October 12, 2011

"The White House knows that if Republican voter enthusiasm is suppressed, then The One has a chance."

Rush Limbaugh, working a theory yesterday:
And they rightly conclude that Romney might depress or suppress Republican enthusiasm. Now, the GOP establishment, their thinking is that Romney is electable in a general...
I'm skeptical! This premise has Obama's people and establishment Republicans on the same page!
... but the base, the Republican base is not jazzed. Turnout is obviously gonna be crucial....
His point — which he's been making elsewhere on the program — is that Romney isn't a good conservative, and the GOP establishment, which lacks confidence in real conservatism, is pushing Romney. The establishment thinks that's the way to win, but in fact, according to Limbaugh, it's staunch Reaganesque conservatism that wins for Republicans. You need to jazz up the base and pump up turnout. Oddly, in this monologue, the Obama White House understands what the GOP establishment doesn't — that Romney won't inspire enthusiasm.

Earlier in the show, Rush noted that the White House chose the day of the debate to dump records showing — I'm quoting trom the Michael Isikoff's story — that "senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as 'Obamacare.'" Rush saw that move — correctly, I'd say — as evidence that the White House wants to stop Romney.

So is Romney the strongest candidate for the Republicans or not? If the GOP establishment wants him and the White House doesn't, that is overwhelming evidence that Romney is the strongest. But that conclusion conflicts with Rush's dearest belief: that we need a strong conservative. So Rush was desperate yesterday.

And he was just getting the information that Chris Christie was going to endorse Romney. He shifted to that topic (right after the material quoted above):
Now, just as an aside, why would Governor Christie spend a year going back and forth publicly, privately, on and on about whether he would run for president or not; only a week after saying no, run up to Romney's side? What's changed? I mean if in the past year you're thinking you might run, part of that is that whoever else is running isn't the answer. If Romney is the obvious superior candidate, why go through the rigmarole of considering whether to run yourself for a whole year? But you know the story's gonna -- it's already the headline on Drudge, "Christie to Endorse Romney" -- that's gonna be a bigger story than what comes out of the debate tonight. Christie's endorsement is already the story. No matter what happens in the debate tonight, when it's all over, no matter who does what, the story, "Christie Endorses Romney." 
We heard the desperation yesterday, as Rush Limbaugh struggled to fit his template onto the news that poured out over him. Occam's Razor says Mitt Romney is the strongest candidate for the Republicans, but Rush says nooooooo!

ADDED: Later in the show, Rush assures us that if Romney is the candidate, he "is gonna have my full support because of what we're up against." He's simply trying to take advantage of the opportunity to get a more conservative candidate. And — let's face it — he's got a radio show to do. If Romney has it locked up now, there's a lot less for Rush to rant about 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, for the next 6 months.

163 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

I don't know who the strongest candidate for the Republicans is. It might be Romney or Cain. It's probably not Perry.

But I suspect Rush's main point is that Obama is toast anyway, so why should Republicans settle for the "electable" candidate? They should put up their ideal POTUS, not someone they think can squeak past a nearly already defeated incumbent.

The Pagan Temple said...

I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it. If Romney gets the nomination, sure, I'll vote for him. Well, I guess I will. Depends on how I feel. But more than likely, I'll drag myself down to the polls and stand in line. Well, if there is a line. And depending on how long it is. But that's the extent of it. I won't make phone calls, talk to my friends, neighbors, family, and associates and damn sure not to strangers to encourage them to vote for him. You won't see me out knocking on doors, going house to house, neighborhood to neighborhood. No one has to worry about me asking their permission to put up yard signs or offering them bumper stickers. And as for donating money, well, that would be a great big old hell no.

Now if that's what the Republican Party wants, then bless their pointy little heads, they must be better people than me, because I'll probably be doing my blogging during the election about such important topics as the season finale of season five of Sons of Anarchy.

Rumpletweezer said...

Damn, Pagan. Perfect.

Cato Renasci said...

I just don't trust Romney - he's an establishment quasi-liberal. With a strongly conservative Republican majority in both houses of Congress, he'd do less harm than Obama, but that's the best that can be said for him.

I agree with Pagan Temple - sure, I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney, but no money and no crawing over broken glass to get others to the polls.

J said...

Rush-blo realizes that a do-gooder like Mittens might not bode well for GOP business interests--like, oil. He's probably a Tex Perry guy (lets sure hope not Frankencain).

Actuallly Senor NOTA (None Of The Above) looks to be in the lead of the repiglicans

traditionalguy said...

Suppression of the Tea Party momentum is the only angle Obama has besides stuffing the ballot boxes in the absentee ballots opening.

Why would GOP insiders risk that?

My theory remains that Jeb Bush is starting his run to save the USA in 2016. If the Congress is GOP, they reason that Obama is restrained anyway. And the flow of cash through the Congress is all the GOP establishment covets anyway.

Romney is being Romney and has complete confidence in his destiny. But the MSM is sharpening their swords to report on a great controversy about all things strange in Mormonism to suppress the evangelical vote.

The answer for Rush is that there is now, when the Dems are picking the GOP nominee, and there is then, when the Dems are saying look what you did.

Cain remains the wild card in play that neither establishment can handle.

prairie wind said...

Count me in with Pagan Temple.

Mick said...

R and D are 2 sides of the same coin, meant to divide and conquer. Rush Limbaugh is the controlled opposition that serves as an exhaust vent for frustration. He will never speak of the real Constitutional issue, which is Oabma's ineligibility (not natural born since he was born British, of a British subject father). He serves to protect Obama, as evidenced by championing of Rubio-- another ineligible NON natural born Citizen (he is even worse, since NEITHER of his parents were US Citizens when Marco was born).

At least Obama had 1 US Citizen parent, but unfortunately he was born 172 years late to be grandfathered in by A2S1C5 ("or a CITIZEN, at the time...").

The "law prof" also protects Obama, by not educating the public, so I will do it for her.

Idiot "Conservatives" can make everything Obama has signed or appointed a nullity, if they would just use the Kryptonite-- Obama was British at birth. They prefer to Whine and complain, while the Usurper and his Central Banker handlers use Cloward Piven strategy to dimantal America w/ chaos--- it's not an accident, and they are not "stupid".

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-scholarship-conclusively-establish-the-supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v-happersett-as-standing-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/

Mick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mick said...

Cain-- Former Federal Reserve President= CRIMINAL.

Romney--- Big government advocate= DEMOCRAT

Obama-- not natural born Citizen (born British, of a British subject father)= USURPER

ALL are part of the matrix. ALL are controlled by the Central Bankers= Forked either way.

Mark said...

Romney is Nixon without the flop-sweat. He would probably win, but if he does then nothing really changes except the general level of competence in the Executive Branch.

Which, considering how corrupted the Executive Branch has become, is definitely a mixed blessing.

james conrad said...

Romney is easily the best candidate running for the nomination and my view is, he's proved that during the debates. What's the problem again, the base is not jazzed? F*** the base, look what being jazzed about a candidate has given the country, Obama. At this point the country needs someone who is a competent manager and Romney is certainly that.

Lyle said...

Will it really matter if Romney is the President and the Congress is all Republican?

What the heck does "Reaganesque" mean anyway? It's like the Republican party's own little Princess fairytale... they're always dreaming about that perfect Prince charming.

Makes me want to throw up.

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freeman Hunt said...

My enthusiasm lies with beating Obama in the general election. Whoever runs against him and will not, by malevolence or incompetence, further destroy the economy has my vote.

J said...

you mean count yourself in with yourself, "prairie win" s-pup.,a ka Byro LDS-wicca trash? Yr pathetic scrawling's obvious whatever-name you use.

AJ Lynch said...

Yeah right and if ten red states fall into the sea, The One has a chance.

J said...

But...Romney's a TARP guy and wants to save Soc-sec. MissFH. Like the ...mormon Obama.

Anyway Mittsters (or which ever GOPer) will lose to BO-Co in the big blue states--no matter how many soccermommies fall for Mitt's hair-do.

Roger J. said...

the 24 hour news folks need a non-stop horse race to report and pundit on. The race for the GOP nomination fills that bill. Too much can happen in the next three months to start spinning consipiracy theories.

Might even be a democrat challenger to Mr Obama--although their bench is awfully weak

Shouting Thomas said...

Rush is right.

The political system is totally non-responsive and rigged.

The Tea Party is kicking at the locked door from one side, and the OWS is kicking from the other side.

And, the entrenched incumbents are hunkered down behind their barricades.

Another election with no real change, no real alternatives.

traditionalguy said...

Mick...Herman Cain is a brave man with off the chart leadership skills.

What makes you the judge that Herman Cain is a Criminal?

I have been the Chairman of the Board on a Community Bank. Our stockholders sold out in 2005, just in time.

Real estate loans were then considered the safest ones to make because you could not steal the land collateral. But crashing of the world economy has caught all people by surprise. Only maybe 1% who invested in Swiss Gold Francs have been in safe investments since 2008.

Everything Banks do is audited monthly and more regulated for safety than the Airlines. Banks are not run by criminals.

A hint of bad loans and the loan officers are banned for life by the FDIC which has total power over the Banking industry.

Herman Cain wants that same treatment re-applied today as it was before the 2008 Chernobyl-like meltdown.

When the Titanic sinks the answer is to fix the travel system's flaws. It is not to forbid passenger ship travel.

So repeal the Dodd-Frank Bank shut down law, and then the banks will flourish and do what they do best again.

phx said...

Whoever runs against him and will not, by malevolence or incompetence, further destroy the economy has my vote.

This seems like the moderate version of one of the GOPs bigger problems - a key part of the electorate doesn't see the GOP as being for something, they see them as ultimately negative, just against (and not just against Obama).

Some Republicans say it doesn't matter. Obama's toast anyway. Those guys are another problem for the GOP. They take GOP strength for granted, they underestimate their enemy.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Herman Cain's only bug might actually be a feature: he has no political experience. He has great managerial depth and a very fine ear for the sounds in the real world outside Washington. He will make a fine President, superior by many degrees of magnitude to our current "leader." He has served on the Federal Reserve and criticism of that role magnifies the ignorance of the critic. We have produced an entire generation ignorant of the basics of economics. Not to mention common sense.

The Pagan Temple said...

J-

Hate to break it to you, but I'm nobody but myself here or anywhere else. As of the first twenty comments on this post, I count three people that agree with me, which makes a total of four, or one-fifth who are sending out a fair warning to the GOP that, if you insist on anointing a candidate we do not want, you cannot count on anything more than tepid support at best.

If that translates into the general consensus of the GOP base, which I count myself part of whatever your problems with "wicca trash" might be (and by the way I'm not Wiccan, not that its any of your business) then the GOP is in serious trouble.

So stuff all that in your Magic Mormon Underwear and whack off to it, sonny boy.

Michael said...

phx: The GOP has been and, I hope, will always be against stupid ideas and the belief that we do not have enough laws. They do a poor job of articulating the vast benefits that attach to this position.

Cedarford said...

Limbaugh is wrong. The enthusiasm will be from people that go to the polls because they have been waiting for 3 years at that point to replace a failed President. Anyone who says they are so disappointed that Joe the Plumber or the Goddess Palin didn't get the nomination so they are staying home and don't care if Obama gets another 4 and 2-3 more SCOTUS picks is lying..or is a lying Obama supporter.

The same thing happened with Carter. According to articles and polls - people wanted to get rid of that loser in the worst way, but weren't sure Reagan was safe enough.
Carter and Reagan ran neck and neck until the last week. What won the election in 1980 was not a lot of religious right fundies holding Reagan catfish fries at the local Megachurch - there was no Saint Reagan in people's minds back then - it was the nation-wide detestation of Jimmy Carter.

Reagan carried every northern state except Minnesota and Rhode Island. Well outside Limpbaughs "Base".
Even with that Reagan still had low poll numbers through 1982, and didn't reach "Saint Reagan of Conservatism" status until 1984.

Rick67 said...

If not Romney then who?

I mean Rush is correct, but what the heck is the alternative? Perry? Cain? We're a little short on Reagans these days.

Firehand said...

Let's see... the Stupid Party establishment has been trying to suppress or control the tea party almost from day 1, does NOT like people demanding "You claim to represent me, so DO IT!", and they really like Romney because he's one of them; and Limbaugh pointing this out is desperation?

He's right, that there are a lot of people who'll vote for Romney in the election if he's the opposition to Obama, but not in the primaries; and there'll be damn little enthusiasm for Romney because- in too many ways- he's like Obama. And those people figure he'll either push for a national version of Romneycare, or push for People's Republic of MA-type gun laws, or both. Among other things.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

Mitt's father, George, was no RINO. He was a veritable liberal Republican, along the lines of Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits.

If what they say about acorns and trees is apt, then we have reason to be concerned.

I really worry Mitt is pulling a Nixon. Campaigning like a solid conservative during the primary, then once he gets the nomination he swings hard to the left and governs from the perverted "center" -- perverted because it has been dragged so far to the left over the years that he'll govern to the left of JFK. If I'm right, then the only hope we have is to elect a super strong conservative House and Senate to keep him in check.

BTW, I think Obama is pulling a reverse Nixon. Obama is running like a populist liberal during the Republican primaries, then once the Republicans have chosen a nominee, then Obama shifts back to the perverted "center" during the general election campaign.

When November 2012 rolls around, they're both going to look like centrists. And if they're both centrists, why change horses in the middle of the race?

Big Mike said...

I'm skeptical! This premise has Obama's people and establishment Republicans on the same page!

Why is that so hard to imagine? Perry has some good ideas -- loser pays in civil lawsuits (take that you stinking ambulance chasers), caps on malpractice awards -- that have already been a plus for his state. But probably neither he nor Cain are ready to be President. Romney is ready, but I'm not at all enthusiastic about Obamacare light. Pagan Temple is dead on the mark. Christie, when he says that Romneycare and Obamacare are night and day different, is quite simply wrong.

DADvocate said...

Republican turn out will be strong with any of the current potential candidates. Obama must go.

X said...

hate to agree with C4 but people will crawl across broken glass or run over baton wielding black panthers or happily hippie punch their way through a forest of emaciated vegans to vote against the biggest loser this country has ever seen. America hates fuckups like Obama and Carter.

bagoh20 said...

Cain and Romney are both qualified for this office unlike the current President. I'm fine with either one, but Cain is excitingly nonpolitical. His track record and instincts are exceptional, and we need someone exceptional right now. I'd take a man like that even if he looked like the Elephant Man, and sounded like Peewee Herman, but he doesn't. He's comfortable, confident and clear.

What matters is what he will do. Cain's history informs us that he would succeed by making whatever he runs successful. That's what he does.

As a bonus, I don't think it's possible to overstate how important it would be to Black America to see someone like Cain as president. Obama was exactly the wrong message. Someone who got pushed through as a "clean and articulate" Black man, rather than on the result of his work.

Herman Cain is a role model for us all in a way that Obama doesn't even understand or believe in.

phx said...

We're a little short on Reagans these days.

Yeah that's the problem. Reagan sold the electorate on Morning in America - not just an anti-Carter message. So far none of the GOP candidates have articulated something to be for and be proud of the way Reagan made them feel. And it's not a simple problem like resurrecting Reagan's old vision. To my knowledge he wasn't just retreading old ideas. Or if he was he did it in an original way.

"I stand for being against Obama" just sounds like a losing slogan to my ear.

The Pagan Temple said...

Rick67-

Palin was my first choice, but since that's a dead issue, what does that leave us?

I know this probably won't be a popular suggestion here, but I strongly urge you to give Gingrich a second look. I know he's made some serious errors over the last two or three years, but I am leaning strongly towards outright supporting him. He's got the goods no other candidate has, and that includes Romney and Perry. All he lacks is executive experience, but he more than makes up for it, in my view.

He just needs to solidly address the issue of AGCC in a way that states that he in no way supports Cap And Trade or anything else remotely similar to it, backtrack from his previous support of RINOs like Dede Scozzafava, and he's got my vote.

For one thing, he can start by not being bashful about calling the so-called "Clinton economy" what it really was-the Gingrich economy. It stands in marked contrast to what we have now.

Mick said...

traditionalguy said...
"Mick...Herman Cain is a brave man with off the chart leadership skills.

What makes you the judge that Herman Cain is a Criminal?"



Because the Federal Reserve is an illegal and Unconstitutional Cabal of PRIVATE bankers that create our money from thin air, and charge We the People interest. Growth of Debt equals growth of money. Debt enslaves We the people. Continual growth is the ideology of the Cancer Cell, which kills it's host, and Cain has taken part in the Fed's "growth" mantra. Ergo, Cain is a Criminal that has engaged in generational theft by inflation, and rising debt--- got it?

cubanbob said...

The only question is will the republicans win a 49 state landslide? As for Limbaugh, its a bit premature to assume the anointment of Mitt. Cedarford is right. Everyone and their uncle who isn't a communist or dependent on a government check is going to turn out and vote for the republican candidate.

@Pagan, trying to have a discourse with the cretin J is like trying to teach a pig to sing. it can't be done. He/she/it is some nut communist living in an insane asylum or mom's basement. Nasty and stupid and best ignored.

Mick said...

bagoh20 said...
"Cain and Romney are both qualified for this office unlike the current President. I'm fine with either one, but Cain is excitingly nonpolitical".


Nonsense. As President of the KC Federal Reserve Bank, Cain was firmly w/in the Matrix, committing generational theft on behalf of the Central Bankers.

Romney is an advocate of Big Government.

Obama is simply Ineligible.

ricpic said...

The Republican establishment - in commom with all establishments - never favors a clear passionate messenger over a safe obfuscater. Probably because the aim is to trick the peasantry not to rally it.

Fred4Pres said...

I agree with Rush.

I am hoping for Cain. But if we end up with Romney, well then I will fully support Romney. I predict Romney/Cain.

I cannot see Perry, or Newt, or any of the other candidates doing it.

America's Politico said...

As I said before, my sources at K-street and at WH have same desire. GOP nominates Perry.

The WH is scared of Romney, because he can scrap through. WH is scared of Romney, as Perry is scared of Romney.

Romney is the next POTUS, if GOP nominates him.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'll take a RINO that can fix the economy over a ' real conservative' whose worried about gay marriage and abortion.

Fred4Pres said...

Mick, you can keept arguing Obama is inelligble, but he is President. The easiest and most effective way to address that is to vote him out of office. To say Romney and Cain are not good candidates in your opinion is fine (you are entitled to your views) but who are you supporting as an alternative?

Tank said...

As I've said all along, we're going to get two lousy choices again. No real choice. None of the candidates likely to be nominated by either party will be able to prevent the disaster awaiting this once great country of ours.

Just getting Zero out is not enough. Not nearly.

bagoh20 said...

We don't need the right slogan, we don't need the best campaign. This President is weak. The problem with Presidential politics is that you can never pick the best guy because you always have to fear he might lose. This may be the chance of a lifetime to do what needs done, to pick the right guy, to make change more than a slogan.

Failed companies get where we are now, deep in debt, unmotivated, confused. They exhaust all the cutely marketed remedies of the moment to no avail. That's when they hire someone like Cain to fix it.

The ones who don't go under, or get bought out at a discount. Who is gonna buy out the U.S.? China already owns the stock, so they can't do it. The current management won't do it. They know in their heart they are the problem, and don't want to lose what they have left.

garage mahal said...

Speaking as a liberal, I think O'RomneyCare wouldn't be such a bad guy as prez. I doubt he would really repeal his baby (ObamaCare)it he were elected either. hell, maybe he would flip back and support abortion and pick a liberal Supreme Court justice.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Look, if you could vote for McCain, you can sure as hell vote for Mitt.

Christ another Ford would be better than the debacle in there now.

Curious George said...

"If Romney has it locked up now, there's a lot less for Rush to rant about 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, for the next 6 months."

Yes, I'm sure Rush will be at a loss for words. Sheeesh.

ricpic said...

At endgame I agree with Freeman Hunt that the imperative is to defeat Obama. That said, the primary process is not supposed to be about hurry hurry pick a candidate so we can get this messy disagreement business behind us. It's about a measured step by step process that ideally ends in the nomination of a candidate who best represents the base of the party. The Republican establishment and of course the MSM are all about hurry hurry. And the only way to stop them or at least slow them down is for each primary voter to THINK before he votes rather than allow himself to be buffaloed. It's that simple.

bagoh20 said...

"Cain was firmly w/in the Matrix,..."

We'll Mick, you got me there.

Garage likes Romney. Now that hurts. Romney is toast now.

Mick said...

Fred4Pres said...
"Mick, you can keept arguing Obama is inelligble, but he is President. The easiest and most effective way to address that is to vote him out of office. To say Romney and Cain are not good candidates in your opinion is fine (you are entitled to your views) but who are you supporting as an alternative?"


Nonsense Fred. Simply voting him out leaves the dangerous precedent of Obama to jeapordize the security of We the People--- Just look at "Conservatives" falling all over themselves for Rubio, a non natural born Citizen.

I will prevent Obama from being on the General Election Slate, you just toil away in the Matrix. I will choose not to vote for any of these candidates-- they ALL suck, and are dangerous to the Republic. My main focus is taking Obama out of the race (and Rubio , if need be).

Libertarian Bill Still:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68346484/Presidential-Press-Release-10-11-2011

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-scholarship-conclusively-establish-the-supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v-happersett-as-standing-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/

Scott M said...

And the only way to stop them or at least slow them down is for each primary voter to THINK before he votes rather than allow himself to be buffaloed.

I got buffaloed once, but none of us respected each other the next morning.

Mick said...

bagoh20 said...
""Cain was firmly w/in the Matrix,..."

We'll Mick, you got me there.

Garage likes Romney. Now that hurts. Romney is toast now."


If Garage likes Romney what does THAT tell you?

Scott M said...

I will prevent Obama from being on the General Election Slate, you just toil away in the Matrix.

Can you please explain who you plan to do given the fact (fact mind you, black and white and in your own words) you are on record as saying you want him on all state the ballots?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... As I've said all along, we're going to get two lousy choices again..."

Oh please. When was the last time there was one decent choice? For either party? The Dems elected clean and articulate who made legs tingle and all we've gotten out of it is a shitty economy and another five trillion in debt. We didn't even get the t shirt.

All I'm asking for is competence and an understanding how economics works. Mitt and Cain clearly understand and have the competence.

Mick said...

Scott M said...
"I will prevent Obama from being on the General Election Slate, you just toil away in the Matrix.

Can you please explain who you plan to do given the fact (fact mind you, black and white and in your own words) you are on record as saying you want him on all state the ballots?"


Obviously, you are failing to note the details.

Clyde said...

All I want to do is end Obama's reign of error on January 20, 2013. I'll vote for his Republican opponent, whoever it may be.

Spread Eagle said...

I seriously doubt Romney's chances to get the nomination. There are reasons why at this very same point in the 2008 campaign (i.e., Oct 2007), when Romney was supposedly leading in the polls by a big margin, and McCain's campaign was beyond moribund, on life support with vitals fading, flatline imminent, when out of nowhere McCain leapt off the gurney, sent Romney to the ash heap, and waltzed to victory. And these same reasons apply in 2012:

First and foremost, no one has actually voted yet in real elections. Pretty boy that he is, with bags full of $$$ too, Romney is not a proven Republican vote getter. When Republicans actually vote they don't tend to vote for Romney in sufficient numbers.

That's mainly because, secondly, Romney is not (and is not perceived as) a real conservative. And it pre-dates and goes way beyond Romney-care. His record is replete with non-conservatism and monumental flip-flops, so much so that even a sorry-assed Republican like McCain beat him, not only nationally, but even in Romney's backyard, New Hampshire. Conservatives don't like him, don't trust him, and won't vote for him.

Third, and this has to be said, like it or not, there's the Mormon factor. Most Republicans don't care about it, but amongst the evangelicals (the Christian right) it's still a factor. That's a bloc of Republican voters that won't be going for Romney.

Romney will probably win New Hampshire this time, but then it's on to South Carolina, and rough sledding from then on out. Romney gets NH and Michigan, but it's really hard to see where else in this energized era of tea party activism.

garage mahal said...

I don't see a lot of difference between Romney and Obama. And Romney doesn't seem to relish all the culture warrior nonsense. He would work with Pelosi and Reid like he worked with Democrats in MA, and he would probably even appoint some Democrats in his cabinet.

Scott M said...

Obviously, you are failing to note the details.

Clearly, so please explain it to me. You said you wanted him on the ballot. You even said "duh". I'm not baiting you. I honestly want to understand.

Fred4Pres said...

Well good luck to you Neo-Mick. Just don't do anything illegal in your quest.

Neo-Mick for SCOTUS!

J said...

Byro, pagan trash--grazi for more evidence, joto . Put next to your CPA blog..Heh heh. state of CA will like that. Yr finished, satanist, like yr cronies at Jew Worlds


Jackoff--you thinking of yr boy again Billy Bob, right.

Wait until the klanssters get yr DUposts! Heh .

Robert Cook said...

As usual, Limbaugh is just working the ass muscles in his face.

He sees the possibility that Obama will win reelection, given that the half-baked dozen of Republican candidates are such a sorry lot of feebs and fanatics that whichever of them gets the nomination will be hard-pressed to win the general election, and he's laying out pre-emptive excuses now.

Whoever wins, we're fucked.

Beevalo Bill said...

Rush's analysis that the "establishment" is manipulating the process to block "true conservatives" is way off the mark.

First of all, how does one define a "true conservative"? Every one of these candidates have chinks in their respective conservative armor.

Second, the Rush anointed conservatives have not been hurt by the establishment, they have hurt themselves.

Michele Bachman got lost in the tactics of the battle and diminished herself over the whole my HPV discussion by repeating the demonstrably false story of a child becoming retarded by having been given a vaccine.

Rick Santorum continues to get lost in the tactics by trying to differentiate himself around social conservative causes. As far as I can see the Tea Party is about constitutionalism and the size and scope of government not social conservatism (neither are the moderates/independents who are necessary to win).

Rick Perry’s debate performances show a man who man who does not seem to be up to the task. He has been lethargic and, at times, incoherent.

Ron Paul is Ron Paul. Newt is Newt (and I hope he has some role in the next administration).

Herman Cain has not been hurt by the “establishment” (yet). He is a very intriguing candidate.

Mitt Romney has all the credentials, experience, and leadership skills to be a fine president. His fault is that he appears not to be reliably conservative. Not too surprising given that he was governor of a very liberal state. Elected leaders by necessity must reflect their constituency.

This much I agree with Newt, any of these candidates are better equipped to lead and to lead this country in the right direction than the incumbent.

I think Rush may be envious that he is not "the king maker". Truly there are no king makers including in the establishment. There is too much information and too much discourse today to have the back room make the candidate decisions.

By diminishing Romney Rush is playing right into the hands of the Obama campaign. While no fan of the Republican establishment, we are better served by having an electable conservative candidate.

ricpic said...

I got buffaloed once, but none of us respected each other the next morning.

None of you? Okay, even if it was a threesome if the earth moved loss of respect is acceptable collateral damage.

J said...

No garag, MR's playing the moderate game--even lib-rall at times-- but at heart...Romney's a Nixon (as per his comments on defense).

Republican said...

Here is another example of why I lost interest in listening to Limbaugh about ten years ago.

He changed from being supportive of the GOP, to extremely critical. He became a "not-a-dimes-worth-of-difference" advocate. He went from being one of us, to one of them.

He led the way for a whole group of elitist pundits who made a lot of money from being really obnoxiously disagreeable. Books! Shows! Shirts! Speaking engagements! etc. etc.

Rush isn't part of the solution.

That's why he'll have PLENTY to talk about.

Srsly.

bagoh20 said...

That sounds pretty accurate Spread Eagle.

I do think if Romney gets the nod, then he will get better support than McCain did, just because they know Obama is worse, and they saw what happened last time.

The strength for Romney is with everybody else outside the Republican base. Being lukewarm is how a conservative gets them now days. But that may be different this time. I sense even among independents there is a willingness to take some bold steps.

The problem is that people are so easily distracted by shiny things. One wrong statement and the best guy for the job get's his resume sent to the shredder. That's pathetic and stupid.

Darrell said...

And the Media didn't pick John McCain, I suppose? And Hillary's base didn't blow votes on McCain in the early primaries?

So now Romney is "The Man"?
OK.
I expect as much excitement as with McCain then . . .

ricpic said...

Hey Cookie, tell us which of the Republican candidates is a fanatic and WHY. And do it without spraying us with smears like fascist.

garage mahal said...

No garag, MR's playing the moderate game-

Sssshhh! I'm working the crowd.

edutcher said...

First, I don't think Perry's as done as some (would like to) think. He showed some real improvement last night (for those who actually saw it) and it's instructive to note Herman was in pretty much the same spot before the last debate. Perry has at least 2 months before the real voting starts and, given his record in TX, a lot of people would like him to be the nominee if they think he can stand up to GodZero and the Slime Machine, so he may still redeem himself.

That said, Herman is clearly the best man, he can easily out-debate Zero, presents himself well, has shown he learns quickly (no small talent in politics), and he has a plan more easily understood than Milton's version of Das Kapital.

Milton is, of course, the default nominee and pretty much everybody will vote for him on the grounds he's not Zero, but as Ellison says, Rush's point, that Obama is toast anyway, so why should Republicans settle for the "electable" candidate, is quite valid.

We shall see.

PS Bachmann did well last night, better than she's done in a long time, but I wish she'd leave her personal narrative at the door and stick to ideas. Her raising The Mother Of All Repeal Bills was a good step for her.

Roger J. said...

I am in Clyde's camp--Romney, Cain whomever--anyone is better than the douchenozzle that currently occupies the white house.

phx said...

Garage - would you vote for Romney over Obama?

Mick said...

Scott M said...
"Obviously, you are failing to note the details.

Clearly, so please explain it to me. You said you wanted him on the ballot. You even said "duh". I'm not baiting you. I honestly want to understand."


I don't have to explain anything, especially to someone who tacitly accepts an ineligible POTUS as being in any way legitimate. Just keep whining about his policies, and try to unwind Marxist SCOTUS judges and Obamacare with your "vote", and see where that gets you. Both sides are the same coin. Just look at the push for a Conservative Usurper (Rubio).

ndspinelli said...

This is all Hot Stove League banter. Only people w/o lives talk baseball in December..and I love baseball. The same holds true for all this political overanalysis. It's like Tony LaRussa overthinking and overmanaging his team.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Mick said...

Fred4Pres said...
"Well good luck to you Neo-Mick. Just don't do anything illegal in your quest.

Neo-Mick for SCOTUS!"


Neo-Mick? Like New- Mick? WTF?


wv: petordei--- sign on pitbull cage.

Peano said...

Everyone seems to assume that the candidate will be whoever the GOP's Politburo sanctifies. But primary voters might have different ideas about that. We'll see.

J said...

When Rush-blo offers some support for Herman Frankencain--he'll be finished (as will be pizza man)

Scott M said...

I don't have to explain anything, especially to someone who tacitly accepts an ineligible POTUS as being in any way legitimate.

I've never once said I accept it, tacitly or otherwise. I've never said I agree or disagree with your citations or positions. My point is that you have a contradictory "plan" and fail to explain how it's otherwise.

rcocean said...

Limbaugh is absolutely right. Romney will depress turnout and he's an incredibly boring candidate.

When they debate, Obama will kill him on the flip-flops.

Peano said...

The political system is totally non-responsive and rigged. The Tea Party is kicking at the locked door from one side, ...

Oh yeah? You might ask Bob Bennett just how secure that lock is.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Whoever wins, we're fucked..."

Fret not Cook. You'll always have Havana.

DADvocate said...

Speaking as a liberal,...

LOL. Do you speak any other way? Maybe as a extreme left wing radical at times?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... When they debate, Obama will kill him on the flip-flops...."

You mean like the individual mandate, closing Gitmo, ending the wars, full transparency....

Oh wait...

Mick said...

Scott M said...
"I don't have to explain anything, especially to someone who tacitly accepts an ineligible POTUS as being in any way legitimate.

I've never once said I accept it, tacitly or otherwise. I've never said I agree or disagree with your citations or positions. My point is that you have a contradictory "plan" and fail to explain how it's otherwise".



So you agree that Obama is ineligible?

ic said...

Don't worry, Obama will jazz the republican base to ensure turnouts.

Bruce Hayden said...

Should be interesting.

As for the Evangelicals, wold they rather vote for a devout Mormon, or a putatative "Christain" who apparently denies the divinity of Christ, and, according to Muslim law, is Muslim? At least Romney probably doesn't have a problem with the divinity of Christ thing.

Obama has not shown himself to be all that religious, or even Christian. Not really anti either really, just almost ambivalent. He just doesn't seem to care. His scriptural quotations seem to be predominantly Old Testament (obviously, for the benefit of the several percent of Americans who are Jewish).

The two questions that I think should be asked if Romney were elected, are whether he would veto all the Republican legislation he will be getting from Congress reversing Obama and the 112th Congress, and whether he will be able to get control over the federal bureaucracy. I don't see him having to balls to veto Republican legislation. Controlling the bureaucracy is more problematic. I think that he and Cain may be the only ones who could do so, but I am worried that Romney doesn't have the deep seated desire to do so. that will be needed.

For example, someone did a survey of recent DoJ attorneys hired, and found that 19 of 20 had credentials that would reliably identify them as fairly liberal, and none as conservative. In short, it appears that Holder's DoJ has probably been applying a political litmus test for career service attorneys they hire, presumably with the expectation that if and when the Democrats lose the White House, and thus, nominal control of the DoJ, that these liberal "plants" will remain in place to further the cause. This is just one of the more blatant things that need to be addressed - and since these liberal attorneys are now protected by civil service protections, it is going to be difficult.

A meat axe is going to be needed to cut the 5% if GDP that has been added to the federal government under Obama. And, the problem there is that that is not going to be easy. Rather, to do it acceptably well, is going to be very difficult. We are talking the, by far, biggest, and best entrenched, bureaucracy in the country, protected by laws designed to prevent partisan control of that bureaucracy.

Tank said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
"... As I've said all along, we're going to get two lousy choices again..."

Oh please. When was the last time there was one decent choice? For either party? The Dems elected clean and articulate who made legs tingle and all we've gotten out of it is a shitty economy and another five trillion in debt. We didn't even get the t shirt.

All I'm asking for is competence and an understanding how economics works. Mitt and Cain clearly understand and have the competence.


Yes, Mitt and Cain are both more competent, middle of the road, technocrats. They would each drive us over the cliff at 40 MPH instead of Zero's 90 MPH.

Yay.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Garage - would you vote for Romney over Obama?.."

If they find some archive footage of Romney wearing a Che t shirt, dancing on the flag while burning a draft card you can bet on it.

Obama would need to be caught in a threesome with Rev Wright and Farrakhan to beat that. Heck, Cook would be on board at that point.

The Pagan Temple said...

Missing from the equation is the question, why wasn't the debate televised over a channel like Fox or CNN? Who watches Bloomberg television? Before you answer that, you have to ask who the hell subscribes to Bloomberg.

The answer is, the nomination has been technically decided and all that remains is for the sheep to fall in line. The same reason, to at least some extent, the Florida primary was moved up, followed in kind by Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

Hurry up, vote for Mittens while he's lukewarm at best. Wait too long and we're stuck with a possibly insurmountable groundswell of support for a Herman Cain, or maybe somebody else that might upset the balance of power in the establishment GOP. The next thing you know these gun-totin knuck-draggers will be wanting Sarah Palin to be head of the RNC.

Scott M said...

I've never said whether I agree or disagree and I've made that fact plain to you a number of times.

Let me ask you something which I doubt seriously you'll answer with a straight answer, Mick. Did you file income tax last year? The year before? On your paycheck, do you have dollars being deducted by the federal government?

J said...

I'm working the crowd.

AH , you mean here, Klanhouse? Buena suerte. There are a few pro-Romney GOPers tho'--the sort of pretty boy LDS biz major types-chiropractors, dentists, accountants, etc. Whether they printed up their shingle themselves, or got it at ol BYU, who knows.

Roger J. said...

I think Bruce Hayden has it cold-well done Mr Hayden

garage mahal said...

Here is Romney praising Ted Kennedy, calling him a "parent" of RomneyCare. A Republican praising Ted Kennedy?? Wowz!

J said...

Homie Willard! ahhyeahh ,kick it down for comrade Rom-ney, fightin' the Oppressor.

Will Cate said...

Even if Romney's not your guy in the primaries, there is no reason whatsoever for conservatives to not vote for him in the General Election if he is nominated. Because now, much more so than in 2008, we KNOW what the alternative is, and it is awful.

Robert Cook said...

"Obama would need to be caught in a threesome with Rev Wright and Farrakhan to beat that. Heck, Cook would be on board at that point."

There's nothing that could make me vote for any of the candidates for either of the national parties in this next election.

I will vote, but it will not be for Obama and not for whomever the Republican candidate will be.

Mick said...

Scott M said...
"I've never said whether I agree or disagree and I've made that fact plain to you a number of times.

Let me ask you something which I doubt seriously you'll answer with a straight answer, Mick. Did you file income tax last year? The year before? On your paycheck, do you have dollars being deducted by the federal government?"


Yes.

If you don't care enough to agree or disagree, then you certainly don't get an answer (although it's already there).

If you can overrule the precedent of Minor v. Happersett, then you can rightfully disagree. You can't because it is truth, and truth sets me free:

"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community such as a nation is implies an

Page 88 U. S. 166

association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are in this connection reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance."

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

edutcher said...

garage mahal said...

Here is Romney praising Ted Kennedy, calling him a "parent" of RomneyCare. A Republican praising Ted Kennedy?? Wowz!

Not Republican. RINO.

Scott M said...

Thanks for the direct answer, Mick. The IRS is part of the Executive. By paying your taxes, you are tacitly admitting Obama's legitimacy to collect taxes from you.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... I will vote, but it will not be for Obama and not for whomever the Republican candidate will be..."

Whose on the Socialist ticket this year?

Curious George said...

"Scott M said...
Thanks for the direct answer, Mick. The IRS is part of the Executive. By paying your taxes, you are tacitly admitting Obama's legitimacy to collect taxes from you."

Look, I'm no supporter of Mick's userper crap, this is just plain bullshit. The IRS is just the collection and enforcement arm...taxes are required by law...that's the legislature. Any and all powers of the IRS are branted to them by law. Not by the executive.

J said...

A meat axe is going to be needed to cut the 5% if GDP that has been added to the federal government under Obama.

Won't happen if Romney somehow gets in--he wants to increase DoD spending,and save social security and medicare. Unless he raises taxes--which some say he may. So unless yr glibertarian heroes Dr Paul or the Cain-tard pull an upset, you're SOL, Doktor Hayden

Mick said...

Scott M said...
"Thanks for the direct answer, Mick. The IRS is part of the Executive. By paying your taxes, you are tacitly admitting Obama's legitimacy to collect taxes from you."


Oh OK, sure. Lets say I am a pragmatist. So you answer the question:


If the Purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent foreign influence, then how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born British, is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS?

Can you disprove Minor v. Happersett?

Mick said...

Curious George said...
"Scott M said...
Thanks for the direct answer, Mick. The IRS is part of the Executive. By paying your taxes, you are tacitly admitting Obama's legitimacy to collect taxes from you."

Look, I'm no supporter of Mick's userper crap, this is just plain bullshit. The IRS is just the collection and enforcement arm...taxes are required by law...that's the legislature. Any and all powers of the IRS are branted to them by law. Not by the executive."



WOW thanks CG!! Can you disprove the precedent of Minor v. Happersett above?

Scott M said...

The IRS is just the collection and enforcement arm...taxes are required by law...that's the legislature. Any and all powers of the IRS are branted to them by law. Not by the executive.

Granted, but who do you run afoul of if you don't pay?

Mick said...

Scott M said...
"Thanks for the direct answer, Mick. The IRS is part of the Executive. By paying your taxes, you are tacitly admitting Obama's legitimacy to collect taxes from you."


Which proves that you are a Liberal, and possibly an Obama Internet operative. Only a liberal could dream up such a relativist nonsense equation, using the Alinsky "use their argument against them" strategem.

Scott M said...

Which proves that you are a Liberal, and possibly an Obama Internet operative. Only a liberal could dream up such a relativist nonsense equation, using the Alinsky "use their argument against them" strategem.

Your attention to detail is stunning.

sonicfrog said...

Uhm... Hello... Rush IS the Republican establishment.

I will not vote for another major party candidate. It's all the same thing. I'm getting off the politics-as-usual carousel and voting independent.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...

Speakin' of a COLB, has the Mittster coughed up one up?? There are reports that Romney was born in..Meh-he-ko.



(Mick...a birther. sounds stupid enough to be Byro the stoner s-pup., with some phony legalese to like... deceive some people into thinking he's a paralegal along with the bogus CPA..)

PatCA said...

My thinking is, yes, Romney is not a good fiscal conservative, but there is now another political force to counter him in office besides the Dems: the tea party. They helped defeat the Dems in 2010 and they will do it again. If anything, another big spender will enrage them, and people like me, even more. They are not going away. So the prez, for now is not "all that."

So if I were the GOP, I'd say, vote for Mitt and work for Mitt's election--and then the congressmen and senators and you will keep him on the straight and narrow.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
E.M. Davis said...

We're a little short on Reagans these days.

Yeah, but Reagan wasn't really Reagan until he was Reagan, you know?

E.M. Davis said...

J should come with his own glossary.

Curious George said...

"Scott M said...
Granted, but who do you run afoul of if you don't pay?"

Don't double down on dumb. If you run afoul you are not handled by the executive branch, but the courts.

E.M. Davis said...


I will vote, but it will not be for Obama and not for whomever the Republican candidate will be.


Robert Cook will write-in Robert Cook for every office.

Scott M said...

CG,

In order to make someone pay taxes, they have to support, tacitly or not, the belief that the agencies involved have the authority, at each step of the process, to do so.

Besides, when you run afoul, a judge doesn't show up at your house, to your point about the courts. They get the IRS to do that.

J said...

¿Donde esta La Carta Verde, SeƱor Romney?.

Mick said...

J said...
"Speakin' of a COLB, has the Mittster coughed up one up?? There are reports that Romney was born in..Meh-he-ko.



(Mick...a birther. sounds stupid enough to be Byro the stoner s-pup., with some phony legalese to like... deceive some people into thinking he's a paralegal along with the bogus CPA..)"



Mitt Romney was born to US Citizen parents in Detroit in 1947, and is an eligible natural born Citizen.

Maybe YOU can answer the question that no one here can (since it causes them Cognitive Dissonance).

If the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent all angles of foreign influence (FACT), then how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born British, of a British subject father, is a natural born Citizen of America, eligible for POTUS?

Can you disprove the precedent of Minor v. Happersett?

Mick said...

Curious George said...
""Scott M said...
Granted, but who do you run afoul of if you don't pay?"

Don't double down on dumb. If you run afoul you are not handled by the executive branch, but the courts."



It's a common trait of liberals.

D. B. Light said...

Rush's thinking on Obama's strategy parallels mine. Basically Obama is seeking three outcomes -- an energized Left, a disillusioned and demoralized Right, and (most importantly) a campaign so nasty that moderates of all stripes are turned off, say "a plague on all their houses", and stay home.

Bruce Hayden said...

Won't happen if Romney somehow gets in--he wants to increase DoD spending,and save social security and medicare. Unless he raises taxes--which some say he may. So unless yr glibertarian heroes Dr Paul or the Cain-tard pull an upset, you're SOL, Doktor Hayden.

Raising taxes next session of Congress is unlikely. Republicans will very very likely control both Houses, and the Tea Party the Republicans in the House. No matter his intentions, the President cannot raise taxes without the consent of both Houses of Congress, and I don't see him getting it in either.

Besides, taxes aren't the problem, and the Republicans in the House know that, which is one of the big reason that Obama's "Jobs" bill (i.e. "Stimulus" II) was DOA in Congress. The problem is spending, pure and simple (along with regulation) pure and simple, with the feds taking another 5% of GDP for themselves under Obama's watch.

And, military spending isn't an issue either. It is lower now than it has been as a percentage of GDP in much of my 60 years - excluding the Clinton "Peace Dividend" where half the Army's divisions were disbanded.

Medicare and Social Security need to be overhauled, once and for all. I will be eligible for the former in four years or so, and the latter in a year (but hopefully will be able to wait until full retirement age to collect). The pig in the python is getting ready to collect, the greatest generation hasn't all left us yet, and the slacker generation is happily playing, leaving gens X and Y to pick up all the slack. Pretending that there isn't a problem or that ObamaCare didn't make it worse just is sticking our collective head in the sand.

Keep in mind that much of the bloat in the federal government is in transfer payments (including Medicare and Social Security). That means that we have a slacker class, and not just a slacker generation (not the same, and limited overlap). Much of the legislation that needs to be repealed and abolished concerns the intention formation of this class by the Democrats in order to salve their consciouses and build a permanent voting class dependent upon them for their sustenance.

To trot out the "fairness" word - what is fair about half the population not paying any federal income tax, and often receiving federal benefits, including tax refunds as a result of tax credits? Where is their skin in the game? And, yes, I know some of these people, who don't really work, but still get a tax refund every year, and much of it is blown on partying the first couple of weeks after getting it.

Still, it comes back to my original questions - whether a President Romney would veto Republican legislation, and whether he has the will and the whereforall to tear out the excess bureaucracy. He probably has the best ability to perform the later, but his will is what is at issue.

Bruce Hayden said...

BTW - as to my comments about the President's religion - I believe that he probably thinks of himself as Christian. The problem is that a lot of Christians probably wouldn't, given his stated views about the divinity of Christ, and a lot of Muslims probably believe that he is Muslim under Islamic law - he was born of a Muslim father, apparently has had some Islamic training while in school in Indonesia, and has not repeatedly publicly denounced Islam (presumably in favor of Christianity). Of course, if he had repeatedly denounced Islam, as required to leave the religion, he would probably be subject to being justifiably killed as an apostate under Sharia law (that was why the Christian cleric in Iran was sentenced to death).

DADvocate said...

J should come with his own glossary.

I doubt that even if we knew what the words meant that he'd make sense. Although we may be able to sell it like one of those Jeff Foxworthy books.

Scott M said...

I doubt that even if we knew what the words meant that he'd make sense. Although we may be able to sell it like one of those Jeff Foxworthy books.

He claims to be a professional editor and a published author. Don't laugh.

The Pagan Temple said...

Rush assures us that if Romney is the candidate, he "is gonna have my full support because of what we're up against.

Like I said, he might have my vote, but that will be all I can or will do for him, if that.

Bender said...

NFW will I ever vote for the Weasel.

In all good conscience, I cannot vote for him. I will not vote for him. Period.

When you have to hold your nose to vote for someone, all you end up electing is something that stinks.

I will not do that. I'm done doing that. We have had to eat sh*t far too many times with candidates. No more.

Bender said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bender said...

A vote for Romney is a vote for "more of the same," "business as usual."

No sir. I will not be an enabler anymore.

I will be a man, not a worm. I will not vote for Romney merely because we "have no other choice."

Principles mean things. I will vote for principle, I will vote for good conscience. I will not vote for Romney, hell no.

Bender said...

Since I will REFUSE to play the whore on Election Day by voting for Romney, should we be stuck with him as nominee, I, unlike many people who will vote for him, will be able to wake up the next morning not ashamed of myself.

Joe Schmoe said...

"Romney is the next POTUS, if GOP nominates him."

AP, you've changed your tune. What gives?

phx said...

Basically Obama is seeking three outcomes -- an energized Left, a disillusioned and demoralized Right, and (most importantly) a campaign so nasty that moderates of all stripes are turned off, say "a plague on all their houses", and stay home.

I don't know if Obama's seeking that but I could see it happening. Except I don't think Obama or the Dems are going to get that nasty, so I think the moderate vote will likely tilt that way.

cokaygne said...

Guys, take it easy. If it is not Romney, then who? The only candidate that 0 might beat in a debate would be Perry. Forget about him.

The 0 team will shamelessly use the experience card against Cain. They will do that. It is terrible and hypocritical, but they will do it and the media will amplify it. They will probably even use the 3:00 am phone call ad against Cain.

Bachman can easily be portrayed as bat shit crazy. Christie is not going to generate more enthusiasm than Romney because he has the same opinions. Gingrich and Santorum are assholes who well deserve to lose.

You are stuck with Romney. Get behind him and save the country from four more years of the second coming of JC.

Seven Machos said...

Mick! What happened to your super-secret plan to force a Constitutional crisis that will somehow, some way declare Obama unfit for the presidency under the Constitution?

What happened to that? How is the plan coming along? When will we get the full details? And is there a grassy knoll with two shooters or three?'

Please keep us updated. You promised! Thanks.

Scott M said...

I kept pressing him for his plan, but he wouldn't give. So, I asked by what metric we could judge Mick's plan to have come to fruition. This was June 14th. He said his success metric would be Obama kept off the ballot. I asked which ballot, and he said all of them.

Then, recently, he said that his plan involved Obama being on all the ballots.

Then he called me a liberal.

Seven Machos said...

Scott -- The one single benefit of an Obama victory in 2012 will be to see Mick flail for four more years with his goofy court cases and his certitude about the Constitution.

The new parts about how the Central Bank is keeping everybody down is also great. I wonder if Mick ever buys anything on credit.

Harmless fun. I hope.

jamboree said...

I'm one of those people that rather perversely felt the need to give Rush Limbaugh "a chance" for many years. It's the contrarian in me.

But now I'm completely over that.

Bender said...

You are stuck with Romney. Get behind him and save the country from four more years of the second coming of JC.

No.

deborah said...

Bender, lay out your reasoning.

Bender said...

Bender, lay out your reasoning.

No.

Not only have I done that already repeatedly the last several months, not only am I done laying out my reasoning, but I'm under no obligation to justify my reasons for refusing to vote for Romney.

Romney does not have a right to my vote. I don't need to give explanations.

He's not getting my vote.

deborah said...

I guess Obama and Romney would make relatively similar Supreme Court nominations...

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...
"Scott -- The one single benefit of an Obama victory in 2012 will be to see Mick flail for four more years with his goofy court cases and his certitude about the Constitution.

The new parts about how the Central Bank is keeping everybody down is also great. I wonder if Mick ever buys anything on credit.

Harmless fun. I hope."



And you (as I suspected) have outed yourself as a closet Liberal Obama Internet Operative. Only they would make such ridiculous, Relativist, silly arguments. My plan is my business, and I certainly would not tell an Obama Internet operative, such as you or Scott. Why are you so interested?

Can you refute the FACT that Minor v. Happersett is SCOTUS Precedent for the meaning of natural born Citizen, i.e one born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents? Didn't think so.

Can you refute that the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent all avenues of foreign influence, and therefore could not possibly allow one born British (Obama 2) to be eligible? Didn't think so.

Mick said...

deborah said...
"I guess Obama and Romney would make relatively similar Supreme Court nominations..."


Good point. Just another reason that only a natural born Citizen, i.e one w/ sole allegiance and attachment to the US from birth, should be allowed to be POTUS.

sydney said...

I would have trouble voting for Romney. I think the worse thing to come out of this administration is Obamacare, and it is just Romneycare writ large. He would not be that much different than Obama. I am not even sure his Supreme Court picks would be better. Though, I suppose he wouldn't encourage class warfare. He's got that going for him.

Seven Machos said...

Can you refute that the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent all avenues of foreign influence, and therefore could not possibly allow one born British (Obama 2) to be eligible?

I can refute it. I do refute it. I'll give you the details as soon as you tell me and Scott your super-secret plan.

I also refute Minor v. Happersett. I refute it big time and totally.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

He thought that Romneycare would be beneficial for Massachusetts, did he not?

Has Romneycare been harmful to Massachusetts? I do not know.

I don't see any problem with states making laws to try to improve people's lives. That's why states have plenary power.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

Sorepaw -- It is not surprising to learn that a law to give more people something at a lower cost results in shortages of whatever the thing is. Or a black market. Or even higher prices. In fact, it would be surprising to learn that the opposite happened.

That said, I think it's good that states make different laws, and bad laws. Bad outcomes from bad laws can serve as a caution to other states.

I do agree that Romneycare is a bad negative for Romney, if that all happened, and I rest assured it did. I do think Romney is a strong candidate, though. I've always found him comforting and likeable. Perhaps he's learned from his mistake. Is that entirely too much to hope for?

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
deborah said...

Last time Romney left me pretty cold, didn't hate him. This time he seems more likeable and really swift. Of course, what the bestbo politicians are, glib salesmen... And for some reason, the Mormon question isn't being carped upon.

miller said...

I did not know that Obama was constitutionally ineligible for office.

Is there more detail on this?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I'm skeptical! This premise has Obama's people and establishment Republicans on the same page!

Oh wow! Two factions thinking the same thing, regardless of their differing political affiliation! How shocking! How horrifying!

Surely we must re-think our entire basis for understanding reality along more blatantly political lines.

J said...

Rush is a smart guy and he has a valid point.

Many conservatives have strong reservations about Romney having any beliefs and values (well, he does seem to believe in golden plates dug up 100+ years ago).

As a libertarian, I'm going to find it hard to vote for Romney as he has yet to repudiate RomneyCare, believes Social Security is not a ponzi scheme when it clearly is, and doesn't want one single cut to MediCare.

He could well be the 100% white Obama.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...
"Can you refute that the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent all avenues of foreign influence, and therefore could not possibly allow one born British (Obama 2) to be eligible?

I can refute it. I do refute it. I'll give you the details as soon as you tell me and Scott your super-secret plan.

I also refute Minor v. Happersett. I refute it big time and totally."



You can't refute the truth. Why are you so interested

Mick said...

miller said...
"I did not know that Obama was constitutionally ineligible for office.

Is there more detail on this?"



He is certainly not eligible. Read through this information. He was born British, of a British subject father, no matter where birth occurred, he is ineligible , since the requirement is neant to ensure, to the highest degree possible, allegiance and attachment to the US in the Commander In Chief. Wouldn't you say he has questionable allegiance and attachment?

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Stuart D Gathman said...

As far as I can see, Romney is no more eligible for POTUS than Obama. His father was a Mexican national, not a citizen at the time, and he was born in Mexico, not US. In fact, Obama, if he was was in Kenya, at least came back to US (for a few years) immediately afterward. Romney was raised in Mexico before moving to US as a child.

Why are we having yet another ineligible candidate sholved down our throats?