Quotes of the day

posted at 10:47 pm on February 29, 2012 by Allahpundit

“These results strongly suggest that Romney has successfully positioned himself almost exactly in the middle of the Republican electorate. This is far and away his greatest advantage moving forward, as it makes it very difficult for any candidate to forge a voting coalition large enough to topple Romney. Gingrich or Santorum would have to cobble together a strange bedfellows, left-right coalition of the most moderate and most conservative Republicans to defeat him. If you cannot win 50 percent of the vote outright, this is the best way to win – splinter your opposition onto two sides.

“This points to the two major points to draw from yesterday evening. First, Mitt Romney has essentially failed to win a majority, or even an overwhelming plurality of Republican voters to date. His average vote haul in the prior states was roughly in line with what we saw last night in Arizona and Michigan – carrying somewhere around 40 percent of the vote. Second, no candidate has yet found a way to topple him, because the non-Romney voters are divided on opposite sides of him. Thus, while Romney is not going to surge to the nomination as the majority choice of the party, it is very difficult to see how any of the declared candidates topples him.”

***

“Yes, his home state of Michigan was closer than Romney expected it would be a month ago (although not two weeks ago, when one poll had Rick Santorum winning there by 12 points). But the key detail in the exit polling from Michigan was this: Romney won the votes of self-described Republicans by 10 points, 47 percent to 37 percent.

“The fact that Romney didn’t win by a landslide in Michigan was apparently the result, in whole or in part, of mischievous Democratic voters trying to weaken him. Exit polls suggest that those voters added as much as 3.5 percentage points to Santorum’s total…

“Most Republican voters are out-and-out conservatives (indeed, 42 percent of all Americans describe themselves as conservative) — but they’re not necessarily tribal conservatives who are searching for someone ideologically pure to follow. Romney was more than conservative enough, it would appear, for a near-majority of Republicans in Michigan and Arizona.”

***

“Romney has shown in Michigan as elsewhere a capacity to win votes in affluent areas—which is exactly where (at least in the North) Republicans have been weak in presidential general elections over the last 20 years. Look at it this way: in 1988 George H. W. Bush carried the five-county metro Detroit area 50%-49%–a tiny margin, but one which enabled him, with a 56%-43% Outstate margin that was underwhelming in historic perspective, to carry Michigan. Similarly, the elder Bush, with big margins from affluent suburbanites, carried metro Boston, metro New York, metro Philadelphia, metro Cleveland and metro Chicago, which enabled him to win the electoral votes of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois…

“Affluent suburban voters are not happy with the Obama economic polices and are facing a choice between a Democrat who wants to tax their marginal income at 44% and a Republican (whether it is Romney or Santorum) who wants to tax it at 28%. They are far less concerned than they used to be about the cultural issues which moved them to the left in the 1990s and kept them there up through and including 2008…

“Affluent suburbanites are not a target group anyone has focused on much. But there are plenty of them and they tend to be in states with lots of electoral votes currently considered unavailable to Republicans. Mitt Romney’s showing in Michigan, on top of his proven appeal to this demographic—and particularly to affluent women—suggests they could make a difference in November 2012.”

***

“Michigan was Mr. Santorum’s best shot at delivering a fatal blow to Mr. Romney. He logged as many campaign stops as Mr. Romney, and he benefited from a social-conservative majority in the western part of the state. His super PAC spent more than it had in any other contest. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich left both states largely to him—Mr. Paul focusing on the upcoming caucus states (Washington, Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota), and Mr. Gingrich trying to stop his slide in Georgia (his home state) where polls show Mr. Santorum gaining.

“Yet Mr. Santorum couldn’t beat Mr. Romney mano-a-mano. Unforced errors played a role. Mr. Santorum’s crude dismissal of John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech advocating the strict separation of church and state didn’t come across well. Nor did his suggestion that wanting everyone to attend college is snobbish. And his robocalls inviting Democrats to crash the GOP contest boomeranged…

“Mr. Santorum is focused on Ohio, Tuesday’s key battleground with 66 delegates. Mr. Romney can afford a narrow loss there as long as he wins a solid plurality of all the Super Tuesday delegates. Mr. Santorum’s candidacy will realistically be at an end if he loses the Buckeye State, though he could linger for weeks. Even a win leaves him on life support unless he can also best Mr. Romney in Tuesday’s Southern contests, coming in first or second with Mr. Romney trailing in second or third place.”

***

“‘This is like watching a Greek tragedy,’ McCain told the Herald. ‘It’s the negative campaigning and the increasingly personal attacks … it should have stopped long ago. Any utility from the debates has been exhausted, and now it’s just exchanging cheap shots and personal shots followed by super PAC attacks.’

“The Arizona Republican, who endorsed Romney earlier this year and is set to rally with him in Phoenix tonight, said he believes the former Bay State governor will get the nomination, yet he worries a long, drawn out primary campaign could leave Romney too wounded to triumph in November.

“‘I know he’s going to be the nominee but I also worry about how much damage has been done,’ McCain said. ‘I think we still can win. … Once we get this over, the more we’ll be focused on Obama’s failures.’”

***

***

“It shows the Democrats are terrified of him.”


***



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

ahhh, you must live in Boston then

DHChron on March 1, 2012 at 7:30 AM

There are some real tools on here when it comes to knocking Romney’s religion…

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 7:17 AM

Oh, quit whining. How much have we heard over the past couple of weeks about Santorum’s religion? It’s been non-stop.

ddrintn on March 1, 2012 at 7:19 AM

DDRINTN…
I am not whining just thought it was interesting that Romney does NOT bring up his religion as that is not the focus of the country’s problems. Santorum on the other hand speaks about social issues and yes, it is brought up by the MSM, but RS talks about it himself on the campaign trail thus opening himself up to questioning.

Read my above statement. It was on the people here on HA talking about food storage in the temples (which is false) and baptism for the dead (which is a Biblical taught principle performed in temples…that many on here misunderstand as well). Bottom line though where has Romney talked about baptism for the dead? I think he is concerned about getting Americans back to work. :o)

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 7:31 AM

LOL DHC…got that.

He’s wicked bad, dude

bazil9 on March 1, 2012 at 7:32 AM

I just heard on the radio (I’m in PA) that Santorum is running out of money and on the ground organization. He wants Newt to drop out and give him whatever he’s got. That may be the only way Santorum can continue.

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 7:33 AM

eff that – go newtons!

DHChron on March 1, 2012 at 7:35 AM

“These results strongly suggest that Romney has successfully positioned himself almost exactly in the middle of the Republican electorate.”

Ding ding ding! Precisely. And Values Voters are now learning the hard lesson that African American Democrats have already discovered … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

ombdz on March 1, 2012 at 7:35 AM

DHC, my comment disappeared.

I laughed….wicked bad,dude.

bazil9 on March 1, 2012 at 7:36 AM

I prefer Sant drop out and let Newt go on.

bazil9 on March 1, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Rick Santorum is a bigoted loser who (thankfully) won’t get the Republican nomination and could never beat Obama. I’m actually tired and sick of hearing about that loon.

Mitt Romney, however, is going to win this thing. He is being underestimated at the moment, but Mitt is a guy who will have strong appeal to women, independents, conservatives and others in the general election.

Let the Obama worshipers pretend to feel confident now. We will all be saying “President Mitt Romney” in less than a year.

Mitt Romney will be one of our greatest presidents, at a time when we really need him.

bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 7:38 AM

ddrintn and others…
Here is the 11th Article of Faith out of 13 that the LDS Church believes in:
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

So if there are LDS members, that you claim, are bashing other religions, I would highly doubt they are LDS or Mormon. We encourage people to have a faith and to practice it how they believe. Trust me, it was the Mormons that were persecuted, killed, lynched, and driven from the then Continental US of A and fled to an area unclaimed at the time (now known as Utah) to practice our religion the way we believed. Which is kind of the ironies of ironies when it was OUR COUNTRY that was established for FREEDOM OF RELIGION and yet Americans drove the Mormons out of their midst. However, no worries. We are still some of the most patriotic loving Americans you’ll find. :o)

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 7:39 AM

I prefer Sant drop out and let Newt go on.

bazil9 on March 1, 2012 at 7:37 AM

I’m right there with you!

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 7:39 AM

You know the Obama worshipers and the other assorted Romney-bashers are getting nervous and desperate when they have to resort to attacking soon-to-be President Romney’s religion.

bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 7:42 AM

I’m right there with you!

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 7:39 AM

Thanks, I was feeling alone. :)

bazil9 on March 1, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Thanks, I was feeling alone. :)

bazil9 on March 1, 2012 at 7:42 AM

LOL- You’re not alone. There is actually a Newt thread from last night. There are quite a few supporters. Go look at it, it might cheer you up! The article was actually picked up on Drudge!

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Go Newt go!

NO MORE MITT!

Pragmatic on March 1, 2012 at 7:47 AM

bluegill is a deluded Democrat, just like Mitt!

both of you, please go over to DailyKos where you are more at home.

No Romneycare please!

Mittbot=Obot

Pragmatic on March 1, 2012 at 7:49 AM

“‘This is like watching a Greek tragedy,’ McCain told the Herald. ‘It’s the negative campaigning and the increasingly personal attacks … it should have stopped long ago. Any utility from the debates has been exhausted, and now it’s just exchanging cheap shots and personal shots followed by super PAC attacks.

FTR, McCain – author of the disastrous McCain-Feingold – is blaming the Supremes decision vis a vis corporate donations for the growth of Super PACS, instead of looking in the mirror to see how his legislation led to this unintended consequence.

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 7:47 AM

I actually was just reading that before I check out for work. I was stuck on this weird thread last night.

bazil9 on March 1, 2012 at 7:51 AM

You know the Obama worshipers and the other assorted Romney-bashers are getting nervous and desperate when they have to resort to attacking soon-to-be President Romney’s religion. bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 7:42 AM

An attack on Romney’s religion will be countered for what it really is – an attack on First Amendment rights. Further it will open up Obama to an examination of his religion, if any.

Basilsbest on March 1, 2012 at 7:53 AM

FTR, McCain – author of the disastrous McCain-Feingold – is blaming the Supremes decision vis a vis corporate donations for the growth of Super PACS, instead of looking in the mirror to see how his legislation led to this unintended consequence.

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 7:50 AM

That is a good point. It seems just about everything that happens in DC leads to unintended consequences. I don’t think it really bothers them though, it’s just another opportunity to make more laws to fix the problems the first ones caused.

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Go Newt go!

NO MORE MITT!

Pragmatic on March 1, 2012 at 7:47 AM

There is a Newt thread for you cheering…On this one you’re just another Troll.

rich801 on March 1, 2012 at 7:55 AM

So far we have had 12 contests. 5 Primaries and 7 Caucuses.

Romney:
4 Primary Wins
3 Caucus Wins
167 Delegates

Santorum:
0 Primary Wins
4 Caucus Wins
87 Delegates

Gingrich:
1 Primary Win
0 Caucus Wins
32 Delegates

Paul:
0 Primary Wins
0 Caucus Wins
19 Delegates

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 7:33 AM

I JUST HEARD ON THE RADIO (IN PA)THAT SANTORUM IS RUNNING OUT OF MONEY AND ON THE GROUND ORGANIZATION. HE WANTS NEWT TO DROP OUT AND GIVE HIM WHATEVER HE’S GOT. THAT MAY BE THE ONLY WAY SANTORUM CAN CONTINUE.

Rick Santorum yesterday released a statement that he had raised $9m in February alone.

And from the Hill:

“The numbers indicate he (Santorum) could be close to achieving financial parity with Mitt Romney, who was down to less than $8 million cash on hand at the beginning of January and has also spent heavily this month (February).”

“Romney’s biggest advantage in the race was his large war chest, but he gave a hint Tuesday night that fundraising might become a priority.”

A counter-narrative.

But can anyone verify what Night Owl is posting. Did you hear the report as well about Santorum?

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Romney’s biggest advantage in the race was his large war chest

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Romney’s biggest advantage is the he is not insane.

MJBrutus on March 1, 2012 at 8:01 AM

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 7:57 AM

That’s interesting. My radio station uses Fox News for updates during the morning talk radio show, Quinn and Rose.

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 8:02 AM

No Romneycare please!

Mittbot=Obot

Pragmatic on March 1, 2012 at 7:49 AM

If you were not deranged or the least bit intellectually honest you would acknowledge that Romney signed Romneycare into law in a state that was overwhelmingly in favor of it. There is no way he would have imposed it on the entire nation and there is no way he will break his vow to repeal it if he gets the chance.

And if you were the least bit pragmatic you would understand that Romney is the only candidate that can defeat Obama. And he is the most qualified candidate to turn the economy around,d cut spending and move the country towards a balanced budget.

Vote For Mitt. He Keeps His Vows.

Basilsbest on March 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Oh, quit whining. How much have we heard over the past couple of weeks about Santorum’s religion? It’s been non-stop.
ddrintn on March 1, 2012 at 7:19 AM

Bitter Clinger – here’s the diff. Romney doesn’t go around talking about Satan and how contraception is teh evil and JFK’s speech made him want to throw up. Romney rarely discusses his religion – except in terms of having worked with families and seen their suffering. And the fact is, he was raised to be tolerant of other religions to a fault. Conservatives at Hot Air aren’t bashing Catholicism or Catholics, they’re turned off by Santorum’s priggish sanctimony and hyperbolic missteps. Seriously – have you seen a single commenter make derogatory comments about Catholics? Other than perhaps some malignant Atheist who hates all religions, and jackasses like Perry’s friend, Pastor Jeffords, who (t.t.b.o.m.k.) doesn’t comment here.

In contrast, these pages are filled with anti-Mormon references which range from the juvenile to the malicious so it’s understandable that some react less than favorably to this sort of gratuitous commentary.

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 8:05 AM

An attack on Romney’s religion will be countered for what it really is – an attack on First Amendment rights. Further it will open up Obama to an examination of his religion, if any.

Basilsbest on March 1, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Yep, and attacking Romney’s religion will only backfire and help Mitt Romney.

It just reeks of desperation. I already knew that many of these Romney-bashers were pathetic, inconsequential trolls, but now I’m finding out just how pathetic they truly are. I find it laughable more than anything, to be honest.

bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Rich Santorum is still not doing too bad for a guy that’s had to battle the entire GOP establishment. I can’t afford much but I sent both him and Newt donations.

smoothsailing on March 1, 2012 at 8:07 AM

That is a good point. It seems just about everything that happens in DC leads to unintended consequences. I don’t think it really bothers them though, it’s just another opportunity to make more laws to fix the problems the first ones caused.
Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Yep. When and when laws are broken it’s always time to make new laws instead of enforcing the laws that exist.

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 8:02 AM

Still have not seen this posted anywhere else on the internet or on the blogosphere that Santorum woud definitely leave the race if Newt did not get out.

Per John Brabender yesterday:

“Santorum’s future MAY depend on Gingrich leaving the race.” (paraphrased)

I suppose you could interpret that statement anyway you want.

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 7:33 AM

I JUST HEARD ON THE RADIO (IN PA)THAT SANTORUM IS RUNNING OUT OF MONEY AND ON THE GROUND ORGANIZATION. HE WANTS NEWT TO DROP OUT AND GIVE HIM WHATEVER HE’S GOT. THAT MAY BE THE ONLY WAY SANTORUM CAN CONTINUE.

But can anyone verify what Night Owl is posting. Did you hear the report as well about Santorum?

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Santorum campaign hoping for help from Gingrich

whatcat on March 1, 2012 at 8:10 AM

left-right coalition of the most moderate and most conservative Republicans to defeat him

What the heck is “most moderate”? That is a word coupling that doesn’t even work unless it defines “most” as the “exact center”. They are so desperate to use the word “moderate” in place of “liberal” that they end up looking like fools.

Buddahpundit on March 1, 2012 at 8:12 AM

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Your information sounds more reliable, since I only reported what I heard on the radio. If it comes on again I’ll pay more attention to see exactly where it came from.

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Oh, quit whining. How much have we heard over the past couple of weeks about Santorum’s religion? It’s been non-stop.

ddrintn on March 1, 2012 at 7:19 AM

Even Catholics don’t like Rick Santorum.

My problem with Rick Santorum is that he wants to impose his religious views on others. Santorum’s attempts to force public school science classes to teach intelligent design (and to cast doubt on evolutionary theory) and his support for government bans on homosexual activity are major problems.

The issue is not his religion, but his judgemental and sometimes theocrat-like approach to governing.

bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Your information sounds more reliable, since I only reported what I heard on the radio. If it comes on again I’ll pay more attention to see exactly where it came from.
Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 8:13 AM

You seem to be correct, see my newslink a few comments above.

whatcat on March 1, 2012 at 8:15 AM

You seem to be correct, see my newslink a few comments above.

whatcat on March 1, 2012 at 8:15 AM

I did check out your link, and that first paragraph sounds exactly like what I heard. Thanks, I hate to think I said something untrue.

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Newt Gingrich isn’t going anywhere, and he certainly will not be helping Rick Santorum in any way, shape or form.

Newt’s billionaire sugar daddy would never allow it.

This is just a pathetic ploy by a floundering, desperate Santorum campaign. The only trick Santorum can use is to continue getting ever more extreme in his rhetoric about social issues. That’s the only card he can play at this point. Santorum is an avowed anti-Tea Party Washington insider who voters know would never be able to beat Obama.

Bigot Rick Santorum is yesterday’s news. I’m more interested in who Romney is considering as VP.

bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 8:25 AM

ddrintn on March 1, 2012 at 7:19 AM

The fact is they want the religion to come up. Most of the threads it’s introduced by one of his supporters to begin with. Then they have a field day defending it and in some cases promoting it. I don’t care if Romney is a Tapioca worshiper. I just want to see him keep moving to the right. Not that he’ll stay there, but at least for some of these issues, he’ll be on record.

smoothsailing on March 1, 2012 at 8:28 AM

McCain comparing this to a Greek Tragedy is rich. It’s a farce whenever he’s involved! And it’s no wonder he wants Romney to be the face of the republican party. Of course negative campaigning is ok for Romney (hello, Iowa!) and as long as it benefits Romney. He and Romney are 2 peas in a pod and the democrats are drooling at the possibilities. It would be a win/win for them with Romney as it was in Massachusetts. And the more Romney speaks off the cuff and lets his mask slip, the more worrisome it becomes as he keeps stepping in it. We are so screwed if he’s the nominee. No conservative VP will be able to save this putz either.

mozalf on March 1, 2012 at 8:29 AM

DHC, my comment disappeared.

I laughed….wicked bad,dude.

bazil9 on March 1, 2012 at 7:36 AM

I hate it when that happens :)

DHChron on March 1, 2012 at 8:32 AM

“‘This is like watching a Greek tragedy,’ McCain told the Herald. ‘It’s the negative campaigning and the increasingly personal attacks … it should have stopped long ago. Any utility from the debates has been exhausted, and now it’s just exchanging cheap shots and personal shots followed by super PAC attacks.’

FTR, McCain – author of the disastrous McCain-Feingold – is blaming the Supremes decision vis a vis corporate donations for the growth of Super PACS, instead of looking in the mirror to see how his legislation led to this unintended consequence.

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 7:50 AM

This is true, McCain came out of the military, and they have a skill set for problem solving. The results are not always pretty. In John McCain’s mind it’s a finished product to be tweaked, but sometimes these solutions have to be scrapped, there is a need to go back to square one and start over.

It’s why Newt Gingrich get’s applause when he states it’s necessary to fundamentally rethink an issue. Voters like action “Doers” we aren’t France where they talk, and talk, and nothing get’s done. When Newt makes his statement on fundamentally rethinking an issue he’s calling for Action – scrapping something everyone knows isn’t working and starting over. McCain on the other hand will spend his time trying to make a sh1t sandwich less sloppy LOL!

Dr Evil on March 1, 2012 at 8:34 AM

No conservative VP will be able to save this putz either.

mozalf on March 1, 2012 at 8:29 AM

I wonder which conservative would want to ruin their political future by accepting a VP position with him? I don’t know why trying to put a conservative on the ticket as VP is supposed to make me okay with Romney. We’ve seen how much the VP has to do with anything. Nothing.

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 8:36 AM

I don’t know why trying to put a conservative on the ticket as VP is supposed to make me okay with Romney. We’ve seen how much the VP has to do with anything. Nothing.

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 8:36 AM

The VP choice isn’t for you or people like you, so don’t kid yourself.

No, Mitt Romney is going to win in November, and I just want to know who is going to be Vice President. For the campaign, though, I want a strong campaigner with broad appeal and who has a lot of experience and substance and isn’t prone to making gaffes (i.e., no more Sarah Palins, pleazse!)… someone like McDonnell would be excellent.

Have you seen McDonnell on tv in interviews speaking on Romney’s behalf?

The man is SHARP and comes across very well.

bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I love how when Romney’s opponents try to characterize him and his ideals as being un-conservative it’s considered OK to do, and not attacking him or considered negative campaigning.

But when Romney defends himself by doing the same thing and pointing out HIS opponents un-conservative ways and actual histories of voting, etc, THAT’S considered attacking his opponents or negative campaigning.

Do you people NOT see the disconnect?

Why is it considered negative campaigning when you simply point out the bad ideas and actions that your opponent has done in his past?

SauerKraut537 on March 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

OT: Watching Luntz with voter reactions to Obama’s demagogic ads. Really Scary that those who identify as GOP buy his snake oil.

We’ve seen how much the VP has to do with anything. Nothing.
Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Ha! Palinistas might take issue with that statement. Look, the veep choice matters particularly if they are great at campaigning and messaging. In Romney’s case it would help to have someone with charisma. Ann Romney for veep!:)

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Do you think a Romney/Christie ticket would upset many Republicans who consider themselves “very conservative”? Or would they be won over in the end?

I think it would be a strong pairing, though I wouldn’t want Christie’s persona to overshadow the top of the ticket.

bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Do you people NOT see the disconnect?

Why is it considered negative campaigning when you simply point out the bad ideas and actions that your opponent has done in his past?

SauerKraut537 on March 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Apparently they don’t see the disconnect. Nor do they see the disconnect between Santorum claiming to be fiscally conservative and his actual record. Their virulent Romney hatred blinds them to reality.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I don’t know why trying to put a conservative on the ticket as VP is supposed to make me okay with Romney. We’ve seen how much the VP has to do with anything. Nothing.

Night Owl on March 1, 2012 at 8:36 AM

From your mouth to God’s ears. And now with the sad, sad news about Andrew Breitbart passing it’s beginning to seem more and more like the McCain/Romney “republicans” are taking over the party and we’re losing wonderful conservatives. And with Olympia Snowe retiring, it’s going to be a wash in the Senate. She’s more a democrat than a republican anyway much like Romney is.

mozalf on March 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Apparently they don’t see the disconnect. Nor do they see the disconnect between Santorum Romney claiming to be fiscally conservative and his actual record. Their virulent Romney Santorum hatred blinds them to reality.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Fixed it for you. This door swings both ways.

This is EXACTLY what you Mittbots do, so you don’t have to answer questions on Romney’s record. Unfortunately for you, very few of Romney’s non-fans are blinded by hatred. Most of us just prefer another candidate, and mostly it’s because we HAVE looked objectively at Romney’s record.

JannyMae on March 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

The VP choice isn’t for you or people like you, so don’t kid yourself. — bluegill

Such disdain for non-Mittbots you have! We will see how that works out for you….

JannyMae on March 1, 2012 at 10:32 AM

SauerKraut537 on March 1, 2012 at 8:52 AM

You Mittards deserve this reprobate’s support.

tom daschle concerned on March 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM

This is EXACTLY what you Mittbots do, so you don’t have to answer questions on Romney’s record. Unfortunately for you, very few of Romney’s non-fans are blinded by hatred. Most of us just prefer another candidate, and mostly it’s because we HAVE looked objectively at Romney’s record.

We don’t have to. Mitt is a moderate-I’m voting for him. You telling us he’s a moderate. WE already know

gerrym51 on March 1, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Maybe I set the bar to high, but is it to much to ask to have a real Soldier as President? Do any of these men inspire confidence? I want a battle tried real Military Man to be CIC. Possibly then our Servicemen and Women might stop getting the shaft. It`s a big bad world out there and I would sleep much better knowing a former Green Beret or any Special Service Soldier was at the helm.

LSUMama on March 1, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Far better than those Muslims who took his head.

Think about it: do you want the Muslims or do you want those wacky Mormons praying for your soul?

When I’m in the afterlife, I’ll be happy knowing that someone cares enough to pray for me. I can’t say I’d have so much as a tad of affection or appreciation for the Muslims, however.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Mormons don’t pray for souls; they coopt the total human being, insulting everything that person stood for in this life. And what makes it particularly disgusting for Jews is that the Mormon being baptized in proxy for the Jew is baptized on a font that sits on top of 12 golden calves. How’s that for the ultimate insult?

Portia46 on March 1, 2012 at 11:59 AM

You’re sounding so intolerant here as to be asking everyone NOT to pray for Jews who are deceased, is that it? I don’t know what would “offend” you and what wouldn’t but it seems you are posturing for something like “only Jews can pray for Jews.” Is that it?

I’m not Mormon, I don’t know their theology, I do know enough as to how some Christians (and Jews such as yourself) object but most of what I’ve read as to those objections BY THE LIVING sounds very intolerant about people they generally find easy targets.

Be happy in your afterlife that someone remembers your soul and thinks well enough of you to pray for you. It certainly isn’t an act intended to harm you, your soul nor anyone else’s.

They’re merely praying in the context they understand as to what eternal life is. Yours may be different if you have any belief at all in that regard (you haven’t shared what that is if so, so I don’t know), but at least try to be tolerant of people with good intentions.

You would not be “not Jewish” if your soul was prayed for conversion to Mormon, not now in life nor not later after life, so your anger seems focused on a pretense of ego more than anything. Prayer for others is not a bad thing, unless you’re of the occultists who actually do pray for harms to come upon others. I doubt strongly that that’s what Mormons are engaged in.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 11:56 PM

You’re a Mormon, Lourdes. You gave yourself away some time ago. Mormons do not pray for the dead. They get names of the dead and give them to the temple and then young people come in and get dunked about 35 times (first you dunk, then sit in a seat by the pool/font and some man confirms the person—it’s a very watery experience). THEN Mormons do “endowments” in proxy for the person they’ve baptized in proxy. Those include annointing, by touch, of loins and breasts and a blood oath–and a new name and some secret words and handshakes.

Mormons totally take over the deceased person. And they are so without conscience, they even baptised and endowed the 123 people they masacred in cold blood at Mt Meadows. To this day, the Mormon Church will not allow the decendants of the people the Mormons murdered to have a Cross on their grave or to control the monument the Mormons erected.

THIS is precisely what makes Mormons so untrustworthy. They lie about their beliefs and mislead with no compunction. Mitt Romney was trained to be a Mormon in all things.

Portia46 on March 1, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I think it would be a strong pairing, though I wouldn’t want Christie’s persona to overshadow the top of the ticket.

bluegill on March 1, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Considering the personality at the top of your ticket, I’m thinking a rock would overshadow it.

Portia46 on March 1, 2012 at 12:17 PM

JannyMae on March 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

You’re not endearing yourself to anyone with your vitriol and childish name-calling.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 2:32 PM

gerrym51 on March 1, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Ditto.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5