Mitt Romney’s marvelous speech

posted at 10:03 pm on April 5, 2012 by Karl

Having written about the subtext of Pres. Obama’s Tuesday speech to news editors, it is worth looking at the speech likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney gave in the same venue on Wednesday. As reported at National Journal:

“Nancy Pelosi famous [sic] said that we would have to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it,” Romney said. “President Obama has turned that advice into a campaign strategy: He wants us to re-elect him to find out what he will actually do.

“With all the challenges the nation faces, this is not the time for President Obama’s hide-and-seek campaign,” he added.

Romney argued he presents a stark contrast, boldly laying out his own agenda to solve the country’s litany of problems. That was no more true than when he focused on entitlement spending, an issue Obama has attacked Romney on for adopting the budget proposal put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. The plan, the most prominent feature of which includes plans to convert Medicare into a premium-support model, polls poorly with the public, and is clearly an issue the president will highlight ad naseum through November.

But rather than distance himself from Ryan, he resolutely defended the House budget chairman, even praising him by name for having “the courage to offer serious solutions to the problems we face.” And he went on then offensive, accusing Obama of damaging Medicare first. Romney adopted the Democrats’ own attack against Republicans, saying that the president “has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it.”

From this speech, folks on the left see Romney taking Obama’s bait — and that is not an entirely unfair assessment, merely an incomplete one. National Journal reports the Ryan plan polls badly based on its own poll, with an incomplete, misleading question. Nevertheless, given Democrats’ past success with Mediscare campaigns, it is not surprising some are licking their chops today.

However, the left is also missing the subtext of Romney’s speech, which reflects hard-headed realism. It reflects realism about our grave and growing debt problem (even if the Ryan plan is insufficient, it is necessary). It also reflects realism about the general election campaign to come. The Democrats intend to demagogue the Ryan plan and hang it around the neck of the GOP nominee, regardless of the identity of the nominee or his position on the Ryan plan. Romney knows this.

The establishment media, which has already allied itself with gross fiscal irresponsibility, will gleefully assist Team Obama in this campaign. Indeed, Obama’s demagoguery got a standing ovation from a packed house of news editors, while a much smaller crowd of journos gave Mitt Romney the polite golf clap. Romney knows this, too.

In 1996 (surely one of Obama’s models for a Democrat seeking reelection), GOP nominee Bob Dole ran away from the efforts of Newt Gingrich and the GOP Congress to bring the budget under control (even as Newt was driving Bill Clinton to sign welfare reform into law). This year, things could be different. Paul Ryan is probably a more stable ally now than Newt was then (or now). Moreover, even Obama’s budget director has warned that our debt is “serious and ultimately unsustainable.”

On the other hand, it may be — especially if the economy were to perk up between now and November — that Democratic demagoguery on entitlements can succeed again. But Romney’s speech suggests he recognizes he cannot afford to avoid the good fight, because Democrats and the media will surely fight the bad one.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Romney-Speaks-at-at-News-Editors-Annual-Conference/10737429620/

Click the link to the right where is says Video Playlist.

It’s worth watching.

crosspatch on April 5, 2012 at 10:42 PM

WOW.

Free Enterprise is NOT the answer to all our problems — Romney here.
Excuse me but where does free enterprise not work? Only when Government gets in the way.

When I became Governor Mass was in big trouble financially — Romney.
Total lie in fact the people passed a .3% decrease in their taxes but Romney undid that.

I balanced the Budget – Romney
True but the Constitution required it so you get no credit.

We cut taxes 19 times — Romney
Lie. He raised taxes and fees by 700 million.

We erased a 3 Billion budget shortfall. Romney
Total fabrication. Again there was no shortfall but he erased their rainy day fund.

800 Vetoes. — Romney
True perhaps. But so what. He always signed when his signing was needed and often vetoed for failure to get Federal Money.

I cut programs — Romney
True but also true that he replaced them with more intrusive programs. Business was really hurt by Mitt why Mass had terrible growth rates during his tenure worse than Patrick Duval even.

One TV Commentator said I went after the Sacred Cows. — Romney
Sure would like to know the context of that. From what I read the Newspapers did not like Mitt that much but because he was too liberal and too big government even for Mass. The papers hit him big time when he derailed the tax cut and assured Gay Marriage remained law by doing nothing to help the people with the Constitutional Convention and never criticized or investigated the illegal close of it.

Thanks. I needed to that. My poor stomach.

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Mitt is a glove that gets your opponents by the balls.

profitsbeard on April 5, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Only if you’re a conservative. His gonads will vanish promptly once it comes to dealing with President Peace-Prize.

Then again…I suppose Willard Fillmoure Romneycare could go after Obama for signing into law Socialized health ca.. r…. e… uh… er… hrm…

Nevermind…

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:14 AM

When Rush was lambasted by the press and Democrats (but I repeat myself) for his remarks about Sandra Fluke, conventional wisdom was that he was done and that the lib’s would benefit. However, his ratings are now higher, and the controversy that prompted his remarks has received more scrutiny than the narrative supplied by the msm. The entitlement debate needs to start NOW. The only bad publicity for the problems we face is no publicity, and the longer we have for this debate before the election, the more time we have for reality to sink in. We can win this debate, but we have to have time to let all the lib/media distortions get out so they can be countered and properly ridiculed. As demonstrated here, their own words can be used against them. Engage now, and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!

questionmark on April 6, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Continuing to slam primary opponents who don’t have a chance but whose supporters you need to win is terrifically stupid.

alwaysfiredup on April 5, 2012 at 11:17 PM

And the Rombot’s direct reply? To start bashing Sweatervest. In his eyes, and your point registered not one wit.

The RINOS will be completely bewildered in November when they are crushed.

“Where are the conservatives? Why didn’t the show up? Why didn’t we get any money in donations? Why were so few willing to man phones or go door to door?”

Then, after spending a year attacking, demeaning, insulting, and degrading the conservatives, the Mushy-Moderates will…



Proceed to blame the loss of their candidate on the very conservatives they drove away.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:20 AM

…I have for some time been working with my family, my employees, and my congregation against Willard, and I can promise you those efforts will only double if this monster is forced on us.

SilverDeth on April 5, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Hmmmmm……

Please, Dear LORD Almighty, Please, Save us from your Followers…

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on April 6, 2012 at 12:22 AM

crosspatch,

I’ve researched Mitt Romney. Steveangell wrote about some things. I’ll take one thing you’ve mentioned, “He vetoed the legislation that allowed over the counter sale of the morning after pill, the legislature overrode his veto.”

Let’s look at the entire scenario.

1975. Massachusetts statute passed which allowed private hospitals to opt out of abortion, sterilization, and contraception.

Prior to July 25, 2005, when Gov. Romney vetoed the emergency contraception bill, the legislation had already been modified to expressly remove any amendments which would NOT allow that 1975 statute to prevail….

Yes, in 2005 Romney vetoed a bill to provide access to the so-called “morning-after-pill,” but what the signatories and The Boston Pilot fail to tell people is that a) Romney had publicly claimed the bill did not apply to private religious hospitals, and b) he reversed his own July 2005 veto against abortifacients by signing an October bill seeking a federal waiver to expand distribution of Plan B abortifacients. Even more troublesome is that shortly after Romney vetoed the requirement that hospitals offer Plan B to rape victims, Romney reversed himself and issued an executive order on December 8, 2005, against the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims!

That reversal happened in one day—Wednesday to Thursday.

I have details if you want them.

INC on April 6, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Is that what Mark Levin tod you? Remember when Mark Levin said he was the only conservative alternative and gave him a hearty endorsement in 2008?

Remember when Principles Rick said the same thing?

Remember when Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity followed suit?

Swerve22 on April 5, 2012 at 11:29 PM

John McWeenie being worse does not make Willard Fillmore Romneycare GOOD.

That’s like picking different kinds of cancer and grading them.

Oh yay! We got cancer!?

GLEE!!!!

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Please, Dear LORD Almighty, Please, Save us from the Mittbots and the Democrat Willard Fillmoure Romneycare.

WastelandMan on April 6, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Fixed your prayer.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Free Enterprise is NOT the answer to all our problems — Romney here.
Excuse me but where does free enterprise not work? Only when Government gets in the way.

Nonsense. Governmnent regulation is necessary to keep the vultures of business in line. However, when the vultures coopt the regulators and regulators become indistinguishable from the vultures, we’ve got a problem.

The EPA was created for a reason…a good reason. Sure it’s become another progressive tool to advance a leftist agenda, but we never would have needed that agency if free markets did a good job of keeping rivers and air from becoming open sewers.

rickyricardo on April 6, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Let’s look at the entire scenario.

1975. Massachusetts statute passed which allowed private hospitals to opt out of abortion, sterilization, and contraception.

Prior to July 25, 2005, when Gov. Romney vetoed the emergency contraception bill, the legislation had already been modified to expressly remove any amendments which would NOT allow that 1975 statute to prevail….

Yes, in 2005 Romney vetoed a bill to provide access to the so-called “morning-after-pill,” but what the signatories and The Boston Pilot fail to tell people is that a) Romney had publicly claimed the bill did not apply to private religious hospitals, and b) he reversed his own July 2005 veto against abortifacients by signing an October bill seeking a federal waiver to expand distribution of Plan B abortifacients. Even more troublesome is that shortly after Romney vetoed the requirement that hospitals offer Plan B to rape victims, Romney reversed himself and issued an executive order on December 8, 2005, against the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims!

Holy crap. This is new to me, and that’s pretty hard to do, I know and hate Willard pretty well…

… any attempt he makes to attack King Barry Hussein is going to be played as Rank hypocrisy… and the libtard media won’t even really have to “nuance” things much to get there.

“Mr. Electable” my ass.

This one’s all yours RINOS. We will bear no blame when this clown self immolates.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:28 AM

.
“President Obama has turned that advice into a campaign strategy: He wants usROGUE ABRs to re-elect him to find out what he will actually do.

Tis the season of the Messiah ! gethsemane awaits for Ocommie and ABR Obamabots

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 12:35 AM

The EPA was created for a reason…a good reason. Sure it’s become another progressive tool to advance a leftist agenda, but we never would have needed that agency if free markets did a good job of keeping rivers and air from becoming open sewers.

rickyricardo on April 6, 2012 at 12:31 AM

The EPA should not be a part of the federal government. It’s a state issue. The government needs to be drastically scaled down, and that will be happening one way or another – we are about to drop off an economic cliff, and there won’t be the cash left for this stupid crap anymore.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:36 AM

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:30 AM

…I’ll pray that, if it’s not illegal to in soviet USA after four more years of Chairman Obama…

Bank on it.

-Wasteland Man.

P.S. and don’t tell me it will be just as bad with Romney.

WastelandMan on April 6, 2012 at 12:36 AM

“President Obama has turned that advice into a campaign strategy: He wants usROGUE ABRs to re-elect him to find out what he will actually do.

Tis the season of the Messiah ! gethsemane awaits for Ocommie and ABR Obamabots

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 12:35 AM

No no no… you’re doing it wrong… you’re supposed to wait till Romney looses in a landslide in November to start blaming the people you kicked out of the Republican party with your vile behavior for your milquetoast democrat-lite candidates crushing defeat…

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:38 AM

…I’ll pray that, if it’s not illegal to in soviet USA after four more years of Chairman Obama…

Bank on it.

-Wasteland Man.

P.S. and don’t tell me it will be just as bad with Romney.

WastelandMan on April 6, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Obama is AIDS. Romney is Multiple sclerosis.

Both will be fatal to this nation in my opinion.

One just kills you faster. In the long run, I fail to see a meaningful distinction.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:40 AM

you’re supposed to wait till Romney looses in a landslide in November to start blaming the people you kicked out of the Republican party with your vile behavior for your milquetoast democrat-lite candidates crushing defeat…

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:38 AM

don’t think for a minute Sanctorum or Egonewt will escape the blame. Those dolts started the war on women.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 12:52 AM

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Good luck then. with your attitude… You’ll need it.

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on April 6, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Tis the season of the Messiah ! gethsemane awaits for Ocommie and ABR Obamabots

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Project much, WillardBot?

Dunedainn on April 6, 2012 at 12:55 AM

I balanced the Budget – Romney
True but the Constitution required it so you get no credit.

There was a 2 or 3 billion dollar deficit when he came in. The legislature was not prepared to make the required cuts to the budget. Romney asked for the authority to make cuts without the Legislature voting on them, basically giving him authority to make the required cuts but the legislature wouldn’t have to vote on it and catch hell from their constituents. Romney took ALL of the political heat for it.

I can not believe the lies I read about Romney. One I saw this evening was that Planned Parenthood endorsed Romney. They never have. They DID endorse MassHealth, but have never endorsed Mitt Romney.

crosspatch on April 6, 2012 at 12:55 AM

don’t think for a minute Sanctorum or Egonewt will escape the blame. Those dolts started the war on women.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Wait, so let me get this straight. “War on Women”? You’re using leftist rhetoric, and WE’RE supposed to be the ObamaBots in your eyes?

Better lay off the liquid courage there, mate.

Dunedainn on April 6, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Romney gave the people socialized medicine,

No, he didn’t. He didn’t change the medical care at all. MassHealth was about medical INSURANCE. If you were working and had medical insurance already, MassHealth had no impact on you.

MassHealth is about PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE, not about government health care.

It is people spreading likes like “socialized medicine” that gets people upset. Too many people believe crap they read in blog comments and don’t bother to check.

crosspatch on April 6, 2012 at 1:02 AM

Is that what Mark Levin tod you? Remember when Mark Levin said he was the only conservative alternative and gave him a hearty endorsement in 2008?

Remember when Principles Rick said the same thing?

Remember when Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity followed suit?

Swerve22 on April 5, 2012 at 11:29 PM

I totally supported Mitt in 2008. I was totally wrong.

I changed my mind in 2009 when every single Republican voted against Obama Care and Romney worked tooth and nail to get Susan Collins to become the 60′th vote in the Senate. TV, newspapers, magazines talk shows you name it Mitt fought furiously for Obama Care.

I said to my self how in holy he$$ can a Republican I supported a year ago do this? I vowed then to never blindly believe him again. Thus when he ran this time I examined his Democratic Record. Entirely Democratic till 2005. Sure he ran on the Republican ticket twice but both time he endorsed only Democrats and he ran to the stinking left of both Democrats insisting he was definitively NOT a stinking Republican of whom he knew not a one.

I found not a single thing in his record that made me believe him to be even one bit to the right of Obama. He always was for the most extreme left politician he could find and ran against two Democrats for not being far enough left in ultra liberal Mass. He gave money to these far left causes as well.

Even after 2005 he continued to be ultra liberal in his real actions no change except words. Though the words did cost him a second term. Mass would not elect a Republican that actually claimed to be a Republican just in case he actually meant it. He was down 20 – 80 against the ultra liberal Obama friend Patrick Duval.

In his talk yesterday he talked about an ultra expensive Subway expansion what he did not say is he signed it into law. He also fought for the Big Dig when billions went straight into the coffers of the Unions as much as 70% of the funding for it basically stolen.

If Mitt is a Republican then there are two Democratic Parties.

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Project much, WillardBot?

Dunedainn on April 6, 2012 at 12:55 AM

Nope – you closet obama sychophants do that all by yourselves-

your White African American messiah is getting fired in Nov.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 1:05 AM

so who’s it gonna be then for you ??

Richard ?
Newton?
or
Ocommie ?

Help us out here- what do we do ?

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Nope – you closet obama sychophants do that all by yourselves-

your White African American messiah is getting fired in Nov.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Says the prog troll who spouts leftist rhetoric like “War on Women”.

Dunedainn on April 6, 2012 at 1:09 AM

so who’s it gonna be then for you ??

Richard ?
Newton?
or
Ocommie ?

Help us out here- what do we do ?

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Tell me-
How much is the Administration paying to to shill for Willard, the candidate Obama knows beyond the shadow of a doubt he can and will beat?

Dunedainn on April 6, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Dunedainn on April 6, 2012 at 1:11 AM

A pretty penny, I’d wager.

Dunedainn on April 6, 2012 at 1:12 AM

No, he didn’t. He didn’t change the medical care at all. MassHealth was about medical INSURANCE. If you were working and had medical insurance already, MassHealth had no impact on you.

MassHealth is about PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE, not about government health care.

It is people spreading likes like “socialized medicine” that gets people upset. Too many people believe crap they read in blog comments and don’t bother to check.

crosspatch on April 6, 2012 at 1:02 AM

You must use a very strange definition of private. Now all these “Insurance” companies can do is the paperwork. They are told how much to charge, who to cover, what to cover. They would already be bankrupt except the How much to charge bit was ruled unconstitutional. Secondly the number on Medicaid has dramatically increased. Furthermore this law paved a golden road for Obama Care. If Mitt had worked hand in hand with Obama he could not have made it easier for Obama Care.

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 1:13 AM

don’t think for a minute Sanctorum or Egonewt will escape the blame. Those dolts started the war on women.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 12:52 AM

War on Woman?

What the F*&^ rombot? I got an idea… why don’t you start regurgitating Occutard talking points too… why settle for just half of the liberal line items???

Every time some of you Romney people start sputtering and yelping out the surreal Huffington Post talking points, I can’t help but wonder if you are really just stupid, or so tone deaf that you can’t see how you come off to conservatives…

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 1:05 AM

so who’s it gonna be then for you ??

Richard ?
Newton?
or
Ocommie ?

Help us out here- what do we do ?

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:09 AM

My State Maryland will vote for Obama. My vote will not matter but will most likely be blank unless a Tea Party Candidate runs then whoever runs.

I with my entire heart feel Romney is far more evil than Obama. At least Obama has his party totally behind him. Thus he is more honest than Mitt.

Mitt can not possibly win. But he can do tremendous damage to the GOP. If the conservatives refuse to support him perhaps another Dole/Ford/GWBush/McCain/Mitt disaster will never occur. In addition perhaps we can get some more good people into Congress.

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 1:19 AM

so who’s it gonna be then for you ??

Richard ?
Newton?
or
Ocommie ?

Help us out here- what do we do ?

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:09 AM

I am a Heckle and Jeckle fan myself. I will vote for a pair of insane, misanthropic magpies before I would cast a ballot for President Downgrade or Willard Fillmore Romneycare.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Dunedainn on April 6, 2012 at 12:58 AM

From USA Today:

In the fifth Swing States survey taken since last fall, Obama leads Republican front-runner Mitt Romney 51%-42% among registered voters just a month after the president had trailed him by two percentage points.

The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do while Romney’s support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. The president leads him 2-1 in this group.

Romney’s main advantage is among men 50 and older, swamping Obama 56%-38%.

Republicans’ traditional strength among men “won’t be good enough if we’re losing women by nine points or 10 points,” says Sara Taylor Fagen, a Republican strategist and former political adviser to President George W. Bush. “The focus on contraception has not been a good one for us … and Republicans have unfairly taken on water on this issue.”

Thank You “conservatives” -

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Every time some of you Romney people start sputtering and yelping out the surreal Huffington Post talking points, I can’t help but wonder if you are really just stupid, or so tone deaf that you can’t see how you come off to conservatives…

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:16 AM

I have often wondered how many of these people are actually real Democrats just messing with our Party. Mitt even said he was a Democrat when he became Governor. He totally dissed our party but what do we do we prove we are the Stupid Party Good Old Pansies by allowing him to steal the nomination of our party.

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 1:23 AM

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:19 AM

So your saying you lack the courage to support anyone ?
That’s a safety.

NoneOf TheAbove is not a candidate.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:26 AM

“The focus on contraception has not been a good one for us … and Republicans have unfairly taken on water on this issue.”

Thank You “conservatives” -

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Yes sure that was it.

Could not be at all that women understand that Mitt = Obama. Women do not like changing horses for no good reason. Mitt has provided not a single good reason.

Santorum often did better with women. He provided an actual alternative far different from Obama.

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 1:27 AM

From USA Today:

In the fifth Swing States survey taken since last fall, Obama leads Republican front-runner Mitt Romney 51%-42% among registered voters just a month after the president had trailed him by two percentage points.

The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February,

just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do while Romney’s support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. The president leads him 2-1 in this group.

Romney’s main advantage is among men 50 and older, swamping Obama 56%-38%.

Republicans’ traditional strength among men “won’t be good enough if we’re losing women by nine points or 10 points,” says Sara Taylor Fagen, a Republican strategist and former political adviser to President George W. Bush. “The focus on contraception has not been a good one for us … and Republicans have unfairly taken on water on this issue.”

Thank You “conservatives” -

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:20 AM

You know what’s delightful? Despite your candidate, Willard, being a soulless, flip-flopping, democrat hack, who does not have a single conservative bone in his body, King Barry Hussein Obama and his media minions are going to paint him as to the right of Pat Buchanan. And all the little moderate mush-heads your “guy” has been so invested in will abandon him en-mass because of it.

Too bad you “brilliant triangulators” spent all your time and money beating down the conservatives that might have drug your lame@ssed candidate across the in-zone despite himself.

PS: Way to keep hacking out liberal talking points. I came out against Salamander when he and his followers went after Willard for Bain… it just another glaring example of what passes for “character” amongst many of the Romney supporters, that they are so quick to regurgitate leftist clap-trap.

Or perhaps they are simply betraying what they actually believe…

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:28 AM

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:19 AM

So your saying you lack the courage to support anyone ?
That’s a safety.

NoneOf TheAbove is not a candidate.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:26 AM

We will not vote for an evil man and Mitt is evil. Period.

We are not stupid enough to think at this late date a new candidate can gain traction. We have started with the Tea Party but just like the Republican party it takes a while to end the old Wig Party. We still hope to reform the Republican Party but if not it will end.

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 1:30 AM

So your saying you lack the courage to support anyone ?
That’s a safety.

NoneOf TheAbove is not a candidate.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:26 AM

No. I have the courage to stand up against my family’s own short term best interests in the hope that our long term interests might be served through a remade republican or new political faction – and I do so in the spite of mean-spirited, disingenuous, bomb-hurling establishment sycophants such as yourself questioning my integrity, my love of country, and spitting out liberal talking points faster than Rachel Maddow in the depths of an ether binge.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:32 AM

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:28 AM

:::you missed this part:::

Obama leads Republican front-runner Mitt Romney 51%-42% among registered voters just a month after the president had trailed him by two percentage points.

I guess those “women” you know so well musta changed their minds, oh – what does the polling say- “just a month” ago after obie was -2.

Enjoy your Mitt-trashing – he will overcome and will fire the fraud in the WH who you are trying to protect from evil Mittens.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:38 AM

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Whatever.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Enjoy your Mitt-trashing – he will overcome and will fire the fraud in the WH who you are trying to protect from evil Mittens.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:38 AM

Prove that Mitt is a Republican. Prove it by things he actually accomplished.

You can NOT.

I have asked here for examples the entire race and not a single solitary example except meaningless vetoes. 800 vetoes mean nothing especially when you examine them and find out the result was what eventually passed was almost always far more liberal. You find he signed the bill when the votes were not there to override.

Mitt is a DEMOCRAT. Prove me wrong or shut the HE$$ up.

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 1:46 AM

:::you missed this part:::

Obama leads Republican front-runner Mitt Romney 51%-42% among registered voters just a month after the president had trailed him by two percentage points.

I guess those “women” you know so well musta changed their minds, oh – what does the polling say- “just a month” ago after obie was -2.

Enjoy your Mitt-trashing – he will overcome and will fire the fraud in the WH who you are trying to protect from evil Mittens.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:38 AM

You try to deflect by accusing others of your behavior. You are spewing leftist positions, and vomiting back up this “War on Women” crap, torn directly from the pages of Newsweek magazine, and then you have the audacity to accuse others of being paid liberal plants.

Now I KNOW you’re not a leftist Moby. None of them could possibly be that idiotic or tone deaf.

Your every post is a damn monument to every failing of your mealy-mouthed candidate, and highly illustrative of the brow-beating from his “supporters” that is tearing the republican party in twain, and the irony is, you are utterly oblivious to it.

I don’t need to make points… f*&^ man, I merely have to sit back, and let you start typing…

Mitt Romney, and his supporters, are truly the architects of their own misery.

You do a better job of discrediting your “guy” and yourself than I could ever possibly hope to, so, by all means, carry on with the Daily Kos talking points…

War on women indeed…

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:54 AM

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 1:54 AM

TRY THIS ON: The rejected Republican candidates showed me that they were not in the same league with our Dear Leader.

Governor Perry? The debate king. Ha Ha Ha

Mr. Cain? He was never serious.

Former Senator Santorum? He lost. Couldn’t carry a majority in a minority party and the women would have picked his bones clean.

My only regret is that we failed to have a debate between Newt and the entire liberal dung heap which, frankly, largely runs this country.

I liked former Governor Palin until her bussing extravaganza started smelling a lot like a con artist’s cashing in on the dumb and not like a leader out to save a nation without a real right wing voice.

Former Governor Romney has decent past when you consider all the facts and he has proven to be a survivor. You can’t deny that.

The “Miracle from Massachusetts” isn’t Senator Goldwater but winning is a great deodorant.

Every Mitt supporter I know is far from miserable. Um..they seem to be winning. Or haven’t you noticed?

Now go back to watching Beck and buying gold.

IlikedAUH2O on April 6, 2012 at 2:23 AM

That’s why a lot of people voted for Obama and look where that got them.

Swerve22 on April 5, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Most still don’t regret their votes, and in the absence of a compelling alternative, will do it again. That is the whole point.

alwaysfiredup on April 6, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Which means that the best conservative candidate is the one who is the most like Obama?

Gelsomina on April 6, 2012 at 3:04 AM

Tell me-
How much is the Administration paying to to shill for Willard, the candidate Obama knows beyond the shadow of a doubt he can and will beat?

Dunedainn on April 6, 2012 at 1:11 AM

The unions are already spending millions of dollars for ads against Romney. You think they want him to be the Republican candidate?

Gelsomina on April 6, 2012 at 3:17 AM

Mitt has been joined at the hip with Ryan from the start. Paul Ryan is one of the very few grown ups in DC. One of the only people with the testicular fortitude to consistently do more than just demagogue entitlements. He has proposed solutions and done so in the form of specific legislation. Mitt could choose no better ally. While Mitt has put his own ideas forward, his plans are remarkably similar to Ryan’s in both specificity and philosophy. There is no doubt that Mitt would be the perfect POTUS to work with Ryan and Congress to make their shared vision of fiscal recovery and responsibility a reality.

MJBrutus on April 6, 2012 at 4:53 AM

I am not voting for someone who just wants a thrifty authoritarian government.

Thrifty Obama will not get my vote.

A man who will clearly state the threat to liberty and freedom of the citizenry of the US actually IS the federal government and the government must be downsized and curtail many of its functions that are restraining liberty and market growth… that guy I will vote for.

Not just trimming regulations, but removing the agency that gets such toxic regulations to handle: EPA, Ed, Energy, Labor, large swaths of the Dept. of the Interior, Agriculture, FHA, support to Fannie and Freddie and market skewing by Ginnie, Federal Reserve… the list goes on and on.

Not a pedicure to the beast and a new coat of nail polish, but a chainsaw to the creature to show that it is understood that the entitlements are next as the government is serious about getting out of the ‘oversight’ business. Because no one is going to trust this behemoth with any entitlement changes until it begins to slim down and sing a different tune.

So be brave, Gov. Romney: sing the praises of smaller government that doesn’t see itself as able to tell the population and businesses what to do. Tell us who is going to get the axe and why. Lead, follow or get out of the damned way. Right now you aren’t leading nor following, and that puts you squarely in the way.

ajacksonian on April 6, 2012 at 6:58 AM

If you want a good feeling go to an orgy. I can live with a Mormon Robot who removes the Marxist Gangster from the White House.

NickDeringer on April 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Looking at the polls — which have always been sacred before — you’re in a distinct minority.

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 7:07 AM

I guess those “women” you know so well musta changed their minds, oh – what does the polling say- “just a month” ago after obie was -2.

Enjoy your Mitt-trashing – he will overcome and will fire the fraud in the WH who you are trying to protect from evil Mittens.

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 1:38 AM

You’re giving yourself a high-five because Mitt’s going in the wrong direction?

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 7:10 AM

That’s why a lot of people voted for Obama and look where that got them.

Swerve22 on April 5, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Most still don’t regret their votes, and in the absence of a compelling alternative, will do it again. That is the whole point.

alwaysfiredup on April 6, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Which means that the best conservative candidate is the one who is the most like Obama?

Gelsomina on April 6, 2012 at 3:04 AM

No, the one who can provide a sharper contrast.

But Romney’s unfavorability among core Republicans probably won’t cost him that much. There’s plenty of reason to figure Mitt’s most conservative detractors will ultimately support him in the general election, especially against an opponent they dislike far more than Democrats disliked John McCain in 2008.A Public Policy Polling survey a bit earlier in March that showed Romney with an even more dismal approval-disapproval ratio (33-58) also indicated his most avid conservative detractors would back him strongly in the general election. According to PPP, Romney’s approval ratio among “very conservative” voters was 43/48. Yet the same voters preferred him to Obama 76/16. Meanwhile, Obama’s 81/11 approval ratio among “very liberal” voters is almost identical to his support from them against Romney (81/15). In other words, Romney has a hidden cushion of support.

That cushion doesn’t extend, however, to moderate and independent voters. Romney’s poor approval ratios among independents (35-52) and self-identified moderates (35-48) has to be troubling, especially when you consider how much time he will still have to spend articulating very conservative policy positions in the next few months.

Something to ponder as the Romney fan club gets its “blame the TrueCons” excuse all ready to go. Attracting those precious indies and moderates was the whole rationale behind Romney.

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 7:21 AM

Funny bit from the same article:

It’s worth noting that even after his pounding by Romney during the primaries, and his many years of rubbing voters the wrong way, Gingrich’s approval ratio in the most recent PPP poll (28-61) is not that much worse than Romney’s. If people barely like you more than Newt Gingrich, that’s probably a sign to start worrying.

LOL…yeah, the writer’s a big lib, but he has a point there.

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 7:25 AM

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/mitt_hits_bull_eye_A17FXfKFe9V5PQ7qf2YIcP

Podhertz’s take on his speech. If you are looking for exciting Romney may not be the one for you – Obama is a better choice since Palin is not running.
If you are looking for personal attacks for temporary satisfaction that persuade no one to your point of view stick with Obama and wish that Palin had run — they both live on personal attacks of the “other side”.

If you are looking for measured and competent with a keen understanding of the central issue at hand then Romney is your man.
If you are looking for someone who might actually persuade democrats to switch sides Romney is your better choice.

If someone else more bombastic (Palin, Newt, or Santorum) was in Romney’s position today the people who relish shallow over depth would demand the fealty of Republicans. The party faithful would grudgingly comply.

So the serious question to the ABR folks is “Why the double standard?”

Bradky on April 6, 2012 at 7:58 AM

You so-called “true conservatives” here are unbelievable. You people really want Obama to win again. Unreal. You are going to drag practical thinking republicans down with you and re-elect the “It’s on!” idiot enemy again.

You are the ones who are going to let Obama win again. You ware going to help him destroy this country. Let him pack the supreme court with extreme lefties. Gut our military. Spend us into bankruptcy. Sickening that you are doing his work for him. All because you can’t get your way. Pathetic.

This whole primary process has really shown the true colors of people I though were on the good side. Wow.

I can’t take four more years of f’ing Obama. This is not about Romney at all. It was never about Romney or anyone else. It is ABO. ABO, ABO, ABO!!!!! What is wrong with you people!!

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 8:07 AM

It is ABO. ABO, ABO, ABO!!!!! What is wrong with you people!!

Maybe it’s the fact that we heard those exact words in 2008?????

Don L on April 6, 2012 at 8:09 AM

If you are looking for personal attacks for temporary satisfaction that persuade no one to your point of view stick with Obama and wish that Palin had run — they both live on personal attacks of the “other side”.

Bradky on April 6, 2012 at 7:58 AM

ROFL…that good ol’ Saint Mitt never stoops to that personal attack thing, does he? Well, against other Republicans, certainly…

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 8:20 AM

If you are looking for someone who might actually persuade democrats to switch sides Romney is your better choice.

Bradky on April 6, 2012 at 7:58 AM

By the way, it seems that more Democrats are becoming turned off by Romney than are being attracted to him. That was a point of the TNR piece above. So what’s the rationale for Romney now? He has the best hair available?

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Maybe it’s the fact that we heard those exact words in 2008?????

Don L on April 6, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Don’t you love the contortionism on here and other blogs already trying to pretend Romney is something he’s not. If he becomes the nominee, it’s going to be excruciating to stand by helpless and watch this farce. I can’t find anything supportive to say about Romney and ABO gets old after a while when you have nothing positive or constructive to offer as an alternative. I can’t even lie about the guy and keep a straight face so trying to promote this clown and debate with my democrat friends if he beomes the nominee is going to be painful.

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 8:24 AM

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 8:22 AM

So you don’t want to address the question about double standards?

color me surprised

Bradky on April 6, 2012 at 8:26 AM

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 8:22 AM

So you don’t want to address the question about double standards?

color me surprised

Bradky on April 6, 2012 at 8:26 AM

WHAT double standard? If one disagrees with Romney but agrees with Palin and/or Santorum, it’s a double standard? No, it’s called a “phony argument”.

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 8:32 AM

By the way, it seems that more Democrats are becoming turned off by Romney than are being attracted to him. That was a point of the TNR piece above. So what’s the rationale for Romney now? He has the best hair available?

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 8:22 AM

OMG! we’ve nominated our own version of John Kerry!! It’s like a bad dream that doesn’t end!

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 8:34 AM

For example, Bradky:

If you are looking for measured and competent with a keen understanding of the central issue at hand then Romney is your man.

Totally subjective.

If you are looking for someone who might actually persuade democrats to switch sides Romney is your better choice.

Has yet to be demonstrated.

If someone else more bombastic (Palin, Newt, or Santorum)…

Bradky on April 6, 2012 at 7:58 AM

Quick question: was Reagan similarly “bombastic”, or is that shorthand for “vocally and unapologetically conservative”?

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 8:35 AM

You see, Bradky, how is Romney going to win if the only selling point he and his followers can some up with is to point out how horrible Palin, Santorum and Newt are with their drooling idiot fanbases?

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 8:39 AM

*come, not some

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 8:40 AM

I really don’t understand what you “true conservatives” want. There is nobody else. We have our nominee. That decision has been made by the VOTERS, not the “establishment boogeymen”. A brokered convention is a fantasy, its isn’t going to happen.

So you will keep bashing Romney. To what end? The only thing you are doing is aiding Obama. You would fit right in at an Obama rally. You, the so-called “true conservatives” would be cheered by hardcore democrats if you were speaking about your Romney hate at an Obama rally.

Why can’t you see that. Why can’t you see that you are the ones helping the enemy?

Real conservative republicans are practical thinkers. We realize what we have and what must be done. We don’t cry about it. We don’t help the enemy win. We don’t threaten to stay home because Romney won’t kiss our a$$. The base is called the base because they should not have to be pandered to, they should already be supportive. Democrats understand that, its why they win.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM

“blame the TrueCons” excuse

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 7:21 AM

If the refusal of the so-called TrueCons to vote for Romney causes him to lose, then the charge will have validity.

If it weren’t so sad, and destructive, it would be amusing that people who say they won’t vote for Romney, and are actively working to convince others to do likewise, refuse to acknowledge and take responsibility for the intended consequence of their actions.

Syzygy on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM

If the refusal of the so-called TrueCons to vote for Romney causes him to lose, then the charge will have validity.

If it weren’t so sad, and destructive, it would be amusing that people who say they won’t vote for Romney, and are actively working to convince others to do likewise, refuse to acknowledge and take responsibility for the intended consequence of their actions.

Syzygy on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Sorry, bucko, but we’ve heard this song before – for 30 years as a matter of fact. It’s boring, flat, and stale and you guys need to start blaming yourselves for the thumpings the republicans keep getting because the conservatives are tired of being your punching bags. If the RNC really is so concerned about stay at homers then they’d give us a better nominee choice than Romney.

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM

If the refusal of the so-called TrueCons to vote for Romney causes him to lose, then the charge will have validity.

Syzygy on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Yeah, right. Blaming the TrueCons has been the plan all along. Romney could get 99% of that TrueCon vote and 20% of the indie vote, and the ‘bots will still be trotting out their “it’s all the fault of those TrueCons/SoCons!!!!!!!!!”

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 9:20 AM

In his talk yesterday he talked about an ultra expensive Subway expansion what he did not say is he signed it into law. He also fought for the Big Dig when billions went straight into the coffers of the Unions as much as 70% of the funding for it basically stolen.

If Mitt is a Republican then there are two Democratic Parties.

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 1:05 AM

One small item not quite accurate…it wasn’t the “unions” he was supporting, it was Bechtel…a long time financial supporter of his father, and of him.
Even to the point of defending Bechtel, when Bechtel was found guilty of negligence in the death of a woman…Mitt refused to fine Bechtel, a judge finally stepped in and force Mitt to fine Bechtel for the cause of death, and Mitt did, the minimum allowed under law…just a few thousand dollars. A few months later, he awarded Bechtel a multi-million dollar highway contract.
You talk about the morning after…look and you will find that the pharm companies making those pill are huge supporters.
Mitt is the consummate “payback” politician, which is why 18 of his top donors are all recipients of TARP/bailout money.
The thing guaranteed under Mitt, if he is president…Wall Street will make record money, his corporate cronies will make record profits…They did when he was Gov., they did when they ran the Olympics, and they will if he is int the White House…

right2bright on April 6, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I really don’t understand what you “true conservatives” want. There is nobody else. We have our nominee. That decision has been made by the VOTERS, not the “establishment boogeymen”. A brokered convention is a fantasy, its isn’t going to happen.

So you will keep bashing Romney. To what end? The only thing you are doing is aiding Obama.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Are you really going to tell me that Romney’s on the cusp of winning the nomination because he is so closely in sync with the ideals and convictions of the vast majority of GOP voters? Or could it be that 3 years’ worth of “he’s the only one who can beat Obama and everybody else is an unelectable joke” propaganda b.s. played a role?

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM

So you will keep bashing Romney. To what end?

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Because we are hoping, against all hope, that we can get some of you RINO’s on board and force Mitt to move to the right…but it may be a lost cause, you are more interested in personalities, than policy.
You don’t get it…politicians work for us, we set the terms of employment, and “cheerleading” a candidate, no matter what he stands for, because you think is is just “super” does not help the nation…it emboldens them to do what they want with impunity.
Thus he can okay the morning after pill, support abortion (and give a lame reason later only to have you say “yeah, that’s why”), or support Romney/Obama Care (yeah, he’s against his landmark bill now…surrrrre).
Get it…the candidate works for us…having the “cult” figure like Obama or Mitt doesn’t help the nation.

right2bright on April 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM

The thing guaranteed under Mitt, if he is president…Wall Street will make record money, his corporate cronies will make record profits…They did when he was Gov., they did when they ran the Olympics, and they will if he is int the White House…

right2bright on April 6, 2012 at 9:30 AM

.
Don’t you have an OWS rally to go to or sumpin ?

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Quick question: was Reagan similarly “bombastic”, or is that shorthand for “vocally and unapologetically conservative”?

ddrintn on April 6, 2012 at 8:35 AM

.
When as Governor of the liberal state of Cali ??, the answer is NO.

hmmm…similarity or coincidence?

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM

right2bright on April 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I couldn’t have said it better! The arrogance of the RNC establishment like Rieces pieces or whoever it is running the joint and expecting this tidal wave of flip floppers on the republican side. For us to compromise our principles to support an unprincipled candidate because they tell us to doesn’t sound like a very winning strategy to me. Especially when it will become more and more obvious that the only hope we have is that Obama is somehow torpedoed by Romney and his goon squad (aka campaign) and he suffers the same fate as his republican challengers, and then we’re only offering Romney as a non-Obama choice without much else. Sounds pretty negative and a turn-off to a lot of voters.

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Every Mitt supporter I know is far from miserable. Um..they seem to be winning. Or haven’t you noticed?

Now go back to watching Beck and buying gold.

IlikedAUH2O on April 6, 2012 at 2:23 AM

That’s because you live in an echo chamber. You have neatly sequestered yourself off from dissenting opinion and other points of view – and you vitriolically lash out when your world view is challenged.

Exhibit B – the above screed. Your kind are dumbfounded and lashing out – the RINOS can’t understand why 50%-60% of the base hates them, and a good number of that won’t vote for them in November.

A number that grows more and more every day due to the poisonous way in which Willard and his supporters have conducted themselves.

Every flip flop, every etch-a-sketch comment, every nuanced “we gotta reform Obamacare” comment… every nasty attack from the Romney supporters on the conservatives – imagine the drip, drip, drip, drip of enthusiasm and support.

The sound you hear when you press submit is not the clicking of your mouse. It’s the conservative base’s footsteps as it walks away from you.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Speaking of Libtard Talking points being regurgitated by Mitt Romney Supporters….

Krauthammer blasts ‘shameless,’ ‘over-the-top’ WH for invention of the ‘war on women’
By Jeff Poor – The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/05/krauthammer-blasts-shameless-over-the-top-wh-for-inventing-war-on-women/

On Thursday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist and conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer criticized the White House after announcing it would be holding a “National Women’s Issues Conference” on April 27-28 in Washington, D.C.

According to Krauthammer, White House spokesman Jay Carney’s response to a question about conference posed by Fox News Channel’s White House correspondent, Ed Henry, was “shameless and over-the-top.”

“According to Jay Carney, it has nothing at all to do with the election,” Krauthammer said. “They actually think they can say that and do it with a straight face and get away with it. I mean, all the administrations use taxpayer money to promote themselves in an election year. But this is pretty shameless and over-the-top.”

He said that this conference stemmed from the recent contraception debate that was given birth by the media.

“Notice how when the president said, ‘This is about a wide range of issues. It isn’t just about’ — and what’s the one thing he named immediately? Contraception. Of course it is about contraception,” Krauthammer said. “It’s because of the way it was handled and the media covered it — it became all of a sudden a war on the women, which is a complete invention.”

Krauthammer cited the media’s coverage of Reince Priebus’ remarks dismissing the claim of a war on women, and said that was evidence that some in the media are on the side of with White House to promote the idea as if it were a matter of fact, ignoring the religious liberty issues surrounding the contraception part of their argument.

“But now you get stories of the mainstream media. I think I saw a headline this morning that said, ‘Republicans claim that there is no war on women,’” Krauthammer continued. “I mean, this is actually in a news part of the paper, which of course is promoting the meme. The idea is that because there was some objection on religious liberty grounds to force Catholic institutions to dispense them for free, it’s a war on women. And the idea of the meme was that they want to deny access to contraception as if Republicans want to shut the door of American pharmacies for any woman looking for contraception. So, the media have collaborated in inventing an issue. Obama sees an opening. He actually said women aren’t an interest group. Of course they are in the eyes of this administration, and that’s why it’s holding the conference.”

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 9:58 AM

You don’t get it…politicians work for us, we set the terms of employment, and “cheerleading” a candidate, no matter what he stands for, because you think is is just “super” does not help the nation…it emboldens them to do what they want with impunity.
Thus he can okay the morning after pill, support abortion (and give a lame reason later only to have you say “yeah, that’s why”), or support Romney/Obama Care (yeah, he’s against his landmark bill now…surrrrre).
Get it…the candidate works for us…having the “cult” figure like Obama or Mitt doesn’t help the nation.

right2bright on April 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I’m not a RINO, but it makes you feel better about what you are doing by calling me that I guess.

I am a practical thinker. Most Republicans are. Most Republicans know that the nominee is Romney, there is nothing going to change that at this point. Most Republicans realize that he is not what we want but he is what we have and he is better than Obama, that’s right, he is. Especially an unrestrained Obama which is what we will end up with.

I’m not cheerleading anyone. I understand the mistrust of Romney by people, I do. He is not a cult figure to me, he is not “super”. He is what we have.

Romney says he will repeal Obamacare. Romney says he will strengthen our military. Romney says he will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme court. Romney says he can fix the economy. Can he? Will he? I have no idea. But he says he will, and its all we have. Obama will not do any of those things, we know for sure he will do the opposite. Why help him? Staying home helps Obama. Voting third party helps Obama. Not supporting our nominee helps Obama. And by helping Obama you are helping destroy America because that is Obama’s goal.

That is practical thinking. That is facing reality.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Don’t you have an OWS rally to go to or sumpin ?

FlaMurph on April 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM

You’re one to talk Mr. DNC talking points guy. War on women indeed…

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM

That is practical thinking. That is facing reality.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM

No, it’s called giving up and throwing in the towel which we’re not willing to do if it means Obama’s automatic re-election. The republican establishment will still be warm and fuzzy in their millions and cozy country club jobs in Congress or where ever with who ever wins, while the rest of us have to face the prospect of suffering another 4 years of Obama. No we’re grabbing at any hope there is of stopping this train wreck from happening or tripping it up if nothing else.

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 10:09 AM

No, it’s called giving up and throwing in the towel which we’re not willing to do if it means Obama’s automatic re-election. The republican establishment will still be warm and fuzzy in their millions and cozy country club jobs in Congress or where ever with who ever wins, while the rest of us have to face the prospect of suffering another 4 years of Obama. No we’re grabbing at any hope there is of stopping this train wreck from happening or tripping it up if nothing else.

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Can you tell me how Romney is not going to be the nominee? Can you answer that one question? Maybe I’m missing something?

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I am a practical thinker

Thus could be the trade mark of some of the most despicable despots on earth….

Character and the very dignity of man is assassinated by such frail values. Such lack of insight into who we are, that Nature’s God made us and gave us all of our rights, serves to reduces us to the level of mankind’s enemies,

Don L on April 6, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I really don’t understand what you “true conservatives” want. There is nobody else. We have our nominee. That decision has been made by the VOTERS, not the “establishment boogeymen”. A brokered convention is a fantasy, its isn’t going to happen.

So you will keep bashing Romney. To what end? The only thing you are doing is aiding Obama.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM

One fallacy after another.

1: We want a conservative. Not a Massachusetts Democrat. If we have nothing but a choice between 2 liberals, then I see no practical point in the Republican party continuing to exist.

2: Given all of the shady crap and screwing with the primary dates, getting people knocked off the ballot, 16 to 1 spending in nasty ads, you can’t say we have a candidate that was picked by the votes so much as corinated.

3: The Republicans have been stuffing big government Statists like Romney on us for decades. No more. It’s a damn shame they decided to play chicken with the base against a Tyrant like Obama. But it’s their fault, and they will be the ones to blame when Willard Fillmoure Romneycare fails in November.

Not only will your assessments of blame be rebuked, you will find that we whole-cloth abandon the Republican party, and search out a home where conservatives are not taken for granted, and beaten like an abused housewife by people who see themselves as some sort of Neo-Feudalistic royalty.

Perhaps the Tea-Party needs to be official. Maybe the “American Conservative Party” that several posters have been talking about will be a good home for the conservative base.

One thing is for sure – Willard Fillmoure Romneycare is a bridge too far, and blurs the distinction between Democrat and Republican to the point of Irrelevance.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM

No conservative?

NO VOTE.

No conservative?

NO MONEY.

No conservative?

NO WORKING PHONES.

No conservative?

NO GOING DOOR TO DOOR.

And we are not to blame for this. Romney and his supporters abused and mistreated us, and now DEMAND we help them win – after spending almost a whole year kicking us around like junkyard dogs.

“Get in line and vote for our Mush you stupid inbred hicks! You’re too stupid to manage yourselves, and too stupid to see our brilliance. We know what’s best for you – now get in line, or we will blame you for our candidates failings.”

Go to hell.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:20 AM

A for those who are so much better than I, since being a practical thinker and analyzing the situation is somehow wrong, what exactly is your answer? What is your real world, real life, workable, doable answer to the problem we have with this election. Tell me this great plan so I can join you. All I see is Romney bashing, no plan. Nothing.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:22 AM

That decision has been made by the VOTERS, not the “establishment boogeymen”.

Apparently your practical thinkin g clouded your observation of the systematic attack by the elitist GOP and their stable of pundit servants, as they rammed knife after knife into the back of Sarah Palin in order to prevent the “Voters” from getting a chance to decide that another spoiled-brat RINO ought not to be president.

Don L on April 6, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Can you tell me how Romney is not going to be the nominee? Can you answer that one question? Maybe I’m missing something?

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Who’s arguing he’s not the likely nominee? What I see is people unhappy about it, and unwilling to compromise their beliefs – and justifiably so given the abuse they have suffered at the hands of Willard and his sycophants over these many months.

Some wounds never heal. You don’t want to leave scars? Then don’t run a scorched earth doom campaign.

Willard Fillmoure Romneycare is the poster-boy for winning the battle and loosing the war.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Can you tell me how Romney is not going to be the nominee? Can you answer that one question? Maybe I’m missing something?

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Ah, he’s not quite getting the number of delegates that are required, much to the chagrin of the RNC and even with all the rigging going on and the coercing and pressuring of the other candidates.

A for those who are so much better than I, since being a practical thinker and analyzing the situation is somehow wrong, what exactly is your answer? What is your real world, real life, workable, doable answer to the problem we have with this election. Tell me this great plan so I can join you. All I see is Romney bashing, no plan. Nothing.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:22 AM

We have the same concerns only change the Romney to Santorum or Gingrich.

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Tell me this great plan so I can join you. All I see is Romney bashing, no plan. Nothing.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Read it again and notice all those important characteristics that dscribe -who we are and why we ar3e to be free-so thankfully recognized and codified by our great forefathers who based everthing upon that -not practicality – no one goes to death in battle for against a king for practicality.

Sadly, few man like that are around us these days, our leaders are mostly very adept at being deceitfully practical -your word.

Don L on April 6, 2012 at 10:28 AM

A for those who are so much better than I, since being a practical thinker and analyzing the situation is somehow wrong, what exactly is your answer? What is your real world, real life, workable, doable answer to the problem we have with this election. Tell me this great plan so I can join you. All I see is Romney bashing, no plan. Nothing.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:22 AM

My plan?

The Republicans have served me a s(*& sandwich. Rather than eat the hunk of crap on a bun, I will stay home, not provide them with money, not work the phones, and not go door to door – for the first time in more than 20 years. I will also work within my church, employees, and family members to see Romney defeated in November.

You see, I will not provide material incentive for the Republican party to abuse, ignore, and malign conservatives. Eating the crap sandwich they shove in my face is exactly that.

Once Willard looses this November, I will work with people online and within my family and community to find a new political party, one that cares for conservative principles. I will spend my time, money, and effort to help nurture and grow it.

Then we will work towards saving the nation – through any means necessary. Sky’s the limit. I don’t see anything Obama does as something that can’t be… overturned. There are always possibilities when everything is on the table.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

One fallacy after another.

1: We want a conservative. Not a Massachusetts Democrat. If we have nothing but a choice between 2 liberals, then I see no practical point in the Republican party continuing to exist.

2: Given all of the shady crap and screwing with the primary dates, getting people knocked off the ballot, 16 to 1 spending in nasty ads, you can’t say we have a candidate that was picked by the votes so much as corinated.

3: The Republicans have been stuffing big government Statists like Romney on us for decades. No more. It’s a damn shame they decided to play chicken with the base against a Tyrant like Obama. But it’s their fault, and they will be the ones to blame when Willard Fillmoure Romneycare fails in November.

Not only will your assessments of blame be rebuked, you will find that we whole-cloth abandon the Republican party, and search out a home where conservatives are not taken for granted, and beaten like an abused housewife by people who see themselves as some sort of Neo-Feudalistic royalty.

Perhaps the Tea-Party needs to be official. Maybe the “American Conservative Party” that several posters have been talking about will be a good home for the conservative base.

One thing is for sure – Willard Fillmoure Romneycare is a bridge too far, and blurs the distinction between Democrat and Republican to the point of Irrelevance.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Completely wrong on so many levels.

I’m so sick of hearing about the establishment boogeyman. Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee because he has the most organized and well funded campaign. There are no ads that are going to make me automatically vote for someone. Most republicans would not be persuaded that way. They voted for the person they thought could beat Obama. They looked at the bigger picture.

Your pipe dreams about a third party will do nothing but ensure democratic rule for decades if they ever came close to reality. Your way will be the end of everything, not just the Republican party. You make change from within. The tea party realized this, why can’t you?

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

SD, we have to put up and shut up. Or if it’s Romney, it will be like we’re at a funeral/wake for someone we don’t like and have to speak on their behalf. What a horrible prospect!

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I will also work within my church, employees, and family members to see Romney defeated in November.

You are as much the enemy as Obama himself. Pathetic. Disgusting. Sickening.

Once Willard looses this November, I will work with people online and within my family and community to find a new political party, one that cares for conservative principles. I will spend my time, money, and effort to help nurture and grow it.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

This is why you cannot be reasoned with. This will never happen. A new party will never be successful. You will only help divide and conquer for the enemy.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I will also work within my church, employees, and family members to see Romney defeated in November.

You are as much the enemy as Obama himself. Pathetic. Disgusting. Sickening.

Once Willard looses this November, I will work with people online and within my family and community to find a new political party, one that cares for conservative principles. I will spend my time, money, and effort to help nurture and grow it.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

This is why you cannot be reasoned with. This will never happen. A new party will never be successful. You will only help divide and conquer for the enemy.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Ah, he’s not quite getting the number of delegates that are required, much to the chagrin of the RNC and even with all the rigging going on and the coercing and pressuring of the other candidates.

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Yeah, I will give you that. But the sun has not yet set today and I would am pretty sure I can count on that happening.

And where does that leave you when he is “official”? Beside me in an effort to remove the enemy Obama? Or at home helping his cause?

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Completely wrong on so many levels.

You’ve done nothing to prove that. What you have is your opinion, and I have mine. If you are “sick” of reading me, then you’d best stop, lest you have a conniption fit, because I am going NOWHERE.

I’m so sick of hearing about the establishment boogeyman.

Too bad. The fact that you are tired of hearing means zip to me.

Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee because he has the most organized and well funded campaign.

So did the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Point?

There are no ads that are going to make me automatically vote for someone. Most republicans would not be persuaded that way. They voted for the person they thought could beat Obama. They looked at the bigger picture.

This tired old line again. This is what the establishment said with Ford, This is what the establishment said with Bush I, this is what the establishment said with Dole, this is what the establishment said with Bush II, and last, but certainly not least, this tired old tripe is what the establishment hacks said about McWeenie, God rot that horrible little troll.

The Republican party has spent every last drop of it’s political capital on mushy-whishy-washy RINOS. It’s now broke. Many of us conservatives won’t take it anymore.

You wan our support and money? Earn it. You spent it, and it took 3 decades to do it, but the trust-bank is broke. We are through with you TAKING. Now it’s your turn to give. Damn shame that you picked this election to play chicken with your base. Doubly so given how rotten Romney and his followers have behaved towards conservatives.

You picked the battlefield – we didn’t. But since you want to force this issue now… then so be it…

Your pipe dreams about a third party will do nothing but ensure democratic rule for decades if they ever came close to reality. Your way will be the end of everything, not just the Republican party. You make change from within. The tea party realized this, why can’t you?

The Whigs parroted the same “nuanced” opinion in the 1850′s. They are gone now. Tossed aside and left to rust in the scrap heap of history.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM

President Mitt Romney – helluva ring to it! I can’t wait for Nov 6th to vote this man in. In reading many other comment sections of mostly non-political news-based websites, I see a real thirst out there for ABO. Once Romney shakes Santorum off his leg, his approval with independents and women will return to pre-primary levels (beating Obama) Unlike McCain, Romney will pull out all stops to get Obama out. His pacs will do the dirty work that needs to be done – a thorough vetting of Obama and his REAL record. And it will be the Obama campaign that will open the first dirty salvos about the Mormon religion, then all bets are off. As far as veeps, I do see the present popularity of Portman but I fear he is too tied to the Bush administration. Rubio would be my first choice (although I would hate to lose him as my senator) with Ryan being a very close second. When push comes to shove, I see at least 51% of this great nation coming to the conclusion that 2008 was a very big mistake. Righties – get your family, friends and co-workers registered and to the polls – this will be a close one for sure!!!!

BabysCatz on April 6, 2012 at 10:54 AM

You are as much the enemy as Obama himself. Pathetic. Disgusting. Sickening.

And the funny thing with your Romney guys… you can’t understand why more and more conservatives every day pick up their ball, and go home disgusted. You really can’t, that’s the funny thing here. You are tone deaf.

Romney and people like you don’t change anyone’s opinion. You don’t win hearts and minds. You solidify people’s opposition to your position, and drive more away with your every triangulated action.

I’d laugh if it was not such a serious situation.

This is why you cannot be reasoned with. This will never happen. A new party will never be successful. You will only help divide and conquer for the enemy.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM

^
The above quote brought to you by Lewis D. Campbell – 1852

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM

SD, we have to put up and shut up. Or if it’s Romney, it will be like we’re at a funeral/wake for someone we don’t like and have to speak on their behalf. What a horrible prospect!

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM

If I am asked to come to a wake for a person I didn’t care for, or to speak for them, I’d decline the invitation. I tend to speak my mind, and it’s rude to speak ill of the dead.

I’ll just not show up at all.

Hrmm… many interesting parallels building here…

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Yeah, I will give you that. But the sun has not yet set today and I would am pretty sure I can count on that happening.

And where does that leave you when he is “official”? Beside me in an effort to remove the enemy Obama? Or at home helping his cause?

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 10:47 AM

And we can also count on a storm front of clouds blocking that sunset and tomorrow being another day with a new nominee at the convention if delegate count not met.

As to the “inevitable” I look at the republican party trends since Ronald Reagan and weight the successes against the failures: we did pretty well with the Congress under Newt Gingrich until they started acting like democrats and until 2010 with the Tea Party, things looked bleak. As for the moderate faction: Bush 41 & 43, Dole, McCain, and their congressional cronies – the track record stinks and doesn’t look to change any if it’s Romney this go-around. So after all that history we’ve ended up with a Barack Obama as president today and the democrats and their liberalism is growing and strengthening – it wasn’t because of the incredibly strong republican conservatives and their principles being pushed to the forefront. So I’m not exactly a fan of betting on a losing proposition or going down with a sinking ship. I don’t see anything positive in a Romney nomination.

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM

If you are “sick” of reading me, then you’d best stop, lest you have a conniption fit, because I am going NOWHERE.

When I feel like leaving I will leave. You can stay and try to help persuade people to help Obama all you want.

So did the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Point?

Completely irrelevant.

This tired old line again. This is what the establishment said with Ford, This is what the establishment said with Bush I, this is what the establishment said with Dole, this is what the establishment said with Bush II, and last, but certainly not least, this tired old tripe is what the establishment hacks said about McWeenie, God rot that horrible little troll.

They were poor candidates for sure, but there was more to the story than just that and you know it.

Now it’s your turn to give. Damn shame that you picked this election to play chicken with your base. Doubly so given how rotten Romney and his followers have behaved towards conservatives.

The vitriol has gone both ways, don’t act holier than thou. And you don’t speak for the base. I’m part of the base just as much as you claim to be. Actually you are part of the Democratic base to be specific, your goal is to help re-elect Obama.

The Whigs parroted the same “nuanced” opinion in the 1850′s. They are gone now. Tossed aside and left to rust in the scrap heap of history.

SilverDeth on April 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Another completely irrelevant point. You go ahead and keep helping divide and conquer on behalf of Obama.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I don’t see anything positive in a Romney nomination.

mozalf on April 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I do, based on the supreme court alone, but that’s just me. I’ll take a chance that he will appoint more conservative justices than a sure thing that Obama won’t.

So tell me, what are you going to do on election day when its Obama against Romney? I’d really like to know.

jazzmo on April 6, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3