polish. You do realize most Poles are Catholic, right, Dr Wrong?

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 4:13PM

Actually, there were a lot of Jews in Poland before WWII.

But those "mostly Catholic" Poles turned them over to the NAZIs, so now there's a lot less.

And where was Bishop Charlie Sheen on this??

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:50PM

Your assumption is that Kaminsky is Jewish.

How do you know what his faith is, if any? I don't recall him so indicating---which of course puts a large hole in you're "I hate Kaminsky because he's Jewish"" theory.

Those Poles were too busy eking out lives in the ghettos the Soviets and Nazis herded them into. Go look up Katyn Forest Massacre, you dimwitted ignorant troll.

Clint| 4.11.12 @ 8:09PM

American Spectator's Resident Lapsed Catholic Turned Ax Grinding Anti-Catholic Bigot Doesn't Mention The 3 million Polish Catholics ,Who were killed in those Nazi concentration camps

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:10PM

That moron had no idea Poland was a Catholic country, Clint.

mjs_pa| 4.11.12 @ 8:27AM

First the republican establishment tells us our votes are "insignificant" and now "conservative" media tells us we are sore losers. Wow! just....Wow!

It might be hard to believe, but given two bad choices sometimes it's just better to say no to both. Obama can only be in for four more years...romney 8. Just on a time basis alone, we're better off with obama.

As for the Rasmussen Poll you quote, Santorum after being beat up by romney and the media for months now is only a few points down....all within the margin of error. So no romney is not the most electable and this falls debacle will prove me right.

Don't blame people of good will, with good hearts, and who love their country for the situation we now find ourselves in.

The reason we have an election (if you can even call it that anymore) is that no matter how insignificant a persons vote may be, they get to cast it based upon their own reasoning. Conservatives, especially social conservatives, told romney "hands off" when it came to Rick Santorum. He chose to carpet bomb our part of the party. Let him live with the consequences of his decisions.

No one would rather see obama out of office more than I, but the only way to clean house in D.C. GOP circles is to purge them all and start over again. As it appears the true colors of many "conservatives" has been exposed, I can't even think of one republican who doesn't deserve to be part of the purge.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 11:22AM

MJS, I never said that most Santorum supporters are "sore losers", but you can see in these comments that many are.

Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:51PM

Hey, I voted for Santorum in TWO caucuses, was going to be his precinct captain, and donated a hundred bucks to him.

I'm voting for Romney, now. Please. Does anyone think a RomneyCare would pass House or Senate today? Do you think Mitt is a moron?

Clint| 4.11.12 @ 6:23PM

Tool Job's The RINO-CINO ,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman,Mittens Romney, Back In June.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 8:35AM

It nice to hear the losing team complain they got bad calls from the referees. It happens in football, basketball and politics.

Some of the comments above are pretty funny if not outright hilarious.

They gloss over the fact that Santorum tried to pass himself off as a conservative and that was easy to disprove. If you want to claim something, make sure it has some basis in fact.

As far as those who claim it might be better to have Obama in office for four more years that's beyond ludicrous. It will lead to a Hillary Clinton or worse.

Be short sighted all you want but quit complaining.

You backed a loser and if that makes you bitter it's probably because you're a loser too.

Will Not Vote For Rmoney| 4.11.12 @ 9:03AM

Please explain how you are helping your candidate by calling those who didn't want him names. Don't cry when BHO wins his second term. you made it possible.

W| 4.11.12 @ 9:04AM

Another Obama voter polluting this site.

Will Not Vote For Rmoney| 4.11.12 @ 9:16AM

No buddy, you will elect BHO for a second term for following the pied piper known as the GOP Establishment. There is a huge difference between conservatism & the GOP. They are not the same & RINOism will elect liberal Democrats every time. Liberals will choose Democrats over the Republican Democrat-lite version every time. Barack Obama is just a man. He is asymptom of the nation's problems. The GOP nominee has stood for & may still stand for many of the same things Barack Obama does. You keep on listening to the pied piper's tune though. When BHO is sworn in for his second term blame yourself. The Establishment of The GOP know how to manipulate you just like pawns on a chessboard.

W| 4.11.12 @ 10:36PM

You just proved you are another Obama fool troll. You all keep repeating like zombies the same lines spoon fed to you. Get a life, buddy.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 9:14AM

To: Will Not Vote For Romney

You are surely simple minded.

If someone loses they are a loser. That's not calling them a name. That's stating a fact.

If you back a loser you become a loser too because you made a bad choice.

As far as the big O winning a second term, it's the people who whine when their team lost that will make that possible. That would be you. That won't be me because I can pick a winner.

Will Not Vote For Rmoney| 4.11.12 @ 9:17AM

We'll see the day after election day.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 9:19AM

No, we are seeing who is the loser now. Santorum lost. And that was after many elections.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:41AM

Hey genius---how much do you want to bet on this election?

I can use the cash to refresh my Burke library.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 9:50AM

If you had any cash your Burke library would already be refreshed.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:54AM

Put your money where your mouth is, weak cheese. It'll be a refreshing break from me having to pay for your food stamps.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 12:34PM

If I am on food stamps wouldn't that make you a moron for wanting to place a bet with me? Just asking.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:58PM

Nah, you can buy my "Reflections on the Revolution in France" just fine with a food stamp debit card.

Or trade some Colt 45 for it.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 4:14PM

No, because he's already a moron.

In fact, I'm starting to think that Teflon93 and Clint are the same person.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:51PM

Yeah---like you and this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....HmvkRoEowc

Clint| 4.11.12 @ 8:23PM

Dr.Reich Is The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooge ,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney Weeks Ago.

We Are Being Set Up By RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 10:10PM

Dumb-da-dumb-DUMB!

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:30AM

Romney in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

Get used to it---you'll be seeing a lot of it while Axelrod mops the floor with Your Man Mitt.

Don't forget---Mittens got whupped by John McClame last time around. You're kidding yourself if you think he's an electoral powerhouse---the clowns only one 1 election in his life.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 9:51AM

Like losers everywhere proclaim, "It can't be done!"

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:55AM

It hasn't ever been done:

McCain 2008
Dole 1996
Bush 1992
Ford 1976

Where are the great RINO wins, B-HO?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 12:33PM

Bush 88 and Bush 2000/2004 just for the most recent. Reagan talked good but in essence expanded federal power and spending.

Let me turn the question on you. Where were the conservatives? There haven't been any.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:00PM

Sure---Reagan 80 and 88, two landslides.

Bush 88 Bush ran as Reagan's third term.

Nixon 68 and 72 were the Silent Majority elections where he ran as a conservative---two landslides.

Bush II ran as a "compassionate conservative"---and lost the popular vote the 1st time, barely won it the second time.

You see the point.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 2:44PM

That's a ridiculous response since Reagan's second term was no more conservative than his first. His tax increases dwarfed his tax cuts.

As far as Nixon he started the EPA which is doing everything possible to destroy America.

Perhaps you need to learn how to read.

I asked for someone who actually practiced conservatism. So far you haven't named any.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:20PM

Oh, you mean the tax increase that Bob Dole demanded because he claimed the Democrats would offer up spending cuts at a 3:1 ratio? You truly are an idiot.

Ronald Reagan, you dumb ass. Go ask the Russians how conservative he was. We'll wait.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 4:00PM

Since George H.W. Bush was the President when the Berlin Wall fell perhaps you're the dumbass. So Reagan was a conservative with the military? Is that your stance? Well most Presidents are so how does that cure the huge domestic budgets which have run out of control for decades including when Reagan was president.

As far as Reagan causing the fall of Communism that's a simplistic notion and is misleading. Reagan only kicked the props out of a system that had been collapsing for years.

All the Reagan prognosticators forget that he was anti-nuclear (Same as Obama I might add).

In the meantime where is the real Reagan conservatism? It won't be found on the domestic side.

In fact, on the domestic side you can make a good case that Clinton passed more conservative legislation than most Republican presidents.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:32PM

In 1989? That was a helluva first 10 months in office, genius.

Since you're an historical illiterate, let me wise you up:

What Reagan did---with his allies Thatcher and Pope John Paul II---was demonstrate that he was utterly committed to defeating the Soviets. The 400 ship Navy was part of this. The restoration of the rest of the armed forces another. The global mission evidenced by Grenada and various Middle Eastern initiatives, in addition to arming the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, in addition to the support for the contras in Nicaragua, made very clear containment was no longer the objective. The final nail in the coffin was SDI, as the Soviets realized a) when Americans say they will do something they will and b) Reagan's booming economy meant he could go all in while the Russians couldn't possibly keep up.

Reagan wasn't anti-nuclear but anti-communist. There's a big difference which obviously eludes a moral midget with Stalin as a moniker.

You'll recall Reagan walked out at Reykjavik over SDI. Or you won't.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.11.12 @ 5:18PM

Well, I've learned one thing from you. I never knew the Pope commanded armed forces.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 5:50PM

Go Google "Solidarity" and "Lech Walesa", moron.

It was a Catholic movement. The Pope's visit there is what broke Jarusczelski's back.

My God, you people must spend your days watching Olbermann...

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 10:11PM

A "Catholic movement" is when Bishop Sheen moves his bowels...

Mike| 4.11.12 @ 10:51PM

Doctor,
If you want to help Romney, can your anti Catholic bigotry.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.11.12 @ 8:37AM

First, I want to congratulate Rick Santorum on a valiant campaign.

Second, I want to thank each of the candidates that put their name on the chopping block of Republican opinion.

I will be delighted to vote against Obama, and the rest of you better get your heads out of your butt.

Drunken Sailor| 4.11.12 @ 12:13PM

Dittos Ken,

While Romney is not my choice by far and is to liberal for me, he is nowhere near as Liberal as Obama. Those wishing to sit on the sideline simply for the chance to say "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him" are missing big picture.

You can't just sit on the sideline unless you plan on moving to a different country. If you staying here, you will be affected wether you vote or not. IF you think 4 more years of Obama are a positive thing, then you haven't thought things through. Think Obama is bad now? Wait until he has 4 more years with nothing in his way. It will be balls to the wall rush to European Socialism.

Get off your asses and at least take a swing. You'll never improve anything by sitting on the sidelines watching. Romney will reluctantly get my vote.

Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:52PM

My Dear Ken,

and that's why you are the professional writer, and I am not. Jeez, Romney has lots of flaws, but Obama is....

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.11.12 @ 1:16PM

well, Doctor,
you seem to have lost your train of thought, (smile).
"Obama is a disgrace to his oath of office!"

mjs_pa| 4.11.12 @ 8:38AM

BTW, I am not a republican. I am a conservative. There is now little evidence that republicans represent my values anymore than democrats do.

Will Not Vote For Rmoney| 4.11.12 @ 9:06AM

You got it. The Democrat & Republican parties are the two arms of an out of control monster called Big Government.

BarocheDique | 4.11.12 @ 10:09AM

Which you rail against on this site but are willing to burden your children with by not supporting the opposition to tyranny. Take your marbles and go home, cry baby. Just quit bitching if you are out of the fight. I wanted Santorum to defeat Romney, but it didn't work out that way. I will still vote against tyranny in November because I love my children and my country....what's more important to you?

JKS| 4.11.12 @ 10:56AM

The way I see it is a vote for Romney is a vote for tyranny. I have seen nothing that tells me anything else.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:49AM

Indeed, after Tea Party conservatives carried the GOP to their greatest congressional election victory since 1948 just two short years ago, we have been completely betrayed by the RINO-dominated GOP leadership and its pundit arm.

For people who claim it's all about winning, isn't it odd that they don't embrace conservatism given its clear popularity at the ballot box?

Drunken Sailor| 4.11.12 @ 12:17PM

You do realize that Romney has a large Tea Party faction behind him don't you? Like I said he wasn't my first choice but facts are facts.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:01PM

Not really. There are some Tea Partiers but they're all in the Northeast.

Their conservative bona fides are limited to a weak fiscal conservatism accordingly.

The larger Tea Party movement remains southern and western.

martin j smith| 4.11.12 @ 9:07AM

Even Santorum would vote AGAINST Obama .
Not voting STUPID
Voting for Etch a Sketch STRATEGIC SMART MOVE.
Get over the anger and be real --allowing Obama a second or will it be a third term ? Will destroy this country entirely so grow up.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:50AM

And what makes you think Romney won't draw a picture just like Obama on his Etch-A-Sketch?

This is who he is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

Frank Natoli| 4.11.12 @ 9:18AM

Mark Levin, as always, got it right from day one. Romney's record is terrible, but Obama's is infinitely worse, and that makes the choice unambiguous. Conservatives have to hold their noses and vote for Romney.

That said, all this blather about the "Republican Establishment" forcing Romney on "us" is bravo-sierra. No matter how much Romney outspent all his primary opponents, knocking them off one by one, I knew that Romney was no conservative and is no conservative. Nobody knocked on my front door with a special briefing just for me. I took the time to read and enlighten myself.

It wasn't the "Republican Establishment" who forced anybody to do anything. It was willfully lazy Republican primary voters who know not what they've done.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:33AM

No we don't. And you're too ignorant to note the obvious---like looking at the damned primary schedule.

NC is a must-win state for the GOP and there will be no choice for us by May 8th.

Political genius, letting Democrat-dominated states choose the GOP nominee.

That's how you get a RINO in a party dominated by conservatives.

Hold your own damned nose. I gave at the office last time around and vowed I'd never vote for a RINO again.

You and the other whores can do as you please, but don't kid yourselves that you're anything but jersey-wavers.

BarocheDique | 4.11.12 @ 10:11AM

Then live with another obama term (s) and shut up

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:14AM

He can only have one term. You MittBots are Constitutional illiterates.

Drunken Sailor| 4.11.12 @ 12:19PM

"He can only have one term"

Care to explain that since a re-election would be a second term?

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:43PM

Sure---BD said "Then live with another obama term (s)" as though he could have more than one additional term. He can't---2012 is it if he wins.

Larry| 4.11.12 @ 10:04AM

Frank, you ignore the obvious, namely that the Establishment either rolled out the big guns in support of Romney (and against his opponents) or fell silent when they should have spoken against his campaign ethos.

They are as much responsible for this travesty as is Romney. They were/are complicit in his lies.

Frank Natoli| 4.11.12 @ 2:10PM

When you are interested in a product, any product, do you believe what the sellers of the product tell you? Is what they tell you all you need to know? If Ford says that Chevy is a piece of crap, or vice versa, do you conclude, purely on the basis of Ford's assertion, that it must be true?

Of course not. Tell me why people put infinitely more effort into thinking through what car to buy, doing all the relevant research, carefully examining all the criteria, than they do to elect the most powerful man on earth?

Nobody in the "Establishment" got into the voting booth and forced anybody to do anything. Everybody who did so, and pulled the lever for Romney, did so through their fault, through their fault, through their most grievous fault.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:23PM

He hasn't even won a majority of the delegates and you MittBots insisted we rally behind him---Mr Inevitable---before a single ballot had been cast.

How are the wishes of NC voters being gauged when our primary isn't until May 8th and by then Romney will be the only candidate?

And you MUST win NC--- if Obama takes it again, it's game over.

You MittBots are delusional.

Mike| 4.11.12 @ 10:53PM

Teflon,
You seem out of control today. Take a breather, friend. You are not making any sense.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 9:17AM

I'll talk slowly so you can get it then:

1. The GOP nominee cannot win an Electoral College majority without flipping NC and VA from Obama back to the GOP;

2. Doing this requires shifting Blue Dog Democrats----that is, social conservatives who are blue collar workers----to our ticket;

3. Romney is a Northeast metrosexual who appeals not at all to Blue Dog Democrats;

4. Romney therefore will not win in NC and VA;

5. The GOP will lose the election.

This glaring weakness would have been obvious had the RINOs running the GOP not ensured the NC primary was backloaded in the schedule and had they not changed VA primary ballot rules at the 11th hour so that Not Romneys weren't on the Mar 6th ballot there.

Get it?

Mike| 4.12.12 @ 11:52PM

Teflon,
Thanks for talking slowly, that helped. Maybe next you could think in reality, that would also help.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:48AM

Since history apparently just began yesterday, you RINOs don't need to Google what happened to:

McCain 2008
Dole 1996
Bush 1992
Ford 1976

Or as I call it, "Great Moments in Rockefeller Republican History".

Same playbook. Same results.

Political geniuses.

John - TMF| 4.11.12 @ 10:04AM

Nixon in 1960 (not to mention Nixon in 1974 on the way out the door 2 years early)

Dewey in 1944 and 1948

Crowned by the first try at it:

Wilkie in 1940 - Former Democrat "moderate" gets trounced by FDR for an unprecedented 3rd term.

We keep being reminded that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing time and again; expecting different results.

Well we hold these truths to be self-evident...

Obummer is indeed a symptom of a greater problem. Romney is more the rash that accompanies the fever.

We are nearing a century of these political suicide runs.

I had a friend in high school whose father was an Alexandria City police detective. He told us of the story of a man who committed suicide by jamming a Bic pen into the gap between the stall and the door of a public restroom, and then slamming his forehead into the pen, thus driving it into his brain. My friend said what got his old man more than anything was the fact that there were like four or five shattered pens scattered around the floor.

I keep seeing that one in my mind... over and over again.

r/TMF

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:12AM

It's the same failed narrative over and over again.

1. "We must support the most liberal candidate to appeal to moderates/independents/the middle."

2. "The media loves this guy."

3. "His attacks on our party's conservative base just prove he's a fighter."

4. "We must now rally behind our candidate."

5. "Staying home is the same thing as voting for the Democrat."

6. "Sure, he's saying liberal things now, but that's just to get elected."

After the inevitable loss:

7. "It was the conservatives' fault."

BarocheDique | 4.11.12 @ 10:13AM

Thanks to people like you, how about obama 2012?

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:16AM

Y'know, that's looking like a better plan all the time, genius.

Now tell us how Mittie Rich the Poor Little Rich Boy is going to win the Blue Dogs back in NC and VA---especially when those of us who live there consider voting Obama just to hasten the day when we get an honest-to-God conservative on the GOP ticket?

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 2:52AM

Dick, how many effing times do we have to tell you.....when Obama gets elected in Nov, people like you will have no one to blame but yourselves. Obomney will have no one to blame but himself. Teflon laid out the same failed plan above. THE SAME FAILED PLAN, THE SAME FAILED PLAN, THE SAME FAILED PLAN, THE SAME FAILED PLAN. YOU can not figure this cycle out but you have very effectively taken your place in the "blame game" of "the conservatives caused the defeat." Nice work Dick.

Larry| 4.11.12 @ 10:00AM

This is the broken down, self-serving and utterly glib bilge we've all expected from the GOP once Mr. Inevitable bought, with lies and tens of millions of dollars, the nomination.

While sitting silently by as Mitt Romney ran his campaign after the fashion of the most deceitful of liberals ... eviscerating his opponents with outrageous lie after outrageous lie ... they now step forward and urge us to "do the right thing".

Do us a favor ... shut up. To put it frankly, you disgust us. You are not, in any meaningful sense, a conservative. That transcendent philosophy simply does not inspire or permit a campaign so void of principle, integrity and honesty. Your words are not merely meaningless now ... they are odious and contemptible.

Most of us have the good sense to vote against Obama (rather than for Romney) ... but if you'd prefer that we stay home then ... just keep talking. In so doing you add insult to injury and persuade more and more sit home and watch Mitt and his power hungry friends go down in flames come November.

So again, unless you have a heart felt apology for the profoundly wicked campaign run by Romney and the GOP Establishment then ... SHUT UP.

Every word you utter in defense of Romney and his stooges simply drives the wedge deeper and assures less votes for that pretender we're left to support.

Le Cracquere| 4.11.12 @ 4:10PM

Precisely this. I'll vote for the empty suit come November, but do not presume that he or his partisans have earned anything else--confidence, or enthusiasm, or least of all, respect. If their hubris and high-octane asininity keep enough Republican voters home to lose the election, it won't be the latter who should take a good, long look in the mirror.

Chris| 4.11.12 @ 10:12AM

"Cream Puffs" will NEVER win against "Chicago's Professional Bomb Throwers". Their NOW blackened eyes and bloodied lips proves that material fact hands down.

Sissys in a dress, sitting down to take a leak will NEVER APPEAL to the Independents.

Consevatives fight like Obama throws a BASEBALL, High-Heels and all.

BarocheDique | 4.11.12 @ 10:17AM

You see, Teflon93? Chris has you all figured out.....an obama troll that can read you like a book. If you want to be a team player not for the elites, but for the working Americans that will suffer the most from a second term of tyranny, then do what you say yoou will and 'write in' another name, or do not vote at all....that's how tyranny wins, by getting good men to do nothing to stop it.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:21AM

I'm a lifelong GOP voter who just left the party over the corruption of you RINOs, Baroche---don't lecture me on party loyalty.

When have you lot ever pulled the lever for a CONSERVATIVE? FauxCon Kaminsky admitted he wouldn't support a social conservative like Santorum, which is the only bout of honesty he's had in years.

Tyranny wins when people who have no principle save ambition get power. And that's Mitt Romney to a T.

The question now is 4 years or 8 years of tyranny?

You RINOs with your "lesser of two evils" can surely understand those of us who prefer 4 years of tyranny to 8.

Especially if it destroys your influence forever.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 11:53AM

"Faux" implies that I call myself a conservative. As you know, I call myself a libertarian, with a few conservative leanings (such as against open borders and against a weak national defense.)

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:12PM

Yes, but FauxLib would be confusing....

Perhaps we can agree on FauxAustrian?

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 12:57PM

Nope, nothing "faux" about my views, which I make very clear.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 2:08PM

Nah, FauxClear sounds like it was As Seen On TV.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 2:23PM

Right next to ShamWow?

Anyway, you can say plenty of true things about me, but I don't think "faux" is one of them.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:26PM

Well, given you're supporting the guy who designed, implemented, and defends socialized medicine in Mass, Ross, I think I can certainly say your commitment to the Austrian School is Faux indeed.

Has there been a big government intervention in the economy Romney hasn't suggested or supported?

You complain about Santorum's social views, but are bothered not one whit by Romney's executive order---at his own discretion---forcing Catholic doctors and nurses to support the abortion mills. How is THAT not using government to force one's social views on people?

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 3:45PM

Did I not say that Romneycare is a black mark on Romney's record? My preferring Romney to Obama does not mean I support Romneycare. That should be obvious.

Furthermore, Romney has started half of his speeches by promising to do everything he can to repeal Obamacare, and I believe him on that.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:59PM

You supported the Bay State socialist over far more conservative---and free market---candidates in the race.

But you believe Capt Etch-A-Sketch.

Nice.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 5:31PM

I recognized all along that the other guys are more conservative than Romney, though I think Romney is more conservative than you give him credit for.

As William F. Buckley advised, nominate the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate.

I realize our opinions differ here, but of the last 4 men standing, I believe Romney is the only one with a chance of winning.

Four years ago, I did not focus on electability, but these four years have changed a lot of things.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 5:57PM

Buckley also ran for NYC Mayor, there being only Rockefeller Republicans running. He also supported Goldwater.

What evidence do you have for Romney's conservatism? We've asked you 100 times 100 different ways.

What evidence is there?

All you have is "he sometimes says so". But then there's him very passionately saying he's a progressive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

And let me tell you: THAT Romney looks sincere. Especially given that his governing record supports what he says above.

Your "electability" is a chimera---various not Romneys---including Santorum---polled within the margin of error of or beat Romney in head-to-head polling against Obama at various points throughout this campaign. Moreover, they have all had stronger base support than Romney has ever managed and don't have his Romneycare and liberal governance weaknesses either---nor his flipflopping. Nor his inability to appeal to evangelicals, for whom integrity is important.

Moreover, almost to a person they had a better electoral college path than Romney does. Romney has zero appeal in the South and very limited Rust Belt appeal----he will need both to win.

He doesn't put any states in play for the GOP and puts several must wins---NC, VA---in the Likely Obama column.

You just chant "electable" without any evidence of it.

This is what I mean by MittBot---quit repeating what Karl Rove says and MAKE YOUR CASE.

I don't think you can because Romney hasn't given you anything to make it with.

He's a liberal and always has been.

Mike| 4.11.12 @ 10:56PM

So according to you Romney is not allowed to change his mind on abortion? Reagan was allowed to change his mind after he signed an abortion bill as governor of California.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 9:21AM

How many 61 year old men have fundamental changes of mind on the subject of abortion?

Ronald Reagan had been sold on the women's health argument---which was brand new in the 1960s and had been completely discredited long before Mittens decided he needed to switch in order to win the nomination.

There is a difference between being indifferent toward slavery in 1820 and in 1870.

And Romney's story that he was "converted" by the argument of an Ivy League bioethicist is just nonsense on stilts---the guy was a bishop in one of the most consistently pro-life churches on the planet; it boggles the mind that he didn't know all the pro-life arguments most of his adult life.

Here he is beating the drum for abortion---and he's a lot more passionate about killing babies than he ever has been about saving them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:18AM

Yeah, Romney was so tough Bret Baier kicked his ass.

McCain was tough enough to endure torture for years at the hands of Uncle Ho while Your Man Mittens was tasting wine in the Loire Valley---but that Mitt is THE FIGHTER.

Right.

Connection, Not Compromise| 4.11.12 @ 10:21AM

Ross,

I think bitter is a pretty strong word-- it doesn't promote the whole "unity" thing. Many of us will vote for Romney, some won't; but what you really want is not for us just to vote for him, but also to feel passionate about him. To inspire passion, there first has to be a message of freedom that captures the heart. As you yourself admitted in the last paragraph of page 1, Romney, hasn't given us much of a message about himself upon which to build or work.

And, as I learned from making hours of volunteer calls for McCain in 2008, you can't create a message for a candidate that doesn't have one!

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 10:45AM

Thanks for the comment. I want to be VERY clear about something:

I did not use the word "bitter." That was added by an editor. I just tried to change it, and we'll see if the change works.

I agree with your comments, and I hope that Romney starts doing a better job giving us a reason to vote FOR him.

I like many of you see this election almost entirely as a vote AGAINST Obama at this point, and that's not a great strategy.

Connection, Not Compromise| 4.11.12 @ 11:18AM

Ross,

Thank you for responding and for the clarification!

Your statement, "I like many of you see this election almost entirely as a vote AGAINST Obama at this point, and that's not a great strategy." is a point well taken. I think that expresses the views of many of us, even those who may present their comments more forcefully.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.11.12 @ 1:26PM

Ross...hmmmmm.

Perhaps you hit on something here...heh, stand by one while I craft my bumper sticker.
"OBAMA OUT!" (except draw the sickle and hammer through the "O" in Obama.

Can you craft that as an author here?

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:28PM

I disagree.

Obama is THE issue in 2012. All major problems the country is currently facing can be traced directly back to him.

He's a disaster...a polarizing divider who can't run on his record.

A failure to make him the centerpiece of what ails America would be a colossal strategic mistake.

Anthony| 4.11.12 @ 10:24AM

O.K., We knew it was going to be an ugly 7 months until the election, but I really was kinda hoping I'd see a bit more sanity from the folks who post at TAS.
Yeah Romney appears to be the nominee, yeah, Romney is McLame light, and yeah, Romney was not our 1st, 2nd, or third choice, but those of you who post here at TAS and say Romney is no different from Obozo, have forfeited your right to be called rational.
This is not business as usual, despite the fact that a RINO R has emerged as our nominee, once again. As much as we rail against the RNC, the folks voted and gave us Romney. You can blame the system that allows non Rs to vote in primaries, you can blame a whole lot of things for lack of fairness, but in the end, here we are.
Obozo is an existential threat to the EXISTENCE OF AMERICA. We have never said that about any president in our lifetime, think about that. If you don't see that, you're as dangerous as any leftist D. Obozo is out to destroy America. Romney, for all his faults, which are many, has no such intentions.
Granted, Romney is no Reagan for sure, but if you folks want to take over the R party, which I am in full agreement with, I suggest you need to have an America first to take the party over.
Oh, and for those of you who want the whole thing to blow, thinking Armageddon will finally clean out the system, wait, in few months, you'll get your taste of Armageddon, brought to you by the New Black Panthers and OWS.
It ain't gonna be pretty, meanwhile, be prepared to defend yourselves. Once you've tasted civil breakdown, then, talk to me about how there's no difference between Obozo and Romney.

John - TMF| 4.11.12 @ 10:46AM

Oboingo is a sock puppet.

I heard the same bloviating about Boy Clinton, and was guilty of it myself... we were going to die, the world was ending... the economy was going to go to hell... blah blah blah...

Clintoon was a horrid mess, a corrupt and venal manipulator who used power to get what he wanted including teenaged interns.

Guess what? We are still here. The Conservatives led by Newt Gingrich and his Young Turks took over the Congress and balanced the budget. They even managed to cut the capital gains tax.

But then the Establishment noticed that Newt was undesirable for them, no earmarks, no sweetheart deals, no caving in when the going got tough. So they cooperated with the Democrats in smearing him (he was completely exonerated but too late,?) They installed their moderate tool Speaker Milquetoast Hastert, and porked up the next six years, thus helping to destroy Dubyah's image, and then losing in 2006 to leave him dangling to be picked apart by the Democrat crows.

Why would I vote for more of that? The GOP is making serious noises that it want to get back to its pork greased way of doing business... They aren't going to be any sort of check on Romney (if he even gets there).

So I am being completely rational, and completely consistent. I said that I believe that Romney is a Liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican. I have said that I won't vote for him. I said that back in 2007, and nothing that he as said will change my mind.

Willard Milton Romney is an unacceptable Republican candidate for any office, because he's an unacceptable Liberal.

I do not vote for liberals, and I do not vote AGAINST anyone since it is a recipe for failure. If I cannot vote FOR a candidate, then I will abstain and let the chips fall where they may. Looks like the cow-chips are falling fast.

-TMF

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:29PM

Clinton, for all his faults, is a Conservative compared to Obama.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 5:59PM

Clinton is a conservative compared to Romney.

Clinton only attempted to impose socialized medicine upon Americans and stopped defending it when it proved unpopular. Romney did impose it and defends it still.

You need to think before you post. You make it too easy.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 10:14PM

...but compared to you, dumbass, I'm Albert Einstein...

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 9:21AM

Albert Einstein trying to play pro football maybe...

Ground Control| 4.11.12 @ 10:32AM

My problem is that we've been down this road before. Vote for the lesser of two evils. George Bush the Elder was no Reagan but he promised to keep the Reagan program running. He didn't. He lost his re-election bid. Then it was Bob Dole. Then George Bush the Younger, who spent like a drunken Democrat. Most recent we were saddled with John McCain whom no one would confuse with a Conservative. McCain lives politically by stabbing Conservatives in the back.

Now we have Romney. Here we go again.

"I've seen that speck before. We must be swimming in circles!"

"Just keep swimming! Just keep swimming!"

I will go out a vote dutifully, just as before, and I fear the results will be the same as one of the previously unacceptable alternatives, either Romney will lose and we get Bozo the Clown for four more years, or he will win and govern like a drunken Democrat. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

The only leverage Conservatives have is to withhold our vote from phoney Conservatives, e.g. RINO's like McCain and Romney. We won in 1980 and 1984, but have been stabbed in the back by the career politicians who run the Republican Party. Remember, the TEA Party was started when Bush the Younger was President and spending like a Drunken Democrat. TARP was started under Bush and that was the "last straw" as it were.

The bottom line is that Romney is not the answer. Limited government is the answer but Romney does not promise that. Neither did McCain or Dole, or either Bush. The TEA Party exists because Republicans have pissed away the victories and legacy of prosperity left by Reagan, and it is likely that eventually the TEA Party will supplant the Republican leadership and bring true conservatism to national prominence. Either that, or leftism will destroy what freedoms we still have and carry us into economic ruin.

As I said, I will dutifully vote as needed, but I hold little hope that either Romney can win, or if he does, that he will do much to stop runaway government from ruining this country.

BackToBasics| 4.12.12 @ 12:25AM

With the demographic shifts going on that favor the Democrats, the Republican or anyy possible replacement such as the Tea Party will not have time to regroup and take the lead.

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 10:58AM

You lost me with the Patriots stuff, although it might take a candidate willing to cheat to win in November, because the other side certainly will.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 11:24AM

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention the cheating allegations!

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 1:09PM

Was wondering if that was part of what you meant? BTW, I am a different Pete than the one above...might have to change handles.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 2:22PM

Pete #2,

No, it wasn't part of what I meant.

I leave cheating to the Dems.

Silent_Cal| 4.11.12 @ 10:59AM

My first vote was for RR in '80. In 2010 I passed on a major GOP candidate for the first time in my life when I did NOT pull the lever for the RINO Bob Ehrlich for Gov of MD.

We have a telegenic socialist Gov you all will meet in the '16 prez run who is currently destroying what is left of my state with his 70%+ Dem majorities. I know it will end badly, I just hope with O'Malley & Co. it ends quickly instead of dragging on with the RINO MD establishment.

If Obamacare is thrown out in it's entirety by SC. AND Romney reaches out to us (unlike Ehrlich who dissed the conservatives in MD after he won the primary). I'll vote for him (not that it will matter voting in MD). Otherwise it might be better for the country to let Obama finish the job and rebuild from the bottom.

Derek Leaberry| 4.11.12 @ 11:06AM

Sometimes it is good to lose an election. Gerald Ford's loss in 1976 re-energized conservatism and led to the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Reagan would never have been president without Ford's defeat. George HW Bush's defeat in 1992 led to the 1994 Republican landslide and the first Republican-controlled House in two generations. Without Bush's hiding, the Republicans would have likely spent another generation in the political wilderness. John McCain's wipeout in 2008 led to the Tea Party movement and the Republican landslide of 2010. A McCain victory would have led to a massive Democratic landslide in 2010.

A Romney victory in 2012 will lead to a giant Democratic landslide in 2014. Better to lose in 2012. Like most second terms, Obama's will be a disaster and the Democratic Party will be relegated to a rump of Third World and left-wing districts. The only way a truly conservative agenda can be achieved is if the Republicans win a landslide of 1932 proportions. That should be the goal and it might happen after Obama crashes and burns.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 11:26AM

Derek,

I am sympathetic to that argument, and made a somewhat similar argument in 2008.

The problem today is that Obama is using executive branch agencies to do things which should only be doable by Congress, and we don't have politicians or courts which are likely to stop him.

Therefore, even if the GOP were to take the Senate and keep the House, I still think Obama will do tremendous damage to the nation in the next four years if he wins re-election.

Derek Leaberry| 4.11.12 @ 11:36AM

You are right about a re-elected Obama. He will do great damage. And he'll replace Justice Ginsberg with an Elena Kagan clone and perhaps will replace Justices Breyer and Kennedy. So elect Romney for the Supreme Court picks. And who's to say that Ginsberg and Breyer won't wait out a Romney presidency? And, given his terrible Massachusetts Supreme Court picks, who's to say that Romney won't give us a Brennan or Souter, Blackmun, or O'Connor. Due to his chameleon ways, Romney has earned zero political trust.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 11:44AM

Yup---and Romney's key advisor is John Sununu, who "vouched" for David Souter's conservatism.

We see how that turned out.

Romney's own Mass judicial picks were liberals.

Riff Raff| 4.11.12 @ 12:15PM

At least George W. Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This almost excuses the rest of his Presidency.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:02PM

Sure---but you might want to wait until the Obamacare ruling before making that call!

Riff Raff| 4.11.12 @ 11:52PM

Agreed. That's what worries me. But at least they DID defend the 2nd Amendment. So there is "hope" (God, how I hate that word.)

Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:57PM

Guys: Justice Scalia is a fat guy. Born in 1936. He is 76 years old. You want to put the Conservative nature of the court on the line for 4 years betting on the health of a 76 year old chubby guy?

I'm voting for Romney. I'm hoping he will appoint people just like Bush did. But they will be better than Kagan and Soto, two intellectual lightweights who couldn't spell "Cat" if spotted the "C" and the "A," working TOGETHER!

Anthony| 4.11.12 @ 11:54AM

I love you stiff-necked purists. "A Romney victory will lead to a giant D landslide in 2014. Better to lose in 2012"." I held my nose and voted for McCain..."
We should be so lucky that America as we know it will exist in 2014, especially after Obozo has 4 more years of unfetted destruction as his goal.
What exactly is it with some of you? Do you not see that Obozo is an existential threat to the very existence of America? Do you not believe he's out to destroy America?
You folks remind me of the German Jews that refused to see Hitler's Aryan future for what it was, despite his candidness about his intentions. 6 million Jews paid the price for that folly.
But you folks will get a taste of Obozo's future plans real soon, as the New Black Panthers and OWS gear up for a summer of civil unrest.
Perhaps the prospect of defending youselves and your families with a 12 gague will disabuse you of the notion that Romney and Obozo are two sides of the same coin.
You all better pray you don't have to find out for yourselves.

The Bruce| 4.11.12 @ 11:59AM

Unfortunately, as Obama "crashes and burns" in his second term, he'll be taking the country down with him.

There won't be anything left in 2016. We will have been reduced to Greece (or worse) by then.

9thID| 4.11.12 @ 11:10AM

I held my nose and voted for McCain in 2008 only because of Sarah Palin. After that lesser of two evils debacle I realized the GOP needed to be reformed or replaced. I have since registered as an independent. With the rise of the Tea Party, I supported Sarah Palin and when she didn't run I supported Bachmann, then Cain, then Santorum. Now that ALL the conservatives have been run out by the RINO establishment there is nothing left but the latest "lesser of two evils" candidate who is even to the Left of McCain!

Romney's Mormonism doesn't really trouble me as I know, like Harry Reid, Romney is a non-practicing Mormon In Name Only. However, RomneyCare is ObamaCare and everyone I know HATES nanny-state socialized medicine and mandates at ANY level. Romney is not only the godfather of ObamaCare, he even doubles down on supporting it. Besides his constant flip flopping, Romney is also the face of gun control, abortion, TARP bailouts, and gay activism. Last I heard, RomneyCare still refuses to sign the pro-life pledge and attend conservative rallies.

Just as the RINO Establishment either co-opted or muzzled the 2010 Tea Party Congressmen, so too we continue to see their disdain of anything conservative. I cannot stand to listen to Karl Rove any more than I can stand to listen to Comrade Barry. We also watched the likes of Boehner, McConnell, et al, defecate on their pledges to hold the line on deficits and funding ObamaCare and Planned Parenthood. We The People have ZERO reason to believe anything Mitt RomneyCare has pledged to do. Rush Limbaugh will no doubt back any GOP nominee, but he is right in fearing that a Mitt RomneyCare nomination may well spell disaster. If the RINO Establishment is dead set on becoming the new Whig Party, then better to start a 3rd party now than later...

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 11:37AM

Don't you love how RINOs insist we hold our noses while voting?

Why don't we insist they stop running turds?

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 11:55AM

I actually agree with your second sentence to some degree, and while I wouldn't use that harsh a description, I'd say it applies to Santorum and Gingrich at least as much as to Romney.

There are a lot of people I'd rather see as president than any of them, and I hope that some of those guys will be ready and willing in 4 or 8 years.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:14PM

Well there we agree.

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:52PM

You get to "insist" all you want...it's called "the primaries."

JKS| 4.11.12 @ 11:16AM

So far no one here has convinced me to vote for Mitt. I will not vote against someone again (did it with Dole and McCain). So don't call me names or tell me to take my ball and go home. Convince me that Mitt is the guy to vote for. Sell him to me. Convince me that he is the one that can bring us back from the edge.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 11:27AM

JKS,

Mitt is going to have to do that himself. And if he can't do it, he doesn't deserve your vote.

I think he can and will, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. He's getting better, but still not as good as I'd like.

Check that video I linked to in the article and give me your honest reaction to it.

Stroker97| 4.11.12 @ 11:35AM

To all you upset Santorum supporters, IT"S NOT TOO LATE. Throw your support behind Newt and let's tear it up at the convention. Support Newt now so you can feel good about following your conservative principles. Newt has the best conservative record of all the candidates! Don't listen to TAS so-called conservatives and the LSM Newt bashing talking points. Newt will bring this country back from the abiss. He's the only one with a clear and concise plan for America's greatness.

Scorpio51| 4.11.12 @ 1:33PM

Stroker97, I'm with you all the way.

A grassroots effort is now underway. I've been with Newt since the beginning and I will still be with him in the end.

Whatever happens, I at least gave it my best effort.

Mitch| 4.11.12 @ 11:36AM

To the author I can only say; Amen and AMEN!!

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 11:56AM

Mitch,

Thanks. I was starting to feel rather abandoned here!

Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:58PM

Hey, Ross, am I chopped liver or what? What about Ken?

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 1:07PM

Sorry, Occam! You guys (and Oldefarte) often have my back. At least, when we disagree, I know it's an honest disagreement. With some of these other guys, it seems (unfortunately) to have become personal.

Paul from SA| 4.11.12 @ 12:04PM

Republican/Romney supporters still don't get it:

You can't behave like liberals, attacking us and our conservatives candidates using liberal tactics and expect to get our support.

Romney and his supporters have caused a lot of damage to the GOP.

We'll have two progressive candidates this fall, one more progressive than the other, but there will be two.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 12:12PM

While recognizing Romney's flaws, not least Romneycare, the idea that he's a progressive just strikes me as laughable.

He is not nearly as principled as I would like to see, but he's nothing like Barack Obama.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:15PM

Okay, but that's what he identified himself as:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU

C'mon, Kaminsky---admit there's a reason we don't trust this guy.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 1:11PM

I ADMIT IT!!!

But that's not the most important thing right now, in my opinion.

Put it this way: We may not be exactly sure what Romney is or believes. But we are exactly sure of what Obama is an believes.

So where are you gonna go? Seriously...I share your concerns, if in different policy areas perhaps, about Romney.

And I refused to support McCain. But that was 2008. Now we have Obamacare, a raging EPA, etc., and I just don't think you or I can just say "I'm too principled to vote for this guy" even if our principles which lead us in that direction are very different, i.e. you more hard-core conservative and me more libertarian.

I hate "for the children" arguments, but I have two young kids and I do not want to see how damaged their future opportunities are if Obama gets re-elected.

So even though there is plenty about Romney I don't love, I have to, for now at least, give him the benefit of the doubt, and allow him to convince me that he deserves a vote FOR him as much as Obama deserves a vote AGAINST Obama.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:51PM

I have toddlers myself. But Romney isn't going to do a damned thing to reform entitlements---he doesn't have the guts nor the principles. He's never even tried---indeed he foisted the biggest entitlement of all on his state.

Moreover, Romney's candidacy makes clear that Republicans are complete hypocrites on these issues---as if Boehner and McConnell haven't made that clear enough already.

"Where we go" is we make the Tea Party into a 3rd party. The Whigs refused to deal with slavery and went down in 1856. The Republicans exist because they filled the void in 1854 and by 1860 won the White House, then dominated politics until the New Deal. Since the GOP is not willing to engage on the most pressing issue of the day---reducing this bloated, unConstitutional government---it too must be replaced.

And a Tea Party rolling now can surely land a powerhouse conservative in the White House in 2016.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 2:21PM

What about Romney's bear-hug of the Ryan budget which makes a very good first step on Medicare reform?

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:30PM

That watered-down thing? How about getting the stimulus out of the baseline and making absolute cuts in benefits?

Romney has compromised Ryan, not the other way around.

We need ABSOLUTE cuts---not "reductions in the rate of growth". We've got $1 T deficits as far as the eye can see. Romney had the weakest economic plan out there. And as his past record demonstrates, when Congress refuses to push it---yet again---he will shrug his shoulders and say, "I tried". That's the lip service he paid to conservative governance in Mass---and lip service was all conservatives ever got out of the guy.

59-pt plans are efforts to AVOID doing something. You're a trader. Do you have a 59 pt strategy? Have you ever had such a thing?

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 3:44PM

I agree with you on this, but I also recognize that a true revolution in how government works is essentially impossible, and that we shouldn't sneer at the first step in the right direction since Reagan.

I hope that Congress will push Romney to be more aggressive than he otherwise might be. I hate having to hope about such things.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:02PM

It is not only not "essentially impossible", it is Constitutionally required.

The Democrats were able to force socialized medicine down our throats against the opposition of 70% of the American people. And now you say that its repeal is impossible?

Our credit has now been downgraded for the first time in our history. The Tea Party arose overnight in response to profligate government spending that got us there, and delivered the biggest House shift since 1948 just two years ago.

Wake up---the revolution is HERE.

tps| 4.11.12 @ 3:42PM

Nobody is going to reform entitlements. Not a Dem, a Rep, a Tea Partier, not anybody. Its going to have to collapse from its own weight to be gotten rid of.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:53PM

In 1852, nobody was going to do anything about slavery.

Until somebody did.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 10:07PM

If Republican politicians do not embrace my values, they will NOT get my vote.

END OF STORY!!!!

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:12PM

You've got it backwards, Tom---we're supposed to pull the GOP lever whenever we're told and shut up in between. Liberal votes are coveted by the Republicans---not conservative votes.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 11:39PM

And as long as the psuedo-conservatives continue to dance to their tune, the GOP establishment will continue to dump the Doles, McCains, and Romneys of this world on us.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 9:23AM

Yes, until we withhold our votes, they will continue to be taken for granted.

The MittBot RINO argument has always been, "Where are you gonna go?"

They're about to find out.

Dixie Pixie| 4.11.12 @ 12:11PM

WTF just happened?

The Conservatives were the most popular kids at the Dance.
Every one wanted to be us including Huntsman and Mittens.

We had far more intellectual depth and brilliance in the readership on American Spectator alone than the New York Times and Nation combined.
The Socialists are still stuck on FDR's ideas from the 1930's and are getting the same results FDR got.
Conservative Ideas, on the other hand, are forward looking and set in the 21st Century not the 18th Century ideas of the Socialists.

So what went wrong?

Let us admit that President Reagan was the most exceptional of American Exceptionalism.
Like “Bear” Bryant or Burt Rutan, we will never see his like again.
It is way past time to bury “Reaganism” and re-craft “Conservatism” for the political and economic conditions we are now in.

Second, Conservatism must get much better at internal organization than the Socialists.
We will never beat them at the Big Money Game as they have control of the public purse of Trillions.
So we must be a lot better at the fundamentals of organization than the Socialists.

Third, the Conservatives must learn to focus its efforts on the limited political situations where it can win.
Fighting every phantasm of the “KurturSmog” only dissipates our efforts.
Conservatism must learn to focus, Focus, FOCUS.

Fourth, We must never let anyone but Conservatism define what Conservatism means.
Conservatives must ruthlessly define, defend and enforce it its beliefs.
No longer can we afford to let anyone claim he is a Conservative unless he or she proves it by ACTIONS NOT WORDS.
The day when a person like Huntsman can claim to be Conservative must be over less Conservatism become a meaningless label.

Face the facts, we Conservatives lost again and it was our own fault.
We have to change our methodology or face political dissolution and obliteration.

albert constantine jr.| 4.11.12 @ 1:37PM

There is much wisdom in what you say, and I may be just re-packaging some of your own thoughts, but I think our biggest handicap is that we believe that principles matter most of all. The left seems to value winning more than anything else, and uses the Democrat Party to win elections, and the press to warp public opinion to thwart the advance of conservatism when Republicans win elections, and try to make them (often successfully) like Democrats. We as conservatives don’t value power for its own sake, but primarily as the platform to promote our ideas, at the forefront of which is liberty, or freedom from the power of others.

For the left, since the control of others is what they seek, whenever they achieve political power, they are pretty much at their goal (unless some Constitution of “negative rights” of government inhibits them). As such, we must start from farther back and race further ahead for our victories to be meaningful.

Dixie Pixie| 4.11.12 @ 7:46PM

Thank you for your kind words Albert.

Fill free to “Repackage” my ideas any way you like.
The power of conservatism is in the ability to take another words and ideas, then refine,expand and enhanced them and then pass the ideas for others to utilize.

What the Democrats and MSM are hiding, is that once ObamaCare passes it is “Game Over” for Conservatism.
The Federal Government will then have not only the ability to take away as much money as they want to from you through taxation.
The Federal Government will also have the ability to tell you how and what you must spend your remaining money on.

As our existence is defined and bounded by our monetary existence, the Federal Government will have established control of both sides of the individuals monetary transactions.
By controlling what you are allowed to keep of your labors and controlling what you can spend upon will leave your freedom to exist at the whims of the Federal Government.

Justice Kennedy was quite right to remark that ObamaCare will fundamentally change the relationship between the State and the Individual.

No civilization has ever tried to convert its populace to monetary serfs.
It is impossible to do so in a cash only society.
It is only possible when all monetary transactions are through a computerized centralized banking system controlled by the Federal Government.
No one knows the results or what to expect as no civilization has been this stupid or evil before.

The really bad news is the Republican Party has selected Mittens Romney to be our “White Knight in Shining Armour”.

Oldefarte| 4.11.12 @ 12:17PM

Ross, pure prose and directly to the point, as usual! No one that I'm aware of is having tingling up or down their leg over Mitt Romney and never will do so; but that is not the point. This country is dying economically/financially from the readicals in charge since 11/4/08 and beyond/historically. The current housing crisis began in 1977 with the Democrats' enactment of the CRA. Our government's defecit/debt is tanking our economy due to things like THE GREAT SOCIETY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND AID TO EVERYTHING. We simply do not have another four years left. WAKE UP AMERICA! If you/anyone had a small business/company to run and you had to choose the very best [or hopefully so] manager to run that business profitably, would you choose someone who was likable to customers or maybe who had a nice family or maybe an extremely sick child? Or instead would you choose someone who had a business education degree from college [as opposed to a liberal arts or say law degree] to run that business? Would you choose someone who had successfully in the past resurrected some failing businesses and thereafter restored same to profitability, or would you choose someone who had never even worked in the private sector and didn't know a balance sheet from a prayer book? Would you choose an individual experienced in running businesses or would you choose one that worked within a major city performing community organizing of indigents as to how to game the political systenm to their advantage? Which of those two extreme choices would possibly stand the better chance of profitably running your small business? ????????

albert constantine jr.| 4.11.12 @ 12:22PM

The comments have nearly doubled in the 90 minutes or so since I started the article, so I guess I should throw my thoughts into the mix.

More than a decade ago I attended a week long leadership training. One of the things I took away from it was that there are often four components to good decision-making: doing the right thing the right way at the right time for the right reason. I do not think Mr. Kaminsky’s article today satisfied “the right time” test (still too soon).

I am disappointed that Rick Santorum withdrew from the race before I had a chance to cast my primary vote. It should not be presumed that I automatically will support Romney in the primary merely because my first choice candidate is no longer campaigning. There is a good chance that I will, and should be become the Republican nominee, I can’t imagine a scenario where I would not be voting for him in the November general election.

I understand why many conservatives might choose not to, and I hope that Romney will campaign for those votes as vigorously as he has campaigned for moderate and liberal votes in this primary and his past elections. Like Mr. Kaminsky, I hope that the scorched earth campaign that was unleashed against primary opponents is increased against Obama should Romney be the nominee.

For my fellow posters who are leveling their criticism against those fellow conservatives ( and likely a couple of trolls) who announce they won’t be voting for Romney under any circumstances, I would respectfully suggest that you temporarily hold your fire. Much of your criticism is valid, but under the circumstances and timing, it could succeed in driving some away who might otherwise reconsider when all alternatives are considered.

In the big picture, I think it is critical that Obama be replaced with someone who will govern constitutionally , demonstrating fiscal responsibility and promoting economic liberty and growth, while projecting a powerful image to deter those who would threaten or harm us, and serve as an example of conservative values. Assuming that he becomes the nominee, it will be up to Mr. Romney to convince us that he can do all of that, as well as attain sufficient majorities to achieve victory in the electoral college. It does not seem likely that he can do the latter without achieving the former.

For 2012 to be the right time to defeat the ideas and actions that are the Obama administration, Mr. Romney and his strategists need to do more than not take the right for granted as supporters, but if they fail to convince those of us that he is worthy of our votes, this campaign will not be successful, and the next four years can bring the kind of damage we might never recover from.

Those of us who aren’t inclined to make Mr. Romney our first choice, though, should not automatically shut out the notion that it won’t be our fault if he doesn’t win. We all are responsible for where our vote goes or doesn’t go, but more importantly, we all live with the choices that are made whether things went the way of our vote or not. As disappointed as I was with GWB, I think things would have been much worse with John F Kerry.

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 10:12PM

A person is NOT a "troll" for refusing to vote for somebody who doesn't have a conservative bone in his body. If you don't appreciate the fact that some of us refuse to sacrifice our principles on the alter of political expediency to satisfy a GOP establishemtn that hates ouor guts, then you can go screw yourself.

albert constantine jr.| 4.11.12 @ 11:48PM

I won't attempt to define a troll here, but please allow me to explain the use of the word one time in an eight paragraph post.

As someone who reads and posts here on an almost daily basis, I am familiar with many of the regular commenters here, who they support, dislike, etc. I also am familiar with a number of the recurring trolls, as well as those who pop up on single issues, and pretend to be conservative in order to make mischief.

If you read the content of my post, it should be clear that I state in the fourth paragraph "I understand why many conservatives might choose not to" vote for Romney. My advice in paragraph five was to those responding negatively to those regulars (and others) was that I thought it was not a good idea, for reasons I articulated at length.

Since I never suggested that anyone sacrifice any principle, I'm not sure that I should take offense at your "if-then" suggestion.

I'm thinking that perhaps the reason your response doesn't address the substance of my post is that you didn't have time to read or comprehend it all, as you've been busy making your 20 or so posts on this thread today, beginning at 6:27 am. It would also appear that you didn't have a chance to use the spell check by the time you got to my entry here (e.g. "establishemtn", "ouor ", and "alter" means to change, "altar" is the platform of religious worship).

While I haven't noticed you posting here before, given your status as the first one to comment here today, I could presume that you are a conservative who is very passionate in his dislike of Romney. My remark was posted at 11:12 am, when you had two out of more than 150 posts on this thread.

As of this writing, though, you have made more than 5% of the posts at various points through the day (most between 7pm and 9:15 pm), responding often in a shrill fashion. Perhaps your gleaning of the word "troll" in my post might have caught your attention, because that is exactly what you are.

If that is what happened, I accept your taking offense, though I would "alter" the content of what does (or does not) make someone a troll. A troll is someone someone who behaves as you do. If that is the case, I apologize, for while I started my response saying I wouldn't define a troll here, with your assistance, I now may have, or at least identified one.

Oldefarte| 4.11.12 @ 12:31PM

PS: The questioning of Romney's conservatism is politically well founded, but as a businessperson, a conservatism element is automatically attached to him. A businessman by their very nature is conservative. They believe in cutting expenses and not spending money in a frivilous manner. They believe in profits and therefore in sustaining their business operationally, which continues to supply its employees with jobs, salaries, employee benefits, a continuation of tax payments which supports government, etc. To those concerned with Romney's political philosophy rightfully, head the words/ideas of Texas' Dick Armey, a conservatives-conservative who correctly advises that a moderate/liberal president can be boxed in/sorrounded by conservatives within congress and within his administration that will force him to become more conservative in his decisions/proclamations than he otherwise would be. Which is better, an Obama with a Garret/Axelrod/Jones whispering in his ear; or say a Romney with a Palin/Armey/Santorum whispering in his ear?????????

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:05PM

That's not really true---in the financial world in particular. Goldman Sachs and Citigroup in particular are Democrat hives. And look at what Immelt at GE has done.....

PCP Smoker| 4.11.12 @ 11:04PM

Tell that to Obama's billionaire friends, including the head of the economic council, MR GE himself. They despise conservatism. Oldfarte, you are getting to the point of being OLDE SHITHEAD

Gino| 4.11.12 @ 12:35PM

No, it is time for the vicious Romney to apologize to the other candidates for his attack ads. We have never seen him do to the Democrats what he has done to fellow GOP members.
Romney has much to apologize for; Romneycare, waffling on abortion, gun control, defaming Ronald Reagan, running to the left of Ted Kennedy etc. I think the GOP Establishment has once again chosen the weakest candidate just like their choice of McCain and Dole.

Oldefarte| 4.11.12 @ 12:42PM

PSII: Someone above brought up the idea of social conservatism [ie Santorum]. This is FOOLS' GOLD. A POTUS cannot and will not ever solve the social conservatism problems that you refer to. A POTUS is only one person and if sorrounded by liberals and Democrats, their conservative ideas and administrative programs will get slammed/defeated by these anti-conservatives. Social conservatism problems have to be solved FROM THE GROUND UP, within families, schools, churches etc. Morality and Christianity has decreasingly waned over my lifetime [and correspondingly liberalism and lack of Christianity has florished in its place], and the one/only solution lies with individual human beings. The fight which you want to occur has to begin at home and in your local communities, not within the halls of government. Government and a president are only the reflections of the people and their wishes, so fight your social conservative battles within your own communities and same will filter up to your government eventually!!!!!!!!

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:05PM

Okay, when has a POTUS reduced the size of government? Post-Calvin Coolidge?

Slacker| 4.11.12 @ 12:52PM

Mitt will either win or lose. Whichever way it goes you can safely anticipate:

The social fabric will not be mended. The budget will not be balanced. Entitlements will not be corrected. The dollar will be worth less. We will not be more energy independent. Your freedoms will continue to be pissed away. There will be no immigration reform. We will persist in losing wars. And, Mitt will not enjoy a single cold beer.

I’m sort of glad Mitt is the presumptive nominee, as now I don’t have to give a crap.

Ross Kaminsky | 4.11.12 @ 1:12PM

None of these things will be fully healed if Romney wins, but the damage will stop, or at least slow dramatically.

There is NO chance of improvement under Obama, at least some chance under Romney. Isn't that worth giving a crap about?

Slacker| 4.11.12 @ 3:27PM

It think we need a visionary to get America back on track. I’m pretty confident there are no visionary types left. We’ll see.

I have trivial preference for Mitt to win only because Obama deserves to be thrown out. A desire to see Obama rebuked doesn’t equate to believing Mitt will be better (or even liking him).

I wish Mitt, his supporters, and the establishment the best of luck. I'm basically a disinterested bystander at this point.

Ted| 4.11.12 @ 1:21PM

Folks, let's be honest about all this. Mitt Romney is not now and has never been a conservative. He won't become one by virtue of being elected this November. Will he be better than Obama? Maybe. But this is really just another version of what the Democrats preached mindlessly in 2004: ABB (anybody but Bush). Now it's ABO (anybody but Obama). How well did ABB turn out?

With Obama, the pedal is to the floor and we are rapidly approaching the cliff. With Romney, we will go slower, but we will still be going in the same direction. Practically everyone posting on these pages knows Obama is a disaster, and we all want him replaced. But for all of you holding out Hope that Romney will be the great Conservative alternative to Obama, you are going to be disappointed.

James| 4.11.12 @ 1:24PM

Mr. Kaminsky:

Let us say our dreams are answered and in November we now have President Romney and the GOP keeps the house and gains a majority in the senate. Then what? Will President Romney and the GOP congress begin to roll back Obama’s agenda? Answer hell no!

Here is how the kabuki theater will unfold. The house will vote to repeal say, Obamacare and it goes over to the senate…. where it is voted on for repeal and it passes…. get real. It will die over in the senate, using senate rules and it will never come up for vote. Then President Romney will say, “we tried” and drops it. We the people are just stuck with the consequences of President Obama with no hope of its repeal. That is the GOP and Romney.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.11.12 @ 1:43PM

James...and buds...
I don't think you guys have thought it through yet. You have TWO choices.....

You can use the awesome power of the ballot box, or we can DIE reaching into our bullet-box on our front porch.
Pick your poison, idiots!

0BAMA AND CREW WILL KILL YOU...sooner than later.
Romney won't.

Please, get your heads out.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:33PM

He already has "killed us"---aided and abetted by the weak sister RINOs.

70% of Americans want Obamacare gone---and yet there it stands.

$1 T deficits as far as the eye can see with no budget passed in 3 years---and there it stands.

We're already dead---it's just a matter of the body dropping.

And you're sitting there claiming Mitt Romney of all people will reverse time and get that bullet out. Nope. He's just circling overhead like the damned vulture he is---just like he did at Bain.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.11.12 @ 6:51PM

Teflon,
If you were dead, you would not be posting.
I'm talking literally, dumbass.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 7:31PM

Were I dead, Ken, I'd come back and haunt you just for the pleasure of seeing you soil your pants.

James| 4.12.12 @ 1:16AM

I will vote for this man but you are very much mistaken to believe that this man is a savoir. I state once again with Romney's election nothing substantially will change.

Obama wants to floor the accelerator to drive us over the cliff. Romney will idle us over. The GOP basically wants to manage the welfare state not roll it back.

Look to the last president before Obama. What government agencey or program shrunk under Bush? How in the fundamental basics was Bush's administration different from Clinton's? The answer to both questions none. So Obama took four years to spend 4 trillion dollars, Bush only took eight. At the end of Romney's term, how much you want to bet the size of government grew not shrank. That is the damn poison we all have to drink.

Scorpio51| 4.11.12 @ 1:26PM

Will not vote for Mitt, it was never an option.

There is still an option, and I've been with him from the beginning, and that's Newt.

Whatever happens with his campaign, I'm all in. If the conservatives align themselves with him, that should send a strong message to the GOP.

I will not be dictated to and have the nominee chosen for me. We still have the privilege of voting, and that's the way people should choose a President. Not the way the establishment wants it.

Who's Newt?| 4.12.12 @ 12:43AM

Any man, conservative or not, who is so self-absorbed that he couldn't get out when he was defeated, DEFEATED garnering 5-10% of the vote to make way for another conservative who was garnering enough votes to win 11 states and lose the states he lost by low single-digits doesn't deserve my vote. I can make a very strong argument that Newt cost us a conservative canidate.

Ted| 4.11.12 @ 1:27PM

"It remains depressingly difficult to tell just what the man actually believes."

Ross, this is precisely why many do not trust Romney. Yet you have been selling Romney for a while now as the best alternative to Obama. Don't you think before you do that, that you might want to figure out exactly what Romney believes? This is what got a lot of people to vote for Obama last time: they didn't really know (either because they didn't want to know or they were too lazy to find out) what Obama actually believed. Well, they got a bit of a surprise, didn't they?

Mitt Romney was / is an outstanding businessman who made a lot of money. I applaud him for that. But there are a lot of people in the U.S. who have made a lot of money. And then advocate for leftist causes. Just think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, for starters.

J Kelley| 4.11.12 @ 2:28PM

Romney was not my first choice, but will support him. He does not dislike our country as Obama does. It is hard to believe that we have a couple in the White House who do not love their Country.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:34PM

So why didn't he serve it in Vietnam?

tps| 4.11.12 @ 3:43PM

Why didn't Dick Cheney or Newt?

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:04PM

Good question. Go ask them.

I'm asking it of J Kelley, who claims the presumptive GOP nominee loves a country he refused to serve.

Unless you count winetastings in the Loire Valley as service---as the MittBots do.

Mike| 4.11.12 @ 11:00PM

How did he refuse? Was he drafted? Not volunteering is not the same as refusing. You sound like Axelrod.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 9:27AM

He demonstrated in favor of the draft. Have you even looked into this guy's background?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....draft.html

Demonstrating in favor of other men being drafted while you go gad about southern France is a craven, weaselly, and hypocritical thing to do.

Exactly what is to be expected of Mitt Romney.

W| 4.12.12 @ 12:58PM

Romney went to France as a Mormon missionary for 30 months. He and three others shared a one room apartment. They went out every day trying to convert. He was in an auto accident where he injured his back and fractured his arm. Doing a stint as a missionary overseas is typical of Mormons. You make it sound like he was vacationing in the "south of France" to avoid the draft. You are starting to sound like the lefties distorting the record of Romney. If you don't like him, at least get your facts straight.
To judge someone as a conservative, first look at how he lives his personal life. Romney has been married once to the same woman for 40 years, not hint of scandal, made his money in the private sector, donates 10% of income every year to charity, and did not make his money off the government tit like Newt, Santorum, Obama, Clinton, etc.

Get Real| 4.12.12 @ 4:34PM

He didn't donate 10% of his income to charity. He donated it to his church. It's like saying I donated 10% of my income to my country club. On paper churches are considered "charities" but we all know that they are not. Being charitable is giving your money to some entity that doesn't necessarily benefit you but benefits others who you probably don't even know. Laughable.

W| 4.12.12 @ 9:40PM

What do you think a charity is if not a church, you moron? You have a problem with him donating ?to his church

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 8:57PM

While John McCain was being hung up by his arms in the Hanoi Hilton.

Sorry, I'm not impressed by a well-heeled crapweasel who protested in favor of other young men going to Vietnam while he vacationed in France. He's a coward and a weasel.

W| 4.12.12 @ 9:44PM

Tef
You have gone over the edge.
He was a missionary.
Did your boy Newt serve? or Cain? How about Obama, your latest candidate?
You make no sense. It is one thing to say you do not like Romney and will not vote for him and will vote for Obama, it is quite another to foam at the mouth with wild character assasination. You will fit in nicely with the lefties.

Jeff Krasney| 4.11.12 @ 3:52PM

I think the primary has made Romney into a better general election candidate. I like what I hear Romney say but I am concerned that he is insincere and that he surrounds himself with liberal Republicans as his advisor.

I agree with Kaminsky's central premise that Romney is preferable to Obama. I just worry that Romney is more Bush than he is Reagan and his mistakes will ultimately cost the conservative movement dearly. Also, I know that the institutional part of the GOP cannot be trusted. This leaves me hoping for the best with Romney but very suspicious of him.

shoebox57| 4.11.12 @ 4:15PM

I may well still vote, although it sickens me what we have to choose from once again. This time I also will not vote for either Romney nor Obama. I'm going to cast my vote for a Patriot. If they do not win, that will be too bad for the Country. I will sleep better knowing that doing what is right and just is more important now than ever before. Romney is a Big Government/Big Business Republican. So is Obama. The difference is Obama is a better liar.

David| 4.11.12 @ 4:18PM

I am as sad as anyone to see Rick leave the race. I have been a cheerleader for him since his days in the House and Senate. I have know him to be principled and well-studied on all of the issues.

Nevertheless, it is now time to stop Bam Bam.

Ross listed reason after reason that Romney will be better, and the most important reason to me is the judges and justices. Several of the current Sup Ct justices are over 80 years of age. The next prez will get to appoint 2 or more justices. Do we want more Kagans and wise Latinas on the high court?

I suggest to you that it would effectually destroy this country if that were to happen.

It is not only the high court, but the humdreds of district and appellate level judges Bam Bam will get to appoint. We always focus on the high court, but it is only a very small fraction of cases that ever reach the Sup Ct.

Most cases are final at either the district or appellate court levels. Do we want to add to the already huge number of judicial activists that sit on those courts?

I agree that Mitt will govern much like Bush did. That is why we need an even larger majority in the House and why we need the Senate.

Hopefully, a republican Congress will have learned its lesson from Bush and how Bush helped put the dems back in power. Hopefully a repub Congress will keep Mitt in check as the prez, just as conservatives held Bush's feet to the fire when it came to his supreme court picks.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:25PM

So how do you deal with the fact that Romney appointed liberal judges in Massachusetts and has as a key advisor John Sununu, who claimed David Souter was a conservative?

What basis do you have for believing he will choose conservative judges when he never has?

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:26PM

Okay, Kaminsky---let's put a stake in the ground.

Name three things Romney could do in the general election campaign each of which would cause you not to vote for him.

Serious options only, please.

GLENNY| 4.11.12 @ 4:27PM

It's so simple.
Zerobama hates this country and wants to see it fail.
Romney doesn't.

Romney gets my vote.
glenny

BackToBasics| 4.11.12 @ 6:41PM

Since Santorum is no longer campaigning, I think it would be legal for Romney to offer to pay all Santorum's campaign debts, I think it's about 4.5 million. If he were to do that, or even offer to poay half, I think a lot of the fence-sitters would go Romeny's way even if Santorum refused the gesture.

He'd be accused of buying the election or of being so rich he he can throw money away, but so what, he's going to be accused of so many false things anyway it wouldn't matter.

David| 4.11.12 @ 7:03PM

Teflon93, as I said. Bush tried to appoint Harriet Meirs (a lightweight and Bush even stooped to saying she is a born again Christian so he knows she will vote the right way). How embarrassing for all Christians and for our prez to say that. If he had gotten his way with Meirs, he no doubt intended to nominate another lightweight, Alberto Gonzales.

But conservative were up in arms and insisted that Bush withdraw her name. Bush gave in and we got Roberts; and instead of him even attempting to nominate Gonzales next time around, he chose Alito.

We can do the same to Romney. If Romney does not cooperate, he knows he will be a one prez, that is, IF he can beat Bam Bam, which I seriously doubt.

Bam Bam is stoking racial issues and there will be lots of violence between now and election day. Whites have no backbone. They will be coward into voting for Bam Bam or simplly not voting for the white guy to avoid the riots that are sure to happen if Bam Bam loses.

Whites better arm up. I am going to buy a gun - more than one gun. If the f_cking blacks want a war with the other 84% of the population, let them bring it on. I know that is off the subject, but it helps explains why I believe Bam Bam will be re-elected.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 7:35PM

And as I noted, David, Bush getting Medicare Part D, NCLB, and TARP through rather dwarfed keeping Miers off the bench.

You'll remember that John Sununu---who got Bush Pere to appoint "conservative" David Souter in his only Supreme Court pick---is a key Romney advisor. And Romney has a history of picking liberals for the bench. I don't know why you think Romney will be more receptive to conservatives when he has the power of the Oval Office than he was when he was applying for the job. That's not how it works.

BarocheDique | 4.11.12 @ 7:11PM

I went to work and now I'm back home, I pull this column back up and see that you guys are still at it....look, I wanted Santorum to win and a true consrvative to be in the white house. But, we got out spent and out organized, ok? That's it. Yes, Romney played dirty, yes, Romney could out spend Rick 5 or 7 to 1.

I cannot understand the mentality of any American who calls themselves a supporter of this country to just whine and snivel like children because 'their guy' didn't win and take their marbles home to suck their thumbs. The comments of "oh, keep calling us names......keep insulting us...." that's really how to get us to support Romney. Really? No, wait a minute, REALLLLY?

Do you understand what we're fighting AGAINST here? It is no longer important who the opponent to obama is, they should have every ounce of support that we can give them. Unless, to those of you who wish to sit this one out rather than vote for a 'moderate', this election is more about your foolish pride(s) than the salvation of our Republic, May God Save.

If you actually feel that way, then do it. Don't support Romney. Don't vote this bastard marxist as his ilk out of power, don't do it and see what happens to all of us, and your children. But, hey, you've already shown that you have more important things to vote for than them, like your pride.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 7:35PM

I'm fighting against liberal statism---regardless of which party is peddling it.

What are YOU fighting against?

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 10:18PM

Stupidity. You exemplify it.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 9:28AM

Shit. You spout it.

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 12:34AM

O'Stalin, Nice name by the way, really. But you're a douch. Your man needs the conservative vote. Your man Obomney didn't win based upon ideas, he won based upon $$ and a wholly negative campaign of lies against the most conservative canidate. Now Obomney, and "your winning style," need the conservative vote. Based upon this comment section I can clearly see that you are trying to earn that vote and help "your man" Obomney. Obomney has a lot of work to do in order to repair the conservative vote. I can tell you that I know a LOT of people who are PISSED OFF enough to not vote. I say again, a LOT of people pissed off enough to not vote. As for me, I will vote, and right now I am voting for Obama.

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 12:36AM

Dique, the point is that there will be no difference between Obama and Obomney except the speed at which we move off the cliff. You worry about what we'll look like in 20 years if Obama gets re-elected? With Obomney we just delay it 10 more years for the same outcome.

Immortal 600| 4.11.12 @ 8:07PM

I voted for Santorum in the Florida primary. Romney was not my second or third choice (not even 4th or 5th really). However, now that Romney wll be the nominee, I will enthusiastically vote for him in November. I despise Obama so much that I'd vote for Rin Tin Tin over him. P.S. Nice article, Ross.

Clint| 4.11.12 @ 8:24PM

We Are Being Set Up By RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

David| 4.11.12 @ 9:07PM

Teflon93, you wrote, And as I noted, David, Bush getting Medicare Part D, NCLB, and TARP through rather dwarfed keeping Miers off the bench.

Yes sir, I agree with all of your comments. But the mood now in 2012 versus 20+ years ago when Sununu recommended Souter, is drastically different.

It began when we saw how one of Bush's first acts was to team up with Ted K and increase the Dept of Education bly 50% for No Child Left Behind.

When it came to his first Sup Ct justice, we rebelled and Bush voluntarily gave in.

The point is, with the mood we are in now, with the Tea Party and all, if Romney will not cooperate as Bush did, we are now powerful enough to make sure that our Senators do NOT support his nominees to the courts. Because of the mood of conservatives NOW, with our don't give a f_cking inch attitude, I believe we can keep Romney in check.

The point is that with Romney we may not know what we get, but we an unconstrained Bam Bam we know we are going to get a lot worse than we have already seen.

Back to Medicare Part D (which is the only federal program that has come in way under projected costs) and TARP, etc.:

One thing is certain, if Bush had Meirs and/or Gonzales on the Court, we will have OBAMACARE, which dwarfs your examples.

That is why the courts, AT ALL LEVELS, and conservatives better start holding their senators feet to the first on the lesser appointments too, are the one single reason to get out and vote NOT FOR ROMNEY - BUT AGAINST THE BOY.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:30PM

Can you provide an example of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell keeping Obama in check?

If they are unwilling to do it with the leader of the opposing party, why do you think they would be willing to do it with the leader of their own?

It wasn't the House and Senate GOP leadership who fought Bush---it was a grassroots revolt. And since then, the GOP Establishment has done everything they possibly can to immunize members against such things.

And we do have Obamacare. Moreover, one of the architects of it is sitting on the Court. The other is running against Obama.

albert constantine jr.| 4.11.12 @ 11:58PM

David;

I have appreciated your strong support of Santorum over the past several months, and as I noted above, I am disappointed I won't have the opportunity to cast my primary vote for him.

A point of historical correction, if I recall correctly without looking it up.

GW Bush first nominated J Roberts to replace SD O'Connor. When CJ Rehnquist died, he switched up to make J Roberts his Chief Justice nominee, and then submitted Harriet Miers for the O'Connor vacancy. After the clamor, she withdrew, and S Alito was nominated.

It has been almost seven years, but I seem to recall that was the order of things, for what it is worth.

somnolence| 4.11.12 @ 10:26PM

The ones on this page who rail about "socialism" instituted by Romney would writhe in agony if their precious Social Security was taken from them; you can rest assured. The people of Massachusetts WANTED the health care program, and they received it. I love all this FAKE posturing by FAKE conservatives. REAGAN wasn't a true conservative with all his stratospheric spending, and your elusive search is just that, elusive. I will gladly cast my vote for the lesser of two evils, Mitt Romney this fall, as he has genine concerns and remedies for the gas pump, deficit, trade with China, illegal immigration, etc. compared to the incumbent's insistence on class warfare. I'm betting the election won't be as close as some predict, with Romney winning by over 100 points in the Electoral College.

Clint| 4.12.12 @ 12:27AM

More Fake Conservative RINO-CINO Mitten's Kitten Crap.

We Are Being Set Up By RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

Dr.Ron Paul,
" We should understand that Social Security was intended primarily to prevent old widows from becoming destitute. Life expectancy in 1935 was only about 65, when there were several workers for each Social Security recipient. The program was never intended to be a general transfer payment from young workers to older retirees, regardless of those retirees’ financial need. Yet today Social Security faces an unfunded liability of approximately $18 trillion."

PCP Smoker| 4.11.12 @ 11:01PM

Typical crap from Katshitsky. Why don't you Romneyfags just SHUT THE FUCK UP for 3 minutes? How about lettings us take a shit in peace without you PRICKS telling us what to do? Fuck you Romney. Fuck you Romney supporters. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP

A Sphincter Says What?| 4.12.12 @ 12:51AM

Funny as hell PCP! Obomney supporters can't figure out why after a disgraceful nomination campaign the conservatives won't just line up and take another heaping spoonful of moderate, sh!tpile, liberal-Republicanism.

Ted R.| 4.12.12 @ 2:11AM

O-KAY! So, who are you guys going to run against Hillary in '16?

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 9:29AM

Santorum. Because It's His Turn.

And all these MittBots will turn around and insist that that's not how the GOP works.

Magic Underwear| 4.12.12 @ 3:08AM

BELIEVE IN IT!

Jeff| 4.12.12 @ 3:34AM

Ross,

This is TWO losers in a row for the GOP. Romney doesn't have to worry about independents. He needs to worry about ME. I am the base and I don't have a single positive reason to vote for John McCain JR. All I have are negative reasons.
Even Rush Limbaugh was hemming and hawing for some reason to vote for this RINO .

Maybe it really is time for a new party .
Really.

Christopher C| 4.12.12 @ 6:05AM

Dear Mr Kaminsky. I would hope that anyone with a smidgeon of sense will vote against the current ghastly man currently occupying the White House.

But to ask Rick Santorum's supporters to both line up and shake hands? To line up and vote for Romney is rational. It's the shake hands bit that's repugnant.
The shaking of hands after a game was, after all, an acknowledgement that the other team had played the game honorably. Could a Santorum supporter admit that of the Romney campaign? Not without consciously lying.

After all, how has Romney won? Not by actually standing for anything that strikes me as truly important. Constitutional principle? No. Santorum and Mike Pence are the only two politicians of recent times who paid attention to constitutional drift. Romney? The likely new Republican standard bearer? Well, perhaps the Constitution is one of the later of his 56- or 58-point program. Romney? Someone who is offended by the intrusion of the state upon personal liberty? The proud father of Romneycare? Romney? The person who will roll back the administrative state by instituting a review of federal regulations? Are you serious? (to quote a former Speaker of the House). A review is a politician's device to delay, or to do nothing. Every last special interest in the country will focus on this regulation or that regulation and lobby to the max and ab-so-lute-ly NOTHING will get done.

Santorum's approach was right. Choose an arbitrary cutoff point, and zap every last regulation that costs more than $100 million. Don't talk about it in advance. Re-regulate if that proves to be necessary.

Anyway, back to "shake hands". Anyone who contemplates the depressed voter turnouts that Mr Romney's negative advertising blitzes have delivered cannot honestly congratulate the man on such a dirty victory.

john dubose| 4.13.12 @ 11:44AM

The cure for the lesser of evils conundrum is electoral reform. For instance approval voting. Get educated and concentrate on bringing something like that to pass. The two party plurality primary system has us by the ****. We have to change the system.

CVO| 4.14.12 @ 1:23PM

I would vote for Donald Duck if he was the GOP candidate. ANYONE BUT OBAMA!!

David Harris| 4.15.12 @ 12:54AM

I've been reading through these comments tonight and I thought I had stumbled onto MSNBC vs Fox.

I am an independent. So I can say this with conviction.

For those of you who won't vote for Romney because your candidate didn't win, is like the 10 year old child who didn't get picked for the best side in kickball. "I will take my ball and go home."

You don't realize the shape the country is truly in.

I have heard about ObamaCare vs Romney Care. But here is the thing, Massachusetts Legislature passed the RomneyCare bill as you so eloquently put it. And that bill that was passed had several provisions vetoed by Romney.

The difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare is that RomneyCare ONLY affects those in Massachusetts . ObamaCare affects every body in in every state. The people in Massachusetts can get that legislation repealed easier in their state then we can as a nation.

Why is this?

Because you have states BEGGING for this. Twenty-six (out of fifty) states sued in court to get ObamaCare blocked. Now we are waiting on the Supreme Court to give us its decision on whether or not the individual mandate is constitutional. Until then, we are playing the waiting game.
If the Supreme Court rules it is constitutional, then ObamaCare goes through and without a Republican President, Obamacare will continue to go into affect in 2014, and we will be forced to buy something we don't want.

Its going to take EVERY Republican the GOP can get voting to vote out Obama.

So if you want 4 more years of Obama, please sit home like the spoiled child and throw your tantrums because you candidate didn't win, or get out, be American, and vote.

Oh and for the record, I don't like Romney either, but if I have to choice between Obama and Romney, I'll take Romney.

And yes, I wanted Santorum.

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|111 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|124 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|107 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|68 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|17 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 4:15PM

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 3:07PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 12:41PM

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

A Further Perspective

Line Up and Shake Hands

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (435) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 7:27AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.11.12 @ 8:00AM

mjs_pa| 4.11.12 @ 8:29AM

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 9:25AM

TrueBlue | 4.11.12 @ 12:41PM

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 12:49PM

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:54PM

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:08PM

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:36PM

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 1:56PM

Jalsis | 4.11.12 @ 3:12PM

Die Fledermaus| 4.11.12 @ 4:53PM

Marco2| 4.11.12 @ 11:31PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:30PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:28PM

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:05PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:26PM

W| 4.11.12 @ 10:37PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 11:31PM

W| 4.12.12 @ 3:39PM

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 10:44AM

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:12PM

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 12:29PM

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:55PM

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 1:57PM

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 3:58PM

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 4:55PM

Die Fledermaus| 4.11.12 @ 4:57PM

Pete| 4.11.12 @ 10:39PM

richard ryan| 4.11.12 @ 12:01PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:36PM

richard ryan| 4.12.12 @ 3:36PM

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:11PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:38PM

sleon| 4.11.12 @ 12:22PM

TrueBlue | 4.11.12 @ 12:44PM

sleon| 4.11.12 @ 2:45PM

stonebender| 4.11.12 @ 2:51PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:41PM

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:56PM

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:09PM

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:39PM

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 2:03PM

canuckistani| 4.11.12 @ 4:36PM

Die Fledermaus| 4.11.12 @ 4:59PM

Anthony| 4.11.12 @ 2:32PM

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:15PM

Anthony| 4.11.12 @ 3:32PM

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:56PM

Anthony| 4.11.12 @ 9:05PM

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 10:07PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:48PM

Occam's Tool| 4.11.12 @ 12:42PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:18PM

W| 4.11.12 @ 10:40PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 11:35PM

W| 4.12.12 @ 1:01PM

SaintVince| 4.11.12 @ 11:26PM

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 9:50AM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:48PM

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 12:10PM

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 12:30PM

TrueBlue | 4.11.12 @ 12:47PM

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 1:58PM

Stormzeye| 4.11.12 @ 6:55PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:54PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 10:02PM

Tom| 4.11.12 @ 9:50PM

Doctor Right| 4.11.12 @ 1:11PM

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 1:59PM

richard ryan| 4.11.12 @ 2:25PM

David Messick | 4.11.12 @ 2:47PM

Anthony| 4.11.12 @ 3:53PM

Jack in Wi.| 4.11.12 @ 12:31PM

Marco2| 4.11.12 @ 11:40PM