Video: Romney vs. Newt on immigration, Santorum vs. Romney on RomneyCare

posted at 10:30 pm on January 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

Two highlights of the evening, both via BuzzFeed. Remind me again, what’s the evidence from this interminable debate series that Newt would totally PWN Obama in the debates this fall? He’s had two memorable moments, one attacking Juan Williams and the other attacking John King, neither of whom is actually running for president. All day long we heard about how angry he was on the stump about Romney’s Freddie Mac hypocrisy and his secret bank accounts and his richie-rich richness, and how Newt was spoiling for a fight. So what ended up happening? Romney neutralized him on the big immigration exchange at the beginning, and then it fell to Santorum — for the second debate in a row — to pick Romney apart on his core policy vulnerability. (He did a darned fine job of it too.) If you’re operating under the illusion that the election will turn on the presidential debates in October, kindly explain why Gingrich is somehow superior to Santorum. He wouldn’t even accept Blitzer’s invite to hit Romney on his Swiss bank account even though he’s been criticizing him on the trail for it for days. The hapless moderator/punching bag had to badger him into answering. Mystifying. Didn’t Newt realize that the primary was on the line tonight?

You’ll be pleased to know that Romney is now a 91 percent favorite to win Florida on InTrade as I write this, up from 74 percent earlier today. Stats guru Nate Silver thinks it’s possible that Romney wins by double digits, perhaps by as much as 20 points. And why not? After Santorum’s strong performance tonight, there are bound to be tepid Newt fans and true undecideds who prefer him as the anointed Not Romney and will start peeling away tomorrow. Who could blame them?

Exit question: Did Brett O’Donnell just cinch the nomination for Romney?


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 6

LOL @ people thinking Santorum won. He got to glide through the debate being all high and mighty. No one was interested in picking a fight with him. No one tried to lay a glove on him. Mitt could have easily pointed out his record on the individual mandate, he just preferred to let him steal votes from Newt.

Santorum has 10 cents in his account and a sweater vest. He’s nothing but fly buzzing around Mitt’s head.

rubberneck on January 27, 2012 at 2:00 AM

I was actually a Romney supporter back in 08. But the reason I’m backing Newt now is because I’m a big fan of his conservative grassroots efforts and all I wanted was to see him get a FAIR SHOT in this primary.

However the way he has been treated by the media and the ‘establishment’ and how they’ve been trying to shove Romney down our throats, has been a real rude awakening. It has shaken my basic core beliefs in the the Republican party and what it really stands for.

tkyang99 on January 27, 2012 at 2:00 AM

The day after Dole’s unhelpful endorsement of Romney, Gingrich finally got the endorsement of one of his former colleagues in the House. Unfortunately that colleague is thieving liar Randy “Duke” Cunningham, serving time for taking bribes from defense contractors.

Ouch.

rubberneck on January 27, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Looks like this year I am spending my political donation money on guns, ammo, reloading supplies, and emergency ration bars.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 26, 2012 at 11:20 PM

We started doing that a couple of years ago (at least as much as was legal in CA) when it became clear that this country had been taken over by a bunch of thugs bent on taking away our rights. I think we’ll be stepping up our efforts asap.

daddysgirl on January 27, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Washington state is not the country. But when the numbers go down, the people who are in the states hardest hit just figure it isn’t their state where the jobs are being created. I specifically explained that it isn’t the reality, it is the perception. And the POTUS can manipulate the numbers. There is no political sense in challenging the numbers because you could be wrong and then you look like a fool. All for what? To appease some people who want to call the POTUS dirty names for their edification? No, that is a silly election strategy.

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 1:56 AM

And letting Obama and the media dictate the numbers when they are wrong is looking like a bigger fool. Most people know the government plays with the numbers and that every administration does it so calling bs on it is the right thing to do.

Sultanofsham on January 27, 2012 at 2:07 AM

the Republican party and what it really stands for.

tkyang99 on January 27, 2012 at 2:00 AM

These days? Mitt’s hair, and… well… Mitt’s hair, pretty much.

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:08 AM

There are three reasons to vote for the Republican candidate against Obama. 1 Get ride of Obamacare. Romney fails that issue. 2 Judges. Romney has a poor record on judges 3 Get rid of Holder and czars. The only reason left to support Romney. Maybe enough, maybe not.

Rose on January 27, 2012 at 2:08 AM

@tkyang99

Out of the 87 RNC super delegates less delegates have pledged their support this year to the candidates than any time. Only 14 have supported a candidate.

So all of a sudden anne coulter and matt drudge are the whole establishment. Fox gave Newt a major gift by throwing him that softball in the debate in myrtle beach. Juan Williams was told the audience would boo him and fox still have newt that moment which lifted him from down 15 to up 5 the next day in SC in a two day tracking poll.

Newt not getting a fair shot? He is running against a mormon as his main competitor. Newt is up 65-28 in the south against romney in a head to head.

If anything romney should be ticked off at fox for handing gingrich such an advantage in myrtle beach.

ryandan on January 27, 2012 at 2:09 AM

No. We won’t sit down, be quiet, and accept this crap. And if you force him on us, you’ll have to do without us in November. Or worse.

This is not an idle threat.

Mitt Romney is not a conservative. he is a democrat, and compared to the democrats in these parts, a very liberal statist loving one at that. You are absolutely out of your thick skull if you think he’s acceptable, and you are even more out of your brain-case if you imagine the republican party has enough traction left with the conservative base to try the “we are the lesser of two retards” argument successfully two disastrous elections in a row.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDS TO BE TAKEN BACK, or DISMANTLED and replaced with something conservative. The demonrats will profit in the meantime. I have accepted this. I have accepted that the nation may not live through it. I have also come to the realization that the nation may not live through a democrat like Romney either.

So, I choose to roll the dice in such a way that allows me to maintain my personal honor and beliefs. It may all still fail.

But so be it.

SilverDeth on January 27, 2012 at 1:51 AM

I’m firmly in SilverDeth’s camp. Let the Republicans take the Romney Kool-Aid and lose humiliating to Obama in November (because he will). I wash my hands clean of their willingness to ruin the country.

Myron Falwell on January 27, 2012 at 2:11 AM

I appreciated Santy’s performance tonight, but did anyone else read the article posted in the Washington Examiner about his support of an individual mandate in 1994? If true, his relentless attacks on Mitt and Newt are the height of hypocrisy. Sheesh. Is there any GOP candidate running for POTUS who isn’t full of it?

Slainte on January 27, 2012 at 2:13 AM

Butthurt Newtbots on display right here.

They won’t vote for anybody that doesn’t let the country get back to it’s founding principles of electing serial adulterers as president or something.

Swerve22 on January 27, 2012 at 2:14 AM

Free market across state lines

State solution

, tort reform,

State Solution

HSA’s

State solution,

pooling,

State solution

Romneycare

State solution

Texas Gal on January 27, 2012 at 1:03 AM

You gave yourself away with this one. You’re just a typical Romney apologist ready to spin everything to his benefit. Since the whole pitch to excuse Romneycare is that it was a state program, you take everything else and call it a state “solution.”

It’s the federal government that doesn’t allow insurance to be sold across state lines, requiring every insurance company that wants to do business in a state get their plan approved by that state’s insurance commissioner. Changing that requirement would allow insurance companies to cut costs by selling their plans everywhere rather than having to devise a different plan for every state. That’s not a state solution at all.

HSAs are also not a state solution, but a federal one, since they’re primarily set up under federal tax laws. Whether or not an individual state can even offer tax benefits for an HSA depends on the individual state, but the major tax benefit would be on the much-higher federal income tax.

Pooling can be done at either the state or federal level, so is also not a state solution.

The only one of the above list that can be called a state solution is tort reform. And reforming the laws to cut down the expense of malpractice suits is a very, very far cry from laws requiring everyone to buy a state-mandated insurance plan.

In short, a pathetic attempt to justify Romneycare by pretending it’s just another state solution.

Dead wrong.

In fact, with this level of obvious falsehood spin, I’m seriously doubting you’re a “Texas Gal” either.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Dire Straights- I want my… I want my… $80 & a free Romney T-Shirt for Free…

Y314K on January 27, 2012 at 1:12 AM

You spelled it wrong, you better hope cozmo doesn’t see that or this.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 2:17 AM

I’m firmly in SilverDeth’s camp. Let the Republicans take the Romney Kool-Aid and lose humiliating to Obama in November (because he will). I wash my hands clean of their willingness to ruin the country.

Myron Falwell on January 27, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Thirded. There are genuinely conservative candidates for public office for whom I can (and gladly will) vote on the local level, and provide cash donations in support of same.

The Republican party, at the national level, ran a candidate actively loathed by their conservative voting base four years ago, losing decisively to an open Marxist with no record of governance whatsoever. The lesson they learned from said curb-stomping, evidently, was: Hair. If only McCain had sported a gloriously coiffed head of HAIR, dammit — !

They can’t be taught. It’s just as simple, as inarguable as that.

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:18 AM

I’m firmly in SilverDeth’s camp. Let the Republicans take the Romney Kool-Aid and lose humiliating to Obama in November (because he will). I wash my hands clean of their willingness to ruin the country.

Myron Falwell on January 27, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:18 AM

Fourthed.
If Romney is the nominee, I’m going to spend the last few months of this republic stocking up on supplies for what comes next.

joe_doufu on January 27, 2012 at 2:22 AM

@Rose

Romney didn’t have any mass supreme court choices. That would be the only way to judge him because the judges he appointed were to courts that weren’t deciding anything of political ideology.

What about energy. You have the keystone pipeline? You have Jindal screaming about obama costing jobs by Obama holding up permits.

Obama has done a million things to hurt conservatives.

ryandan on January 27, 2012 at 2:24 AM

So all of a sudden anne coulter and matt drudge are the whole establishment

I think Drudge has been fair. Ann must have finally decided to cash in and sell herself to be the mouthpiece of the establishment. I might have to include Hot Air in that too, looking at the voluminous amounts of anti-Newt blog posts.

As for Fox, they might have other motives since it’s in their best interest and ratings to keep this race muddled and dragged on as long as possible.

tkyang99 on January 27, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Looks like a lot of Newtniks here refuse to face reality.

sandee on January 27, 2012 at 12:49 AM

The really, really, crazy ones are the bitter really, really, crazy former worshipers of St Palin the Victimized.

They are filled with hate and resentment and they desire to exorcise those demons upon Romney’s soul. Just for hates sake.

–[Looks back at the title of the post] —

How did this become a Palin thread? She’s not anywhere in the title, or the article posted?

csdeven on January 27, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Oh, I see.

Rent free.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:27 AM

Romney didn’t have any mass supreme court choices. That would be the only way to judge him because the judges he appointed were to courts that weren’t deciding anything of political ideology.

ryandan on January 27, 2012 at 2:24 AM

[::Infinite Facepalm Loop::]

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:29 AM

Butthurt Newtbots on display right here.

They won’t vote for anybody that doesn’t let the country get back to it’s founding principles of electing serial adulterers as president or something.

Swerve22 on January 27, 2012 at 2:14 AM

Eh, it’s more like serial cranky butthurts, they latch on some passing savior-flavor, not just Newt. They scream about how they’ll vote against the Republican candidate, out of that cranky butthurtness, so they are thus irrelevant. Most are couch-potato complainers who don’t/won’t vote anyway, they’re only just looking for some place to vent.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:32 AM

Endgame? Heck no.

Connie on January 27, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Who said that? Every vote is needed to beat an incumbent president.

ryandan on January 27, 2012 at 1:47 AM

so they are thus irrelevant.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:32 AM

When Mittbot Talking Points Collide.

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:35 AM

After Santorum’s strong performance tonight, there are bound to be tepid Newt fans and true undecideds who prefer him as the anointed Not Romney and will start peeling away tomorrow. Who could blame them?

exactly. newt WAS my choice at one point, but i switched to santorum a couple of weeks ago. i’m over newt. i like newt over romney but santorum’s my choice now.

Sachiko on January 27, 2012 at 2:37 AM

The goal is to beat Obama, not beat-up Romney.
Newt cannot beat Obama. Romney can. No, he certainly was not my first choice to represent “conservative Republicanism” but given what we now know about the liberal state of the Party, he is the best we can hope for to win against Obama in the fall.
Romney will be a good fiscal caretaker of the country while the Tea Party continues to reform and renew the Republican Party in Congress and the states. Nothing else makes sense to me right now, and failing some unexpected drama, we need to begin uniting behind Romney and against the Democrat Leviathan.
Randy

williars on January 27, 2012 at 1:23 AM

If you have this much unjustified faith in Romney representing conservatives when he has never done so in the past, in winning elections when he has only won a single election in his entire life, and in being some kind of fiscal reformer when he wasn’t a fiscal reformer as a governor, then you have the same kind of unjustified faith in Romney that Obama’s supporters had in a do-nothing state senator who pretended to be a Constitutional law scholar without ever doing any actual scholarship.

At least Santorum has won a statewide election more than once in his life.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:39 AM

After Santorum’s strong performance tonight, there are bound to be tepid Newt fans and true undecideds who prefer him as the anointed Not Romney and will start peeling away tomorrow. Who could blame them?

exactly. newt WAS my choice at one point, but i switched to santorum a couple of weeks ago. i’m over newt. i like newt over romney but santorum’s my choice now.

Sachiko on January 27, 2012 at 2:37 AM

To coin a phrase – “you know who that helps?”.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:40 AM

so they are thus irrelevant.
whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:32 AM

When Mittbot Talking Points Collide.
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:35 AM

LOL, yes – everything is a vast “Mittbot conspiracy”. But the reality is non-voting coach potato-complainers have never mattered. They just enjoy complaining. As I said, they come in all stripes, but it doesn’t matter – they always have been and always will be meaningless.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:44 AM

I appreciated Santy’s performance tonight, but did anyone else read the article posted in the Washington Examiner about his support of an individual mandate in 1994? If true, his relentless attacks on Mitt and Newt are the height of hypocrisy. Sheesh. Is there any GOP candidate running for POTUS who isn’t full of it?

Slainte on January 27, 2012 at 2:13 AM

It’s not true. If you’re interested in Santorum’s actual positions on health care reform, you can watch the senatorial debate he had on C-SPAN in 1994. He rejected mandates about as effectively and clearly as anyone can.

Unfortunately, the entire video is nearly an hour long. But it begins on the subject of healthcare reform, so you don’t necessarily have to watch the whole thing.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:44 AM

If you have this much unjustified faith in Romney representing conservatives when he has never done so in the past, in winning elections when he has only won a single election in his entire life, and in being some kind of fiscal reformer when he wasn’t a fiscal reformer as a governor, then you have the same kind of unjustified faith in Romney that Obama’s supporters had in a do-nothing state senator who pretended to be a Constitutional law scholar without ever doing any actual scholarship.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:39 AM

Well, but what’s different this time around, see, is that Mitt is actually saying the word “conservative” out loud, publicly, without making that little ewwwwwww face with his mouth immediately afterwards.

I mean… c’mon. What else could you possibly want out of him, for pity’s sake…?

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:47 AM

complainers have never mattered.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:44 AM

Did you see me at the Gala Ball, during the McCain inauguration? I waved at you.

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:49 AM

so they are thus irrelevant.
whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:32 AM

When Mittbot Talking Points Collide.
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:35 AM

LOL, yes – everything is a vast “Mittbot conspiracy”. But the reality is non-voting coach potato-complainers have never mattered. They just enjoy complaining. As I said, they come in all stripes, but it doesn’t matter – they always have been and always will be meaningless.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:44 AM

A “conspiracy” is a (relatively) small group of people working together to accomplish a shared goal.

So of course there’s a “Mittbot conspiracy.” That’s what a campaign does: they try to get as many as possible to give them some advantage. Since Mitt is spending money like it’s water, the “conspiracy” is naturally extending its reach through money, paid astroturf, negative campaign ads, political influence with others who would like to get some of that money and influence, etc.

It’s not tinfoil-hat territory to suggest that powerful people working with and for the Romney campaign are working behind the scenes to get favorable outcomes for Romney. That’s just common sense.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:51 AM

I appreciated Santy’s performance tonight, but did anyone else read the article posted in the Washington Examiner about his support of an individual mandate in 1994? If true, his relentless attacks on Mitt and Newt are the height of hypocrisy. Sheesh. Is there any GOP candidate running for POTUS who isn’t full of it?
Slainte on January 27, 2012 at 2:13 AM

It’s not true. If you’re interested in Santorum’s actual positions on health care reform, you can watch the senatorial debate he had on C-SPAN in 1994. He rejected mandates about as effectively and clearly as anyone can.
Unfortunately, the entire video is nearly an hour long. But it begins on the subject of healthcare reform, so you don’t necessarily have to watch the whole thing.
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:44 AM

The reality is that trying to prop up any candidate on a pedestal is a losing proposition, as they all have feet of clay. Or, at the very least, an Achilles heel.
Works better with time, though. Reagan is gone and some time has passed since his era, so it’s somewhat easier to forget the occasions where he may have went wrong.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:51 AM

It’s not tinfoil-hat territory to suggest that powerful people working with and for the Romney campaign are working behind the scenes to get favorable outcomes for Romney. That’s just common sense.
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:51 AM

And it’s obvious they’re being directed in their secret fiendish plot by aliens who want the Moon all to themselves. That’s just common sense.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM

Well, but what’s different this time around, see, is that Mitt is actually saying the word “conservative” out loud, publicly, without making that little ewwwwwww face with his mouth immediately afterwards.

I mean… c’mon. What else could you possibly want out of him, for pity’s sake…?

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:47 AM

When Romney ran in 2007-2008 as a conservative, I knew he had not been a conservative as a governor in Massachusetts. But I was willing to believe that, in running for a national office like the presidency, he had realized that he would have to be more conservative, and that his “conversion” was somewhat genuine, if only because it was obviously to his political advantage to be more conservative.

After all, anyone in national politics knows that a Republican has to get the support of his base to win a national election, so there seemed little likelihood that Romney would back out of his new-found conservative positions.

He didn’t even make it all the way to the next election. Suddenly, he was selling himself as the moderate. He even doubled down on Romneycare.

Obviously, he can’t even pretend to be conservative long enough to win elections. He’s reminding me more and more of John Kerry, who ran for office first as a “war hero,” then realized that war heroes no longer won Democratic elections, and shifted course to become a Vietnam War Protester.

Romney’s crack about, “It’s not worth getting angry about healthcare,” said it all. Romney doesn’t care enough about any principle to get angry about it. All principles are disposable if they stand between you and winning an election.

And yet, he’s only won a single election. That’s why he’ll lse this time. People don’t expect politicians to always be true to every principle, but they expect politicians to at least have some principles.

Take Teddy Kennedy. No one would ever be surprised if he sold out any given principle to win a victory. But even so, you knew what he stood for over all.

I don’t think you could even say that for Mitt Romney. That might explain why Romney lost to Kennedy.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 3:02 AM

complainers have never mattered.
whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:44 AM

Did you see me at the Gala Ball, during the McCain inauguration? I waved at you.
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 2:49 AM

As I said, I don’t worry about hardcore Obama supporters. They are irrelevant.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:08 AM

You spelled it wrong, you better hope cozmo doesn’t see that or this.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Who is Cosmo ??? lol

My eyes are shot… And no edit option… So it is what it is…

Y314K on January 27, 2012 at 3:09 AM

It’s not tinfoil-hat territory to suggest that powerful people working with and for the Romney campaign are working behind the scenes to get favorable outcomes for Romney. That’s just common sense.
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:51 AM

And it’s obvious they’re being directed in their secret fiendish plot by aliens who want the Moon all to themselves. That’s just common sense.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM

Adding your own ridiculous statement to my reasonable one doesn’t make my statement ridiculous.

Maybe you were trying for argument ad absurdem, but that’s not how you do it.

Romney has a campaign trying to win the presidency. He’s known to be spending huge sums of money and hiring people in every state to accomplish just that. If those staff are not trying to get the best deal possible for Romney, then they’re not doing their jobs. A lot of that has to be done discreetly, so again, a certain amount of secrecy is required. If Romney’s spending millions but his campaign isn’t using its influence wherever possible, then he’s wasting money. And I would never accuse Romney of not getting a return on his investment.

Obviously, you can take this to an extreme and look for a secret Romney cabal everywhere and in every circumstance.

A similar extreme would be to seriously take the position that Romney would never do anything like that!

No one is that naive. The very fact that Romney’s campaign dumps so much money on negative campaigning while Romney appears to never engage in negative campaigning himself proves that he’s quite willing to work “behind the scenes” and through surrogates.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 3:18 AM

As I said, I don’t worry about hardcore Obama supporters. They are irrelevant.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:08 AM

Point to one hereabouts, with supporting evidence.

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 3:19 AM

Rick did fantastic tonight…I think he carries some of the best qualities of Newt, Mitt, and Ron…
Not the most dynamic, but so far the most steady and focused…the one that keeps saying, “keep your eye on the ball, it’s Obama”…very impressive…

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 3:21 AM

As I said, I don’t worry about hardcore Obama supporters. They are irrelevant.
whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:08 AM

Point to one hereabouts, with supporting evidence.
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 3:19 AM

Easy enough, here’s a mirror: are you voting for the Republican nominee or against the Republican nominee?

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:23 AM

Rick did fantastic tonight…I think he carries some of the best qualities of Newt, Mitt, and Ron…
Not the most dynamic, but so far the most steady and focused…the one that keeps saying, “keep your eye on the ball, it’s Obama”…very impressive…

right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 3:21 AM

Really? I just view him as an angry dork that lost his last election for senate….badly. He lived in Iowa so he tied in that state, then got his head handed to him in the next two states and will continue to get his head handed to him because he isnt presidential timber.

He has zero chance….but I am glad he is there to help dilute the mormon haters so they dont all have one person to center their hate politics on.

Jailbreak on January 27, 2012 at 3:25 AM

It’s not tinfoil-hat territory to suggest that powerful people working with and for the Romney campaign are working behind the scenes to get favorable outcomes for Romney. That’s just common sense.
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 2:51 AM

And it’s obvious they’re being directed in their secret fiendish plot by aliens who want the Moon all to themselves. That’s just common sense.
whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM

Adding your own ridiculous statement to my reasonable one doesn’t make my statement ridiculous.
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 3:18 AM

Yours was ridiculous to begin, it just really didn’t need a whole of addition to illustrate that fact. However anyone who doesn’t realize that all the candidates go after one another is just frankly (as they say) massively out of touch with reality. A person can invent a vast conspiracy to fit any/all of the candidates but I hope they would have a better use for a wild imagination.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:30 AM

Obviously, he can’t even pretend to be conservative long enough to win elections. He’s reminding me more and more of John Kerry, who ran for office first as a “war hero,” then realized that war heroes no longer won Democratic elections, and shifted course to become a Vietnam War Protester.

Romney’s crack about, “It’s not worth getting angry about healthcare,” said it all. Romney doesn’t care enough about any principle to get angry about it. All principles are disposable if they stand between you and winning an election.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 3:02 AM

Yup. The nouveau “conservatives” hereabouts — piddling in the far corners and mewling about “butthurt” this and “irrelevant” that; the very same ones who genuinely believed, four years ago, that a candidate for the presidency can actually win, minus the enthusiastic support of their party’s donating/envelope stuffing/voting base — are blockheadedly confident that the exact same busted electoral flush that sent them home, confused and crying, last time out will (mirabile dictu!) someway, somehow win them the pot against an even stronger hand (incumbency) THIS time.

It’d take a heart of stone, ultimately, not to point and laugh weep.

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 3:31 AM

Rick did fantastic tonight…I think he carries some of the best qualities of Newt, Mitt, and Ron…
Not the most dynamic, but so far the most steady and focused…the one that keeps saying, “keep your eye on the ball, it’s Obama”…very impressive…
right2bright on January 27, 2012 at 3:21 AM

Really? I just view him as an angry dork that lost his last election for senate….badly.
Jailbreak on January 27, 2012 at 3:25 AM

I don’t know if he intends to but Santorum has a problem with coming off as sounding as if he were constantly POed. Might just be his personality, I haven’t seen enough over the years to know if’s been a constant thing over his career. But the impression of anger detracts from whatever good things he has to say. It’s like when Romney gets ahead of himself and stutters, it’s “slow down, Mitt”. With Santorum it’s “chill a bit, fella”.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:36 AM

Easy enough, here’s a mirror: are you voting for the Republican nominee or against the Republican nominee?

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:23 AM

You just stated, previously, that the votes of “complainers” were (in your own words) “irrelevant.” Now you’re burbling that any vote not for the Republican candidate is, de facto, a vote AGAINST same.

Serious question, here: are you actually over the calendar age of nine…?!? ROTFLMAO!!!

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 3:37 AM

Easy enough, here’s a mirror: are you voting for the Republican nominee or against the Republican nominee?
whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:23 AM

You just stated, previously, that the votes of “complainers” were (in your own words) “irrelevant.” Now you’re burbling that any vote not for the Republican candidate is, de facto, a vote AGAINST same.
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 3:37 AM

Nope, I simply asked a question which you’re terrified to answer for some reason.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:40 AM

Nope, I simply asked a question which you’re terrified to answer for some reason.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:40 AM

OOOOOOoooooooh. The “I’ll bet you’re all a-skeered” flail. A timeless elementary school favorite!

Inept (and failed) dodge noted. Let’s try again, shall we…? How can a vote not cast for Romney simultaneously be both:

a.)… a vote for Obama; AND –
b.)… “irrelevant”…?

Come one, now. Show the class your work. ALL of it — chop-chop!

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 3:45 AM

Yours was ridiculous to begin, it just really didn’t need a whole of addition to illustrate that fact. However anyone who doesn’t realize that all the candidates go after one another is just frankly (as they say) massively out of touch with reality. A person can invent a vast conspiracy to fit any/all of the candidates but I hope they would have a better use for a wild imagination.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:30 AM

A small group of people working behind the scenes to accomplish a goal is almost the very definition of “conspiracy.” Every political campaign is, in effect, a “conspiracy,” to get someone elected.

The biggest and most effective campaign is Romney’s. He pays more people directly to work for him, and spends more money in campaigning — and far more in negative campaigning.

It’s a given that his campaign has its fingers all over the place to manipulate events in his favor.

Why you’re so dead-set to pretend that there’s never any influence behind the scenes from the Romney campaign is a mystery. There have already been numerous cases of state primaries being moved up earlier, and good reason to believe that many of these were done to help Romney secure the nomination as soon as possible. We’ve also had a flood of people assuring us that Romney is the front-runner and inevitable, even where there was no real evidence for that.

But if you’re going to double down on the spin that everything is exactly as it seems — in the political arena, no less, where backroom deals are notorious — then go right ahead.

I won’t waste time arguing with you. I may point and laugh now and then, of course….

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 3:47 AM

I won’t waste time arguing with you. I may point and laugh now and then, of course….

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 3:47 AM

Sort of like watching a sweating and desperate Tor Johnson attempt to breakdance, isn’t it…? ;)

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 3:49 AM

Newt has proposed new bold ideas on the space program and solutions for the illegal immigrant problem.

What new ideas has Mitt proposed besides “vote for me and I’ll fix stuff cuz I was a good businessman”?

tkyang99 on January 27, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Newt’s amnesty is so fresh and new that no one has ever proposed it before?? And “amnesty” is a solution??? Duh. Rewarding criminal behavior with the ill-gotten goods is hardly a solution.

Attrition through enforcement is a solution. Read all about it here and watch here.

fred5678 on January 27, 2012 at 3:51 AM

Mitt Romney must be defeated. He is a lying liberal republican scumbag that was caught in a lie tonight with his ad. Conservative will not accept him. We will defeat that bastard and his liberal republican puke supporters that attack any conservative that gets in his way. Mitt Romney will be destroyed. The people who sold their reputations for Romney have unmasked themselves. They are finished. Mitt Romney and the establishment want a civil war with conservatives. Conservatives will give them a civil war.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 3:53 AM

Brainless Romneybot’s natural enemy is Sarah Palin and Conservatives. Not much difference between an Obamadrone and a Romneybot. It is basically a lateral move.

CoolChange80 on January 27, 2012 at 3:54 AM

Nope, I simply asked a question which you’re terrified to answer for some reason.
whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:40 AM

OOOOOOoooooooh. The “I’ll bet you’re all a-skeered” flail.
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 3:45 AM

Obviously it was extremely effective. The basic question whether you will for or against whomever the Republican nominee left you indeed terribly “a-skeered” – an abnormal reaction to such a straight-forward question.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:56 AM

But if you’re going to double down on the spin that everything is exactly as it seems — in the political arena, no less, where backroom deals are notorious — then go right ahead.
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 27, 2012 at 3:47 AM

Thank you – just as you’re certainly most welcome to concoct bizarre conspiracy theories to interpret the realities.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:59 AM

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:56 AM

LOLOL!!! Second inept (and failed) dodge noted. (This is fun — !)

Let’s try again, shall we…? How can a vote not cast for Romney simultaneously be both:

a.)… a vote for Obama; AND –
b.)… “irrelevant”…?

Come one, now. Show the class your work. ALL of it — chop-chop!

Everyone’s watching you squirm, you know. ;)

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 3:59 AM

Everyone’s watching you squirm, you know.
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 3:59 AM

Perhaps in a fantasy world where you may believe you are “legion”. However, the fact still remains the posed question if you will vote for or against the eventual Republican nominee (note I mentioned no names) certainly instilled deep fear in you and, even yet, remains unanswered.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 4:06 AM

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 4:06 AM

… annnnnnnnnnd: Strike Three, and yer OUTTA THERE — !!!

HEREBY RESOLVED (due to whatcat’s sad, demonstrable inability to cogently argue otherwise): Any vote not slavishly cast for Mitt Romney (or any other presidential nominee not sporting a cute li’l letter “R” next to their name on the ballot) may be either:

a.) … “a vote for Obama”; OR –
b.) … “irrelevant”: BUT NOT –
c.) … simultaneously (and impossibly) both.

Now: when (and only when) you’ve properly and publicly decided whether it’s actually “A” or “B” you’re fumblingly attempting to argue here, twinkles: you’ll have your answer.

You don’t get to argue two contradictory points, simultaneously… particularly when you show no evidence of even being competently able to handle one at a time, without spraining something.

*snort*

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 4:15 AM

‘grandmothers, grandfathers. You can’t round up grandmothers, grandfathers yada yada yada grandmothers’

These are some pathetic debating skills Newt is displaying and he sounds exactly like a Democrat. It isn’t particularly easy to defend amnesty and open borders after all. Romney talks a good game at the moment but wants to increase legal immigration and use guest worker programs. Where are these candidates going to find the jobs to justify increases in immigration during a recession? If our candidates had some cajones, they would advocate heavy decreases in legal immigration if not a moratorium. Unless the GOP wants the electorate of California, it is going to have to face reality.

Jerry Bear on January 27, 2012 at 4:24 AM

You don’t get to argue two contradictory points
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 4:15 AM

I didn’t, you just fantasized I did – as you did with your asserted fantasy that you=”everybody”. Such things only exist in your mind, not in reality.

I merely asked a basic question which proved to be a great source of anxiety to you; will you vote for or against whomever the eventual Republican nominee?

If you’re the typical couch potato complainer-nonvoter, that automatically renders you irrelevant to anything discussed here of a political nature, especially in regard to this year’s election. If you’re going to vote against whomever the Republican nominee it’s the same result. While you’re certainly welcome to complain, whine and vent as an emotional release, you’ve rendered yourself absolutely insignificant. As I’ve already noted, such persons are just nothing to care about.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 4:34 AM

‘grandmothers, grandfathers. You can’t round up grandmothers, grandfathers yada yada yada grandmothers’

These are some pathetic debating skills Newt is displaying and he sounds exactly like a Democrat. It isn’t particularly easy to defend amnesty and open borders after all. Romney talks a good game at the moment but wants to increase legal immigration and use guest worker programs. Where are these candidates going to find the jobs to justify increases in immigration during a recession? If our candidates had some cajones, they would advocate heavy decreases in legal immigration if not a moratorium. Unless the GOP wants the electorate of California, it is going to have to face reality.

Jerry Bear on January 27, 2012 at 4:24 AM

It is indeed pretty pitiful when any Republican candidate trots out the “you want to frog-march 11 million illegal grannies back to where they came” strawman out and then proceeds to argue against that strawman.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 4:38 AM

Final notes from an insomniac:

“First of all, It’s not worth getting angry about.” ~ Mitt Romney

Unfortunately, he (once again) checked the thermometer and completely failed to gauge the temperature of his potential voters. A couple weeks back during the Huckabee forum, Huck imparted this bit of wisdom: “I’m a conservative, but I’m not angry about it.”

Mr. Romney grabbed hold of that ‘right message/wrong year’ line and ran with it in at least two interviews I’ve seen, as though he had never heard it before although Mr. Huckabee, his Obi-Wan of folksiness, has been saying that since at least 2007, when I first heard of him via news stories about the Arkansas Governor’s dramatic weight loss.

Unfortunately for Mitt, “It’s not worth getting angry about”, doesn’t exactly inspire confidence when he claims to be proud to have created a healthcare mandate but vows to destroy another healthcare mandate.

He probably will be the Republican nominee. I’m resigned. And sort of glad that–err…umm–Tim Pawlenty (my unfortunate pick) jumped out of the pot before the accelerating heat boiled him clean from a floating opportunity to a fare thee well.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 27, 2012 at 4:51 AM

If you’re the typical couch potato complainer-nonvoter, that automatically renders you irrelevant to anything discussed here of a political nature, especially in regard to this year’s election. If you’re going to vote against whomever the Republican nominee it’s the same result. While you’re certainly welcome to complain, whine and vent as an emotional release, you’ve rendered yourself absolutely insignificant. As I’ve already noted, such persons are just nothing to care about.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 4:34 AM

God help me, but I love it when they’re inevitably reduced to spluttering incoherently in response. Like watching Rosie O’Donnell eat: all noise and color and spittle flying everywhichway, to no humanly comprehensible purpose. ;)

You already know — or rather, would know, had you proven of reading and/or comprehending previous postings in this thread at even a baseline grammar school level — that I am a conservative voter. Bumble Numero Uno.

You have yet to provide anything whatsoever — credible or otherwise — by way of support for your parrot-like assertion to the effect that “If you’re going to vote against whomever the Republican nominee it’s the same result.” Whichever grade school teacher failed to instruct you that Simple, Bald Assertion =/= Rudimentary Evidence deserves a good hiding… but: that’s neither here nor there, sadly. Bumble Numero Dos.

Given that the sum total of the poor, swaybacked thing you’re riding in place of an actual, intelligent argument rests upon those two planks — both, demonstrably, rotted through and incapable of supporting even their own sorry weight — that leaves you with Not A Whole Hell Of A Lot Left In Your Pockets, actually.

Not that that exactly leaves me with jaw all a-gape, you understand.

[::shakes head, trying not to snicker openly::]

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 4:52 AM

Unfortunately for Mitt, “It’s not worth getting angry about”, doesn’t exactly inspire confidence when he claims to be proud to have created a healthcare mandate but vows to destroy another healthcare mandate.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 27, 2012 at 4:51 AM

Like Obamadroids slavishly supporting drone bombings in Libya, who (during Bush’s presidency) mewled and sniveled “NOT IN OUR NAMES!” and “THE WORLD CAN’T WAIT!,” Romneybots are the Pushmi-Pullyus of American politics. They strain in two opposing directions at once, and call the resulting confusion “progress.” ;)

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 4:59 AM

Final notes from an insomniac:
“First of all, It’s not worth getting angry about.” ~ Mitt Romney
Unfortunately, he (once again) checked the thermometer and completely failed to gauge the temperature of his potential voters.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 27, 2012 at 4:51 AM

I took that more as in the confines of the debate, directed at Santorum in specific rather than an admonition to the American public at large. I mentioned somewhere above Rick does seem to come off as being somewhat set on “angry”. I wouldn’t be surprised if Romney’s advisers picked up on that and advised him to slip the term in when Santorum, who tends toward long-winded answers anyway, gets going.

If so, it didn’t seem to have had much impact. But still you want to plant one-word memes in voter’s minds whenever you can.

Now get some sleep.
:D

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 5:00 AM

Not that that exactly leaves me with jaw all a-gape, you understand.
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 4:52 AM

Jaw agape or not, you’ll have to just accept the fact that cranky nonvoters or whiny anti-Republican-candidate voters are no more than noisy children trying to be backseat drivers. About as important as being an observer to a poker game – complaining doesn’t change the cards, the rules of the games or the players. When you’re not in the game, you’re just not important to the actual players. Just the way it is.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 5:08 AM

[...] you’ll have to just accept [...] Just the way it is.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 5:08 AM

Sweet Jesus, but you’re absolutely pitiful at this. ROTFLMAO!!!

What I’ll “just have to accept,” because “that’s just the way it is” — based on your poor, spavined attempts at sulky foot-stamping and arm-waving throughout, sans any backup whatsoever — boils down to, ultimately:

a.) … your feeble attempts to summarily decree that any vote not cast for Romney (or whomever) was, simultaneously, “irrelevant” AND (inexplicably) “a vote for Obama” were unceremoniously clubbed like a baby seal, and left for dead in the rhetorical snows. (Awwwwwww.)

b.) … as previously stated: the Republican party is demonstrably repeating all of the exact same mistakes that cost them occupancy of the Oval Office, four years ago. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Ah, well. You’re obviously still just a toddler, comparatively. You’ll either learn… or you won’t.

I sleep just as soundly, either way.

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 5:22 AM

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 4:59 AM

Aaaah! I got the Doolittle reference without even clicking the link! Good one, and perfectly describes how in this-way-and-that, we serious voters still have time, and an awful lot of thinkin to do.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 27, 2012 at 5:27 AM

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:36 AM

I know some people think Santorum comes across as angry; I interpret him as passionate. The challenge is that Obama is so universally portrayed as Mr. Cool that Santorum would need to seem passionate but in complete command to the majority. I keep hoping he can hang in there–Gingrich and Romney are both stomach-turning choices to me.

DrMagnolias on January 27, 2012 at 5:33 AM

On substance santorum destroyed Romney here, but he still has that stupid leer on his face while debating and when it comes to those squishy independents who decide these elections, that leer will scare them right into Obama’s camp.

Romney sounded pathetic here. Why can’t he just say “I tried to reach across the aisle, work with the other side, and implement a top down health care reform. The same people who advised Obama advised me and I am sorry to say it has failed and unsustainable. I am convinced that since it does NOT work at the State Level, the President has no business thrusting this failed policy on the nation as a whole.” Just give it up!

Daemonocracy on January 27, 2012 at 5:35 AM

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 5:00 AM

Perhaps you’re right. And yes, I’ve said before that Mr. Santorum’s pissed-ossity meter seems rather delicate. Still, to me he won last night’s debate full stop. All I’m certain of right now is that on election day I will rise up in Night of the Living Dead fashion, and vote for the nominee.

p.s. Telling an insomniac to get some sleep is like telling an anorexic, “EAT SOMETHING!!”

:D

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 27, 2012 at 5:39 AM

You’ll either learn… or you won’t.
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 5:22 AM

Sorry, but there’s not much I can learn from you that I couldn’t learn from the generic run of the mill leftist troll; the leftist troll also rants and raves Republican candidates and refuses to vote for them.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 5:44 AM

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 3:36 AM

I know some people think Santorum comes across as angry; I interpret him as passionate. The challenge is that Obama is so universally portrayed as Mr. Cool that Santorum would need to seem passionate but in complete command to the majority. I keep hoping he can hang in there–Gingrich and Romney are both stomach-turning choices to me.
DrMagnolias on January 27, 2012 at 5:33 AM

Like I said, it just may be the way he has always spoken, I don’t know. I try to avoid the term “passionate” – I think it’s become somewhat meaningless, like a buzzword of sorts. Besides, when I think of “passionate”, I’m thinking lights turned down, some slow jazz coming from the music machine, whispering sweet nothings…well, you get the drift.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 5:50 AM

Morning my HA family….so is everyone calling it for santorum with romney winning the primary?

cmsinaz on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 AM

there’s not much I can learn

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 5:44 AM

Granted, without reservation.

Enjoy your next four years of The Won. Lord alone knows, p!ssing all over the conservative voting base — you know, those icky “irrelevant” types who normally canvass neighborhoods, man phone banks and stuff envelopes, gratis, come autumn — with the man whose battlecry of “RomneyCare, Not ObamaCare!,” and whose religion (rightly or wrongly) will help the party whizz the South down its electoral legs, come November can’t possibly fail to…

… ahhhhhh, but: these are all taxing and fuddlesome concepts for such a tender young political yearling as yourself, doubtless. Go on and watch some Nickelodeon, then; there’s a good boy. Scoot, now.

*sigh* Ah, youth…

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 5:59 AM

Morning my HA family….so is everyone calling it for santorum with romney winning the primary?

cmsinaz on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 AM

Well…I am.
*kicks a rock*

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 27, 2012 at 6:00 AM

I know some people think Santorum comes across as angry; I interpret him as passionate. The challenge is that Obama is so universally portrayed as Mr. Cool that Santorum would need to seem passionate but in complete command to the majority. I keep hoping he can hang in there–Gingrich and Romney are both stomach-turning choices to me.

DrMagnolias on January 27, 2012 at 5:33 AM

I think of him as earnest. I’m from PA so I’m pretty familiar with him, since I’m also old enough to have been watching during the 90′s. That was really great and he was a pretty big part of things. For some reason he hasn’t grown on me, I have no idea why. I have nothing against him except he comes off preachy in my opinion. He doesn’t really strike me as a commanding presence. He said he thinks the sweater vests make him look older, but I don’t agree, he looks much better in a suit. Ok, so I guess I do know why, but none of that would prevent me from voting for him!

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:00 AM

Perhaps you’re right. And yes, I’ve said before that Mr. Santorum’s pissed-ossity meter seems rather delicate. Still, to me he won last night’s debate full stop. All I’m certain of right now is that on election day I will rise up in Night of the Living Dead fashion, and vote for the nominee.
p.s. Telling an insomniac to get some sleep is like telling an anorexic, “EAT SOMETHING!!”
:D
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 27, 2012 at 5:39 AM

He did good, but overall I think it was more a status quo result, not making much difference in how things are going. As AP noted in a tweet Romney even oddly managed to get cheers from a Republican audience in defending Romneycare. Of course, Santorum got in a couple of good shots on that. I don’t think that matters much, though.
By this time everyone’s pretty aware of all the candidate’s warts, so the endless debates are sliding heavy into been there, done that territory.
But as the candidates have all said of one another, any of them will be better than Obama. (Admittedly a low bar, heh)

On your problem with insomnia – I think you ought to sleep on it and see how it looks in the light of day :)

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 6:02 AM

Go on and watch some Nickelodeon, then; there’s a good boy. Scoot, now.
Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 5:59 AM

I’ll do that and leave you to work out your issues with Mormons. Rightly or wrongly, of course.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 6:05 AM

On your problem with insomnia – I think you ought to sleep on it and see how it looks in the light of day :)

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 6:02 AM

Ha-Haaaa!
Plant ya now,
Dig ya later.
G’Night, ya hoot!

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 27, 2012 at 6:06 AM

Morning my HA family….so is everyone calling it for santorum with romney winning the primary?

cmsinaz on January 27, 2012 at 5:54 AM

Good Morning! I missed the debate but I read all the comments and I think you have assessed the situation correctly, although I don’t know why it means Romney wins the primary. The last national poll said Newt was up 9%.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:07 AM

I’ll do that and leave you to work out your issues with Mormons. Rightly or wrongly, of course.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 6:05 AM

Ending with a wet, sorry splutter, instead of the hoped-for bang.

The Romney 2012 campaign, prophesied — however unintentionally — in perfect miniature.

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 AM

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:07 AM

just seeing the comments and the piece above allah

mark halperin’s scores on mj
mitt A
santorum B-
Newt and Paul C-

cmsinaz on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 AM

On your problem with insomnia – I think you ought to sleep on it and see how it looks in the light of day :)
whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 6:02 AM

Ha-Haaaa!
Plant ya now,
Dig ya later.
G’Night, ya hoot!
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 27, 2012 at 6:06 AM

I have to fess up, I stole that from “Frasier“.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 6:14 AM

The Republican leadership in Congress is already trying to work with Democrats to neutralize the folks elected in 2010, imagine the message sent by a Romney nomination.

Cindy Munford on January 27, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Because hyperpartisanship has been so good for the country the past few years right? By that logic you should be praising Obama and Pelosi for not reaching across the aisle to the “enemy”.
You do realize that the tea party faction makes up less than half of the Republicans in the house don’t you? That they used the resources and networks of the GOP establishment to get elected?

Without some compromise it is always gridlock. But than I suppose that is boring for the hyperpartisans and political victims who only want red meat and doltish behavior toward the other party….

Regardless of whether Romney or Newt were to win the general they would have a two year window of opportunity at best to get significant things done. But if they choose the Obama approach to no compromise under any circumstance…. well they won’t do so well and the far right will bemoan how the terrible democrats use parliamentary tricks and refuse to support legislation and budgets.

And there is always the issue of judges

Bradky on January 27, 2012 at 6:18 AM

funny, i keep reading these articles about how the gop dislikes obama so much (racial undertones and all), but you never hear about the 8 years of vile being spewed by the left and the lsm…that wasn’t dislike, that was PURE HATRED

cmsinaz on January 27, 2012 at 6:21 AM

just seeing the comments and the piece above allah

mark halperin’s scores on mj
mitt A
santorum B-
Newt and Paul C-

cmsinaz on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 AM

That’s interesting, only the die hard Mitt supporters seemed to give Romney that high of a grade. I don’t have cable where my computer is so I never watch mj. (Well, I probably wouldn’t anyway-LOL) I listen to a local radio show that’s pretty funny. When they do a “Michelle Obama heads up” they play a theme song “I Like Big Butts”. They have a song for every type of story, it makes me laugh.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:22 AM

hyperpartisans [sic] and political victims who only want red meat and doltish behavior toward the other party….

Bradky on January 27, 2012 at 6:18 AM

Ah. The fabled McCain ’08 strategy, re: wooing conservative voters.

Amazing that we aren’t running a presidential campaign for re-election right about now, isn’t it…?

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 6:24 AM

“Mr. Speaker, I’m not anti-immigrant, my father was born in Mexico,” Romney declared. “I’m not anti-immigrant. … they (his father and father in law) came to this country legally.”

Isn’t that a similar disqualifying factor that some are pushing for to remove Obama from the ballot in the State of Georgia?

And to all of the idiots in the MSM, “IT’S THE ECONOMY FOR REAL THIS TIME YOU BIG DUMMIES!

kregg on January 27, 2012 at 6:26 AM

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:00 AM

What an interesting observation. I wonder how many people would be willing to vote for him even if he hadn’t “grown on” them? If they are unhappy with Obama, and they listen to Santorum and agree with his ideas, can they get past any negative “feeling” they get about him (he’s angry, uptight, etc.)? I have no doubt that Santorum would take the fight to Obama (as opposed to John “You have nothing to fear with an Obama presidency” McCain–”Fight with me” my eye). He’s consistent, he doesn’t have a messy personal life, and I wonder how many voters care that he lost his last election by so much? He really should have a lot of appeal (despite the sweater vests–I only like them under a suit jacket, otherwise, I think they look odd).

DrMagnolias on January 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:22 AM

lol

cool :)

cmsinaz on January 27, 2012 at 6:31 AM

Because hyperpartisanship has been so good for the country the past few years right? By that logic you should be praising Obama and Pelosi for not reaching across the aisle to the “enemy”.
You do realize that the tea party faction makes up less than half of the Republicans in the house don’t you? That they used the resources and networks of the GOP establishment to get elected?

Without some compromise it is always gridlock. But than I suppose that is boring for the hyperpartisans and political victims who only want red meat and doltish behavior toward the other party….

Regardless of whether Romney or Newt were to win the general they would have a two year window of opportunity at best to get significant things done. But if they choose the Obama approach to no compromise under any circumstance…. well they won’t do so well and the far right will bemoan how the terrible democrats use parliamentary tricks and refuse to support legislation and budgets.

And there is always the issue of judges

Bradky on January 27, 2012 at 6:18 AM

You would have to say that until the 2010 elections when dems had the House, Senate and White House, they ran pretty roughshod over the republicans. They locked them out of meetings for Pete’s sake. As I admitted, I am old enough to see the pattern here. When the dems are in charge, “they won” and they have a mandate from the people, but when the republicans are in charge it’s only fair to share power. The republicans always fall for it and get kicked in the teeth.

Tea Party people are no less republican than any other republican office holder, and those networks, etc. are paid for by us. Are you saying the republican party would be better off if the Tea Party people left and started their own party? I think it’s pretty impressive that they are as large a block as they are, and they deserve to be heard.

I agree completely that whoever wins will have less than two years to prove they can do what needs to be done. That’s why I was leery of Cain. I didn’t think he could hit the ground running. If there are enough republicans they can just ignore the dems like they did the republicans for the first two years of Obama’s administration. The republicans do not have a history of doing things like Obama has done, but the democrats use such hyperbole about anything the republicans do it makes it hard to work with them. What are we supposed to do about that? The only thing they will settle for is capitulation and we can’t afford to do that anymore. What do you suggest?

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:41 AM

Mornin’, y’all. Here’s my take.

kingsjester on January 27, 2012 at 6:41 AM

What an interesting observation. I wonder how many people would be willing to vote for him even if he hadn’t “grown on” them? If they are unhappy with Obama, and they listen to Santorum and agree with his ideas, can they get past any negative “feeling” they get about him (he’s angry, uptight, etc.)? I have no doubt that Santorum would take the fight to Obama (as opposed to John “You have nothing to fear with an Obama presidency” McCain–”Fight with me” my eye). He’s consistent, he doesn’t have a messy personal life, and I wonder how many voters care that he lost his last election by so much? He really should have a lot of appeal (despite the sweater vests–I only like them under a suit jacket, otherwise, I think they look odd).

DrMagnolias on January 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM

I’m just full of opinions this morning! A long time ago, we had a Governor named Casey (I forget his first name), and PA has always been a pretty blue state. This Casey seemed to be loved by most of the people here. He was a pro-life democrat, and I think he was not allowed to speak at a democrat national convention because of that so of course everyone here loved him more. His son is who Santorum ran against and lost to. No one here was that suprised by it, and besides wasn’t that a really bad year for all republicans? I have a pretty bad memory and I don’t like to waste it on stuff like that- LOL

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:47 AM

kingsjester on January 27, 2012 at 6:41 AM

morning KJ…

4 more days

cmsinaz on January 27, 2012 at 6:49 AM

The only thing they will settle for is capitulation and we can’t afford to do that anymore. What do you suggest?
Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:41 AM

Good points all. The TP certainly has the right and duty to represent what it ran on. My point is that the all or nothing approach rarely works for either party. For example, had Obama, who according to Susskind was not emotionally attached to the individual mandate, left that out of the health care bill he probably wouldn’t be in nearly as much trouble as he is now.
For the sake of argument let’s suppose the TP had the majority of the representatives in congress for the GOP. Would they not be expecting the rest of the GOP reps to support them at the end of the day? Boehner certainly listens to them but cobbling together legislation that can make it to Presidential signature is no easy trick. The TP reps know this but some have much more resistant than I agree with.

Reagan, who everyone likes to look to, moved mountains and much of it was some compromise. It is not a dirty word – it is just the nature of a democracy.

Bradky on January 27, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Tea Party people are no less republican than any other republican office holder, and those networks, etc. are paid for by us. Are you saying the republican party would be better off if the Tea Party people left and started their own party?

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:41 AM

Oh, it’s all very simple, really. This was all hashed out last night — right here, on this very thread! — by ardent Romney supporters.

“Every conservative vote is needed” [1:47 A.M.]… but they’re also “irrelevant” [2:32 A.M.], while simultaneously being “the same as Obama supporters,” if they don’t swear a blood-oath to vote for Romney in November [3:23 A.M.].

See? All perfectly, crystal clear! ;)

Kent18 on January 27, 2012 at 6:55 AM

I listened to Santorum on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America and decided that Rick’s one of the good guys. But, as they say “nice guys finish last.”
Unless you’re in a poll with Ron Paul who’s cultish supporters vote early and often.

That said, Santorum’s campaign is a trial balloon short on gas.

kregg on January 27, 2012 at 6:56 AM

This Casey seemed to be loved by most of the people here. He was a pro-life democrat, and I think he was not allowed to speak at a democrat national convention because of that so of course everyone here loved him more.
Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 6:47 AM

I remember that, it was the ’92 D-convention.

whatcat on January 27, 2012 at 7:02 AM

Good points all. The TP certainly has the right and duty to represent what it ran on. My point is that the all or nothing approach rarely works for either party. For example, had Obama, who according to Susskind was not emotionally attached to the individual mandate, left that out of the health care bill he probably wouldn’t be in nearly as much trouble as he is now.
For the sake of argument let’s suppose the TP had the majority of the representatives in congress for the GOP. Would they not be expecting the rest of the GOP reps to support them at the end of the day? Boehner certainly listens to them but cobbling together legislation that can make it to Presidential signature is no easy trick. The TP reps know this but some have much more resistant than I agree with.

Reagan, who everyone likes to look to, moved mountains and much of it was some compromise. It is not a dirty word – it is just the nature of a democracy.

Bradky on January 27, 2012 at 6:54 AM

That one, sadly, is easy. At least in my opinion. Republicans don’t really break out tea party/non tea party, they break out spine/spineless. It’s not that Boehner disagrees with the tea party, we all want the same things, balanced budget, school choice, whatever. Some people are more afraid to piss off the other side is all. Really, I think if the democrats didn’t scream racist, terrorist, etc. every time republicans propose something it wouldn’t be all that hard to get most things done. You have to admit they want things certain ways because they get money from unions. Instead of agreeing, they shout “You do it too”. I wouldn’t let my daughter get away with that, but grown people do. It’s a quandry.

I don’t remember Reagan being treated back then the way he is remembered now. He was treated a little better than George W. Bush, but not by much.

Night Owl on January 27, 2012 at 7:17 AM

Touche’ Mitt! “Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers” Newt has all but done himself in by this stance. Just as Rick Perry did. Mitt has helped himself. I think this might be the turning point of the campaign. DD

Darvin Dowdy on January 27, 2012 at 7:21 AM

I see many have been fighting the good fight while I’ve been sleeping :) I have to say I didn’t wake up liking Romney any better this morning. His political machine is turning me off in a major way. He is simply the wrong guy to fight the battles needed to restore America.

I still have hope for Santorum. He is a very good, steady, intelligent, articulate, experienced (8 years on armed services committee alone) candidate. He could be a serious contender if people helped him out with a few $$ so he can continue on. I intend to do so today. Expect the Romney machine to start turning their attention to Santorum next.

Newt seems beaten down from the Romney machine. I have no doubt that many of the things said and written about him have really hurt him on a personal level. I hope if he decides to not fight Romney anymore he gives his endorsement to Santorum. It would only make sense.

KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6