You're Stuck With ROMNEY!!!!

[Zander]

Yes, we are so screwed. It looks like the best candidate, the one most likely to send Obama on a permanent vacation is going to be nominated. Oh dear, what ever will we do?

 

[Liability]

Yes, we are so screwed. It looks like the best candidate, the one most likely to send Obama on a permanent vacation is going to be nominated. Oh dear, what ever will we do?

Gov. Romney may be in the lead now. But that doesn't mean he will end up there.

And even if he does, on his worst day, he's still vastly superior to President Obama.

Of course, what REALLY matters is: can we dump enough liberals in the House and Senate to overturn all the CRAP which the Obama Administration and the Reid Senate and the Pelousy contingent of the House crammed down our collective throats?

It is NOT just the White House we need.

 

[Full-Auto]

well, if you really see no difference between romney and obama....

Political affiliation R or D

Both big government. One talks about being conservative though. As he distances himself from his record.

If not much will change why invest money in all new personal?

only money you'd have to spend is for the gasoline to drive to the polls.

Oh I would be going to the polls, Just not voting for the continued big government personal.

 

[Zander]

Yes, we are so screwed. It looks like the best candidate, the one most likely to send Obama on a permanent vacation is going to be nominated. Oh dear, what ever will we do?

Gov. Romney may be in the lead now. But that doesn't mean he will end up there.

And even if he does, on his worst day, he's still vastly superior to President Obama.

Of course, what REALLY matters is: can we dump enough liberals in the House and Senate to overturn all the CRAP which the Obama Administration and the Reid Senate and the Pelousy contingent of the House crammed down our collective throats?

It is NOT just the White House we need.

I agree. But the POTUS can issue an executive order ending Obamacare immediately. He can also veto legislation, appoint judges, and get the country back on track with strong leadership. I'd love to see the Republicans take the Senate, but I'll settle for a Republican in the White House.

 

[Full-Auto]

Yes, we are so screwed. It looks like the best candidate, the one most likely to send Obama on a permanent vacation is going to be nominated. Oh dear, what ever will we do?

Gov. Romney may be in the lead now. But that doesn't mean he will end up there.

And even if he does, on his worst day, he's still vastly superior to President Obama.

Of course, what REALLY matters is: can we dump enough liberals in the House and Senate to overturn all the CRAP which the Obama Administration and the Reid Senate and the Pelousy contingent of the House crammed down our collective throats?

It is NOT just the White House we need.

I agree. But the POTUS can issue an executive order ending Obamacare immediately. He can also veto legislation, appoint judges, and get the country back on track with strong leadership. I'd love to see the Republicans take the Senate, but I'll settle for a Republican in the White House.

What change do you really expect to see from Romney?

Myself, I see some reduction in regulation, I also see another government agency of some sort. With the continued expansion of federal power.

 

[clevergirl]

I like Romney; Cain; Santorum: Gingrich; (not necessarily in that order) and after them...


ANYONE BUT OBAMA 2012!

 

[JoeB131]

I get really tired of people using the JFK Comparison... I took it apart in another thread, but here goes again..

I really think we're a less religiously bigoted nation now than we were in 1960, and I truly don't think that Romney's Mormonism will hurt him. However, even if it does, I remain completely convinced that he is the best hope the Republicans have of unseating Obama.

It's not an issue of being "bigoted". It's an issue of whether a certain belief system is so bizarre and weird that you have to wonder about people who follow it. We'd never elect a Satanist or a Scientologist or a Jehovah's Witness or a Hare Krishna or a Moonie. And no one would call us a "bigot" for taking that into account.

Does Mormonism fall into that area of strangeness where it disqualifies? To my mind, it does.

I don't buy that. Most people are by nature conservative.

"Conservative" is a word with multiple meanings. There are meanings of the word according to which most people are conservative, but the "conservative" movement in the U.S. doesn't supply one of those meanings.

Actually, I think it does. I think most Americans go to church, support family values, disdain welfare. Nobody takes his paycheck and starts handing it out to stew bums on skid row. They take care of their own. But they have no problem with a government that does this... becasue they've been guilted into it.

Most people are pro-choice on abortion. Most people approve of marriage equality. Gays in the military has majority support. Most people are in favor of raising taxes on the rich to help balance the budget. Most people approve of labor unions and are against denying collective-bargaining rights. A single-payer health care system has majority approval. Most Americans are against teaching creationism in schools. Most Americans want more regulation of the banking industry.

I can supply poll data on all of these, and will on request.

You can, and I can provide counter polls. The fact is, union membership is declining and union busting governors are immensely popular. Anti-gay marriage amendments win every time they are put on the ballot. (the only poll that counts, really.) If Single Payer was so popular, why have the GOP made such hay out of running against ObamaCare?

On all of these issues, either Romney is on the right side, or Obama is equally on the wrong one, or he can probably fudge it. On most of them, every other GOP candidate will be hurt by his/her stances on these issues compared to Obama.

You see, I don't buy that. Not for a second. And if the ony way Republicans can win is by surrendering on the important issues to them, they might as well not bother.

Your biggest fear about Romney is that he can win? You mean you would worry if he became president, I take it.

Yes, the thought of the Mormon Cult running my country horrifies me.

Don't assume that Obama is highly vulnerable because of the economy. If he's perceived as doing everything he can to turn things around, and the Republicans are perceived as standing in the way of him doing it, the economy is going to hurt them, not him. And that's very likely to be the case. If you think it's automatic that a president will be turned out of office when he presides over a sluggish economy, I give you an obvious counter-example:

United States presidential election, 1936 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know, I took this one apart in another thread, too. First, FDR got unemployment down from 25% to 16%. Second, the Republicans had lost 75% of their seats in Congress between 1930 and 1936. They had effectively ceased to function as an oppossition party. Third, Alf Landon was a terrible candidate.

But Romney has the credibility to position himself apart from the Republicans in Congress, for exactly the reasons that you don't like him. He really is the most electable candidate in the GOP field right now, the only one with any chance at all of beating Obama.

Actually, I don't like him because he's a Mormon. I'm actually pretty centrist in most of my views.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Mitt Romney is every bit as conservative as Barack Obama, every bit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

who's gonna beat him? Perry? no. Cain? no. who then, but Romney?

Cain can beat Obama, unquestionably.

 

[JWBooth]

Mitt Romney is every bit as conservative as Barack Obama, every bit.

 

[JWBooth]

Yep. looks like the Teavangelists are going to have to swallow hard and pull that lever for a RINO

It all depends upon who gets that magic number of 270 electoral votes. As of this post, it looks like Perry or Romney. Romney expands the map. Perry energizes the base. Though all of the candidates are almost perfect for the job, I think that is how it will shake out. Romney or Perry.

Romney does not expand the map. He shrinks the map. He will not get Southern votes. He will not get Southern Baptist votes. Period. He will not get extremist teabagger votes. They will stay home, disgusted.

Doesn't score well with the small government/libertarian GOPers either.

 

[Dragon]

It's not an issue of being "bigoted". It's an issue of whether a certain belief system is so bizarre and weird that you have to wonder about people who follow it. We'd never elect a Satanist or a Scientologist or a Jehovah's Witness or a Hare Krishna or a Moonie. And no one would call us a "bigot" for taking that into account.

I would. I would also call us bigoted for refusing to elect a Mormon, if that was the only reason not to vote for him. I would vote for Obama over Romney myself, but that has nothing to do with Romney's religion. And I say that even though I have a very low opinion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and its teachings -- because I know that people can belong to a religion without acting on its most questionable tenets in any way.

Honestly, if I felt differently than that, I could never vote for a Christian, and where would that leave me?

I think most Americans go to church, support family values, disdain welfare.

There again, as with "conservative," we have words with multiple meaning.

Most Americans don't attend church regularly, just as a point of fact: Church Attendance In America Is Declining

As for the others, if you ask someone if they support "family values" most likely they'll say yes -- hell, if you ask me that, I'll say yes. It's sort of a mom and apple pie phrase. But if you ask people if they support abortion rights, or marriage equality, or the other political/social issues that are part of what the right uses "family values" as a code for, you get a different picture.

As for welfare, most people who have any other means of supporting themselves "disdain" public assistance in that they prefer not to be on it. But that's not the same thing as wanting it cut back or eliminated.

You can, and I can provide counter polls.

I seriously doubt that, and to the extent you can, they will be misleading polls such as the ones you implied above.

The fact is, union membership is declining and union busting governors are immensely popular.

Union membership is in decline but not because workers don't want to organize:

File:Illegal Union Firing 1952 - 2007.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And no, union-busting governors are NOT popular:

Opinions polls show sharp divisions on Walker - JSOnline

Anti-gay marriage amendments win every time they are put on the ballot.

That will change shortly. The majority in support of marriage equality is a recent shift. It was a large minority, but a minority, until a few months ago.

If Single Payer was so popular, why have the GOP made such hay out of running against ObamaCare?

For two reasons. One, the ACA is NOT single-payer, and two, socialized medicine, while very popular overall, is unpopular with the GOP base (except for Medicare, which in an interesting bit of doublethink is not commonly recognized by that base as socialized medicine, even though it obviously is).

Most Americans either approve of the ACA or want something more liberal.

And if the ony way Republicans can win is by surrendering on the important issues to them, they might as well not bother.

Up to them. Of course, this has happened before. The Republican Party had to shift its ground substantially in the 1930s and 1940s. At that time, they chose (eventually) victory over purity, and returned to power under Dwight Eisenhower -- who would have been considered abominable by the GOP of the 1920s, and also by today's GOP.

I expect the same thing to happen this go-round, but if instead they insist on purity over victory, then they will wither and die out as the demographic that supports them ages and perishes. The Democrats will hive, and today's conserva-Dems will form a new conservative party (in the dictionary sense of that word); we won't end up with a one-party state.

But again, I expect the Republicans to have more political sense than that -- in due course.

You know, I took this one apart in another thread, too. First, FDR got unemployment down from 25% to 16%. Second, the Republicans had lost 75% of their seats in Congress between 1930 and 1936. They had effectively ceased to function as an oppossition party. Third, Alf Landon was a terrible candidate.

Obama has also seen improvement in the economy, for the same reason that Roosevelt did, without curing its ills, ditto. The Congressional balance may mean something or it may not. And it's not unlikely that the GOP will nominate a terrible candidate -- certainly there are plenty of them running.

The most likely outcome is Obama's reelection. It's not a certainty, though. He's admittedly not in as strong a position as Roosevelt was in 1936, but his position is MUCH stronger than Hoover's was in 1932 -- which is more the same point int he cycle as 2012, while 1936 was further into the crisis. I remain convinced that Mitt Romney is the only candidate running who has any chance to unseat him. That's because all of the other candidates are, quite simply, right-wing loonie-tunes who will alienate the majority of voters.

Actually, I don't like him because he's a Mormon. I'm actually pretty centrist in most of my views.

Well, if most voters feel the way you do about that, then I must revise my stated opinion above and say that Obama's reelection is guaranteed, because the only GOP candidate that could possibly beat him, based on issues, cannot beat him based on his religion and the prejudice it provokes.

I'm not convinced of that, though.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What happened to the 'Power of the Tea Party"?



I called it long ago: you wingnuts will settle for what the establishment gives you, no matter what you say.

"No more McCains!" you said.

"No more RINOs!" you said.

"A REAL conservative this time!" you said.

SUCKERS!

Really? Are you sure about that?

Seems like Tea Party favorite Herman Cain is beating romney in the polls now

cain up 20 points on romeny - Bing

Could he be president? Herman Cain in 20 point lead over Mitt Romney… and he’s even tied with Obama « InvestmentWatch – The best source of news, analysis, and intelligent discussion

Poll: Cain surges, opens up 20-point lead on Romney - Yahoo! News

Herman Cain Leads Mitt Romney by 20 Points: Will the Tortoise or Hare Win? - International Business Times

Cain Jumps 20 Points Ahead of Romney in Poll - Mary Kate Cary (usnews.com)

Poll: Cain surges, opens up 20-point lead on Romney - Yahoo! News

 

[BDBoop]

Then there's this;

Romney a Flip-Flop? Used to Be More Liberal Than Ted Kennedy - The Daily Beast

Which features this;

Jon Stewart on Mitt Romney's Biggest Problem | Lauren Lipsay | Rolling Stone

 

[Rinata]

Needless to say, I am not a Romney fan. But I just read something that really pissed me off.

Pastor backing Perry: Romney not a Christian

The Texas pastor who introduced Gov. Rick Perry at Friday's Values Voters Summit in Washington told reporters that he does not believe that former Massachusetts Mitt Romney is a Christian, and called Romney's Mormon faith a "cult."

"Well, Rick Perry's a Christian. He's an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ," Dr. Robert Jeffress told NBC News. "Mitt Romney's a good moral person but he's not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. It has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity. So it's the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian."

First Read - Pastor backing Perry: Romney not a Christian

Who cares??? Romney is running for president of the United States, not the Pope!!! Well, wait a minute. Those hypocritical evangelicals don't think Catholics are Christians either!!! Bad example.

When did this crap start??? As far as I'm concerned, these born again Christians and evangelicals are mostly hypocrites. How many times I've seen on the news some pastor in the south bump off his wife so he can be with his mistress?? I cannot stand their holier than thou, I'm better than you attitude. Bunch of phonies!!

(I'm gonna hate myself in the morning), I agree.

I'd rep you, but I am out of rep.

You know what you can do with your rep. Why do you and your idiot pals always threaten with that??? Who gives a damn??? Are you that childish that you sit around and count how many reps you all have??? Like 1st graders counting their gold stars on their homework?? Grow up, Cleo!!! Nobody cares about your reps. Least of all me.

 

[Rinata]

This upcoming election reminds me of what the dems went through in 2004. If we'd have had a better candidate we might have been able to beat Bush. But Kerry just wasn't strong enough. Same thing now. I don't know if any of the current candidates can beat Obama.

 

[Rinata]

Third-party effort aims to transform 2012 race

Americans Elect hopes to open nominating process to voters disenchanted with two-party impasse


A group called Americans Elect aims to put its candidate on the ballot in 2012, but it’s a movement apparently without any economic, foreign policy or social agenda and with no charismatic contenders so far.

Americans Elect’s sole principle is that the two-party system is flawed and that voters ought to “have an open competition that is untethered from the Republican or Democratic parties,” as Elliot Ackerman, the group’s chief operating officer put it.

He said the group’s nominating process is “not tethered to the ideology of the far right or the far left, so we can try to get past some of the gridlock that exists right now in Washington, D.C.”

Third-party effort aims to transform 2012 race - politics - msnbc.com

What are they trying to accomplish at this late date??? Sounds like it will mostly benefit Republicans.

 

[Liability]

This upcoming election reminds me of what the dems went through in 2004. If we'd have had a better candidate we might have been able to beat Bush. But Kerry just wasn't strong enough. Same thing now. I don't know if any of the current candidates can beat Obama.

I don't know that any opponent can't beat President Obama. He sucks as President, is widely recognized to be the failure he is and he is RIPE for the picking.

If the Dims had a brain in their collective skull at the moment, they could pick almost any other national Democrat Parody leader* and do better than seeking the re-election of the Zero.

__________________
* although, admittedly, the Vice President is electorally challenged given his nearly terminal case of athlete's tongue. And Pelousy and Reid would be doomed from jump street, too. Probably the only three folks who couldn't beat President Obama if the Dims had a mind to correct this significant problem they own.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This upcoming election reminds me of what the dems went through in 2004. If we'd have had a better candidate we might have been able to beat Bush. But Kerry just wasn't strong enough. Same thing now. I don't know if any of the current candidates can beat Obama.

I don't know that any opponent can't beat President Obama. He sucks as President, is widely recognized to be the failure he is and he is RIPE for the picking.

If the Dims had a brain in their collective skull at the moment, they could pick almost any other national Democrat Parody leader* and do better than seeking the re-election of the Zero.

__________________
* although, admittedly, the Vice President is electorally challenged given his nearly terminal case of athlete's tongue. And Pelousy and Reid would be doomed from jump street, too. Probably the only three folks who couldn't beat President Obama if the Dims had a mind to correct this significant problem they own.

I'm just glad Herman Cain is finally polling even and in some polls ahead of Obama.

 

[Trajan]

I'll take either one at this point over the rambling wreck running the show now.