Mitt Romney is my choice for President, but there are two issues that need to be resolved:

-- A mandate on anyone to purchace healthcare insurance, or pay a fine if they don't, is wrong.

-- E-verify for immigrants, or anyone, is wrong.

What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that Mitt Romney IS THE MAN WE NEED to turn this country around economically, and who will correctly lead this country on many, many other issues that currently need to be resolved.

-- An individual mandate for everyone to have healthcare insurance is wrong -- just as making people pay a U.S. Postal Service mandate fee to receive their mail, just as making people pay a government mandate fee to keep the roads and highways in good shape, just as making people pay a government mandate fee to keep the air clean for them to breathe, just as making people pay a government mandate fee because we exhale carbon dioxide into the air with every breath we breathe out, just as making people pay a government mandate fee to provide services because we excrete human feces that need to be disposed of, just as making people pay a government mandate fee to the police "just in case" we need police protection, just as making people pay a government mandate fee to the fire department "just in case" we need fire department protection, or just as making people pay a government mandate fee for a local ambulance provider "just in case" we need an ambulance ---- all of these mandates ARE WRONG.

This kind of government mandating IS THE REASON WE BROKE AWAY FROM ENGLAND, and once it starts ---- it is very, very hard to stop. MANDATES LIKE THIS ARE ALL AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION ---- AND EACH AND EVERY MANDATE LIKE IT WILL BE THROWN OUT OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, upon arriving there.

-- E-verify for immigrants, or anyone, is also wrong because IT IS ALSO AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. The way to solve the immigration problem is very simple. The local police and sheriffs' departments along the U.S./Mexican border know, for the most part, exactly where the crossings are occurring. You simply beef up the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and/or the U.S. National Guard in these areas -- you can build a fence if needed -- and each routine police stop of a vehicle in this country, or routine police encounter, where an individual cannot produce a valid state driver's license, or who is believed by an officer to be an illegal -- the officer on that scene should simply make a call to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Inforcement or to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Our police officers will not become immigration officers, they will simply refer an individual to the proper authority to be deported. If in that area support is lacking to properly deport an individual -- support there needs to be beefed up. We already have immigration laws that NEED TO BE ENFORCED.

The Republican Party of Florida is pushing back on reports that Mitt Romney’s campaign stacked the audience at the CNN debate Thursday in Jacksonville with its supporters -- a charge the party blames on aides to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

“I’m sorry if the Newt campaign feels like they didn’t have their best night, but I can’t allow the RPOF to be the scapegoat for that,” spokesman Brian Hughes told NBC News by telephone Friday night.

"We worked very hard,” Hughes added. “The irony is there were some grumblings by Romney’s people in the hours before the debate that we had stacked it for Newt.”

Might as well be watching Bush and the neocons ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs

hungrymongoose

Mitt Romney is my choice for President, but there are two issues that need to be resolved:

-- A mandate on anyone to purchace healthcare insurance, or pay a fine if they don't, is wrong.

-- E-verify for immigrants, or anyone, is wrong.

hungry,

I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.

Let's start with making it mandatory for everyone to have health insurance. I don't hear you cons complaining about having to have auto insurance. What is the difference between the two? Nothing. It is there for when needed. I have a co-worker who's son was in an auto accident about a year ago. He lost control of his vehicle and crashed. One person died. The son almost did too. He is still getting medical treatment. He had neither auto nor health insurance. Just who do YOU think is paying for all his treaments? The answer is YOU and I. I for one am tired of it. It constantly amazes me you cons are forever complaining about those on the government handouts but in this case, since it suits you, you don't seem to have any problem with it. At it's worst that is typical con hypocracy.

As for e-verifing, I have no problem with it. And it should be just the start of the process. What will really put a dent in illegal immigration is going after the companies that hire them. You get caught employing illegals the first time it is a fine of $100,000 PER illegal. Second time, $500,000 per. Get caught a third time you lose the business. That will take care of the problem real quick. In addition to e-verifing hospitals and social services should verify those seeking their help. If found to be illegal, then deport them.

Please tell us what section of the Constitution e-verifing is against. Me thinks you don't really have a clue as to what you constantly post.

Hungry, what does "purchace" mean????

See, boobs stick together!!!

lol

"Stop Newt at all cost, he will destroy this Country"

imwhitewolf,

Emergencies happen. The truth about why auto and healthcare mandatory insurance has come to light is because you have leaders in Washington who really have NO CLUE how to properly manage money ---- that is why they have stumbled onto "mandatory" "insurance".

I have no problem with my REGULAR tax dollars going toward paying for accident victims who didn't have (and maybe couldn't afford) auto and health insurance ---- and yes, as far as mandatory auto insurance ---- I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST IT.

As far as e-verify, it is mainly against the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

TO ME, I am not SECURE in my PERSON, HOUSE, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS if the federal government freely, at any time it wishes WITHOUT A WARRANT, goes snooping around my information -- were I to be in an e-verify government database.

imwhitewolf

Let's start with making it mandatory for everyone to have health insurance. I don't hear you cons complaining about having to have auto insurance. What is the difference between the two? Nothing.

There have been plenty of people that have complained about mandatory Auto Insurance, they are wrong and for a simple reason, the only time auto Insurance is used is when there is a catastrophic loss. When is insurance used say when you put a ding in your door?, when your tire goes flat?, when your oil or plugs need to be changed?

You don't use insurance to cover such things because they are normal wear and tear or maintenance, everyday Items that are paid out of pocket, one of the things that goes along with owning a car. In fact, we make every effort to keep minor accidents away from the insurance company. Auto Insurance is the payer of LAST CHOICE!

The same with Home Insurance, required if you happen to have a mortgage, you turn every little broken window into the insurance company? No, you would be too afraid that they would raise your rates or even drop your coverage! Home Insurance is the payer of LAST CHOICE!

On the other hand, Health Insurance is used for EVERYTHING, Routine medical checkup, show your insurance card, a little scratch or cut, show your insurance card, sniffles, catching a cold, show your insurance card. Health Insurance is the payer of FIRST CHOICE.

If you treated routine medical expenses as a cost of being alive on this planet and saved the Insurance for the Catastrophic illness's and injuries like is done in the Auto or Home Insurance industries, I could go along with mandatory coverage, but the costs would be much lower and we as citizens would be much more responsible with our health when the direct cost for most minor health issues have to come out of our pocket.

Health Insurance and Auto/Home Insurance are two completely different animals, two completely different payee models, and are not at all similar.

Mandated Health Insurance under the current model is a VERY BAD IDEA!

So, Egilman,

If you choose not to have health insurance, when you get cancer, the REST OF US who have been paying into health insurance should pay your bill for you???

That's like saying if you don't have auto insurance, and you have an accident, we should fix your car???

Checkered Demon

Reread what I said, you missed the point....

Here take a clue...

There have been plenty of people that have complained about mandatory Auto Insurance, they are wrong....

So, Hungry doesn't want his Fourth Amendment rights to be imposed upon by being in a government database, but apparently has no problem with another US citizen guilty of DWH, Driving While Hispanic. If this citizen was being stopped for a traffic violation, well yes, by all means whip out that drivers license. But what about the other citizens in the car? The model you propose would have them also have to provide an ID. Or how about Jose walking down the street? Isn't doing anything illegal, but happens to look Hispanic. You guessed it, 'lemme see your green card.' How is that not an unreasonable search?

People like you and the idiots in AZ really need to get a life. If politicians actually wanted something done to fix illegal immigration then they would do as WhiteWolf suggested and go after the companies hiring them. No jobs = no reason to come here. Of course you'd never see a republican raise a finger against their corporate gods.

If you choose not to have health insurance, when you get cancer, the REST OF US who have been paying into health insurance should pay your bill for you???

He is advocating that minor procedures like doctor visits are paid out of pocket. That way consumer will see the price and will complain and shop around for cheaper prices, thus increasing competition and driving down prices. The health insurance would only be used in events where you need to visit an ER and potentially stay at the hospital for procedures. Things that would potentially cost thousands of dollars and you don't use on, hopefully, a yearly basis.

That would be a start, but there are many, many more problems with the health system.

War and egil- Do you really believe what you post? Many illegals that you so worry about, drive without, license or insurance. If someone hits me, I'm protected but my insurance rates go up, as does everyone's. We have laws or mandates for reasons, sometimes you have to follow laws!

hummbird-3359530

Humorous,

If I actually didn't believe what I write, why would I post it? Why would I bother with putting the thought into a reasoned and on point posting?

So I guess my post must be wrong because you disagree with it?

Personally, Illegals don't bother me in the least, but they shouldn't be allowed the vote until they become legal citizens. It's not their fault that they are allowed to vote.

I do not like the idea of making people pay for insurance, but on the other had I really do not like having to pay for someone when they go to the hospital. How many people do not buy insurance, so they can do what they want, and they get sick or hurt and we the tax payer or insuranced people have to pay. Everyone should have insurance. In this way they are paying their fair shair.

Egilman, you are right about the false analogy between health and auto insurance. One problem is that one can live a wonderful and fulfilling life without a car, but one has to see a doctor fairly regularly--at least once a year for preventative care. The whole "insurance model" doesn't work for health care because we do need access to health professionals for minor issues as well as emergencies, as you mention. Also, everyone needs it. Therefore, we should change the way we provide healthcare--just provide it for everyone, and everyone helps pay for it! To me, health care is much more like education--all people need and deserve it, the society benefits from an educated and healthy populace, and providing a good educational foundation, like preventative medicine, helps save money. I see a lot of parallels between these two areas.

I completely disagree with the idea that "health care is a privilege, not a right", and I feel that this is one of the things that keeps our country from moving forward and keeps poor people poor. It's the next civil rights issue, IMHO.

Hear, hear, Bethie!

Very well stated.

Think there is any way on God's green earth to get through to the RWNJ's and make them see the light?

That's right Bethie! Good health is a right, not an option like owning a car. The problem with Republicans is that they love their country and hate most of the people in it. They feel that certain people are worthy of good health, and others just plain don't deserve it. If we truly had the best health care system in the world, we wouldn't be shutting millions out of it. The president did the best thing for all of us by getting the health care bill passed. A great health care system should not decide who is worthy of good health and who should have poor quality of life and an early death. A great health care system should provide good health for all.

The article above has nothing to do with health care. Now would the Florida RP stack the audience with pro Ro-money partisans? Why should there be any question? Ro-money is the Repugs elite establishment candidate and thus they will do everything in their power to steer the sheeples to their choice. Why is this even questionable? It is just a fact!

Wayne, so what you are saying is that approximately 31% of the population hates the other 69%? Really? How come there's no civil war then? If the republicans hate everyone, I'm assuming you mean they hate those that aren't republican. Do you see the major flaw in that argument? Do you see how biased and prejudiced an idea you are producing?

I absolutely, positively know the debate hall was stacked for mitt Romney because I heard it reported on Fox News. Every decent, patriotic, gun toting, home educated, red blooded, NASCAR loving, God Fearing, and uneducated person knows that Fox News is always fair and balanced and has the "story" straight, right? Or something like that, whatever....!

Nothing wrong with the metaphor; Newt is a whiner. By his logic, then Newt must have packed the audience in South Carolina. As usual, Newt's history is catching up with him. When he has a question he does not want to answer, he always tries to divert and attack the moderator. Well, Wolf was ready for him and counter-punched ... and blew him out of the water.

We are tire of Newt not answering questions because he can't or does not want to. We are tired of Newt attacking the media instead of addressing the issues. He is a school yard bully, and we are tuned in to his game. We were tired of Newt the windbag in the last century, and his new set of lies in this century does not change anything. We are tired of Newt.

He must be on Obama's payroll, since he is guaranteeing an Obama sweep in November. At this rate, even Republican billionaire's will be tired of the cost of this campaign before they even get a shot at Obama.

Steve, what skin do you have in the nomination process? If you are tired of Newt, then you are a.... republican? Or are you a democrat standing on the sidelines that can only look in, make comments but those comments have no meaning in the scope of things? I'm curious because you sound like an outsider just making comments to be making comments.

Now if you are a democrat, you are playing into the fear factor. A bully is what it's going to take to drop Obama off his perch. Someone has to hit Obama where he least expects it to take him off his game. Newt is just that person. We are seeing it now.

Brian- As a citizen of America, I claim my right to watch and LMAO, and comment as we watch these weak candidates, and the GOP/baggers party implode!

Yes, Brian you want someone to drop Obama of his perch, and yes, Newt might be the obviously most capable to do so. With Romney, Newt appears to have overplayed his hand. That may have just cost him Florida. We cannot afford to have Newt overplay his hand like he did with Romney holdings including Freddie and Fannie. Newt knew it too - but too late. This is the kind of opportunity Obama will try to find during a debate.

Think in terms of Gov Brewer and Obama on the Tarmac in Pheonix. Newt is going to have a hard time not waving his finger in the face of a calm Obama. That may make Romney, who appears to be more controlled in his attacks to be more appropriate.

But then, in the debate Santorum guided Romney into admitting that Massachusetts care had a mandate in it. What is disconcerting about Romney is, he couldn't see the enormity of what Santorum did to him. Just as Romney stumbled in the previous debate on describing capitalism. The question now becomes did the Republicans catch this blunder.

In many ways the nomination process is like a dress rehersal... with the exception they are still playing for keeps. Given the number of republican debates, they'd better learn well how they are going to handle themselves when facing off against Obama. I just hope Paul doesn't run as an independent or Trump... It would be much better if there were only 2 of them on that stage... then we can see the contrasts.

What I am hoping for is a seminole moment where whoever debates Obama, gets him angry. Now that would be something worth watching. It would be great seeing Obama get all flustered. I would hope teleprompters aren't allowed either.

Newt may have overplayed his hand for the moment, but he's planning his next skirmish... of that you can be sure. He's going over the tapes and figuring out what his next move will be. I did like the way Santorum backed Romney into the corner... that was classic.

That may have just cost him Florida.

Poor debate performances and messaging on the trail most likely will cost Newt to lose Florida. Santorum had a strong performance and will steal from Newt's voters. I don't necessarily see Romney picking up voters from Newt. Romney is a very bruised candidate, his political campaign looks like Senator Kerry at the SOTU.

The one thing I'm wondering about is whether the establishment won. Yesterday there was a pretty concerted effort by the establishment to shoot Newt's campaign down. I haven't heard anyone say that it was coordinated, but the timing of everything that happened seems to be more then coincidence. Did the big flashing sign from the establishment give voters pause? Was it overtly obvious and does the Tea Party portion of the party follow queue or do they go against the establishment like 2010 and back Newt? The one factor that might override the consideration of the establishment giving queues is Newt's poor performance in the debates.

Assuming Santorum and Newt can remain in the race through April, then it should be an entertaining primary cycle. In looking at the schedule of primaries and caucuses, a lot of the southern states vote in March while many of the northeastern states vote in April. Assuming all the candidates remain somewhat viable and perform well in regions they are associated with, I could see it being a brokered convention. I think a brokered convention would be more likely if Newt won Florida, but I still see it as possible depending on how the primaries and caucuses go in March. Not really sure where Santorum will win again, if at all. Ron Paul could win some of the smaller states with caucuses that favor his supporters, which have tended to be the most enthusiastic of all the candidates.

Greg - good post, lots of thought went in it. While Paul is pretty much a sideliner, he does have some very avid supporters. I can't figure him out though in this campaign. Clearly he's not gaining any traction so that makes me wonder what he's thinking. The media ignores him. Right now he's inert. I guess we shall see. One of the states Newt is definitely going to lose is Virginia... He's not registered there to run in the primary. Paul and Romney are alone in that state... could go to Paul... I dunno? The tea party is strangely quiet. I'm sure they will come into this at some point... maybe they are getting crafty... again we shall see. All in all, this is warming up.

Brianb, Steve sounds like a Romney supporter. He doesn't like Newt. He is expressing his opinion on a blog where this is allowed and encouraged. It doesn't matter what his political affiliation is.

I support the President; therefore, I want to know about the competition. I keep myself informed of their positions. Should one of these candidates have a chance to become the next CIC, I want to know something about them. I comment on them frequently, as I have the right to do. Why do you want to muzzle people? Thank God this is still a free country where we can say how we feel.

Bethie - I don't really care what affiliation Steve has. Casting dispursions on any nomination candidate through insults, isn't very mature unless you are of the opposition party. Besides, I was challenging him for more debate on the subject. That was last night and he didn't stick around. Oh well, maybe another time.

I want to know about the competition

----------------------------------------

Ah, there's no competition really. Either the dem or the repub will win, just as always. No hope, no change, more record Wall St. profits, and more shrinkage of the middle class. Until the American public gets the 2-party monkey off their back, it'll be the same ole, same ole.

Brianb ... Ron Paul has been thinking and saying the same thing for decades. He does not get traction in my view because of his 'Gold Standard' policies and his isolationist stand when it comes to the military. Also, integrity is not as strong a selling point as is pandering to various constituencies.

ideo - Ain't that the truth! Maybe Paul is waiting around to see if anything changes. Personally I believe he'll be waiting for that bus for a very long time. It's his isolationalist stand that pushes me away from him. We live in a whole world, not just the country. He and I don't agree on closing the borders from imports and exports... and, I believe I am so not alone in this.

The amazing thing about pandering... it seems to work... promise them anything, give them nothing.

Brian and ideo, Paul's stance is non-interventionist, not isolationist; there is a huge difference. North Korea is isolationist, Switzerland is non-interventionist. Non-interventionists still deal with whole world, they just don't invade them.

Brianb ... Corporations are now international, banks are international ... we are now in a domino world where all has become to big to fail. The table has been set for the perfect financial storm.

Chucky Stuart

Switzerland's non-intervention policies are based on its historic bankrolling of European wars. It allowed conversations between US and German Industries to continue throughout WW11 as an example.

Okay ideo, bad example. How about Sweden then?

Chucky, I accept upon reflection that Paul is a non-interventionist. I am not immune to popular jargon.

Agreed Ideo... all it will take is for one mid sized event to occur and the house of cards will start tumbling down around us. If the US defaults on an interest payment, or something happens in Europe or in Asia, that could be the trigger to financial Armageddon. My family is already preparing for it. I've converted some cash into silver, stocking up on non-perishable food, and we have bought enough clothing to last us at least 10 years. We have enough canned food and non-perishable food to last at least a year. We rotate it as we buy new food. No, I am not Mormon.

I chose silver instead of gold because in a crisis, silver would be more negotiable. The value of gold is way too high to use as trade. Within the next year, I'm planning to purchase a short wave transceiver too. I'm in the process of pricing them out now. I am also looking into solar cells for the home. My wife and I are taking the economic conditions seriously and if something doesn't' change soon, the inevitable is going to happen - epic fail.

Chucky - while Paul might be a non-interventionist, the libertarian ideology also accepts isolationism as a part of the ideology. We both know Ron Paul isn't a republican. He just changed his political party to get on the ticket this year. It was a good play on his part, I'll give you that. Like I said earlier, it's way too early to even begin to guess the end result.

Brianb, I did some research about 4 years ago for my partner who is a Finance professor, as soon as I research backwards, I will send you a link via your avatar. There are a lot of countries and banks standing around with their fingers stuck in the cracks of the financial dyke.

Brianb,

You right, Dr Paul is not a republican in the Neo-con religious sense, he IS a republican in the Bob Taft libertarian sense, The ideology you speak of is hardcore libertarian like from the JBS (John Birch Society) which Dr Paul does not fully support. It's a classic example of how the hard core can support a moderate but the moderate cannot support everything the hard core advocates.

This is similar to the black panther party, they support the President, but do you really think the president supports everything the Black Panther party supports? (I certainly hope not)

Historically Republicans are moderate libertarians, understanding this helps explain to the unknowing some of Lincoln's very progressive pro labor/pro civil rights positions, or Teddy Roosevelts trust busting/conservationist progressivism coming from some of the greatest republicans in history and exposes the differences from the Neo-cons of today.

Dr Paul fits right into the classic Republicanism of Lincoln and Teddy. The fact that most americans of today do not recognize that is directly because the people have not been educated in what made these men great. this is why we true conservatives decry the piss poor education system we now have. And it's NOT getting any better the more money we throw at it through the DOE.

Egilman, I remember doing a search on the net and ending up on a non-related topic, it was high school exams in history and philosophy in Idaho or Iowa in the late 19th century. I would be surprised if university MA,s could pass those exams today.

Ideology,

I agree, I took a term paper I wrote back in '57 to my history professor in '85 on Lincoln's Labor stances and how they related to today and why the Labor movement of the late '50's was moving in the wrong direction, (from advocacy to collectivism) he asked me if I could back up my conclusions. The next day I brought him my supporting information, he said WOW this is what they were teaching in high school back then? he said he didn't get that far until he reached masters level.

In today's world I highly suspect you are correct, History majors in university's of today couldn't pass the high school tests we had to take way back when....

It's sickening, absolutely disgusting, what the politicalization of the schools has done to education.

I could have brought up Nixon's environmentalism, but that would have pushed too many political hate buttons.

Egilman,

Nixon + Watergate =ed Devil

Reagan + Iran-Contra =ed Saint

We create our heroes and villans in real-time ... history attempts to correct at a later date.

ideology,

... history attempts to correct at a later date.

Day late and a dollar short most of the time...;-0)

Historically Republicans are moderate libertarians, understanding this helps explain to the unknowing some of Lincoln's very progressive pro labor/pro civil rights positions, or Teddy Roosevelts trust busting/conservationist progressivism coming from some of the greatest republicans in history and exposes the differences from the Neo-cons of today.

Two words:

Southern Democrats

This is what the republicans want democrats to believe. When it comes down to the end of the nominiation process, the GOP will unite. Currently they are all vying for placement. Besides it won't be either the democrats or the republicans that choose the next president. It will be the independents. So all the party loyalty will get you nowhere in the general election.

Brian

This is what the republicans want democrats to believe

Actually the Moderate portion of the Republican establishment is concerned. The conservative Portion of the Republican Establishment isn't quite as concerned. The NON-Establishment conservatives are not concerned and see this as a sharpening, a fiery furnace that is needed.

Underneath neither the Established conservatives or Moderates are that thrilled with their front-runners. Both groups would like to see a brokered convention. In the case of the Check around and you will see that more conservative people are now giving Santorum a little more time of the day. If Santorum slides into second place because of Newts behavior, you might see conservatives start to unite behind Santorum. You might think I'm nuts for saying this, but there are some analysts starting to catch up with the thinking of the Non-Establishment conservative Republicans.

DB, I don't think you are nuts for saying that. Right now it's still so early in the process, anything can happen. The republicans are known for shuffling inner party loyalties for better position. It happened in 08. A classic election was the one in 2000. McCain had the nomination all sewn up, but who ended pushing his way through? I still think that was dirty politics, but we got what we got. Even still, the republicans united in the end and Gore lost by a small margin. There were far fewer independents at the time too. I wouldn't count on the republicans staying fragmented, especially this year. They know who they are up against... the rock star president. Whoever the nominee is, better start looking good to the independents and he needs to do it right out of the starting gate.

Personally, I believe with the amount of independents out here, Obama has a marginal chance of winning. Many have lost faith in his promises from 08 and I've read articles stating a lot of independents won't vote for him again.

The GOP is a prime example of what happens to a party that caters to racists, and fanatical religious right. Always devisive, always poisoning everything.

IMHO - explain why you see color of people? The only two reasons to look at color, is to seek a political advantage by using racist-type accusations or abuse a person of a different color. Either practice is practicing Racism and despicable.

Second, how can you claim to be tollerant if you are obviously intollerant of A religion?

Isn't what you are doing by defaming others you obviously not met or know personally and act of divisiveness? To be so divisive, how can you say IMHO?

Okay Brian, I see you just get a little to over enthusiastic at times.

What you are seeing is the dirty laundry being aired more publicly than usual. I think the top two think they deserve the nomination or want the nomination too bad. It's good in that they really do care about the country, both the eagos are getting in the way. I think the promotion needs earned because you best represent the party, and by who looks the least dirty.

And I have to add, push their way through? McCain was sandbagged,sabotaged, and stabbed in the back, by his own party, Rove and Co, my husband and I were big Mc Cain supporters, we lived in GA, at the time of McCain fathers black child. He has never been the same, 8 years later, a shattered man!

The biggest troubling thing about McCain is he did not really understand who his friends really were. That had to be the most damaging thing in his campaign. To win a war, you first have to understand who the enemy is. Up to the American Revolution it was easy. Each side strictly adhered to their countries uniform color. This is post American Revolution and not everyone wearing a three cornered hat is not necessarily on your side.

You won't see a reasonable response from IMHO, DB. He's going to post whatever prejeduice is in his way of thinking. His way of thinking is simply name calling without any reason, except hatred.

.

Candice--You may well be right. Democrats should recall how fractured the Democrat party seemed to be between the Hillary and Barack factions. On the other hand, all this fighting tends to drive up the Republican candidates' negatives and they are currently higher than anyone who has won the general election, at least in recent memory.

I don't think it is fracturing, it is a party trying to decide which of two front runners is the right one when neither may be. What the stumbling block is "electability" They appear to failed to learn the lesson from the last election - The next guy in line is not the best guy.

I think they need instead to look at the matter in a sports view. Many a team becomes a winner when they unload the primadonna's.

It is interesting to watch. The way Romney and Gingrich are going at each other with baseball bats is great theater. Don't be fooled though, both of them will be swinging all the way to the convention. We finally have some life in the republican party. Up until recently I believe the nomination process was putting everyone to sleep... Both of these guys are beating each other up on a daily basis, it gives a great diversion to the liberals who are having a hard time keeping up with the blows.

The only thing I hope for is they won't tire themselves out before the general election. But as DB said earlier, these two might knock each other out of the game and in steps Santorum, who is probably the sanest one of all of them. He will be fresh meat and raring to go. No matter who ends up the one in the end, the republicans will unite behind that person... Their bloc will be solid... then the independents get to choose who the next president will be.

The Democrats wanted both Hillary and Obama. They got their wish. The Republicans are trying to decide between dumb and dumber. They'll also get their wish.

Bull Sh%t

That Romney and Newt are going at each other with baseball bats is probably a good thing. If they get all the negatives out, worn out and tired out now, the negatives will be old news by the time the Obama team tries to rehash them.

That Santorum is getting more attention is also a good thing. Sadly, it's also a confirmation that the media has so much power in picking and choosing our candidates. Santorum couldn't get 44 seconds of talk time in previous debates. Now that the field is smaller, we actually get to hear what he has to say. He does sound calmer, more serious, and concerned about the issues than the other two.

And, Old Vet. In my recent memory, President Clinton won despite womanizing rumors, fleeing to England to dodge the draft, and not inhaling. President Bush won despite being a previous alcoholic, and with some amusing but incoherent sound bites. President Reagan was just a bumbling, Hollywood B-movie star. Carter won with no name recognition, Playboy interviews and Billybob.

So, you know.....you just never really know.

IMHO- I agree, I really liked Hillary, but I knew that the Clinton name carried to much baggage, my husband and I actually had arguments, about it. I liked what I saw in Obama, but I knew we could not have another GOP president, or I would have to go on some serious meds!

Since our economy won't withstand another $7 trillion in debt, we need to get the spenders out of Washington... and unfortunately for those that support him, Obama needs to lose his job. He did not take care of the cash register... and that's one of the most important jobs the president needs to preside over. If I don't make money for my company, I need to be fired. It's as simple as that. If the next president doesn't take care of the economy, he needs to be fired... but more importantly, a message needs to be sent to Congress... they ALL need to be fired.

People run screaming down the halls over the debt being in the trillions of dollars. Rather than focus on the amount, it is better to look at debt as a portion of GDP. We are still lower as a percentage of GDP than we were in WWII, when it spiked to over 120%. Once the war was over, we were able to bring the debt down to under 100% GDP with steady declines through the 1970s.

Electing a Romney or any republican candidate is a sure way to increase the debt as they implement policies that reduce taxes on the very wealthy and increase taxes on the middle class and lower class. Raising taxes on the middle/lower classes is a sure way to slow down an economic recovery as people have less to spend on goods/services.

RedDev - No it won''t. Raising taxes on anyone, and I mean anyone, gives congress the green light to spend more. The only modern congress to reduce spending was the republican controlled congress under Clinton. While Clinton gets the credit for it, it was congress that stopped spending. They had the first balanced budget in modern times.

If we keep Obama, we know what we are getting... A president that thinks throwing money at a problem will solve it. Throwing money at problems does not solve them, as we know by the stimulus program and how short sighted it was. Sure, some jobs were temporarily saved, it slowed the brunt of the recession, but it didn't solve the problems. Do you know we have over 26 states on the verge of bankruptcy right now?

I realize how hard it is for people to grasp the concept of $17 trillon. They hear the number, but the magnitude of that number never hits home. If we taxed the total 1%, 100% of their income, it still wouldn't touch the DEFICIT. In otherwords there'd still be an annual deficit after capturing all that money. So tell me, how would taxing them an additional 15% - 25% of their income do anything to solve the problem?

As far as comparing this primary to the Democratic one in 2008, it's a little early in the process. At the time, though, there was a LOT more excitement about the candidates. Many people felt like it was win no matter who won! I think Obama edged out Clinton because of the fact that he hadn't supported the Iraq war, and he came with less baggage than she did. I'm sure there are other factors, but those are two of the things that I personally considered.

Candace says that after all this beating each other up, the eventual nominee will be accepted and the party will coalesce around him. That is probably true. It is also probably true that he will be someone that many independents can't stomach, and they'll come back to supporting Obama. Whoever the nominee is, he will also galvanize Democratic voters to vote for the president again to avoid having the Republican in office. To me, this election has some similarities to 2004--people weren't happy with Bush, but Kerry did not seem like a better alternative. I don't see strong candidates emerging from the Republican primary--they all have huge flaws that will be achilles' heels in the general.

Bethie said: and he came with less baggage than she did

You hit the nail on the head with that statement Bethie. Obama came with a whole lot less of everything. Less background, less vetting, less examination, less credentials, and no one in the main stream media even cared to check into any of it. He was the golden child. Why do you think so much about his birth certificate was brought up? The satisfied democrats/liberals didn't even care to check him out. Then the liberals tried to minimize it by calling everyone that questioned Obama's origins "birthers." Hawaii my butt! What a convenient place to have your birth certificate from... off the mainland, way out in the pacific where very few could go to find out. In otherwords, cold storage like his sealed medical records, educational records and travel records. Transparent? uh huh!

While you may not see strong candidates, that doesn't mean others feel the same as you. The nomination process isn't done yet so there's no head to head yet. Besides, its not going to be the democrats or the republicans choosing this president. It will be the independents... partisan ideology isn't a factor. Belief ideology (liberal or conservative) will be.

Well, I think Obama actually got vetted pretty well. You think the Clinton machine didn't try to dig up anything they could? The McCain/Palin team tried to paint him as a terrorist and denigrated his work as a community organizer (what's wrong with helping build communities???), while conveniently ignoring his work as a civil rights lawyer, constitutional law professor, author, and senator. Well, if you are truly one of THOSE dudes who questions Obama's birth, then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

Clearly when they are arguing about the crowd being stacked, it's obviously getting pretty childish. Newt whined that NBC "didn't let" the crowd get involved and was threatening not to play if the crowd was asked to act like adults. Williams simply asked the crowd to refrain from boisterous behavior, and they complied. So then CNN bows to his wishes and encourages crowd participation, but it doesn't go Newt's way, so therefore there has to be cheating involved!

First off, everyone of these debate crowds is stacked. Stacked with Republicans. You have to wonder just how different reactions would be if the crowds were truly balanced. Frankly, I don't think that the crowds at debates should be allowed to actively participate. They are there to hear and see the debate, and in some cases allowed to submit questions. That ought to be adequate for adults. The debate isn't just for the 1,000 or so people in the crowd, it is for all the voters observing. They can make up their own minds, they don't need to know the opinions of the elite group of audience attendees. What they do need to know is the opinions of the candidates. Debates aren't pep rallies. The individual candidates hold those and those are for the attending audience.

Gingrich behaves like a little kid. If something doesn't go his way, there must be some conspiracy against him. If he gets asked a tough question, the media elite are to blame for putting him on the spot. Gingrich behaves one way at his rallies and apparently he is allowed to make whatever claims he wants to, but then thinks that's off limits to be questioned about it in a debate. And then there are the appearances on national news programs. He behaves much more PC and doesn't try to toss around the red meat like he does when he's amongst his own. I would call him two faced, but that would be inaccurate, because he has at least three or more faces. The guy tries to tailor himself to the audience, but when he misjudges the audience, clearly the fix is in.

Gingrich thinks of himself as a great debater, but he's about pleasing the crowd. How does he really think his red meat comments would be received when half the crowd are "vegetarians"? In a well balance crowd, Gingrich comes of as a buffoon. Even in a crowd of "balanced" Republicans, he comes off pretty stupid. In a real national audience, Gingrich gets beat by close to a 20% advantage. Some of these early primary States are stacked with the ultra right wing of the Republican party, so they don't even closely represent Republicans as a whole. Turn it into a national debate, and he's the biggest loser. The far right is lucky if it makes up a third of the Republican party and taken to a national level they are lucky if they are 15%. The far right has delusions of grandeur not unlike Gingrich himself. The reality is that they make up a very small minority of the country. But he is trying to ride them to the nomination. It ain't gonna' work.

Here's other things they may not know: supported Vietnam War but sought and obtained draft deferment so did not serve, although was of the appropriate age. He will pay 13.9% income tax in 2010-11, a smaller percentage than any other serious presidential candidate although he earned far more money. Has not worked for a living since stepping down as governor--lives off investments, also known as earning his bread by the sweat of others' brows. Said he didn't earn "very much" off speaking fees last year--$354,000 worth of fees is not very much when you make $25 million a year, one supposes. Came up the hard way---Dad paid for exclusive private school followed by BYU and Harvard. Dad also helped pay for first house in an exclusive Boston suburb. I'm not saying that any of this is wrong. I'm saying he can't relate to middle-class America because he's never been middle class, much less poor.

He's a boob.

pclemons - those are great qualifications - but great qualifications do not mean he is going to be a great president.

Old Vet - your disqualifications are weak when it comes to president. Clinton Deferred too, heck many found ways out.

If he knows how to keep from paying more taxes than required, then he also knows how to not spend too much. Normally I would say that would be great qualification because most politicians just throw wads of money at every problem and say they are doing the best they can. Romney care puts a dent in his frugality in my book.

Has not worked for a living since stepping down as governor

He has worked 24-7 in trying to become president - let's see you do that!

Said he didn't earn "very much" off speaking fees last year--$354,000 worth

Gore and Clinton earn millions in speaking fees.

I'm saying he can't relate to middle-class America because he's never been middle class, much less poor

Now you got the real problem - in the end government is the solution to him. Although, he would let business have a little more relief than the current administration.

pclemons,

Either provide links to your supposed facts or be gone.

"pclemons beats his homosexual child spouse"

See? This stuff is easy without links to facts.

Checkered - although he should provide a link, I have seen most of these in the past. The Olympics was particularly brutal.

One condition of him taking over was that guy who was running the Olympics could not be removed. Romney had to find ways to keep him reasonably involve while redirecting the who event.

Every Olympics since has used Romney's effort as an important blueprint to be successful.

DB: you're seriously going to liken Clinton's upbringing (or Obama's) as children of single mothers of modest means, who worked their butts off to achieve what they had, as adults, with Mitt's background? You might like your party's nominee whoever it is, and there's certainly nothing illegal about being rich or priviliedged, but if you can't understand why being the richest nominee ever to run for President is a liability for Romney as the United States begins recovering from a severe recession, than you're going to be hugely surprised at the reaction of your fellow citizens in this country of all political stripes. For some, politics and idealogy trump everything. For a whole lot of Americans, knowing the person in the White House has had some idea what it was like somewhere in their lives to earn a paycheck and what life is like for the majority of Americans is still an idea they approve of.

Gee, what a surprise! Another angry liberal poster here who is bitter on Romney's success. How dare you work hard and make a huge success for yourself, how awful!

Hey Dee, no anger, just laughter. LMAO

Dee--Mitt was born rich, raised in a rich suburb of Detroit, went to an exclusive private secondary school, had his father pay his way through BYU and Harvard, had his father help pay for his first house in an exclusive suburb of Boston. Do you suppose having the name "Romney" helped him get a job at Bain? Do you suppose that being rich, white and male helped him in any way in the 1970s? If you don't think so, then please tell us on what planet you currently reside. No one is bitter; we're just realistic. Lots of poor people work very, very hard and don't get to be multi-milionaires. I've been poor and I've been comfortable. I worked a lot harder when I was poor.

Old Vet. There's money on both sides that came too easily. Research the top wealthiest in Congress and you'll find more Republicans earned their wealth by founding businesses. Several Democrats earned their wealth by marrying into it or by being born, as well as being businessmen.

Married or born into money: John Kerry (D), Jay Rockefellar (D), Richard Blumenthal (D), Dianne Feinstein (D) - ironically married to an investment banker., Rodney Frelinghuysen (R), Claire McCaskill (D).

Accumulated wealth by founding companies: Darryl Issa (R), Mark Warner (D), Jared Polis (D), Frank Lautenberg (D), Jim Renacci (R)

Not cheering one side against the other, but interesting, huh?

You worked harder when you were poor? Yeah, I think we all did. So you can't fault the investment rich for not working as hard. Now that you're better off, you're not working as hard, right?

Old Vet. His family was upper middle class. They got him the education, but Mitt's wealth came from his performance in the businessworld.

Do you suppose having the name "Romney" helped him get a job at Bain?

In the real world, the name might have gotten the interview, but more likely his grades and interveiw gpot him in the door. Businesses only hire you if they think you will be a productive asset, not just because yoy have a name.

white and male helped him in any way in the 1970s

Why is it everything has too be wealth conspiracy or Racism? Racism exists, I've seen it first hand, but it mostly doesn't exist where you are looking.

Did you not understand that it doesn't matter in some neighborhoods how scruffy you are and how old a beat up vehicle you drive that because you are white that you are thought to be rich and/or a Racist?

Who is teaching these people to have an unbalance view of white people?

Who are the people who only put mainly minorities who have broken the law on the TV new? They have to understand that they are spreading unreasonble fears in white communities.

DB: "upper middle class"???? What???? Now that's funny. About as funny as Mitt;s claim that his $370,000. a year in speaking fees was "pretty insignificant'. Come on. First you whine about people being "bitter" at his wealth and then you claim he wasn't really all that wealthy until Bain? No one is 'bitter'. A whole lot of people besides you just don't think that money means you get to skate unquestioned into the White House.

InPS---It's beginning to look like a blood-bath for the Republicans for this election. They were hoping and striving for the economy to crater so they could blame it on Obama and the Dems. It doesn't look like their gamble is going to pay off.Suckers!!!

Again Barack Obama ABO 2012

In 2008 it was said that the Republican Party chose a non-practicing Presbyterian over a backslidden Baptist Minister and a very Devout Mormon.

In 2012 their choices are

A candidate who is weak on small government, is supposed to demolish the HC system he installed in his own state, and willing to smear his opponents.

A candidate who has great drive to accomplish big things, but doesn't know when to quit, but likes to make deals he probably shouldn't make at times.

A Candidate that is so far right fiscally, 35-45% of the party won't vote for him and so far left on social and military issues that another 35 - 45% of the party won't vote for him.

Then you have a candidate not only promises almost everything they party would like and delivers most of what the party would like - and they won't vote for him because he is relatively unknown in the Nation.

Yes, D.B. You nailed it. The candidates all have major flaws. For Newt, I would add that he has an image problem--he cannot escape his poor marital history or his record in the House (ethics violations and having to step down in disgrace). Of course, it is impossible to find someone who has not made mistakes, but these are pretty big ones to overlook. Newt is not doing well among female voters.

Really? At this time in 1980 Carter had a 43% approval and still had a 62-31 poll lead over potential candidate Ronald Reagan. Reagan won by 9 points 10 months later.

Obama has a 45-46% approval rating and the biggest lead is 15% on the worst poll, worst candidate.

If the Republicans pick the right candidate - it's four and out!

Dee, My husband of 30yrs have worked hard for our success, husband went back to school for CS, I worked, paid off student loans, bought our first house on our own etc etc a story like many others, Mittens can never understand. We are successful JFK LIBERALS!

DB Akron,

You are right there, I was part of the team that pressed Reagan to go after Carter when the first poll in October, an NBC poll by the way, showed Carter 15 points in the lead with four weeks and one debate to go. ( I was a paid public opinion analyst back then) That is when he started with the "There he goes again" campaign slogan. With one week to the debate the lead was down to 10 points. At the debate, it was 5 points, immediately after the debate, polls were showing them even, the first of November showed Reagan with a 3 point lead. (basically a dead heat, but leaning Reagan's way) Election night, The biggest landslide in political history up to that point. (only Reagan's '84 win was bigger, 3500 votes from taking all 50 states)

Talk about a campaign crew being on Cloud nine! we partied for three days straight.

The Grinch consistently polls 7-9 points behind Obama, nationwide, head to head at this time.

Mitts polls 2-5 points behind, (withing most margins of error but leaning towards the President)

Dr Paul polls 1 point ahead to 2 points behind, well withing the margin of error and the only one to consistently poll in the lead anywhere against the President.

So you are absolutely right, the Republicans pick carefully and correctly, Obama is a one term wonder. No matter how much they complain about it.

egileman, you are just another righty hack. No republican has a chance against Obama and you know it. Just because you hate the guy doesnt mean his is going to lose. If Willard gets the nomination his wealth and ego are going to destroy him. He will implode. He WILL lose.

Have to agree with you royal.

What does the RNC-TEA organization have against our nation's problems being addressed and improved, as all the numbers and indicators prove is happening under President Obama's leadership?

Are they racist, unpatriotic, Muslim law influenced, or simply too partisan to admit and recognize the President's successes? I can think of no other reasons for the illogical, untrue, venomous RNC/TEA talking points and spin they continually post.

Fascinating!

Newt did not know when to quit. I thought this would happen several months ago, but back then he was handling himself much better than in the past. I would like to see someone other than Newt.

Yes, both Gingrich and Romney act like entitled children. They just can't believe that they have to actually EARN respect, EARN the votes, and EARN the nomination.

Chuck,

Good luck with that line of reasoning! The following comes from a poster with an uncanny sense of reality.

Presented for your consideration:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After The 8 Years Of The Bush/Cheney Disaster, now You Get Mad?

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy and push us to invade Iraq.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us. Bush lied to the American people HUNDREDS of times!!!

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_8049600

You didn't get mad when we spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.

You didn't get mad when they didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when Bush ran up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the 1%, over a trillion dollars in tax breaks.

You didn't get mad with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades.

You didn't get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance.

You didn't get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values.

You finally got mad when a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, job losses by the millions, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, and the worst economic disaster since 1929 are all okay with you, but helping fellow Americans who are sick...oh God, please not that!!

As I stated above, George Bush was a disaster as our President. He did not deserve one term, let alone two. I did not vote for either George Bush or Barack Obama. For your Information, I voted for the nominee of the Constitution Party. Again, as stated above, I am an independent. Mr. Obama needs to be turned out of office not because he is a black man, but because he is a lousy president intent on ruining our nation.

As for so-called "Obamacare" it is an will be a financial disaster. Yes, poor people and folks denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions need access to quality medical care, but "Obamacare" is not the solution. Part of his plan is to literally kill as many people over 70 as possible by denying them acute treatment and instead replacing it with "comfort care" through the installation of death panels. This man, like his predecessor, is nothing more than a common criminal, and like George Bush should probably be tried for treason.

Checkered- Great post- Says it all! Thanks! Chuck your post is pure BS!

Nice try "hummbird" & "Checkered Demon." I guess that the blind Obama supporters can't stand or see the truth! Obviously one of us is wrong. Only time will tell. See you at the polls.

Chuck- My eyesight isn't what it used to be, but I can see the whole GOP/Tbagger party imploding, and sorry if I take great joy in it, but the disrespect you all have paid to the President is inexcusable! Obama/Biden 2012! See Ya!

Part of his plan is to literally kill as many people over 70 as possible by denying them acute treatment and instead replacing it with "comfort care" through the installation of death panels.

Where in the health care plan is this outlined? Hate to tell you, but it isn't. Another lie posted by another lying Obama basher.

Oh, silly me. Of course this came from faux news, the most un-trusted news source on the planet (banned in Canada for the number of lies it airs).

http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2011/11/29/neurosurgeon-dishes-obama-death-panels-administration-calls-patrients-units

In this clip from "The Mark Levin Show" a Neurosurgeon calls into to discuss the implications of Obamacare for patients over 70 years old who need advanced neurosurgical care; an issue that he found to be 'disturbing'

RedDevPS

My statement about Obama seeking to kill as many 70+ people as possible is indeed partially based on the phone call to "The Mark Levin Show", which by the way a friend e-mailed to me. I didn't get it from Fox News because I believe they are too biased towards the Republican Party and not enough concerned with the welfare of the American people. The other part is derived from the fact that President Obama is in part financing his "Obamacare" by cutting Medicare reimbursements to doctors by 20%. This will force most honest doctors who are already complaining that they are not recovering costs to refuse service to the elderly and cease care to these folks. Bottom line, no care, they die, but the cost of Medicare comes down. For Obama, mission accomplished.

With regard to "The Mark Levin Show" audio, has it been proved that it was a phony or that that seminar in Washington never took place? If so, please enlighten me. As I stated earlier, I am an independent seeking to do the right thing.

One last note to all of you Republican and Democratic Party members, it is not you that will be selecting the next President of the United States. The next president will be put in office by whomever WE INDEPENDENTS choose because neither major party has sufficient numbers to elect anyone on their own. President Obama or his eventual Republican opponent must convince US or they simply will not be elected. See you at the polls.

@Chuck - I believe the issue you are talking about is an ongoing problem that Congress, starting in 2002, has failed to address. The article in the link below does a good job explaining why doctors are facing a continued reduction in paid medicare expenses. The point being, pundits that hate Obama will blame it on Obama care, when in fact the issue pre-dates the Affordable Health Care Act. Again, Obama doesn't specifically state he will implement death panels in lieu of coverage.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/11/10/medicares_failed_physician_payment_policy_99359.html

EE,

The Republican Party knows that they're morally bankrupt with the clowns they're currently running for POTUS. How many "flavors of the week" have they run through, only to find they are all idealogically, morally or conceptually flawed? All the righty posters can do on this vine is try to disparage Obama. They have no real candidate who can defeat him, and they KNOW IT. Thus the rage. Sad, that.

GOP...try again in 2016, when Obama can't run again.

EEngineer

I guess that in January of '08 Obama was the clear winner there also?

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

Looks to me that Obama didn't start to pull even with Clinton until the end of January, start of February.

You wanna know something? your comment is hilarious!

Sorry, I don't get your point, Egilman and your link doesn't make it any clearer: WTF are you talkin' about? Clinton? You ae a moron!

Lest you miss my point:

How about it, Republicans? How about some new ideas? How about something different?

... [crickets chirping] ...

They try to draw a clear contrast during the campaign but when elected Democrats and Republican are basically the same these days. I guess, unless, you're only concerned about abortion.

EEngineer,

For one I know you are a democrat shill, probably haven't had an original political thought nor an original thought of your own in decades.

That being said, (just so we know what we are dealing with here, don't feed the trolls comes to mind)

I was responding to this statement of yours....

If there was a clear Republican winner, wouldn't they have emerged by now?

And only this statement, nothing else.

Why I chose this statement and only this statement?

It reveals just how much you actually don't know about the way political campaigns are organized. I revealed this fact by showing that in at this point in '08 Obama hadn't really showed himself as a viable candidate, by the end of January he has pulled even with Clinton and by March had pulled ahead.

Your statement is invalid on it's face, and exposes you as an idiot democrat shill.

The rest of your posting is troll bait and isn't even worth responding to..

EXPOSED, game, set, match!

...Romney said he will dismantle Obama Care. He knows it's a bad, unfair plan.

Here's a quote:

...the Massachusetts plan enacted under his leadership was the motivation for the national health care revamping. The Obama administration used the Massachusetts plan to frame their law...

Did you miss that? Romneycare = Obamacare

Where is the difference?

scott,

Yes we missed the bit about Romney will dismantle Obamacare because, guess what,....it didn't happen!

You FUX NEWS idiots live in your own special fact-free world.

Scott, wanna point me to the FACTS?

What? You have none???

Why are we all surprised?

Oh, never mind, I think I see now...

One was proposed by a Republican, the other was proposed by a Democrat.

That, of course, makes all the difference!

EE .. that seems to be the playbook. Do as I say, not as I do. Increase the debt? OK if a republican. Not ok if a democrat. Sex scandals? OK if a republican (even increases your electability). If a democrat, you must resign your position. It is why hypocrisy and republican have become interchangeable words.

By that you mean scripted, right?

I feel the same way; just wish more people would take the initiative and they too would likely come to the same conclusion.

I note with interest that either by omission or commission you have left out the name of Dr. Ron Paul. Does he rise to the relatively low standards that you have set for yourself? After all, we are talking about Barack Obama here and he isn't exactly a knight in shining armor. Please think twice about casting a vote for a man whom I believe will go down as one the worst, if not last, presidents in our history.

bush,,,newt,,,mitt,,,cain,,,paul,,,,,bachmen,,,santorum,,,,that your canidates guess that trumps ha ha ha you soros, van jones and obama...