Quotes of the day

posted at 10:40 pm on December 28, 2011 by Allahpundit

“In a sign of his growing confidence that a victory may be at hand, Romney plans to spend caucus night in Iowa

“‘He’s probably the best chance to beat Obama,’ said Carol Hetzler, a medical secretary who backed Sen. John McCain’s in 2008. She had also considered voting for Gingrich…

“‘He made the argument that the candidate who has shown the ability to win by the effectiveness of the campaign he’s run is Mitt Romney,’ said Grubbs, who worked on Dole’s 1996 campaign. ‘At the end of the day, he was selling electability.’”

***

“‘That is becoming more likely,’ said the loyalist when asked if Romney could win the caucuses outright. ‘We’ve been lucky and good. The campaign plan was always to adjust activity based on what we were seeing on ground but keep expectations down. But between the positive news for us of late and negatives for our rivals, we’re finishing in a good place.’…

“Former Iowa House Speaker Chris Rants, a 2007 Romney backer who recently pledged support to him this time as well, said the role Iowa typically plays is to winnow the field — and that those who will get cut first are likely to be Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.

“‘So if Mitt finishes first or second,’ he added, ‘does it really matter?’

“‘If you have enough regular Republican caucus-goers show up, I don’t think he wins it,’ he said. ‘Either way, if you’re Romney, you come out with somebody weak — a crazy-ass Ron Paul or an imploding Newt. He’ll be in a commanding position. These are a big couple of days for Mitt [before the caucuses]. He still has to land the 747. But things are lining up for him there.’”

***

“‘The only reason I’m supporting Romney is because he can win the election,’ said Tim McCleary, 52, a mobile home park owner who said he came around to Romney in the past few days after watching last week’s debate. ‘The sad reality is I’m a fairly conservative person, but you have to send them out east.’

“Pat Sheets, 69, a retired school principal, joined McCleary and scores of other area Republicans in lining up before dawn at the coffee shop to see Romney.

“‘He’s one of my top two – him and Newt,’ Sheets said, referring to former House speaker Newt Gingrich. ‘We aren’t sure if Newt can win….I think Romney is the person most likely to beat Obama – and, in my opinion, that’s the top objective. Newt has a lot of baggage. I like what Newt says, but I don’t want to waste my vote on somebody who can’t actually win.’”

***

“Many grassroots Republicans I speak to (as well as most of the commentators I see/read) don’t seem to realize that a presidential general election is much more like a poker game where most of the cards have already been dealt, than like a football game where the opening kickoff has yet to happen.

“We already know that, barring events almost impossible to conceive, all of the ‘Not-Romneys’ will get beaten, perhaps badly, by Obama. The narratives have already been written, minus the minor details and the final score.

“Newt can’t suddenly unload his massive baggage, Paul can’t change the fact that he isn’t at least a bit nuts, Perry can’t delete his ‘Oops’ moment and the parallels to Bush 43, Bachmann can’t get rid of her ‘crazy eyes’ or her gender, Huntsman can’t pretend he doesn’t despise the base, and Santorum can’t erase his statements on gays from Google or suddenly find some gravitas.

“Anyone who doesn’t accept the doomed reality of the ‘Not Romneys’ is simply either ignorant of the modern realities of presidential politics or just delusional.

“Romney might lose too, but at least the conclusion is not yet written in stone.”

***

“Only Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney aren’t trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens. Both support E-Verify.

“Numbers USA, one of the leading groups opposed to our current insane immigration policies, gives Republican presidential candidates the following grades on immigration: Paul, F; Gingrich, D-minus; Huntsman, D-minus; Santorum, D-minus; Perry, D; Romney, C-minus; and Bachmann, B-minus…

“That leaves us with Romney and Bachmann as the candidates with the strongest, most conservative positions on illegal immigration. As wonderful as Michele Bachmann is, 2012 isn’t the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.

“Two Little Indians sitting in the sun; one was just a congresswoman and then there was one.”

***

“It is time for Republicans to get serious. After flirting with just about every candidate in a large presidential field, is is time to come home to the one candidate who has the demonstrated ability to run the largest organization in the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government; who has never been touched by the slightest taint of scandal; whose success in the private sector makes him the outsider that Republicans say they are looking for; and who has by far the best chance of beating President Obama: Mitt Romney.”

***

***

Click the image to watch.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

By: ANDREW CAIN | Richmond Times-Dispatch

RICHMOND, Va. –
The state Republican Party will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the March 6 presidential primary.

Anyone who wants to vote must sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Anyone who refuses to sign the pledge will be barred from voting.

During a brief meeting Wednesday at the state Capitol, the State Board of Elections voted 3-0 to approve three forms developed by the election board’s staff to implement the loyalty pledge requested by the state GOP…

Thanks, Mitt Romney. Thanks for giving us SENATOR TIM KAINE, too. :-(

Punchenko on December 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM

Thats got to be a joke or a parody.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 3:35 AM

Punchenko on December 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM

A mandated loyalty pledge…

Gohawgs on December 29, 2011 at 3:36 AM

Lourdes on December 29, 2011 at 2:22 AM

That comment was the epitome of brevity for you. I’m impressed.

platypus on December 29, 2011 at 2:24 AM

Nothing I can or cannot write, do or do not write, here will ever compete with your swilling cask of sarcastic animosity.

I am glad to read that, at least, you managed to stop the seething long enough to even read one word that I wrote (in this case, “DITTO”). I’m sure it was a difficult task for you, having to work so hard to stop and read that. My sympathies.

Lourdes on December 29, 2011 at 3:39 AM

platypus on December 29, 2011 at 2:24 AM

An invitation at your latest time-wasting game of Poison Daggers?

Hey, I’m not interested.

Lourdes on December 29, 2011 at 3:40 AM

Thats got to be a joke or a parody.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 3:35 AM

Sadly, it’s not a joke:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/28/1/paul-top-gop-primary-ballot-ar-1572784/

The Republican Party of Virginia, McDonnell, Bolling, etc. etc. etc. are in it deep if they don’t get this and the ballot issue resolved.

Punchenko on December 29, 2011 at 3:41 AM

And why is that? I will never understand the need to tear this woman down or defend her choices when she has chosen not to run.

Cindy Munford on December 29, 2011 at 2:03 AM

That ticket, Cindy, was never about winning the election. McCain/Palin was not about winning for the GOP, it was about making a show.

And all that “tearing down” I do believe was a combination of the predictable Left’s smearing via media of any and all on the Right — certainly as to anyone opposing Obama — AND the perception by a lot of emotional filtering by some people far too ‘involved’ with a public figure for their own good (certainly, imbalanced in many cases, in my experience).

So, it just “felt” more severe as to that candidate/public figure, in the minds of some, not that it actually WAS “more severe” than same attack process lobbed against anyone from the Right, Middle or “not Obama”.

Lourdes on December 29, 2011 at 3:45 AM

Someone finished their steak…

Gohawgs on December 29, 2011 at 3:46 AM

Not only do I have to choose between a liberal Democrat from MA or crazy Ron Paul, I also have to sign a loyalty oath swearing to vote for whichever one becomes the nominee in order to cast my primary ballot.

Thank you Republican Party of Virginia. :-(

Punchenko on December 29, 2011 at 3:49 AM

Sadly, it’s not a joke:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/28/1/paul-top-gop-primary-ballot-ar-1572784/

The Republican Party of Virginia, McDonnell, Bolling, etc. etc. etc. are in it deep if they don’t get this and the ballot issue resolved.

Punchenko on December 29, 2011 at 3:41 AM

Loyalty oaths?

So they expect people to swear an oath to support Romney (it won’t be Ron Paul) for president or they cannot vote?

I don’t even know what to say.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 3:52 AM

Punchenko on December 29, 2011 at 3:49 AM

How many from the ’08 obamanation advocating R’s — baby Buckley, the Frumster, Brooksie, Noonan, Colin Powell et al — live in VA?

Gohawgs on December 29, 2011 at 3:53 AM

the leftists are going strong at occupycaucus. looks like some of them are going into the caucuses to ‘persuade’ caucus goers of their crappy world view. (hint: FREE education…if you want to spend your life getting degrees then ‘uncle sam’ should pay for it…not making this up)

these guys are are of the view that the candidates should implement their demands (not making it up…and they call that ‘democracy)

oh, and yes there’s even a DSA guy there which some fancy grievance.

oh, i forgot, they want romney to release his tax returns. Ha…they are never far from the Obama for America songbook are they?

r keller on December 29, 2011 at 4:21 AM

Is there anyone else who just doesn’t care about this cluster**** anymore?

I’ve just about accepted the inevitability of another 4 years of Obama.

tkyang99 on December 29, 2011 at 4:29 AM

Is there anyone else who just doesn’t care about this cluster**** anymore?

I’ve just about accepted the inevitability of another 4 years of Obama.

tkyang99 on December 29, 2011 at 4:29 AM

Quite a few actually.

I don’t see how the GOP can win, and if Romney is the nominee, why it would even matter.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 4:31 AM

Go Romney! Finally somebody has a chance that is actually an upstanding and moral person.

Swerve22 on December 29, 2011 at 4:49 AM

Go Romney! Finally somebody has a chance that is actually an upstanding and moral person.

Swerve22 on December 29, 2011 at 4:49 AM

Flip-flopping and trying to build utopia on Earth are HUGE moral failures for our boy Mitt.

KirknBurker on December 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM

Good Morning!

it’s all mitt love on morning joe

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:07 AM

A loyalty oath to support the GOP nominee?

You’ve got to be kidding me. I thought I saw it all this primary. My God, what madness..insanity.

How much more ridiculous and juvenile can the GOP Establishment get?

Come Jan. 2013, it will be time to start a new party.

An alternative to statism, with the goal to drive the GOP to the way of the Whigs.

KirknBurker on December 29, 2011 at 6:19 AM

Mitt is so confident now, he’s showing his true colors.

VAT tax, really?

European socialism, really?

Still pushing Romneycare, really?

Open mouth, insert foot. Keep it up, Mitt.

IndeCon on December 29, 2011 at 6:22 AM

Oh Boy!
========

Ted Kennedy Prepared Barack Obama’s Attack Ads
Thursday, December 29th at 4:45AM EST
**************************************

In 1994, Ted Kennedy ran against Mitt Romney. Romney ran on his jobs record in the private sector. Sound familiar? Well, get ready for Barack Obama’s ad campaign against Mitt Romney. Ted Kennedy already produced the ads and I’ve got them.

We’re going to hear about Bain Capital taking federal bailout money. We’ll hear the tales of woe from people Mitt Romney ordered laid off.

Yes, you can say we’ll hear all the same stuff about Barack Obama, but every poll shows voters still do not connect Barack Obama to his policies. Policies are esoteric things. The people in these ads, however, connect their firings to Mitt Romney.

The ads are below the fold. If you don’t see them here, you’ll see them on the campaign trail once Romney is the nominee.

Oh, and in addition to campaign ads featuring every person every laid off on orders from Mitt Romney, you’ll also get to see his house in Utah, his stone cottage, and his Belmont home.

The closest equivalent to Campaign 2012 with Barack Obama running against Mitt Romney won’t be found in the recent era. You’ll have to go all the way back to France, 1793, and the campaign of Robespierre against Marie Antoinette.

Talk about a bloody political season, metaphorically speaking of course.
(3 Ad videos Below)
=====================

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/29/ted-kennedy-prepared-barack-obamas-attack-ads/

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:34 AM

Good Morning!

it’s all mitt love on morning joe

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:07 AM

It’s a very good morning :-)

It is morning in America!

The love coming from MoJo may not please the petulant types at H/A, but it is indicative of the acceptance of Mitt by the middle of America. The same is true of Imus, who has been on the Mitt bandwagon for some time. Neither of them know much, but they are a good bell weather of how the man on the street sees things. These aren’t the purists or elitists or those so caught up that they can’t see beyond their latest passion or opinion poll.

With Mitt as our nominee this election will not be about whether the alternative to PBHO is competent. It will not be about whether he is a scary nutter. It will not be about whether he is untrustworthy or sleazy.

The election will be about what it should be about. The epic failure that is Obama. The record of his time in office which has been the worst in most of our life times. The only chance PBHO had was if we nominated someone who he could tar as incapable of governing. If he could point to someone who was too stupid, radical and/or uncertain.

With Romney we have a man who the great mass of Americans can readily envision and accept in the Oval office. Romney will put every state in the union in play for the GOP. PBHO will have to spend huge time and effort to defend places like NY, NJ and MI. He won’t have the ability to compete for the red states because he will be too busy just trying to defend the blue ones! Mitt will win in a landslide over PBHO.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 6:35 AM

A loyalty oath to support the GOP nominee?

Come Jan. 2013, it will be time to start a new party.
KirknBurker on December 29, 2011 at 6:19 AM

Eh, if your “new party” members refuse to vote for your “new party” candidate, it won’t matter anyway.

whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 6:36 AM

Good Morning!

it’s all mitt love on morning joe

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:07 AM

cmsinaz:Morning cms,yup,now there yapping about Straits of Hormuz!

I think DinnerJacket is counting on Hopey not to respond,
I bet!:)

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:36 AM

I think DinnerJacket is counting on Hopey not to respond,
I bet!:)
canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:36 AM

Why not take that chance with “Welcome Back, Carter” in office?

whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 6:40 AM

Good job repubican establishment you’ve almost succeeded in losing another election . Now sit back and wait to complain about all the conservatives who don’t show up to anoint your boy mliqtoast mitt.

rudee on December 29, 2011 at 6:44 AM

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:36 AM
Why not take that chance with “Welcome Back, Carter” in office?

whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 6:40 AM

whatcat:I think,if a US Warship,is under a threat,that ship will
not wait for Hopey to make a decision,and the USS Stark
comes to mind,oh,USS Cole as well!!

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:45 AM

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:36 AM

hey there, and dinnerjacket would be correct on that bet…

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:51 AM

My take.

kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 6:52 AM

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 6:35 AM

he’s not my first choice, but i’ll pull the lever for him if he is the one…dear leader will be at his most vile irregardless of who the nominee is, if mitt is it, I want him to show some cajones against this guy and not be like mccain…we are all racist in his eyes anyways, so we can’t be mr nice guy against him…

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:53 AM

The election will be about what it should be about. The epic failure that is Obama.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 6:35 AM

MJBrutus:Exactly,and this needs to be revisited!!
===================================================

Friday, December 23, 2011
SOMETHING WRONG?

Obama’s father served in World War II – REALLY?
***********************************************

Of all the things I’ve seen or heard about Obama on the Internet, NONE has hit me like this!

Obama said his father served in World War II? Barack’s father served in World War II?

He said so in this speech, captured here on CNN:

This is incredible. The man is a compulsive liar – there is no other explanation.

Where were the reporters who checked or double checked every aspect of everybody else’s life to check these statements and call him out on this? They did for everyone else. Why not him?

JUST THE FACTS, MA’AM:

Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama’s father) was born: 4/4/36 and died: 11/24/82 at the age of 46.

He was 5 years old when World War II started, and less than 9 1/2 years old when it ended.

Lolo Soetoro (Obama’s stepfather) was born: January 2, 1935 and died: 3/2/87 at the age of 52.

He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when it ended. He must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.

The media doesn’t say anything. Watch the video. RIGHT OUT OF HIS MOUTH!!! If you doubt it, Google both of these guys.

It appears this guy doesn’t know how to tell the truth – or he doesn’t CARE about telling the truth! – or perhaps he doesn’t KNOW when he isn’t telling the truth (which is a very scary angle).

Talk about STOLEN HONOR!!!

If this been Bush, or Palin, or Cain, or ANY Republican, the Media would still be on this! I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that this lie wasn’t uncovered, questioned or debated.

Oh well, He must have just “forgotten” the facts, again. Or perhaps he really doesn’t even know the difference between truth and fabrication?
================

http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2011/12/something-wrong.html

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:58 AM

kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 6:52 AM

good one KJ

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:58 AM

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:58 AM

no vetting, just drooling with this lsm

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:59 AM

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:36 AM
hey there, and dinnerjacket would be correct on that bet…

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:51 AM

cmsinaz:Ugh,gawd forbid!:)

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:59 AM

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:58 AM
no vetting, just drooling with this lsm

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:59 AM

cmsinaz:Yup,the MSM annoited him!:)

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 7:01 AM

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:58 AM

Thank you, ma’am!

kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 7:04 AM

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 6:53 AM

I don’t think that there’s any comparison. Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t think McCain lost because he was too gentlemanly although I agree that being more aggressive could have helped some.

McCain lost because he is a DC bureaucrat. He never worked in the private sector for a day of his life. He lost because he could not show himself to be any different than Bush. Bush’s approval rating were at historic lows when he left office. Largely because of Iraq, which McCain was enthusiastically for, both at the start and for continuing. McCain had no response to the financial crisis that wasn’t an echo of Bush. He didn’t lose simply because he lacked style or charisma. He lost because he was viewed as the successor to a disastrous incumbent.

Romney has never worked for the Feds. The tables are turned in that now Romney can point to the horrendous record of the incumbent. He doesn’t need to act like a bully. He doesn’t need to yell “socialist” or “Jeremiah Wright.” He simply needs to demonstrate that he is an acceptable alternative with a plan that all Americans can get behind.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 7:06 AM

He simply needs to demonstrate that he is an acceptable alternative with a plan that all Americans can get behind.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 7:06 AM

we shall see, but with this lsm?

He didn’t lose simply because he lacked style or charisma. He lost because he was viewed as the successor to a disastrous incumbent.

more like both, dear leader won on style and charisma with no vetting

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 7:14 AM

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 6:59 AM

a crap shoot with this one…

cmsinaz:Yup,the MSM annoited him!:)

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 7:01 AM

yepper

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 7:15 AM

There is a reason that the MSM is backing him…and it’s not because they want a Republican president.

kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 7:16 AM

yepper

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 7:15 AM

cmsinaz:I’ll be glad,when the nominee thingy is over,so as to focus
on Hopey.

I’m off,catch ya later,have a Great Day—-:)

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 7:19 AM

we shall see, but with this lsm?

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 7:14 AM

Call me crazy, but I don’t think that media will be much of a problem. As noted by yourself, he has the MoJo stamp of approval on PMSNBC. Even Barnacle, lefty from Boston, doesn’t hate on him. And the plain fact is that he doesn’t have any scandalous vulnerabilities. No salacious gossip for them to sink their hooks in to.

That’s not to say there won’t be a big effort to try, but I don’t see it being wholeheartedly. Too many D’s find him to be at least tolerable and even most of them know that we have to elect a new POTUS. So sure, they’ll smear him as a 1% evil rich guy for a while, but most people are able to understand that business is in the business of business and that whether they like it or not, this country needs more of it.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 7:23 AM

Sadly, it’s not a joke:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/28/1/paul-top-gop-primary-ballot-ar-1572784/

The Republican Party of Virginia, McDonnell, Bolling, etc. etc. etc. are in it deep if they don’t get this and the ballot issue resolved.

Punchenko on December 29, 2011 at 3:41 AM

Loyalty oaths?

So they expect people to swear an oath to support Romney (it won’t be Ron Paul) for president or they cannot vote?

I don’t even know what to say.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 3:52 AM

That’s what I thought at first from reading Punchenko’s comments, but that’s not what it really is.

Signs for polling places and the pledge form will advise voters that “Section 24.2-545 of the Code of Virginia allows the political party holding a primary to determine requirements for voting in the primary, including ‘the signing of a pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party’s candidate when offering to vote in the primary.’ ”

The pledge will require the voter to sign and to print his name beneath a line that says: “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.”

Voters are not pledging that they will vote for the same person in the general that they voted for in the primary. Only that they pledge to vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. Still sounds a little too dictatorial for my liking, but not egregious.

Flora Duh on December 29, 2011 at 7:25 AM

My take.

kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 6:52 AM

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Great to find an authentic conservative site. Too many faux conservative blogs out there.

Still LOL at this portion of your article:

http://kingsjester.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/romney-redefines-conservatism-to-suit-himself/

Romney Redefines Conservatism (to Suit Himself)

Ann Coulter, Conservative pundit, said in her column published yesterday, that:

Running against an incumbent president in a make-or-break election, Republicans need a candidate with a track record of winning elections with voters similar to the entire American electorate.

And, after that statement, she went on to again endorse Romney.

For someone who is one of the sharpest Conservative minds in the country, Ann couldn’t be more wrong if she tried.

1. Romney is the favorite of both the GOP Beltway Elite and the Democratic Party Power Brokers.

2. Romney will be lucky to carry the Northeast, much less the rest of the country. Right now, he’s only polling 25% approval within the Republican Party!

3. Romney is as faithful to Conservatism as Bill Clinton is faithful to Hillary.

Ann, you need to get out of the Beltway every now and then, ma’am.

C’mon down to Mississippi, Mizz Coulter. We’ll have a Barbeque pulled pork sammich, and discuss Conservatism. You’ll find that the Heartland’s definition is just like President Reagan’s and NOTHING like Mitt Romney’s.

IndeCon on December 29, 2011 at 7:26 AM

See ya Canopfor

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 7:32 AM

Ann usually hits it out of the park with her analysis, but this time she is sooo offbase, I’m having a hard time believing she actually wrote that, or that she actually believed in what she was writing.

I just feel like there’s a huge conspiracy out there to get Mitt nominated at all cost.

tkyang99 on December 29, 2011 at 7:34 AM

IndeCon on December 29, 2011 at 7:26 AM

Thank you! I appreciate it very much.

kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 7:36 AM

Romney will be lucky to carry the Northeast, much less the rest of the country. Right now, he’s only polling 25% approval within the Republican Party!
IndeCon on December 29, 2011 at 7:26 AM

One fatal problem (at least) with that line of reasoning is all the other candidates are faring even worse.

whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 7:37 AM

Mjb, they are praising him now, but just wait (like you said)

Gotta prop up dear leader, they will be vicious

Hopefully disillusioned dems will see.right thru their crapola

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 7:37 AM

I just feel like there’s a huge conspiracy out there to get Mitt nominated at all cost.

tkyang99 on December 29, 2011 at 7:34 AM

If there is a conspiracy, it is among those who discouraged good men like Mitch Daniels not to run. Romney has no competition in this field. I am just grateful that he is running! Without him we would truly be lost. It’s not Mitt’s fault, it is the fault of those who could have been serious contenders but chose not to try.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 7:39 AM

whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 7:37 AM

Which shows you what a lousy slate of candidates the Republicans are fielding.

Conservatism wins. Moderates go along to get along.

kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 7:40 AM

WHOA! Breitbart tweet last night that Big Government would have a surprising story about Pelosi today, but I didn’t expect this.

EXCLUSIVE: Nancy Pelosi’s Daughter: ‘My Mom Wants to Leave Congress’

Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told Big Government this week that her mother wants to leave Congress–and that she remains in Washington only at the behest of her campaign donors.

Flora Duh on December 29, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Loyalty oaths?

So they expect people to swear an oath to support Romney (it won’t be Ron Paul) for president or they cannot vote?

I don’t even know what to say.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 3:52 AM

As a Virginian, I am not all that pleased with the state GOP right now but I understand where they are coming from. It is too easy for a bunch of Obama-loving commies to decide that the best thing for them to do is go out there and cast a primary vote in the GOP race for non-other than the truther racist Ron Paul. In other words, there is a history of Democrats tinkering with the election process by voting for the weakest candidate even though they would never vote for a Republican. The oath, while really not all that binding at least makes the point that if you are an Obama lover you have no right to decide who the GOP is going to run for office.

Happy Nomad on December 29, 2011 at 7:50 AM

Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told Big Government this week that her mother wants to leave Congress–and that she remains in Washington only at the behest of her campaign donors.

So essentialy, she is working for the special interests that have made her and her relations filthy rich through often ethically questionable means. It is these interests and not her constituents that keep her in office. That should tell the brain-dead idiots that keep returning her to office all that one needs to know about this vile corrupt “woman.”

Happy Nomad on December 29, 2011 at 7:53 AM

As a Virginian, I am not all that pleased with the state GOP right now but I understand where they are coming from. It is too easy for a bunch of Obama-loving commies to decide that the best thing for them to do is go out there and cast a primary vote in the GOP race for non-other than the truther racist Ron Paul. In other words, there is a history of Democrats tinkering with the election process by voting for the weakest candidate even though they would never vote for a Republican. The oath, while really not all that binding at least makes the point that if you are an Obama lover you have no right to decide who the GOP is going to run for office.

Happy Nomad on December 29, 2011 at 7:50 AM

True, and it is only a signed pledge. Not that I don’t believe in honoring a pledge, but it’s not like they’re going to have someone looking over your shoulder to make sure you honor it.

Flora Duh on December 29, 2011 at 7:57 AM

So essentialy, she is working for the special interests that have made her and her relations filthy rich through often ethically questionable means.

Happy Nomad on December 29, 2011 at 7:53 AM

Yup, that’s the typical Nancy Pelosi we know and loathe.

Flora Duh on December 29, 2011 at 7:59 AM

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 3:52 AM

this is weird…

Glad I live in Texas

Gig Em’
Perry 2012

workingclass artist on December 29, 2011 at 8:02 AM

Which shows you what a lousy slate of candidates the Republicans are fielding.
kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 7:40 AM

I’m pretty sure if you check you’ll find that complaint has been aired every election season. It just seems novel in the heat of things.

whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 8:05 AM

whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 8:05 AM

It works because the Republicans should be hitting a home run, instead of trying to bunt to get on base.

kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Yeah, Romney’s the guy. This is not going to be a long drawn affair. We don’t need Romney and the rest of the weirdos in some long drawn affair. Let’s get him to be the nominee, and train the focus back on Obama.

The faster we get the not Romney’s off the stage the better it is for the party. If if you can’t fall in line, you are doing nothing but hurting the party.

rubberneck on December 29, 2011 at 8:10 AM

It works because the Republicans should be hitting a home run, instead of trying to bunt to get on base.
kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Nah, as I noted “I don’t like our candidates” is just your garden variety every election cycle complaint. Democrats also do it with their own field of candidates. Even when it’s an incumbent running for re-election you hear complaints. Likely been that way since the beginning. These days we don’t have as many Burr–Hamilton duels, though.

whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 8:19 AM

These days we don’t have as many Burr–Hamilton duels, though.

whatcat on December 29, 2011 at 8:19 AM

More’s the shame for that!

I do have to disagree with you slightly. You are correct that the complaint of not having good candidates arise every election cycle but in 2011 I would hope that we could come up with a better set of choices instead of the one we have with a couple recycled politicians and a racist truther with moronic ideas about foreign policy.

Happy Nomad on December 29, 2011 at 8:27 AM

More on the Loyalty Oath that Punchkeno referred to at 3:41 AM

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/28/1/paul-top-gop-primary-ballot-ar-1572784/

From Larry Sabato

@LarrySabato Larry Sabato
Does anyone in the VA GOP know history? Loyalty oaths have been highly controversial in VA since the 1920s–in both parties.
6 minutes ago

@LarrySabato Larry Sabato
Loyalty oaths make few friends, lose more. VA Dems lost a U.S. Senator in 1970 over a loyalty oath. Byrd Jr became Ind 1970-1982.
5 minutes ago

@LarrySabato Larry Sabato
Is Gov. McDonnell paying attention? Between ballot disqualifications, a Soviet-style primary, lawsuits & loyalty oaths, VA looks awful.
5 minutes ago

@LarrySabato Larry Sabato
ALL VA taxpayers are paying for VA GOP primary. We don’t have party registration. If u want to vote, vote. Ignore the “loyalty oath”.
4 minutes ago

Flora Duh on December 29, 2011 at 8:57 AM

We rational folks of the GOP certainly want a conservative as POTUS, but we are practical enough to know that a RINO is much more manageable than Obama. Ergo, if Romney continues to demonstrate that he can beat Obama, we will run to the polls with our barf bags to vote for him. Obama cannot be given the chance to nominate more progressive justices to the SCOTUS.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 11:19 PM

RINO is an imprecise term. Sure, there are the left-of-right-of-center moderates who veer toward Blue Dog Democrat territory, those typically considered moderate Republicans, who are generally strong on bipartisan, big government solutions and tend to advocate an assertive foreign policy. They typically steer clear of social issues. Those we consider neoconservatives fall in this group: liberal on domestic issues, hawkish on national defense.

But what about those on the far-right? I’m thinking of Pat ‘Hitler was a great man’ Buchanan and his fellow paleocons, all of whom hint at Zionist conspiracies and bemoan what they consider the undue influence of the AIPAC lobby on Capitol Hill. I’m also thinking of Ron Paul libertarians and libertarians in general–actually, libertarians specifically, since many of them I’ve encountered freely admit they more properly align with the Libertarian Party but, because the Libertarian Party is packed with tinfoil hat-wearing, basement dwelling, conspiracy-minded losers, can’t seem to garner more than a few percentage points in any given election, so they vote Republican.

Well, Buchanan and Paul supporters are literally Republicans In Name Only, since they wear the Republican label to give their destestable and outlandish views the veneer of mainstream respectability. And this business about McCain or Bush (either one) or Romney being RINOs? Nonsense. No, they aren’t conservatives, but they are Republicans and part of the Republican tradition going back to Lincoln.

Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, are old-school America Firsters in all but name. Their bigotry and idiocy are not based on conservative principles or classical liberal thought–their kind of thinking traces to the Democratic successionists just prior to the Civil War, and to the Know Nothings and the Anti-Masonic parties even before that. So if you’re telling me with a straight face that Ron Paul is a conservative Republican and Romney is a RINO, then you’ve lost all sense of perspective, you’re not paying attention.

Ron Paul’s particular brand of conspiratorial insanity isn’t crazy uncle, cranky old man funny. It’s twisted, malicious stuff, way beyond wrongheaded and uninformed. That malevolent fraud and his equally unstable true believers need to be publicly disavowed and cast out into the darkness of the fringe, where they belong. They’re the true RINOs here.

troyriser_gopftw on December 29, 2011 at 9:06 AM

It works because the Republicans should be hitting a home run, instead of trying to bunt to get on base.

kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Home run hitters are strike out kings.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Flora Duh on December 29, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Who said it was over? Romney effectively countered what they attacked him with. He is demonstrating that he will fight back and can get the upper hand. And whomever the nominee is will have to face a $1 billion smear campaign from Obama. Anyone who is surprised by that just hasn’t been paying attention. For that reason, Romney is the best candidate we have to take on Obama. And spare us the “he is a RINO!” mantra. The base doesn’t decide elections, the indies do. And Romney attracts the indies. The polling proves that the GOP is going to come to vote against Obama irrespective of whom our nominee is. So Romney doesn’t have to pander to the base.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 9:37 AM

hillbillyjim on December 29, 2011 at 1:28 AM

Naw. What you’re hearing is the Perry and St Palin the victimized worshipers having orgasms when either one strings two coherent thoughts together.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Sekhmet on December 29, 2011 at 3:10 AM

Good gravy! You are a real dip$hit!

1) How are “WE” going to get the indies to support an ideologue? That is the candidates responsibility. (You certainly sound like a St Palin the Victimized supporter. You are incapable of separating your personality from the candidate) And St Palin the Victimized certainly has been pushing the ideologue line. But for some reason, she hasn’t convinced the indies (or the GOP for that matter) to support her. (Romney is the only candidate that appeals to the indies. That is the proof that you have no clue what the values of the indies are. This isn’t 1979) Ya know, just because screaming the ideologue line in your head to convince yourself, doesn’t mean you can scream it aloud and the indies will grasp your awesomely awesome wisdom.

2) I’m not surprised that you think the dems have only been preparing for Romney. You think in a single dimension and you think everyone else does also.

3) Yet your precious St Palin the Victimized couldn’t reach the indies. That’s because this isn’t 1979. You would do yourself, and this blog a favor, by upping the level of competence in your comments. People are stupider for reading your idiocy.

4) Wrong. The states rights issue is a winner for the GOP. And since you are a hard headed ideologue, you fail to realize that the rest of America knows that the federal government is bloated with unconstitutional programs like Obamacare and even if they don’t like Masscare, they accept that because the citizens gave the state the power to implement it, it is perfectly acceptable. They want the freedom to run their state as they deem acceptable without ideologues like yourself coming into their state and telling them what they should do.

Substantive arguments have been made, but you are so blind in your hatred of Romney, you will not see the logic. Even though if your beloved St Palin the Victimized said it, you’d be 100% all in.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 9:59 AM

IndeCon on December 29, 2011 at 7:26 AM

You are going to lecture Ann Coulter about former President Reagan since she doesn’t know some things about him that will help her dislike Governor Romney.

You are right. A number of people don’t remember several things about President Reagan.

And that can be taken two ways.

IlikedAUH2O on December 29, 2011 at 10:38 AM

she remains in Washington only at the behest of her campaign donors.

Flora Duh on December 29, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Interesting, obviously some folks haven’t gotten all they can get.

Cindy Munford on December 29, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Punchenko on December 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read, especially when it’s an open primary.

Cindy Munford on December 29, 2011 at 10:46 AM

IlikedAUH2O on December 29, 2011 at 10:38 AM

He did not lecture her. I wrote the article. Reagan was the best president Americans have had in this generation. And Romney is not a Conservative.

kingsjester on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Look at it this way, if Romney is the Republican nominee than finally the government will save money. No moving van and no new stationary.

Cindy Munford on December 29, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Good Grief.
Why does anyone in Iowa give a hoot for Mittens?
The guy never slung a hay bail over his shoulder in his life.
Is it the ethanol subsidies, or what?
Finally … Who gives a flyin’ flock what Iowans turn out for whom?

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 29, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Quote: “Good job repubican establishment you’ve almost succeeded in losing another election . Now sit back and wait to complain about all the conservatives who don’t show up to anoint your boy mliqtoast mitt.”

This is a thread-winner imho. Lash out all you like RINOS when Democrat-lite Romney (Or the other clowns like him – Newt, Huntsman, etc) crashes and burns in front of the train-to-full-retard that is King Barry Hussein.

In my opinion, we are witnessing the Republican Party tear in half, and to be honest, I can’t say that I will shed tears for it’s passing, even though that means the Democrats have pretty much won the war. I can’t help but thing we as a people somehow deserve the hell on earth the commies will usher in.

Sometimes the only option is to cut your own nose off to spite your face.

Sure, you die to. But at least you get the satisfaction of knowing you took a foe with you. Often times in life, this is the best you can expect.

SilverDeth on December 29, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3