South Carolina: Romney 29, Gingrich 24, Paul 15, Santorum 14

posted at 6:22 pm on January 13, 2012 by Allahpundit

Strikingly similar to what Rasmussen found earlier today so it’s a safe bet that this is what the vote actually looks like right now. Make a mental note of this spread so that we can use it later to measure how well Newt’s Bain attacks played in the state. Barring some sort of calamitous Romney stumble at Thursday’s debate, that’s probably the only thing capable of moving the needle dramatically over the next week. Interestingly, Mitt’s net favorables are already down seven points over the past week while Newt’s are up four points. Hmmmmm.

Things haven’t changed too much at the top in the last week. Romney is down 1 point from his pre-New Hampshire standing, while Gingrich has gained a point. There’s more movement in the middle. Paul has gained 6 points to move into 3rd place, while Santorum has dropped by 5 points. Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman have each picked up a single point and remain in 5th and 6th place respectively.

Why is Romney winning South Carolina? Voters there are overwhelmingly focused on the economy this year and that’s working to his advantage. 39% say jobs and the economy are their top issue, closely followed by 34% who pick government spending and reducing the debt. Asked who they trust most on economic issues 35% pick Romney to 25% for Gingrich, 16% for Paul, and 10 for Santorum. And despite the attacks on it this week Romney’s business background is an asset for him. 58% have a favorable opinion of his record in business to just 27% with a negative view of it…

South Carolinians, more so than we’ve found in New Hampshire and Iowa, are concerned about electability. 50% say they’re most concerned about a candidate’s ability to beat Barack Obama, while 37% place a bigger priority on the candidate’s positions on the issues. New Hampshire voters were more concerned about issue stances by a 55-37 margin on that question and Iowa voters were by a 54/31 spread. The more voters care about electability, the better Romney’s chances are and he leads Gingrich 35-27 with those folks.

Rasmussen also detected Santorum’s support fading, and no wonder: PPP notes that just four percent of voters say social issues are their top concern, and even there, Santorum leads Romney by just two points. What’s odd is that it’s Paul, not Gingrich or Perry, who seems to be picking up Santorum’s slack. I don’t know how to explain that unless a big chunk of Santorum’s boost after Iowa was simply undecideds who were disaffected with both Romney and Gingrich giving him a first look. Some of them didn’t like what they saw, but rather than switch to Perry or Huntsman, both of whom seem dead in the water and likely to be out 10 days from now (Huntsman’s staffers are reportedly already looking for the exits), they’re moving towards the lone remaining guy who’s in it for the long haul. That’s as good a sign as you can get that there’s no last-second surge coming for Perry. If he dropped out now and endorsed Gingrich, that could pull Newt almost even for the lead, but I think he’s determined to play this out. You know who that benefits?

CNN is out with a new national poll tonight and Romney leads there too, of course: Mitt 34, Newt 18, Paul 15, Santorum 15. How’s he doing it? With electability, yes, but there’s more to it than that. Scott Rasmussen notes that Mitt Romney might actually be … the tea-party candidate:

Looking ahead to the Florida primary, 94 percent of tea party Republicans say they will vote for whomever wins the GOP nomination. Only 77 percent of non-tea party Republicans are willing to make the same pledge. This commitment to party loyalty comes even though tea party activists are less convinced than others that Romney is the strongest general election candidate. Similar results have been found in survey after survey in the 2012 primary season.

The pragmatism of the tea party is confirmed by exit polling data conducted for The Associated Press and major television networks in New Hampshire. Among those who support the tea party, 44 percent said the ability to beat President Obama was the most important quality they wanted in a candidate. Nothing else came close.

However, among those who oppose the tea party, only 19 percent put electability first. Fifty-three percent of this group said experience is the most important quality. In other words, the supposedly more pragmatic Republicans think it’s more important to have a candidate with experience in the current political system than it is to have a candidate who can beat Obama.

Saying that you’ll vote for whoever’s the nominee in the interest of beating Obama isn’t the same as saying you hope Romney’s the nominee, but remember that Mitt won easily among tea partiers in New Hampshire. If TPers are convinced that he’s the most electable option in the field, it only stands to reason that they’d start holding their noses and voting for him now in order to play their strongest hand against The One in November. The tea party’s not supposed to be an “anybody but Obama” movement — it wasn’t even an “anybody but Coons” movement in Delaware in 2010 — but maybe, after trillions in new debt and O’s endless rhetoric about people paying their “fair share,” that’s how it’s shaken out. Just get Obama out and get anyone else in.

One other detail from PPP: 34 percent of voters say they’d be “unwilling to vote for a candidate who had supported an individual mandate for health care at the state level.” Good thing no one’s told them there’s a candidate like that running this year! Exit quotation from a Romney advisor, commenting on conservatives’ failure to consolidate against him: “A real movement would have found a horse.”


Related Posts:

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

Perry’s not even in the top 3 in SC right now in the polls.

At some point you have to honest with yourself and admit this guy isn’t going anywhere but back to Texas.

For all the Perry fans who dumped all over Palin as a candidate, she was a hell of a lot better of a candidate than Perry turned out to be. It’s sort of amusing.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 7:53 PM

I think if Perry was govenor in Mass, he probably would have been a lot like Romney, especially on taxes and healthcare.

I think he’s still a Democrat outside of abortion and gun rights. He knew he couldn’t win as a Democrat in Texas.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 7:10 PM

If Perry ever governed a liberal state like MA it would be doing a lot better economically and they would pay a lot less in Taxes…he’d also work to pass right to work legislation and pass gun rights…Also thee would be a higher class of BBQ & Tex-Mex joints and maybe some kickass music.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Breaking news!! Romney is part owner of Clear Channel!! Maybe that explains the Media water carrying.

abobo on January 13, 2012 at 7:55 PM

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I wonder how many people who were on the fence have been driven away from Perry by your rabid fanaticism? You and Perry are helping Mitt win and you don’t even know it.

Perry is siphoning votes away from better candidates and we are going to end up with Mitt. Look at the data.
Sheesh.

Look what is happening right in front of your eyes man.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 7:56 PM

At some point you have to honest with yourself and admit this guy isn’t going anywhere but back to Texas.

For all the Perry fans who dumped all over Palin as a candidate, she was a hell of a lot better of a candidate than Perry turned out to be. It’s sort of amusing.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 7:53 PM

you’re just baiting…

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 7:57 PM

If you can’t find anything good to say about Perry, at least refrain from sullying his reputation and give him his due.

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Rick Perry has done a fine job of sullying his own reputation.

JPeterman on January 13, 2012 at 7:57 PM

TheRightMan,

You have to be a conservative to win in Texas.

I’m not excusing Romney, I’m Romney’s biggest critic on here. I just don’t think Perry is as conservative as his SuperFans claim he is. Has he ever really gone after Romney that hard on RomneyCare? To me, he seems kind of timid or disinterested in that issue.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 7:47 PM

But that is the crux of my argument, Dr. Tesla.

I don’t know what your doctorate is in but you should know that outside solid facts, you can only make conjectures which may or may not be true.

Notice the words you use:

“I just don’t think…”
“…he seems…”

The only things that matter are the facts that we have on hand.

1. Perry’s successful conservative governing record convinces me that he is a conservative who is smart enough to lead his state into becoming the most prosperous.

2. Romney’s failed liberal governing record convinces me that he is a liberal RINO, who was not smart enough to parlay his business expertise into results for his state.

And yet my betters here tell me based on ‘debates’ that are actually not debates that Perry is dumb and Romney is the smartest evah!

Well, we shall see – won’t we?

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Perry’s not even in the top 3 in SC right now in the polls.

At some point you have to honest with yourself and admit this guy isn’t going anywhere but back to Texas.

For all the Perry fans who dumped all over Palin as a candidate, she was a hell of a lot better of a candidate than Perry turned out to be. It’s sort of amusing.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 7:53 PM

+ One Trillion.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 7:57 PM

The reality is Perry decision to get in may have kept a more competent conservative candidate from getting in the race, and I’m not talking about Palin here. I think everybody thought he was going to be much better candidate than he turned out to be. He is as much to blame for a Romney nomination as National Review and the Ann Coulter pundits who put Romney above conservativism.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Breaking news!! Romney is part owner of Clear Channel!! Maybe that explains the Media water carrying.

abobo on January 13, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Yeah…that’s why conservative talk radio is doing everything they and to axe Perry before Texas.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Rick Perry has done a fine job of sullying his own reputation.

JPeterman on January 13, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Its amazing how blindly devoted these Perry shills have proven themselves to be. Perry is a complete joke and has horrible numbers and they still think he can pull it off.

Perry is helping Mitt win and they don’t even know how or why that is.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Breaking news!! Romney is part owner of Clear Channel!! Maybe that explains the Media water carrying.

abobo on January 13, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Are you trying to say Rush has been shilling for Romney? There must be like 5 different Rushs on the radio.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM

For all the Perry fans who dumped all over Palin as a candidate, she was a hell of a lot better of a candidate than Perry turned out to be. It’s sort of amusing.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Erm… cough, cough… did I miss when Palin became a candidate?

She never even got into the starting gate so I fail to see how the two can be compared.

At least Perry tried, even if he fails.

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:02 PM

The reality is Perry decision to get in may have kept a more competent conservative candidate from getting in the race, and I’m not talking about Palin here. I think everybody thought he was going to be much better candidate than he turned out to be. He is as much to blame for a Romney nomination as National Review and the Ann Coulter pundits who put Romney above conservativism.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM

really the silliest whine from an ignoramus I’ve read on this blog yet.

Palin was never going to run because of John”Bhopal” Coale…it was a ratings booster for FOX and a moneymaker for her superpac which he started.

You were chumped by Palin Inc.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:02 PM

A

re you trying to say Rush has been shilling for Romney? There must be like 5 different Rushs on the radio.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Rush has an overlord and his name is Mitt

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Someone should pull the plug on these PerryBots. They are destroying conservatism. Perry is helping Mitt win. If Perry drops out he can give a better candidate a chance.

The mitt supporters are happy perry is in and stealing votes from newt and santorum. And yet the Perry cultists keep on cheering for a total loser.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Its amazing how blindly devoted these Perry shills have proven themselves to be. Perry is a complete joke and has horrible numbers and they still think he can pull it off.

Perry is helping Mitt win and they don’t even know how or why that is.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM

How’s your state doin’

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:04 PM

If Perry ever governed a liberal state like MA it would be doing a lot better economically and they would pay a lot less in Taxes…he’d also work to pass right to work legislation and pass gun rights…Also thee would be a higher class of BBQ & Tex-Mex joints and maybe some kickass music.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 7:54 PM

My belief is that Perry would have been a lot like Romney if he lived in a liberal state like Mass…he’d say whatever to get elected and then basically do whatever majority of people supported in the polls.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Yeah…that’s why conservative talk radio is doing everything they and to axe Perry before Texas.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM

And Hotair is owned by Salem Communications, who’s CEO is big Perry backer.

Next!

JPeterman on January 13, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I agree. Perry has poisoned the well for himself and has ruined the field for better, more competent candidates to enter and compete.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Rush has an overlord and his name is Mitt

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Ok, b/c I would have thought Rush preferred Perry. It’s interesting how everybody has a different perspective of what Rush thinks, given that he is a good communicator.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Breaking news!! Romney is part owner of Clear Channel!! Maybe that explains the Media water carrying.

abobo on January 13, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Could be.

At least it would explain the negative media loop that I explained Perry has been placed into. See my comment @ 7:34pm.

Can you imagine how Perry’s fortunes will change overnight were he to get ONE good article on the major media networks instead of the incessant “Perry is done” meme that is played ad nauseum?

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:07 PM

The mitt supporters are happy perry is in and stealing votes from newt and santorum. And yet the Perry cultists keep on cheering for a total loser.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Bain took corporate welfare…spread the word to tea party folks.

Romney: Corporate Welfare Bum

onsider if you will what Mitt Romney had to say about welfare and dependency at CPAC in February 2008:

The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960′s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug. We have got to fight it like the poison it is.

Yet during Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, he was more than happy to receive government largesse from the ample bosom of the Nanny State. Although Bain invested more than $18 million in 1994 to start up Steel Dynamics, a steel mill based in Butler, Indiana, the state and DeKalb County provided Bain with $37 million in grants and subsidies. On top of that, DeKalb County issued a tax increase to finance infrastructure improvements around the plant. When Bain sold its interest in Steel Dynamics five years later it made a cool $104 million. O.K., Steel Dynamics is still going strong nearly two decades later. So what am I complaining about? Well, how can we call this free enterprise when the taxpayer is assuming most of the risk?…”

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/13/romney-corporate-welfare-bum

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:07 PM

At least Perry tried. Heh.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:08 PM

A lot of Perry supporters think it’s Rush’s job to make Perry a winner.

Perry’s got to make the case for Perry, and he just isn’t getting the job done.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM


Romney: Corporate Welfare Bum

“Another steel company, GS Industries in Kansas City, didn’t fare so well. Bain hired lobbyists who persuaded the federal government to give GS Industries a loan guarantee. However, the company went bankrupt in 2001 before the loan could be delivered. Nevertheless, Bain executives still made $50 million despite the bankruptcy. Now while it’s true that Romney left Bain in 1999 to organize the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Romney still receives a share of Bain’s profits in perpetuity so Romney surely benefited from the demise of GS Industries while its workers lost their health insurance and a significant portion of their pensions.

The question here is if one can make millions of dollars whether a company succeeds or fails then where is the risk-taking Romney speaks of so fondly? Look there isn’t any evidence to suggest that Romney or Bain made their money illegally. Yet you don’t have to support the Occupy movement to know that the playing field is pro-business, not pro-market. So it is disingenuous on Romney’s part to decry welfare dependency as a poison to be fought when he has been more than happy to go before the government, role up his sleeve and have another form of poison injected into his arm and then come back for more. Romney is equally disingenuous to suggest that any criticism of his tenure at Bain Capital is an attack on free enterprise itself especially when he never practiced free enterprise in the first place. Mitt Romney is what I would call a corporate welfare bum.”

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/13/romney-corporate-welfare-bum

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:11 PM

I agree. Perry has poisoned the well for himself and has ruined the field for better, more competent candidates to enter and compete.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:06 PM

*Sigh*

Let me guess. Another bitter Palinista who blames Perry for Palin not running, right?

Can you let it go already? Geez.

Can you point to where it is written in the conservative rulebook that “Thou shalt not run for election because there are more competent candidates”? Or explain why those competent candidates didn’t see fit to run and let their competency decide the race?

Do you know how ‘dumb’ you sound?

And yet you call Perry the dumb one?

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Perry’s gone from frontrunner and his supporters confident that he will defeat Romney to being behind Huntsman in SC and his supporters talking about “at least he tried”.

After all the heat Fred Thompson took, called lazy, etc, why all the excuses for Perry? I thought Thompson ran a good campaign once he got in but Republican voters wouldn’t get past the fact he got in the campaign “late”.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM

A lot of Perry supporters think it’s Rush’s job to make Perry a winner.

Perry’s got to make the case for Perry, and he just isn’t getting the job done.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Perry never gets a fair shake by Big Media in Texas…we don’t expect much & call out the hypocrites when we see them.

Romney is a hypocrite…He’s a corporate welfare bum & made millions off tax payers when companies went bust.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:14 PM

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM

The Santorum and Gingrich bots are doing far more harm to conservatism. Shut those guys down, in my opinion.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 8:15 PM

And Hotair is owned by Salem Communications, who’s CEO is big Perry backer.

Next!

JPeterman on January 13, 2012 at 8:05 PM

And did it stop AllahP from penning this post, which doesn’t paint Perry in a positive light?

At least those arguing about a Romney bias in the media have a point.

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:15 PM

At least Perry tried. Heh.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:08 PM

The more stuff comes out about Bain the faster Romney will sink.

Romney: Corporate Welfare Bum

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/13/romney-corporate-welfare-bum

Defend That

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Perry never gets a fair shake by Big Media in Texas…we don’t expect much & call out the hypocrites when we see them.

Romney is a hypocrite…He’s a corporate welfare bum & made millions off tax payers when companies went bust.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Ok, your comments here underscore my personal belief that Perry’s still bit of a southern Democrat.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:16 PM

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Wow, keep guessing clown.

First I’m a MittBot, then I’m a Palin person, what’s next. Ron Paul.

And you call yourself TheRightMan? What? you get it right after the first 100 guess? No surprise you shill for Perry. Perry gets it wrong 9 times out of 10.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:16 PM

I’m not in the tank for Romney, and the Bain stuff doesn’t interest me. I think it’s one of the reasons why we should nominate one of the other guys because your average low information voter isn’t going to understand what Bain Capital did and does.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Perry’s gone from frontrunner and his supporters confident that he will defeat Romney to being behind Huntsman in SC and his supporters talking about “at least he tried”.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM

I used the “at least he tried” in a rebut to a bitter Palinista that can’t get over their conspiracy theory that Perry entered the race to stop Palin from running.

Do you count yourself a member of that group? I won’t be surprised.

It usually explains the so-called ‘conservatives’ that hate Perry with an intensity that can’t be otherwise explained.

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Mitt people should be thrilled that Perry is helping Mitt by staying in the race long after his expiration date.

Some one toe tag Perry. He’s a corpse helping Mitt win.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Interestingly, Mitt’s net favorables are already down seven points over the past week while Newt’s are up four points. Hmmmmm.

This can’t be true, because last week when I said Newt was gaining, Allahpundit scolded me and said I was wrong.

fossten on January 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Beating down other candidates is not going to bring Rick Perry back. Enjoy your evening in your tent in Zucotti Park.

JPeterman on January 13, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Ok, your comments here underscore my personal belief that Perry’s still bit of a southern Democrat.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Rick Perry is a conservative and right now he’s taking on his own party saying they are spending too much.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:21 PM

I think Santorum has been the most honest campaigner while not pandering. We should reward candidates like this. He wasn’t perfectly conservative as Senator but he’s cleary more conservative than Romney and more prepared than Perry and more difficult to demonize than Newtie poo.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM

And you call yourself TheRightMan? What? you get it right after the first 100 guess? No surprise you shill for Perry. Perry gets it wrong 9 times out of 10.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:16 PM

At least Perry got it right enough times to make his state the most successful in the country. I am proud to support him. Perry is also humble enough to admit when he is wrong. That is my kind of guy.

There are two groups that hate Perry with a high enough intensity that can be labelled as PDS:

1. Mittbots
2. Bitter Palinistas – the subset of Palin supporters that keep blaming Perry for Palin’s refusal to run.

You are free to let me know which group best describes you although I couldn’t care less.

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Rick Perry is a conservative and right now he’s taking on his own party saying they are spending too much.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:21 PM

You don’t think some of his attacks on Bain capital seem kind of anti-free market, anti-capitalist and generally misinformed?

I don’t mind candidates saying that Obama is going to make Bain a big issue and using that to deflate the myth of Mitt’s superior electablity, but Perry went full liberal on the issue.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:24 PM

It’s kind of lame for Perry fans to blame Palin for Perry’s poor showing.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:25 PM

The HA not-Romney natives seem to be getting restless, it sure looks like Perry is the first one being voted off not-Mitt Island.

whatcat on January 13, 2012 at 8:26 PM

It’s kind of lame for Perry fans to blame Palin for Perry’s poor showing.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Which Perry fan has blamed Palin for Perry’s poor showing?

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I think Romney has already been voted off the island, the guy is obviously underperforming despite a decade of that precious executive experience. On paper, you’d think he’d at least be in 2nd place.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:28 PM

The HA not-Romney natives seem to be getting restless, it sure looks like Perry is the first one being voted off not-Mitt Island.

whatcat on January 13, 2012 at 8:26 PM

HA has always had its more than fair share of Perry haters.

It dates from August 2011 when Perry entered the race and some Palin supporters here unleashed on him with the hope that they were softening him up before Palin later entered the race.

When that failed to happen, bitterness set in and it went downhill from there.

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:29 PM

TheRightMan,

It sure sounds like you were blaming Palin and/or her supporters for not supporting Perry.

You act like they had a duty to vote for Perry if they were previously for Palin, despite the fact Perry supporters generally disparage Palin.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Beating down other candidates is not going to bring Rick Perry back. Enjoy your evening in your tent in Zucotti Park.

JPeterman on January 13, 2012 at 8:19 PM

ha!

OK defend Romney being a hypocritical corporate welfare bum…making millions off Taxpayers.

Tell me how that is free enterprise?

Romney: Corporate Welfare Bum

“What Romney doesn’t mention is that Steel Dynamics also received generous tax breaks and other subsidies provided by the state of Indiana and the residents of DeKalb County, where the company’s first mill was built.

The story of Bain and Steel Dynamics illustrates how Romney, during his business career, made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider to be “corporate welfare.” It is a commitment that carried over into his term as governor of Massachusetts, when he offered similar incentives to lure businesses to his state.

Yet as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination, he emphasizes government’s adverse effects on economic growth.

Another steel company in which Bain invested, GS Industries, went bankrupt in 2001, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs, health insurance and a part of their pensions. Before going under, the company paid large dividends to Bain partners and expanded its Kansas City plant with the help of tax subsidies. It also sought a $50-million federal loan guarantee.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bain-subsidies-20120113,0,4573818,full.story

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I think Santorum has been the most honest campaigner while not pandering. We should reward candidates like this. He wasn’t perfectly conservative as Senator but he’s cleary more conservative than Romney and more prepared than Perry and more difficult to demonize than Newtie poo.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Oh brother!

Santorum went after Perry in the early debates over a border wall knowing full well his own border security bill that he authored calls for the same measures Perry has called for for years.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Wasn’t the point of Bain to buy failing companies and try to turn them around because they were at the brink of going bankrupt?

Is it a shock that some of them did go bankrupt? Bain probably couldn’t save every failing company in the world. Even with Mitt running it. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Ok,

I don’t think Perry is going to come out on top on the immigration issue. If I’m pushing Perry, I avoid that issue. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM

TheRightMan,

It sure sounds like you were blaming Palin and/or her supporters for not supporting Perry.

You act like they had a duty to vote for Perry if they were previously for Palin, despite the fact Perry supporters generally disparage Palin.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:29 PM

They sure did. Since Perry is so weak all his supporters could do was tear down anyone who didn’t lick Perry’s boots.

If Mitt wins SC we can thank and blame Perry. Perry cares more about himself than he does for conservatism.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:35 PM

I think Romney has already been voted off the island
Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I was specifically speaking of not-Mitt Island. By definition, Mitt is not on it. It’s only occupied by the not-Mitts. They’ll have to come to the consensus as to which not-Mitt candidate should be voted off.

whatcat on January 13, 2012 at 8:35 PM

whatcat,

I think that was an obvious type. I meant Perry.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Breaking news!! Romney is part owner of Clear Channel!! Maybe that explains the Media water carrying.

abobo on January 13, 2012 at 7:55 PM

So now we know why Rush and Hannity are defending and backing Flip Romney. The GOP establishment has their own George Soros and his name is Mitt Romney.

RedRobin145 on January 13, 2012 at 8:38 PM

During his political career, Mr. Romney has promoted his experience as a businessman while deflecting criticism of layoffs caused by private equity deals by noting that he left Bain in 1999. But records and interviews show that in the years since, he has benefited from at least a few Bain deals that resulted in upheaval for companies, workers and communities.

“One lucrative deal for Bain involved KB Toys, a company based in Pittsfield, Mass., which one of the firm’s partnerships bought in 2000. Three years later, when Mr. Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, the company began closing stores and laying off thousands of employees. More recently, Bain helped lead the private equity purchase of Clear Channel Communications, the nation’s largest radio station operator, which resulted in the loss of 2,500 jobs.

Much information about Mr. Romney’s wealth is not known publicly. Federal law does not obligate him to disclose the precise details of his investments. He has declined to release his tax returns, and his campaign last week refused to say what tax rate he paid on his Bain earnings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/us/politics/retirement-deal-keeps-bain-money-flowing-to-romney.html?_r=2&pa

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:39 PM

OK defend Romney being a hypocritical corporate welfare bum…making millions off Taxpayers.
workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:29 PM

By trying to refute crap from the LaTimes? Knock it off with the liberal, OWS’s, Barack Obama talking points. No matter how much you spam up the thread, Rick Perry is done.

Ingraham: You know I am going to raise the issue of Texans for Public Justice. Their analysis of your campaign contributions since 2000 [indicates] you have received more than $7 million from private-equity firms and private investment firms. Are any of those “vulture” firms?

Perry: Listen, I didn’t paint with a broad brush and say that every private equity firm out there is . . .

Ingraham: Only Romney’s are vultures? None of your guys, only Romney’s?

Perry: Look, Romney is running for president.

Ingraham: Yeah, you are running for president too, and you have benefitted from these firms.

Perry: Correct, and I don’t have a problem with that.

A real genius. And to think I supported him.

JPeterman on January 13, 2012 at 8:39 PM

They sure did. Since Perry is so weak all his supporters could do was tear down anyone who didn’t lick Perry’s boots.

If Mitt wins SC we can thank and blame Perry. Perry cares more about himself than he does for conservatism.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:35 PM

The problem is Perry announced at a Red State event, and Red State is kind of “establishment” to a certain extent. It’s good for them if Perry wins it, so they went nuclear on Santorum with the “pro-life statist” nonsense, while ignoring Perry’s heresies and flaws.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:39 PM

whatcat,
I think that was an obvious type. I meant Perry.
Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:37 PM

It’s Friday, the obvious typo escaped me.

whatcat on January 13, 2012 at 8:40 PM

If Mitt wins SC we can thank and blame Perry. Perry cares more about himself than he does for conservatism.

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:35 PM

So pray tell at what stage should Santorum and Gingrich have dropped their bids to support Perry? August 2011? September 2011? When Perry was riding high?

If ‘No’, can you tell me what exactly has changed?

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:40 PM

So now we know why Rush and Hannity are defending and backing Flip Romney. The GOP establishment has their own George Soros and his name is Mitt Romney.

RedRobin145 on January 13, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Or Silvio Berlusconi…He owned a lot of media in Italy.

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:40 PM

So now we know why Rush and Hannity are defending and backing Flip Romney. The GOP establishment has their own George Soros and his name is Mitt Romney.

RedRobin145 on January 13, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Do you even care about getting it right? Or is saying untrue things ok with you?

Rush has probably been more positive things to say about Perry than any other candidate. You so partisan that you can’t even handle Rush criticizing Perry’s line of attack on Bain capital as sounding like an Obama line of attack.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:43 PM

…cleary more conservative than Romney…

Big spender, big government.

…and more prepared than Perry…

No money and no organization. It’s becoming increasingly apparent in SC.

…and more difficult to demonize than Newtie poo.

His homophobia will not win over voters.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Seriously, Romney is a better candidate than Santorum.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 8:44 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/us/politics/retirement-deal-keeps-bain-money-flowing-to-romney.html?_r=2&pa

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Quoting the New York Slimes now? The mouth piece of the Obama Administration? The most liberal rag in the country?

***face palm***

JPeterman on January 13, 2012 at 8:45 PM

JPeterman on January 13, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Romney is a hypocrite…So he makes money off the Tax Payers to go into a company…loads the companies up with more debt and still fleece taxpayers when the companies go belly up…

Romney: Corporate Welfare Bum

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:45 PM

TheRightMan,

It sure sounds like you were blaming Palin and/or her supporters for not supporting Perry.

You act like they had a duty to vote for Perry if they were previously for Palin, despite the fact Perry supporters generally disparage Palin.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:29 PM

You do know all the comments I’ve made on tis thread can be easily pulled up, right?

So can you pinpoint the exact comments that indicate that I am blaming Palin and/or her supporters for not supporting Perry? Or where I said they had an obligation to support Perry.

On the contrary, I have been referring to a group I name the ‘bitter Palinistas’. I explained that these hate Perry with a passion because they wrongly blame him for keeping Palin out of the race.

TheRightMan on January 13, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Seriously, Romney is a better candidate than Santorum.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Yeah if he was a conservative and didn’t mind sticking his nose in our medical decisions while govenor.

You aren’t a conservative so this doesn’t matter to you. Most people don’t care about gay issues. Sorry to break that news to you but the world doesn’t revolve around gay people for most normal straight people.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Rush has an overlord and his name is Mitt.

workingclass artist on Januarythe 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Cool. Who knew the Mitt has been backing a champion of conservatism all along.

Should we welcome Mitt with Megadittos?

I’m sure Rush had no problem turning over control of the content of his show just to stay on the air.

WhatNot on January 13, 2012 at 8:46 PM

TherightMan,

You seem more bitter than any Palin supporter I see on here.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Quoting the New York Slimes now? The mouth piece of the Obama Administration? The most liberal rag in the country?

***face palm***

JPeterman on January 13, 2012 at 8:45 PM

American Spectator used the links.

Romney is equally disingenuous to suggest that any criticism of his tenure at Bain Capital is an attack on free enterprise itself especially when he never practiced free enterprise in the first place. Mitt Romney is what I would call a corporate welfare bum.

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/13/romney-corporate-welfare-bum

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Santorum beats the hell out of Romney on healthcare policy, welfare reform, social security reform, taxes, etc

I’ll spot you the gays to Romney, although Romney said in one of the NH debates he supports an admendment to the Constitution that makes marriage as only b/t man and woman. But he’s not a homophobe, right. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Lets bring back Jim Crow laws. After all, most white people don’t care about black people.

And I’m pretty far to the right, honestly.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Righteous!

Gov. Rick Perry on the Citizen Legislators Act

“AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement on the Citizen Legislators Act filed today by Illinois Congressman Timothy V. Johnson.

“I applaud Rep. Johnson for filing legislation to create a part-time, citizen congress that will restore the vision of our founding fathers. This bill aligns closely with my Uproot and Overhaul Washington plan, which calls for cutting congressional sessions, staffs and salaries in half.

“I support Rep. Johnson’s legislation because I believe members of Congress should spend less time in Washington and more time living at home under the laws they pass with the people they represent.

“Americans are tired of Washington politicians who are out of touch, spend all their time inside the beltway, and whose reckless spending and corrupt practices are endangering our great nation.
It is time to send these politicians back home to get real jobs rather than spending all their time in Washington spending money we don’t have on programs we don’t need.

“With a part-time congress, we can save taxpayers billions of dollars, end the permanent political class and begin a complete overhaul of Washington’s broken status quo.”

http://www.rickperry.org/news/gov-rick-perry-on-the-citizen-legislators-act/

workingclass artist on January 13, 2012 at 9:00 PM

SparkPlug on January 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Record wise here is what we have in Republican field:

1>Perry – 10+ year of mostly conservative record as governor.
2>Huntsman – Good conservative record as Governor.
3>Newt – The only guy who has done something meaningful in DC. Balanced budget and reformed at least some welfare all the while with a democrat as President.
4>Ron Paul – Nut Case.
5>Rick Santorum – Big government social conservative.
6>Romney – I can’t think of anything meaningful he has done. He is a liberal Republican who did not run for reelection. Has been losing forever. And is a major flip flopper. He will say whatever helps him. For Romney it is all about him. And Yes Obamneycare.

So as people who think, it makes sense to support Perry. Maybe even Huntsman or Newt.

None of them are perfect. But Romney has the worst record.

antisocial on January 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Lets bring back Jim Crow laws. After all, most white people don’t care about black people.

And I’m pretty far to the right, honestly.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM

If you support Romney, I think it’s legit to question your conservatism. Especially if you are obsessed with gay issues and that’s why prefer one candidate over another, even though the candidate you prefer has claimed to be anti-gay marriage.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM

When gays are not allowed to vote, not allowed to go to “straight” schools, discriminated against in hiring, maybe I’ll weep for them.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Here’s a column by Dr. Thomas Sowell, who I think has the right of it on gay issues:

Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the “gay marriage” issue.

There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes.

Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between “consenting adults” in private is none of the government’s business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government’s business — and that government has an obligation to give its approval.

Then there are the strained analogies with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged the racial laws of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong with Massachusetts judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws that they consider unjust today?

First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were private citizens and they did not put themselves above the law. On the contrary, they submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support needed to change the laws.

As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power of government. Their situation was very different from that of public officials who use the power delegated to them through the framework of law to betray that framework itself, which they swore to uphold as a condition of receiving their power.

The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace, who defied the law by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the University of Alabama under a court order.

After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his rights to argue for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders argued against it. But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy the law was a violation of his oath.

If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the mayor of San Francisco want to resign their jobs and start advocating gay marriage, they have every right to do so. But that is wholly different from using the authority delegated to them under the law to subvert the law.

Gay rights activists argue that activist judges have overturned unjust laws in the past and that society is better off for it. The argument that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the past is hardly a basis for accepting unlawful acts in general.

If you only want to accept particular unlawful acts that you agree with, then of course others will have other unlawful acts that they agree with. Considering how many different groups have how many different sets of values, that road leads to anarchy.

Have we not seen enough anarchy in Haiti, Rwanda and other places to know not to go there?

The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that this is an issue of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes and species?

Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.

Even at the individual level, men and women have different circumstances, if only from the fact that women have babies and men do not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of women and men justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society to keep this asymmetrical relationship viable — for society’s sake.

Neither of these considerations applies to unions where the people are of the same sex.

Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the asymmetries of marriage have built up a large body of laws and practices geared to that particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of that to another relationship that was not contemplated when these laws were passed is to make rhetoric more important than reality.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Sorry, I’m not a Romney supporter. I do believe that Romney is the candidate with the best chance against Obama, however. And I fully believe that Romney is a better candidate (and conservative) than Rick Santorum.

But, I will say that that is not what I vote on. I vote for the candidate who best represents my views, and that’s Ron Paul. If I were to rank the candidates from my point of view, it’d be Paul, Pery, Romney and the rest don’t register (but, I suppose you could throw Huntsman beside Romney since they’re essentially the same candidate). But, I’ll also mention there’s a giant gap between Paul and Perry.

I wouldn’t say I’m obsessed with gay issues. I’m obsessed with equality (not the social equality that the democrats talk about, the legal kind of equality). If the government is going to provide tax breaks and other perks to married couples, I feel it’s the government’s obligation to provide that service to all people equally. But, in my ideal government, marriage would be returned to the church.

Take the Defense of Marriage Act (and this is a major thing I disagree with Paul on). I don’t think it’s the federal government’s place to recognize any marriage. But, it’s especially absurd to federally protect straight marriage and not gay marriage. If the federal government isn’t going to protect gay marriage, it shouldn’t be protecting straight marriage.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Ok, you don[t provide a single example of how Romney is more conservative than Santorum. You can’t, but his record in Mass. is that of a liberal Democrat.

I think if a couple is incapable of producing kids, they shouldn’t get the perks of marriage provided by the government. The whole point of marriage was to incentivize men to stay with the women they knocked up for “the kids”. Gays don’t have kids, I don’t see why they should get government perks just b/c they are gay. You can say it’s not fair all you want, but life isn’t fair, and a lot of those gays voted for Obama who isn’t exactly concerned about freedom in general.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Romney’s a better candidate than Santorum at surface, superficial level. He’s more handsome, more polished, seems smart, likeable enough.

But his electablity is over-hyped and the presidency is a job that requires you to take and push a political philosophy. Romney doesn’t seem to like that aspect of politics. If he wants to manage something, there’s a Taco Bell out there that could use a good manager.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes and species?

Sowell just undermined his entire argument right there.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Sowell just undermined his entire argument right there.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I don’t think so, why can’t polgamists get government recognition perks for their sexual relations if gay couples do? I think you undermine your entire argument when you want to deny polgamists their rights.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:25 PM

I think to compare the “plight” of the gays to what black people suffered in America is both historically ignorant and a slight to those black people. You are trivializing it.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Regarding the gay part, so when a man and woman get married and it turns out that one of them is infertile, should their perks be revoked? They can’t have kids, so they shouldn’t get the benefits of marriage.

As for Romney, I won’t be voting for him any time soon. But, worst case scenario with a Romney presidency is that everything stays the same. I’ll take that over further oppression any day.

And Obama is a centrist. He just used the progressives to get elected. He never cared about ending the wars, gay marriage, medical marijuana. He just pandered to the respective advocates to get their votes.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Regarding the gay part, so when a man and woman get married and it turns out that one of them is infertile, should their perks be revoked? They can’t have kids, so they shouldn’t get the benefits of marriage

Like I said, life’s not fair, but marriage was set up due to the fact that women have babies and to encourage men to stick around for the good of the kids.

Gays are not going to have kids, unless we also legalize gays adopting kids, which I think is a bad idea, b/c we don’t know what impact having gay parents has on kids. The normal situation for kids is to have heterosexual parents and when you start messing with what is normal, you can have negativei mpacts on kids. You see this already with kids who grow up in one-parent homes…they have more problems than kids who grow up in the traditional two parent home.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:32 PM

And Obama is a centrist. He just used the progressives to get elected. He never cared about ending the wars, gay marriage, medical marijuana. He just pandered to the respective advocates to get their votes.

Anybody that thinks Obama is a centrist is loony tunes leftwing. You defintely put a premium on gay issues if that’s the test.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:25 PM

I have no problem with polygamy. I find it dumb that the government gets involved with that. I read a lot of William Norman Grigg, who does a wonderful job writing about government abuses, particularly in the case of police abuse (if interested). Back in 2007-2008 or so, he wrote a lot about the kidnapping of the children at the FLDS ranch in TX. That was an incredible tragedy. And to make things worse, the people responsible were not punished. But, this is a long line of government offenses, which includes incidents like Mt. Carmel or Ruby Ridge. These people get promotions for their major offenses. But, I’m getting a bit off subject now.

It is blatantly wrong to compare gay marriage to bestiality and pedophilia.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 9:35 PM

If the federal government isn’t going to protect gay marriage, it shouldn’t be protecting straight marriage.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 9:14 PM

“gay marriage” (?). Marriage as far as I understand it is between a man and a women. Gay love exists I’m sure. Love Marriage. Marriage wasn’t invented this century.

Great job Dr.T in moving the discussion to teh geys.

BoxHead1 on January 13, 2012 at 9:38 PM

It is blatantly wrong to compare gay marriage to bestiality and pedophilia

Why, it’s all abnormal sexual behavoir. Bestiality and pedophilia are more weird and creepy compared to homosexuality, but that doesn’[t mean homosexuality. It’s an odd, weird, abnormal, deviant behavnoir that occurs with some frequency among humans.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Love is not Marriage

BoxHead1 on January 13, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Great job Dr.T in moving the discussion to teh geys.

BoxHead1 on January 13, 2012 at 9:38 PM

The Santorum haters move it to the gays. Occasionaly I take them up on it. I’m agnostic on the issue for the most part but I do question why gays must receive government recognition for their relationships and perks for it as they can’t have kids. They want to make it out as big government if the government doesn’t give them perks for being gay. It’s an absurd logic.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:32 PM

If there’s one universal truth, it’s that no matter what you do as a parent, you’ll ruin your child’s life. Personally, I’d prefer to see a child go to two men who love the child rather than be raised by the state’s foster care.

But, we’ve established a limitation on marriage, it must produce a child. So, a married man and woman who can’t have children shouldn’t get the benefits of marriage. A man and woman who decide not to have children shouldn’t get the benefits of marriage. If a man and woman divorce without producing a child, should they be arrested for tax evasion?

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:40 PM

I’m not criticizing. We all secretly just want to comment on gay stuff.

BoxHead1 on January 13, 2012 at 9:42 PM

BoxHead1 on January 13, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Eh, it was my fault. I brought up Santorum’s homophobia.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Ok,

Let me try it from another angle, the backdoor, I’ll call it.

I have epilepsy. Why can’t I get government recongition for having epilepsy and some tax benefits for it? That’s essentially what gay couples argue for, right? :)

I’m abnormal too, government needs to hook me with some goodies too, right? Or it’s discrimnation, big government, etc?

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:40 PM

I’d argue that it is big government to define marriage. The federal government should abstain on what is and isn’t marriage and let the states handle it.

Back in the day, that’s what conservatism was all about, let the states decide.

gyrmnix on January 13, 2012 at 9:46 PM

I think most kids would prefer to have a single parent than two daddies or two mommies. That’s a weird situuation to put little Johnny or little Suzy Q in, in my view. Kids shouldn’t have to explain why they have two dads or two moms to other kids. Ending their innocence b/c all you care about is gays getting their way on every thing.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:46 PM

What if what the states decides is big government?

I don’t get this notion that just because it’s done at the state level, it’s not big government. The Southern states used to use the state rights argument back in the day to justify f— slavery, man.

Dr. Tesla on January 13, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3