Gallup: Romney lead “collapsing” to 10 points nationally

posted at 1:20 pm on January 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

This certainly isn’t the meme a candidate wants the day before a critical primary:

Gallup’s Editor-in-chief Frank Newport appeared on MSNBC to talk about the polling organization’s national tracking poll of the GOP primary race, which is changing rapidly in the last few days of the campaign for South Carolina. Newport said when their new data comes out at 1 pm eastern, “…we’ll see this gap closing more. Romney was up 23 points over Newt Gingrich. Now it will be down about ten points, so clearly things are collapsing.” …

“We have seen more movement, more roller coaster kind of effect this year than any other Republican primary in our history of tracking,” Newport said. “I think anything is possible. It wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility if Romney recovers. We’ll wait and see.”

So how much did the gap close in today’s 1 pm report? This much:

That’s certainly an ugly trend for Romney, and a sign of hope for Gingrich.  There are, however, a couple of things to keep in mind about this poll.  First, it’s among registered voters, not likely voters, which means that the trends are probably solid but not the figures; likely voter models are more predictive.  Second, the ABC interview with Marianne Gingrich didn’t air until after the last surveys in this tracking poll took place.  It’s entirely possible that the personal-baggage eruption might have some of Gingrich’s new support rethinking that choice, especially since it appeared in two polls yesterday that evangelicals comprised a large part of that swing.

Nevertheless, the shift has Team Romney worried, and they’re seeing at least some part of it in their own internal polling.  CNN reports today that they’re busy resetting expectations in South Carolina:

With Newt Gingrich creeping up in the polls and potentially on the cusp of a South Carolina victory, one of Mitt Romney’s senior advisers sought to change expectations ahead of Saturdays’ pivotal presidential primary.

Though his campaign has competed aggressively in the state and is hungry for a win here, Romney strategist Stuart Stevens said the idea of a loss to Gingrich on Saturday is not far-fetched. …

“The idea should be does he have a chance in South Carolina,” Stevens claimed.

When it was noted that Romney had a 10-point lead over Gingrich as recently as Tuesday, Stevens shook his head.

“These things were always going to close,” he said. “I think it’s very competitive. I think it’s a four-way race. The whole race is very fluid.”

A 10-point lead in a four-man race is still a substantial margin, but it’s the momentum that should worry Romney.  His two relatively poor debate performances this week — almost entirely caused by his mishandling of the tax-return issue — has to be a big part of the momentum, which means that they can correct it if Mitt Romney can recover on the question.  That may be too late for South Carolina, but he needs to get his act together for Florida.  Romney was expected to have it tough tomorrow, but he was expected to cruise in Florida.  A tight race there will shake confidence in his ability to close the deal, and that’s another meme that Romney can ill afford now.

Update: Er … Romney’s lead is collapsing to 10 points, not his support.  I fixed the headline.  Big thanks to the AJC’s Kyle Wingfield for pointing that out.  Also, changed “since” to “in today’s” above the graph.  And then I got myself more coffee …


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 4

Meant to quote this comment:

Yep. Every candidate has nutjob supporters. It just so happens that “nutjob” is a prerequisite when applying to be a Ron Paul supporter.

Gregor on January 20, 2012 at 2:14 PM

So, I went from supporting Cain, to Perry, to Huntsman, and now to Paul, so I’m a nutjob?

Thanks for the complement…!

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Bad mistake. Santorum has a fiscal record of a liberal, and he’s a social-issue crusading, big government Republican.

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Yeah, “social-issue crusading”, why can’t we all be like Ron Paul and say it is up to the state if they want to murder babies in the womb. As a matter of fact it is up to the states if they want to murder Ron Paul supporters or anyone else for that matter. sheesh

RonDelDon on January 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

casuist on January 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

The same could be easily said of just about everyone else and their candidate. Do I really need to get started on Rick ‘santorum’ Santorum. And at least there’s laughter for Romney, the only thing I’m sure to be hearing on election day 2012 if Newt wins the nomination are boos from moderates, cheers from liberals and tears of unimaginable sadness as Newt loses the general in a route not seen since Barry Goldwater.

Then of course there’s all the ground that has been trodden over every other ‘not Romney’ candidate that has gone down in flames since the election.

Really, you folks are not ones to talk about repellent candidates (Newt Gingrich could quite practically be classified as a pollutant). As for abusive, what can I say, my mother didn’t raise me to suffer fools.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

yeah, Bush was ‘beasty’ too, we know how that worked for us…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Imagine Carter or Obama (Carter on steroids) being president on that horrible day of September 11, 2001.

kingsjester on January 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

. We have dozens upon dozens of examples of ABR’s taking prolonged sh*ts on us to counterbalance it.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:14 PM

+ 100..You told the truth there..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2012 at 2:20 PM

No, bravery is having your own opinion and sticking to it no matter what other people do or say, on your side or on the opposite side.
WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Hey, I stuck with Perry all the way through. He wasn’t my ideal candidate, but he was close enough for (excuse this) government work. Now he’s out of the race, so I’m going for the guy closest to Perry (and the one he endorsed), and that’s Newt.

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Romney should f’n release his tax records. This is getting silly. The damage has already been done, just release the damn thing. Unless he actually does have something truly egregious that he’s hiding in them.

I call a spade a spade, and Newt Gingrich aside from his opening tirade stunk in the debate last night. His pitch to Americans was “I have big ideas and can debate Obama.”

haner on January 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

It’s tough to know who to root for. Mitt has the best chance of beating Obama, which I’d like very much to see. Newt has zero chance of beating Obama, but it would be the end of social conservatism if he wins, which I’d also like very much to see. If Obama is likely to win either way, I think I have to give Newt the edge.

RightOFLeft on January 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM


So, I went from supporting Cain, to Perry, to Huntsman, and now to Paul, so I’m a nutjob?

You quoted me in your contribution. So, no, you’re not a nutjob, nor did I mean to imply any such thing so please forgive me if I in any way implied otherwise, and I retract it without hedge or qualification.

casuist on January 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Hmmm, so it’s not over?

It ain’t over till it’s over?

Nothing is over until we decide it is?

Just shows to go ya’–polls are like the weather: if you don’t like what you see, it’ll change when the next weather system poll comes through.

stukinIL4now on January 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM

And the company Gingrich keeps are apparently whiny, hypocritical, uninformed or otherwise downright willingly ignorant pissants who’s minds can be changed by nasty people on the internet.

Also, do go ahead and read my post to DRayRaven. I’m guessing it’ll apply just as equally to you.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:09 PM

The “Best of ” how to win friends and influence people by WealthofNations. Such powerful words of reason, the shear force of persuasion and unassailable logic just drives a person to support Romney.

I would like to point out you haven’t been able to change my mind, think about it.

Skwor on January 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Not sure what Palin has to do with it. But Mitt left because he was going to lose and Newt essentially got tossed out by his own party. Say what you will about either but it’s harldy a feather or arrow in Newt’s quiver to be used against Mitt.

Minnfidel on January 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I never said it was. I was calling out Mittbot hypocrisy.

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Newt got tax cuts, a balanced budget and welfare reform as the “most divisive person”. Works for me.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Contract with America, and for the first time in 40 years brought the house into the Republican fold…meanwhile Mitt was fighting the Contract with America, we was running from being a conservative…the contrast between the two during that time is huge.
Mitt’s turncoat ways, is one of the reasons that the Republicans began to rethink their conservative strategy, “if we just get along, we can get elected just like Mitt”.
The Republicans got weak kneed under the onslaught by the MSM, they couldn’t stand up to the liberal journalists so they bailed on being a conservative, and began “negotiating” with the liberals, much like Mitt did…as someone said, those kind of people survive, they are “winners”, but the nation became a loser, with more and more liberal ideas being presented and accepted or “negotiated”.

right2bright on January 20, 2012 at 2:23 PM


As for abusive, what can I say, my mother didn’t raise me to suffer fools.

What were her thoughts on behaving foolishly yourself?

casuist on January 20, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Romney should f’n release his tax records. This is getting silly. The damage has already been done, just release the damn thing. Unless he actually does have something truly egregious that he’s hiding in them.

haner on January 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I love the smell of Mittbot fear in the early afternoon.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Yeah, “social-issue crusading”, why can’t we all be like Ron Paul and say it is up to the state if they want to murder babies in the womb. As a matter of fact it is up to the states if they want to murder Ron Paul supporters or anyone else for that matter. sheesh

RonDelDon on January 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Yeah, who gives a damn about that worthless piece of paper called the Constitution, right?

Gimme a break.

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

So, I went from supporting Cain, to Perry, to Huntsman, and now to Paul, so I’m a nutjob?

Thanks for the complement…!

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Yeah, sure you did.

Gregor on January 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

It’s tough to know who to root for. Mitt has the best chance of beating Obama, which I’d like very much to see. Newt has zero chance of beating Obama, but it would be the end of social conservatism if he wins, which I’d also like very much to see. If Obama is likely to win either way, I think I have to give Newt the edge.

RightOFLeft on January 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Haha, I’m beginning to feel the same way. Realpolitick all the way.

haner on January 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

And the company Gingrich keeps are apparently whiny, hypocritical, uninformed or otherwise downright willingly ignorant pissants who’s minds can be changed by nasty people on the internet.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Hint:

When calling else someone uneducated morons, learn the difference between who’s and whose.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

An azzh0le who fights or Mr. Nice Guy, let’s compromise, work together cross the aisle and get things done in the name of bipartisanship?

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I would agree with you, only problem is the azzh0le in question fights for himself and his inflated ego only, not much different from what the current occupant of the WH does…so replacing an azzh0le with another azzh0le, is an exercise in…umm, proctology?? :-), oups, sorry, I meant futility :-)…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I’ll give you props for supporting Perry, the man might not have been the best campaigner and not exactly ready for the national stage, but at least he was conservative enough (especially as compared to Newt Gingrich).

Also, I’m sorry, but if there’s someone closer to Rick Perry, it’s Rick Santorum. You’re just fooling yourself (or being fooled by the grandstanding and red meat) if you think Gingrich is honestly closer to Rick Perry.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

So, I went from supporting Cain, to Perry, to Huntsman, and now to Paul, so I’m a nutjob?

Thanks for the complement…!

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Wait. Huntsman? Errr … yep. Nutjob.

Gregor on January 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM


I never said it was. I was calling out Mittbot hypocrisy.

That would be full time job, a life-time vocation. Please just laugh at them instead. It’s emotionally satisfying and you still get to make your point.

casuist on January 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I would agree with you, only problem is the azzh0le in question fights for himself and his inflated ego only, not much different from what the current occupant of the WH does…so replacing an azzh0le with another azzh0le, is an exercise in…umm, proctology?? :-), oups, sorry, I meant futility :-)…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

+1000

haner on January 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Really, if you’re down to trying to counter a long point about an issue on a candidate with a common grammar mistake, then you’re clearly being outgunned. Better to be quiet and only thought of a fool angryed, rather than erase all doubt like you do every single day.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I would agree with you, only problem is the azzh0le in question fights for himself and his inflated ego only, not much different from what the current occupant of the WH does…so replacing an azzh0le with another azzh0le, is an exercise in…umm, proctology?? :-), oups, sorry, I meant futility :-)…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

So tax cuts, welfare reform and a balanced budget only benefited Newt and nobody else?

You make less sense by the minute.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:27 PM

And the company Gingrich keeps are apparently whiny, hypocritical, uninformed or otherwise downright willingly ignorant pissants who’s minds can be changed by nasty people on the internet.

Also, do go ahead and read my post to DRayRaven. I’m guessing it’ll apply just as equally to you.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:09 PM

The essense of having an open mind means your mind can be changed.

To address your point, however, no one here has said you, csdeven, or anyone else changed us from Romney supporters to non-Romney supporters. The insulting fanboy posts merely cemented existent opposition.

But don’t worry – I’m sure you’ve driven away quite a few people who might have otherwise voted Romney.

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Wait. Huntsman? Errr … yep. Nutjob.

Gregor on January 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Santorum is a fiscal liberal and a big government social-con. So much for being the anti-Romney conservative.

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

As for abusive, what can I say, my mother didn’t raise me to suffer fools.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I see, but she allowed you to be one.

tinkerthinker on January 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

And the company Gingrich keeps are apparently whiny, hypocritical, uninformed or otherwise downright willingly ignorant pissants who’s minds can be changed by nasty people on the internet.
WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Of course, you are such a brilliant debater, why didn’t I think of that.
Of course, if someone supports Gingrich, whatever the reason, he has to be whiny, hypocritical, certainly uninformed and downright willingly ignorant…it’s all so clear to me now, I have been enlightened by an anonymous know nothing on the internet, posting from his aunt’s basement…
And of course if you support your man, you are intelligent, MENSA, well informed, consistent in all your values, a perfect man/woman…of course, we can all see it now.
HAHAHAHA!!! I crack myself up…you’re a fool, of course.

right2bright on January 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Really, if you’re down to trying to counter a long point about an issue on a candidate with a common grammar mistake insults, then you’re clearly being outgunned. Better to be quiet and only thought of a fool angryed, rather than erase all doubt like you do every single day.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Skwor on January 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Really, if you’re down to trying to counter a long point about an issue on a candidate with a common grammar mistake, then you’re clearly being outgunned. Better to be quiet and only thought of a fool angryed, rather than erase all doubt like you do every single day.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Try again Mittbot.

Your argument is basically anyone who doesn’t love Romney is an uneducated hick. Yet you are the ones who constantly make the grammar mistakes that any 5th grader could correct.

Surely you can see the irony in that.

Then again you are a Mittbot. Maybe not.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Skwor on January 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM

You see, you’d be right if I thought I had any chance of converting you. I know I don’t have a chance because, even if I did, one insensitive comment would send you running away screaming.

I’m not here to make converts, enough reading of this site alone told me that was impossible (as earlier stated). I’m just here to present my own opinions in order to just get them out there.

SO, to reiterate, I’m afraid I don’t have any f*cks to give about changing your mind. I just don’t suffer fools is all.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM


But don’t worry – I’m sure you’ve driven away quite a few people who might have otherwise voted Romney.

And then there’s the RomneyCare thing, a program of policy functionally identical to ObamaCare with all its new rules, new taxes, its assumptions about state supervision of private economic activity to support progressive goals like universal coverage, and its mandates.

casuist on January 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I see, but she allowed you to be one.

tinkerthinker on January 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Now that is downright funny…I am jealous I didn’t post that…

right2bright on January 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Also, I’m sorry, but if there’s someone closer to Rick Perry, it’s Rick Santorum. You’re just fooling yourself (or being fooled by the grandstanding and red meat) if you think Gingrich is honestly closer to Rick Perry.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I valued Perry on the fiscal and limited-government side of things. The socio-con pandering irritated me. I’m more of a social libertarian. That said, I think the fiscal problems we face are more important, so I was willing to overlook it.

Santorum is not a limited government guy, so he doesn’t get my support.

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM

drballard on January 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Gingrich has always been don’t do what I do, do what I say or go to jail.

For example

“See, when I smoked pot it was illegal,” he reportedly told the Wall Street Journal’s Hilary Stout in 1996, “but not immoral. Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality… That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t.”

gyrmnix on January 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM

As for abusive, what can I say, my mother didn’t raise me to suffer fools.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

They can’t help themselves.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:07 PM

You are correct that Romney will be qualitatively better as a manager of the Administrative state than Obama. What I don’t see is that he will also be a limited government type. Nothing in his history demonstrates that. That is where I have an issue with Romney because I am not convinced that managing the state better will do anything to stop the fiscal train wreck ahead.

BTW I am not convinced that any of the others are limited government types either. Newt balanced the budget on the back of Social Security but he did nothing to limit Government. Santorum has a wishy-washy record on fiscal conservatism while doing nothing to limit the size of government. Ron Paul talks a good story but he is one of the Kings of Pork which doesn’t indicate he really has strong principles regarding fiscal restraint and limited government.

We are d*mned if we do and d*mned if we don’t.

chemman on January 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

gyrmnix on January 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Do you know who Bork is?

right2bright on January 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I call a spade a spade, and Newt Gingrich aside from his opening tirade stunk in the debate last night. His pitch to Americans was “I have big ideas and can debate Obama.”

haner on January 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Yeah. But he hates the media, so yay Newt!! /

The idea of Newt Gingrich as the nominee just kills me. I understand hesitation with Romney, but come on…Newt is ethically and morally bankrupt, and he’s shown he’ll take leftist positions out of personal and political expediency just as Romney is accused of doing. How is he beating Obama, again?

changer1701 on January 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM

We have dozens upon dozens of examples of ABR’s taking prolonged sh*ts on us to counterbalance it.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Do you really, or are some of them figments of your imagination, like the “sh*t” you argued I took on you and Romney? Even going as far as to spread the lie to other commenters.

Flora Duh on January 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM

If you wanna bring down Mitt Romney and all the other phony conservatives on FOX then investigate Romney’s Bain Capital Capital which owns Clear Channel Communications, which signed a $400 million, eight year deal with Rush Limbo in 2008, and deals with Sean Hannity, and many others radio personalities currently defending Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential campaign!

apocalypse on January 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Santorum needs to drop out NOW. He is running dead last in SC, has no money and no organization. All he can do is help Romney.

Citizen-003528 on January 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Newt has zero chance of beating Obama, but it would be the end of social conservatism if he wins, which I’d also like very much to see. If Obama is likely to win either way, I think I have to give Newt the edge.

RightOFLeft on January 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

:) pragmatic all the way :-)…or as haner put it, Realpolitik indeed :)…If this was foreign affairs, Kissinger would be jealous :-)…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I don’t know who Jenny Sanford is. But whomever she is, I can guarantee you she wouldn’t be voting for Newt if he was a 5 time recipient of the American Husband of the Year award.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Do you know who Mark Sanford is?

monalisa on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Romney will be fine and still come out ahead…although it may be close I think he has some heavyweights in the State that are helping solidify his support.

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM

(let it drool by itself!)

KOOLAID2 on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Semantics really. Also, once again I’ll direct you to my comment to Skwor: I don’t care about what you think, I’m just here to say my piece and then insult some idiots and wimps who couldn’t form their own opinion without taking into considering mean people on the internet.

Skwor on January 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Like these two for example.

Skwor, very clever, your momma’s probably going to hang up you so cleverly changing a word in a person’s post on the fridge. I hope she’s proud.

angryed, I’m not calling people who don’t support Romney idiots. People who support Santorum, for example, likely have very good reasons for supporting him versus Mitt, likely on social issues and mistrust with Romney on said issues.

Who I am calling uneducated hicks are people here on Hot Air who speak out of one side of their mouth about how big of a lair and hypocrite Romney is and then promptly go to speaking out their ass about how amazingly wonderful Newt Gingrich is.

Targets also include people who can’t hold an opinion without it being changed by a mean word from the internet, and idiots who seem to think that they’re oh so clever pointing out a minor grammar mistake and then take that to try to make some wide-arching point about a person in absence of an actual reasonable argument.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

And the company Gingrich keeps are apparently whiny, hypocritical, uninformed or otherwise downright willingly ignorant pissants who’s minds can be changed by nasty people on the internet.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Of course you mean uninformed, willingly ignorant people like Barry Goldwater?

MTLassen on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

You see, you’d be right if I thought I had any chance of converting you. I know I don’t have a chance because, even if I did, one insensitive comment would send you running away screaming.

I’m not here to make converts, enough reading of this site alone told me that was impossible (as earlier stated). I’m just here to present my own opinions in order to just get them out there.

SO, to reiterate, I’m afraid I don’t have any f*cks to give about changing your mind. I just don’t suffer fools is all.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM

So you are here to present your own opinions to people you know are impossible to reach and those people are the fools?

let me try again, you suffer no fools but you come here to present your opinions to people you know will not be reached by them..nope still not seeing it LOL.

Really you should try to cool off a bit, your postings are rambling with inconsistencies. Not to mention the vitriol.

Skwor on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

We are d*mned if we do and d*mned if we don’t.

chemman on January 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

You have to go back nearly 80 years to find a president who did not grow the government, and that was an aberration.
It’s not growing the government, that will happen as our country grows, it’s managing it within limits…and that has not been done for decades.
I think each of the candidates will do their best to manage the growth…but more concern is opening the pipeline to manufacturing, and putting people back to work. Removing the government roadblocks that are preventing that.

right2bright on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

There is no point of voting… everything is scripted already

apocalypse on January 20, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Newt is a fighter. . . Romney isn’t . . .that’s good enough for me!

[also, Romney is a Democrat . . . .which is a HUGE problem.]

Pragmatic on January 20, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Flora Duh on January 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Oh hello there Flora Duh, good to see you again. Couldn’t quite stay away from talking to me, eh? I thought the deal was that you were just going to ignore me. Ah well, I suppose that you just couldn’t help yourself. I do have that sort of magnetism when it comes to people it seems.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Skwor on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

It’s called getting things off your chest. It’s a way of venting that I don’t quite have access to otherwise because I’m either not around people who are interested in politics, or I just don’t have an appropriate forum to bring up my own opinions.

As for inconsistencies, sure, you’re certainly the person to speak about that.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Disclosure: Romney supporter

Okay, I just saw a photo of Gingrich and his wife. Does anyone else like me, when they see a photo of Calista, think okay, he met her through a 6 year long affair AND now she may be a candidate for FLOTUS?

I know I am a Romney supporter, but I believe I am fair and I hope that most on here would think that of me in my posts, however, I cannot look at her without thinking the above thought. Anyone else think that way or is it just me?

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:38 PM

HAHAHAH this is rich as well

Targets also include people who can’t hold an opinion without it being changed by a mean word from the internet, and idiots who seem to think that they’re oh so clever pointing out a minor grammar mistake and then take that to try to make some wide-arching point about a person in absence of an actual reasonable argument.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

You expect others to make reasonable arguments while you alone have the privilege of hurling insults and ad hominems as your basis for arguments. No one should dare challenge you well reasoned insults as being inappropriate! Nope.. no double standard there, nope none.

Skwor on January 20, 2012 at 2:39 PM

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Given Newt’s history of jumping back and forth on liberal pet projects, I really don’t see how he’s much better. Besides that, he has a record of being terribly unable to lead, as Republicans who served with him in the Congress, including Santorum, are probably quite ready to say.

Still, your choice I suppose.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:39 PM

In the wonderful world of polls when your man is up your ecstatic when down your depressed. I would say that at one time on gallup gingrich was at 37 and Romney 20. Who knew.

I also went to gallups website hope
springs eternal to a mittbot-me.

what I don’t quite understand is the 9 percent for other and 15 percent undecided. thats almost 25 percent for the 4 candidate left to decide.

and before you say they will mostly go for one of the conservatives left and not Romney-seems they would already have

So as a Romney supporter who has suffered through his constant not rise all I can say is Who knows.

gerrym51 on January 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM

right2bright on January 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM

If you’re talking about Robert Bork, yeah, I know who he is. Although, I don’t know all that much about him, so I fail to see the relevance here.

gyrmnix on January 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Disclosure: Romney supporter

Okay, I just saw a photo of Gingrich and his wife. Does anyone else like me, when they see a photo of Calista, think okay, he met her through a 6 year long affair AND now she may be a candidate for FLOTUS?

I know I am a Romney supporter, but I believe I am fair and I hope that most on here would think that of me in my posts, however, I cannot look at her without thinking the above thought. Anyone else think that way or is it just me?

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:38 PM

She’s not exactly what I’d want for FLOTUS, either…but I don’t vote for First Lady. I never cared for Nancy Reagan much, either…but I admired her husband enough to name my daughter after him. I can’t see myself feeling the same way about Newt, though…he’s simply the best of a bad bunch.

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Newt is a fighter. . . Romney isn’t . . .that’s good enough for me!

[also, Romney is a Democrat . . . .which is a HUGE problem.]

Pragmatic on January 20, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Not even the case! Romney is a fighter…you have to be in MA and cast over 800 vetoes which translates into I DO NOT AGREE with the Democrat Legislature and I am showing my disapproval.

Romney also blasted an Occupy Wall Street protestor yesterday on the stump.

“Let me tell you something: America is a great nation because we’re a united nation. And those who try to divide the nation, as you’re trying to do here, and as our president’s doing, are hurting this country seriously,” Romney said, “And if you’ve got a better model — if you think China’s better, or Russia’s better, or Cuba’s better, or North Korea’s better — I’m glad to hear all about it. But you know what? America’s right and you’re wrong.”

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Skwor on January 20, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that combining facts, like that Newt Gingrich does indeed flip between liberal pet projects, has indeed shown a history of being a rather unreliable person as it concerns conservative causes and people, see his support for several non-Tea Party candidates in 2010, the most notable and insulting being Dede and Paul Ryan’s plan and is only really honestly powered by red meat and grandstanding, and combining it with insults thrown to people who blindly follow behind him, willfully ignoring all his faults while exalting Romney’s, which I have admitted quite often in the past do exist, isn’t a form of reasonable argument.

Yes, let me just go the angryed route of calling conservative women like Nikki Haley who support Romney whores and using grammar mistakes in place of facts. That’s obviously much more reasonable to you.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Disclosure: Romney supporter

Okay, I just saw a photo of Gingrich and his wife. Does anyone else like me, when they see a photo of Calista, think okay, he met her through a 6 year long affair AND now she may be a candidate for FLOTUS?

I know I am a Romney supporter, but I believe I am fair and I hope that most on here would think that of me in my posts, however, I cannot look at her without thinking the above thought. Anyone else think that way or is it just me?

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:38 PM

She’s not exactly what I’d want for FLOTUS, either…but I don’t vote for First Lady. I never cared for Nancy Reagan much, either…but I admired her husband enough to name my daughter after him. I can’t see myself feeling the same way about Newt, though…he’s simply the best of a bad bunch.

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Well, thanks DRay…
I was just wondering if anyone else had that same thought when they see Calista. I understand we DO NOT vote for the FLOTUS but in this situation I could just see her at an elementary school and some little third grader asking, “How did you meet the President?”

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM

… Oh wow, I hadn’t even considered that before.

Awkward silences all around I bet.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You know Wealth you are starting to drown in your own bile. The more you post the deeper in the hole you go. Take a deep breath. Wrench white knuckles away from the keyboard for a minute. Noooow isn’t that better?

kenny on January 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Besides that, he has a record of being terribly unable to lead, as Republicans who served with him in the Congress, including Santorum, are probably quite ready to say.

Still, your choice I suppose.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Once again, total dreck.

Long before there was a mighty Republican machine running Georgia, there was a handful of brash conservatives plotting to lift their tiny, financially struggling party so they could end more than a century of Democratic dominance. Among the chief architects was Newt Gingrich

House Republicans give new status to their most ardent Democrat-basher by electing Newt Gingrich as their No. 2 leader.

1995 Time Magazine Man of the Year: LEADERS MAKE THINGS POSSIBLE. EXCEPTIONAL LEADERS make them inevitable. Newt Gingrich belongs in the category of the exceptional.

Newt Gingrich is well-known as the architect of the “Contract with America” that led the Republican Party to victory in 1994 by capturing the majority in the U.S. House for the first time in forty years.

The Speaker is second in the United States presidential line of succession, after the Vice President and before the President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate.

I don’t mind a policy argument, or even listening to you holier-than-thou types endlessly drone on about the man’s clearly ghastly personal life. However, these specious claims that Newt Gingrich has a history of a lack of leadership is complete garbage. You’re either ignorant, or a liar, or both. Knock it off.

MTLassen on January 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Given Newt’s history of jumping back and forth on liberal pet projects, I really don’t see how he’s much better. Besides that, he has a record of being terribly unable to lead, as Republicans who served with him in the Congress, including Santorum, are probably quite ready to say.

Still, your choice I suppose.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Newt’s sins against conservative orthodoxy are fewer in number and less opportune than Mitt’s. Plus, he’s the only one running who had a hand in balancing the federal budget.

I don’t put much stock in what stock Republicans in Congress say about him after the fact. He herded those cats pretty well while he was speaker. If they blame him for harming them politically for standing firm with Clinton, it’s only because they themselves got cold feet. He was right when he rebelled against Bush’s tax hikes, and he was right in the budget battle with Clinton, too.

His ego is what gets him into trouble…that, and he’s undisciplined. But I don’t see any better options here. Certainly not Mitt. I don’t know which one is real: the Mitt who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy and governed MA as a left-leaning moderate, or the Mitt who says he’s a conservative now. And I won’t vote based on faith that he’s telling the truth when he wants my vote.

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM

In the interest of full disclosure Newt is my second to last choice of candidates. I do prefer him over Romney becuase during the Reagan years he actually reduced spending and was key in the conservative movement.

Romney is professing real conservative ideals now but his time of governance he governed more a liberal than a conservative, the best argument to date for me anyone has provided to support Romney was his appointing Bork as an adviser for judges.

Here is the problem, no one and I mean no honest rational person can argue that Romney doesn’t have a commitment issue when it comes to issues, he has changed on most issues related to the national stage. This leaves me with a bad vibe as far as his ability to carry conservatism into office once the heat is of from his base. What is Romney’s true nature? I don’t know, outside of his immediate family I suspect few, if any, actually do.

In truth I see Gingrich as the lesser risk to fall back into liberalism than Romney and as a more effective message carrier.

I don’t care if he is poor at delivering the message, show me where is has defended the conservative message? Those examples are currently to few to instill any real confidence.

There you go, my honest reasoned response on this issue.

Skwor on January 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

One thing to point out as many of you do on Romney and his changes…Gingrich’s are being discussed at length here by other posters rightfully so, but did you notice Santorum’s flip flopping in the last two debates on the right-to-work issue?
He basically admitted that he will flip-flop on that issue if he is elected for POTUS and yet no one calls him out on it as he is doing from the stage. Ron Paul hit him pretty good on it and even John King’s rejoinder was good as he asked well, are you going to favor PA or SC on this issue?

just sayin’ we need to be fair if we are applying that label to Romney as ALL of the candidates do it.

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Yeah, who gives a damn about that worthless piece of paper called the Constitution, right?

Gimme a break.

Aizen on January 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Au contraire, maybe the question should be, who gives a damn about the baby in the womb as long as my interpretation of the constitution prevails, right?

I’m sure you know the constitution does mention that no one should be deprived of life without due process, right?

RonDelDon on January 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

right2bright on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

What laws of economics requires government to grow as population grows? While limited growth might be necessary it is the unlimited growth that wasn’t restrained that I am talking about. What good is a balanced budget every year if it takes ever more resources to balance it. So while balancing the budget is a good in the sense we stop growing the debt it is not the ultimate good if it allows government to continue to consume increasing amounts of resources.

chemman on January 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Well, thanks DRay…
I was just wondering if anyone else had that same thought when they see Calista. I understand we DO NOT vote for the FLOTUS but in this situation I could just see her at an elementary school and some little third grader asking, “How did you meet the President?”

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:45 PM

She’ll be a fine first lady. Much better than the one we have.

tinkerthinker on January 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Willard was booed by Republicans

liberal4life on January 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I NEED TO SEE WILLARDS TAX RETURNS NOW!

liberal4life on January 20, 2012 at 1:30 PM

“Behind every great fortune lies a great crime”. – Balzac

liberal4life on January 20, 2012 at 1:33 PM

We are signing up, to let lobotomy4life go off and drool by itself. (I may, solicit people) No entertainmant value there! Its just putting on a bib, and changing it periodically. Never changes its diaper!

KOOLAID2 on January 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM

you got to be kidding me, right…for chrissake, the man is in his 70s or so, not even daily pumping of Viagra intravenously can make him ‘unfaithful’ at this ‘respectable’ age (the only thing that is respectable about Newt, mind you)…so the point of his faithfulness is mute, no? Calista should be very reassured that he’s a one-woman man these days :-)….

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

65. You don’t know many men in their 60′s and 70′s do you?

katy the mean old lady on January 20, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Targets also include people who can’t hold an opinion without it being changed by a mean word from the internet, and idiots who seem to think that they’re oh so clever pointing out a minor grammar mistake and then take that to try to make some wide-arching point about a person in absence of an actual reasonable argument.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

They can’t help themselves, can they? Every post has to be an ad hominem. Hate: it’s all you know.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

They can’t help themselves, can they? Every post has to be an ad hominem. Hate: it’s all you know.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Yes, I can’t think how much suffering his mom goes through, poor lady.

tinkerthinker on January 20, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Not even the case! Romney is a fighter…you have to be in MA and cast over 800 vetoes which translates into I DO NOT AGREE with the Democrat Legislature and I am showing my disapproval.

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM

And how many of those vetoes were over ridden? About 799 of them. He vetoed things he knew would be over ridden. No political risk in MA since the bill gets signed and the libs are happy. But on the other hand gullible people voting in Republican primaries will think wow, he vetoed 800 things, he must be a conservative.

Typical Flip Flop Mitt.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:56 PM

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I’d disagree that they’re fewer in number. I’d also disagree that they’re less opportune. But, whatever, if that’s what you think then I can’t do anything to change your mind. All I’m going to say is that while Romney also has his problems with changing positions, at least he’s been solid for the past seven to five years now. Newt’s change in positions have been as recent as a year ago.

Skwor on January 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Ah yes, Newt’s time in Congress. Filled with voting for favors on issues like China, being a generally poor leader who got repeatedly led around by the nose by a newly Morrised Clinton, cost Republicans a sizable chunk of their House Majority and, judging by how much more often he was featured in ads than Bob Dole, the Presidential election who was then kicked out by his fellow Republicans for being such a poor leader.

Following that up with then 12 odd years of jumping onto whatever liberal bandwagon that came around, usually with the worst offenders of the left like Nancy Pelosi or Al Sharpton, throwing his support to the likes of Dede Scozzafava, supporting Medicare Part D and helping Freddie Mac out for a cool 1.6 mil, insulting Paul Ryan’s Budget by calling it Right Wing Extremism in the last year, and then suddenly changing all this into a hard-core right wing conservative who’ll toss all the red meat and grandstanding that conservatives want, and he’s obviously more honest and less likely to just f*ck us all over in exchange for his own glory and ego once he gets into office.

At least Mitt’s been an honest man with his family, worked hard for his faith and has been fairly consistent the past 7-5 years. You don’t even need to go back a year to find a time when Gingrich was the anti-thesis of the conservative movement.

In addition, Romney issued over 800 vetoes to the 85% Democratic Massachusetts Legislature during his time as Governor of Mass., over 700 of them were overturned during his tenure, and yet he still managed to keep them from raising taxes and used a combination of killing spending that was coming down the pike (not all of it, but once again, only so much one can do with a veto), balancing a budget for four years by just raising government fees that people might use once every four months rather than taxes they pay once a month and, rather than pouting and sitting around vetoing while Mass Dems pushed a truly single payer plan down the pike, tried to work with the legislature and at least managed to keep the private elements of Massachusetts Healthcare alive.

WealthofNations on January 20, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Imagine Carter or Obama (Carter on steroids) being president on that horrible day of September 11, 2001.

kingsjester on January 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I do (try to) imagine, for one thing, Obambi wouldn’t have looked that dumb when he got the ‘news’, secondly, he wouldn’t have gotten us in Iraq, and probably would have just droned the Al Qaeda into oblivion in Afg, and possibly Saddam too, if he got too ‘naughty’ and rogue, as he was….doesn’t sound too bad to me…as for Carter, I don’t know much about the man, I was a fresh, 1 year old by the time he finished his mandate :-)…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM

and governed MA as a left-leaning moderate, or the Mitt who says he’s a conservative now. And I won’t vote based on faith that he’s telling the truth when he wants my vote.

DRayRaven on January 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I am sorry but he DID NOT govern as a left leaning moderate. He enacted many conservative ideals and also as he discussed and others have posted has been TRUE to the right-to-life issues. It is interesting how many people are willing to forgive serial adulterer Gingrich but cannot accept Romney on his word which he has backed up by HIS RECORD. Hypocrisy.

Go here to see what Ann Fox has stated about Romney’s MA Record on Pro-life
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/19/mitt-romney-is-consistently-pro-life-mass-activist-says/

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 3:04 PM

HotAir’s misleading headline of the month…

mjbrooks3 on January 20, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Okay, I just saw a photo of Gingrich and his wife. Does anyone else like me, when they see a photo of Calista, think okay, he met her through a 6 year long affair AND now she may be a candidate for FLOTUS?

This entire primary season I’ve been watching the not-Romney’s get picked apart for things like this, while Romney gets a free ride for freaking ROMNEYCARE! Seriously?

Hmmmm, let’s see. Who would be the worst possible candidate to run against ObamaCare? Gosh, that’s a hard one…

Citizen-003528 on January 20, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I think each of the candidates will do their best to manage the growthbut more concern is opening the pipeline to manufacturing, and putting people back to work. Removing the government roadblocks that are preventing that.

right2bright on January 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM

I don’t disagree that they would all be good conservative managerial progressives.

Also agree that government roadblocks need to be removed but that is going to take more than just being good managers of the administrative state. I am not sure any of them will have the gonads to actually fight and cut the regulatory state. Just my opinion

chemman on January 20, 2012 at 3:06 PM

They can’t help themselves, can they? Every post has to be an ad hominem. Hate: it’s all you know.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Sad but true. Insult, distortion, smear & non-sequitur is their stock-in-trade. And they’ll be the one’s bitching loudest when turnout is low in November. F@cking pathetic.

MTLassen on January 20, 2012 at 3:06 PM

From my local representative and also voted consistently as one of the most fiscally “tight” representatives in the House.

“And I think all of us recognize that Newt is the father of contemporary earmarking. Earmarks exploded during the Newt era… And unfortunately, what was really pernicious during that time is that, my understanding it has always been that Newt instructed the appropriators to take members’ races into account when they were passing out earmarks…. And so it really began in its contemporary form in the 1990s with Newt as Speaker. And he is really the granddaddy of earmarks.” – Rep. Jeff Flake

Go get ‘em Jeff!

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 3:07 PM

We are signing up, to let lobotomy4life go off and drool by itself. (I may, solicit people) No entertainmant value there! Its just putting on a bib, and changing it periodically. Never changes its diaper!

funny-lol

gerrym51 on January 20, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Every post has to be an ad hominem. Hate: it’s all you know.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Yes. And turn-out in November will be everyone else’s fault….

MTLassen on January 20, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Okay, I just saw a photo of Gingrich and his wife. Does anyone else like me, when they see a photo of Calista, think okay, he met her through a 6 year long affair AND now she may be a candidate for FLOTUS?

This entire primary season I’ve been watching the not-Romney’s get picked apart for things like this, while Romney gets a free ride for freaking ROMNEYCARE! Seriously?

Hmmmm, let’s see. Who would be the worst possible candidate to run against ObamaCare? Gosh, that’s a hard one…

Citizen-003528 on January 20, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Go read my post a page or two back on MA Healthcare and actually go to the site and stop the demagoguery and I think you’ll be surprised IT IS NOT Obamacare…

Here is a portion of what I posted:
I would bet (10K…haha) that many Romney bashers on here have never ACTUALLY visited MA Healthcare site and just go off ignorance and what they THINK is happening with MA Healthcare. Go read for yourself and get informed. The differences between what MA enacted,yes, with a mandate which they were right to do so by their Constitution (I do not agree with the mandate but they had the right) and Obamacare are vastly different.

Quick Facts:
92% kept their original Employer-based insurance
8% had the option to get insurance through (9) PRIVATE insurance companies
A small percentage (2) do not have to pay for the mandate because they make less than $15K
MA Health coverage has ALMOST completely covered ALL individuals compared to Texas (25% uninsured) and other states
You can receive a waiver for the mandate up to 3 months if are in between jobs
https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/

There is much more BUT it is not as SCARY as many of you claim it is…I actually walked through a lot of the website because I am tired of hearing all the scaremongering about it.
Also remember, cause I have the quotes if you need them, that the DEMS in the State said we waited till Romney was out to implement many of things he VETOED while in office.

Romney tried (and what his constituents wanted…Remember this is Santorum’s line of thinking on right-to-work) to implement CONSERVATIVE, take responsibility for yourself because the State is tired of spending billions on your laziness of failing to get insurance that WE ALL KNOW some can afford it but use the Emergency rooms as “their doctor” thus overburdening them and causing them to shut down as in the case across the States.

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 3:11 PM

KOOLAID2 on January 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I wonder.

Liberal4Life = getalife

chemman on January 20, 2012 at 3:12 PM

If you’re talking about Robert Bork, yeah, I know who he is. Although, I don’t know all that much about him, so I fail to see the relevance here.

gyrmnix on January 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Well, with a little reading, you would get it…”borking” is what you were doing in your post.

right2bright on January 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I hate Newt… I can nor support him. I am a donor & past Republican committee person for the Ohio GOP … I will sit this out if Newt is the nominee… I can not support this fat blowhard & his whore wife. Do you really want this tramp Callista to be the !st Lady? Nope! I will support Romney, Santorum or Paul…. but I can not stand that fat snob Newt. I gave $$ to Huntsman, Perry and Bachmann but I will sit out the election if Newt is nominee which means alot of women will let Obama & Sen Sharrod Brown win re-election.

charmingtail on January 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

You’re missing the old Mittbot meme about Palin “abdicating” her governorship. That was my point. Both left office voluntarily…one to keep from going bankrupt, and the other because he would lose in a landslide anyway.

DRayRaven

Uhhh…no. One left office when his term was up, as required by law. There was nothing voluntary about it. He could have run for re-election, but he chose not to. He fulfilled the obligation he was elected to do. The other quit because she didn’t want to run for re-election and didn’t want to be a lame duck, so she felt she may as well quit almost 2 years early. The two aren’t even remotely the same.

Sheesh, and I’m not even a mittbot.

xblade on January 20, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Not even the case! Romney is a fighter…you have to be in MA and cast over 800 vetoes which translates into I DO NOT AGREE with the Democrat Legislature and I am showing my disapproval.

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM

And how many of those vetoes were over ridden? About 799 of them. He vetoed things he knew would be over ridden. No political risk in MA since the bill gets signed and the libs are happy. But on the other hand gullible people voting in Republican primaries will think wow, he vetoed 800 things, he must be a conservative.

Typical Flip Flop Mitt.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 2:56 PM

angryed,
I think you were making my point without realizing it…that Romney was in a LIBERAL state and his vetoes were overridden so much! He didn’t veto bills “knowing” that they were going to be overridden, he did it because he did not agree with what his Legislature kept putting forward.

It is difficult to have a balanced conversation and debate on topics when you cannot even give a person (Romney) a fair shake. You look at him through such skeptical eyes when he has proven through his record of voting for many conservative ideas.

g2825m on January 20, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Let’s just have a brokered convention and put out a Mitch Daniels/Marco Rubio ticket.

Daemonocracy on January 20, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I do (try to) imagine, for one thing, Obambi wouldn’t have looked that dumb when he got the ‘news’, secondly, he wouldn’t have gotten us in Iraq, and probably would have just droned the Al Qaeda into oblivion in Afg, and possibly Saddam too, if he got too ‘naughty’ and rogue, as he was….doesn’t sound too bad to me…as for Carter, I don’t know much about the man, I was a fresh, 1 year old by the time he finished his mandate :-)…

jimver on January 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Is that what you see when you look at Bush’s face hearing that horrific news? I see the pain of a whole nation on the face of one man.

sleepingiantsup on January 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM

I gave $$ to Huntsman, Perry and Bachmann but I will sit out the election if Newt is nominee which means alot of women will let Obama & Sen Sharrod Brown win re-election.

charmingtail

And you were a committee person? Sheesh, no wonder the GOP is so screwed up. Here’s a thought…..why don’t you vote for everyone else on the ballot that you want to win, but skip the presidential vote? Just because you don’t want Newt to win doesn’t mean you can’t vote for the rest of the field.

xblade on January 20, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4