You do know that when you supported Romney in 2008 that Romneycare was in place then…so why now the lesser support because of that?

g2825m on November 15, 2011 at 9:32 AM

In all honesty–I didn’t know about Romneycare. Look, I’m willing to say it’s not as bad as Obamacare, although it’s plenty bad anyway, and by all accounts has not served to decrease health care costs. But the individual mandate is utterly unacceptable. It’s wrong when Republicans support it, and it’s wrong when Democrats support it, and it’s wrong when anybody supports it. And of course I am not a fan of pretty much any part of Obamacare. I say “pretty much” because chances are good in several thousand pages there might be a single sentence that I don’t think is as bad as the rest of it.

At the end of the day, I will have no problem voting for the candidate who winds up winning the Republican nomination–even if it turned out to be Jon Huntsman or some such longshot. It’s not like in 2008, when I held my nose and semi-reluctantly voted for McCain. I will be absolutely thrilled to vote against Obama.

Okay, have it your way. That person WILL be Romney.

Happy now?

csdeven on November 15, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Right, because it’s his turn or something.

Also, what is wrong with Santorum? I don’t know a whole lot about him, but from what I do know of, he seems pretty conservative on most issues. I am starting to wonder why he hasn’t gotten his chance of being the “Not Romney” candidate.

jeffn21 on November 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM

You see, Santorum just hasn’t learned the art of the one-liner yet. He needs to say something hilariously outrageous to get the nomination. He needs that soundbite.

11% for Gingrich

Current tallies have Gingrich edging out Cain by just one supporter. It is interesting to note that at this point both Cain’s and Gingrich’s HA support levels individually exceed all remaining candidates (outside the two leaders), combined. As Gingrich has surged in the GOP so he has at HA also.

Please note that the tendency of the percentages going down for certain candidates is a result of more declarations of support for other contenders as opposed to withdrawal or transfer of current support. If you have a question as to where I currently you please email at the email provided below.

CAIN (122) [Current 36.9%, Previous, 40.2%, High 43.6% ]

GINGRICH (123) [Current 37.1%, Previous, 30.7%, High 37.1%, Previous 30.7%]

PERRY (44) [Current 13.3%, Previous, 14.5%, High 17.6%]

ROMNEY (35) [Current 10.6%, Previous, 11.6%, High 18.5%]

BACHMANN (2) [Current 0.6%, Previous, 0.8%, High <5.0%]

PAUL (2) [Current 0.6%, Previous, 0.8%, High <5.0%]

HUNTSMAN (2) [Current 0.6%, Previous, 0.8%, High <5.0%]

LAWN GNOME (1) [Current 0.3%, Previous, 0.4%, High <5.0%]

Thanks to our moderators for posting recent entries that have new/more people to declare their support for their favorite candidate.

PALINISTa’s (64)

Percentages might exceed 100% due to rounding. If for any reason I have you under the wrong candidates tent, I have you listed under more than one candidate, or you would like to throw your name behind a different candidate you can update me at prov22.17-21@juno.com (three people have updated this way.
Provided as service towards eventual coalescing behind he/she who saved the people from Him Who Is No Longer Mentioned (HWINLM)…except descriptively as The Destoyer, PBHO, TOTUS.

Also, what is wrong with Santorum? I don’t know a whole lot about him, but from what I do know of, he seems pretty conservative on most issues. I am starting to wonder why he hasn’t gotten his chance of being the “Not Romney” candidate.

I can’t say I’m wildly enthused over the possibility of a Romney presidency but at least I know a Romney presidency is a possibility. But Gingrich? Forget about his personal baggage for a moment and just focus on the various positions he’s taken over the years. While Gingrich may be a lot of things both good and bad, ‘conservative’ isn’t one of them.

Lastly, if an honorable person genuinely believes man-made climate change is a global emergency requring immediate and drastic action, then he or she would be bound by humanitarian conviction if elected president to initiate programs similar or even identical to those promoted by President Obama. So what, then, is Gingrich’s plan to save the earth from this awful threat looming at speed just over the horizon? After his cozy moment on the divan with Nancy Pelosi, Gingrich can’t just ignore the issue. It’ll be interesting to see how he handles it. Rock, meet Hard Place.

Gingrich may also have issues with SOME social conservatives as he is on his third marriage and his admitted affair as well as his “issues” from the 90′s that the MSM will be bringing up. His turn under the media spotlight is coming as well and we ONLY have 7 weeks left.

g2825m on November 15, 2011 at 8:09 AM

You are correct that this will all come into play if Gingrich continues to surge, but what it really comes down to for me is this: if Newt is the last man standing against Romney, he’s my guy.

Sorry. I won’t have Romney unless I have no other choice.

The Country always votes for likeable guys for POTUS. And, as much as I don’t like Obama, he is after all a likeable guy.

I can’t belive the Republican field is as lame as it is. Surely there is someone out there that has the style, personality, and political chops to beat Obama like a drum in light of the state of the nation. I for one am worried sick that obama will win again and the damage to the county will accellerate in his second term.

The race to converting the American public to Government dependents is going to hurt us badly if Obama gets re-elected to be sure. There are a lot of really stupid people out there, and unfortunately they vote.

New frontrunner: Hot Air’s Mid-November Survey Results

First Palin, but she walked. Then Perry, but he talked. Then Cain, but he balked.

The Band Wagon Bunch now supports the recycled, ethical, family man known for using his little brain more than his big brain.

Newt’s turn to be stalked.

This crowd is like a WWF crowd getting all excited over fake wrestling.

Mr Gingrich is a cameleon who assumes the color of his surroundings.

He will change all of that you have suddenly admired as soon as he has another lecture planned for the rubes explaining why only he understands things.

jimw on November 14, 2011 at 11:26 PM

There does seem to be a “bandwagon” effect at work here…for awhile Perry was supposed to be the conservative Not-Romney, then Herman Cain.

I was with Perry for awhile, but if he can’t out-debate Romney or remember his own plans, Perry will get DESTROYED in debates against Obama. Perry needs to get his act together QUICKLY, or otherwise he will be swamped by Romney, Cain, and Gingrich.

The novelty of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was exciting for business owners, and he had been up near 30% of Republican voters in some polls, but if Republicans are about 35% of the electorate, Cain’s support represents about 10 to 11% of the electorate. The problem is, Cain’s 9% sales tax is a crusher for low- and middle-income people, who represent a huge majority of the voters. Even without the sexual-harrassment allegations, Cain was doomed to fail, and he is now damaged goods.

Gingrich is a smart and strong debater, and is now benefiting from the disillusionment of Republicans with Perry’s failure to present himself well, and the allegations against Cain. Both Gingrich and Romney are flawed candidates, in different ways: Gingrich from his prior infidelities, Romney from his self-contradiction on the health-care issue. At this point, either of them could win the nomination, but supporters of either of them need to be ready to vote for the other in the general election against Obama.

It will be a long campaign, lots of things can happen, and no one has voted in a primary yet…

However, much less a fan of hypocrisy. Some of the same folks here claiming they’d happily vote for a Billy Jeff third term in place of Obama, are swearing they’d never vote for Newt because of his past infidelities. So, it’s ok to vote for a cheater as long as he’s a D? In what universe is having a Clinton presidency a better thing than a Gingrich presidency? Everything of value accomplished during Clinton’s 8 years had its foundation in the Contract with America. Check your history, and you’ll see that the strongest leader during that time was the Speaker of the House, not the Diddler in Chief.

I am in no way cheerleading for Newt. I am asking voters to be consistent in their application of standards. If you can look past the immorality of one politician, don’t pretend to outrage over the immorality of another. If you can be an apologist for One piece of scum, don’t pretend that scumminess is why you “can’t” vote for someone else.

Character matters, absolutely. Gingrich fails in more than one category. At the same time, he is a serious historian, a policy expert, someone willing to lead from the front, willing to take risks on principle in the name of improving this nation.

I’d like not to have to consider voting for Newt Gingrich, due to his baggage. With eight years of Clinton and four of Obama under out belts, can we afford to elect another non-leader in the name of moral outrage? I’m not sure we can.

Romney, of course, really lost a lot for me with Romneycare. I understand his 10th Amendment argument, that he could do it in one state, but it’s wrong for everyone–but that said, why would he think it’s appropriate to force people to purchase anything as a condition of being alive? Just because something is constitutional doesn’t make it right or ethical.

Andy in Colorado on November 15, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Andy appreciate your comments. You do know that when you supported Romney in 2008 that Romneycare was in place then…so why now the lesser support because of that?

I agree with everyone on Romneycare here BUT it was also targeted to the 8% that did not have insurance NOR did it make other residents lose their private insurance. Also the 8% were able to go to the PRIVATE sector for their selections. So there are differences from Obamacare. Romney truly was trying to find a market based and driven way to help those uninsured.

I understand people will obviously vote for who they want but I’d like a fair evaluation on each of our candidates FROM OUR SIDE because I know it will not happen from the MSM. If I have ever said something incorrectly about Perry, Cain, etc I would hope someone would correct me backed by their actual quote. Romney gets plenty attributed to him that is NOT true.

Andy in Colorado on November 15, 2011 at 9:01 AM

I agree. Even if found constitutional, congress can and should still repeal it.

Newt is committed to repealing Obamney care but also has common sense, market based solutions that address the problems in healthcare.

For me, the way I look at it is that Romney ends up being an acceptable alternate, but I’d prefer a good “not-Romney.” Like most other people here, I imagine.

Funny, because back in 2008 I was going for Romney pretty easily until Fred Thompson showed up, and then swung back to Romney once Thompson was gone. Never really took a look at Giuliani et al.

Romney, of course, really lost a lot for me with Romneycare. I understand his 10th Amendment argument, that he could do it in one state, but it’s wrong for everyone–but that said, why would he think it’s appropriate to force people to purchase anything as a condition of being alive? Just because something is constitutional doesn’t make it right or ethical.

Don’t keep telling me this person should be Romney when all evidence is to the contrary.

Amjean on November 15, 2011 at 8:37 AM

Amjean, I’ll give you previous positions by Romney before 2005, however, after that time where do you disagree with Romney on?
Any of these:
He has cut taxes in MA, closed loopholes and raised fees as Reagan did both, voted pro-life bills as GOV, voted and eased 2nd Amendment bills in MA See here: “Massachusetts oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group, Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) stated:“The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the ‘assault weapon’ ban”, always been against illegal immigration, signed bill before it was in vogue on tuition breaks, for building the complete fence along the border, for DOMA, is for Cut, Cap, and Balance, only one from day one that has been vehemently pro expansion of the military and keeping GITMO open if not expanding it, for drilling in ANWR and investing in new technologies to get us off of foreign oil, develop energy technology like nuclear or liquefied coal, he did discuss AGW but also stated he would not spend trillions of dollars to try to fix something that MAY be man-made by 1%, and finally this is what HE proposed as a solution for MA massive health care issues (a STATE issue)
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/01/mitts-fit

Don’t keep telling me this person should be Romney when all evidence is to the contrary.

Amjean on November 15, 2011 at 8:37 AM

Okay, have it your way. That person WILL be Romney.

Happy now?

Gingrich is the most capable presidential candidate in this country (from either Party) . . . if you’re waiting for “JC” your out of luck.

rplat on November 15, 2011 at 8:27 AM

No one knows that. What we do know is that he has serious ethical and moral issues that have yet to be reported on. He does not have executive experience like Romney, Cain, Huntsman, and Perry do.

So you ought to consider those facts next time.

Don’t keep telling me this person should be Romney when all evidence is to the contrary.

Newt Gingrich? Ughhhh. If that’s the best we can do, we’re toast

snoopicus on November 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM

Gingrich is the most capable presidential candidate in this country (from either Party) . . . if you’re waiting for “JC” your out of luck.

Scott H on November 15, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Thanks for your response. I appreciate it.

One, I would say the election of 2010 was a BIG step in the right direction. Also Reagan was stating that why continue to LOSE all the time because you are seeking purity when you can gain some of what you want and continue to work that direction. This is what many of is are saying with Romney as well like Reagan did with a Democrat Congress.

Two, I dated that way specifically because I admit as a Romney supporter that prior to 2005 his positions changed, and even here I do not issues BECAUSE, I allow people to switch to OUR point of view, however after 2005 Romney’s positions have generally been what I previously posted. So I ask what is wrong with his views as they are conservative views and he has VOTED that way when it was on the line.

I am fine with looking at Romney (we have since 2007) but let’s not revisit back to 1994 as some like to do because his positions changed and he has basically been there since. Many of our favorite conservatives have changed their points of view. Shoot…Cain has done it and Gingrich just in the last 60-90 days!

Thanks for your thoughtful response and hopefully you’ll reconsider IF it is between Obama and Romney as there is TOO much riding on our country that Romney can deliver with a R Congress that Obama wont.