Go Romney

[Guest]

I am very pleased with Romney in the front position and even more please where Bachmann and that weird guy from Texas are sitting.

[Guest]

who knows maybe another Senator will become a miracle dark horse coming from no where and winning as in the 2008 election!!

btk

[Guest]

Yeah, the Tea Party sure blew themselves up big time in Iowa. Michelle the Mouth is going to quit and slink back home. Freak Boy will go back to Texas and hopefully stay there.

Santorum is totally unelectable so let's hope that the evangical Republicans back him all the way.

Even Ann Coulter calls Ron Paul a "nut bar".

Good going in Iowa, guys.

[Guest]

Yeah, the Tea Party sure blew themselves up big time in Iowa. Michelle the Mouth is going to quit and slink back home. Freak Boy will go back to Texas and hopefully stay there.

Santorum is totally unelectable so let's hope that the evangical Republicans back him all the way.

Even Ann Coulter calls Ron Paul a "nut bar".

Good going in Iowa, guys.

I am very curious. Do you call everyone who disagrees with or has a little different philosophy than you a name ? Or is that just on this forum ?

Disagreeing and offering ones opinion is one thing....trying to be cute and demean those who disagree with you is quite another.

[Guest]

that is the MO Bucco.
I had a professor who viewed such antics/behavior as compensating.

I would ask for what commentary would be offered for the dems' pack of candidates when the were at the similar stumbling stage prior to the 2008 election.

I also wonder if some of the more vehement posters are not reincarnations of those who used to be so demeaning to everybody and anything that was not their party during 2007. So many have slid away, but some of the current crop has a familiar ring.

btk

[Guest]

I still think that Romney will just be a repeat of the current administration. Remember the phase "career politican." Not one of them, D or R is a statesman and has the best interest of the country in mind. Its all "what can I get for myself and my party, and to hell with the country and what's best for the American People."

[Guest]

that is the MO Bucco.
I had a professor who viewed such antics/behavior as compensating.

I would ask for what commentary would be offered for the dems' pack of candidates when the were at the similar stumbling stage prior to the 2008 election.

I also wonder if some of the more vehement posters are not reincarnations of those who used to be so demeaning to everybody and anything that was not their party during 2007. So many have slid away, but some of the current crop has a familiar ring.

btk

I thought the same thing BTK. Many of them sound like the folks here in 2007/2008 who just slung the mud and then disappeared as actual issues were discussed

[Guest]

Chances of Romney winning the nomination - 79.2%
Chances of Gingrich winning ............. - 4.1%
Chances of Santorum winning ................ - 5.5%
Chances of Paul winning ..................... - 1.9%


Chances of Obama winning reelection - 51.1%

[Guest]

I still think that Romney will just be a repeat of the current administration. Remember the phase "career politican." Not one of them, D or R is a statesman and has the best interest of the country in mind. Its all "what can I get for myself and my party, and to hell with the country and what's best for the American People."

I don't think so. One of the things I like about Romney is that he already has all the wealth and power a person could earn, and he is steady and devoted in his family life.

His love of this nation shows clearly at all times. That's not the case with the current administration.

[Guest]

I am very curious. Do you call everyone who disagrees with or has a little different philosophy than you a name ? Or is that just on this forum ?

Disagreeing and offering ones opinion is one thing....trying to be cute and demean those who disagree with you is quite another.

Libs use this strategy all of the time. It is right out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Check out Number 5!

[Guest]

Mitt Romney's a candidate even democrats could support. I remember voting for him when he ran for the senate in 1994. He was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-universal health care. Go Mitt.

[Guest]

Libs use this strategy all of the time. It is right out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Check out Number 5!

Exactly. They would mock and ridicule the discoverer of the cure for all types of cancer if he/she were a Republican.

[Guest]

Unfortunately for Mitt, he is about to receive the kiss of death.

A McCain endorsement. The cons will love that.

[Guest]

Mitt Romney believes marriage is between a man and a woman and another woman and another woman and another woman and another woman.

[Guest]

Mitt Romney believes marriage is between a man and a woman and another woman and another woman and another woman and another woman.

Can you provide a source for this?

[Guest]

Can you provide a source for this?



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2006/04/take_my_wives_please.html

[Guest]

Unfortunately for Mitt, he is about to receive the kiss of death.

A McCain endorsement. The cons will love that.

Now the big question is, will Sarah Palin endorse Rick Perry, or is he too much of an intellectual for her?

[Guest]

Love all the reasoning here. I don't buy hardly any of it. Romney barely eked out a win over Santorum. Santorum is undoubtedly the more conservative candidate. Romney still stuck in his usual percentages of support. Bachmann supporters will go to Santorum if they stay true to their beliefs. Whoever the anti-Romney candidate is should be able to garner that support if he goes after it.

It's only the Beltway and the media who are in Romney's corner. Is that enough? We shall see. All of you above should prepare to be shocked and disappointed.

[Guest]

In politics being true to beliefs takes a back seat to backing a winner. Romney, far and away, has the best chance of winning in November.

Santorum, Gingrich, Paul - I am sure they are all nice guys. I don't agree with them on anything, but I am sure they are nice guys.

BUT - Romney has the ground game in place in all the primary states and he has plenty of $$. He's been planning this for 4 years.

For the R's, it's Romney or bust.

[Guest]

It has been said many times and many ways that Santorum is NOT electable. If the Republicans want a chance at the White House, it will have to be Romney AND another moderate for VP on their ticket.

[Guest]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2006/04/take_my_wives_please.html

Where in that article does it say Mitt supports poligimy? The one statement was a joke.

[Guest]

It has been said many times and many ways that Santorum is NOT electable. If the Republicans want a chance at the White House, it will have to be Romney AND another moderate for VP on their ticket.

Romney / Christie

[Guest]

The results in Iowa didn't really support anything. turnout was low and most were far right christian. romney only won by 8 votes after all the money he dumped there. Perry will continue.

It is still too early to determine who wiull win the primary. New Hampshire will also go to romney but after that ?????

Romney is not my choice because he is in favor of a VAT tax which by the way is a favorite of Dems. Europe introduced its VAT around 1969 and now into the upper 20 percentages supports Europe welfare system. Beside which romney is what ever one wants him to be at that point in time.

Ask yourself which of the candidates/incumbent would cause you to follow them? the answer for me is none of them...not one

Where have all the great men gone?????

[Guest]

Can you provide a source for this?


You are asking for something that I NEVER recall happening.....JANMCN providing a source for the venom he/she spews.....if it is someone other than a Democrat, they are to be demonized with no source..no credible link, just they have to be wrong because I dont agree therefore......

Just saying things or using the party line is the new political line. You dont have to know anything or what you are talking about. Just ridicule and run.

[Guest]

If Romney prevails, watch him tap Sen. Marco Rubio for VP...in an attempt to achieve geographical and ethnic balance.

[Guest]

here is what I learned about Iowa. Our democracy is dead,period. Reps,Dems no longer matter. The real winner in Iowa and coming to your state soon is the super PAC. They can spend unlimited money,they don't disclose donors until after the vote is counted and they want to postpone that. These creatures were unleashed by the 2010 Supreme Court ruling. Both sides have them.Both sides will use them. Forget democracy,money is all that will matter. I really enjoyed the back and forth with many of you,it was fun to take sides and discuss and argue the issues but as I see it we are wasting our time. Obama Romney whoever....it doesn't matter they will be owned by big money.Our democracy is no longer.

[Guest]

waynet, a short history lesson is in order.

The United States of America is NOT, I repeat, NOT a democracy.

The United States of America is, I repeat, is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

Now, having said that, you are right, no matter what you call the United States of America, We The People, no longer matter. All the pols are bought and paid for by the Super PACS and will do their bidding to keep getting elected. Sad state of affairs.

[Guest]

In politics being true to beliefs takes a back seat to backing a winner. Romney, far and away, has the best chance of winning in November.

Santorum, Gingrich, Paul - I am sure they are all nice guys. I don't agree with them on anything, but I am sure they are nice guys.

BUT - Romney has the ground game in place in all the primary states and he has plenty of $$. He's been planning this for 4 years.

For the R's, it's Romney or bust.

It has been said many times and many ways that Santorum is NOT electable. If the Republicans want a chance at the White House, it will have to be Romney AND another moderate for VP on their ticket.

I always take political advice on who the Republican nominee will and should be from my rabid lefty friends. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

You are asking for something that I NEVER recall happening.....JANMCN providing a source for the venom he/she spews.....if it is someone other than a Democrat, they are to be demonized with no source..no credible link, just they have to be wrong because I dont agree therefore......

Just saying things or using the party line is the new political line. You dont have to know anything or what you are talking about. Just ridicule and run.

Google Mormons/polygamy and you'll find thousands of links to read.

[Guest]

Google Mormons/polygamy and you'll find thousands of links to read.

I thought that Polygamy is illegal everywhere in the USA, and that the Mormon Church does not condone Polygamy. Or perhaps you referring to past history. If you want to read about plural marriages that were once religiously supported, try reading the Old Testament.

[Guest]

If Romney prevails, watch him tap Sen. Marco Rubio for VP...in an attempt to achieve geographical and ethnic balance.

No, the reason he or any republican nominee would pick Marco Rubio is because of his wisdom and statesmanship demonstrated here with John Kerry.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_68GjR6V6zI

[Guest]

Unfortunately for Mitt, he is about to receive the kiss of death.

A McCain endorsement. The cons will love that.

Quite an astute observation. Very nicely done. I don't think conservative voters needed McCain's endorsement to clue them in on Romney lack of conservative credentials in any event.

I will still vote for Romney if he's the ultimate candidate, but he's is what he is, and conservative he's not.

As Bachmann so aptly said on her way out of the race: This election is our one chance to prevent our country's descent into socialism. Obama and his policies must be defeated for our country to endure.

[Guest]

Quite an astute observation. Very nicely done. I don't think conservative voters needed McCain's endorsement to clue them in on Romney lack of conservative credentials in any event.

I will still vote for Romney if he's the ultimate candidate, but he's is what he is, and conservative he's not.

As Bachmann so aptly said on her way out of the race: This election is our one chance to prevent our country's descent into socialism. Obama and his policies must be defeated for our country to endure.

It is so disconcerting to me to vote this way. I voted for McCain in 2008 only because I realized what our current President would do, AND realized he was simply a creation of the media, and now......I am going to vote primarily for the same reason again. We now have created a President who says HE KNOWS WHAT IS BEST and does not need congress. Now, I agree that congress is a mess but who in the world can set in the White House and be that arrogant.

We need a leader....quickly. Those who are on here touting his health care bill just have not done any investigation.....it is MORE financial disaster....it has so many little tentacles that reach out into everything....

RICHIE...another vote for sure for Romney

[Guest]

Google Mormons/polygamy and you'll find thousands of links to read.

Google Obama / Birth Certificate and you will find thosands of......well, you take my point.

[Guest]

Google Obama / Birth Certificate and you will find thosands of......well, you take my point.




Actually, I don't "take" your point. What is it you are attempting to equate? Are you saying verifiable statements Romney has made is equivalent to the "bithers"?

Sorry, don't see the connection.

[Guest]

Actually, I don't "take" your point. What is it you are attempting to equate? Are you saying verifiable statements Romney has made is equivalent to the "bithers"?

Sorry, don't see the connection.

I am saying that there is as much evidence that President Obama was not born in the USA as there is that Mitt Romney has supported polygamy. That would be none. I did find that the LDS church opposed this practice in 1890.

[Guest]

Actually, I don't "take" your point. What is it you are attempting to equate? Are you saying verifiable statements Romney has made is equivalent to the "bithers"?

Sorry, don't see the connection.

Really?; Romney has endorsed polygamy? Where and when did he do this?

[Guest]

I really do not believe Romney ever endorsed polygamy. Only a few breakaway sects of Mormons do that and it is not recognized by the LDS church.

I am glad to see that no poster here has "attacked" Mitt Romney as not being a Christian because he is a Mormon. Even though it began as late as 1820 through a vision to a teenager in New York, it is a good religion that preaches Christian beliefs and encourages a great system of family and community responsibility.

Since 1978, they have been inclusive of black Mormons in their priesthoods.

[Guest]

I don't believe anyone here has claimed that Romney supports polygamy.

He did, however, say (hopefully jokingly) that "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman ... and a woman ... and a woman" There is even a link to the quote and where and when he said it.

I would imagine you could even find excerpts of that 2005 speech on youtube, as well as the tape of the 2006 Imus show where he said it again.

[Guest]

s Romney's second run for President and I still don't know who he is and what he really stands for.

The repeatedly claim that because of his business acumen he would make a great president falls flat. It falls flat because the government does not work like a business.

the best candidate is the one that can gain enough of Congressmen and women's confidence to keep things moving forward.

We know that Obama is not that person. His recent grand standing stunts when making recess appointments may please some Dems. However, the Finacial Consumer Board is going to be Sarbanes Oxley on steroids. And the NLRB appointments will further create uncertainty for business.

[Guest]

Junior made 171 recess appointments.

[Guest]

If Romney prevails, watch him tap Sen. Marco Rubio for VP...in an attempt to achieve geographical and ethnic balance.

Actually the likely VP candidate will be Chris Christie and one of the reasons he is campaigning for Romney....much to my chagrin

[Guest]

Junior made 171 recess appointments.

coralway: It is not the process of said recess appoitnments. apparently many presidents have done so. It is these two particular appointsment s because of their potential dangerous and devasting effect on our economy.

Sarbane Oxly has literally driven many Us business out of the country or closed them down. this new consumer Agency is Sarbanes on steroids.

Secondly the NLRB appointments were primarily union bias appointments. Get ready for the fall out. Finally the house claims they were not out owing to a technical ploy. It will be left or the courts to decide but by then this will all be old news. Obama's motives were a big push for his campaign and neither of the issues will help our economy.

[Guest]

Junior made 171 recess appointments.

The difference here is that Obama made these recess appointments while Congress was still "in session".

In 2007 after Pres. Bush made recess appointments that the Liberals hated they began to reconvene, if even for only 30 seconds, every 3 days to stop any further recess appointments as 3 days was the rule in place.

Now Obama has instituted unilaterally a new "nuclear option", if you will, and made recess appointments without adhering to the rules of Congress. I guess Congress can never stop running now for even a second. The Liberals won't like this when the President is no longer a Democrat. Will they like what they've sown?

This is the same thing that is happening with judges now. The Democrats pulled the "nuclear option" of filibustering judges so than G.W. Bush couldn't name any and now the Republicans are doing the same thing to them. Reaping what you sow. Is this any way to run a country?

We now have a President who is acting as a despot. Just beautiful, isn't it?

[Guest]

Actually the likely VP candidate will be Chris Christie and one of the reasons he is campaigning for Romney....much to my chagrin

It will never happen. He has too much personality easily outshining Mitt. No way are two northern governors going to be on the ticket. And he needs to lose 200 lbs imho.

[Guest]

I am saying that there is as much evidence that President Obama was not born in the USA as there is that Mitt Romney has supported polygamy. That would be none. I did find that the LDS church opposed this practice in 1890.

Now that President Obama has produced his long form birth certificate, when is Mitt Romney going to produce his tax returns?

Isn't it interesting that The Boston Globe and the NH Times Leader would not endorse Romney, the people that know him best? If he's the nominee, he won't even carry MA, his home state.

[Guest]

The difference here is that Obama made these recess appointments while Congress was still "in session".

In 2007 after Pres. Bush made recess appointments that the Liberals hated they began to reconvene, if even for only 30 seconds, every 3 days to stop any further recess appointments as 3 days was the rule in place.

Now Obama has instituted unilaterally a new "nuclear option", if you will, and made recess appointments without adhering to the rules of Congress. I guess Congress can never stop running now for even a second. The Liberals won't like this when the President is no longer a Democrat. Will they like what they've sown?

This is the same thing that is happening with judges now. The Democrats pulled the "nuclear option" of filibustering judges so than G.W. Bush couldn't name any and now the Republicans are doing the same thing to them. Reaping what you sow. Is this any way to run a country?

We now have a President who is acting as a despot. Just beautiful, isn't it?





LOL - "in session"? LOL - Perhaps, but only if you consider all of them back home in their districts on vacation - as being in session.

LOL.... good one......

[Guest]

LOL - "in session"? LOL - Perhaps, but only if you consider all of them back home in their districts on vacation - as being in session.

LOL.... good one......

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please research before you opine.

[Guest]

The intent of recess appointments by our Founding Fathers was based on their anticipating that Congress was not in session year round and so as not to impair advice and consent role in federal appointments allowed for temporary appointments.

However presidents and especially in recent times have abused this priviledge to advance their political agendas vis a vis serve the people.

Obama's recent recess appointments were done while congress was still in session and will be challenged in court. The intent of these appointments is believed to trample the US Constitution....why am I not surprised

[Guest]

"The two Democrats that President Barack Obama appointed to the National Labor Relations Board during what he considered a congressional “recess” are not on the White House’s official list of Obama’s appointments and nominations for various positions.

Obama referred his two Democratic nominees, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, to the Senate on Dec. 15. The Senate adjourned for the year – but did not go into an official recess — on the following day.

WhiteHouse.gov tracks the status of all of Obama’s appointments and nominations. Block and Griffin do not appear on that list — a sign that the administration rushed the recess appointments through too quickly for the Senate to even consider them.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/dem-nlrb-recess-appointments-rushed-dont-appear-on-white-house-nominee-list/

Those of you who fancy President Obama as a poor schmuck being abused by those dirty rotten Republicans should do some reading before you listen to the media who, as they did loudly in 2008, are twisting the news just a bit to deliver a very distorted picture.

President Obama is a politician, TOTALLY....that is all he has ever done and he is good at it. He is not the man with the message, the good guy, the Messiah or any of that. If you think his recent actions are not cold and calculated for his own personal gain, AND NOT THE COUNTRY..think again.

Does this mean that those on the other side dont play silly games...sure they do, but this is just about the most arrogant and political man ever in the White House and those of you who believe all the tripe you hear should just take a minute and read BOTH sides...other viewpoints other than those who make you feel good. You may learn more about our President than you ever expected and I encourage, as I did in 2008, you to read the archives of the Chicago newspapers and learn more about him.

I havent been on this soap box for quite some time as he is our President, but the stuff that folks are believing about him is just scary. Please get to know him and his background....review all that he promised and just ignored......I am not speaking of those things that he needs to get through legislation because all Presidents promise stuff they cannot deliver, but for example...taking the health care bill behind closed doors and paying bribery to get it passed with nobody knowing it AFTER VERY clearly stating how the public would see the debate and have time to read the bill....all things that were of no problem for him to deliver and just ignoring that promise....THAT should let you know the character of the man and how the press will NOT call him on it, thus not allowing you the truth.