Quotes of the day

posted at 8:00 pm on January 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

“If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican presidential nominee, he will begin the general-election campaign with middling favorability ratings as compared with other recent standard-bearers.

“The saving graces for Mr. Romney: the incumbent in the White House is not very popular, either. And Mr. Romney’s favorability ratings, while mediocre, are better than those of his Republican opponents…

“In contrast to Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama, other recent nominees had clearly net-positive favorability ratings at this stage of the campaign.”

***

“In recent elections, blue-collar white voters have been overwhelmingly in the Republican column. Mr. Obama did much better among them in 2008 than the previous two Democratic presidential candidates had done. But in the 2010 midterm elections, they flocked back to the Republicans…

“Now the effort by some of his fellow Republicans to portray Mr. Romney as a job killer during his time at Bain Capital has opened new opportunities for the Obama team among working-class voters, some strategists say.

“It is too soon to know how much the development might help Mr. Obama, said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, which does extensive public opinion surveys.

“‘But it at least gives them something to talk about and a place to start,’ Mr. Kohut said, referring to the Obama campaign’s opportunity to raise Mr. Romney’s record with working-class voters.”

***

“Romney, indeed, is the perfect foil for the Obama campaign, first because he is the very epitome of a Republican born rich who got richer by moving money around — a millionaire plutocrat who just can’t relate to ‘ordinary’ Americans, and second because he is yet another Republican political/dynastic legatee. Think about it: We’ve gone from one Bush trying to outdo his Senate father by becoming president, to another Bush trying to outdo his president father by winning two terms as president, to a McCain trying to outdo his admiral father and admiral grandfather by becoming president… and now to a Romney trying to outdo his Michigan governor father and failed presidential front-runner by this time succeeding as a presidential front-runner. In the hands of the $800 million Obama campaign, this can easily by portrayed as a rather creepy and anti-American reliance on dynasticism.

“Combine that with what appears to be a plastic insincerity (again, the ‘flip-flopping’ charge was devastating against Al Gore and can be so again), with a ‘how dare you question me’ attitude that increasingly has shown itself in debates, and with an utter failure to ‘connect’ emotionally with what once were known as ‘Reagan Democrats’ (old-ethnic. i.e. Italian-American/Polish-American, etc., blue collar workers, culturally conservative and on economics distrustful of Wall Street), and you have a recipe for an extraordinarily weak general election candidate.”

***

“For those keeping track, Romney said twice in three sentences that he believes the economy is ‘getting better.’

“I’ve noticed over the last week, this keeps coming up. Shortly before the New Hampshire primary, Romney said he’s ‘glad’ the economy is improving, but quickly added that President Obama ‘doesn’t deserve’ credit. In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Romney also said the economy is recovering, but said ‘this president has not helped it.’…

“Look again at what Romney said in last weekend’s debate: ‘The president is going to try to take responsibility for things getting better. It’s like the rooster trying to take responsibility for the sun rising.’

“By Romney’s own reasoning, the sun is rising and it’s morning in America. As Jon Chait put it, ‘This seems like a shockingly weak line — if you concede that it’s morning, you’ve lost the argument.’”

***

“But what became clear this week is that Romney made a major mistake in the way he chose to describe his professional experiences. Instead of simply emphasizing that he was a turnaround expert, someone whose managerial skills and business competence would help fix everything, Romney insisted that his great achievement in life has been creating jobs—specifically, 100,000 jobs while at Bain. As The Wall Street Journal and others have now made clear, ‘creating jobs’ was never a metric that Bain used to define success, and, frankly, is not a metric that any company uses to define success. Independent fact-checkers have declared Romney’s 100,000 figure somewhere between phony and unverifiable. It is now one of the most important claims of this campaign for journalists to substantiate. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Romney’s success depends on whether that job-creation statement withstands scrutiny.

“Ironically, Romney has made a similar mistake to the one the Obama Administration made in early 2009, when two of Obama’s economists released a study with overly optimistic unemployment projections. Ever since then, critics have been able to point to that study as evidence that, if judged by Obama’s own standard, his stimulus has been a failure. We could end up with a race that pits Obama’s stimulus record against Romney’s Bain record. Judging from the gleeful reaction of Democrats this week, it’s a debate Obama would welcome.”

***

“But neither was Romney the Henry Ford-esque job creator he’s tried to play on the campaign trail. He served his investors, not his employees, and his goal was always to make an uncompetitive company competitive, even if that required cutting paychecks and shuttering plants along the way. What’s more, Bain usually found a way to reap profits even when the overhaul failed and the company went belly-up…

“Still, just because the private equity revolution was necessary doesn’t mean that it was an unmitigated good. And for Mitt Romney to frame criticisms of Bain as just ‘the bitter politics of envy,’ as he did last week, displays a tone-deafness that could cost him the presidency. No one — and certainly no politician — who has profited so immensely from an age of insecurity should ever appear to be lecturing the people who’ve lost out.”

***

“Like most conservatives, I’ve been hoping that Mitt would disavow Romneycare, the health-care reform he engineered as Massachusetts governor. I’ve been hoping he’d sensibly conclude it was a bad idea, exacerbated by the politics of a state whose Big Government enthusiasms make it an outlier in a center-right country. Romney, after all, has reversed several positions after being persuaded that he was in the wrong. Alas, despite having flopped more times than Flipper, Mitt has decided that Romneycare is his line in the sand — the crown jewel of his gubernatorial term, the single stand that will prove how constant he can be when passionately convinced he was right…

“Obamacare is the issue that inspires the conservative base. Republicans simply must have the base’s enthusiastic support if they are to beat a lavishly funded incumbent who will pull no punches, none, in striving to keep his job. There is no serious person who doubts that Romneycare was the building block for Obamacare: The experts who helped design the former were consulted in the creation of the latter. Yet Romney continues to insist that Romneycare is a smashing success, one he suggests he’d do again without hesitation…

“I keep hoping to hear those three words: ‘I was wrong.’ But they’re not coming. Romney supporters on the right keep rationalizing that he is just doing what he must do to stay viable: resisting a colossal flip-flop that would be more damaging than all the others. The candidate, however, says no, and attests that he is defending Romneycare because he believes in it. I usually worry that politicians lie. I’m worried that this one is telling the truth.”

***

“It’s obvious — isn’t it? — that Romney is just blowing smoke. The real story is clear: He wanted to achieve something important and good for the people of his state, namely universal healthcare. But now that Obamacare has become ‘liberal’ anathema in the Republican primaries — reviled even by the Heritage Foundation from whence it came — he wants to distance himself from the whole idea.

“It’s annoying, but it’s more than that: It’s disqualifying. To talk such nonsense and count on the hubbub of the campaign to clothe its naked contempt for the voters is an insult to all of us.”

***

“‘The establishment is trying to ram down the people of South Carolina’s and everybody else’s throat Gov. Romney, as if he is inevitable,’ Santorum said.

“He said Barack Obama would ‘destroy’ Romney in the general election because he does not represent a “bold and courageous” contrast to the president…

“‘Why would we pick someone who has had a record that as a liberal governor of Massachusetts to lead our country at a time we need fundamental change?’ he asked.”


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 3 4 5

Mitt Romney’s background
The meaning of Bain

john.frank on January 16, 2012 at 4:47 AM

canopfor on January 16, 2012 at 4:15 AM
———————————————–

Friends in Las Vegas often remind me that Reid is a former boxer and his favorite political maneuver is the “rope-a-dope.”

Well, that is if you ignore his tendency to say one thing while doing another. Evidently, he’s elevated it to an art form.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 4:30 AM

JonBGood:Yup,Reid is busy spewing,Lib Talk’n Points!

canopfor on January 16, 2012 at 5:12 AM

Here’s one of Santorum’s ads from 2006 bragging that he knows how to “work with Dems”: Barbara Boxer (!), Libermann, and Hilary Clinton (!). UGH.

If an appeasing, Big Government lover is what the GOP voter is looking for, Count. Me. Out.

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:14 AM

Double Ugh,a Linky SNAFU!!

Reid said he and Obama finally concluded Democrats must act alone if anything is to be accomplished. But Obama still struggled to get most portions of a new jobs package through Congress in the fall.
(More….)
============

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-has-hope-little-more-that-congress-will-cooperate-this-year-137384093.html/T a tad,the Lefty Pre-EmptivePoliticalStrike

canopfor on January 16, 2012 at 4:15 AM

http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-has-hope-little-more-that-congress-will-cooperate-this-year-137384093.html

canopfor on January 16, 2012 at 5:14 AM

Does the GOP really want Santorum who voted for some gun-control bills? Or Newt or Mitt who have that in their pasts as well?

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:17 AM

Here’s one of Santorum’s ads from 2006 bragging that he knows how to “work with Dems”: Barbara Boxer (!), Libermann, and Hilary Clinton (!). UGH.

If an appeasing, Big Government lover is what the GOP voter is looking for, Count. Me. Out.

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:14 AM

Here’s the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFr8sbYlEgo

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM

How can a state like SC, who has been persecuted by Obama for being a Right to Work state, vote for Santorum who voted against a Right to Work law?! SC, wake up!! Santorum is PRO-UNION!

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:22 AM

Just found this: Michael Reagan wrote on his facebook page:

Perry much more deserving of the endorsement than Santorum…Politics at play here!!!!

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelEReagan

Love you, Michael! You do your dad proud!

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:26 AM

Santorum’s Past Comments Give Democrats Fodder

In a July 2002 column for Catholic Online, Santorum wrote that promoting “alternative lifestyles” feeds aberrant behavior, such as priests molesting children.

“Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture,” he wrote. “When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Massachusetts Democrats were outraged. Romney, then the state’s governor, called the remarks unfortunate.

Sounds like he was offering an excuse, though he pretends otehrwise.

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:33 AM

lineage should not matter. indeed it angers me that some in this country have political power just because of who their fathers were.

nathor on January 15, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Its better to have someone as POTUS whose lineage is a matter of public record
rather than someone
who has to commission a terrorist to write a fictional novel and call it his biography .

lineage is different of biography. someone father could be a criminal and if the son proved himself capable of taking destiny in his own hands and be an outstanding citizen, i would vote for him.
what I hate is political dynasties. it feels that there is some kind of nobility ruling us.

BTW, Obama did use his lineage to tug at the heart of voters in 2008 , remember ?
Black foreigner who fathered a child and then abandoned him to be raised by another foreigner who then shipped him to be raised by marxist gandparents and communist part time daddy who got him in touch with a spiritual daddy who taught him that God d@m* America was in the Bible ….

burrata on January 15, 2012 at 9:37 PM

you are hurting conservatives by pumping this narrative. i dont buy into this at all.
I dislike obama because he is just another puppet of the establishment. look, 4 years later, he is turning into bush. growing goverment, raising debt, pushing the same wars, serving the same lobbyists.
the republicans wont go far pumping obama hatred narrative as you are doing. we need a politician that offers a clear contrast not only with obama but also with the republican past.
i am going for paul, mostly because, there is no other republican that can offer a middle ground between paul and the rest of the republican field.

nathor on January 16, 2012 at 5:38 AM

O/T,early Heads Up!!
———————

2012 Primary Debate Schedule
****************************

Here is the most up-to-date and complete schedule we have for the 2011 / 2012 Republican Primary debates. These debates are between all the Republican candidates. For the schedule of debates between the Republican nominee and President Barack Obama, see the 2012 Presidential Debate schedule page. Upcoming debates are listed at the top. Scroll down for past debates including the full video of each debate.
=============

January 16, 2012
9pm ET on Fox News – Live Stream
*********************************

Location: Myrtle Beach Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Sponsor: Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party
Participants: Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/

canopfor on January 16, 2012 at 6:06 AM

Perry’s job creation numbers of ONE MILLION are verifiable and they did not need to destroy jobs in order to create others.

GO PERRY!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 3:00 AM

I seem to recall you posting an almost identical comment yesterday. Are you running out of material to use in your failed, pitiful attempts to smear Perry’s opponents?

This whole business of the number of jobs Mitt helped create is not an issue that will hurt Romney. It reminds me of the film “Manchurian Candidate” when Mrs. Iselin gets her husband to get everyone talking about HOW MANY communists were in Congress (by throwing out all kinds of numbers to create confusion), not WHETHER there were any communists in Congress. In the same way, this issue over how many jobs Romney helped create just enforces the idea that Romney has experience creating jobs. Basically, the takeaway from the issue is just that Mitt helped create a bunch of jobs!

Aslan Girl, what’s even more pathetic is that you will embrace and attempt to further any line of attack, no matter how outlandish or reprehensible, on someone who isn’t Perry. It doesn’t matter to you if it’s a moveon.org-style attack that has been discredited (e.g., attacks on Romney’s private sector experience), doesn’t matter if it’s a ridiculous non-story from almost 30 years ago about Romney’s family dog, doesn’t matter if it’s an attack suggesting Santorum “excused” the behavior of priest sex predators, doesn’t matter if it’s suggesting that Romney will serve his church before the voters and suggesting that voters ought to be suspicious about Mormons. And the list goes on and on.

Aslan Girl, you have brought up all those things in the midst of your obsessive Perry fangirl crusade.

Is there no depth to which you will not sink? Apparently not. No wonder Perry fans (the few dozen that remain in existence) have such a terrible reputation. Apparently, all you care about is continuing your blind, fangirl cheerleading of a fourth-rate TX Governor who revealed himself months ago to be nothing but an incompetent buffoon.

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 6:15 AM

Aslan Girl, what’s even more pathetic is that you will embrace and attempt to further any line of attack, no matter how outlandish or reprehensible, on someone who isn’t Perry. It doesn’t matter to you if it’s a moveon.org-style attack that has been discredited … bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 6:15 AM

Smearing a poster is O.K.?

Aslan Girl, you have brought up all those things in the midst of your obsessive Perry fangirl crusade.

Is there no depth to which you will not sink?

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 6:15 AM

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm …

Apparently, all you care about is continuing your blind, fangirl cheerleading of a fourth-rate TX Governor who revealed himself months ago to be nothing but an incompetent buffoon.

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 6:15 AM

Evidently, there is no depth to which you will not sink, eh? ;-)

You may not like it that someone posts relevant, but inconvenient, material regarding your candidate. But, you don’t help the cause of your candidate when you resort to personal attacks to try to shut the poster down.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 6:31 AM

Just another line of Allah posts finding ALL the articles ripping on Romney! There are just as many if not MORE supporting Romney out there which HA refuses to write about.

g2825m on January 16, 2012 at 6:33 AM

canopfor on January 16, 2012 at 6:06 AM

Thanks for posting!

I wonder if we’ll even make it past January? I certainly hope so.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 6:34 AM

by the way, news sites are commenting an important endorsement by a SC state senator to ron paul:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/ron-paul-returns-to-sc-picks-up-endorsement/

can any one confirm if this tom davis endorsment is indeed important?

nathor on January 16, 2012 at 6:52 AM

How soon they forget:
http://electad.com/videos/jon-huntsman-mittstant-replay/
“Instant Replay” on Romney

Czar of Defenestration on January 16, 2012 at 6:57 AM

O/T,Oh this is Juicy,where to begin,maybe
another,”Cops acted Stupidly Part 2!!
————————————–

Officer who arrested Obama’s uncle was in 16 on-duty accidents
Posted Jan 13, 2012 @ 12:38 AM
******************************
******************************

FRAMINGHAM — The police officer who pulled over and arrested President Barack Obama’s uncle last year has been at fault in nine accidents in the past 15 years, the chief said yesterday.

But, that does not mean that Officer Val Krishtal’s stop and arrest of Onyango Obama in August was invalid, Chief Steven Carl said.

“He may not be a great driver, but he has a reputation of being a good officer,” said Carl. “There is no reason at all to doubt his veracity. Officer Krishtal did his job. Regardless of his driving record, he did his job and his actions were in the best interest of the people in Framingham.”

Obama, 67, was arrested on Aug. 24, 2011, on Waverly Street after Krishtal said Obama rolled through a stop sign and nearly collided with Krishtal’s police car.

Obama later registered a .14 on a Breathalyzer test. The legal limit is .08.

At a hearing yesterday in Framingham District Court, Obama’s lawyer, P. Scott Bratton, received a copy of Krishtal’s on-duty driving record.

He said he plans to file a motion to suppress the traffic stop and a separate one to suppress Obama’s Breathalyzer test.

Obama, charged with driving under the influence of liquor and driving to endanger, is due back in court on March 1.

He was also cited for a stop sign violation.

“We want to see if there is a pattern of conduct of behavior on the part of the officer,” Bratton said yesterday after the hearing.
(More….)
===========

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x1496065236/Officer-who-arrested-Obama-s-uncle-was-in-16-on-duty-accidents

canopfor on January 16, 2012 at 7:00 AM

by the way, news sites are commenting an important endorsement by a SC state senator to ron paul:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/ron-paul-returns-to-sc-picks-up-endorsement/

can any one confirm if this tom davis endorsment is indeed important?

nathor on January 16, 2012 at 6:52 AM

i got a good article here:
http://www.islandpacket.com/2012/01/16/1929302/sen-tom-davis-endorses-ron-paul.html

State Sen. Tom Davis appeared with GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul in Myrtle Beach on Sunday night to endorse Paul’s run for the Republican nomination, citing Paul’s record as a fiscal conservative and commitment to constitutional principles.

GOP presidential hopefuls have been courting the Beaufort Republican and tea party favorite for his support in South Carolina’s first-in-the-South primary.

Many of the top-tier candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have met with Davis privately. In July 2011, Davis was named by Politico as one of “50 politicos to watch,” the other GOP hopefuls have said a Davis endorsement could change the race for the nomination.

hmmmm
go paul

nathor on January 16, 2012 at 7:01 AM

canopfor on January 16, 2012 at 6:06 AM
—————————————

Thanks for posting!

I wonder if we’ll even make it past January? I certainly hope so.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 6:34 AM

JonBGood:Only another 30 Debates to go,DeBate Sea/SickNess
at this rate,(I kid)!!

canopfor on January 16, 2012 at 7:04 AM

The D’s are going to run against Mitt Romney as a jobs-killing capitalist? They might want to check the jobs-killing, economy-killing Big Government guy on their ticket before opening up that little can of worms.

Now if only Mitt Romney would promise to do to the EPA, DHS, Agriculture, Energy, Education and Labor what he supposedly did to these private companies… that is a guy I would vote for. Too bad that there is no Chainsaw Mitt because he would have shown up when he was Governor of MA. You know, be the hocus-pocus Coulter-creature we hear about but never see?

Government is the problem, not a solution unless the question happens to be: how do we defend ourselves from a cold, cruel world? A warm, fuzzy Nannystate or a tyrannical, authoritarian bureacracy is not the answer to that question, btw. To be able to defend ourselves in this cruel world we need a lean, mean, dedicated government that goes about that actual JOB we have GIVEN TO IT. This other stuff is now a danger to the actual JOB of government and IT MUST GO.

Gots a candidate who will dare say that the warm, fuzzy pillow being put on the Nation’s face really isn’t such a nice thing to have around? And, no, it doesn’t do anygood to talk up that part and leave the country with a diminished defense as defending us is the JOB of government. Where is the guy that will pull the punchbowl away from government, shut down the party, and give the clean-up staff a ‘drop and give me 50′ sort of order to get what is left of the government in shape? Get rid of the parts that aren’t in the constitution and shape up those parts that are because we are headed into extremely dangerous times and our government isn’t a paper tiger but a flabby 5 year old that screams about the slightest of treats pulled from it or even the merest hint that the party must end.

I know what I’m looking for in a candidate.

I got that settled first and foremost.

It’s a pretty basic concept, too.

Not hard to explain.

That our political system is so effete and elite that we have this problem and can’t get a back-to-basics candidate who can talk about the value of just doing the basics RIGHT is a major problem. I’m not looking for a saint, you know? A hard drinking, womanizing, department slashing, hard core 5 Martini lunch capitalist who sees great ways to save money by, you know, cutting costs and following the business plan of the Nation would do. A great schmoozer, a bit of a sot, a lech, but with the green eyeshade and a serious attitude about the stuff that matters and willing to get results even when everyone is crying about the candy going away, I would vote for that. This is not a high bar to clear.

ajacksonian on January 16, 2012 at 7:06 AM

?……..Are there ANY Conservatives in Congress, or the gop that would actually REDUCE the size of the Fed Gov?

How many employees and agencies did the state of Texas have when Perry become Governor, and how many do they have now?

Same question for Romney at the start of his administration and at the end.

Did Newt grow the Govt under his Speakership?

My point: Are we EVER going to get a smaller Federal Govt and people that will actually do it if we are asking the people we send to DC to limit their own power and influence? How could that EVER work?

We are trapped in a whirlpool of greedy politicians with no compass getting elected and a LAZY ELECTORATE that doesn’t care.

How is that not terminal for a Republic?

PappyD61 on January 16, 2012 at 7:15 AM

PappyD61 I’m scared for the Republic. Your post makes too much sense.

D-fusit on January 16, 2012 at 7:25 AM

Aslan Girl, what’s even more pathetic is that you will embrace and attempt to further any line of attack, no matter how outlandish or reprehensible, on someone who isn’t Perry. It doesn’t matter to you if it’s a moveon.org-style attack that has been discredited (e.g., attacks on Romney’s private sector experience), doesn’t matter if it’s a ridiculous non-story from almost 30 years ago about Romney’s family dog

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 6:15 AM

I posted this a few pages back, but of course you ignored it, as you always do when your ‘brilliance’ has been challenged. It has been quite common for you to demonstrate intellectual dishonesty on a number of issues. That’s pathetic.

All this ridiculous, fake concern about Romney’s Bain Capital experience is being overblown.

bluegill on January 15, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Didn’t you say the “fake concern” about Governor Romney’s “dog on the roof” story was overblown?

Check this thread out. Be sure to look at the top Google searches people were doing on the Governor as of yesterday.

Flora Duh on January 15, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Flora Duh on January 16, 2012 at 7:28 AM

We are trapped in a whirlpool of greedy politicians with no compass getting elected and a LAZY ELECTORATE that doesn’t care.

How is that not terminal for a Republic?

PappyD61 on January 16, 2012 at 7:15 AM

yes

PappyD61 I’m scared for the Republic. Your post makes too much sense.

D-fusit on January 16, 2012 at 7:25 AM

vote ron paul. even if he does not win, it sends a very strong message to the republican and democrat establishments that is bound to change things.

nathor on January 16, 2012 at 7:28 AM

Only another 30 Debates to go,DeBate Sea/SickNess
at this rate,(I kid)!!

canopfor on January 16, 2012 at 7:04 AM

LOL. And around and around they [the candidates] go and where they stop nobody knows ;-)

Is there such a think as debate fatigue? ;-)

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Is there such a think as debate fatigue? ;-)

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Yes. Especially when they’re moderated by the liberal media who tries to set the narrative that the only thing that matters to Republican voters are social issues. Simply because they want to avoid any questions that might result in answers that demonstrates what a disaster Obama’s economic policies are.

Flora Duh on January 16, 2012 at 7:39 AM

The longer Romney is on the campaign trail, the greater his prospects for nomination seem, but the lesser his prospects for election also seem.

I look forward to tonight’s debate. Whiny Huntsman will be gone; I wish meathead Perry would be two. I see Santorum going nowhere.

I’d really to see Romney, Gingrich, and Paul on stage alone.

The more Romney is asked to talk, the weaker he’ll look.

Paul stands no chance of attracting base GOP voters and no chance of attracting moderate GOP voters. But where will his voters go? I doubt Paul goes third party, but I bet his supporters write him in in droves. The question then becomes who can convince Paul supporters to come along. I don’t see Romney pulling it off; instead, I think Gingrich has a better prospect of doing so. I saw him within the past few days channeling some of Paul’s sentiments on the Fed.

Think about it on that level. That is, as this race narrows, what is the GOP going to do about Ron Paul supporters?

BuckeyeSam on January 16, 2012 at 7:40 AM

We are trapped in a whirlpool of greedy politicians with no compass getting elected and a LAZY ELECTORATE that doesn’t care.

How is that not terminal for a Republic?

PappyD61 on January 16, 2012 at 7:15 AM

A republic cannot exist with an indifferent people supporting it.

We hold up Weimar and the rise of the NSDAP as a major watermark because they got only 40% of the support in elections… elections that had 88% of the people showing up, for around 32% of the voting age population putting it on the path to power.

I hear the moans of the ’52%’ that put Obama in office. Less than 52% showed up at the polls. Obama and the D’s got in with 26% of the voting age population putting them in place. The US has not had a turn out of 60% of the voting age population turning out for a Presidential election since 1964….and that had a follow-on of 45% showing up for Congressional election in ’66… those are the high water marks from which we have declined over the last 5 decades.

If there was a political movment that could just get 10% of the uninvolved (roughtly only 5% of the voting age population) to back a candidate, that would swing elections like nobody’s business. To win elections is no longer about getting ‘the base’ to show up, but about finding away to spark turnout from the no-shows. A good and reasoned message like: “We must balance our budget like you balance your checkbook, and cut out the extraneous parts of government to start on that path and the ‘nice things’ also have to start going so we can keep the place running” should be enough to reach 10% of the no-shows.

That’s it. Nothing fancy. Plain and basic. Cut out every other message and find a candidate who will stick their teeth into this like a terrier and DARE to go out to where the 2 party system has FAILED and make this case.

Gay marriage? Doesn’t help if our country is in ruins, there won’t be anyone to sanctify it or, worse still, is that no one will CARE what government thinks because it will have COLLAPSED.

Abortion? How about getting bread on the table? Our tax code has now marginalized farming so the average age of farmers is in the mid-50′s.

We are heading into some very rough times ahead, and we have decades of excess baggage that must go to survive it as a Nation and a people. Federalism works… we haven’t been practicing that since we, the people, got rid of the checks on the system to make GOVERNMENT work and turn it into our MASTER not be our SERVANT.

Yeah, road to serfdom and all that fun stuff.

The other concept is Iron Times, and that ain’t pretty techno-serfdom and usually tells about a massive population crash and a spread of barbarism. You can’t be a serf when you are dead. To avoid this fate we need to start jettisoning stuff now, not tomorrow, not 10 years from now… but now. And that isn’t alarmism, it is just the trends we are on: we need to put in a firewall to let the countervailing trends catch up, which they can’t do on this cost curve. We are mortgaging our future, our liberty and our lives to be ‘nice’ via government today. This is Weimar thinking, save we aren’t as active as the German people were in the early 1930′s.

Change won’t come from the base.

Look to that no-show population and just get 10% of THOSE PEOPLE to show up and vote. I don’t care WHO they vote for, just make our commitment better than that of Weimar Germany… this is a very, very, very low bar to clear.

ajacksonian on January 16, 2012 at 7:48 AM

McCain was leading until the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac sub prime socialist mortgage scheme nearly destroyed the banking system. Unfortunately, neither McCain, nor his running mate, had the intelligence, education, or work life experience to understand that the crisis was caused by the Democrat Party’s CRA. Instead of pushing hard against the socialist mortgage scheme, they ironically allowed Obama to blame the crisis on Bush and Wall Street.

B.s. McCain had warned about FM/FM in 2005 and urged reforms. He made the mistake of — like Romney in all his education, intelligence and life experience — supporting TARP, along with the lunacy of suspending his campaign. Can’t lay that at Palin’s doorstep either.

With her endorsement of Freddie Mac Gingrich, McCain’s running mate demonstrated that she still doesn’t get it.

Basilsbest on January 15, 2012 at 10:09 PM

She hasn’t endorsed anybody.

ddrintn on January 16, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Would one of you Mitt “supporters” please tell me exactly what your candidate stands for…today?

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM

By the end of the month Romney will likely have the nomination all sewn up. I know that many of you don’t want to accept that but it is the reality we face. You may want to stay home for the general election and that is your choice, but I hope that you don’t continue this Romney hatred during the campaign as it could only help Obama.

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Flora Duh on January 16, 2012 at 7:39 AM

The quality of the debates is definitely an issue. ABC should never be allowed to hold a Republican Presidential Debate. On the other hand, the CNN debates have been informative.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Newt’s awesome organization

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 7:54 AM

what is the GOP going to do about Ron Paul supporters?

BuckeyeSam on January 16, 2012 at 7:40 AM

What do you think the GOP should do to reach them? Any ideas?

If Romney is the nominee, does he hold any appeal to Paul voters?

Does Gingrich?

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Would one of you Mitt “supporters” please tell me exactly what your candidate stands for…today?
kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Free enterprise, smaller government, balanced budgets, personal restraint, family values, respectful dialogue, humility (you won’t see him claiming he’s a man of Big Ideas). Today, tomorrow and forever.

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM

I hope that you don’t continue this Romney hatred during the campaign as it could only help Obama.

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Exhibit 1001 for:

The unwritten law of elections is that what is good for Mitt is good for Mitt. It is forbidden to mention any heresies of Mitt. It is forbidden to mention any concerns over his business experience at Bain. It is forbidden to criticize Mitt, since doing so, would only serve the interests of the Democrats in weakening him before the General Election. Therefore, any criticism of Mitt is explicit support of Obama.

Of course, the corollary is that what is right for Mitt is not right for any of the other candidates. Because, “For Pete’s sake,” he’s running for President! Didn’t you know? ;-)

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:02 AM

What do you think the GOP should do to reach them? Any ideas?

If Romney is the nominee, does he hold any appeal to Paul voters?

Does Gingrich?

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM

They aren’t socialist like Obama

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 8:02 AM

They aren’t socialist like Obama

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 8:02 AM

You mean, they dislike socialist healthcare?

Well, I guess Mitt won’t be able to attract many of them! ;-)

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:05 AM

She hasn’t endorsed anybody. ddrintn on January 16, 2012 at 7:51 AM

She sends Todd out to support Freddie Mac Gingrich while she attacks Romney. She’s counting on her supporters being too stupid to connect the dots. She has not once attacked Gingrich for his Freddie Mac perfidy. She wants to have it both ways – supporting Gingrich while not being forthright enough to go on the record for him.

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:07 AM

ddrintn on January 16, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Don’t take this the wrong way, because I generally agree with your comments. That said, in 2008, I think McCain’s problem in the Freddie/Fannie was twofold. First, McCain didn’t get the word out about his earlier efforts to reform. Maybe he pointed it out, but it got ZERO coverage during the campaign. Blame the media, if he tried, but I don’t recall that he made it a key point to raise. Second, McCain just wasn’t conversant in domestic issues, in general, and in economic issues, in particular. National security issues were second nature for McCain, but I hated having to listen to him explain any domestic issue other than earmarks. He’s pathetic.

BuckeyeSam on January 16, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Okay. Respectfully, 2 questions:

1. How is Romneycare, smaller government?
2. How is saying, “I like Mandates”, showing support for smaller government?

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM

What do you think the GOP should do to reach them? Any ideas?

If Romney is the nominee, does he hold any appeal to Paul voters?

Does Gingrich?

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM

change policy and discourse to something meaningful and you will start to attract ron supporters.

nathor on January 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Bmore on January 16, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Like Dire, I also came-of-age during the ’80′s. What a cool song!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:02 AM

My chosen candidate has never won the primary since I reached voting age 32 years ago. But I always ended up supporting the nominee because they were always so much better that the other choice in my view. Let’s try to look at the big picture

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Would one of you Mitt “supporters” please tell me exactly what your candidate stands for…today?

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM

No fair! That’s a trick question for Mitt supporters! ;-)

By tomorrow, Mitt and his surrogates will be denying they created even 1,000 jobs, and then blaming it on Newt. ;-)

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Good Mornin’, kind sir.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Didn’t you say the “fake concern” about Governor Romney’s “dog on the roof” story was overblown?

Check this thread out. Be sure to look at the top Google searches people were doing on the Governor as of yesterday.

Flora Duh on January 16, 2012 at 7:28 AM

I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at. Are you saying the dog-on-car story deserves any kind of attention? I don’t. I think it’s stupid. I’m not an internet search engine expert, so I don’t know what kinds of tricks people might be up to in order to make those kinds of topics appear first in google’s search suggestions, but even if those search result suggestions reflect the legitimate internet activity of people, it doesn’t necessarily mean a thing. Maybe people are googling the story for a laugh. Maybe people want to know what kind of desperate attacks the Perry and Obama clowns are up to. Maybe they’re all MSNBC viewers who heard the story on Rachel Maddow and who wouldn’t vote for any Republican, anyway? Who knows? Who cares? Anyone who brings up the dog story as a way to hurt Romney is pathetic and desperate, as far as I’m concerned.

By the way, I’m not ignoring any comments. I don’t see every little thing that is posted on here. I usually only glance at the most recent pages of comments in various threads.

So, now it’s my turn to pose questions to you. What do you think about the desperate, bottom-feeding Perry supporters like Aslan Girl suggesting that voters are right to be suspicious about Mormons and whether, in office, Mormons will serve their church above all else? What do you think about typical Perry supporter Aslan Girl’s suggestion that Santorum excuses Catholic priest molestations? What do you think about Perry people using moveon.org-style attacks to try to hurt other Republicans?

It’s PATHETIC and SHAMEFUL for Perry supporters like Aslan Girl to traffic in such despicable, dishonest, sleazy attacks. It’s also PATHETIC for people to make excuses for, or remain silent about, that kind of conduct. Where is your condemnation of those kinds of tactics, Ms. Duh? I must have missed it.

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 8:13 AM

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:02 AM

So do you intend to continue attacking Romney during the General or not? Just asking

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 8:14 AM

You mean, they dislike socialist healthcare?

Well, I guess Mitt won’t be able to attract many of them! ;-)

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Sorry to rain on your parade but the mandate required the irresponsible freeloaders to purchase coverage from private insurers rather than have their health care costs paid by the taxpayers. So, you obviously don’t understand the issue.

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Mornin, ‘twerp….ma’am.

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Does Gingrich?

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Yeah, he seems to sound much like Paul on matters related to the Fed. I don’t presume to know much at all on monetary policy.

I think Gingrich’s recommendations (five or six steps in all) would probably appeal to Paul types.

I suppose that Newt has called for eliminating the departments that Paul has suggested so that’s a turn off.

Paul supporters won’t find Gingrich appealing on some or many national-security issues, but I do get the impression that Gingrich is interested on an assessment of where we out to be in the world. That may be a turn off or a push.

Gingrich has been very adamant about leaning on the private sector to root out a lot of fraud in immigration, healthcare, and government. I’d think that would have a lot of appeal.

In the end, I won’t demonize any Paul for a protest vote. And, unlike too many Romney supporters, I won’t demonize them for their support of Romney. I do, however, think Paul voters won’t accomplish much with a protest vote, and I don’t think Romney is anywhere as strong a candidate as his defenders believe. I do confess that I’m ticked at Romney for going negative in Iowa and changing the conversation from Obama to the other candidates.

BuckeyeSam on January 16, 2012 at 8:19 AM

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Not all Perry supporters are like that.
You know I’m not.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 16, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Okay. Respectfully, 2 questions:

1. How is Romneycare, smaller government?
2. How is saying, “I like Mandates”, showing support for smaller government?

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM

See my post at 8:17am. Someone had to pay for the costs of the irresponsible who did not provide for their own coverage. Since you obviously prefer that those costs be paid by the taxpayers rather than the irresponsible, it’s you who believes in bigger government.

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Why is any questioning of Mitt labeled as attacking him?

Mitt needs to worry more about his continually evolving positions.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:24 AM

So, you obviously don’t understand the issue.

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Do you live in Massachusetts?

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Nice attempted ju-jitsu. However, expanding the role of government, state or national, in citizens’ everyday lives, are not the actions of an advocate of smaller government. As Ronald Magnus once so famously said,

The nine words you never want to hear are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Sorry to rain on your parade but the mandate required the irresponsible freeloaders to purchase coverage from private insurers rather than have their health care costs paid by the taxpayers.

At the heart of RomneyCare is the individual mandate.

Romneycare’s individual mandate is antithetical to the core philosophy of the Republican party.

So, you would like the party to nominate a man who is fundamentally at odds with its core philosophy. And you wonder why conservatives aren’t excited about Mitt?

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:31 AM

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Aslans Girl, while I have rarely agreed with it, is entitled to her opinion, as are you.

The difference between her and you, is that she doesn’t attempt to silence those whose opinions she doesn’t hold, and dictate to others that come November they will vote for Perry and they will like it. And, to my knowledge, she has never boastfully admitted that one of her main purposes on this site is to mock and ridicule people whose opinions she doesn’t hold.

It is interesting though that you would mention “people using moveon.org-style attacks to try to hurt other Republicans”, because that’s exactly what I thought when I saw this the other day.

Flora Duh on January 16, 2012 at 8:34 AM

BuckeyeSam on January 16, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Gingrich seems to be a more natural fit for Paul supporters. I wonder how many Paul supporters will eventually choose the protest vote, if the nominee is Romney?

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM

In the end, I won’t demonize any Paul for a protest vote. And, unlike too many Romney supporters, I won’t demonize them for their support of Romney. I do, however, think Paul voters won’t accomplish much with a protest vote, and I don’t think Romney is anywhere as strong a candidate as his defenders believe. I do confess that I’m ticked at Romney for going negative in Iowa and changing the conversation from Obama to the other candidates.

BuckeyeSam on January 16, 2012 at 8:19 AM

we already saw palin and demint asking for attention to paul’s ideas. the more votes pauls get, the more you will see his ideas being seriously discussed. paul as a protest vote works!

another thing is the sentiment of an establishment candidate being imposed on us.

nathor on January 16, 2012 at 8:38 AM

One thing you have to say about those Romney comments, they’re all true. If you actually sit and digest them, you have to wonder how did this guy become inevitable? This is another example of the liberal media trying to pick the Republican candidate with the acquiescence of the Republican establishment. The fact is, if the establishment gets Romney, they get to run the show and change little. If Newt gets in, there will be change and it’s going to be fun to watch.

bflat879 on January 16, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Job Creator Extraordinaire, “Moses” Perry has led Texas to 8.4%

Job Creator Barry O’Bama has led the U.S. to 8.5% unemployment.

Wowee! Some difference!

I see “Moses” is holding a solid 5% in the latest SC polls.

HaHaHaHaHa!

“Alamo” ‘em, Rick!

Giddy-up!

Horace on January 16, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Flora Duh on January 16, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Morning, Lady!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 16, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Nice attempted ju-jitsu. However, expanding the role of government, state or national, in citizens’ everyday lives, are not the actions of an advocate of smaller government. As Ronald Magnus once so famously said,

The nine words you never want to hear are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 8:27 AM

More like a complete refutation. Someone had to pay for the health care costs of the irresponsible. Those who oppose the individual mandate prefer that taxpayers pay for those costs. There is coercion in either case. I prefer the coercion of the individual mandate to the coercion of higher taxes.

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Aslan’s Girl can embarrass herself all she wants.

All Americans have the right to look foolish.

If “Moses” Perry at 5% in SC makes her jump, that’s up to her.

Horace on January 16, 2012 at 8:46 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on January 16, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Good morning ALT. Will you be here for the debate tonight? Now that the field is getting smaller, my hope is that the moderators will expand the time limit permitted for the candidates to answer, for some reason though, I doubt it.

Flora Duh on January 16, 2012 at 8:47 AM

My chosen candidate has never won the primary since I reached voting age 32 years ago. But I always ended up supporting the nominee because they were always so much better that the other choice in my view. Let’s try to look at the big picture

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Although I have a shorter voting history than you, I can empathize with you.

I usually take time off from work during the General Election to help the nominee. Even though John McCain wasn’t my ideal candidate, I still worked hard for him. Although, I often got the impression that he was more interested in being President than wanting to be President to effect change.

The mistake that Romney surrogates are making is trying to foreclose the process and to shut down any questioning of Romney’s record.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Basilsbest on January 16, 2012 at 8:42 AM

I prefer niether. Less government = less taxes to pay for it.

kingsjester on January 16, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Not all Perry supporters are like that.
You know I’m not.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 16, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Of course not. Nor were you “like that” when you supported Pawlenty, Jindal (not Constitutionally qualified), Cain, McCotter, Perry and then Huntsman as No. 2 (Sorry ’bout him quittin’ and all)

Horace on January 16, 2012 at 8:49 AM

So do you intend to continue attacking Romney during the General or not? Just asking

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 8:14 AM

The mistake Romney supporters keep making is that any criticism of Mitt is seen as “attacking” him.

Is his candidacy really that fragile?

More to the point, in the General Election, the focus will be on the current occupant of the White House, just like it was before Mitt and his Pac unleashed those negative ads that upended the while process.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:54 AM

The mistake that Romney surrogates are making is trying to foreclose the process and to shut down any questioning of Romney’s record.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Of course they do as does any frontrunner. That is just what they do to win. I think all the candidates are flawed, but difficult decisions are rarely a choice between good and bad, it is usually a choice between bad and a little better. I’m not defending Romney just looking at what is likely to be our choice. We all know what Obama will do in the next 5 years should he be re-elected. But we cannot be sure what Romney will do, and it is possible he will pleasently suprise us.

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM

An analysis of Romneycare by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute found that, on average, Romneycare:

•    cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;

•    drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;

•    slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and

•    reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.

In addition:

“the state’s health-care costs have been heavily subsidized by billions of dollars in federal aid through a Medicaid waiver program.”

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM

You sound like me when I was trying to sell McCain to other conservatives, after it was clear that he would be the nominee. ;-)

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Is his candidacy really that fragile?
JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:54 AM

I think that his candidacy is the least fragile of all the remaining candidates. We may disagree on who would best match up against Obama but I can’t see that our country would be better off if Obama gets re-elected over whomever the nomonee is.

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM

You sound like me when I was trying to sell McCain to other conservatives, after it was clear that he would be the nominee. ;-)

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 9:07 AM

When McCain became the nominee I told my circle that I would never vote for him. Afterall we never would have had a Reagan without first having a Jimmy Carter first. Then I realized how much worse an Obama presidency would be.

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

4 years ago Romney was the most conservative choice of all the viable candidates. Both Limbaugh and Demint endorsed him. Has Romney changed or have we changed?

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Has Romney changed or have we changed?

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 9:19 AM

I never agreed with that assumption.

However, many conservatives in the Establishment and Talk Radio were so opposed to McCain that Romney looked good.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Flora Duh on January 16, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I’ll be here.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM

However, many conservatives in the Establishment and Talk Radio were so opposed to McCain that Romney looked good.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Huckabee also didn’t thrill conservatives. Were there any other viable candidates?

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

The thought of an Obama Administration was enough to make me a fervent supporter of McCain, once he had the nomination. ;-)

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Huckabee also didn’t thrill conservatives. Were there any other viable candidates?

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Not when the Fred campaign evaporated.

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

“Now the effort by some of his fellow Republicans to portray Mr. Romney as a job killer during his time at Bain Capital has opened new opportunities for the Obama team among working-class voters, some strategists say.

Really? As if Obama has not been planning to make Romney Bain Capital as the major issue to destroy Romney.
Put it in your thick skulls Romney and his supporters: Romney cannot win. America is not going to elect a Wall Street Banker who founded a company whose business is to sell and buy companies and in the process many lose their jobs.

mnjg on January 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Happy MLK Day everyone!

Steel Guy, thanks for chatting. I’m off to run some errands.
I hope you have a great day! Take care!

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 9:41 AM

“I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.”

- Rick Santorum, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Conclusion, p. 421

“What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission.”

- Rick Santorum, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Preface, p. IX

“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”

- Rick Santorum, 2008

Resist We Much on January 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on January 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Glad you enjoyed, Give the rest of their tunes a tumble when you have a chance, they really are a significant group. Many of their songs are kinda darkish, some are frattish, some are just down right funny. Try this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtHcENk576c

Bmore on January 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I will repeat from the other post: ‘romney zooms to 40%’; if romney gets the nomination I will be forced, as a very conservative, to vote for obama. Figure it out!

boogieboy on January 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM

It’s PATHETIC and SHAMEFUL for Perry supporters like Aslan Girl to traffic in such despicable, dishonest, sleazy attacks. It’s also PATHETIC for people to make excuses for, or remain silent about, that kind of conduct. Where is your condemnation of those kinds of tactics, Ms. Duh? I must have missed it.

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 8:13 AM

PROVE me wrong with LINKS and FACTS, not ad hominems. YOU are the one SMEARING ME. You are that insecure about your candidate that you cannot bear my posts which are based on TRUTH and SUBSTANCE.

Back up your assertions with LINKS or you are just an over-emotional child in need of a nap and a binky.

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

JonBGood on January 16, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Yes. Mitt IS “fragile” and some of his supporters here know it. They are scared that the mask will slip BEFORE he’s secured the nomination. But Obama will make darn sure the mask is ripped off before Election Day and those telling the truth about Mitt NOW are just trying to save us all a lot of heartache.

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Thank you, Flora Duh.

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Resist We Much on January 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

OMG! Santorum is on record calling HIMSELF a “Big Governement” guy AND as saying that GOVERMENT should help the poor! What the heck kind of Catholic is he if he doesn’t realize that that’s the CHURCH’s place not the governement’s? He thinks he’s in line with the Founders, well, where the heck in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers are the Founders advocating for Big Government and using our tax $$ to “help the poor”??!

Santorum voted for $1 BILLION, billion with a “B”, in earmarks!

When those Evangelicals chose him, they did not choose him because, in their words, “he’s electable”, NO, they chose him because they, too, are Big Government so-cons. They are NOT “Conservatives”.

Aslans Girl on January 16, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5