January 31, 2012

Landslide... for Romney in Florida.

Says Drudge. The various cable news networks are showing Romney at 49/50% and Gingrich at 30%.

UPDATE: With the polls closed, FoxNews calls it for Romney with 48%. 31% for Newt. 13% for Santorum and 7% for Paul.

UPDATE 2: Mitt Romney's victory speech: "A competitive primary does not divide us. It prepares us." The campaign "is about saving the soul of America." He's about "restoring America's greatness." He wants you to remember "an America that is still out there.... Let's fight for the America we love. We believe in America."

252 comments:

1 – 200 of 252   Newer›   Newest»
yashu said...

I think that's 48%, not 38%.

Ann Althouse said...

Oops. Typo. Corrected.

I ♥ Willard said...

I'll be very disappointed if Not Willard beats Willard. :(

Andy R. said...

Once again, I applaud the willingness of the Republican Party to nominate a non-Christian.

I ♥ Willard said...

Andy, we Republicans have a very big tent. It's even big enough to hold Chris Christie!

Mark O said...

What, Andy? The only Christians are yours?

Michael said...

AndyR. And thank you for again demonstrating the open mind of a "progressive". And for taking the time from your ows and ministrations to the poor to instruct us in pure dumb.

Lem said...

Thats good news, I think.

Original Mike said...

"Once again, I applaud the willingness of the Republican Party to nominate a non-Christian."

Nobody cares.

garage mahal said...

And Romney is going to give his speech from a teleprompter. Noooo! Hasn't America been through enough?

Seven Machos said...

Andy is an anti-Christian bigot --as bad as any racist.

Maguro said...

Guess moon bases and gub'mint-provided kosher meals weren't the keys to victory after all.

Original Mike said...

Hey garage. What's with you pussies trying to keep the recall sigs secret?

yashu said...

I read elsewhere that Romney won Tea Party voters by 2 points. Is this true? If so, great. Belies some of the conventional wisdom.

edutcher said...

Bad for Newt. The bigger the blowout, the tougher it's going to be to get the money to soldier on. Dr Rove's reporting his negatives are up significantly.

The trolls are also very worried, thus they snark.

The CBO is projecting disastrous unemployment figures by the end of the year, with GodZero above 50% approval in only 10 states (although 3 of those states already put Zero significantly underwater in other polls).

And that doesn't count the possibility of $5 gas when the EPA cap 'n' trade regs kick in, or the effect of Moochelle's 50K lingerie shopping spree.

(thong, anyone?)

America's Politico said...

Okay, now, I am happy.

Romney's VP is Bob McDonnell (Virginia gov.)

End of Obama-Biden.

Newt paid himself and his wife, see politico.com.

Freeman Hunt said...

Hooray!

And I was Tea Party when it meant fiscal conservatism.

Andy R. said...

Oh look, SM is here to stand up for those poor victimized oppressed Christians who just want to be able to hate the gays in peace. Oh no, someone pointed out their anti-gay bigotry! Waaaah!

Ross said...

Once again, I applaud the willingness of the Republican Party to nominate a Christian (that strangely enough, gives millions to charity while his Democrat opponents give very little).

---

Fixed that typo for you.

Freeman Hunt said...

Andy, you think Christians generally hate gay people?

edutcher said...

Asking, Freeman, but when did the Tea Party stop being about fiscal Conservatism?

Andy R. said...

Oh look, SM is here to stand up for those poor victimized oppressed Christians who just want to be able to hate the gays in peace. Oh no, someone pointed out their anti-gay bigotry! Waaaah

Christians have more compassion for homosexuals than "queers" like Hatman have for Christians (or Jews or Hindus or anybody else).

Tim said...

America's Dairy Cow said...

"And Romney is going to give his speech from a teleprompter. Noooo! Hasn't America been through enough?"

Maybe so, but we know Democrats and Dairy Cows love their platitudes read directly from a teleprompter, preferably between styrofoam columns.

garage mahal said...

O.M.
You'll have to elaborate. Who are the pussies, and what do you mean by secret. Walker's campaign has them.

Maguro said...

"Andy, you think Christians generally hate gay people?"

Do we have to make this thread all about Andy R and his "issues", too?

This guy and his closet of anxieties are the big topic of conversation on damn near every political thread Althouse posts these days.

Lem said...

Moon Base Pander unPalatable at the Panhandle.

Carol_Herman said...

I saw 47% ... and I remembered 2008. Where McCain got 47%.

Not popular enough to rise to 50%, and you don't see a "problem?"

I'm still curious on how that elderly crowd got collected. Did they have a parking lot full of cars with Handicapped stickers hanging from the mirror?

I don't think most people give a rat's ass about Florida. Where some people are too weak to push out the "hanging chads."

Now, if you think Mitt Romney found is stride, because he can attack Newt, then for his next act he MUST attack Sarah Palin!

DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS! Except for the fart value.

chickenlittle said...

SubMitt...resistance is futile.

Tim said...

"Asking, Freeman, but when did the Tea Party stop being about fiscal Conservatism?"

Curious. Who is the "fiscal conservative" in this primary?

The candidate who wants to build moon bases and decries the one candidate who (gasp!) actually made money in the private sector?

Is it that candidate?

Or is it another candidate?

Original Mike said...

Forget Walker. The electorate wants to see them.

"This is what democracy looks like."

"But, you're hiding them"

"This is what democracy looks like."

Andy R. said...

Andy, you think Christians generally hate gay people?

It's hard to keep track since Christianity has been back-pedaling with its hatred of the gays as they realize how bad it makes them look.

There are certainly plenty of Christians that hate the gays, and in response I hate them for their anti-gay bigotry. For example, the Catholic Church.

The rest of the Christians that don't hate the gays, I mostly just think are dumb for believing in a fairy tale.

chickenlittle said...

Andy R. is fast approaching DTL territory. He adds little but spiteful animus to any discussion and it always comes down to his gayness.

It must suck to be so shallow. But I digress--this thread is about Romeny--congratulations!

Lem said...

Curious. Who is the "fiscal conservative" in this primary?

I hear you Tim..

There is no joy in Mudville.

garage mahal said...

. The electorate wants to see them.

No they don't. Right wingers do. They were never hidden to begin with.

JohnJ said...

Good, Lord! Get Palin off the air!

BTW, Mormons are Christians, by most any sense of that term. A Jesuit buddy of mine calls them “New World Christians,” in the sense that their doctrine is anchored by the appearance of Christ among the Native Americans.

Don’t quite get the “Mormons aren’t Christians” bigotry.

Lem said...

SubMitt...resistance is futile.

Zing!

America's Politico said...

The big loser: Newton Leroy Gingrich and Callista

The biggest loser: Sarah Palin (two year governor) and her husband, Todd

The real loser: Obama-Biden.

The GOP Ticket: Mitt Romney - Bob McDonnell

Yes, I can see the victory.

Original Mike said...

"They were never hidden to begin with."

The attempt was made. Last I heard (5:30), it was parried.

Writ Small said...

Thank you America's Politico for the strategic advice you gave to all the campaigns. Much appreciated. Also a shoutout to I ♥ Willard for your unwavering support to Mitt's campaign. You always find that silver lining.

But this thread won't be complete if TradGuy and Bender don't give us a stirring rendition of Millie Jackson's classic "If lovin' Newt is wrong, I don't wanna be right."

Freeman Hunt said...

It's hard to keep track since Christianity has been back-pedaling with its hatred of the gays as they realize how bad it makes them look.

There are certainly plenty of Christians that hate the gays, and in response I hate them for their anti-gay bigotry. For example, the Catholic Church.

The rest of the Christians that don't hate the gays, I mostly just think are dumb for believing in a fairy tale.


Oh.

I think the problem might be less about Christians and more about your being a little out of your depth.

edutcher said...

What JohnJ said.

Sad to say, all of it.

m stone said...

I do sense a bit of whining in the thread.

Revenant said...

Oh no, someone pointed out their anti-gay bigotry!

Christian = anti-gay bigot?

Does this mean you'll be voting for the "non-Christian" Romney over the Christian Obama? :)

rhhardin said...

There's a Kliban cartoon, "The Virgin Mary Appears to a Volkswagen in Denver" so there may be something to Jesus in America.

Freeman Hunt said...

Don’t quite get the “Mormons aren’t Christians” bigotry.

I love Mormons, but I would say that their religion is not theologically Christian. That's not bigotry; I think it's a statement of fact based on doctrine. I think you'd have to give Christian quite a stretch to make it cover Mormonism.

Carol_Herman said...

Is there a silver lining in this?

Doesn't Mitt now have to attract at least 47% of the voters in other states?

March 6th is the big Super Tuesday "event." And, it follows the next debate date, which is due on February 22nd.

So far, Newt's presence has made the last debates much more entertaining.

Isn't it the media that's calling Florida a "knockout blow" against Newt?

REALLY?

You know, if it was the real November 2012 election date, I'd say those old timers are gonna go for Obama.

While Drudge has up a headline that when March rolls around, California runs out of money.

And, you think there's nothing else to talk about, except Mitt's win.

I think it sets the stage for fireworks. Oh. And, negative advertising that goes wall-to-wall. If you want to believe the pundits, the winner does the best job of doing the negative ads. (And, that will be Obama.)

Well, what if the standard bearer for the Republicans hasn't been selected, yet? Isn't Rush right? With the kinds of money available to scald opponents isn't it better IF Obama (and the media), aren't quite sure, yet ... who gets selected?

Don't forget the Independent "run" ... remains to be seen, ahead.

And, maybe? Twitter counts? Not so much Wolf Blitzer and John King.

garage mahal said...

O.M.
They are online right now. 154k pages. Knock yourself out.

Carol_Herman said...

You know, if Obama can't hold onto his "lead" ... the democraps will have to search hard and long ... to come up with a competitor who is not Hillary.

I'm glad Newt's a student of history.

I think he can take the Floridian thing in stride.

The real contest won't set up until late spring, at the earliest.

Andy R. said...

Does this mean you'll be voting for the "non-Christian" Romney over the Christian Obama?

Mormons, while not Christians, also hate the gays.

Carol_Herman said...

Newt Gingrich's ace ... is his ability to talk about American Exceptionalism. Kosher foods don't count.

And, Sarah Palin also knows how to deliver a message.

The "unknown" is Donald Trump.

You know, back in 1992, the elder Bush didn't even see the challenge coming.

Freeman Hunt said...

Asking, Freeman, but when did the Tea Party stop being about fiscal Conservatism?

I don't know. I didn't understand the pro-Newt stuff.

Original Mike said...

"Mitt Romney's victory speech: "A competitive primary does not divide us. It prepares us.""

I hope so. Cause he ain't seen nuttin yet.

Revenant said...

Mormons, while not Christians, also hate the gays.

Darn, you mean both major-party candidates hate gays?

Good news, the Libertarian candidate doesn't! :)

chickenlittle said...

I think you'd have to give Christian quite a stretch to make it cover Mormonism.

What about Scientology?

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Does this mean you'll be voting for the "non-Christian" Romney over the Christian Obama?

Mormons, while not Christians, also hate the gays.


And the Moslems?

PS Freeman, I'm hip.

Original Mike said...

"I didn't understand the pro-Newt stuff."

I think it was the attraction of someone who would hit back.

Revenant said...

when did the Tea Party stop being about fiscal Conservatism?

Approximately when the news media blessed Sarah Palin's self-appointment to the position of "tea party leader", I'd say.

Andy R. said...

"I didn't understand the pro-Newt stuff."

It's called Anyone But Romney. It says a lot that people dislike Romney enough that they would turn to Newt though.

DaveW said...

"an America that is still out there.... Let's fight for the America we love. We believe in America."

Omigosh that's so snorrrre.....

Good thing the republican party has some decent prospects for 2016. I guess the best we can hope for is to elect enough republicans to block Obama in the lege.

Peeyew.

Original Mike said...

"They are online right now. 154k pages. Knock yourself out."

If I were retired I would have volunteered for Verifytherecall. As it is, there are others who say they'll look at them. I hope there's nothing there. The only upside to fraud is getting to make fun of you. It's not enough.

Tim said...

"hear you Tim..

There is no joy in Mudville."


Indeed.

Listen: none of the Republican candidates are really good, let alone perfect.

But all of them (except for Ron Paul, IMHO) are better than Obama.

And I'm committed to voting against Obama, whomever we nominate (with the possible exception of Paul, in which case I might not vote).

Defeating Obama is the first mission. Wishing Romney (who certainly seems the strongest of the candidates remaining) was someone else, or more clearly conservative, fits with out being disappointed in the field; hating Romney to the point of serially hoping from the virtual beds of Bachman, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum and imbuing each of those candidates as "the true conservative" is not only unfounded, it's self-defeating.

Obama is a complete disaster. We need to fire him. Grow the f^ck up and do right: fire him with candidate you'll have at your disposal come November. It will be better for all of us.

edutcher said...

Revenant said...

when did the Tea Party stop being about fiscal Conservatism?

Approximately when the news media blessed Sarah Palin's self-appointment to the position of "tea party leader", I'd say.


And when did that happen?

Cause I sure as Hell missed it.

WV "fuladik" I dassent

Freeman Hunt said...

Approximately when the news media blessed Sarah Palin's self-appointment to the position of "tea party leader", I'd say.

This. That did seem to be a turning point.

Crimso said...

"I do sense a bit of whining in the thread."


As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Freeman Hunt said...

Ed, the news media did it, linking Palin with the Tea Party, and the news media is, well, you know, not so much informed so much as not.

Original Mike said...

"As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."

Nerd.

Freeman Hunt said...

I like that Romney's campaign emails are slightly less stupid than the other campaign emails I receive.

rcocean said...

I think Althouse needs make a new recurring post. Call it "What Andy R Thinks", then Andy R and all his friends can have a long comment thread about him.

Original Mike said...

"Grow the f^ck up and do right: fire him with candidate you'll have at your disposal come November."

Crimso said...

"Nerd."

Saw a sneak preview of it a week before it opened nationwide. Had no idea what it was, we just got the tickets from someone. We were impressed (it was 7th grade).

garage mahal said...

If I were retired I would have volunteered for Verifytherecall. As it is, there are others who say they'll look at them. I hope there's nothing there. The only upside to fraud is getting to make fun of you. It's not enough.

Odd nobody from the right wanted to verify or publish recall sigs last year isn't it? Oh wait.....Republicans have different rules.

They aren't going find much - most were checked before they were handed in. No idea what stalling the election is going to accomplish for these guys either. I think it's going to make it worse for them.

Jason said...

Romney needs to make his sole focus now on Obama. The presidential race needs to begin right now. The best way to get rid of Newt is to simply ignore him.

Revenant said...

And when did that happen?

About two years ago.

ricpic said...

hatboy knows bupkis about Christians but he has a PhD in smugness and snark.


Potentially catastrophic to go into battle against a marxist with a moderate as your standard bearer.

Titus said...

Repubs kind of hate gays.

How many who are actually in office have ever voted for any gay rights? Very very few, maybe 2%.

And what about what many of them have said about the gay-it's not nice.

Embrace it folks.



Three or four in New York State though and we thank them.

Jason said...

They aren't going find much - most were checked before they were handed in. No idea what stalling the election is going to accomplish for these guys either. I think it's going to make it worse for them.

Yeah, the thought of Kathleen Falk running against him really has Scott Walker shaking in his boots.

Original Mike said...

"Odd nobody from the right wanted to verify or publish recall sigs last year isn't it? Oh wait.....Republicans have different rules."

I have no idea what your point is. But I do know it's dinner time.

Phil 3:14 said...

Just listened to Newt's ?concession speech. Gosh, what isn't Newt going to do on Inauguration Day.


Bombast.

PS Couldn't Rick find a smaller room to give his speech. I guess the broom closet was occupied

JohnJ said...

“I think you'd have to give Christian quite a stretch to make it cover Mormonism.”

Not such a stretch, really. For Mormons, the ministry of Christ continues in the New World after the resurrection.

Admittedly, most of what I know about Mormonism was filtered by Jesuits. But, fundamentally, Mormons believe in the Jesus of the Bible, that he was resurrected, and that he is the only path to redemption.
Again, sounds fundamentally Christian to me. But surely there are more qualified Mormon spokesmen in this crowd.

Got distracted and almost forgot: Way to Go Mitt!

garage mahal said...

Yeah, the thought of Kathleen Falk running against him really has Scott Walker shaking in his boots.

I guarantee the thought of John Doe has Walker quaking.

Titus said...

Romney had his hair colored.

He needs to decide if he wants to stay with the gray on the sides or go all dark.

Revenant said...

Ed, the news media did it, linking Palin with the Tea Party, and the news media is, well, you know, not so much informed so much as not.

Personally I think it is a little more insidious than that.

On the one hand, most Americans think Palin's a fruitcake (I don't want to get into an is not/is too argument, I'm just saying that's the majority opinion).

On the other land, the news media and the political left (but I repeat myself) is and was afraid of the Tea Party movement.

On the... uh, third hand, Palin has devoted her post-government career to self-promotion -- reality TV, autobiographies, etc.

So it was a match made in heaven, really. Palin gets to be linked to the only energetic political movement outside of the far left, the far left gets support for their "tea party = fruitcakes" meme, and the media get to sell ads for underwear and beer.

And thus "tea partier" becomes synonymous with "member of the far right", ensuring that the 1/3 of America that is sick of runaway government but NOT doctrinaire Reaganites want nothing to do with the movement.

garage mahal said...

I have no idea what your point is. But I do know it's dinner time.

Republicans didn't seem at all interested in verifying their signatures with GAB they collected against Dems. Nor did they insist they all be published on the web. Maybe now would be a good time?

Jason said...

I guarantee the thought of John Doe has Walker quaking.

No kidding. After all, it was his own staff that initiated the investigation.

Try again.

Lem said...

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.. and let the Mormon become the President of the United States.

Jason said...

Republicans didn't seem at all interested in verifying their signatures with GAB they collected against Dems. Nor did they insist they all be published on the web. Maybe now would be a good time?

Thats because the Dems were too stupid to ask.

Patrick Kelley said...

When Mitt Romney says he believes in America that's code for "I believe in the status quo". That guy isn't going to change a god damn thing. Oh sure, he might reduce taxes and regulations, which is good, but sorry, not good enough. There needs to be drastic, systemic changes, and Romney is just not the man for that job. We need more than cutting the rate of growth. We need to slash and burn. A controlled burn, to be sure, but definitely more than what we can expect from the likes of the old Flop-Flopper.

Does anybody really believe Romney will change anything? Really? He's supported by the establishment for a reason. He will protect the status quo. In the meantime, look for a Supreme Court loaded with Souter's and Kennedy's. You know, somebody that will help him "reach out to Democrats and heal our divisions" (by upholding everything Democrats want upheld).

Lem said...

Rick find a smaller room to give his speech. I guess the broom closet was occupied..

Ricks campaign is broke.

shiloh said...

"Andy, we Republicans have a very big tent. It's even big enough to hold Chris Christie!"

I ♥ Willard wins the thread. :-P

And smitten w/mittens Althouse finally gets her landslide! :D

chickenlittle said...

Please Garage...not now...I have a headache.

ricpic said...

Titus is for a falling apart fudge packing America.

Joanna said...

garage mahal said...
They aren't going find much - most were checked before they were handed in.


Apparently, they didn't check very well... One report notes:

Here is what we found.
1. One petitioner would write down all of the members of his family and then FAKE their signatures.
2. A wife would write down her husband’s name and then fake his signature.
3. A petition normally had 10 spaces for signatures. The liberals would Xerox the Governor Walker recall signatures and then substitute the header for the Lieutenant Governor Kleefisch. Thus without having to get any actual signatures for the recall of the Lt. Governor, they just Xeroxed the signatures.
4. WHOLESALE FORGERIES.
5. And Scott Walker was one of the petitioners.

shiloh said...

"He needs to decide if he wants to stay with the gray"

mittens also flip/flops re: his hair. As always, he's a work in progress er RINO in regress or a reasonable facsimile thereof. :D

Jason said...

When Mitt Romney says he believes in America that's code for "I believe in the status quo". That guy isn't going to change a god damn thing. Oh sure, he might reduce taxes and regulations, which is good, but sorry, not good enough. There needs to be drastic, systemic changes, and Romney is just not the man for that job. We need more than cutting the rate of growth. We need to slash and burn. A controlled burn, to be sure, but definitely more than what we can expect from the likes of the old Flop-Flopper.

The problem, though, is that its the US Congress that controls the kind of "slash and burn" you talk about. And if there is one thing this congress has proven, its that they have no interest in cutting actual spending. Unless the GOP takes control of the US Senate, it really doesnt matter if its Mitt as president or a Tea Party type. The US Senate race, in actuality, is just as important to the GOP as the presidential election. Its the biggest reason why the establishment is so behind Romney...they feel his moderate appeal will trickle down the ticket.

Hell, if Paul Ryan cant even get his budget - which is quite modest with respect to the cuts and reforms that need to be made - to the Senate floor for a vote, there is no way any real cuts are going to be made by this congress without GOP Senate control. And even that may not be good enough.

edutcher said...

OK, I can buy what Revenant is saying, but have a problem with what Freeman's saying (and you won't hear that often).

This really one of those YMMV things.

Titus said...

Repubs kind of hate gays.

How many who are actually in office have ever voted for any gay rights? Very very few, maybe 2%.


Uh, were I you, I'd trust the Republicans to watch out for my Constitutional rights and let it go at that a Hell of a lot sooner than I'd trust the Demos with all the pandering on same sex marriage, and other invented "rights".

Remember the Lefties love you only as long as you stay on the reservation, or in the closet IYKWIMAITYD.

Paco Wové said...

Is there a topic GM can't turn into a Scott Walker bitch-a-thon? I think not!

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tim said...

"We need to slash and burn. A controlled burn, to be sure, but definitely more than what we can expect from the likes of the old Flop-Flopper."

Sure. So is the candidate who decried Paul Ryan's modest Medicare reform plan with "I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," the guy you want in charge of the controlled burn? If so, why?

Bender said...

"A competitive primary does not divide us. It prepares us."

Translation: Savaging my opponents does not alienate their supporters. Instead, they will reward me for my dishonesty and malice.

Cedarford said...

Jason said...
Romney needs to make his sole focus now on Obama. The presidential race needs to begin right now. The best way to get rid of Newt is to simply ignore him.

==============
He tried ignoring Gingrich after New Hampshire.
Giving the fat old Beltway fraud a 2nd chance to resurrect himself.
Not going to happen again.

Best to:

1. Keep reminding people Newt had nothing to do with Reagans success.
2. That most his Big Ideas are preposterous self-indulgence and ego-feeding.
3. That most of the people he has ever worked with conclude he is an unfit executive leader.
4. And when necessary, remind people Newt is of some moral turpitude.

Freeman Hunt said...

But, fundamentally, Mormons believe in the Jesus of the Bible, that he was resurrected, and that he is the only path to redemption.
Again, sounds fundamentally Christian to me.


I have to disagree with you. Under Mormonism there are many gods who rule over their own universes or worlds. Our God is one of those gods. Believers can one day become gods themselves if they are suitably perfected.

None of that is compatible with Christian theology, and there are many more differences beyond those.

Now that doesn't mean that all Mormons are not Christians. Mormon theology is sort of loose in that individual Mormons believe a variety of things, some holding doctrine that is Christian rather than Mormon. It only means that Mormonism itself is not Christian.

Bender said...

So, typical BS spin.

Win one primary by 13 points, ho-hum.

Win the next primary by 15 points, only two more, and it is a game-over landslide blow-out.

Now all of you in the other 46 states, just listen to the elites and do what they tell you -- the race is over, you don't get a say, who you might want is irrelevant. Romney's the nominee, so quit bitching and fall in line.

yashu said...

Revenant @8:36, I agree, but you forgot the 4th hand: both Palin (whatever you think of her) & the Tea Party have been treated shamefully, egregiously by the MSM-- e.g., both held responsible in some way for the Tucson shooting.

Which was motive enough for many Tea Partiers to not only empathize, but identify themselves with Palin, take her as their champion-- admire her as someone who would call out MSM "blood libel". Palin has always been happy to call out Obama, too, of course, without mincing words-- and that would naturally endear her to Tea Partiers who are similarly engaged in "speaking truth to power."

Now we see that, like Newt, Palin is indeed filled with righteous indignation at the MSM-- justifiably-- but that it always has more to do with *her*, her sense of personal grievance & martyrdom & heroism, than a consistent, substantive political-ideological vision. Just like Newt. And for the same reason, Newt would appear attractive-- qua righteous "fighter"-- to the Tea Party. But grounds for a real, substantive ideological identification with the Tea Party are flimsy, as this election (and I hope future ones) will bear out.

Tim said...

"Translation: Savaging my opponents does not alienate their supporters. Instead, they will reward me for my dishonesty and malice."

So Gingrich's strategy for capturing Romney supporters should he win the nomination is what, exactly?

Bases on Mars?

Kosher meals covered by Medicare Parts A & B?

Disallowing venture capital firms?

Steady as she goes federal funding for Medicare, since the modest reform is now deemed "right wing social engineering?"

Pray tell us, what exactly is Gingrich's strategy for capturing Romney voters?

Or is this a one way street in the victim's village of Loserville?

Simon said...

From Romney's victory: "A competitive primary does not divide us. It prepares us." He's right. If someone can't overcome a serious money disadvantage, Newt, then they are not a credible candidate to take on Obama.

Titus said...

Newt's elder daughters, from which marriage I don't know, are butt ugly.

I think it would help Newt if every time he gave a speech Candy wasn't right next to him. It's ok during primary day speech but not every fucking speech.

There are always hot supporters of Ron Paul's behind him when he speaks. That's hot. And it is so nice to see people that are not over 70.

Tim said...

"So, typical BS spin."

Wishes aren't facts.

Florida, more so than Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina, is more representative of the battleground states, in addition to being one.

The candidate who wins Florida in November very likely wins the presidency.

If firing Obama is one's first mission, as it is mine, the candidate who can win Florida matters, a lot.

So, no. Not typical BS spin. Not even close.

G Joubert said...

I didn't understand the pro-Newt stuff.

It never was so much pro-Newt as much as it was anti-Mittens. Both of them as candidates are train wrecks.

Not such a stretch, really. For Mormons, the ministry of Christ continues in the New World after the resurrection.

On the other hand, 90%+ of people who self-identify as Christian say Mormons are not Christian. It's really much more of a cult than anything else.

Revenant said...

We need to slash and burn.

Then vote for Ron Paul, because the other three candidates are ALL "more of the same" candidates. Of course, Ron Paul's got a whole different set of baggage... but if you want slashing and burning, he's the go-to guy.

Anyway, Jason's right -- Congress is what matters. The question you should be asking you is "which President is most likely to let people like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan take a lead role in fixing things". Anyone here see Gingrich letting someone else in the driver's seat? Yeah me neither.

Seven Machos said...

I remember seeing people like Patrick come to Althouse and frothing that Romney won't change anything and the like. I've seen that a thousand times.

What I do not recall is a single, solitary Gingrich supporter telling us what Gingrich plans to change exactly.

So what is it? What does the consummate Washington insider -- Gingrich -- plan to do that is so radical?

Face it, people. You are still hanging onto the fantasy that some pure conservative will come to the rescue of the nation and, particularly, destroy Obama in some bit of political theater. It's so sad and pitiful that you've decided that Newt Gingrich is the person to fulfill your fantasy.

Lem said...

I must say.. I'm impressed with how the establishment dispatched with Newt.. assuming is now dead men walking.. Where was this establishment while Obama decimated the country?

shiloh said...

Cedarford @9:02 PM

Quick, send this thread to mittens as he needs all the help he can get lol.

Tim said...

"So what is it? What does the consummate Washington insider -- Gingrich -- plan to do that is so radical?"

Moon bases.

They're critical.

Bender said...

It's so sad and pitiful that you've decided that Newt Gingrich is the person to fulfill your fantasy

It's Not About Newt

30yearProf said...

I still don't trust Romney as a man of ANY principle.

A "pragmatic moderate" Republican will (as Romney did in Mass.) take us to the same NIRVANA as Obama, he'll just use another path. They both believe that Government can direct our lives much better than we can. And the more of government can do soooo much more for us (except for Wall Street, which needs $$$ not regulation - something they agree on).

Phil 3:14 said...

The essence of the fall campaign against Romney

"billionaire "

"flip flop"

"magic underwear"

Lem said...

..and, particularly, destroy Obama in some bit of political theater.

There have been memorable turning points in debates..

Reagan telling Mondale "Im not going to exploit my opponents youths and inexperience for political purposes".

A confident Reagan saying to Carter "There you go again".

Bush 41 looking at his watch like he was going to be late for something more important..

Ford saying Poland was not communist or something like that.

Seven Machos said...

30year -- How do you feel about Gingrich, who supported making you buy health care insurance before it was even a twinkling in Obama's eye?

Bender -- I have been talking exactly about the cargo cult, ghost-dancing silliness among your brand of conservatives for years here. It's not going to work out, any more than the various absurd pipe dreams of so many disaffected leftists who voted for Obama.

You are exactly the same as those disaffected leftists. Exactly the same. The critical difference is that you want to go back to a past that probably never existed and, at any rate, is totally irretrievable. The disaffected leftists want to go forward to a future that can't exist and is completely unattainable.

Simon said...

LOL @ Garage's teleprompter line. :)

Original Mike said...
"[Hatman said 'Once again, I applaud the willingness of the Republican Party to nominate a non-Christian.'] Nobody cares."

I don't care as long as they're honest about it. I'd have a problem with Romney claiming to be a mormon while being a practicing baptist, or vice versa.

Politico said...
"Romney's VP is Bob McDonnell (Virginia gov.)"

He could do worse, but it's a thorn in my paw that we don't have any credible female candidates.

JohnJ said...
"Not such a stretch, really. For Mormons, the ministry of Christ continues in the New World after the resurrection."

Well, but that's true. The Church exists, in a way, to extend Christ's incarnation and presence through time through her sacramental ministry. For example, if it is indeed necessary that we eat His flesh and drink His blood, as He said, then Christianity would be a dead letter for every generation after the ascension had He not supplied some means for those of us who came later to receive it. And lo, He did! One cannot accept Christ's insistence that we receive his body and blood without accepting the necessity of a Church to confect the Eucharist.

Seven Machos said...

Lem -- Just recently, there was Rick Perry utterly imploding in six eternal seconds. There was also the debate between Gore and Bush that Gore clearly won but lost in the court of public opinion because he was such a prissy asshole.

However, what I'm getting at is something deeper. These people who have hopped from Palin to Bachmann to Cain to Gingrich appear to believe that Obama can somehow be exposed in a debate -- not a slip up by Obama or a great and memorable turn of phrase, but some sort of political checkmate on a stage.

Incidentally, of the instances you mention, I feel certain that all of those elections would have turned out the same way, anyway, for much deeper and more substantial political reasons.

traditionalguy said...

Tonight was the biggest election event of 2012.

The Reagan Conservatives were driven out of the GOP by the Democrat B Team.

The anti-climactic November election will be one to see if the Democrat A Team can outscore the Democrat B Team.

November's exhibition will be like the NFL Allstar Game where there will be rules against hard hits and the QBs will wear special "don't hit me" jerseys.

It will be a colorful pageant drawing a half full crowd, and unimportant.

And life goes on.

Seven Machos said...

Trad -- Who was representing Reagan conservatives exactly? Is it Santorum who doesn't even believe in free trade? Is it Gingrich? Please don't say it's Gingrich.

You do realize that Reagan was from a crazily liberal state, granted the broadest amnesty ever to illegal aliens, and ran up an awful debt. You realize that, right?

The business of America is business, and Romney is the candidate to get America right economically.

Tim said...

"The Reagan Conservatives were driven out of the GOP by the Democrat B Team."

WTF?!

I'm a Reagan conservative.

No one has driven me out of the party, let alone some fictional "Democrat B Team."

And given what Gingrich said about Reagan, for "Reagan conservatives" to pin their hopes on him suggests some Reagan conservatives aren't only disloyal, they're easily lead by indifference to disloyalty and ignorance.

edutcher said...

FWIW, in most cases, those people done in by debates, and most were indecisive, did it to themselves.

Nixon (OK, makeup, but...), Ford ("network analysis", but he gave them the rope), etc.

Only Reagan really did in Carter with, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?".

Always my point about Newt: what happens before and after the debates?

Also, too many people have allowed this to go from ABO to ABR.

As Tony Quinn said to Irene Papas in "Guns of Navarone" anent the death of Jimmy Darren, "He forgot why we came here".

AJ Lynch said...

"We need slash and burn".

Right and who can do that the best? A finance guy who can look at a balance sheet & an income statement and re-jigger it back to health.

Let's face it- the next president will have no choice but to address the country's insolvency. It can not be igniored much longer.

Revenant said...

It's Not About Newt

Like the saying goes -- if you want to send a message, try Western Union.

mccullough said...

Traditional Guy,

It's called the Pro Bowl, not the NFL All-Star game. Gingrich can't compete with Romney because Gingrich is a megalomaniacal asshole who has been on all sides of every issue. The establishment or media have nothing to with it. Romney handed Newt his ass in the debate the other night. Newt is a whiner, not a conservative.

Revenant said...

The Reagan Conservatives were driven out of the GOP by the Democrat B Team.

I don't want a Reagan Conservative, I want somebody who will *reduce* government spending and deficits.

Lem said...

These people who have hopped from Palin to Bachmann to Cain to Gingrich appear to believe..

Is it too for Tom Selleck to get in the race?

Seriously.. the massage as I see it is the true believers.. the wing nuts as we called sometimes.. want a candidate the will get spending under control.

I don't hear any cutting from Mitt, much less slash and burn.

Seven Machos said...

I don't hear any cutting from Mitt, much less slash and burn.

Who are you hearing about cutting or slash and burn from?

Also, when I saw slash and burn upthread, I thought it was a perfect metaphor not for downsizing government, but instead for the way Gingrich will illicit reactions ranging from mild discomfort to utter disgust from some 60 percent of voters.

Lem said...

Here is an idea that may save money.. or maybe not.

Merge Energy into Defense.

traditionalguy said...

The Democrat B Team with its Massachusetts politician calling the plays is comfortable with a playbook that contains raising taxes on capital gains for the higher income investors, Nationalized health Care, and whatever else the Dems in Congress want a compromise on.

But the B Team has no reason to go in for the A Team... unless the A Team is injured by an unexpected Euro economic crisis or an unexpected sky rocketing energy price that start an unexpected Depression a few months sooner than planned.

Lem said...

I don't remember where I heard that before.

Revenant said...

1. Romney is a bad choice for President.

2. Gingrich isn't Romney.

3. Therefore, Gingrich isn't a bad choice for President.

For the record, the above is the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent". The problem is that a lot of people who really ought to know better seem to think it is a valid argument.

mccullough said...

Tradguy,

If there's a conservative A team, Newt's not on it. The US hasn't had a conservative President since Calvin Coolidge. Newt has no friends.

Lem said...

The argument is... sorry if I dont jump for joy when the choice I'm given is between the man responsible for ruining the country and the Massachusetts governor that laid out plans copied by the man who continues to ruin the country..

Did I say Obama was ruining the country?

I just want to make sure I get that in.

traditionalguy said...

Ok, guys. I accept your logic that since Newt is hateful, poof Romney is now made into a Reagan Conservative...or is that magical thinking?

The business acumen of Mr Romney is high. He could make some good decisions.

But to get elected, Romney must learn to communicate to common people's desperate times, instead of smugly bragging how he made lots of money for himself investing during the boom times that ended four years ago. Corzine, Soros,and AlGore all did that.

Revenant said...

Nobody's asking you to be happy about it, Lem. You think you're the first voter to be stuck choosing the lesser evil?

Lem said...

I know Newts flawed.

But at the very least nobody can say he came up with Newtcare..

Cedarford said...

Ron Paul and Santorum spoke and said they both congratulated Mitt and Ron P said it was a nice call..both said onwards! Santorum said no, he would not drop out as Newt demands because the more people know about Newt, the less suited he is to carry the conservative banner.

Meanwhile, Newt met expectations. He didn't call Romney at all. Then spent half his speech talking about his detailed plans for his Inauguration, including a bite to eat after he signs his executive orders and before his Inaugural Balls.

Seven Machos said...

Trad -- You've simply gone off the rails. You aren't really coherent.

Lem and Trad, and conservatives everywhere -- there isn't a perfect candidate. There will be no perfect rescuer, despite your fervent ghost dancing.

You aren't in love with Romney. Noted. But the candidate closest in votes and most likely to get the nomination if Romney falters is a bombastic demagogue and a complete asshole who most Americans cannot stand. The next two guys don't even support free trade and could never win a national election in a million years.

Romney is the best of the available options. He can beat Obama. Your anger and frustration are misplaced. Don't be mad at Rommey. Be mad at the candidates who didn't run, and at yourselves for refusing to be happy.

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

Tempus fugit

Seven Machos said...

But at the very least nobody can say he came up with Newtcare

Lem -- you are simply wrong. Totally wrong. Gingrich supported exactly what Obamacare is: making people buy heath insurance or post a bond (the latter which he obviously doesn't understand). Gingrich was for Obamacare long before Romneycare and long before Obama was for Obamacare.

chickenlittle said...

(whoops)

1. McCain was a bad choice for President.

2. Obama wasn't McCain.

3. Therefore, Obama wasn't a bad choice for President.

For the record, the above is the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent". The problem is that a lot of people who really ought to know better seem to think it is a valid argument.

Revenant said...

But to get elected, Romney must learn to communicate to common people's desperate times

If that's what it takes to beat Obama, you're screwed. There isn't a candidate in the race who can credibly pull that "I feel your pain" stunt. Sure, Romney's a gazillionaire, but that doesn't make Newt "No Honest Job Since the Seventies" Gingrich the voice of the working man.

Lem said...

chikenlit.. under the radar..

I think the professor sleeping by now.

chickenlittle said...

Cedarford wrote: Santorum said no, he would not drop out as Newt demands because the more people know about Newt, the less suited he is to carry the conservative banner.

Santorum is still gracious. He would make a great VP pick and would mend a lot of fences.

Andy R. said...

Santorum is still gracious. He would make a great VP pick and would mend a lot of fences.

The frothy mixture is a national laughingstock. Be serious.

Titus said...

Chick, Santorum would mend many fences with the fags.

Seven Machos said...

All Romney has to say is: Obama inherited a bad economic situation. Obama has been in way over his head from Day One and he's made a bad economic situation much worse. Everything he has tried has failed. I know how to turn bad economic situations around. That's what I'm going to do if you elect me.

That's Romney's message. It's honest and clear. It will reach the common man-- whoever that is -- just fine. Romney will win a rout.

And he'll turn the economy around.

garage mahal said...

46 states to go with Gingrich promising to go thermonuclear. Whew boy. Glad I get to sit this one out.

Cedarford said...

Lem said...
I know Newts flawed.
But at the very least nobody can say he came up with Newtcare..
===========
Actually he did, and Romney called him on it in debate after Newt accused him of the "Invidual Mandate!!" Which Romney said that when he and Massachsetts representatives were working with medical professionals - they read up on the value of a mandate for the Federal government to enact to prevent Free Riders from screwing the bills of honest insurance ratepayers - as outlined in a paper the Heritage Foundation put out.

A paper Newt authored.

The difference of course is Newt wanted a Federal Mandate as well as requiring all states to do other things with healthcare and health insurance by Federal laws they wanted passed - while Romney said he and Mass had some good ideas - but it was up to each state to consider and individually vote on it or try something they thought was better.

In that debate, a flustered Newt admitted Heritage came up with it/

Later, of course, Newt said he only signed the "overall" Heritage Foundation policy paper and "the idea was actually from other people."

Lem said...

Newt says a lot of things.. ergo.. He's flawed..
But when it comes to implementing/growing big government.. he doesn't have that baggage.. I would trust him to do the right thing.

You are right about his over the top rhetoric. A president should not talk like Newt does.

Seven Machos said...

Garage -- How about a game of tic-tac-toe?

chickenlittle said...

The frothy mixture is a national laughingstock. Be serious.

Be less savage--people might listen to you. :)

chickenlittle said...

It will reach the common man-- whoever that is -- just fine.

Condescend much?

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

Andy R. said...

Santorum is still gracious. He would make a great VP pick and would mend a lot of fences.

The frothy mixture is a national laughingstock. Be serious.


Hatman only shows his own hatred and intolerance and, yes, he is the laughingstock.

Santorum would be of no help in the election, but I can see designating him to replace Sibelius at HHS.

traditionalguy said...

I seem to remember the GOP couldn't get elected to power in anything in 2006 or in 2008.

Then the Tea Party activists arise in 2009, stay the course, do the work and take a huge win gaining power in the House in 2010.

In 2012 the Tea Party activists are told to get lost, don't call us, we will call you.

And that is supposed to be the logic of how the GOP will win power in the coming election?

No. That is actually how the GOP always loses elections.

So why do they want to lose in 2012?

somefeller said...

Seven Machos says:Trad -- You've simply gone off the rails. You aren't really coherent.

Why should today be any different from any other day?

In any case, strong win for Romney. Good day for the responsible and successful wing of the GOP. Bad day for the shouters and the permanently aggrieved.

Lem said...

You tell'm trad.

chickenlittle said...

Bad day for the shouters and the permanently aggrieved.

WTF? Garage seems stoked!

Cedarford said...

Breakdown of voting was interesting.

Romney scored over 50%, beating Newt 2-1 with the following groups:

Hispanics
Married women
Blacks
Seniors

He beat Newt with Tea Party people, with moderate and independent minded Republicans by 10 points.

Newt carried:

1. Redneck rural regions.
2. The Fundies.
3. HS dropouts.

The Florida map was quite illustrative - redneck, fundie counties outside the cities up north and around the Okefenokee swamp were Newts.

Seven Machos said...

In 2012 the Tea Party activists are told to get lost, don't call us, we will call you.

Trad -- Honestly, dude. Let's trace the likely history of your presidential preferences. First, it was Palin, then probably Bachmann, then almost certainly Cain, now Gingrich.

It is totally possible to believe that Palin, Bachmann, and Cain are outsiders and rebels against the establishment. They are horribly flawed candidates, but the mantle of outsider cannot be denied.

However, you cannot -- cannot -- claim that Gingrich is an outsider of the sort preferred by Tea Partiers. It's just not possible. Gingrich is the consummate Washington insider. He was at the epicenter of the very economic problem that sunk the economy. He has the stench of ethical problems (perhaps wrongly, but it's there). He supported a program exactly equal to Obamacare. He hasn't had a real job for at least two decades.

Gingrich is a Washington insider who has no authentic history of sharing Tea Party values. Period.

You have built up a huge web of deceit. Sadly, it's all in your own head.

Revenant said...

Lem, you keep talking about all the things Newt isn't and all the things he hasn't done. Just an observation -- everything you've said applies equally to Andy R.

Bender said...

WTF?!
I'm a Reagan conservative

_____________

Yeah, that's what I heard Bob Dole repeatedly insist, and every other Republican (except Romney) since the early 1980s -- "I'm a Reagan conservative!"

garage mahal said...

Romney has the strangest grinning expression as he pauses after a sentence and glances to the side. It's either very wholesome, or very disturbing.

EMD said...

Santorum would be of no help in the election, but I can see designating him to replace Sibelius at HHS.

Ugh.

Lem said...

You have built up a huge web of deceit.

Now who's rhetoric is over the top?

Revenant said...

In 2012 the Tea Party activists are told to get lost, don't call us, we will call you.

Vote for Ron Paul. Problem solved

Seven Machos said...

I bet you know who the real Reagan conservatives are, Bender.

I know, too. I have the special sunglasses that allow me to see when I put them on.

Bender said...

And life goes on
__________

Yes it does. And it will go on when it all collapses under the good and prudent leadership of that great manager Romney. Life will go on, even amongst the desolation. Life is more than what government or politicians say it is.

Put not your trust in man.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

garage-- Since you've once again attempted to hijack a thread and make it about Walker (you are obsessed, dude), I thought I would just return the favor and remind you of a teensy vulnerability. I think I'll have you pay the twenty dollars to the NRA.

Eric Holder's False Testimony Warrants Impeachment

Seven Machos said...

Lem -- It's true. Anybody who thinks Newt Gingrich is some sort of maverick outsider is quite simply delusional. He supported a plan equivalent to Obamacare. The man had a job at Freddie Mac. He earned well over one million dollars from a quasi-federal entity that was a primary creator of the current economic depression..

They don't come any more Big Government than Gingrich, people.

Revenant said...

I have the special sunglasses that allow me to see when I put them on.

Double bonus points for the movie reference since the aliens *were* a metaphor for Reagan conservatives. :)

Bender said...

That is actually how the GOP always loses elections.
So why do they want to lose in 2012?


And that is an important distinction to remember -- the GOP is a "they," not a "we" or "us."

B said...

'The frothy mixture is a national laughingstock. Be serious.'

You have a rather off putting habit of calling everything that shakes your narrow worldview a joke.

Here's a clue, twit. OWS is a national laughingstock. You and the other faces of OWS come off as petulant, spoiled children.

I consider myself a Christian. I have nothing whatsoever against gays. I couldn't care less what your sexual identity is. I don't hate you for your sexual identity. I do think you're a bigot, a tool, and a fool. Until you stop being a sophomoric jackass and start expressing adult thoughts, you can't and won't be taken seriously here or in any other forum, real or virtual, where adults gather.

Dressing like an adult might also help, manchild.

garage mahal said...

garage-- Since you've once again attempted to hijack a thread

I answered a question from Original Mike. And not so fast buddy on that bet, I still think I'm going to win.

Lem said...

Well if what you are saying is right.. apparently Newts insiderness hasn't gotten him much.. has it?

Tyrone Slothrop said...

I take it back, garage. You didn't bring up Walker, Old Mike did.

But maybe you'll enjoy my link, anyway.

Chuck66 said...

"Romney scored over 50%, beating Newt 2-1 with the following groups:"

Hispanics
Married women
Blacks
Seniors


So if Republicans want to win the White House in November, besides the obvious voter turnout of those who vote Republican no matter what, they need to peal off just a few of swingers or those that tend to vote Democrat. The above 4 would be nice. Maybe enough Catholics (and other religions) who are mad about the Obamacare rules for church run hospitals and schools.

Bender said...

I bet you know who the real Reagan conservatives are, Bender

Well, I know that they are not the Ron Reagan Jr. types that insist that they are "Reagan conservatives" and they are not 80-90 percent of the Republicans in Congress since at least 1988.

Lem said...

What B just said..

garage mahal said...

Tyrone
I read your link, if Holder covered up evidence or obstructed he should be fired.

Revenant said...

Well if what you are saying is right.. apparently Newts insiderness hasn't gotten him much.. has it?

Well, so far it has made him a multimillionaire and put him in the #2 position for the Republican Presidential primaries.

Whether that counts as "much" is a matter of personal opinion, but I'm going with "uh YEAH".

Seven Machos said...

Newts insiderness hasn't gotten him much

This is a false statement as well. According to the Los Angeles Times, Gingrich made $1.6 million from Freddie Mac alone. He has many other sources of income. Newt Gingrich is a very wealthy man.

Bender -- Knowing what something is not is not remotely the same as knowing what something is. I know that my liver is not gold, for example. But I don't know much about my liver at all.

Your logic is piss-poor, as Rev has pointed out. More importantly, you are being a whiner. You are carping, nothing more.

Chuck66 said...

Hey Mittens (I like that nickname)....if you win in November, please do one and only one thing. Do something about the budget deficit. Please see Scott Walker for leadership.

Even if you have to do big things that will cause you to be a one-term President, please fix the timebomb.

This isn't time for Bush style compassionate conservative.

Revenant said...

[Reagan conservatives] are not 80-90 percent of the Republicans in Congress since at least 1988.

So the 1990s Republican congress was overwhelmingly not Reagan conservatives. Huh.

Remind me -- who did these non-conservatives pick as their leader? I think it rhymed with "Snoot Bingrich".

Lem said...

..if Holder covered up evidence or obstructed he should be fired.

You are something else garage.. putting us in a position of having to agree with you like that.

Seven Machos said...

And another thing. Many, many Republicans in Congress before 1988 were very liberal on a great many issues. Think George H. W. Bush but more to the left.

There is another word altogether for the people who were Reagan conservatives in terms of economics and defense in 1988. They were primarily from the South. They were called Democrats.

Bender said...

Rationale for nominating Ford over Reagan, 1976 -- So if Republicans want to win the White House in November, besides the obvious voter turnout of those who vote Republican no matter what, they need to peal off just a few of swingers or those that tend to vote Democrat.

Rationale for nominating George H.W. Bush over Reagan, 1980 --
So if Republicans want to win the White House in November, besides the obvious voter turnout of those who vote Republican no matter what, they need to peal off just a few of swingers or those that tend to vote Democrat.

Rationale for nominating George H.W. Bush over Pat Buchanan, 1992 -- So if Republicans want to win the White House in November, besides the obvious voter turnout of those who vote Republican no matter what, they need to peal off just a few of swingers or those that tend to vote Democrat.

Rationale for nominating Bob Dole over Phil Graham, 1996 --
So if Republicans want to win the White House in November, besides the obvious voter turnout of those who vote Republican no matter what, they need to peal off just a few of swingers or those that tend to vote Democrat.

Rationale for nominating John McCain over Fred Thompson or the Huckster, 2008 -- So if Republicans want to win the White House in November, besides the obvious voter turnout of those who vote Republican no matter what, they need to peal off just a few of swingers or those that tend to vote Democrat.

Rationale for nominating Myth Romney over anyone authentically conservative, 2012 -- So if Republicans want to win the White House in November, besides the obvious voter turnout of those who vote Republican no matter what, they need to peal off just a few of swingers or those that tend to vote Democrat.

Revenant said...

Rationale for nominating Ford over Reagan, 1976

"He's the incumbent".

But feel free to hallucinate other motives. Oh wait; I see you did.

For bonus points, name the President who has won office with the votes of registered Republicans and nobody else. Hint: he's the President of Fantasyland, not the President of the United States.

Rationale for nominating George H.W. Bush over Reagan, 1980

Seven Machos said...

Rationale for nominating George H.W. Bush over Pat Buchanan, 1992

Well, this clearly exposes you as a tinfoil-hat wearing loon. You really overplayed your hand with this goofy statement. There's no point in pointing out why it's awful; it's existence is a perfect testament.

Rationale for nominating Bob Dole over Phil Graham, 1996

It's Gramm, and Pat Buchanan's anti-free trade tirades and religious grandstanding was the primary cause of Gramm's defeat, not anything Dole did.

You are the definition of a know-nothing, Bender.

traditionalguy said...

Seven...Newt was never my choice. Cain was my choice, but he had no training in politics and was thrown away early.

Perry was just not my style. Palin was OK but she was crippled early on and she knew it.

Bachmann and Santorum were too religious for me. Christianity is not campaign plank.

That left the flawed thinker of grandiose thoughts named Gingrich.

None of the copywrited scandals created around Newt by Dems and the Media are real. Romney must have paid the Dems royalties to use them.

His real flaw has been a life of thinking too much and talking too much about every side of every issue as if he is for the things he discussed.

But Newt accepted the job opening as the outsider point man for the Reagan Conservatives/Tea party, and he has not let up.

So mistreating Newt is mistreating me and others that think like me.
But Romney wont need our votes.

He has it locked up in a Swiss Bank Account.

Chuck66 said...

Problem is that there is no Reagan or Gramm or someone like that running. Republican choices are:

Mitt
Newt
Bachmann
Ron Paul
Cain
I guess Santorium would be different.

Do you think Newt will get more votes than Romney in November?

Seven Machos said...

Trad -- Has Gingrich not mistreated Romney? Get over yourself, dude. Politics ain't beanbag. It's a dirty business. Gingrich has succeeded precisely because he plays so dirty.

Revenant said...

But Newt accepted the job opening as the outsider point man for the delusional, and he has not let up.

Fixed.

Honestly, no sane Tea Partier thinks that egotistical jackass represents our interests.

Cedarford said...

Somewhat interesting - Homeland Security announced that they are now going to start providing Mitt with Secret Service protection. The other 3 - no.

Officially stated reason - no threats, no presumption he is the nominee - is he is drawing large crowds.

Bender said...

Somewhat interesting - Homeland Security announced that they are now going to start providing Mitt with Secret Service protection.

Code name: Weasel

Revenant said...

So mistreating Newt is mistreating me and others that think like me. But Romney wont need our votes.

Also, we plan to make you exit from the *back* of Air Force One after Mitt's elected.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 252   Newer› Newest»