Open thread: Romney’s victory speech and Gingrich’s last stand; Update: Romney wins Delaware

posted at 7:21 pm on April 24, 2012 by Allahpundit

Ed’s right, of course, that tonight is an anticlimax but there are still two good reasons to turn on cable news at 8 p.m. One is the Romney coronation. Excerpts from his prepared remarks:

Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?

Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?

If the answer were “yes” to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements…and rightly so. But because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions. That kind of campaign may have worked at another place and in a different time. But not here and not now. It’s still about the economy …and we’re not stupid.

Two is the fittingly surreal saga of whether Newt will signal an end to his campaign. Last night he told NBC, “I think we need to take a deep look at what we are doing,” and hinted that he might be done if he loses badly in Delaware, where he’s been campaigning lately. A source elaborated on that for NRO this morning, insisting that he’d have to finish at least a close second to Romney there to keep going. Then came the tamp-down from “campaign insiders,” who told Byron York that Newt won’t quit tonight no matter what happens.

Team Gingrich sees three possible scenarios. The first scenario is that Gingrich wins Delaware. “That’s a signal to conservatives and Tea Partiers and grassroots activists that there still is a conservative they can send to Tampa,” says the Gingrich aide. “And it sends the message to Romney that it’s not time to turn to the general election.” No one knows whether the winning scenario is at all plausible; there has been no polling of Delaware, with its tiny Republican population and 17 delegates.

Next comes the middle-road scenario in which Gingrich narrowly loses Delaware. “That’s where we do well enough that it demonstrates there’s a chink in Romney’s armor,” the aide says. When asked what “well enough” means, the aide answered, “Within a couple of points — a close loss.”

The worst-case scenario is that Gingrich loses big in Delaware.

If they lose, says the source, they’ll “reassess” things but Gingrich will continue on to North Carolina to try to pick up another southern state. I really hope he pulls it off tonight in Delaware, just because I’m itching to watch a victory speech from bizarroland in which Newt boldly proclaims “game on” in the primary while literally everyone else in the GOP is pivoting to Obama. It’ll be an instant classic. A little taste from his chat with reporters this afternoon: “I think it’s a very substantial mistake for Governor Romney to be pretending these primaries aren’t occurring, and for him to be having ‘a general-election speech’ tonight in New Hampshire. He’s the front-runner, but he’s not the nominee, and I think it’s a little insulting to the people of these states.” C’mon, Dover tea partiers: If you made it to the polls for Christine O’Donnell, you can make it there to guarantee one last Gingrichian stemwinder. And even if not, I think Newt will probably find enough encouragement in PPP’s poll showing him within 10 of Romney in Texas to plow ahead anyway. My hunch is that he wants one more big win, one more right hook to Romney’s jaw, before succumbing.

Here’s his new video message aimed squarely at Santorum voters in North Carolina. Speaking of which, how much longer until Team Sweater Vest climbs aboard Romney’s “Anybody But Obama” Express? According to CNN, a meeting’s likely to happen early next month to discuss the role “social conservatives, tea party activists and blue collar Republicans will play in the campaign and in the Romney administration.”

Update: NBC just called Delaware for Romney. With 62 percent reporting, Mitt leads Gingrich there 56/30. Your move, Newt.


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 6 7 8 9

The Senate is allowing him to do that. A GOP-controlled congress will keep Obumbles occupied with corruption investigations. I look forward to watching all the roaches scurry for the shadows. A Mitt admin will just sweep all that under the rug, and I think the nation needs to see it.

alwaysfiredup on April 24, 2012 at 11:54 PM

The only way that Mittens could entice me to vote for him is if he spent every day from now to November swearing that his administration would do a full investigation of Obama’s fundraising in 2008-12. And release the findings to the public. I want to know what countries put him in office. Besides the Saudis, of course.

Buckshot Bill on April 24, 2012 at 11:59 PM

The playing field is leveled as long as politicians stay out of it. That’s the only thing we need to work for – to keep politicians out of it.

joana on April 24, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Some of the “playing fields”, like the field of frivolous lawsuits and the field of financial derivatives, are entirely created by legal fictions and have long since been rigged by Washington to favor the interest groups that pay them big bribes to keep operating. There is a vast, vast gap between those big companies that actually produce things (generally hated by liberals) and those big companies that make money “doing deals” on Wall Street (symbiotic with liberals like Obamaromney).

I don’t know all the details to say whether what Romney did at Bain was a complete legal fiction or only a partial one. But it’s a far cry from actually doing something of value. I long for the day when I can vote for a Presidential candidate who ran an oil company or a computer manufacturer… or even a chain of pizza parlors.

It’s a common misconception that conservatism is pro-”business”. We should say conservatism is pro-work.

joe_doufu on April 24, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Well, I sure hope Rothfus can clear the bar by two or more points. The problem I foresee is with those old Dem lifers, people like my 88 year old mother-in-law. God bless her, but trying to talk to her about voting for someone other than a Democrat is like trying to talk to the proverbial brick wall. I know a lot of older people like her — very set in their ways and not trying to acknowledge that what they knew as the Democrat party in their younger years bears absolutely no resemblance to the party today.

PatriotGal2257 on April 24, 2012 at 11:32 PM

I’ve got an uncle like that, 80 some years old, WW II Army Air Corp vet, South Pacific.. To him, FDR was a GOD.. and don’t you dare tell him he’s wrong.. to him, democrats fart rainbows and republicans are satanic minions set on boiling working class people..

He picked me up from the airport when I was home on leave during Reagan’s first term, and all I got on the way home was a speech on how I was betraying poor working folks by A. being a republican, and B. Letting the family down.. well, whose family?.. my father was a Nixon voter.. I was a conservative since I saw Reagan’s speech taking McGovern’s campaign platform apart piece by piece..

A lot of the Depression era folks are so programmed by the Hollywood Newsreels, of democrats being utter saints.. you cannot reason with a mind set in concrete.. the sorry thing is, he rants on about cultural changes he hates.. He is very much a cultural conservative, but he would cut his wrists before voting R.

Sad..

mark81150 on April 25, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Yes, Million Dollar Mitt had a lot to fear from anonymous folks on message boards.

The MittBots are as tiresome as the ObamaBots, and just as deluded.

alwaysfiredup on April 24, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Says the anonymous poster on a political blog. I never said Romney was afraid–you must be projecting your own fears…And the envy of a man who earned his millions is, well, childish. But then you knew that…you are the one who is tiresome. We wouldnt have to spent time handing you hankies if you werent so dense. But I have another box handy…I think you will need more before the night is over…

lovingmyUSA on April 25, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Without the idea of populism the war of 1776 would never had occurred. the idea that all people are created equal is the foundation of this country.

unseen on April 24, 2012 at 11:58 PM

You are wasting your time arguing with someone who actually thinks that the Nazi’s invented fascism.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:02 AM

In that case do you really think that RINO McConnell is going to stand up to Obama?

LevinFan on April 24, 2012 at 11:59 PM

I have no more faith in Romney than McConnell. They’re cut from the same cloth.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:03 AM

But I have another box handy…I think you will need more before the night is over…

lovingmyUSA on April 25, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Oh good. I’m laughing so hard at the spin I think the corners are indeed a tad moist.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:05 AM

mark81150 on April 25, 2012 at 12:00 AM

A fair number of that era’s democrats were more conservative than this era’s republicans. My grandfather was much like your uncle. He was also fairly racist, so it was a bit fun watching him try to talk up Obama, while obviously not really liking that his party was nominating a “less-than-white”. He never called him black.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:02 AM

yeap. the saying those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it keeps popping up in my mind for some reason…

unseen on April 25, 2012 at 12:07 AM

The playing field is leveled as long as politicians stay out of it. That’s the only thing we need to work for – to keep politicians out of it.

joana on April 24, 2012 at 11:44 PM

the big guys work to keep the government *in* the market. it benefits them for the government to create restrictions on competition and they can usually get their own guys in the regulator seats. Who do you think Countrywide’s “Friends of Angelo” low-rate loan program was for?

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:08 AM

It’s a common misconception that conservatism is pro-”business”. We should say conservatism is pro-work.

joe_doufu on April 24, 2012 at 11:59 PM

The only people with that misconception are those on the left.

No, we shouldn’t say that either. Conservatism shouldn’t be pro-work.

It should be pro-free market.

If you don’t know what private equity is, inform yourself instead of settling for parroting marxist crap.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:08 AM

No one, at the moment. Mitt has zero interest in the little guy, he doesnt donate to campaigns. A flat tax would be a start. Getting rid of payroll taxes and corporate income tax would be another. Reining in executive-branch overregulation would be a third.

alwaysfiredup on April 24, 2012 at 11:57 PM

So you’re just pissed at everyone at this point? Join the club!

I also don’t agree with the “Mitt hates the little guy” crap. It’s a stupid talking point, and frankly a little lazy.

ccrosby on April 25, 2012 at 12:08 AM

I have no more faith in Romney than McConnell. They’re cut from the same cloth.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Or Boehner. The deficit will continue to grow at record levels, no matter who wins control of the WH or Senate or House. In their zeal to kill the TEA Party, the Rino Establishment has seriously hurt the Country’s chances to right itself and get back on the track to fiscal solvency. Oh, well. Maybe 2016 will be better.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:09 AM

the big guys work to keep the government *in* the market. it benefits them for the government to create restrictions on competition and they can usually get their own guys in the regulator seats. Who do you think Countrywide’s “Friends of Angelo” low-rate loan program was for?

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:08 AM

You do seem to have serious reading comprehension problems.

The playing field is leveled as long as politicians stay out of it. That’s the only thing we need to work for – to keep politicians out of it.

Keeping politicians out of it implies keeping everything politicians create to apply their power – from regulations to regulators – out of it.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:10 AM

I also don’t agree with the “Mitt hates the little guy” crap. It’s a stupid talking point, and frankly a little lazy.

ccrosby on April 25, 2012 at 12:08 AM

care to come up with an example of a pro-little guy policy he has backed?

Dems have been all about the merger of big government and big business for the past four years. Republicans had a chance to become the party of the small businessperson and take back the conservative democrat vote. Instead they chose Mitt, big business personified. Wasted opportunity.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Wonderful night!

Was at a baseball game with my son but I was checking this thread, the trolls and the pretend “conservatives” really have stunk it up in here.

Saw a posting early in the thread by someone belly-aching about Romney only taking the blue states and “can’t take a red state” and then went on to pontificate about how bad that is.

On the contrary, the candidate that wins only red states is useless in a general election. You know the red states are already the ones that are going to vote for you. Those aren’t the votes you need. Your base is going to vote with you anyway through thick and thin because they are your base. (Yeah, I know there are some fringe elements that call themselves the “base” but they are basically fickle fringe players who don’t really amount to much, I am talking about base Republicans).

What you NEED are the votes in the blue states. Those are the ones you need to swing red. You WANT the candidate who is able to win in the bluer areas if you want to win in November. The guy who takes Mississippi in the primary is still going to take Mississippi in the general, that is a no-brainer.

What you want is the guy who can pull in crossover votes. Romney will be much harder to defeat than McCain was. In fact, I think Romney is going to win this election and I believe he will be the best President many people have ever experienced in their adult lives if they didn’t live through Reagan.

crosspatch on April 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Keeping politicians out of it implies keeping everything politicians create to apply their power – from regulations to regulators – out of it.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:10 AM

in other words smaller government that takes in less money from taxes.

unseen on April 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM

We need the White House.

LevinFan on April 24, 2012 at 11:59 PM

BTW, happy you’ve kept your wits about you – Romney wasn’t my first choice either. Glad to have you in the fight. This guy’s gotta go.

The Count on April 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM

The playing field is leveled as long as politicians stay out of it. That’s the only thing we need to work for – to keep politicians out of it.

Keeping politicians out of it implies keeping everything politicians create to apply their power – from regulations to regulators – out of it.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:10 AM

…and you are describing populism, hon. It’s not my fault you have a malfunctioning dictionary. It helps the little guy to keep politicians out of the market. that’s not what we have right now. That’s not what we would have under Romney.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Or Boehner. The deficit will continue to grow at record levels, no matter who wins control of the WH or Senate or House. In their zeal to kill the TEA Party, the Rino Establishment has seriously hurt the Country’s chances to right itself and get back on the track to fiscal solvency. Oh, well. Maybe 2016 will be better.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:09 AM

That’s the main thing you and your “I’m not voting friends” are missing.

We have RINO leadership in the House AND Senate. Focusing only on those areas isn’t good enough. Anyone think Boehner and McConnell have the guts to fight Obama?? They’ll roll over just like they always do.

Obama needs to be defeated. Wake up!!

LevinFan on April 25, 2012 at 12:13 AM

I believe he will be the best President many people have ever experienced in their adult lives if they didn’t live through Reagan.

crosspatch on April 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Nope, nothing at all like an ObamaBot.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:13 AM

What you want is the guy who can pull in crossover votes. Romney will be much harder to defeat than McCain was. In fact, I think Romney is going to win this election and I believe he will be the best President many people have ever experienced in their adult lives if they didn’t live through Reagan.

crosspatch on April 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Seriously, when the election is over with, whatever the outcome, will you please admit that you are being paid to post here? I’ve seen love notes with less sap.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:16 AM

BTW, happy you’ve kept your wits about you – Romney wasn’t my first choice either. Glad to have you in the fight. This guy’s gotta go.

The Count on April 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM

It’s called perspective. Many good conservatives on here need to wake up.

2016 will be too late.

We will be stuck with Obamacare for life

We could have 1 or 2 more radical judges.

The primary is over. THis election could be close. It’s not enough to only vote for Romney, write letters to the editor, make phone calls, do lit drops, donate…etc.

Put on your nose plugs and get to work!

LevinFan on April 25, 2012 at 12:16 AM

I just wanted a conservative. Santorum and Newt hurt eachother allowing Romney to win.

LevinFan on April 24, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Had Gingrich dropped out, Santorum likely would have won Michigan and Ohio, two turning points in the primaries.

Newt kept claiming that his goal was to stop Romney. By not dropping out, Newt ensured that Romney would be the candidate. Either ego or not having enough material for his book on the election kept him in the race.

Newt’s business empire is in shambles, his campaign is $4 million in debt and he is viewed as a joke. He was the biggest loser in the primaries.

bw222 on April 25, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Maybe 2016 will be better.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Perk up. We should be able to win our senate seat in 2012 and maybe even the governor’s mansion. (Vote Bill Randles, he’s awesome!) In 2014 we’ll get a 2/3 majority in the house and Palin will win a Senate seat. There’s much to look forward to.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:17 AM

I also don’t agree with the “Mitt hates the little guy” crap. It’s a stupid talking point, and frankly a little lazy.

ccrosby on April 25, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Nah, he doesn’t hate them. As he said, there are programs for them.

I believe he will be the best President many people have ever experienced in their adult lives if they didn’t live through Reagan.

crosspatch on April 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Nope, nothing at all like an ObamaBot.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:13 AM

LOL, yeah. Pretty soon they’re going to have their own little salute.

Be patient. Five months or so from now this is going to be hilarious to watch.

ddrintn on April 25, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Had Gingrich dropped out, Santorum likely would have won Michigan and Ohio, two turning points in the primaries.

bw222 on April 25, 2012 at 12:16 AM

False. The people backing Newt would have gone largely for Mitt. (I would have gone for Paul, but the way our caucuses worked it matters not at all.) Santorum was not universally liked by Gingrich people any more than Gingrich was universally liked by Santorum people.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Keeping politicians out of it implies keeping everything politicians create to apply their power – from regulations to regulators – out of it.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:10 AM

in other words smaller government that takes in less money from taxes.

unseen on April 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Right now the taxes as a % of the GDP are at a historical low since the II World War. Do you feel the government’s size is at any sort of low, let alone a historical one?

Taxes are misleading. They don’t tax but they borrow. It ends up being the same because taxes are just being postponed. Cf. Santorum, Rick or Bush, George W or Obama, Barack.

Spending is where we need to focus. The true level of taxation is measured by the level of spending, not by tax rates.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:21 AM

False. The people backing Newt would have gone largely for Mitt. (I would have gone for Paul, but the way our caucuses worked it matters not at all.) Santorum was not universally liked by Gingrich people any more than Gingrich was universally liked by Santorum people.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Wrong. Many Anyone But ROmney people supported Newt.

ALot of votes would’ve went to Santorum, probably enough to win in the close MI and OH primaries.

So thanks alot Newt!! Hope it was worth it!

LevinFan on April 25, 2012 at 12:22 AM

LevinFan on April 25, 2012 at 12:22 AM

I thought you said you wanted a conservative. Now you seem to be regretting that Santorum didn’t win. What gives? Btw, did you read that headline about the Medicare expansion?

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Spending is where we need to focus. The true level of taxation is measured by the level of spending, not by tax rates.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Then winning the WH is basically irrelevant if cutting spending is your real priority (and it should be). We need to focus on winning the Senate, holding the House, and getting rid of McConnell and Boehner. They can’t fight to save our lives.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:23 AM

mark81150 on April 25, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Agreed. My mother-in-law’s political views make my husband nuts, but they’re not nearly as bad as his father’s, who was very much like your uncle and grandfather — as long as a politician had a ‘D’ after his or her name, well, that was all he needed to hear. They could do no wrong.

I remember my hubby once pointing out to his dad that Bill Clinton really did commit perjury and obstruction of justice, and he (his dad) wouldn’t even acknowledge it. He just sat there fuming, not because of Clinton’s crimes, but because his son had the audacity to bring it up.

My parents (loved JFK) and grandparents (loved FDR) have long since passed, but I imagine that they would be very disturbed at what the Dems have turned into. My mom especially; she was at least very receptive to new information and would have given much thought to the increasingly liberal trends and might have adjusted her political views accordingly.

PatriotGal2257 on April 25, 2012 at 12:24 AM

There are a lot of people here who are confusing the Populist Party of William Jennings Bryan (who was a socialist) with the true meaning of the word populist.

Populist: politics or political ideology based on the perceived interests of ordinary people, as opposed to those of a privileged elite

Many conservatives, such as Sarah Palin and Rand Paul, have populist leanings.

bw222 on April 25, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Wrong. Many Anyone But ROmney people supported Newt.

LevinFan on April 25, 2012 at 12:22 AM

And just as many hated Santorum’s obsession with social issues and would never have supported him. Go back and look at polls; Newt’s supporters split nearly 50/50.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:26 AM

LOL Over at Ron Paul forum they are excited that Newt is going to drop out. They are saying it is now a two man race.

Man, I wonder sometimes what it would be like to be that delusional and insane.

The Notorious G.O.P on April 25, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Spending is where we need to focus. The true level of taxation is measured by the level of spending, not by tax rates.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:21 AM

spending is fine at the macro level, but it doesn’t impact the thousands of small businesses who are struggling under the unequal weight of regulatory compliance (cheaper per dollar of revenue for big guys than little guys), tax compliance (same deal) and payroll taxes (the self-employed pay double what the employed pay and the tax no longer bears any relation to payout on SS and Medicare). These things have got to go.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Many conservatives, such as Sarah Palin and Rand Paul, have populist leanings.

bw222 on April 25, 2012 at 12:25 AM</blockquote

many socialists in South America are populists too, Chavez rings a bell, Evo Morales, etc, etc…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Spending is where we need to focus. The true level of taxation is measured by the level of spending, not by tax rates.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Then winning the WH is basically irrelevant if cutting spending is your real priority (and it should be). We need to focus on winning the Senate, holding the House, and getting rid of McConnell and Boehner. They can’t fight to save our lives.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:23 AM

It’s not irrelevant, unless you’re dumb enough to believe we can get a 2/3s majority to override Obama’s veto – or that Obama won’t veto any meaningful spending cuts.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:31 AM

PatriotGal2257 on April 25, 2012 at 12:24 AM

My grandfather’s democrats-are-always-perfect views have shaped my own in many ways. I’ve never wanted to become so hopelessly emotionally attached to a political party that I couldn’t detach myself when the party moved away from my true ideals.

As I’ve gotten older and more politically active I have watched the party leadership and nominees move farther and farther away from my own views and priorities.

I see that in Romney today. And I’m a conservative at heart, not a die-hard-Republican-til-the-end-of-time like my grandfather was as a democrat. That, as much as anything, is why I can’t vote for Romney in November. He just isn’t what I want to support with my vote, and as much as I hate Obama, I’m not willing to let the lesser evil argument trap me in the same position as my grandfather, forced to support a party that long ago stopped reflecting my own beliefs.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:32 AM

unless you’re dumb enough to believe we can get a 2/3s majority to override Obama’s veto

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Wow. Talk about eeyores. Give Obubmbles 2 more years and the 2/3 maj will be in the bag. Dems had it frequently in the 30 years before Newt’s Contract with America, no reason that can’t be reversed.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:33 AM

spending is fine at the macro level, but it doesn’t impact the thousands of small businesses who are struggling under the unequal weight of regulatory compliance (cheaper per dollar of revenue for big guys than little guys), tax compliance (same deal) and payroll taxes (the self-employed pay double what the employed pay and the tax no longer bears any relation to payout on SS and Medicare). These things have got to go.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Yes, the taxation structure is important but it’s secondary to the level of taxation (again, measured by level of spending, I don’t care a bit about current government revenues).

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:34 AM

I believe he will be the best President many people have ever experienced in their adult lives if they didn’t live through Reagan.

crosspatch on April 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM

I sincerely hope you are right, but we’ll see. Not a Romney fan but I will vote for him because “he’s not Obama.”

With the competition being Ford, Carter, Clinton, the Bushes and Obama, it may not be that hard to come in second to Reagan.

bw222 on April 25, 2012 at 12:34 AM

It’s not irrelevant, unless you’re dumb enough to believe we can get a 2/3s majority to override Obama’s veto – or that Obama won’t veto any meaningful spending cuts.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Pass the bill, if Obama vetoes it, just re-introduce it and pass it again. And repeat till Obama finally stops vetoing the bill or leaves office. Nothing is stopping the House from doing that right now, besides a total lack of fortitude in the GOP Leadership. Winning is as much about perseverance as anything else, and compromising just for the sake of passing something is the same as losing anyway.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:36 AM

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:34 AM

No, the structure is far more important than the level of taxation. That’s what determines if it is benefiting the people at the top or borne by everyone equally. And it must be nice not to have to worry about how to pay your taxes every year. Let me guess: you work for a salary?

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:36 AM

I thought you said you wanted a conservative. Now you seem to be regretting that Santorum didn’t win. What gives? Btw, did you read that headline about the Medicare expansion?

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:23 AM

I don’t want to get into it….. pointless now the primary is over.

Don’t try to rub it in.

I think Romney is the worst possible nominee other than RuPaul.

However Obama needs to be defeated!! I will do whatever I can to support someone I dislike in Romney to beat Maobama!

LevinFan on April 25, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Wow. Talk about eeyores. Give Obubmbles 2 more years and the 2/3 maj will be in the bag. Dems had it frequently in the 30 years before Newt’s Contract with America, no reason that can’t be reversed.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Here’s the new Moby argument: “If Obama wins, we’ll get a 2/3s majority! Please, let’s vote for Obama!”.

If Obama wins, we’ll be discussing socialized health-care the next day and we’ll spend four years praying for Justice Scalia’s health.

Anyway, the Dems 2/3s majorities were in a different era – when parties weren’t divided by ideological lines. There were too many conservative Democrats in the House for the 2/3s majority to be operative.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Pass the bill, if Obama vetoes it, just re-introduce it and pass it again. And repeat till Obama finally stops vetoing the bill or leaves office. Nothing is stopping the House from doing that right now, besides a total lack of fortitude in the GOP Leadership. Winning is as much about perseverance as anything else, and compromising just for the sake of passing something is the same as losing anyway.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Huh, how old are you?

Are you even aware the Dems have a Senate majority and that’s why Obama doesn’t need to care about vetoing anything?

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:39 AM

And repeat till Obama finally stops vetoing the bill or leaves office.
Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:36 AM

huh, exercise in futility much? if you keep passing and reintroducing and he keeps veto-ing it (why would he stop veto-ing it???), where’s the gain? it’s an exercise in stupidity + futility…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 12:39 AM

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Who’s voting for Obumbles? Certainly not me. But Mitt has already lost, over, kaput. I’m way past that and into contingency planning.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Are you even aware the Dems have a Senate majority and that’s why Obama doesn’t need to care about vetoing anything?

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:39 AM

And are you even aware we’ve got a great chance to take the Senate this year, which was the whole point of this discussion?

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:40 AM

No, the structure is far more important than the level of taxation. That’s what determines if it is benefiting the people at the top or borne by everyone equally. And it must be nice not to have to worry about how to pay your taxes every year. Let me guess: you work for a salary?

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Nonsense. There is no perfect structure – some are less distortinary than others, some have a smaller impact on wealth creation, but you can always argue for a different structure.

If the level is reduced in half or something, nobody will really care much about the structure because the distortions caused would be quite small.

Additionally, the best way to minimize the structural distortions is to have a low level so that a solution like a flat consumption tax can be viable without provoking compliance problems.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:44 AM

However Obama needs to be defeated!! I will do whatever I can to support someone I dislike in Romney to beat Maobama!

LevinFan on April 25, 2012 at 12:36 AM

The two greatest dangers if Obama is elected (even if the GOP controls Congress): executive orders and regulation.

Imagine what Obama will attempt, knowing he doesn’t have to answer to the voters again.

bw222 on April 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Are you even aware the Dems have a Senate majority and that’s why Obama doesn’t need to care about vetoing anything?

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:39 AM

And are you even aware we’ve got a great chance to take the Senate this year, which was the whole point of this discussion?

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Nope, you’re either trolling or illiterate.

Read his post. He was saying the reason we aren’t forcing Obama to veto the same bill over and over (which would be quite ridiculous, he must think every voter is an over-excited teenager like himself who enjoys that type of political gameship – actually most people hate it) is because the House learship lacks courage or something.

Ipsis verbis: Nothing is stopping the House from doing that right now, besides a total lack of fortitude in the GOP Leadership.

So yeah, good try. Once again, you embarrassed yourself.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:48 AM

The two greatest dangers if Obama is elected (even if the GOP controls Congress): executive orders and regulation.

Imagine what Obama will attempt, knowing he doesn’t have to answer to the voters again.

bw222 on April 25, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Very good point. Scary though. People need to realize this and re-educate themselves as to who Obama really is and how dangerous he really is!

LevinFan on April 25, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Are you even aware the Dems have a Senate majority and that’s why Obama doesn’t need to care about vetoing anything?

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:39 AM

We were talking about the irrelevance of the WH and postulating on what a GOP controlled House and SENATE would do. Even without a super-majority, there is still much that can be done. Obama can spend 4 years vetoing bills if he wants. And the GOP can keep passing them. Prove to voters, your base, and the world at large that you have the balls to stand for something, and eventually the democrats will get worried that their veto-everything stance is actually hurting them with voters and you start to see democrats finally compromising and going across the aisle to vote with the Reps.

It just takes a serious show of strength and solidarity. Of leadership, of which there is none right now.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:51 AM

And are you even aware we’ve got a great chance to take the Senate this year, which was the whole point of this discussion?

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Ipsis verbis: Nothing is stopping the House from doing that right now, besides a total lack of fortitude in the GOP Leadership.

ouch…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 12:52 AM

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:39 AM

The senate can be acquired. Welfare reform was passed repeatedly until Clinton finally signed it, whereupon it worked magnificently.

As you’re not at all unintelligent, could you perhaps leave off the invective in expressing your disagreements?

wolfsDad on April 25, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Additionally, the best way to minimize the structural distortions is to have a low level so that a solution like a flat consumption tax can be viable without provoking compliance problems.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:44 AM

You’ve put the cart before the horse again. The reduced cost of compliance is the whole point. The optimal absolute level of tax is a) unknowable and b) will change over time.

Salaried, yes? Never had to come up with thousands of dollars on April 15?

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Greene County, PA.

Attorney General, Democratic Primary = 3,379 votes
POTUS, Democratic Primary = 2,145 votes

More than one third of the Democrats skipped Obama’s on the ballot.

Do you think they just all missed it?

This is very significant because Obama can’t afford to not win these folks if he also loses the wealthy white suburbs around Philly and Pitt.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:57 AM

It has to pass the Senate before Obama can veto it. The House passed the Ryan Budget. Reid wouldn’t allow it to come to the floor. Obama doesn’t have anything to veto.

Voter from WA State on April 25, 2012 at 12:56 AM

It is possible to put pressure on red-state Dems in an election year. It is also possible to actually use the filibuster and other parliamentary maneuvers. The Senate is not interested in anything other than the November elections, hasn’t been in a while.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:58 AM

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Obama has no opponent. That always depresses the vote.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:59 AM

It has to pass the Senate before Obama can veto it. The House passed the Ryan Budget. Reid wouldn’t allow it to come to the floor. Obama doesn’t have anything to veto.

Voter from WA State on April 25, 2012 at 12:56 AM

I am well aware of that. I was saying that the House can keep passing Bills now, regardless of what the democrats do to obstruct their passage in the Senate. Boehner’s problem is that he wants to pass bills that will become law, and that isn’t the purpose of the House. The House should pass bills that address the country’s problems, never mind what the democrats do to stop them elsewhere. Never compromise your priorities just to get a bill signed into law. You haven’t won anything, you’ve just proven to the democrats that you are weak and if they obstruct you, you will cave to their demands. The House doesn’t have to pass bills that the Senate will also pass. Stand for something now, and force the democrats to cave for once. Even if it takes 4 years.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Nothing is stopping the House from doing that right now, besides a total lack of fortitude in the GOP Leadership.

Yeah, we were ” postulating on what a GOP controlled House and SENATE would do”, right. Of course we were.

Those are just “TruCon” talking points that dont’ really mean anything. The House passed the Ryan budget bill – actually running a fairly high political risk for it because the bill isn’t that popular.

Problem is you guys were taught to scream those talking points (“establishment herp derp RINOS herp derp they won’t pass anything herp derp”) and that’s all you can do: babble uninformed nonsense.

Here, try to cultivate yourself a bit:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704495004576265013724755094.html
http://news.yahoo.com/house-passes-paul-ryan-budget-reform-medicare-212219729–abc-news-politics.html

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:04 AM

joana on April 25, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Obama has no opponent. That always depresses the vote.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 12:59 AM

You have no clue what you’re talking about. How was the vote depressed when the same people voted on other races, many of them that with only a candidate running unopposed as well? They went to the voting booth and skipped Obama’s name – unless you want to make the case they did it because he has low name recognition.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:06 AM

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:04 AM

I never said the House didn’t pass anything. You must be getting me confused with Gunlock Bill or someone else. I said that the GOP House shouldn’t compromise its values just to get a bill through congress and signed by Obama.

P.S. What is a “TruCon”? Is it related to “Truman”, is this just your way of making an derogatory term for Missouri conservatives like myself? Shame on you.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:09 AM

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Actually, I’ve worked in elections, and I do know what I’m talking about. A lot of voters don’t bother to vote in uncontested races.

Maybe you need a drink. You seem a little uptight.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:10 AM

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Be careful, you’re from MO too. She’ll be calling you a “TruCon” too.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:11 AM

And I’m a conservative at heart, not a die-hard-Republican-til-the-end-of-time like my grandfather was as a democrat. That, as much as anything, is why I can’t vote for Romney in November. He just isn’t what I want to support with my vote, and as much as I hate Obama, I’m not willing to let the lesser evil argument trap me in the same position as my grandfather, forced to support a party that long ago stopped reflecting my own beliefs.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 12:32 AM

That’s bull hockey. Sensible people know that in our system you don’t get everything you want. You either settle for less than the perfect or you get nothing at all.

writeblock on April 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:09 AM

I made this awesome custom shirt for Palin 2012 with “The Buck Stops Here” as a slogan and a moose going into the white house. Ahh, good times.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Many people already have. Namecalling doesn’t bother me, just shows they can’t figure out a good comeback.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:13 AM

I made this awesome custom shirt for Palin 2012 with “The Buck Stops Here” as a slogan and a moose going into the white house. Ahh, good times.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM

With a Truman crossover quote! I’d have bought one.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Sensible people know that in our system you don’t get everything you want. You either settle for less than the perfect or you get nothing at all.

writeblock on April 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM

So at what point does “less than perfect” become “everything I detest”? Because somewhere in that continuum it makes sense to stop supporting and start opposing. I have a quite rational wish not to serve as a punching bag for the RNC for the next four years.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:16 AM

That’s bull hockey. Sensible people know that in our system you don’t get everything you want. You either settle for less than the perfect or you get nothing at all.

writeblock on April 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM

And you completely missed my point. I am not attached at the hip to the Republican party, if they go the way of big government socialism, I’m not stuck pretending that I support it just cause the Democrats are technically even farther left.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:16 AM

So at what point does “less than perfect” become “everything I detest”? Because somewhere in that continuum it makes sense to stop supporting and start opposing. I have a quite rational wish not to serve as a punching bag for the RNC for the next four years.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Giving his name, I’m thinking he might be of the Lib4Life variety.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Actually, I’ve worked in elections, and I do know what I’m talking about. A lot of voters don’t bother to vote in uncontested races.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:10 AM

You probably need medical help.

What part of “there were other uncontested races on the ballot” and those folks got way more votes than Obama you didn’t understand?

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:18 AM

I have a quite rational wish not to serve as a punching bag for the RNC for the next four years.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:16 AM

then what are you doing wasting your time posting here…go start your own party with the other genius from MO or whatever state you’re from…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 1:20 AM

With a Truman crossover quote! I’d have bought one.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:14 AM

She signed the original. While I was wearing it. :)

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:21 AM

You probably need medical help.

What part of “there were other uncontested races on the ballot” and those folks got way more votes than Obama you didn’t understand?

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:18 AM

You are trying to infer a lot of information from a pretty weak premise. I know from my own experience voting that I vote for some races, and not others, and the reasons can be very up in the air. If I don’t anyone on the ballot, for say the local judge seat, I probably won’t fill that part of the ballot out at all. It says nothing about my future support of that particular judge.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:22 AM

She signed the original. While I was wearing it. :)

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:21 AM

awww, how cute..how old are you, again???…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 1:23 AM

How was the vote depressed when the same people voted on other races, many of them that with only a candidate running unopposed as well? They went to the voting booth and skipped Obama’s name – unless you want to make the case they did it because he has low name recognition.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Oh, is that what the ungrammatical jumble was supposed to mean? Do you happen to have an example of an uncontested race that drew a bunch more votes than Obama? ‘Cuz I didn’t see it in your prior posts.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:24 AM

awww, how cute..how old are you, again???…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 1:23 AM

you’re an ex-Frenchie who lives in the crappiest state in the union. It’s no wonder your bitter.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:25 AM

then what are you doing wasting your time posting here…go start your own party with the other genius from MO or whatever state you’re from…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 1:20 AM

You too seem to have a bias against Missourians; it is very strange. Is it the lack of distinctive regional accent? Or just a hatred of sweet bar-b-que sauces?

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:26 AM

I never said the House didn’t pass anything. You must be getting me confused with Gunlock Bill or someone else. I said that the GOP House shouldn’t compromise its values just to get a bill through congress and signed by Obama.

P.S. What is a “TruCon”? Is it related to “Truman”, is this just your way of making an derogatory term for Missouri conservatives like myself? Shame on you.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:09 AM

What bill exactly are you talking about? What exactly did they compromise?

They passed the Ryan Budget. Easily the most fiscally conservative and politically risky bill the House passed in generations. Yet folks like you keep talking like it’s the Summer of ’09 because that’s your thing.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:27 AM

awww, how cute..how old are you, again???…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 1:23 AM

I know, it is strange to see someone show actually excitement about a candidate. You’ll never have to worry about that happening while Romney is the nominee.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:28 AM

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:27 AM

What does that have to do with your bias against Missourians?

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:29 AM

You are trying to infer a lot of information from a pretty weak premise. I know from my own experience voting that I vote for some races, and not others, and the reasons can be very up in the air. If I don’t anyone on the ballot, for say the local judge seat, I probably won’t fill that part of the ballot out at all. It says nothing about my future support of that particular judge.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:22 AM

My premise isn’t weak at all.

All over SWPA, Obama does worse than, say, the Democrat candidates for auditor general and state treasurers, also running unopposed. Or any other races. And it wasn’t because people don’t know his name – which is generally the reason why they skip uncontested races for low level positions.

Let’s face it: working-class whites in the Rust Belt – this is the prototypical bitter-clinger territory – hate his guts more than ever.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:30 AM

you’re an ex-Frenchie who lives in the crappiest state in the union. It’s no wonder your bitter.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:25 AM

hahaha, says vous with envy from some shitehole in MO :-)…been once in Springfield, ugliest place on the face of earth, architecture-wise and all, you compare that with california??? you must indeed need medication…true, coming from Europe, I have higher standards when it comes to aesthetics, but still….and btw, am not an ex-Frenchie, I’m dual citizen, you dolt…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 1:30 AM

What does that have to do with your bias against Missourians?

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Tss tss. Grow up already.

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Sigh. The executive underperformed on the primary ballot. The point can be valid without being predictive. Populism has no inherent connection to socialism/collectivism, though they can certainly be concomitant. Regulatory structure is of greater concern to small business that corporations, while government spending levels are similtaneously a significant consideration.

There are no villians on the thread.

wolfsDad on April 25, 2012 at 1:31 AM

joana on April 25, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Why are you looking in SWPA anyway? That’s low-population red state territory. Wouldn’t the point be more persuasive if near Pittsburg or Phillie?

Green County: Obama 2100 votes m/l
Eugene DePasquale (only Dem for Treasurer): 2600 votes m/l

So 500 people in a conservative part of the state didn’t vote Obama. The earth’s not moving.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM

hahaha, says vous with envy from some shitehole in MO :-)…been once in Springfield, ugliest place on the face of earth, architecture-wise and all, you compare that with california??? you must indeed need medication…true, coming from Europe, I have higher standards when it comes to aesthetics, but still….and btw, am not an ex-Frenchie, I’m dual citizen, you dolt…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Good lord son! What in god’s name were you doing in Springfield?! I wouldn’t send my worst cousin to Springfield! Missouri is way better than that. Did you at least stop in Branson? Its a bit expensive, but pretty. I’m on the other side of the State, all hillfolk, flatlanders, and methlabs. Nice place to live, all things considering.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM

I know, it is strange to see someone show actually excitement about a candidate. You’ll never have to worry about that happening while Romney is the nominee.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:28 AM

true, I have to give you that :)…last time I’ve seen similar enthusiasm was when my wife’s niece got an autograph from that little creature, justin bieber, yep, on her T-shirt :-)…but then she’s what, yeah, 12…

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM

vous with envy from some shitehole in MO :-)

jimver on April 25, 2012 at 1:30 AM

I live in the Paris of the Plains, TYVM. Springfield is not as lovely, glad to be far from it.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:36 AM

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Its pointless arguing with her, three days ago she was arguing with me that enthusiasm isn’t important in winning elections (as Romney has none), and now she’s arguing that Obama can’t win because the Dems are energized.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:37 AM

S/B: Dems aren’t energized.

Buckshot Bill on April 25, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9