I so wish you would be banned from this site. You add nothing but insults to candidates and other posters on this site. You and the other rabid Mitt-wits are part of the reason I’ve come to detest Romney–and I supported him in 2008. Great job.

KickandSwimMom on March 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Yes. They are an unbelievably vile, profane bunch, aren’t they? They were all raised by the same standards and values as Mitt Romney. You ever want to know the soul of Mitt Romney, just look to bluelungs.

I think its going to be a long weekend for Rick Santorum. He’s down, but not out and Romney still could go out and find a few more NASCAR owners that he knows and would like to share with us.

ted c on March 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I don’t understand why you love NASCAR, but go all OWS on the owners of the teams.

Normally, this would be on Michelle Malkin’s beat. She’s been all over the SEIU and other government employees unions for years now, but she has declared for Santorum, and seems to be doing the same thing she skewers the Mainsteam Media for doing for Obama and the ultra-leftists, that is, ignoring the sins of her favorite. I guess bias isn’t all that easy to avoid all the time.

And perhaps since the lead bloggers here have taken after the Boss Emeritus and endorsed Santorum, they’re not covering this, either…it appeared briefly in the headlines here, but scrolled off. I’ve been following them for years, and respect them highly, especially Ed, but this time, they’ve gone astray. At least they’re not pretending to be objective and unbiased about it, but that small grace doesn’t fill the holes in the reporting.

If you look a little more closely at their records, the ideas that Santorum is the true conservative and Romney is the RINO are muddled of not actually reversed. Santorum was a supporter of Arlen Specter, who turned Democrat right when he could do the most damage, and his record has been pro-union, with a rather recent conversion to a right-to-work stance.

I keep saying Romneycare is NOT THE SAME THING as Obamacare, and I think MM was wrong about this, too. Some of the same paid consultants worked on both? That’s mighty thin evidence that they are exactly the same thing.

Romney’s program was being distorted by the Democrats in Massachussets almost as soon as it got passed. After that it was seized on and used by the ultraleftists in Congress, turned into an unconstitutional regulatory and financial nightmare, and rammed down the nation’s throat. Romney wasn’t in Congress, had nothing to do with that, and not even he can support it now. He wants it repealed, with the understandable provision that there may be something salvageable from the wreckage. I presume he is more familiar with that might be than the average voter who goes by sound bites.

Romney has taken some less than purely conservative positions on some complicated and difficult issues, but by the time these get boiled down to a few words and flung around by his political opponents, there are some gross distortions and outright lies about him in common circulation.

If there were any further doubt about it, this should kill the notion that the Democrats favor Romney against Obama. This becomes more evident all the time. They are not so confused as the Republicans about who their real opponent is. A vote for Santorum has become in effect a vote for Obama. That wasn’t clear before Michigan, but it is now.

I can at least get excited about his race even though I’m not in Virginia. Which is why I’m so frustrated with Virginia and their presidential primary this year. But I’ve beaten that horse to death and more. I’m starting to get a bad feeling about this election.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Talk to whomever you can and try to get them involved at the precinct level. Make sure to push for conservatives throughout the precinct and on up the ticket. Then, if the unthinkable happens and we get four more years of this, we can counter with a massive house/senate push in 2014. Otherwise by 2016 this country will no longer be a place where I want to raise AJ. I don’t know where we would go, but I know I won’t to live here.

The folks I know who live in DC tell me that the frequency of jury duty is absurd. Beyond that, I hear your frustration. How do you get anything done in a city where one party is so dominant that there is no question about the outcome of any election? Even when the city council is so corrupt that there is a revolving door of council members and idiots like Marion Barry are still around in a position of power.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Interestingly enough, despite its infamously ingrained institutional corruption Chicago was for the longest time known as “the city that works”. Part of that was probably due to the dictatorial power of Da Mare, Richard Daley the elder, who made sure that the streets got cleaned and so on.

As long as there is enough money that both corruption and social services can work, corruption is often tolerated. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it is human nature. We have reached the point, though, where the corruption has become egregious while at the same time the money is gone. We may be at the tipping point, but those who live off the corruption are not going to let go lightly.

AJsDaddie on March 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Lol, even though I’m a native Washingtonian I’ve always used the corruption and incompetence of our local D.C. govt. as a perfect example of what happens when 1 political party is allowed to dominate and take power for too long. I wish the republicans would get an opportunity to clean things up here, but that will never happen in my lifetime. Plus, it’s demoralizing to see our neighbor Maryland getting dragged down by their idiot democrat governor, the democrat legislature, and even the moderate republicans. I’m also worried about my neighbor on the other side, Virginia. McDonnell is starting to slide a little, but my man, George Allen has some good momentum going for his Senate run. I can at least get excited about his race even though I’m not in Virginia. Which is why I’m so frustrated with Virginia and their presidential primary this year. But I’ve beaten that horse to death and more. I’m starting to get a bad feeling about this election.

KickandSwimMom on March 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM

I don’t believe you. I think you detest Romney all on your own.

gerry-mittbot-will vote for any nominee

The folks I know who live in DC tell me that the frequency of jury duty is absurd. Beyond that, I hear your frustration. How do you get anything done in a city where one party is so dominant that there is no question about the outcome of any election? Even when the city council is so corrupt that there is a revolving door of council members and idiots like Marion Barry are still around in a position of power.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Interestingly enough, despite its infamously ingrained institutional corruption Chicago was for the longest time known as “the city that works”. Part of that was probably due to the dictatorial power of Da Mare, Richard Daley the elder, who made sure that the streets got cleaned and so on.

As long as there is enough money that both corruption and social services can work, corruption is often tolerated. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it is human nature. We have reached the point, though, where the corruption has become egregious while at the same time the money is gone. We may be at the tipping point, but those who live off the corruption are not going to let go lightly.

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I so wish you would be banned from this site. You add nothing but insults to candidates and other posters on this site. You and the other rabid Mitt-wits are part of the reason I’ve come to detest Romney–and I supported him in 2008. Great job.

KickandSwimMom on March 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM

I completely agree.

We’re not talking technicalities here. We’re talking about the nuts-and-bolts necessities of a political campaign. If you can’t be persuaded by logic and example as to why solid fundraising ability, strong and cohesive organization, and capable campaign leadership are requirements for a successful candidacy against President Obama in the general election, then that means you refuse to be persuaded. Your mind is set. If it helps, candidates who run badly managed campaigns and fail to garner financial support are called losers, because they lose. They can’t help but lose. I don’t know about you but as a Republican I want a GOP nominee able to take on the Chicago Machine and win. The stakes are too high and this isn’t a game for amateurs.

troyriser_gopftw on March 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Then we’ll agree to disagree. It is “technicalities” not badly managed campaigns and because they did not have the financial backing to get a ground game of workers to collect signatures in time. And it’s more than more than painfully obvious that would not be the case today, especially because all have financial backing now. And we also agree that we want the strongest, most qualified, and able to take the Chicago Machine and win. Not just the win who wins by default and trickery and that’s what it’s beginning to look like. Sorry but that’s IMHO.

If it’s a two-man race, Santorum and Romney are tied at 43% each. That, too, represents a huge change. Two weeks ago, Santorum led Romney by 28 points in a head-to-head matchup in Ohio.

How is this possible? Is YYZ right?:

If the GOP primary voter were one person, it would be an idiot with ADD. Changing its mind every week, influenced by gust of wind, easily swayed by the last thing it saw, and completely gullible.

It’s TOO important to allow technicalities dictate who the nominee is going to be. It’s not an American Idol contest. Especially money getting thrown around. Otherwise, George Soros would be qualified to be a republican nominee with these standards.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 10:19 AM

We’re not talking technicalities here. We’re talking about the nuts-and-bolts necessities of a political campaign. If you can’t be persuaded by logic and example as to why solid fundraising ability, strong and cohesive organization, and capable campaign leadership are requirements for a successful candidacy against President Obama in the general election, then that means you refuse to be persuaded. Your mind is set. If it helps, candidates who run badly managed campaigns and fail to garner financial support are called losers, because they lose. They can’t help but lose. I don’t know about you but as a Republican I want a GOP nominee able to take on the Chicago Machine and win. The stakes are too high and this isn’t a game for amateurs.

Gracie, you’re kidding yourself. Those union voters Santorum picked up WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM IN THE FALL. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking Romney.
rhombus on March 2, 2012 at 10:02 AM

But Rhombus we still need them and so all the rotten talk about how rotten the Democrats are will not help. And I do believe that Santorum is a good alternative to Romney to capture the votes of the moderate and conservative Democrats.
By the way, I don’t want a ruthless man like Romney in the White House who will say and do anything to anybody to get there. I do not think Romney will succeed unless Breitbart’s tapes are so devastating to Obama that the Democrats will have to run someone else for President. Obama has the hearts and minds of his constituency. Romney does not and never will.

and 42 – 25 percent among Tea Party members

This has to be the most troubling sign that the Tea Party has jumped the shark. Sanatorum is the polar opposite of the Tea Party movement.

A primary is as much a test of a given candidate’s ability to put together and manage a campaign organization as much as anything else. Poor organization and mismanagement of resources is a direct expression of poor leadership and an accurate indicator of bad judgement. Michele Bachmann, God love her, ran a poorly managed campaign. Her hiring of Ed Rollins is a good example of bad judgement. Her reliance on her husband, a political novice, to assist in formulating campaign strategy was another. I liked Bachmann, too, but knew early on she wasn’t ready for the big leagues of national-level politics. Rick Perry’s lack of preparation also comes to mind. Running for POTUS isn’t something one does on the fly. If your guy can’t make the ballot because his campaign didn’t get the required number of signatures, that means your guy didn’t make the right choices when it came to picking the people who would be competent enough to ensure it was done, and this is the guy you want picking Supreme Court justices? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

About money. These accusations Romney is somehow buying the nomination are nonsense, although with his vast personal fortune he could probably bankroll a primary bid on his own, without fundraising from anyone. Historically, those who have attempted to buy their way into high office invariably fail, although rich man vanity campaigns are capable of doing great damage to the process. Look at Ross Perot. He gave us Bill Clinton.

Aside from the fact that campaigns practically rely on money to pay for ads and meet staffing payroll and other expenses, the amount of money a candidate can raise speaks to that candidate’s ability to convince and persuade, another essential trait of a good president.

Finally, since money walks and talks and pays the bills, I donate (necessarily modest amounts) to the campaigns of candidates I support. However, as a Romney supporter, the irony isn’t lost on me when I’m sending off checks to a multi-millionaire.

troyriser_gopftw on March 2, 2012 at 10:00 AM

The points you make, make me even more convinced that all the candidates should be allowed to participate. They may not have had the financial capability to raise the needed funds to pay ground workers at the beginning. But it’s become more than obvious as the process has played out that this year is very different from all previous primaries. Why else would they keep trying to tell us it was over after Iowa, then N. Hampshire, then Nevada, now Michigan/Arizona and discourage people from voting. There is a ground swell against the usual way of doing republican business and I feel very strongly that they should make plenty of exceptions this time around. It’s TOO important to allow technicalities dictate who the nominee is going to be. It’s not an American Idol contest. Especially money getting thrown around. Otherwise, George Soros would be qualified to be a republican nominee with these standards.

Does it matter? He is irrelevant at this point.

Happy Nomad on March 2, 2012 at 10:02 AM

He is still running. But that was the major knock on Newt. And yet Santorum literally says something stupid almost every time he talks to someone, and it gets brushed aside. And I am wondering why that is not a knock against him.

I think there is much higher probability of Santorum, if he is the nominee, saying something really dumb in October than of Newt doing the same.

You’ve got to be kidding or have a reading comprehension problem. There have been many pro-Romney postings that have been vitriolic and irrational defense of their guy while attacking other candidates.

Wow. Talk about reading comprehension problems. Take a breath, go back and re-read my post. I was comparing real people I know vs. the posters here. The real people I know who support Romney are pretty rational folks. Squishy and often a little confused about conservative positions, but rational. As opposed to the posters here who tend to be over the top screaming lunatics. I was remarking that the posters here who support Santorum (and Gingrich and Paul for that matter) tend to mirror their real world counterparts. The online Romney supporters, on the other hand, are nothing like the real world Romney supporters, in my experience. I don’t know what to make of that discrepancy.

But more to the point, I don’t want a calm and business-like band of supporters. Do you not remember John McCain’s campaign? The fact of the matter is I want passionate supporters who are willing to do the grassroots kind of activism that translates passion into people standing in line on November 6th to cast their vote against the status quo of four more years of Obama and a split Congress with the Senate in complete gridlock. Not to mention throwing out state and local Democrats in a show of disgust about the entire filthy party. That doesn’t come from a band of calm and business-like supporters making the absurd claim that Romneycare isn’t a thing like Obamacare based on a very weak states’ right argument.

I understand your point. If you didn’t know already, I’m not a Romney guy. I like Santorum and I know enough about his actual votes to know that he has no intention of trying to legislate religion. I’m thrilled that someone of faith and conscience isn’t afraid to admit it, but he plays into the media’s hands by giving his social opinions more play than his economic positions. He needs to write some carefully crafted position papers on the social issues and then take every so-con question and say “my positions on that are public, but we need to focus on the real issues that threaten America: the skyrocketing national debt, crippling unemployment and an administration that shackles us to foreign energy”.

If he can’t do that, then we’re going to get Romney and then I have to figure out how to live with the more virulent of the Romney supporters.

Can someone remind me why Newt Gingrich is considered the loose canon?

milcus on March 2, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Does it matter? He is irrelevant at this point.

Ohio is an open primary isn’t it? Think Santorum will pick up 100K union Democratic votes? I think he may have picked up 50K in MI. Romney is so easy to dislike, isn’t he.

gracie on March 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Gracie, you’re kidding yourself. Those union voters Santorum picked up WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM IN THE FALL. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking Romney.

Well it’s a sad commentary on the republican party when money seems to be the main driving factor. We’re turning into democrats. Instead, with an election this important, ALL the qualified candidates should be on ALL the state ballots at this point in the process. Not penalize them for being underfunded, etc. Sounds more like an estate sale going to the highest bidder and the end result will not pass the smell test. Still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it. sorry.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM

A primary is as much a test of a given candidate’s ability to put together and manage a campaign organization as much as anything else. Poor organization and mismanagement of resources is a direct expression of poor leadership and an accurate indicator of bad judgement. Michele Bachmann, God love her, ran a poorly managed campaign. Her hiring of Ed Rollins is a good example of bad judgement. Her reliance on her husband, a political novice, to assist in formulating campaign strategy was another. I liked Bachmann, too, but knew early on she wasn’t ready for the big leagues of national-level politics. Rick Perry’s lack of preparation also comes to mind. Running for POTUS isn’t something one does on the fly. If your guy can’t make the ballot because his campaign didn’t get the required number of signatures, that means your guy didn’t make the right choices when it came to picking the people who would be competent enough to ensure it was done, and this is the guy you want picking Supreme Court justices? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

About money. These accusations Romney is somehow buying the nomination are nonsense, although with his vast personal fortune he could probably bankroll a primary bid on his own, without fundraising from anyone. Historically, those who have attempted to buy their way into high office invariably fail, although rich man vanity campaigns are capable of doing great damage to the process. Look at Ross Perot. He gave us Bill Clinton.

Aside from the fact that campaigns practically rely on money to pay for ads and meet staffing payroll and other expenses, the amount of money a candidate can raise speaks to that candidate’s ability to convince and persuade, another essential trait of a good president.

Finally, since money walks and talks and pays the bills, I donate (necessarily modest amounts) to the campaigns of candidates I support. However, as a Romney supporter, the irony isn’t lost on me when I’m sending off checks to a multi-millionaire.

Plus when we do vote as republicans in D.C. we obviously stand out so we suddenly get targetted for all kinds of violations, penalites, jury duty, etc. by the D.C. govt. and I’m not sure depending on the outcome of all this whether it will be worth the hassles or make any difference in the general anyway.

mozalf on March 2, 2012 at 9:50 AM

The folks I know who live in DC tell me that the frequency of jury duty is absurd. Beyond that, I hear your frustration. How do you get anything done in a city where one party is so dominant that there is no question about the outcome of any election? Even when the city council is so corrupt that there is a revolving door of council members and idiots like Marion Barry are still around in a position of power.