E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNext up: The last stand of South Carolina… And it’s likely to get nasty there… How will Romney emerge 10 days for now: battered or the de facto nominee?... The message that could take on Romney (but is there a messenger to deliver it?)… About last night: breaking down the results and the exit polls… Paul’s second-place finish was a gift to Romney… Huntsman’s third-place finish was “meh”… Once again, GOP turnout wasn’t a “wow” figure… And Obama’s 82% was less than Clinton’s in ’96 but greater than Bush’s in ’04.
*** Next up: The last stand: After Mitt Romney’s decisive and expected victory in New Hampshire last night, the Republican presidential contest now turns to the Jan. 21 race in South Carolina, which will serve as a moment of truth for all the GOP candidates. For Romney, South Carolina -- where he finished fourth four years ago -- will prove if he can finally get conservatives in a non-New England state to put him over the top, essentially wrapping up the Republican nomination. For the conservative alternatives in the field (particularly Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum), it will prove if one of them can finally consolidate the conservative vote to decisively beat Romney in a race. For the conservative movement and the Tea Party, it will prove if they can stop the potential nomination of a man who implemented a health-care mandate in his state and who supported abortion rights about six years ago. For Rick Perry, who retreated to South Carolina after Iowa, it will prove if his decision to stay in the race was wise after his fifth-place finish in the Hawkeye State. And for Jon Huntsman, who is vowing to stay in, it will prove if his bronze metal can generate any additional life in his campaign. Bottom line: For everyone not named Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, South Carolina has become a last stand.
*** Things are going to get nasty: And that fact makes the race a compelling story, because it looks like things are going to get nasty in South Carolina. Already, the Gingrich campaign is up with a TV ad in the state hitting Romney on the subject of abortion, and the pro-Gingrich Super PAC Winning Our Future is supposed to be airing its anti-Bain ads and movie soon, too. And at 9:00 am ET today in Rock Hill, SC, NBC’s Alex Moe reports, Gingrich is expected to deliver a “defining” speech. "Bottom line here is you are seeing the single-most authentic candidate who has run for president who is not worried about what the consequences will be, who will put forth truth as people see it in their lives every day," Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond told reporters last night. "A 68-year-old man is stepping forward, who wants to see the same kind of country for his grandchildren as he had," Hammond added.
NBC's David Gregory and Chuck Todd analyze the results from New Hampshire's GOP primary and look ahead to the race in South Carolina.
*** How will Romney emerge 10 days from now -- beaten and battered or the de facto nominee? So South Carolina promises to be the first time that Romney will come under sustained fire -- particularly over the TV airwaves -- in this GOP race. And it will come after Romney’s rocky 48 hours leading up to the New Hampshire primary, particularly over the subject of Bain Capital. So, 10 days from now, it will be interesting to see what Romney looks like after this barrage. Yet consider this about Romney: He went into Iowa as the weak front-runner; he came out of it as the front-runner; and after last night’s victory, he’s emerged as the strong front-runner. And if he wins South Carolina, he will become the de facto nominee. It’s as simple as that.
*** The message to take on Romney: Yet while there might not be a viable GOP messenger to take on Romney in South Carolina and beyond, there is a conservative message: You’ve gotten a raw deal from Washington and a greedy Wall Street. It’s a populism argument from the conservative side. And Gingrich was trying to articulate it in an interview with NBC News yesterday. “There's a big difference between financial manipulation and capitalism,” he said. “Capitalism is when entrepreneurs go out and investors go out. They start something real. They grow something. And it has real impact. And remember, the workers are contributing, too. This isn't just three rich guys at the top. These are everybody in the company's trying to do something good. And I really do represent a middle-class kind of approach to conservatism. I think that you want everybody to succeed.” There’s a message out there, but is there a messenger to deliver it? Meanwhile, on “TODAY” this morning, NBC’s Matt Lauer asked Romney an intriguing question: Are questions about Wall Street greed and excess about envy or about fairness? Romney’s answer: “I think it’s about envy. It’s about class warfare.”
*** About last night: Here are the results from last night (with 95% precincts reporting): Romney 39% (exceeding John McCain’s winning 37% in ’08), Paul 23%, Huntsman 17%, Gingrich 9%, and Santorum 9%. Looking at the exit polls, Romney did a MUCH better job among conservatives, Tea Party supporters, and evangelicals than he did in Iowa. (Remember, though, New Hampshire is a much different place than Iowa or South Carolina; in fact, a combined 62% of New Hampshire primary voters considered themselves liberal or moderate on social issues.) Yet he underperformed among low- and middle-income GOP voters, getting 51% from those making $200,000 or more but getting just 31% among those making less than $30,000. Also, he didn’t fare as well among independents as you might have expected earlier, capturing 29% of that vote (versus 32% for Paul). Those are flashing yellow lights for his campaign.
*** Paul’s gift to Romney: Make no mistake: Paul’s second-place finish last night in New Hampshire was a gift to Romney. Anyone else finishing second in the state (Huntsman or Newt or Santorum) would have provided that candidate with some potential momentum heading into South Carolina.
*** Huntsman’s “meh” performance: Meanwhile, Huntsman’s third-place showing pretty much summed up his candidacy thus far: not awful but not great, either. Look at the groups he over-performed with: Democrats, independents, and those satisfied with the Obama administration. That’s not a coalition that will win you the GOP nomination in 2012. Huntsman is now taking his campaign to South Carolina, and the campaign tells us the strategy is to peel moderates away from Romney there. Unfortunately for him, the electorate there looks MUCH different than the electorate in New Hampshire.
*** Once again, GOP turnout wasn’t a “wow” figure: Here is something that might start to concern Republicans: For the second-straight contest, GOP turnout was pretty pedestrian, especially given the party’s supposed enthusiasm about defeating Obama in November. With 95% of precincts in, turnout in last night’s Republican primary in New Hampshire was slightly under 240,000, which is about the same as it was it was in 2000 and 2008. While turnout will increase once the other 5% comes in -- setting a record just like it did in Iowa -- it won’t be a WOW figure like we saw on the Democratic side in ’08.
*** Obama’s performance in NH: And don’t forget that President Obama was on the ballot last night, too, in New Hampshire. With 95% of precincts reporting, he got 82% of the vote (and nearly 47,000 votes) in the Democratic primary. That percentage is less than Bill Clinton’s 92% in 1996, but it’s greater than George W. Bush’s 80% in 2004. That said, the Dem primary turnout last night (53,000-plus) was less than the Dem turnout in ’96 (90,000-plus) and the GOP turnout in ’04 (67,000-plus).
*** CORRECTION *** Our percentage for Clinton above was slightly off. In 1996, Clinton -- who, like Obama, was essentially running un-opposed for his party's re-nomination -- grabbed 84.4% of the vote in New Hampshire. And in 2004, Bush got 80% of the vote in the Republican New Hampshire primary.
Countdown to South Carolina primary: 10 days
Countdown to Florida primary: 20 days
Countdown to Nevada caucuses: 24 days
Countdown to Super Tuesday: 55 days
Countdown to Election Day: 300 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
Mitt Is It
On the Today Show this morning Romney said the President’s class warfare talk is just envy.
When questioned about his use of the word “envy” Romney said “it’s ok to talk about thing like this in a quiet room”.
Here is a perfect example of how Romney would govern. Please let’s not have an open and honest discussion about something, about anything that citizens have genuine concerns with. Let the law makers discuss the issue and make decisions for you in a “quiet room”.
If you liked the way the Health Care discussions and deals were made you are going to love a Romney administration.
I’m looking forward to a full day’s worth of entertainment from the FR lefty liberal whining and complaining about the Republican primary in NH and the upcoming SC primary.
And speaking of entertainment, Politico has an article today detailing the “10 Obama Book Takeaways” from the current crop of tell-all books about Barry’s White House. Here are my three favorites:
1. The president’s economic team undermined one another and Obama.
Obama’s economic team was at odds over many decisions, Suskind reveals, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and then-budget director Peter Orszag all jockeying to influence the president. Summers, in particular, generated what senior aide Pete Rouse described as “deep dissatisfaction” within the economic team as he “relitigated” Obama’s decisions. Summers also told Orszag that as far as economic policy, “there’s no adult in charge. [Bill] Clinton would never have made these mistakes.” By late 2010, all but Geithner had left the administration.
Geez, no wonder the slow-bama recovery is still stinking up the economy more than two and a half years after the recession officially ended in June 2009.
3. The White House was a “hostile” workplace for women.
Many women in the Obama White House during its earliest months complained about sexism and an inhospitable workplace, Suskind reports. “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” Anita Dunn, Obama’s first communications director, is quoted as saying. Though Dunn later took issue with the quote, other women in the White House also expressed concerns documented by Kantor, Alter and others. After a New York Times article in the fall of 2009 portrayed the West Wing as a boys’ club, Obama had dinner with his top female aides. Some focused on the way they were being treated; others said the men in charge were damaging Obama’s presidency.
Hmmm….. Aren’t the FR lefty liberals always saying ALL Republican’s are misogynists’ and ALL Dems are staunch defenders of women’s rights??
4. Robert Gibbs cursed Valerie Jarrett.
In one of the most chewed over scenes from Kantor’s book, former White House press secretary Gibbs erupted in an expletive-laced tirade against Jarrett, who said Michelle Obama had been dissatisfied with his handling of an erroneous news report. Gibbs believed he had done a good job deflecting the issue and responded angrily, even training his ire toward the first lady, who was not in the room. “Then f— her, too!” he yelled before storming out. Aides later said Jarrett had misrepresented the first lady’s views. But after that episode, Gibbs told Kantor, he “stopped taking [Jarrett] at all seriously as an adviser to the president of the United States.”
THIS one is just FUNNY!!!!!
"Today, we are faced with the disappointing record of a failed President….And this President wakes up every morning, looks out across America and is proud to announce, "It could be worse."
It could be worse? Is that what it means to be an American? It could be worse?
Of course not. What defines us as Americans is our unwavering conviction that we know it must be better….We still believe in the hope, the promise, and the dream of America. We still believe in that shining city on a hill.
I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success….Our campaign is about more than replacing a President; it is about saving the soul of America. This election is a choice between two very different destinies.
President Obama wants to "fundamentally transform" America. We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great. He wants to turn America into a European-style entitlement society. We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity. This President takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe; we look to the cities and small towns of America….
I'm asking each of you to remember how special it is to be an American. I want you to remember what it was like to be hopeful and excited about the future, not to dread each new headline. I want you to remember when our White House reflected the best of who we are, not the worst of what Europe has become.
That America is still out there. We still believe in that America….This election, let's fight for the America we love."
By golly Mitt, I think you've got it.
Up close, there were no real surprises in New Hampshire last night. From a distance we see a very tangled web. The adage plays out. Romney's attempts to deceive the right-wingers will snare him, perhaps enough to take him down.
His recent gaffes have been so damaging that his victory speech came right from the TelePrompter. How will the right-wingers deal with that one? The content of the speech was literally unbelievable.
He will balance the budget. No he won't. That cannot be done without cuts of such magnitude that the economy will crash.
He will create a military so powerful, no one will dare attack the United States. No, he won't. The most powerful military on earth did not prevent the attack on the Twin Towers. Further, how do you pay for such an all-powerful military, while you are delivering a balanced budget.
He will repeal "Obamacare". No, he won't. He can't.
Like all Republican candidates at this stage, he is throwing raw meat to the rabid base. In the past that was fine. Today, video coverage makes that impossible. With his reputation as a flip-flopper already established, his words for the base will be trotted out for independent voters who know he is posing. They simply will not know what to believe.
For all the appearances of strength from Ron Paul, this was probably the beginning of the end. His appeal is his separation from the rank corruption of our bought-and-paid-for government. He really is refreshing, but his policies simply will not work in a country where greed screams for regulation.
Huntsman just ain't gonna happen. He really is not all that far removed from the right-wing. He may be the most moderate of the Republican crowd, but that's like comparing degrees of crazy. He's not quite as crazy as the rest.
The only question about Gingrich is whether he goes rogue and attacks Romney. He now knows his surge was strictly attributable to the "anyone but Romney" phenomenon. He was just another flavor of the weak...minded. He will be working on profiting from his candidacy. Hard to believe he would do something like that, isn't it.
Santorum? Pro-life, pro-war. Never did military time, but willing to kill the kids next door - AFTER they're born, of course. Big on morals, because he has that direct line to God. Government is too big, which is the reason we need Pregnancy Police and a Morals Militia. After South Carolina, Santorum is done.
Then there's Rick Perry. Beavis Palin. Ernest goes to Washington, D.C. What comes after dumb? Please go away.
South Carolina will most likely give us the Republican candidate. That will probably be Mitt Romney. So far, Romney has been long on criticism of President Obama, and long on platitudes and empty slogans.
We will be well-served if the candidates have some serious debates. It will be even better if Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate and participates. Not likely, but we would truly see how serious our problems are.
Hmmmm....
The message I received loud & clear is - the GNOP has decided to put party before country after all...
The other message is, the RWNJ's who for months refused to embrace ANY of the candidates, have suddenly fallen in ♥ with Willard!
Of course, that's a safe bet now that the writing is on the wall! lol
What a bunch of Mavericks! ;o)))
I am in awe of the Republican Party. Romney? Really?
In the wake of a global financial crisis brought on by Wall Street greed the Republican Party is set to nominate a "vulture capitalist" that made millions firing people and sending their jobs overseas. This happens in a time of high unemployment and record inequality. To complicate matters the current iteration of the GOP relies heavily on evangelical Christian votes and the vulture capitalist the Republicans are set to nominate is a Mormon, a religion many evangelicals consider a cult.
Also too, the Mormon vulture capitalist in question is about as likable as the herpes virus.
Roboney wins again!! Roboney - The job cremator.
Dennis, perfect example of how Romney cannot answer questions about his questionable comments because he knows what he said was a lie. As Gingrich called Romney's words in one of the debates "pious baloney." Newt is absolutely right.
Feisty, yep, what a bunch of "mavericks"--cloned ones.
Joe -
Where's number 2? 1,3,4 ? LOL.
Did you have trouble with 1st grade?
Where's number 2? 1,3,4
_________________________________
It was numbers 1,3 and 4 from Politico's list numbered 1 through 10. If you want to read number 2 and 5 through 10, you'll have to go to Politico.com.
Moron.
Or, is the story on Mitt Romney that he spent over 5 years campaigning in New Hampshire, there is some argument that he would have "favorite son" status, and he is still under 40%?
And, Mitty used a (GASP!) teleprompter to give that speech! Oh my gosh, will the world survive?
Wow, Tom, you are WAY more patient than I am. I NEVER read what Joey writes. Too facile.
Feisty’s Obscene Oaf in Office?
[From Feisty yesterday regarding the Romney Super PAC spending now up to $7 million with a Florida ad buy of $1.7 …..]
So, Feisty …. What is the word for “OBSCENE” X 107 … the amount Obama spent in 2008 …. Or the word for “OBSCENE” X 142 ….. the billion Obama plans for spending this election?
What is more obscene … some rich guys putting 7 million of their own money behind their favored candidate …. or Obama taking $7 million of tax payers money to finance his efforts to collect his billion?
The $7 million represents just the cost of AF 1 for campaign trips the last 3 months, calculated from the flight times off the White House daily schedule. Fund raising trips to Cleveland, Kansas City, Scranton, NYC, Manchester, Philly, Las Vegas, LA, San Fran, Denver, Pittsburg, Orlando, Detroit, Dallas, St. Louis ….. trips where, for example … Obama might get a PDB, head off to Andrews, get on the plane, fly to Cleveland, “participates in a discussion with a family at a private residence”, delivers remarks on the economy to high school students (in order to write off the trip), hops back on the plane, flys back and calls it a day. (White House schedule from Wednesday, January 4 2012.)
Nothing else on the schedule other than the PDB ….. so $455,000.00 for 2.5 hours @ $182,000.00 an hour for AF1 , a full day of the president’s schedule when we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression …. All for a few minute speech to high schoolers that laughed at him when he said they “inspire” him? After-all … 10-15 minutes of Obama BS has to be more valuable to the kiddos than the 5-6 full time teachers that could have been hired - right?
What an Oaf …..
All libbies sing along ……. “But … but … but … Bush …”
Feisty also remarked about Romney and the Super PAC money ….
Funny, Bush was known for starting his Presidential Daily Briefings at 6:45 AM.
Obama’s average start time the last 6 months is 10:03 AM.
The Oaf in Office literally can’t even manage to find the Office downstairs consistently before 10 o’clock. One day he did meet with an ambassador at 8:55 AM and met with Lady Key at 9:00 AM another time day making it twice in 6 months that he was in by 9:00 AM. There was one weird entry about a meeting with Hillary at 4:30 AM (make your own joke) … but that’s literally it for the non travel schedule over the last 6 months. Check the White House schedule.
The average time for the last thing on his schedule (non campaign) is 3:30 PM. In other words … Obama’s daily (non campaign) schedule for the last 6 months averaged from 10:00 AM till 3:30 PM!
So is Obama an oaf whose understanding of the economy and business is so limited that he doesn’t have a clue what a normal work day is, or is Obama still just a clueless community organizer and is simply just sticking with the detached from reality schedule he always had?
So, David Walker. "Never did military time, but willing to kill the kid next door" ???? That's funny. I thought you people had stopped that line of ridiculousness a few years ago but now your back to the old "only politicians who've been in a war (or the military) are allowed to send our guys off to fight" BS, huh?
Well, I'll tell you what. While YOU are researching exactly WHAT branch of service Barack Obama was in , including rank, unit etc..., I'LL be researching just how many "kids" have died since January 2009 when he started sending them to war. Or has you like to put it....I'm gonna see how many "kids next door" Barack Obama has killed.
I really thought you people had given up that kind of stupid crap when he became president. Guess not.
Romney now has 20 of the 1144 delegates needed to win. Relax.
Bill , Fairfax VA
"Our campaign is about more than replacing a President; it is about saving the soul of America. This election is a choice between two very different destinies."
Romney's campaign is about the SOUL of the REPUBLICAN PARTY.
What is their destiny?
Bill do you think the civil war within the GOP will finally be settled in SC or in Florida?
I wonder where the Paul supporter will go if Romney wins?
Teap Party voters, will they rally around Romney now?
The religious right voters will show if they can really accept Romneyinto their revival tent in SC.
I agree with you Bill ,the soul of your party is at stake.
David Walker, terrific post. True and sadly funny.
There are few moderate republicans left since Reagan hearded them to the right. Those moderate conservatives are mostly now independents or blue dog democrats.
Isn't it amazing that after two small states that Mitt Romney is now the GOP nominee? So, voters in Texas, Florida, New York, California, etc., stay home, don't bother. Go watch a movie instead of voting. It has been proclaimed that Romney is the nominee.
Think is, it is the same for both parties. Doesn't this bother anyone else but me?
Let me remind everyone before they go and annoint Mitts as the "man", Reagan won neither Iowa nor New Hampshire in '80. (and we all know what he went on to do in the election)
Romney got just what everyone knew he was getting before the campaign really started no more no less, his Iowa "win" is so questionable to make you wonder if we live in the same world as the media and candidates.
The way I see it,
Dr Paul won Iowa by 7 points, he got the votes (according to the exit polls, the same ones the media uses to call the New Hampshire primary and all elections early)
Mitts won New Hampshire, but only by 17 points. They are calling it a "Decisive" win? A decisive win would have been winning by 30 points and pulling votes from all demographics. He only got what was there for him in the first place. He didn't gain anything.
On to SC! where he hasn't done well in the past and Newt is leading the polls with Perry close behind, what I will be watching is does Dr Paul beat Mitts in SC?
But from what the adds are coming out like it is going to be a Nasty, Nasty 10 days.
ideology,
Yup , "historic wins" still only get you 20 delegates. That is the only thing Romney is interested in , racking up the count by Super Tues and the race is over for the soul of the Republican party.
Phine,
It bothers the hell outta me...
Egilman - I would love for Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination, but it will never happen. The Republican establishment would never allow it. If a miracle happened and Ron Paul were to gain enough delegates to be the nominee the Republican establishment would force a brokered convention and crown someone, anyone, other than Ron Paul.
Egilman,
It should bother everyone on both sides of the aisle. And, to our hosts, can't the media see that they play a big part in this narrative? Now, I hate the old "blame the media" for everything, but, seriously, would it not be better for your ratings to not proclaim a nominee now but let it play out? Better for ratings.
Good morning, everyone. No particular wisdom this morning -- I know, I know, what's different from any other morning? -- but I must say that I agree with David -- there were no surprises in New Hampshire.
Surprisingly, however, I also agree with Joe, at least in part -- I'm looking forward -- but not to Democrats' heads spinning around. Rather, I'm looking forward to the day when Republicans finally implode all their castles in the air, leaving the President firmly rooted, and essentially unopposed, on the ground.
Can you say 2008? Deja vu, all over again.
Have a lovely day, everyone. Snow coming here, at last.
I agree, nisl. There is no way the Republican establishment will allow Paul the nomination.
The question is how far the Republican establishment goes in allowing Paul some show of power with the platform to keep him happy?
And, if Paul makes a third party run, or doesn't to protect Rand's prospects with the party.
What do you think Egilman? Any guesses?
Damage,
Obama has lost 1,227 "kids next door" in Afghanistan since he came into office 3 years ago.
We lost 564 in 8 years under Bush.
newday,
How true, how true.
David,
Great analysis. The other thing that resonated in Paul's campaign here in NH is his "bring home the troops" message. He made a great analogy last night between the decline of the Soviet Union and their invasion of Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Romney keeps pumping up the War Machine. It's hard to believe the American public will fall for it, but then again they seem to fall for all kinds of things that leave me scratching my head.
Please, please, please don't respond to Damage. There never was any light in that bulb.
WOW! You all see this quote from "nisl"????? " I would love for Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination".......
I'm not a Ron Paul fan, nisl. But I'm glad you're coming over to our side.
Hands down, best giggle of the day. This day, or every day.
Ah. But don't forget the 4,500 in Iraq, where Al Qaeda never was until we were.
Ummm, it's about picking the person who can present a viable challenge to a failed incumbent president. But you knew that, right?
Winning in 2012, thanks for asking.
Civil war? Civil war?? You mean, sort of like the civil war between Hillary and Obama in 2008? Get a grip, nomination fights almost always get a bit nasty – these are all competitive folks trying to grab the brass ring. Oh, and umm Romney is polling well in both those states.
Here's a clue: they won't be voting for Obama.
Here's another clue: they won't be voting for Obama either.
Thanks for reading.
Waste all the time you want, Damage. I guess you're talking about Afghanistan. The war that Bush started and then ignored while pursuing the shiny object that was Iraq. When you fight a war, there are casualties. Why did we lose 4,000+ in Iraq? I STILL don't know what that was about.
A year or so ago, Mitt praised his kids' service to our country. Their "service to our country" was their service to his campaign! Wow! Hotels and catering, instead of tents and MREs! Whatta putz!!
phinephancy
I've been saying it for a while. No way that Iowa's small population and fairly homogenous voter base should be the first caucus. Despite NH's independent nature it still has a small population. I agree, after only about 300,000 people weigh in that is supposed to be representative of the nation?
Time to have a rotating system so that bigger, more populated, and more relevant states get their chance to vote their choice.
It is all but over with two in a row, the contest is over. South Carolina will be the last stand. Oh well.
Maybe FR can turn their attention to the politicians who are elected in lieu of obsessing over every mispoken word and flub of potential nominees and also rans.
It will be Romney vs. Obama in 2012. Last thing to see politically is who will be the VP for both parties? Although, that won't be the deciding factor on who wins, not by a long shot.
Despite the GOP weak field and waffling front runner/eventual nominee it still all comes down to the state of the economy. I've often said from my first post here that if the unemployment rate is 7.6% +/- or things are in a positive trend, Obama wins. If unemployment is above 8% Obama loses.
Remember the American voters are a fickle bunch, if things are bad, they will blame whoever is in charge.
I'm not a Ron Paul fan, nisl. But I'm glad you're coming over to our side.
I'm not. You want to know why I'd love Ron Paul to win? Because he is the only non-crazy/non-stupid Republican Candidate that isn't a compulsively dishonest blowhard. I may not agree with many of Ron Paul's positions, nor do I think his ideology is in the least applicable to the reality we live in, but he actually believes in his positions.
The only thing Romney believes in is that Romney should be President. He is a robot, a soulless pander-bot with all the integrity of meth addicted used car salesman.
Yellowdog,
I agree it will be the economy until the September/October surprise. There always is one.
Well, at least it is nice to know I can tell any neighbors who are members of the GOP they don't have to vote in Florida's primary - the can just hang out at the beach for the day.
My, my ... testy this morning, aren't we.
But lest we all forget, it wasn't President Obama who started those wars.
He got us OUT of Iraq, remember? Despite the howling of the chickenhawks, who STILL, as far as I'm aware, have not cited a single authority under which we would stay.
AND he's beginning to reduce troops in Afghanistan.
AND he took care of Osama bin Laden, something that all the chickenhawks together never could do.
AND I'm not hearing him advocate to start a war in Iran, either.
You sound like an angry unicorn. So what's your point, Damage?
newday,
Ron Paul is like George Carlin's wierd crazy uncle.
He is a libertarian - not a republican and most of his supporters are not repubs.
If Paul goes 3rd party, when he has admitted he has no realistic chance in the general election .... if he in effect helps re-elect Obama and his son supports that .... his son will be reduced to the same marginal character the old is.
Newday,
I think if Dr Paul doesn't win, Obama will be the next president. Way too many of Dr pauls supporters like me won't vote or will write him in. This time I think he doesn't do the third party thing, and yes, that is to protect Rand for 2016 or '20.
The time to start looking for winners is after Super Tuesday, I still think Dr Paul will do good, he's not interest in the VP slot besides the party doesn't want him. What is MORE important is the young voters that for the first time are seeing what a REAL republican should be and liking it. I just hope we are still a country when their time comes around.
David Walker - I thought you were talking about the Obama administration. Especially so when the health care democrat debates were going on. Remember, they all went behind closed doors to come up with the best plan to screw the American public. Then the democrats voted on it and it passed, only because they had majorities to override the filabuster at the time... The people lost because of a quiet room.
You were bringing out that example, weren't you?
Damage123:
The last time we went head-to-head, you got your ass handed to you because you couldn't read. Back for more, I see.
The issue is not President Obama's military service. The issue is that an ignoramus like Santorum, who can't preach enough about his pro-life and traditional family values, is all too happy to send troops into combat. More to the point, he is talking about another invasion based on an unconfirmed nuclear threat. Given the attention span and faulty memories of right-wingers, I don't expect you to remember, but we heard the same crap from President Obama's predecessor.
Given your reading and comprehension skills, I don't expect much to come from that. However, you'll want to take into consideration the fact that President Obama was bound by an agreement made by his predecessor in Iraq.
He is still cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan created by his predecessor. Be sure to look into Libya while you're at it.
Now, go stalk someone else.
Sorry, nisl. Guess I just took your words OUT OF CONTEXT. Kinda like "I like firing people". lol
Auntie Facist-- Are you really saying that Bush started the War On Islamofacism In Afghanistan????? Really? That's funny. Because I thought that a bunch of Al Qaeda A-holes flying jetliners into our skyscrapers started that one. You care to explain that? Remember...The War In Afghanistan is supposed to be the war that you people SUPPORT, right?
"When you fight a war, there are casualties".... Oh really? You just finding that out? Lemme guess, you've only been saying that since January 2009. Am I correct? Before that, all the troops we lost were a "waste", a "tragedy" and "kids killed by Bush." So Bush "started" the war in Afghanistan and casualties as a fact of war are only true when Obama is president, is that it? You people are friggin' disgusting.
bob: I so enjoy reading what you have to say when your write like that. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think it may be a struggle for Paul. I don't think the Republican establishment will forgive easily any third party run, and the "sin" may indeed be visited upon the son.
Egilman, what do you think are the prospects for a third party run? I agree with you, Paul's voters aren't going to go for whatever candidate the Party chooses.
Just like Mitt Romney. You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch. ;-)
Brilliant David. Thanks
What about Americans Elect? Seems to be getting more and more play lately.
Oh, and to you GOP fans out there that seem to think Rubio would be the running mate, Jeb is advising him to sit this one out - and they are close.
Sorry, nisl. Guess I just took your words OUT OF CONTEXT. Kinda like "I like firing people". lol
Actually no, you didn't take my comments out of context, I didn't provide the context as to why I'd love Paul to win until I answered your comment.
David is right, your reading comprehension sucks.
Also too, the, "I like being able to fire people," quote is, thus far, being taken out of context by Republicans more than Democrats. I flipped over to MSNBC last night a couple of times and every time it was brought up, every time, the pundits explained the context. Even Rachel Maddow wasn't trying to make it something it wasn't.
That is actually a tad disappointing. Romney himself said taking quotes totally out of context is entirely fair, I kind of wish liberals would use the same rule book conservatives do.
I think it is a stretch to say that Romney's words were out of context. His career was built on being a corporate raider, where he what?
Fired people!
Actions speak louder than words.
Its now time for the Occupy Wall Street people to show their true colors.
Obama has replaced Bill Daley with Jacob Lew- a hedge fund manager who made his millions betting on the mortgage collapse. A Citibank executive who earned a $950,000 bonus in 2009-after the collapse. After Citi got a bail-out.
So, put up, or shut up, OWS. You either Occupy the area outside the White House, show up at all Obama's campaign stops- or get revealed as the arm of the DNC most of us suspect you are.
Bill , Fairfax VA,
We agree it is not about Romney's vision for his party , but you all are hoping his nomination will be" viable" enough to not only challenge but win the "brass ring".
Of course it will get nasty in SC. Both Democrats and Republicans can turn negative.
Will Romney reach out in the end to Paul and Newt? I do not think so.
SC will be a new test for Romney to deal with attack on his narrative as CEO who brings his vast business experience as his best quality for running. Right now that narrative is being challenged by Newt and Perry. And reinforced by the GOP national pundits and insiders.
You are welcome, I do enjoy your conservative posts.
Newday,
No third party run, even as much as we (supporters, I personally am against it) would like it
Phine,
Americans Elect don't want Dr Paul, and have made it plain....
Phine,
Jeb is looking at 2016-'20 and want's people in the party clean from Neo-Con stains as much as possibile
Thanks, Egilman, I don't think he will either.
Egilman,
That's a truth one cannot deny. Good post.
Dearest David. If you can't handle a little criticism, maybe you shouldn't be here. You can't expect everybody here to clap like seals and click a "like" button on your rambling, silly posts. Ok, maybe most of the people will but this IS a lefty moonbat site.
I'm gonna go back and look over the last few weeks of Santorum quotes and see if he indeed said he would be willing to "invade Iran" or if he mentioned the possibility of airstrikes and limited operations. You being someone who likes to play with words and put words in people's mouths to fit your view, I wouldn't be surprised to see you have done that with Santorum.
Are you implying that Obama is only killing Islamofacists (a fact that HE and others on this board constantly brag about) because he feels obligated to do so because Bush was? Hmmmm. Interesting. I guess that's also why Gitmo is still open and the Patriot Act was renewed too. So, Santorum is a warmonger for saying he would be willing to do what Obama is DOING NOW, but is only doing because he felt that he HAD to? Okaaaaaay.
It's strange how you people see a conflict in the idea that someone can be "PRO-LIFE" (being against the slaughter of unborn babies)....and...."PRO-WAR" (willing to fight for America and her interests abroad).
I realize that no jo is blind with hatred about her President, but does she really NOT know that Occupy Wall Street has been at Obama's events? Really?
Anna molly,
For practical purposes OK ... Bush ran Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan into Iraq where we killed over 6,000, far more than everywhere else combined.
Regarding the 4,500 lost in Iraq ...
Bush talked about and was mocked by the left for his comments regarding the Axis of Evil.
At the time of the statement, no one in the world hardly doubted that Hussein had a weapons program and libs wet their pants for Bush accusing N. Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria of having programs.
Funny that as it turned out, Iraq was the only one that didn't have a program, huh?
Regardless, there is no debate that Gaddafi lost his nuclear program due to Bush's action in Iraq, that Iran had suspended its program at that time .... that it almost worked ... that the 4,500 lives were not lost in vain.
Thanks to libs and now Obama's final actions, that is assured.
Anna Molly said:
AND he took care of Osama bin Laden, something that all the chickenhawks together never could do.
AND I'm not hearing him advocate to start a war in Iran, either.
Anna, Anna... Tell me why most of the Seal Special Ops troops involved in the Osama incident are now dead? Remember the chopper that went down in Afghanistan a couple of months ago? There were several members of that team killed in that crash. It's been reported that several other troops were killed in other action too. I dunno... I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but something smells fishy about Obama killing Bin Laden. It was reported several years ago that he died of kidney failure. I'm just saying.
Concerning Iran - How come over the Christmas holiday, 2000 troops were sent to Israel's Meddigo Valley to set up a base camp there? Patriot missles and Skyfox missles have been deployed. An airstrip is being made, offices are being set up and a base of operations is under construction. It was done silently without any media interaction so you won't hear about it on the news. I have a nephew who was sent there. He's in his 9th year and was also sent to Iraq. We communicate with him on a frequent basis.
Explain why we'd be setting up a base of operations in flight distance to Iran if Obama wasn't planning some sort of operation? This base is being built for the long haul... it's not tents.
Bush ran Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan into Iraq where we killed over 6,000, far more than everywhere else combined.
Ha! That is funny! Is that where you think "Al Quada in Iraq" came from? Do you really believe that Al Quada members in Afghanistan picked up and moved to Iraq?
Wow.
I heard Mitt's win in Iowa described on TV as "decisive" today. The guy won by eight votes. In a general election there would be calls for a recount.
This how the media shapes perceptions. The TV journalists are already predicting a Romney nomination, after one primary in the Northeast! I'd be mad if I were a Ron Paul or Santorum supporter.
lmao...still people who try like hell to justify baby bush's faux war on terror...6000 al queda in Iraq? We don't even claim that many deaths in total you know...but nice try at misinformation
Brain damaged, Bush bombed and invaded Afghanistan, ignored it for Iraq, lost 4,000+ people in Iraq for dubious reasons and left a mess for Obama to clean up in Afghanistan. Bush has never been held accountable for the misjudgments that lost those 4,000+ lives. Virtually NO ONE had a problem with Afghanistan at the time. Bush is a high class draft dodger who, seemingly, didn't give a damn about the Iraq losses.
Amy,
I am mad and I don't support the GOP at all.
I don't call that fickle. I call that logical.
As much as I thought the idea that Iraq had nuclear weapons was ridiculous, the idea that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons is just as ridiculous. Why do you think the threat is unconfirmed? What evidence would convince you?
I agree it will be the economy until the September/October surprise. There always is one.
I pray that if there is a September/October surprise this go around it won't be like the one in 2008 - Wall Street collapse.
Although I would much prefer Obama, I can live with whoever is in the White House as long as we don't go through another October surprise like that - such as a European Euro collapse or a foreign policy conflagration in Iran.
In Iran I would like to see inspectors see proof that they have militarized their nuclear facilities.
NOJO,
The day after the New Hampshire primary , YOU are callling on the OWS ...
Hilarious!
I suggest you run out and do a" mike check" with the OWS folks.
I will watch on LIve stream.
Good Morning Anna Molly
You have made the right wing nut jobs explode. How nice
yellowdog - I wouldn't be surprised if Team Obama had some Mitt Romney dirt that it is sitting on until October. Maybe Romney has a secret "sister wife" or some such thing.
Timing is very important. I'm sure Team Obama would rather have waited a month or two before starting the Bain Capital attack, but that said having Republicans use the attack lends the attack bipartisan cover. You take the good with the bad.
I think the Europeans will solve their debt crisis but I don't see how Iran resolves itself without hostilities. Can you come up with a peaceful scenario where Iran does not bet the bomb? I am in the camp where Iran, under its current leadership, cannot get the bomb.
So your big hope is the politics of personal destruction?
no joe, no bo, nj
Its now time for the Occupy Wall Street people to show their true colors.
So, put up, or shut up, OWS. You either Occupy the area outside the White House, show up at all Obama's campaign stops- or get revealed as the arm of the DNC most of us suspect you are.
No Jo, Woman Thou Art Loosed
Thanks for revealing you are an OWS supporter/protestor. Seeing you arrested at an occupation would be hilarious.
What a way to go you troll. You go girl !!!
Being born an American with parents that were not I have had an interesting time understanding the identity of what is American and as I grow older it is one that has changed many times. As a child I thought it was a place of miracles when those with nothing can rise to riches. Throughout my short time here, much of that is true. From a family with little means I was able to attend college and recieve a good job immediately upon graduating. It is for these reason I am thankful and proud to be an American. However, as I watch the Democrats and Republicans squabble like children in recent times again my idea of the country is once again transforming.
Given recent events, the great recesion, high unemployment, and the rapid growth of foreign nations, man Americans are frustrated and I think that they are for the first time being faced with a question, "Are we better people or better off?" I think a huge disconnect between many republicans and democrats is many republicans want to be told "we are better people" where as many democrats do not really care for the answer.
With the economic problems the answer to this question is needed more than ever by some and because of that we have seen a field of candidates ready to provide exactly that. They have created an enemy in President Obama as the perpetrator who wants to destroy the American Dream. They point him as a foreigner who doesn't "belong" to this distinguished American group(not race card refering to the whole birther issue). Many are not against his policies they are simply against the man and what he stands for. He is spoken as weak when he ask to compromise and as too forceful when he avoids obstruction. It is also said he wants to bring America into socialism while at the same time he is trying to aid all of his Wall Street insiders. I hear many republicans saying how it is goal to "destroy" America and at the same time that his sole focus is to be reelected. Do these two statements not contradict? There is no conspiracy to end America, President Obama is no socialist, he is just like the rest of us simply an American who wants to see us prosper.
The question is not are we better people or better off, but it is simply are we better. We should be working to improve as a whole, not dividing ourselves. When I vote in 2012 it will be for the president who is WORKING to answer the right questions not the wrongs ones.
So your big hope is the politics of personal destruction?
Where do you get that? I said nothing of the sort. But Romney has been running for president for 5 years. Team Obama has hinted on several occasions going back to the time when they took office that it thinks Romney will be the Republican nominee in 2012.
I'd be amazed if Team Obama hadn't had oppo research feelers out for quite a long time. And I wouldn't be surprised if those oppo research feelers netted Team Obama results it is waiting for the right time to use.
That isn't the politics of personal destruction, that is just politics.
PS - The "sister wifes" thing was maybe a bit nasty. My bad.
Just some ideas (worries?) on fall surprises: China, N Korea, Iran, Russia for international surprises. Domestic: Terrorism, Wall Street crash, major bank goes down.
Personally, I hope none of the above. Surprises mean bad news to the average person (no matter where in the world they live).
TO: Joe in Albany who wrote:
Wrong again. We've got nothing to complain about. Republicans could NOT have picked a better bunch of losers.
That said, I like Huntsman's message, that there's a "trust deficiency" in this country. Only thing is, we have learned NOT to trust Republicans after being attacked by terrorists, attacked and devastated our economy, and lied into war to by 2 oil men in the White House who just happened to overthrow the 2nd largest oil producing nation in the world, which Republican followers STILL can't put 2 and 2 together on that one!
We have a great trustworthy president in President Obama, and won't have another lying Republican who's just chomping at the bit to attack Iran so that the rich can go back to playing the stock market, investing in oil and war weapons.
Obama / Biden 2012
Dennis it is envy. Claiming someone else has cheated, stolen, lied, or was lucky doesn't justify the attacks to get what YOU or SOMEONE ELSE thinks if fair from someone who has obtained.
nisl,
Please do not take this as an ad hominem attack on your intelligence, but as a statement of fact - you are certainly ignorant of the facts.
Brianb,
FYI, 20 members of SEAL Team 6 were lost in the ambush along with 12 other Americans.
"Most" of SEAL Team 6 is inaccurate due to the fact it is classiifed as to how many comprise the team.
The military community was shocked and stunned when Obama / Biden revealed and identified SEAL Team 6. There were numerous reports that their deaths (largest loss of life in SEAL history) later were in fact a planned operation in retaliation and for propaganda reasons due to the attention and celebrity status foist upon them by Obama.
The shooter and commander of the operation were killed by an F-16 strike trying to escape Afghanistan.
Thanks for the other info.
nisl, #1.32, terrific explanation of Ron Paul!
Reading several posts questioning Iowa and New Hampshire being first for the usual reasons, small, homogenous, etc. The question I ask is do you really think the outcome would have been different if the first two stops had been somewhere else? Would Kansas be a better choice than Iowa? Would Massachusetts be better than NH? Don't forget that Iowa with its 96% white population chose Barack Obama over all the other candidates.
FYI, I'm not defending Iowa and NH first because I live in Iowa but everyone ignores logistics and money as part of the equation for their being first. One of the reasons suggested for why other states should go first is size yet that is the very reason why candidates without a great deal of money like Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, Paul can come to Iowa and New Hampshire and make their case and have at least a chance. Both states are small and have far less expensive advertising markets than those larger and more diverse states. If Florida or California were first, only the Mitt Romney's with massive amounts of campaign cash would stand a chance as well as both have large expanses of land to travel, which also costs money, for the "meet and greets".
My point isn't to make the case that only IA and NH should be first but merely to suggest why it makes sense. It wouldn't bother me if changes were made but I seriously doubt the outcomes would change.
Can you come up with a peaceful scenario where Iran does not bet the bomb? I am in the camp where Iran, under its current leadership, cannot get the bomb.
Peaceful scenario, there is a way to prolong but not stop their eventual ability to produce a nuclear weapon. Many here will disagree, but I think it is not worth another war and utter chaos in the Middle east to try to militarily stop them.
I could see a GOP administration sponsoring a proxy attack on Iran via Israeli forces.
...and that is what I mean. If you said that the President's re-election team is going over the history of Bain Capital to launch an attack on his business practices, that is fair game. To use an example of what would be a personal issue is like Romney attacking the President's wife or family for their vacations. Irrelevant and personal.
It would be nice to keep this on policy as long as possible.
Nice update.
nisl,
Please do not take this as an ad hominem attack on your intelligence, but as a statement of fact - you are certainly ignorant of the facts.
I've read your posts Bob, you get your facts from Fox News and hate radio and I don't. So I guess I am ignorant of YOUR "facts."
Phinephancy,
Want another worry, or two?
Gas prices are the highest in history for this time of year and going up.
Due to Obama's lack of a sane energy policy, prices should be very, very uncomfortable for the average voter ... that alone could be a focus and tipping point.
Another thing is the scandals. If the media ever really covers Fast and Furious / other scandals, if Americans become aware of how corrupt this administration honestly is ... Obama's chances are sunk.
First thing is that I think any future Administration is likely to attack Iran. The current Administration has not shown any reticence in using drones all over the Middle East. I seriously don't see this as a party issue (wow bi-partisan agreement).
My fear is that Iran would supply material to a terrorist group hoping for deniability. If an attack took place I cannot imagine being the President ordering an "appropriate" response. I don't see a scenario where a nuclear Iran will not have dire consequences regionally and around the world.
I come back to the point made by John Huntsman; now that Libya gave up its program peaceably, and then we supported the overthrow of its regime, what incentives can we give Iran?
This is the best argument I've seen that Libya was a strategic mistake.
Alan, the guy with the sinus problem is trying desperately to hide the fact that he is a religious bigot.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/hesitant-support-mormon-2012.aspx
While 18% of republicans, and 19% of independents, are also religious bigots, it is highly instructive to discover that over a quarter- 27%- of democrats suffer from what I term a mental disorder.
Actually, it's what I call all bigotry.
Yes, Fairfax Bill, it could be worse....we could go back losing 750,000 jobs a month under the Republicans.
Alan - I don't see a scenario where a nuclear Iran will not have dire consequences regionally and around the world.
Well, we are all a bit late on this. It was actually Pakistan getting the bomb that had the biggest consequences, wasn't it? Didn't they help North Korea develop their nukes? Isn't Iran getting help from outside sources like North Korea?
Iran getting nukes would be terrible, but they aren't the first link in a chain of dread, they are somewhere in the middle.
Any workable solution would have to involve the entire global community.
nisl,
Well, so much for the benefit of doubt.
I guess I do have to take back that previous part of not attacking your intelligence since you just proved how sorrowfully clueless you are.
Akeem,
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful post. The whole question of partisan identity has bothered me for a long time. In my own family, there are evangelical Christian conservative voters, an atheist Libertarian, and moderate and far left mainline Protestant Democrats. In one family! But, America is like that too, with a few more religions thrown in: neighbors and family with different points of view, challenging each other, talking, and caring for one another (when the chips are down.)
I'm OK with people challenging the President, because this is how issues get brought out into the open and talked about. I happen to support the President, but this is the American Way: we argue, debate and are held accountable for the results. I think when voters hear from both the President and the Republican challenger, they will support Obama, and give him a more reasonable House to work with in 2012.
That is a very inaccurate way to call 27% of democrats racial bigots No joe no Bo, given that with every group those numbers would change and drsatically. Please do not try to imply more democrats are bigots than republicans with that as your support
Yes we are, but failures in North Korea and Pakistan are not reasons to allow further proliferation. This is not a case where the justification is that Bush did it or screwed up first. As much as posters should get over ODS, there still seems to be a number of cases of BDS.
as a conservative...i hope o'bomber brings this corporate oinker down...
Of course this happened when there was a Democratic congress. The same body that President Obama blames for obstructing his policies.
So when a bad economy occurs during a Republican Administration and Democratic congress it's the Administration's fault, but when the economy sucks under a Democratic Administration and a divided congress it's congress's fault.
Got It!
Bob,
Yes, those could be surprises. Also, scandals from the right. However, I was trying to point out surprises that were not partisan in nature. I see this point has missed you. I, oh never mind, you are so steeped in your partisan hatred of anyone or anything from the left there is no trying to see something that would affect all - and the outcome of an election. Alas, so you are so steeped in your ODS that trying to be reasonable is of no use. Sad.
Alan - First thing is that I think any future Administration is likely to attack Iran. The current Administration has not shown any reticence in using drones all over the Middle East. I seriously don't see this as a party issue (wow bi-partisan agreement).
__
If a re-elected Obama or future democratic administration commits an unprovoked or first strike attack they will be embracing the Bush doctrine. I doubt that taking out their nuclear capabilities will be done with a simple missile or air strike. It could cause a protracted regional, multi party war. Unlike Iraq I don't think it would stay confined to Iran's borders.
Good point on the Libya, Huntsman comment. I was not for that war, but an honest question, now that Assad is and has been killling his own people for months now, why no humanitarian retaliation or any reaction on Syria?
I don't believe we should intervene in Syria either the unrest there has no direct threat to US or its allies.
It was hypocritical to go into Libya and not Syria claiming humanitarian reasons. Are Syrians not being killed? Libya was about replacing/killing the dictator a leader that the the powers that be no longer wanted in power.
The powers that be still begrudginly wants Assad in power so there will not be any US/Nato or Arab league sponsored action in Syria.
Meanwhile, on “TODAY” this morning, NBC’s Matt Lauer asked Romney an intriguing question: Are questions about Wall Street greed and excess about envy or about fairness? Romney’s answer: “I think it’s about envy. It’s about class warfare.”
Huh. Gotta love this "class warfare" bull$#!t. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Wanting corporations to NOT be allowed to manipulate the system to their advantage - and the extreme disadvantage of everyone else - is NOT class warfare.
Wanting fair financial practices is NOT synonymous with "redistributing the wealth." It's not about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, it's trying to stop the rich from taking more and more money from everyone else.
Wanting to stop what amounts to theft and fraud is NOT redistribution of wealth.
Wanting a level playing field for everyone, not JUST the rich, is FAIR, not warfare!
So sure, Romney, it's about envy, not fairness. We're all just jealous of the rich. Give me a break! All these ridiculous comments about not wanting to "change" the free market system - as if it hasn't already been changed by the mass greed and exploitation, and doesn't even resemble the original ideal behind the system. We're not trying to change it, we're trying to fix it!
Probably. Hans Blix (remember him), was on the radio last night. He thought that the Iranians would attack Israeli nuclear facilities (by air, not through proxies) in response.
As I said, I wouldn't want to be the President (from either party) on this one. It really is damned if you do and damned if don't.
Alan Jersey boy: Of course, we've never brought the congress into the argument until Republicans were looking for an excuse....don't forget there's plenty of Republicans in congress too.
The fact is, it's the President who gets the credit, or blame, for what happens...remember, it's leadership, stupid....
Now again, why do we want to go back to a economy led by thieves and that tanked the American dream?
Someone way, way, way above posted this:
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul to actually be President but he seems to be the only Republican (other than Buddy Romer - the guy from La.) who doesn't seem to be bought and paid for by large corporate and other monied interests. In other words, Mr Paul seems to be about the only (popular) Republican who isn't a crook!
"Today, we are faced with the disappointing record of a failed President….And this President wakes up every morning, looks out across America and is proud to announce, "It could be worse."
Where does Romney get this crap?
Yes, it could be worse, we could have Mittens as president.
The only thing worse than lies are people who tell them with no knowledge of the truth. Sad sad folks. READ it helps...
Well, gee wiz... Somebody had to win. Why not Mitt?
How funny. It's going to get nasty? It's been nasty from the start. The start of the Republican Party I mean. If they haven't been nasty up until now then God help us all.
How funny. Willard the job cremator. This country will see a real depression if he slimes his way into the White House. He is not going to do anything for anybody in this country but the rich. He comes right out and clearly tells us so. I have always believed that Willard is autistic anyway just like George Bush.
Debbis of ohio...
Better to have discussions in a quiet room than listen to a supposed leader rail publicly against others for his own failures and shortcomings. Amazing how willing he was to throw our senior citizens under the bus, first by taking $500 billion from medicare and using it to fund obamacare, then during the debt limit debacle he said he would put another $600 billion in cuts to medicare/medicaid (aka entitlements) on the table.
Don't you find it interesting that obama will be raising taxes on everyone whose employer contributes to their health care coverage? Bet the IRS and treasury can hardly wait to see the increased tax revenues that this additional earned income will generate
No wonder why pelosi said the house members didn't need to read the healthcare legislation, it was good.
BTW - A quiet room does not imply a closed room or even a room being only quiet in the dead of night.
sorry dennis on my typo with the "debbis".
Thank you FR lefttty liberals for collapsing my post #90.1 above. It tells my i've made my point.
LMAO!!!!
____________________________________
Copied from #90.1 above:
BTW #90.1?? WTF kind of morons does MSDNC have programming this site??
Didn't say I did. I was just pointing out that both parties share the blame for the economic crisis but I agree the Administration shoulders the majority.
However, I don't think this administration nor the last one have been successful. They have been two of the most fiscally irresponsible Administrations in history. The Republicans in congress who voted in Medicare D with no funding should all be defeated, and the Democrats who saw the 2009 stimulus as their wish list should suffer the same fate.
My current opinion is that this Administration is bad enough that I will consider the alternative. It is up to the opposition to make the sale.
Did anyone notice how getting second place would have helped "anyone" but Ron Paul? MSNBC is getting ridiculous these days, especially since they failed to provide an explanation.
Oh wait, the reason being that the media won't back him no matter how well he does.
Phine.... what is your source for romney being the nominee? The WH? DNC? FR?
*repost to correct topic*
Oh, Willard, like all the GOP / Tea bag Prez hopefuls are *hiding* amongst the zombie-base ... so it has the appearence that all thier hysteria means that America is behind them all the way ...
As an example ... for years now we've been see'ng neocons and tea baggers holding press conferences with about 5 or 10 people behind them all cat-calling to make a lot of noise ... then we see little voter-value summits where about 50 people fill-into a dingy little hotel conference room and we're lead to believe this is a big giant representation of the base and of course all of America ....
Never mind Obama needs grandstands and colesiums to accomodate the Obamanation ...
LOL.
BrianB...
Isn't that the same valley where the final conflict is to take place?
As predicted, the Bain Capital attacks are backfiring on Gingrich big time!! Look for a Romney win in SC because of this.....
AmyB - Didn't obama have both a "reasonable" house and senate in 2009-2010?
Wow, 109 comments on this thread. Wooooweeee.
Good afternoon children and I hope you are all playing nicely today because Skip doen't have a lot of time to share today.
Here is my take on the current state of affairs vis a vis the GOP primary.
Let's not get too worked up over what has happened so far. We always knew Romney would win and probably win big in New Hampshire for a whole lot of reasons. But I think we have to take this win with a grain of salt because he only got 39%. Now that's better than his pretty standard 25% showing prior to NH. But it's not exactly an overwhelming mandate.
Let's also not forget that Iowa was a statistical tie (and there are those who claim that Santorum actually won by 8 votes and the Paul supporters are claiming some kind of shennanigans) so you can't crow too much about that one.
It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that swing.
South Carolina is the one to watch, New Hampshire and Iowa, for different reasons, are tainted results.
South Carolina will show us how much support Romney can expect in the South and he's GOT TO HAVE THE SOUTH to have any chance of winning in November.
All this ballyhooing and screaming headlines about New Hampshire being a preview of November is just a lot of morning after euphoria.
South Carolina will tell the tale and while I expect Romney to win in SC I do not expect him to get more than 25% of the vote and it will be a squeaker. If that's proves true, he's got trouble, BIG trouble in November.
Obama/Biden 2012
My cousin in Georgia refered to Rick Santorum as a H.I.N.O. (Human In Name Only) It's not enough that the R.I.N.O.s in power want to strike down Roe V. Wade, they want to end access to birth control. The last Republican I liked was Eisenhower, Even Barry Goldwater could be reasoned with. Not the current offerings.
Being a Lincoln 1865 Republican I keep hoping for someone of Lincoln's caliber. I see candidates of Lincoln's caliber offered by the Democrats. On January 30th I will hold my nose and vote for Romney in the Florida primary. I can't wait until November when I vote a straight Democratic ticket.
"And don’t forget that President Obama was on the ballot last night, too, in New Hampshire. With 95% of precincts reporting, he got 82% of the vote (and nearly 47,000 votes) in the Democratic primary."
And the Republicans got a total of 240,000 votes.
It's nice to see that Obama has such strong support.
Gingrich is doing Romney a favor by hitting him over Bain Capital - making it 'old news' when Obama tries that later on.
Romney cannot beat Ron Paul if there is a strong third party contender; which is very likely if Ron Paul is not on the ballot.
Therefore, the race is already down to a choice between Ron Paul and Obama. If Romney wins the nomination, than Obama will win a second term as president.
RON PAUL 2012 !!!!!!!!! RON PAUL 2012 !!!!!!!!!! RON PAUL 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!!
You're really not that simple, are you, Roy Wilson? You do know better, don't you? You don't? Okay, I'll spell it out for you. Incumbents almost never see a significant turnout because they're not running against anyone. In fact, most people are surprised when they hear that the incumbent is also on the ballot. In NH last night the pollsters were saying that the Democrat turnout was surprisingly high, all things considered.
Time time I'm going to give you the benefit of being disingenuous. Next time I won't be so kind.
Yeah Bill, things could be worse...bushy the clown could still be president..Now that would be bad!!!!!
My prediction for SC
1) Paul
2) Santorum
3) Gingrich
4) Romney
5) Huntsman
6) Perry
My prediction for SC
SC will not get behind a Mormon. They just won't.
SC republicans are kindred spirits. Graham, but especially Demint will most influence who they vote for, and they will nearly all vote as told. I'm sure Demint is yet receiving bids from Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Perry. At this time I am inclined to believe Perry may very well upend Romney there. Romney could though, shell out enough money to Demint to change his considerations. Absent that, Perrys campaign will regain life. Gingrich, though likeable there, by blasting Romney will only help Perry. If the election were tomorrow Perry would win. I suspect, even with the finangling between now and the election, Perry will win or e in a strong second.
If Gingrich drops, most of his followers will go to Santorum and Vise-versa. This is similar to the same prediciment that Romney and Huckabee found themselves in. The common logic was that Huckabee should have dropped out and most of his support (hopefully enough) to put him over McCain - and that was probably true.
Huckabee seemed to think that Romney dropped he would get most of Romney's support, but not only did Romney endorse McCain, but about half of Romney's support went directly to McCain.
Because 75% of the Republican Party would prefer someone other than Romney, and there is no animosity between Gingrich and Santorum Supporters, those two supporters will support either one. Combined along, that is more than enough to stop the Romney Express.
I would totally pay the $49.99 pay per view to see Ron Paul debate Ross Perot.
Come on Paul supporters. Answer me this please:
Of all the zany ideas Ron Paul has, what ideas do you really think he could bring to fruition. Because currently, he has only been able to see 4 of his own bills get passed in all his time in congress.
Jack in Portsmouth "You're really not that simple, are you, Roy Wilson?"
Lighten up - it was a joke.
Demintexas,
Did you ever ask yourself if more of Ron Pauls bills HAD gotten passed if we might be better off than we are now? Think about that and think about Obama harassing states who are trying to enforce illegal immigration of the criminal element and being re-released by the Obama administration to run free on our streets. Look up the statistics of real criminals entering out society illegally!!!Better yet look up the Mexican Prez stating that we need to stop sending their own criminals back to them bc THEY are trying to clean up THEIR nation. Looks like Obama agrees with him or he would not be chasing after a great man who is trying to enforce our nations laws. My vote will go to RP if Obama does not step back and let the states do the job he refuses to acknowledge needs to be done by HIS administration. But I am still waiting on Obama to be a good little boy and keeps his promise to build a fence or be smart and send all the newly home troops to the border and protect our economy from criminals and the drug cartels. That will get him a NO contest from me. I will sing loud and clear vote Obama. But he has to clean up our borders and our nation one way or another from an element that is only serving to empty the coffers. Give good immigrants amnesty for all I care and make them legal and enforce tax contribution from both the illegals and the ubber rich who like to skim the system.
He'll do at least two of the things I care most about Dem,
1. Bring home our soldiers for real (not the Obama stick them in kuwait way)
2. He'll actually implement his trillion dollar plan.
P.S. I wouldn't hold my breath for that TFG ;)
My prediction for SC is - ROMNEY, PAUL, HUNTSMAN, PERRY, GINGRICH and last SANTORUM.
I've done my own research, and have discovered that, on practiclly every election, the one with the most votes wins.
I have also discovered, that I do not need to be informed of the outcome until the next day, because absolutely nothing ever happens between those two times to change anything.
Give me Liberty. Ron Paul 2012
I know Fitz(hope I got ur name right sgwife, memory is shot), I have an optimistic way of viewing things, I know but All we have for the next 11 months is hope!!!
Romney's vote totals aren't impressive, and they telegraph a persistent inability by Mitt to close the deal with a broad swath of the Republican Party. But in this diluted field and in this particular year, it will be enough to win the Republican nomination almost by default. No sustainable challenger to Mitt ever emerged among the few sorry figures that actually declared a campaign. By sheer force of money and appearing as the most sane among the GOP field, Romney always had the advantage as the frontrunner. Whether he can beat Obama is quite different. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
mattpfl, true. As a former governor of nearby Massachusetts, an analyst pointed out that historically, whenever that happens, at least 10 points come off the top of the win because of the close proximity to NH. If that is true, Romney won by 6 points not 10. I'm inclined to agree with the analyst because many GOP voters are still not thrilled with Mitt.
I'm not thrilled with Mitt but I sure as hell am gonna vote for him. What's the alternative? Barack Hussin Obama, that's what.
Remember when Obama won the South Carolina primary in 2008? All the liberals and Obama groupies were acting like it was a big friggin' deal. All the while ignoring the fact that the only Democrats left in South Carolina are virtually ALL Black, thus guaranteeing Obama's win there. Primaries are like that.
Go Romney or whoever is running against Hussein in 2012!!!!!!!!!
Damage 123,
go to your state election web site. There will be lots of candidates for you to consider: Green Party, Independence Party, Libertarian Party. I think the Free Soil Party is on the ballot in some states.
You have a variety of choices.
Rent is too damn high!!!
YEAH!!! Where is he now, when we need him!!?? At least, we need the laughs!
I recall in 08, Huckabee was ahead at this point in the game. Remember what happened to him. He didn't become the nominee. I am crossing my fingers that Romney gets torn up in South Carolina. He does not hold any sort of impressive lead going into it.
Northstar - are you recommending that damage throw his vote away?
anyone but Obama
So, voting for someone who is not "D" or "R" is "throwing your vote away"?
BB,
I am suggesting all people who registered Republican not vote in the rest of the primaries. It has been proclaimed after 2 small states that Romney is the nominee. So go to the beach instead. Or if you are from northern climes - go to a movie.
Brian b,
Just giving Damage some alternatives if he is not "thrilled" with Romney as a Tea Party guy.
In MN we have a Independence party that put old Jesse Ventura in the Governor's mansion.
This Independence party get enough votes each election to sometimes make a difference , but always qualifies to present a new voice to any debate.
Yeah. Minnesota elected the deranged conspiracy loser, Jesse Ventura....AND...deranged lefty moonbat, Al Franken. You people shouldn't be ALLOWED to vote. lol
Northstar - I'm registered in Florida as a NPA. Means no party affiliation. That's the only alternative other than a D or an R. In the general election you can vote for anyone. You can only vote in the primaries under your subscribed party affiliation... to me it's no big deal not to vote in primaries... I am not a D and neither am I an R.
My point being... if you vote anything other than a D or R in the presidential election, you are casting your vote towards someone that cannot win. If Romney wins the nomination I plan on doing a write in vote. I choose Mickey Mouse. He's much more American, he's trustworthy and I've never heard him tell a lie.
I'd say Jessie Ventura is a little over the edge. I did like him in Preditor though. Al Franken is one weird dude.
Damage 123,
Agree with you on Ventura. But the moon bat here in MN is M. Bachmann from the 6th district.
I have already apologized on behalf of Minnesotans for her crazy candidacy.
Now fair is fair... what "stellar "elected officials have your state elected ?:0)
Brainb,
Maybe you are a true independent after all.
There was one time in my voting history that I voted for president other than Dem or GOP. I was young and full of ideals and Democrat was too moderate for me.
The Republican became president. I have never made that mistake again.
Oh, Willard, like all the GOP / Tea bag Prez hopefuls are *hiding* amongst the zombie-base ... so it has the appearence that all thier hysteria means that America is behind them all the way ...
As an example ... for years now we've been see'ng neocons and tea baggers holding press conferences with about 5 or 10 people behind them all cat-calling to make a lot of noise ... then we see little voter-value summits where about 50 people fill-into a dingy little hotel conference room and we're lead to believe this is a big giant representation of the base and of course all of America ....
Never mind Obama needs grandstands and colesiums to accomodate the Obamanation ...
LOL.
the beat goes on; and FAILURE PREVAILS !!!........
Bob 1805084:
I pity you! "Hey, we only lost (killed) 564 young people under Bush!!" Who is "WE". You personally??
It is a tragedy that the United States ever stepped foot in that $hit hole. Bush was going to bring democracy to Afghanistan! What an effing joke. The military went in there to find bin Laden and the commander-in-chief got that Eucked up!
My prediction for SC
...From a Kindergarten graduate...Brilliant! What's next for you? Elementary school?
And the winner is....Mitt Romney.
It should be no surprise that Romney won the NH primary yesterday. Polls gave him a big lead and little time for the others to cut into that lead and most telling, Mitt has the money. Romney is the GOP establishment's anointed candidate and, as is traditional, he lost in 2008 meaning it is his turn in 2012. Republicans were successfully convinced that Mr. Romney is "electable" and "electability" is the measure of the man--not his policies or ideas or even the fact that no one really knows what his views are because he has a hollow core.
What should be disturbing to voters, regardless of political ideology, is that Mr. Romney, and all other GOP candidates except Ron Paul, espouse the very same principles of its war on women's reproductive rights, its war on gays, its desire for greater military spending and hair-trigger view of Iran's danger to the US, economic policies, de-regulation, trickle-down, voo doo that collapsed us in 2008.
There is an old saying, you can change the monkey but the tree remains the same--in other words, you can exchange one person for another but unless their views are different, the result will be the same. Reagan changed the tree but not in a positive way for this country.
Romney, Huntsman, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry are the same tree as George W. Bush, Reagan and Bush 41. Reagan and Bush 41's grand scheme were proved to be a disaster fiscally. Bush 43's trickle-down on steroids created an even greater fiscal disaster. How many times will voters allow the same failed policies to be tried again as if there will be a different result? If the ideological tree remains unchanged, the result will never be different. Does America really need a do-over of the Bush 43 years that nearly destroyed us?
Second Place...Ron Paul
Ron Paul represents the protest vote; he represents a completely different republican tree, a drastically different tree. He has managed to use his positions on government spending and wars abroad to full advantage. Americans recognize that 2000-08 were GOP spending sprees that collapsed the economy as well as blowing up the deficit and debt. His message about deficit and debt reduction resonates. His anti-war message resonates in a war-weary Nation tired of overspending on the military.
Not surprising but puzzling is the willingness of those debt-conscious and war-weary voters to overlook very disturbing aspects of Mr. Paul's ideology relative to civil rights, education, workers rights, individual rights, social security, and the simple fact that his ideologically pure view of Government could never work and would ultimately result in the demise of the democracy established by our Founding Fathers.
Thanks Jody,
I find it interesting that 2 of the top 3 in NH want to bring the troops home now!!
Jody,
Listening to Ron Paul's speech last night, I could easily see how unsophisticated voters who don't look too deeply can get excited by what he says. But when you drill down into the effect his economic policies will have on the country, you emerge with a shockingly disastrous picture. The question is what percentage of voters will actually look that deeply.
In that sense, if he runs as a 3rd party candidate he could help or hurt President Obama. Those who look deeply will likely turn away from him, and that would help the president.
Jack,
The Economic policies he espouses are what built this country into a great nation, Are you saying that what built this nation is now disastrous for the nation?
I understand that the liberals really want Mitts as the candidate, easy to beat, and if you can't beat him at least he won't do too much damage to the big government oligarchy that has been created.
Just one unsophisticated voter here.
Listening to the speeches last night made me really sad, Jody, that the Republicans turn the Democrats' desire to help those less fortunate during the second worse economic downturn in our history into something like "they want to give everybody a handout and they hate capitalism." Nothing could be further from the truth yet they will say it long enough and loud enough that some will start believing it. Kind of like how they said Democrats were soft on terror (ask bin Laden about that one).
Port In Jacksmouth-- "Unsophisticated voters". Heh heh. Why don't you just come out and say it, Port? Don't you mean ..stupid people? It's perfectly ok for you to describe those who vote for candidates you disagree with as being unintelligent. We see it on here all the time and it's long been a liberal mantra; those that vote for right-wing candidates are unintelligent.
Have some balls, man.
Egilman, this liberal honestly does not care which candidate the GOP nominates. They are all, except Paul, spouting the same nonsense that created the mess in 2008. Ron Paul's ideology requires strict Constitutional constructionism which is unworkable in modern society. The Constitution is a living, breathing document. Our country's greatness came from the fact that the Constitution is vague, not written in stone and that Government, like the Constitution, must change and grow with the times to meet the needs of people. Paul is an ideological purist and a pure form of any government does not and cannot survive--the USSR is a classic example of failed, purist ideology. China is another. Both are now a mix of political ideology.
None of these Republicans are very good at speaking the truth.
Egilman,
I have a lot of respect for you and your posts, even though I couldn't disagree more with you.
That's precisely the point--we don't live in the 18th Century anymore. What worked then won't work now.
I am not one of the liberals (and actually I'm a Progressive--there's a difference in degrees of separation) who wants Mitt as a candidate. Despite his faults, he will be a formidable opponent. On the other hand, Obama would beat Paul hands down.
Damage,
Okay. You're stupid. You make it too easy, Damage.
Steeler Fan, made me sad, too. They are nothing but a bunch of greedy "conservatives without conscious." Romney's "envy" remark made me want another one of those whipped cream pies for his face.
Jack, thanks for both terrific comments.
No matter how they try to slice and dice it, republicans do not believe in Government, do not believe Government has a role in anything except the military. When ones ideology is anti-Government, there is no way that person can govern effectively simply because they do not believe in it in the first place. That anti-Government belief is why modern-conservatism begun by Reagan has been such a disastrous failure.
Jody, this is an excellent post, your observations so well stated, bring to the fore what voters of all stripes need to think about. Especially this paragraph:
"What should be disturbing to voters, regardless of political ideology, is that Mr. Romney, and all other GOP candidates except Ron Paul, espouse the very same principles of its war on women's reproductive rights, its war on gays, its desire for greater military spending and hair-trigger view of Iran's danger to the US, economic policies, de-regulation, trickle-down, voo doo that collapsed us in 2008."
Ron Paul is not going to be nominated, what I want to know is who will his followers vote for in the Presidential election. Any fans of his care to offer their second choice? and why?
Jack and Jody, very well said.
Good morning Jack:
I'm feeling prescient again. I told you....they can't help themselves. They double down on stupid.
Gingerbread Mamma I can only give you the thoughts of myself and most of my friends.
If Dr. Paul isn't nominated, those of us who can will write him in, those of us who can't won't vote at all.
No matter how many times y'all ask that question I believe you will get very very few of us that will give their vote to President Obama.
I personally am sick of seeing the ABO. Every other candidate is nothing more than the flip side of the same coin.
Something that really galls me is how Romney and the rest of the crazy train keep talking about how they will fix the economy by removing all of the regulations that are holding back the job creators. What a pile of crap. Does anybody remember that de-regulation is what got us into this mess? the Republican's fantasy job creators. The regulations were removed and this is what happened? Who can buy into that baloney? can't they come up with something new? Hell no, they have no agenda for job creation and that is very clear.
no, i am the best, another one; no, i am the best..the TOTAL ANALOGY of it ALL; THEY ALL SUK !!!.....
Gingerbread, Ron Paul voters will write him in if he is not on the ballot. Ron Paul supporters aren't interested in the a victory for so-called "Republicans" when they are all essentially sell-outs. For most of them, Mitt Romney especially, his positions are just another version of Obama's. So, the choice we are left with is Obama, or a watered down version of him. No thanks.
Roboney wins again!! The job cremator is the equivalent of a fireworks show in a small town. Go Mittzy!!! We kinda sorta like you!
Envy? It's certainly a business owner's right to make a profit, but isn't it fair that he pay his employees a living wage? Republicans have been bucking the minimum wage (hardly a living) forever. There wouldn't need to be such a regulation if there wasn't incredible corporate greed.
I expect Mitt to have VERY limited appeal among anyone who's ever gotten the finger from the invisible hand!
I read somewhere that business executives pay has increased about 24% while the workers pay decreased 6%. Too many employers, not all, no longer consider employees an asset, a trained work force that provides them with the profits. Too often employers no longer share the profits with the workers who make the money for the firm by increasing wages but instead the profits go to shareholders. That is one of the primary reasons that middle income wage earnings have flat-lined and declined. The new business model seems to be that in a difficult economy, workers are expendable because there are plenty of unemployed people willing to work for less. Workers are basically held hostage during recessions; they must take what the employers say or risk having no job at all. It is a short-sighted business model looking only at current profits and not to its future profits and viability.
More ...
According to a new survey by the corporate governance group GMI Ratings, “America’s top bosses enjoyed pay hikes of between 27% and 40% last year.” Meanwhile, other workers saw their average wages go up just 2% in the same year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/14/executive-pay-increase-america-ceos
Jody, todays plutocrats have forgotten something that Henry Ford figured out a hundred years ago. If you want to sell a lot of Model T's, you need to pay workers enough to afford a Model T.
JohnNY, great point on Henry Ford!
If you're at all confused about how big corporations are distributing profits, just walk into a JC Penney store and try to find a sales person to help you. They're manning the registers and the doors, but forget about customer service!
They laid folks off at the beginning of the recession, figured they could manage just fine with fewer people on the floor, so never hired anyone back. I just take my business elsewhere these days.
The Ford model of capitalism is a great example that companies could follow. Romney's vulture capitalism, and that of most republicans, would never support that model. Ford was brilliant enough to see the merit of expanding the ability of buyers to purchase. Today's republicans only see merit in expanding their accumulation of wealth.
On a slightly different topic, get ready for another very bumpy ride. Shadow banking efforts are on the rise and unrestrained. This article should be alarming to everyone/anyone in that it points out the trouble European banks are in, which translates to impending bank failures on American's shores. The article also illustrates where the money is, in the pockets of corporations. Central Banks around the world have lost the battle in controlling the financial systems in the interest of the commoners. Tying it back to the presidential race, Romney will support the corporate control of the money stream, meaning 99% of us a screwed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45928509/ns/business-world_business/#.Tw21GqXOydY
Interesting point ursula,but what defines a "living wage"?
Since labor is such a big part of the cost to produce a product. Cost determines the price of the product or service and price (ignoring product branding) will determine the volume of sales.
Within these constraints, of what value is it to seek an undefined "living wage"?
Doesn't the cry for a "living wage" imply that no one is getting one?
Good lord - most people understand the concept of living wage.
If the anti-business ranters spent half the time they spend whining on supporting strong labor unions, they would not have to carp about unfair corporate officer salaries.
Confronting one's adversary with strength is what succeeds in negotiations with one's adversary. Assuming that labor, management and stockholders all need each other to get a product on the market for a profit, none of the groups are out to destroy the other side, only to subjugate them through negotiation. Whining about unfairness is the last bow one takes before collapsing in total defeat.
So put your money where your mouth is. The only strenght that labor has is in strong COLLECTIVE bargaining. When laboring men and women stick together, like they did in the 50's and 60's, there is a strong vibrant middle class that gets a good chunk of the economic pie. When labor is splintered, un-united, there is nothing but the least scraps that owners can forfeit to labor and still maintain production.
There is no "fair" in what a person is able to make him/herself worth. There is only what that person is able to command. Back in the day, all the moaning about unfairness was about San Fransisco garbage collectors making $13,000/year (1950's dollars - back when making "6-digits" put one in the 1%). All the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth that went on about garbage collectors making more than professors, more than engineers, and maybe even more than God.
Hum-bug! They were able to command a large pay check 'cause they had a strong collective bargaining position via a strong union. Were they worth it? If they got paid it, they were worth it.
Has anyone tracked the demise of the middle class over the last 40 years along with the demise of labor unions over the last 40 years.
The Bible makes no distinction between the worth of the CEO of Bain Capital, or the mail-clerk of Bain Capital. Neither one is "more important" than the other. So the value to the economy of either one is solely up for grabs.
Most any one of us wage earners can be readily replaced; one's value to the economy is whatever one can convince everybody else that it is. The only way that most wage earners can promote their own value is to convince the writer of one's paycheck that it is more economical to pay one's self the wage demanded than to replace oneself.
That kind of convincing requires a strong collective bargaining posistion in which the fate of all wage earners is tied to a single contract. Wages are no more subject to being "too high" than are corporate bonuses. The money will be found, if it means higher prices, more automation or changing owners.
John L Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers was loathed by every mine owner in the country during his presidency - and was treated to a gala of high praise in his later years by those same mine owners, for saving the industry through increased automation required by high labor costs.
So, enough with the talk. Anyone who really wants to restore a strong middle class to the American culture will run, not walk, down to the nearest Labor union, volunteer with time, with money, with canvassing, with recruiting or with whatever the union might need.
Otherwise, send your heartfelt words to Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
.
lot's of early obsession being shown about Mitt's money. don't forget he will be up against the biggest spending candidate in history -- President Obama broke with tradition 4 years ago and rejected public financing (after he said he would accept -- was that a lie or a flip-flop?) and went on to spend an estimated $745,000,000 to win (buy?) the election.
The salt has lost its flavor. Evangelicals have lost their influence.
Why? As the body of Christ has been split so is their political influence.And the attitude - country first Christ second - is wrong?
What needs to be done to become salty again?
Watch video: A German preacher's thought on American Christians and politics
Joe - I actually "liked" your post because it gave me a good laugh. And as for "whining and complaining about the Republican primary in NH and the upcoming SC primary" ... we're looking forward to the upcoming entertainment. The Santorum for Pope campaign ... Perry's bumbling and mumbling ... Paul praising MLK while trying to rescind the Civil Rights Act ... and of course Mitt's unparalleled flip-flop act.
Congratulations to the winner from your fellow conservatives!
Never has a winner looked so beaten
John Podhoretz
Perplexing but true: Mitt Romney is on the glide path to the most easily secured nomination a Republican presidential candidate has ever had — while being one of the weakest major candidates either party has ever seen.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/never_has_winner_looked_so_beaten_blZSZWu7qGMpoIHJZFzFXL
---------------------------------------------------
RINO Romney Is the Least Electable
Peter Ferrara
And his economic policies would be warmed-over Bush Sr. and Dole.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/11/rino-romney-is-the-least-elect
----------------------------------------------------
Bill Kristol Wary Of Low Turnout In NH: 'I Think That's Worrisome For Republicans'
"Look, Romney underperformed among late deciders, people who decided the last week only gave Romney 52% and people who decided before the last week gave him almost 50% and remains a question mark how effective Romney is the more he's campaigning," Kristol noted. "But he won and it's a reasonable victory. 36% is not huge and he will, I think, end up with fewer votes or almost about the exact number of votes he got four years ago and turnout is down! That's a surprise. Turnout is going to be down this year with no Democratic contest. I think that's worrisome to Republicans."
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-kristol-wary-of-romneys-low-turnout-in-nh-i-think-thats-worrisome-for-republicans/
--------------------------------------
The GOP's Creative Destruction
By David Harsanyi
until the presidential aspirations of Newt Gingrich were dashed by this starch-shirted RINO, there existed a target-rich environment for conservatives
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01
/11/the_gops_creative_destruction_112725.html
So here's to the winner!?!
Excellent post, dangerfield. I appreciate it, though I am not sure some of the others on this thread will.
Dangerfield,
RHINO or not Romeny has patiently waited in line . It is his turn.
I like the New Yorker statment above. Whe GW left , his adminsitration could not get out of town quickly enough. And the party never thought to ready a new face for the GOP. they did have their hope on some 2010 governors. But they took a pass and some are in deep trouble.
Vanity/ Narcissism running the whole picture, including World Leaders.. i know people who would give the shirt off their back to help fellow men..No Jesus or Lincoln's Here, it's ALL ABOUT THIER SELFISH DESIRES..the meek do as there told, intelligence & management skills are wide spread..they ALL, Talk the Talk, but do NOT WALK THE WALK........
I believe that the republicans don't want to be further blamed for their part in the downfall of the U. S. economy. NO ONE president could ever get us out of this mess in 4 years or even 8 years. That is why no viable [ electable ] candidate has stepped forward.
Is it just me, or was Ron Paul's speech last night a rambling mess?
lol
I keep trying to think of something pithy to say about Mitt Romney, but I am drawing a blank . . . the man is just a little too cold and calculating for my tastes. I think what bothers me about Mitt Romney more than anything is that he just won't take no for an answer . . . instead of being the American dream, he is the American nightmare. . . a man so rich he thinks he can just keep running for President until he wears us all down . . . not gonna happen Mitt!
I guess my last observation is this: I am really tired of hearing pundits/Republican strategists chastising Newt Gingrich for attacking Mitt Romney "from the left" . . . this just in . . . he is attacking Mitt Romney from "THE TRUTH" . . . so enough commentary about whether or not it is "wise" for folks to attack Mitt Romney with his ACTUAL RECORD . . . let's have some commentary about the fact that Mitt Romney is a greedy, profiteering, power hungry, position changing robot please . . . I thank you in advance!
Great post, Nash. As best I can follow it, the Republicans seem to be upset with Gingrich for telling the truth about the person whose turn it is to be their nominee. You'd think they'd be glad that someone was pointing out these things so that they can be addressed and the appropriate spin put on them long before the general election rolls around.
Exactly Steeler Fan . . . that is what passes as "analysis" these days . . . identifying the motives of the the person making a claim instead of examining the merits of the claim itself . . . Spin 101.
Is it me or is most of the s**t on this board written by lefties a rambing mess?
I know, I know...."It's you, Damage!" Whatever. Why are you people so worried about Paul? He's not going to get the nomination and he's not a threat to you and your welfare state. You need to start worrying about Romney. I'm sure the stories on this board will soon switch over to almost 100% hit pieces on Mitt. Stories about his dog being on the roof of his car, stories about his Mexican relatives, stories about his Mormonism. Yeah. That's gonna be great. All the hating of Christians on this site will become more specific and turn into hating of Mormons. Mormon suicide bombers, Mormon honor killings, Mormon oppression of other religions. Oh wait! That's Islam! Won't see any stories about that, will we?
Nash -
It most definitely was not just you. I saw Paul's speech on the local PBS station, and while he certainly seemed to be enjoying himself and his supporters were as enthusiastic as ever, I couldn't make head nor tails of where he was going with it. In a way, it was a refreshing change from Romney's over-rehearsed robotics, but the longer he went on, the more I kept scratching my head. Maybe you had to be there? :)
Damage:
I wish you could read with comprehension. My post is 99.9% about Mitt Romney, so what in the world are you talking about?
If you don't have anything to add to the conversation Damage, it is OK to just shut up sometimes.
Really.
P.S. If George W. Bush taught us nothing else, we all definitely learned that it MATTERS who is President . . . so if it okay with you . . . I am going to pay attention to each and every person who says they want to lead MY country, thanks. . . this ain't a game.
Damage123 -
I worry about my job. I worry about my 80-year-old mother in a wheelchair and the early stages of dementia in an assisted living home hundreds of miles away. I worry about my own health and what'll happen to her if something happens to me. I worry about my 10-year-old nephew now that my brother and sister-in-law are getting divorced. I worry about whether or not my basement will flood when we get all that rain tonight.
But "worry" about Paul or Romney? No.....they're actually my escape from worry.
JoAnn,
Hooray for you!!!!!!! You put it well what REAL Americans worry about daily. Well done.
Yeah. I worry too. I worry about Obama and the Dems quest to turn our nation permanently from a society where people worked, didn't ask for handouts, spoke English and were proud, to a country where everyone has his/her hand out because they feel entitled for some reason, where they spread the suicidal poison of multi-culturalism, where people only support killing our enemies when their boy is in office. You get the picture.
I worry that Beverly still can't read or write.
Damage:
Find someone or something to love before it is too late . . .you are a serious downer.
JoAnn..........some of these candidates have had very little experience in our sort of world.
Real life is an acquired taste, sometimes in very hard ways and I doubt they will ever know or understand why we don't believe their phony attempts to try and identify with us.
Hi Nash,
I think the point is that it is unusual to see the type of attacks that Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman threw at Romney. I'm not talking about taking things out of context. In politics, everyone does that, everyone. It may be the truth, but they actually are practically doing a Democratic attack on him by calling him a vulture capitalist.
I would think it is hypocritical for them to call out a fellow GOP, job creator. Weird that they would finally see the light and notice that not all business activity is about creating jobs. The GOP preach that profits trump people so why are they attacking Mitt. I see it as hypocritical, using an attack that Gingrich and Perry don't even believe in for purely political reasons.
Happy New Year Yellowdog!
On this you and I agree . . . Perry and Gingrich are hypocrites . . . but that doesn't change the fact that what they are saying about Mitt Romney is true.
Politics aside, we need a reality based analysis of Mr. Romney's record in the private sector . . . because to hear him tell it, once he walks into the White House, jobs will just start falling out of the sky just like they did when he was at Bain . . . lol . . . if you are gonna make a bold claim like that you had better be prepared to back it up, eh?
LOL Nashville....and your boy Obama isn't a hypocrite? LOL
He said he would get rid of lobbyists in Washington, and wanted to rid the campaign financing system of coporate money.
Then he turned around and awarded no-bid contracts to companies owned by people who contributed to the DNC and to his own campaign!
What's more, nobody is more in need of a fact-based-reality-check than the Obama administration. He stood up at the Al Smith dinner here in NY four years ago, and made slight of John McCain's lack of an economic platform
But, here we are in 2012 and the economy is just as bad, if not worse than it was when he took over in 2009! Unemployment was about 7.6% when he entered the White House, and now it.s 8.5%!!!....and that's DOWN from last month when it was 8.6%!!!!!
I keep hearing, and seeing people like yourself tell us how wonderful Obama is, and how great things are.
But, I also keep seeing near double digit inflation, and unemployment at near 1979/1980 levels.
So what gives, Nashville....where's the "hope and change" we were promised?
Or is it that he promised we would hope to have some change left in our pockets by the time he gets done?
Because that's more what it looks like now.
J. Merle:
You need some new material . . . lol . . . if you can't see that things are better now than when President Obama was sworn in, then it is time for you to get your eyes checked! :o)
Nashville_fan
"..........J. Merle:
You need some new material . . . lol . . . if you can't see that things are better now than when President Obama was sworn in, then it is time for you to get your eyes checked! :o) .........."
LOL, Nashville is angry once again because she cannot match my rapier-like wit. I don't need new material.
But WE need a new President.
As for eye exams.....I think you might need one because 8.5 is LARGER than 7.6, and the latter was the percentage of unemployed Americans when Obama took office.
The former, is what it is, now.
:-)
My predictions yesterday: 1. Romney - 2. Huntsman - 3. Paul - 4. Santorum - 5. Gingrich - 6. Perry
Well, winner and last place...those were the easy ones. I honestly thought Huntsman would do better. Perhaps Huntsman needed to go after Romney sooner for Romney's criticism of Huntsman's role as ambassador to China. Congratulations, I guess, to Gingrich for doing better than I expected.
Yesterday the headline appeared that Newt Gingrich wanted a "respectable" finish. Well, that's hardly what we saw. Gingrich spoke like a spoiled child last night in New Hampshire. "I", "I", "I"...I think he feels that he is somehow entitled to be President. Far be it from me to offer advice to the GOP but if I'm Reince Priebus I'm having a long talk with Gingrich today because my biggest fear is that Gingrich, as only Gingrich could, will poison the well for Romney as the eventual nominee.
I have to say, though, I've enjoyed watching New Hampshire...especially the ideological contortions that we've seen the candidates perform. Romney's ability to be a human weathervane was already legendary but, in their lust to win, we've now also seen Gingrich and Perry take turns channeling "Occupy Wall Street". Wow!
At what point does the GOP start to get nervous about Ron Paul? John McCain called himself a "Maverick"? Well, what would he call Paul?
So, what will be the legacy of New Hampshire? Will it be Romney apparently seizing control of the nomination or will it be "I Like To Fire People"? 10 days to South Carolina and it's gonna get ugly.
1-Romney
2-Paul
3-NEWTON
4-Huntsman
(Damn you Professor Gingrich! I almost had the quinella!)
Huntsman surprised a little, but what was the point? 6 months in NH to finish THIRD?
Ron Paul can be a KINGMAKER at the Republican convention. The party is going to have to deal with rep Paul as he stands to take a large bloc of delegates with him to Tampa.
One of the two remaining viable "true conservatives" (Newton and Santorum) will drop out in the next 2 races, and I think it will be Newton...
... and the good pastors of the Rights of Morality will congregate this weekend ... let's see what they do with their towel.
Does Ron Paul want to be a Kingmaker? I don't think so. Remember, Ron Paul is "Tea Party" before Dick Armey co-opted it. If "Tea Party" were a disease Ron Paul would be classified as "Patient Zero".
Am I the last person to consider that Paul's candidacy isn't about the GOP nomination?
But the GOP establishment hates Ron Paul. Will they let him come and play at the convention?
Do you really think that as liberals, you have any idea what the dynamic of the Republican party IS, and how they reconcile their disparate factions?
Do you really believe that Ron Paul would mount a 3rd party bid and cripple the Republican nominee? He's a REPUBLICAN first, or he would run for his congressional seat as a LIBERTARIAN, which he would still win btw...
He is in it for the long haul, to INFLUENCE the policies of HIS party. This year the change in primary rules gives the Paul candidacy a chance to take that 15-25% in every state and turn those votes into delegates and those delegates into INFLUENCE.
The Republican establishment, if they expect to win, will work to satisfy Dr. Paul and his supporters, among others, most likely within the Republican Platform.
dangerfield,
Well, Paul does get a lot of financial and ground support from his followers that the GOP establishment covets.
A good point, how is it that an 8 vote win in a sparsely, homogeneous state like Iowa gives Romney such a surge? It is all the media. Why don't they play up the fact that unlike other cycles, delegates count and not 8 vote wins? Right now Romney, Paul and Santorum are tied with 7 delegates.
My predictions for NH - Romney, Paul, Huntsman a close third, Gingrich a distant fourth, Santorum then Perry.
____
I won the pick six, not a gambler is there a term for that?
The Paul influence (foreign policy) has already begun to pick up among the candidates regarding drawing down troops in Afganistan.
Paul doesn't want to besmirch his movement by damaging Romney fatally. He wants to pass his movement to Rand. He won't go 3rd party, but he will bargain his delegates for influence at the convention.
"Huntsman surprised a little, but what was the point? 6 months in NH to finish THIRD?"
I could be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time! - but I've thought all along that with Huntsman, "the point" is 2016. New Hampshire was a nice safe place to spend 6 months building some name recognition while flying safely and quietly under the radar as the Cains and Bachmanns and Santorums shot up in the air, exploded loudly, and fizzled as they fell to earth like fireworks on the Fourth of July. One thing that we all tend to forget (or choose to ignore) around here is that political winds change direction every so many years, no matter who's been President or which party's been in control. There are no dynasties in this country and there never will be, much as we would all like to believe otherwise. The Tea Party already seems to be losing their voice in the GOP, and by 2016 the "dynamics" of the party could look entirely different. My guess is that Huntsman is banking on that.
That being said, 6 months to finish third still isn't a major accomplishment - though it's certainly no worse than spending 6 years and millions and millions of dollars to get first 25 and then 39% of the vote.
Of course, if Romney keeps getting 25 to 39% right up through November 6th, I'm totally okay with that......
His supporters are the youngest, most committed and best educated of any of the Republican candidates. If he was a TV program they would say he was "crushing" the 18-29 segment, that all advertisers would kill for...
The current primary rules will enable Rep Paul to ride into Tampa with a passel of delegates and a clear agenda. Either party would be happy to welcome the "Paulists" into their ranks as a voting bloc, don't you think?
dangerfield
I think (cynical, I know) it will depend on if the old folks running the party are willing to look long term, or go with the great American stand by of "what's in it for me today" outlook.
ideology---do you suppose there will be a puff of white smoke if the pastors pick Santorum? Could they even pick a Catholic?
Phine,
Isn't Forida a closed primary state? Only registered Democrats and Republicans can vote in their respective primaries.
Where does that leave the independent , young Paul supporters?
Thanks for the suggestion above to go the beach or see a movie if in the Northern states.
Well, I opt for the beach.
Will be out of MN with our" non winter". A beach chair in Mexico has my name on it for next week.:0)
Shields and Brooks on Mitt's victory...and the next contest...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/shieldsbrooks2_01-10.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/shieldsbrooks_01-10.html
Northstar,
Have a mojito for me!!! And yes, Florida is a closed primary state, although periodically there are grumblings to change that.
Steeler Fan,
Catholics down here are loved just about as much as Mormons.
dangerfield
Neither of these are "True" conservatives Bob Taft's opinion of Newt was to watch out for what he would do to the republican party. Santorum will drop first I believe, Newt is angry enough to go all the way and be a real disruption to the convention.
Phine,
They have written us off already. That is why they have all taken on parts of his platform, they are trying to take his message in the hopes of taking the independents. (90% of the indies stayed home in New Hampshire) Indies are still a voting block associated with Dr Paul right now, they had better start speaking up or they will be forced to chose Mitts.
Egilman,
Or stay home if the president doesn't get them.
Steeler ... they seem to have been blindsided by too many social conservatives at the beginning of the race. I expect that if they cannot get Perry to bow out and thereby give Santorum a boost, they might well do Mitt a favor and not endorse anyone. The GOP focus at the end of the day will be Obama and the machine will rage.
Steeler Fan & Ideology,
Side note. Perry has not qualified for the debate in Tampa (it is determined by his standings in the polls)
Phine,
At this point he was just taking up space on the podium anyway and it will make it easier to televise on older screens.
Ideology,
LOL. Did you start to cringe everytime they asked him a question? I know I did!
Phine,
What made me cringe was Romney after he answered a question. What a swamp of mendacity.
The ugly racism of southern republicans will be on full display in SC...they are some of the most ignorant, racist, bible thumping rednecks you'll ever see...mitts better keep his black love child hidden on they'll do a mccain on him...
Rick,
yep just like they were some of the most ignorant, racist, bible thumping Democrat rednecks you'll ever see back in '65 or so
Rick,
I am a southerner. I am a Catholic. I am a progressive. I understand you are enthusiastic, but I take offense at your characterization of southerners.
Well, Phine - you & I share "southerner, Catholic & Progressive", however, after living in SC for 25 years, Rick does have point. Once you get outside of the more liberal areas of SC (Columbia & Charleston) the racism and religious bigotry are barely, and sometimes not even, concealed. and Eg - you are correct - the bigoted Dixiecrats of the 1960's have indeed migrated over to the repubs after the civil rights act was enacted.
The TV ads are now non stop - as a registered Demo, I am at least spared the Robo calls, thank God. Here is my take: SC repubs will hold their noses and vote for Romney (Mormon is better than Catholic here......). Newt could still pull it out tho as he is not a "REAL" catholic - ("you know, darlin', his wife's people made him do that......). Paul will do well also. Perry will get the Bob Jones conservatives in the upstate. Can't wait until 21 Jan is done and gone!
Egilman...those bible thumping Democrats becamse bible thumping republicans after the civil rights leglislation was passed...
Phine...I live in the south and while there many fine people here the fact is this whole region is way behind in its social growing up ...sad, but true
Romney/Rubio 2012. Get this stupid A#*^)@! out of the White House and get America back where it belongs. Othewise we're on the road to distruction.
"Get America back on Track where it Belongs"
Like it was for the (8) years preceeding Obama with the biggest incompetent, brainless, childlike mentality acting, war mongering MORON the USA has ever had for a president in our 230 plus year existence..... George W. Bush
Lets see if Republican Christians are really hypocrites like I think they are. If the vote for a Mormon we will all know that the bible bangers are fakes. Curious George Bush was stupidest President we ever had. Now they want to put a Mormon in the White House who is for the top 1%. Average republicans always vote against their best interest. Since the majority of all food stamp participants are white, probably republicans and they believe Wall Street will throw them a bone, literally. Vote for a republican who will believes corporations are people.
sicofdems: I can see you're one of the poorly educated, die-hard, Republicans who will vote against your own self-interest and against the Republic's self-interst as well.
Dock, great post!
Obummer acts like 8.5 % unemployment is a great thing. Unemployment was lower than that (under Bush) when he took office. Great job Obummer.
TO: sicofdems who wrote:
Woefully uninformed. Please, stay away from voting booths.
Obama / Biden 2012
It will be fun to see Willard and his Clown posse get destroyed come November. What does Willard "the silver spoon" Romney believe today? It's so hard to keep his flip-flopping straight.
Blue Tsunami come November. Let's retake America from the America-Hating conservatives.
Obama: move towards the future, trying to solve the difficult problems it presents
Romney: just leave everything to the 1%. If we didn't know what we were doing we wouldn't have the power to fire you, would we?
Paul: Let's ignore the present and go back to the frontier days when a rugged individualist could make it on the basis of his wits alone. Pretend the last 150 years of population explosion and technical change didn't happen.
Santorum: Let's pretend that the present never happened. In fact, let's also pretend that the Renaissance never happened. We need another "Age of Faith" like the Middle Ages.
Gingrich: Let's go back to the Great days of Ronald Reagan. I'll bring us back to that old-time religion, while hunting down another trophy wife.
Love it, Siara
Michele Bachmann----let's go back to the set of "Leave it to Beaver" and all the women can wear pearls with their dresses while they do their housework.
Okay, I can't resist -
Perry: Let's go back to.....dadgummit, where the heck were we, anyway?
Clarence Thomas [no comment- maybe if we wait another 10 years he'll say something]
Republicans, even TEA Party people, know President Obama will win the November election by a landslide. Republicans are focusing on getting their people elected to Congress. They are concerned that a landslide victory for the President will bring a Democratic sweep of Congress as well. Although I have voted for many Republicans over the years and although my wife has been a life-long registered Republican (she was outraged by Republican lies in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and changed her voter registration to Democrat) , we will NOT vote for ANY Republican running for ANY office in our state, and further, we will use our education, our influence, and our wealth to encourage others to join the crusade. President Obama-- VICTORY IN 2012!
It's exactly the same for me, TJefferson. I used to vote about half Republican, half Democrat. (voted for Bush Sr. for example). I wouldn't DREAM of voting for anyone in this current batch. They're all a bunch of comic book characters-- exaggerated and two dimensional.
Siara: Some of these hysterical, extremist, fanatics from the far right will attack me, thank God! I would be disappointed, if they didn't! But, the fact, is they are delusional thinking that people like us (former Republicans) will vote straight Democrat and thereby do everything we can to save this nation from the economic and political nightmare that will occur, if they are elected. Yes, I strongly believe they are dangerous both to the United States of America and to the world!
Why do you people insist on making up these big "I used to be a Repub but they're too extreme now" nonsense/lies? The only people who belive that crap are the OTHER lifelong lefties on here. You're preaching to the converted. We're supposed to believe what? That you WERE a Repubican, but they became so extreme you were forced to become a socialist? lol.
Damage: You are exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't make a rip to me what you think, and there hundreds of thousands like us. (Less than 20% of the voting population are registered Republicans today!) We are EXACTLY as I stated, and, as devout PATRIOTS, we will debate you on the Internet, we will debate you in newspapers, we will debate you in the streets, we will debate you everyplace and everywhere in our effort to convince good people that you and your ilk are the most poorly educated, dangerous element in our society! You cannot get any intellectually deeper than calling people who disagree with you "socialists," robot! I don't think we'll have any trouble with you! Thank you for your comment and your support for our argument!
seconded
I knew the minute the "bagger christians" threw a parade in Iowa for newtie and his wife in her home town that the Tea Party Members had nothing...who the hades throws a parade for a chick whos only claim to fame is looking like the joker and giving an old dude a BJ!!!...sad state of affairs when the "christian coalition" can even consider running a guy who has undoubtedly paid for many abortions and carried on in so many godless ways
Who would have guessed that Republicans would go for a Wall Street, politically moderate, deception artist. Big money speaks louder than right wing ideology it would seem. With Republicans in Congress owing their loyalty to wealthy donors, if Romney succeeds, our government will become a subsidiary of the 1% - Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. Perhaps the Constitution will be moved from the Archive Museum to the New York Stock Exchange entrance lobby. Is there a Bernie Madoff pardon on the horizon?
Affinity: The Republicans are going for Romney out of an act of desperation. The polls show that many don't like him at all, but they think he is the only the candidate they have who has a chance against the President. They want the President beaten so badly they would vote for Hitler, if he were running on a Republican ticket. The best candidates aren't running this year because they know their own party is in both civil war and revolution and they know the President will win in November anyway. They're saving themselves for 2016. We must focus on getting the right wing, extremist, fanatics defeated in their bid for Congress. Even Speaker Boehner can't harness those simple minded bastards in his own Party! They are committed to seeing the American Republic destroyed!
Wasn't Willard the evil, mentally ill kid who controlled the rats? Hmm....Willard Romney? Sounds perfect to me!
Let's not get too over excited about this, Ok?
Newt and Perry are traitorous Democrat moles!!
Add Rush Limbaugh to your list. His job is to make Republicans look like fools. He calls his regulars "Ditto Heads". How flattering is that?
Affinity: Rush Limbaugh (by his own admission) is a recovering alcoholic, recovering drug addict, college flunk out at Southeastern Missouri State University (his mother said he could even pass dance class); further, his first two wives left him (he speaks for family values). (Look him up on Wikipedia.) Now, I can understand a con artist who makes money off those people he bilks, but this guy has made millions of dollars off his audiences, and they keep coming back for more! What does it say about the intelligence level of such people? Why would I or any intelligent person listen to him, or let alone vote for people he endorses??!!??
TO: David-1023706 who wrote:
So is Mitt Romney.
did yall see the picture of people of rock-ridge..from blazing saddles.at the top
It's the brown nosing, ass kissing wanna be upper class members that ENVY the"success" of the Upper Class. Every body ELSE just wants to get even!
The very same brown nosers run around with the BIGGEST victim mentality of them ALL, forever whining how they would have it MADE if ONLY it wasn't for taxes---and/or illegals
Are questions about Wall Street greed and excess about envy or about fairness? Romney’s answer: “I think it’s about envy. It’s about class warfare.”
That says everything you need to know about Willard Romney. He hates the middle class and is out to destroy it.
Check this out what the wall-street corrupted-GOP did yesterday: The Republican National Committee filed a motion with a federal court to lift the ban on all corporate donations, a nearly 100-year old rule that's made sure that people, and not business interests, decide our elections....
The GOP corporate-OWNED elite want to outright try to buy the elections, henceforth!! The gop-infested-corrupted US Supreme Court already trashed our democratic process in their last "anonymous donation" rulings...
GOP=Gestapo On Parade
2 can play at that game however. Why do you think the Dems are reluctant to take on immigration. Could it be that most of them vote Democratic? NAH! How about putting environmental group pressure before the pipeline? (real concern or pandering to that constituency). How can you be truly shocked about anything politicians do? Your only mistake is that you think its limited to one side.
P. Stoff:
Neither side wants to take on immigration, or have you missed that small FACT? Environmental group "pressure"? Do you mean the pressure that clear-cut science puts on preserving Mother Earth's air and water quality, and its resources?
The GOP is so COMPLETELY CORPORATE CORRUPTED, there is literally no way to even mask it anymore, and they do not even try!!!
ELITIST AUTOCRATIC, aristocratic, PLUTOCRATIC SCUM IS GOP IS GESTRAPO ON PARADE, period!
YOUR mistake believing you can think with a two-digit IQ... lmao
P. Stoff......
In fact, democrats ARE taking on immigration as evidenced by the record number of deportations by the Obama administration.
HOWEVER, democrats want to take on immigration at ITS ROOT rather than at its symptoms. That is, we want to pursue and prosecute American companies and individuals that EMPLOY and otherwise abet illegal aliens.
When those aliens cannot find employment they will leave voluntarily and none of our LEGAL citizens of Hispanic ethnicity will have been profiled or otherwise harassed by well meaning but misguided law enforcement agencies.
I don't think Romney hates the middle class. He's just never been part of it and understands the middle class only in an abstract, intellectual way. I don't think he really relates to the middle class very well and probably wouldn't be bothering with us unless he needed our votes.