Question for House conservatives: How psyched are you about Mitt Romney?

posted at 4:16 pm on April 17, 2012 by Allahpundit

A perfect follow-up to yesterday’s NYT story about the uneasy alliance between our “Massachusetts moderate” nominee and the tea-party Republican House. Skip to 12:38 for 10 minutes from reps like Jim Jordan, Raul Labrador, and Louie Gohmert, who brought down the house:

Rep. Louie Gohmert, the aggressively quotable former judge from Texas, basically conceded the point. “If you’re not sure about whether to support Mitt Romney,” he joked, “whether you’re liberal, or whether you’re very conservative, you ought to be excited, because he’s been on your side at one time or another.”

That’s from Dave Weigel, who, along with Joshua Green, is snickering at the palpable hesitation about Romney in the first few replies here. (The group gets back on message at 17:10 when some rep whom I don’t recognize offhand chimes in with a fairly enthusiastic endorsement.) What could they realistically say, though? They need to balance party loyalty with grassroots credibility. If they came out waving their pompoms for Romney, no one would take it seriously and tea partiers would be irritated. If they spent 10 minutes dumping on him, the left would have a field day and GOP leaders, starting with Team Mitt, would be incensed. The polite “anybody but Obama” message is how to walk the line. Besides, that attitude has the benefit of reflecting the bulk of pro-Romney sentiment among voters thus far, assuming anyone still believes the data in yesterday’s CNN poll.

Romney’s co-existence with tea-party congressmen will be a continuing subplot to the campaign, so think of this vid as episode one.



Video streaming by Ustream


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I didn’t know that grown-ups told people how to vote.

OliverB on April 17, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Its the behavior instilled in them and their “free thinking” brains by the GOP apparat…

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

May I quote Andrew Breitbart: “So what?”

Goddamn…no woman in the world lives in more people’s heads. Rent f**king free.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

And this is where your logic, or lack of it, is showing. Why do you and other GOP brainiacs insist that Hussein is over his head when, in fact, he knows exactly what he is doing? As a child of well known communist (paid for and trained by USSR) and himself brainwashed in USSR youth camps (look up Artek) Hussein is doing what he trained to do all along, destroy USA from within. Soros investing so heavily in this guy is just another proof (Soros and Russian Commies are close friends gong back a while now).

Exactly why voting for someone a bit less extreme still does not solve the problem nor leads to improvement. Status quo is not what we need right now, deep cuts are the only way out. Romney is not going to do that, based on his own record so far.
riddick on April 17, 2012 at 6:52 PM

To try and stay on point, let’s assume the first paragraph is true. If your perception of Obama is that negative and that he’s motivated by outright malice, isn’t that enough to do everything conceivable to make sure he’s ousted in November, regardless of who’s running againist him?

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Spent ten years telling everyone who would listen how progressive he was, how not-conservative he was, how he wasn’t in favor of Reagan’s or Bush’s policies, how pro-choice he was, etc…and then changed his tune when it was politically advantageous.

He was endorsed by MA Right to Life. That’s good enough for me, if not for Romney haters. You think because somebody like Perry is from a red state he’s more honest or has more integrity? No, he’s just had a far easier path to election and getting things done as a conservative. You think Gingrich or Santorum haven’t compromised or switched positions? Santorum never met a big government Bush entitlement program he didn’t like–until it became politically untenable not to change his tune. Gingrich’s messy private life alone should have barred him from consideration, let alone his on-again, off-again brand of looney conservatism. The savage attacks on Romney by so-called “conservatives” is disgusting, much of it bigotry disguised as principled.

writeblock on April 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM

You really think he’s a heavy drinker??? I’ve not thought of that and haven’t heard much other than his beer-drinkin’ summits—perhaps I’m naive of this one.

Rovin on April 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM

You make a good point about the beer summits. Also, how many pics are there of Obama knocking one back?

Here’s the thing: we know he’s a heavy smoker, so either he’s still doing it, or he’s quit. Smoking goes with drinking, and drinking is a hell of a crutch if you have to give up smoking.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Hi riddick, eva, MadisonConservative, Honda.

I think your opinions about why Romney is a liberal plant who has been rammed down conservative and or Republican throats are an important counterpoint, and necessary to the discussion.

I think people need to be made aware of inconvenient issues and questions in any candidate’s past. I think we do indeed need to be aware of the way that movers and shakers influence perceptions.

I appreciate the vigor you put into these debates. And the time. Wow.

Now you need to be reminded of something.

There are a number of educated, politically-aware people out there who have carefully read and considered the innumerable arguments and links and accusations you have provided. I am one of them.

I understand where you are coming from. I do not, however, find your arguments to be complete or compelling.

It can be disorienting to have so many people acting against what you consider their “best interests”. You naturally feel that stupidity, blindness or mendacity are the cause. If only, you say, they could see things as clearly as I do!

They may see more clearly, though. You might indeed be wrong.

And arguing as if you are an oracle with perfect foresight leads people do discount the words you say, whether right or wrong.

Just a thought.

Prufrock on April 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Why don’t you ABRs Chicken Littles take your anger out on Palin? She chose not to run and (if I am to follow your ‘reasoning”) left us with nothing but DOOM.

FTR: As I have said many times, she’d make a superb Energy Secretary. And she gives great speeches until she, er, “undermines” our candidates. Take it on the road and focus on Zero and I’ll be cheering her on all the way.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Rovin on April 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Until recently, I lived under the insanity of Jim Doyle.

Then along came Walker. A conservative, with a conservative record. In one year, this state has literally transformed.

Conservatives get these things done. Tommy Thompson could not. Scott McCallum could not. Scott Walker could, and did.

Mitt Romney is not a conservative. He will not get things done. That is why I will not support him. I believe he will do nothing to help us, and in the process, will damage the GOP brand.

Hey, look at the bright side: at least you can sort of smoke pot. The irony is that Jerry Brown, who probably smoked fields of the stuff in the 70s, supports Obama’s DOJ coming in and busting up dispensaries.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Why don’t you ABRs Chicken Littles take your anger out on Palin?

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Palin has nothing to do with Mitt Romney.

Rent. F**king. Free.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM

This has gotten out of hand. People telling other people how to vote- and if they don’t vote for Romney you are accused of ruining America. We also have the others accusing anyone who doesn’t trust Romney as being a bigot. It’s like I’m in bizzaro world where Democrat talking points are being spewed by conservatives. Go put on your purple-shirts and join the SEIU- because there really is no difference between you and them….

OliverB on April 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM

This has gotten out of hand. People telling other people how to vote- and if they don’t vote for Romney you are accused of ruining America. We also have the others accusing anyone who doesn’t trust Romney as being a bigot. It’s like I’m in bizzaro world where Democrat talking points are being spewed by conservatives. Go put on your purple-shirts and join the SEIU- because there really is no difference between you and them….

OliverB on April 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM

As I’ve said many times, yes. I don’t care if it’s for Romney, or for a union…when you intimidate, bully, and coerce people into voting the way you want, you’re a miserable, despicable thug.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Why don’t you ABRs Chicken Littles take your anger out on Palin?

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM

The last refuge of a Mittwit…

Blame Palin..LOL

idesign on April 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Why don’t you ABRs Chicken Littles take your anger out on Palin? She chose not to run and (if I am to follow your ‘reasoning”) left us with nothing but DOOM.

FTR: As I have said many times, she’d make a superb Energy Secretary. And she gives great speeches until she, er, “undermines” our candidates. Take it on the road and focus on Zero and I’ll be cheering her on all the way.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Not only that, but the fact that she announced so late in the game, the more rabid Palinistas had already slimed the entire field to enternity thinking that she was jumping in. Had she made her announcement earlier, they could have actually gotten behind one of the nonRomneys. As it was, she didn’t, so each time one of the others made a push against Mitt’s lead, they were quick at the gun to call them flavors of the week (following her lead) and advancing the attacks against them worse than the Romney adherants. I’d be bitter too about it, and look to blame someone other than myself, for investing time and effort into what turnout to be the most unconventional campaign yet: a nonexistant one. Wonder if those Organize4Palin sites are still up.

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 7:21 PM

You might indeed be wrong.

And arguing as if you are an oracle with perfect foresight leads people do discount the words you say, whether right or wrong.

Just a thought.

Prufrock on April 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Tell that to all the Romney fanatics who assure us that multiple Supreme Court justices are going to die or retire in the next four years.

Alas, I keep pointing out that the two most likely to do so, Ginsberg and Breyer, are both liberals. If they were replaced with liberals, SCOTUS would remain unchanged. But no…the Romney acolytes with their powers of omnipotence assure us that potential retirement or death of justices is reason enough to vote for the architect of the program that ObamaCare was based on.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:22 PM

I sure did not think we would be doing what happened last election, voting against bho for dear john, but here we go people, last election ALL over again? I still think dear john would have been tons better than bho, but that is just me! OH and the vp choice for dear john, Sarah! Love Sarah!
L

letget on April 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I think it will have the same outcome as John McCain

conservative tarheel on April 17, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Not only that, but the fact that she announced so late in the game…

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 7:21 PM

What does Palin have to do with Romney?

See, this is the thing: you Romney fanatics are asked for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told Obama is horrible. We ask for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told we support Obama if we don’t. We ask for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told we’ll never get a true conservative. We ask for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told that SCOTUS judges will be retiring or dying in the next four years, when you have no goddamn idea if that’s true or not. We ask for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told that Palin sucks. We ask for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told to grow up.

The fact of the matter is that Romney is a terrible candidate, and if he was worth a damn, you’d have far better talking points.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM

And arguing as if you are an oracle with perfect foresight leads people do discount the words you say, whether right or wrong.

Just a thought.

Prufrock on April 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Who’s ARGUING? I simply stated FACTS, facts that are out there, staring people in the face. Even Romney himself proudly proclaimed, on camera, that he is a progressive. So, sure, I am clueless and have no idea what “conservative” means and have no idea what our sages in GOP have in mind.

I’m not an oracle, by any means, and do not aspire to be one. But go back a few of my posts above and let me know why I should trust these same people, people who you argue see things better than I do, and explain to me how is it that same people, smart, intelligent people by your account, have re-districted Allen West in hopes he loses his seat in a predominantly (now) Democratic district. Instead of making sure people like him stay in the House. And you’re arguing that I should trust these openly anti-conservative sages? And their supposed “intelligence”?

Funny…

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Alas, I keep pointing out that the two most likely to do so, Ginsberg and Breyer, are both liberals. If they were replaced with liberals, SCOTUS would remain unchanged.

You’re thinking in instantaneous terms. You need to think in lifetime/decades terms. I think they have the point, there.

I agree that all fanatics are hard to stomach.

I’m pointing out that some of the language and surety being projected by the ABRs (you among them) trip qualify in that same category.

Prufrock on April 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

May I quote Andrew Breitbart: “So what?”
MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

LOL. May I quote Andrew Breitbart?:

“You want a unity speech; I’ll give you a unity speech. I don’t care who the candidate is and I haven’t since the beginning of this. I haven’t. Ask not what a candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate. And that’s what the Tea Party is. We are there to confront them on behalf of our candidate. I will march behind whoever our candidate is because if we don’t we lose. There are two paths: One is America, and the other one is Occupy. One is America, the other one is Occupy. I don’t care…
…Anyone who’s willing to stand next to me and fight the Progressive Left, I will be in that bunker, and if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.”

CPAC – 2/10/12

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

If Romney follows his Massachusetts record and passes cap & trade, raises taxes, supports gun bans, etc then he will be out in four years. The reason Obama is doing as well as he is, is because the MSM is covering for him. The MSM will not cover for Romney since he’s a Republican.

At that point we would be looking at a new Democrat president in 2016 most likely, so it would be 2020 before we could even begin to think about recovering.

This also assumes conservatives don’t walk out of the Republican party.

Most of this is an academic exercise though, since if we don’t get big spending cuts under whoever is president from 2012-2016, we’ll probably be looking at national bankruptcy before the 2016 election ever happens.

Doomberg on April 17, 2012 at 5:21 PM

yep …. buy more ammo … food … medical gear ….

conservative tarheel on April 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

I think it will have the same outcome as John McCain

conservative tarheel on April 17, 2012 at 7:22 PM

You think?

Only a complete idiot repeats same thing expecting different result.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Who’s ARGUING? I simply stated FACTS, facts that are out there, staring people in the face.

Libs consider themselves fact-based as well.

Again — the world is more complex than sound bites. Many of the facts you present fall into the soundbite category.

I’m also not telling you to trust any particular people. What I’m saying is that when I read your arguments, they start falling into my “crank” bin. That’s a pity.

You guys need to get it together and start arguing without all the invective.

IMHO.

Cheers.

Prufrock on April 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Only a complete idiot repeats same thing expecting different result.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 7:29 PM

“Same thing” is a bit of a stretch, considering… surely you don’t think this is a controlled, linear system?

Prufrock on April 17, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Anyhoo. Off to home. Enjoy the battle, I guess.

Prufrock on April 17, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Wait…did you just use a quote talking about the Tea Party to defend Romney?

Such delicious, delicious irony is tainted only by the fact that you are oblivious to it.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:33 PM

I’m also not telling you to trust any particular people.

Prufrock on April 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Actually, you did. You pointed out same people who want Allen West out of the House.

If not, who is it in your opinion that I should listen to? Name names, please, don’t feel shy.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 7:34 PM

…Anyone who’s willing to stand next to me and fight the Progressive Left…

CPAC – 2/10/12

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

And here’s a video of Mitt Romney calling himself a Progressive, just to add to the richness of this irony.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:35 PM

And here’s a video of Mitt Romney calling himself a Progressive, just to add to the richness of this irony.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:35 PM

I already posted that in the past hour, our smart and intelligent “conservative” has no idea what “Progressive Left” means and obviously misunderstood Breitbart’s speech.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Palin has nothing to do with Mitt Romney.

Rent. F**king. Free.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I’ll cop to the fact that a very small number of Palinistas live rent free in my head. They scare me. Same with a larger number of Paultards.

I think I’ve posted in maybe one Palin thread since I started posting a couple of weeks ago, because I have mixed feelings about her, and that just isn’t allowed in these parts. You must either love her or hate her and subsequently either love or hate every decision or utterance she makes.

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I think I’ve posted in maybe one Palin thread since I started posting a couple of weeks ago, because I have mixed feelings about her, and that just isn’t allowed in these parts. You must either love her or hate her and subsequently either love or hate every decision or utterance she makes.

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Gee, thanks for opening your heart about Palin…

….but this thread is about Romney..:)

idesign on April 17, 2012 at 7:43 PM

I’ll cop to the fact that a very small number of Palinistas live rent free in my head. They scare me. Same with a larger number of Paultards.

I hate Paul more than the next guy (being a Jew doubles the level), but you don’t see me bringing him up in discussions of Romney, do you? Typical liberal ploy, change the subject line when discussion turns into a losing one for you.

Grow a pair.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I think I’ve posted in maybe one Palin thread since I started posting a couple of weeks ago, because I have mixed feelings about her, and that just isn’t allowed in these parts.

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Wrong. I’m not giving you s**t because you may or may not dislike Palin. I’m giving you s**t because we’re discussing Mitt Romney, and you’re deflecting the topic away to Sarah Palin. You’re both ridiculously focusing on Palin when she has nothing to do with Mitt Romney, and avoiding the task of actually defending Romney and giving us positive reasons to vote for him.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM

I didn’t bother to click on your vid because I’m psychic or something and knew it would be about him being a “Progressive”. Until Glenn Beck came along few people knew what the word meant (and like the word “conservative” its definition is very much open to interpretation). There are Communists who call themselves “Progressives” (see David Horowitz talking about his parents); there are men like George Romney who was hailed as a progressive”, who did yoeman’s work for Civil Rights and was hardly raising his children as Red Diaper Babies. Also see the word “Socialist” which many ABRs like to throw around…

Meanwhile, Santorum is on the record referring to himself as a “Progressive”, and, has been discussed ad nauseam, RomneyCare’s inspiration came from Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation. Progressives!/

++

OT: Is it just me or is the Hot Air server slow as molasses? The little green circle is spinning and spinning which makes refreshing the page a chore.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:46 PM

I didn’t bother to click on your vid because I’m psychic or something and knew it would be about him being a “Progressive”. Until Glenn Beck came along few people knew what the word meant…

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Deflect some more. It’s hilarious.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:49 PM

I admire those of you who take your vote seriously. I’m going to vote for Gov. Romney because to make the kind of stance abstaining would take, there would have to be a candidate I believed in. Someday my prince will come. Not this time, so I’m taking a gamble and kissing the frog.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Being the Governor of an extreme Red State he needed to appease the left a little in order to accomplish anything and being a Republican in that State was a miracle in itself. We are talking about the State that the Kennedy’s were considered royalty and the Kennedy behavior was ignored. It should be interesting to see what Mitt can do when he forms his VP and Cabinet.

mixplix on April 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM

I didn’t bother to click on your vid because I’m psychic or something and knew it would be about him being a “Progressive”. Until Glenn Beck came along few people knew what the word meant…

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:46 PM

I was born and lived in a “progressive” state way before Beck knew what the word means, so keep your smart replies to yourself. And as already pointed out above, I really don’t care what Newt nor Santorum, nor Santa Clause for that matter think, this is a discussion about Romney and his record. Stay on subject or go post on Daily Kos, they love people like you there.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM

And here’s a video of Mitt Romney calling himself a Progressive, just to add to the richness of this irony.
MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:35 PM

So?

Not that there is anything “ironic” to discuss. You can play a game where you take the word “progressive” and seize on it. I’ll take Breitbart’s speech in its entirety.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Palin has nothing to do with Mitt Romney.
MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM

?????

*snort*

Perhaps someone here can explain to me what that sentence means.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Being the Governor of an extreme Red State he needed to appease the left a little in order to accomplish anything and being a Republican in that State was a miracle in itself. We are talking about the State that the Kennedy’s were considered royalty and the Kennedy behavior was ignored. It should be interesting to see what Mitt can do when he forms his VP and Cabinet.

mixplix on April 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM

And excuses keep on coming… Sigh…

Care to remind us how Walker is governing in a (previously) progressive state? Has he tucked to the left like your boy did in MA? Let me back track here, and point you to that same video link above, do you still insist the guy is “conservative” when he himself proclaims otherwise?

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Not that there is anything “ironic” to discuss. You can play a game where you take the word “progressive” and seize on it. I’ll take Breitbart’s speech in its entirety.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM

There’s no “game”, you intellectually dishonest pinhead. You know damn well what Romney meant when he called himself Progressive, just as when he said he was pro-choice, wasn’t a Reagan Republican, voiced his support for the Assault Weapons Ban, etc etc. He meant exactly the kind of Progressive that Andrew Breitbart fought against.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Perhaps someone here can explain to me what that sentence means.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:56 PM

If you need the concept explained to you, then I think you are a literal sufferer of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:58 PM

And here’s a video of Mitt Romney calling himself a Progressive, just to add to the richness of this irony.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Classic. You know, I would have far more respect for Romney if he just admitted point-blank that he is the ultimate flip-flopper and proud of it and will continue on in the future. Instead, he is too busy pretending to be something he is not.

eva3071 on April 17, 2012 at 7:59 PM

was hardly raising his children as Red Diaper Babies.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Do you ever pay attention to what’s going on or do you simply regurgitate Romney BS? You obviously missed the video of Romney proclaiming he is Progressive, you also missed that video of his eldest saying Hussein is doing a good job. Just last month. Too bad reporters forgot to ask the genius why is his father running if Hussein is doing a good job.

Just ask, we’re here to educate. You need a lot of education judging by your posts. A LOT.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Stay on subject or go post on Daily Kos, they love people like you there.
riddick on April 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM

No thanks. I loathe Zero with every fiber of my body and unlike MadCon, I’m not interested in “undermining” our nominee for some Unicorn Dream of a Better Future when we have a True Con Nominee (or whatever his fantasy is). Oh, and as a reminder, I responded to MadCon who was calling people “thugs” and voila, here we are. That’s entertainment…

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Entertainment, indeed. And still clueless as proven by your post.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:04 PM

He meant exactly the kind of Progressive that Andrew Breitbart fought against.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:58 PM

So?

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Oh, and as a reminder, I responded to MadCon who was calling people “thugs” and voila, here we are. That’s entertainment…

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Yes, because telling people that they’re ideological liars if they don’t vote the way you want is totally equivalent to requesting you stay on-topic on a private website that specifically tells its commenters to stay on-topic. But then, given that you see no reason not to switch the topic from Mitt Romney to Sarah Palin, I’m not sure you even understand what “off-topic” means. After all, if you stay on topic with Mitt Romney, you keep having to face the fact that you have nothing good to say, only bad things to say about those who dislike him.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:05 PM

So?

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:04 PM

So you’re an idiot that has no ideological values, and will gladly cite people who oppose everything your center of worship stands for.

…or, rather, says he stands for at the moment.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM

It’s always good to know that should Gov. Romney not win that we have Gov. Palin to blame for it. All bases covered.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM

See, this is the thing: you Romney fanatics are asked for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told Obama is horrible. We ask for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told we support Obama if we don’t. We ask for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told we’ll never get a true conservative. We ask for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told that SCOTUS judges will be retiring or dying in the next four years, when you have no goddamn idea if that’s true or not. We ask for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told that Palin sucks. We ask for a reason to vote for Romney. We’re told to grow up.

The fact of the matter is that Romney is a terrible candidate, and if he was worth a damn, you’d have far better talking points.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Even if you are right, And Romney is a liberal as well as Obama, and he will not improve anything, there is one thing that you miss though

To borrow your favorite word, I F***in Hate Holder, He is a racist scumbag as far as i am concerned and he must go

I am sick of having to listen to Axelfraud and his garbage, So he must go

I am sick of My president explaining every second day how we as Americans are nothing special, and that we have to bow to foreign leaders,

I am sick of a president who thinks he is the smartest a** in town and has to announce his feelings on every local case, from the cops acted stupidly, to if i had a boy he would have looked like Martin”

I am sick of a president who is corrupt from top to bottom, and gives loans to friends and family, and then their business goes bankrupt

I don’t care who Romney is, or what Romney is, It is impossible to be worse then Obama,

I want Obama’s people Holder, Geithner, Chu, and the rest of losers out of town more then i want Obama gone, And this can only be achieved by defeating Obama

OrthodoxJew on April 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM

A man walks in on his wife and neighbor in bed.
Wife: Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or your loving wife?

Perfect example of anyone supporting Romney. Why face facts, they just seem a hinderance to GOP sheeple.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:08 PM

If you need the concept explained to you, then I think you are a literal sufferer of Palin Derangement Syndrome.
MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I don’t understand the sentence because it’s meaning is not clear:

Palin has nothing to do with Mitt Romney.
MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Does that mean she wants nothing to do with him? That she hasn’t (as you claimed!) worked to “undermine” him? Try writing it again in plain English. Thanks!

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:08 PM

No thanks. I loathe Zero with every fiber of my body and unlike MadCon, I’m not interested in “undermining” our nominee for some Unicorn Dream of a Better Future when we have a True Con Nominee (or whatever his fantasy is).

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:01 PM

The “fantasy”, you d*ckless wonder, is of someone who is actually conservative instead of a liberal in a paper-thin disguise, being vetted as the next Ronald Reagan. (what an insult to Reagan!)

But since you can’t come up with anything better, and America refuses to consider a 3rd choice, I say we’re about to get what we darn well deserve.

MelonCollie on April 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM

So?

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Thanks for admitting what we all knew you to be.

eva3071 on April 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

I don’t care who Romney is, or what Romney is, It is impossible to be worse then Obama,

I want Obama’s people Holder, Geithner, Chu, and the rest of losers out of town more then i want Obama gone, And this can only be achieved by defeating Obama

OrthodoxJew on April 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM

If there was no time left to pick someone other than Romney, then I would agree with you. Problem is, we still have time.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

If there was no time left to pick someone other than Romney, then I would agree with you. Problem is, we still have time.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Bud, we have time right up to the point people are standing in the voting booths, but that doesn’t mean we can expect them to suddenly pick someone else. It’s just not going to happen.

MelonCollie on April 17, 2012 at 8:12 PM

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Who would you like to see run?

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Who would you like to see run?

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:12 PM

DeMint. Pence. Ryan, although I am not happy with all of his choices. We do have true conservative guys.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:13 PM

The “fantasy”, you d*ckless wonder, is of someone who is actually conservative instead of a liberal in a paper-thin disguise, being vetted as the next Ronald Reagan. (what an insult to Reagan!)

But since you can’t come up with anything better, and America refuses to consider a 3rd choice, I say we’re about to get what we darn well deserve.

MelonCollie on April 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Seems to me a lot of the people ae stating to project values onto Romney that are not there. Whether it is a psychological mechanism designed to help you do something you know full and well to be repugnant, or they are just desperate. Either way the future for us all is dark indeed, but more so for those that have convinced themselves to vote Romney. They will drink from the cup of bitterness and agaony before this is all over.

eva3071 on April 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Does that mean she wants nothing to do with him? That she hasn’t (as you claimed!) worked to “undermine” him? Try writing it again in plain English. Thanks!

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:08 PM

…that was as plain of English as you could ask for. Since you don’t seem to understand plain English, I’ll smack you in the face with it.

The topic of this thread is Mitt Romney, and has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. When you talk about Sarah Palin, you are off-topic, because the topic is Mitt Romney. You’re talking about Palin because talking about Romney without admitting he’s a gigantic f**king liberal dips**t is about as easy as marching an elephant through the eye of a needle.

With that in mind, I’ll repeat:

Palin has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. How you could misconstrue the meaning of that on a Mitt Romney thread on a political website, I’m at a total loss to deduce.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:13 PM

All good folks. Sometimes I feel sorry for Gov. Romney because I swear Republicans don’t plan to win. Maybe they will surprise me.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

DeMint. Pence. Ryan, although I am not happy with all of his choices. We do have true conservative guys.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:13 PM

All will endorse Romney ergo all are spineless RINOs.

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

All good folks. Sometimes I feel sorry for Gov. Romney because I swear Republicans don’t plan to win. Maybe they will surprise me.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

My biggest fear is that Romney will drag the rest of the ticket down with him. If we lose House we are truly done.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:17 PM

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

He is deliberately obfuscating the issue because he has been beaten and he knows it.

All will endorse Romney ergo all are spineless RINOs.

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

All are members of the Republican party and therefore expected to show loyalty. A bit different from voters, no?

eva3071 on April 17, 2012 at 8:18 PM

OrthodoxJew on April 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I want to see them gone, as well. However, I’m not going to vote for 90%ers to replace them.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Since they chose not to run of course they will support the nominee.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:20 PM

I want to see them gone, as well. However, I’m not going to vote for 90%ers to replace them.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Boehner is perfect example of one.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:20 PM

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:17 PM

It’s hard for me to imagine that anyone would vote for a Democrat but than I’m not getting “free” stuff.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM

My biggest fear is that Romney will drag the rest of the ticket down with him. If we lose House we are truly done.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:17 PM

If that happens, God forbid, we might as well drop out of politics entirely and prepare for the inevitable.

Romney folding would hurt but not be totally unexpected…but if he takes our chances for taking Congress down with him, there will be no feasible way to recover. By the time the Republicans can piece things back together the Dems will have a stranglehold we won’t break.

MelonCollie on April 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I did not come here tonight to comment about Sarah Palin. I came here to comment about you (as you were calling people “thugs”) to make you eat the words you have said (which is, er, “ironic” since you are sooooh keen on making Romney eat the word “progressive”, but I digress).

I have given reasons to vote for Romney for 8 freaking years. I’m not interested in cutting and pasting what I’ve said over and over again. IIRC, you were for the loser of a candidate, Fred Thompson, last time around. Rah Rah!

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Romney folding would hurt but not be totally unexpected…but if he takes our chances for taking Congress down with him, there will be no feasible way to recover. By the time the Republicans can piece things back together the Dems will have a stranglehold we won’t break.

MelonCollie on April 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Why do you think I am so against this fake?

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:23 PM

I did not come here tonight to comment about Sarah Palin.

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:23 PM

And yet, you did. It’s off-topic, and has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. What part of that don’t you get? Oh, of course. The part where you compare enforcing the rules of a website to calling people ideological liars because they don’t like your empty-headed candidate that will say anything to get elected.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:27 PM

All are members of the Republican party and therefore expected to show loyalty. A bit different from voters, no?

eva3071 on April 17, 2012 at 8:18 PM

All right so they’re not spineless RINOs, they’re unprincipled party hacks. I’ve been told countless times that Obama=Romney. If that’s true, and the GOP is to blame for him being the nominee, shouldn’t these brave men stand by their convictions and not endorse anyone, regardless of what the party leaders think?

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I did not come here tonight to comment about Sarah Palin.

You were the one who started the whole thing by mentioning her. Ironic, isn’t it?

I have given reasons to vote for Romney for 8 freaking years. I’m not interested in cutting and pasting what I’ve said over and over again. IIRC, you were for the loser of a candidate, Fred Thompson, last time around. Rah Rah!

Translation: I am a fanatic and proud of it. Who needs those ikky conservatives anyway. Nothing can possibly stop my lord and master now!!!

eva3071 on April 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM

It’s hard for me to imagine that anyone would vote for a Democrat but than I’m not getting “free” stuff.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM

And now you’re beginning to see the real issue. That 46% crowd who don’t pay federal taxes, do you really expect them to vote for a GOP candidate who has happily said he likes firing people and made money by stripping companies? (Not that I am against it myself).

Add in a number of progressive liberals who will only vote D, even a dead one as proven by recent history, and we have a real problem that can only be addressed by someone able to convince a decent number of that 46% that they will be better off with better jobs and future if they vote for him/her. Romney’s gaffes in recent months gave Hussein’s campaign ready made sound bits, they don’t even need to do much of anything. Just run a few of those clips, then add his son’s recent “Obama is a nice guy doing a good job” and you really don’t need much else.

Romney ain’t it.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Translation: I am a fanatic and proud of it. Who needs those ikky conservatives anyway. Nothing can possibly stop my lord and master now!!!

eva3071 on April 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Truer than you know.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:31 PM

All right so they’re not spineless RINOs, they’re unprincipled party hacks. I’ve been told countless times that Obama=Romney. If that’s true, and the GOP is to blame for him being the nominee, shouldn’t these brave men stand by their convictions and not endorse anyone, regardless of what the party leaders think?

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 8:29 PM

All politicians are party hacks. To think otherwise suggests naiviety in politics.

eva3071 on April 17, 2012 at 8:31 PM

If that’s true, and the GOP is to blame for him being the nominee, shouldn’t these brave men stand by their convictions and not endorse anyone, regardless of what the party leaders think?

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Something we do agree on.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:32 PM

And yet, you did. It’s off-topic, and has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. What part of that don’t you get? Oh, of course.
MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:27 PM

It’s not “off-topic” when you’re prattling on about why you won’t vote for the GOP candidate and when you’ve endorsed the concept of undermining him (while calling people who don’t accept your tactic “thugs”).

The part where you compare enforcing the rules of a website to calling people ideological liars because they don’t like your empty-headed candidate that will say anything to get elected.

What?

Buy Danish on April 17, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Add in a number of progressive liberals who will only vote D, even a dead one as proven by recent history, and we have a real problem that can only be addressed by someone able to convince a decent number of that 46% that they will be better off with better jobs and future if they vote for him/her.
riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM

We need to find this person and convince them to run! I’m not sure of the date, but I think the Iowa caucuses are coming up.

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Iowa caucuses are coming up.

Client Number Nine on April 17, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Sure. Same idiots who voted for Hussein in 2008. You obviously missed my prior posts. Its OK, you’ll learn reading comprehension, eventually. Where there’s a will…

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Most of the criticism of Romney is the result of ignorance. Powerline’s John Hinderaker cites Club for Growth on Romney’s record:

Governor Romney’s single term contained some solid efforts to promote pro-growth tax policy. In May of 2004, Mitt Romney proposed cutting the state’s income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%—a measure Massachusetts voters had approved in a 2000 referendum, but was blocked by the State Legislature in 2002. The proposed tax cut would have provided $675 million in relief over a year and a half. When the Massachusetts Legislature refused to budge, Romney proposed the same tax cut in 2005 and again in 2006 with no success. Romney was more successful when he took on the State Legislature for imposing a retroactive tax on capital gains earnings. After a bloody fight, Romney succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively, resulting in a rebate of $275 million for capital gains taxes collected in 2002…

Governor Romney’s record on spending must be considered within the liberal political context in which he governed. … On balance, his record comes out more positive than negative, especially when one considers that average spending increased only 2.22% over his four years, well below the population plus inflation benchmark of nearly 3%…

Governor Romney successfully consolidated the social service and public health bureaucracy and restructured the Metropolitan District Commission. Romney even eliminated half of the executive branch’s press positions, saving $1.2 million. He also used his emergency fiscal powers to make $425 million worth of cuts in 2006, taking particular aim at local earmarks, instead of allowing the Legislature to dip into the state’s $1.2 billion rainy day fund. While there is no question that Governor Romney’s initial fiscal discipline slacked off in the second half of his term, on balance, he imposed some much-needed fiscal discipline on a very liberal Massachusetts Legislature.

On welfare and entitlements, Romney’s record was excellent:

As governor, Romney pushed for important changes to Massachusetts expansive welfare system. Although federal welfare reform passed in 1995, Massachusetts was woefully behind, relying on a waiver to bypass many of the legislation’s important requirements. Romney fought for legislation that would bring Massachusetts’ welfare system up to date with federal standards by increasing the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits. Much to his credit and to the dismay of many Massachusetts liberals, Romney successfully forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments for some services and successfully pushed for legislative action forcing new state workers to contribute 25% of their health insurance costs, up from 15%. Governor Romney also deserves praise for proposing to revolutionize the Massachusetts state pension system by moving it from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system.

Romney’s record on regulation was also very good, according to Powerline:

He also vetoed a “card check” bill that would allow unions to organize without a secret ballot election. As governor, he often clashed with the knee-jerk anti-business Legislature over his attempts to ease Massachusetts’ regulatory burdens. Though some of his largest undertakings were ultimately crushed by liberal opposition, Governor Romney deserves praise for attempting to change the relationship between government and private enterprise for the better. These efforts include:

* Pushed to revamp the Pacheco Law, a union-backed measure that makes it nearly impossible to privatize or outsource state services
* Aggressively pushed to deregulate Massachusetts’ “Soviet-style” auto insurance industry. Massachusetts is the only state in which the government mandates maximum insurance rates and requires insurers to accept every applicant
* Called for the privatization of the University of Massachusetts medical school
* Proposed measures to eliminate civil service protection for all municipal workers except police and firefighters and exempt low-cost public construction jobs from the state’s wage law
* Proposed easing decades-old state regulations on wetlands
* Proposed easing pricing regulations on Massachusetts retailers
* Signed a bill streamlining the state’s cumbersome permitting process for new businesses
* Eased regulations for brownfield development
* Vetoed a bill limiting the ability of out-of-state wineries to ship directly to Massachusetts consumers, calling the legislation “anti-consumer”

When Romney took office, Massachusetts’s legislature was 85% Democratic. Rather than just trying to get along, Romney battled the Democrats, issuing more than 800 vetoes, the vast majority of which were overridden. Many of those vetoes were not politically popular. For example, he vetoed an increase in the minimum wage, explaining “there’s no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.”

writeblock on April 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM

I’d like to see the amount of revenue that would come in from that 48% being forced to pay something and a reduction in the “Earned Income Tax Credit” compared to the revenue that comes in from the Buffett Tax. It seems like 48% of the taxpaying population would make more of an impact.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:38 PM

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I know you don’t dislike Gov. Palin but is she the candidate you wish you could vote for?

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Writeblock,

So, who is paying the ever increasing deficit RomneyCare has created?

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I know you don’t dislike Gov. Palin but is she the candidate you wish you could vote for?

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:40 PM

One of them, most definitely. Allen West. Michelle Bachmann. Jim DeMint. Scott Walker. Bobby Jindal. Quite a few more.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I’d like to see the amount of revenue that would come in from that 48% being forced to pay something and a reduction in the “Earned Income Tax Credit” compared to the revenue that comes in from the Buffett Tax. It seems like 48% of the taxpaying population would make more of an impact.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:38 PM

And you won;t see me disagreeing with any of that. I stated here, a number of times by now, that “equal share:” should mean exactly that, equal share. Flat tax across the board, you make more you pay more. But everyone pays.

As for your question to MadCon, I am a big fan of Palin, but would agree that this is not her time. Yet. She is a bigger force on the sidelines for now.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:42 PM

So why not take the chance on him winning?

Bitter Clinger on April 17, 2012 at 4:49 PM

For me, this is not about “winning” an election. That is not my goal. My goal is to return our Constitutional Republic (NOT Democracy) to its conservative roots. It is about returning to the Rule of Law, where the Constitution means exactly what it says in plain English.

When the Constitution states that the Federal Government is restricted in controlling property except for D.C., administrative buildings, military forts/magazines/bases, post roads, ports, and other needful BUILDINGS. It doesn’t mean that the Feds can lock up our national resources and prevent its responsible use!

When the 2nd Amendment states that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, it doesn’t mean that laws can be passed to limit magazine size, types of ammo, “assault rifles”, prevent concealed/open carry! When the Constitution talks about “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” when the militia is defined in State Constitutions as its CITIZENS, we don’t ignore it!

When the Constitution says that Congress can pass laws collecting taxes, we don’t ignore that the Constitution also restricts what those taxes can be SPENT ON! That’s right, Social Security and Medicare taxes are Constitutional, but NOT its spending on citizen retirement/healthcare!

Do you think Mitt understands and supports this viewpoint?

WHY ARE RINOS SO CONTENT WITH THE SCRAPS FROM PROGRESSIVE TABLES THAT THEY’VE MISSED OUT ON THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS FOR SOMETHING MORE!

The hearts of Patriots everywhere BURN with the desire for liberty, to attempt to succeed! American used to be great because liberty, and the freedom to attempt great things, and succeed were ENCOURAGED! …not looked down upon, and taxed as an embarrassment!

Convince me to vote for Mitt! Please! Show me that he intends to do more than shave a few percents off the tax rates. Show me that he yearns to do more than just tweak the dials, but actually overhaul the hulking, belching, failing government machinery with a slim, trim government that stays out of my way. Show me that he intends to eliminate VAST SWATHS of bureaucracy.

My patriot heart YEARNS for when America was great! When we weren’t afraid to do great things!

But all I hear here is… Mitt isn’t as bad as Obama… take a chance… or else… Really?

dominigan on April 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM

dominigan on April 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM

WELL SAID.

Thank you.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Convince me to vote for Mitt! Please! Show me that he intends to do more than shave a few percents off the tax rates. Show me that he yearns to do more than just tweak the dials, but actually overhaul the hulking, belching, failing government machinery with a slim, trim government that stays out of my way. Show me that he intends to eliminate VAST SWATHS of bureaucracy.

My patriot heart YEARNS for when America was great! When we weren’t afraid to do great things!

But all I hear here is… Mitt isn’t as bad as Obama… take a chance… or else… Really?

dominigan on April 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM

In-damned-deed.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:49 PM

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Everyone needs to pay something. Or at least get less. I don’t know how Gov. Palin will ever get her reputation back. What a complete hatchet job the media did on her.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:42 PM

All great folks.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:51 PM

writeblock on April 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Tweaking the dials. How many times did you use a derivative of the word “easing” to describe his “accomplishments”?

dominigan on April 17, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Everyone needs to pay something. Or at least get less. I don’t know how Gov. Palin will ever get her reputation back. What a complete hatchet job the media did on her.

Cindy Munford on April 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM

As has every RINO since then.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Tweaking the dials. How many times did you use a derivative of the word “easing” to describe his “accomplishments”?

dominigan on April 17, 2012 at 8:54 PM

That set of talking points did not come with “to be continued…”. That’s where arguments of Romney sheeple end, they are clueless when asked for specifics and excuses come up. Nothing but excuses…

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Anyway, folks, I am off to grilling duty, t-bones calling…

Have a good night.

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:59 PM

One of them, most definitely. Allen West. Michelle Bachmann. Jim DeMint. Scott Walker. Bobby Jindal. Quite a few more.

MadisonConservative on April 17, 2012 at 8:42 PM

…Michelle Bachmann for House Speaker..(not for President, for me at least.) I think West needs a little more time too.

KOOLAID2 on April 17, 2012 at 9:00 PM

The fact remains you are between a rock and a hard place. You can’t refuse to vote for Romney and not help Obama–which injures the country you supposedly love. There’s really no choice for you other than to hold your nose and vote for Romney in November.

writeblock on April 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM

This again.

Not voting for Romney helps Obama. But then, not voting for Obama helps Romney, yes? So it balances out.

And to some of us, EITHER choice will injure the country we love. Others have predicted that even if Romney wins AND does better as president than he did as governor, things will continue to deteriorate, he and the GOP will continue to sit around and do little about it, and he’ll be replaced in 2016 by another Democrat — and those Democrats don’t seem to be getting any better as the years go by either.

Aitch748 on April 17, 2012 at 9:01 PM

So, who is paying the ever increasing deficit RomneyCare has created?

riddick on April 17, 2012 at 8:40 PM

So he’s not perfect. None of his supporters claim he is. But he governed primarily as a fiscal conservative, he blocked the unions, he vetoed more than 800 bills, including one for embryonic stem cell research, he consolidated agencies and fired deadwood bureaucrats and he fought to lower taxes. He’s endorsed by major pro-life organizations. He’s a solid family man. Why is he getting treated as if he were Obama’s soul-mate?

writeblock on April 17, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4