There's A Presumptive GOP Candidate...Now The Question

[Guest]

It certainly looks like Mitt Romney will be the Republican presidential candidate.

Now the $64,000 question...will all the fractured, single issue, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives get behind this candidate to try to unseat Barack Obama from election to a second term? Will the religious right swallow hard and vote for a Mormon? Will the 'right to lifers' support someone whose position on that question is not quite clear cut? Will the Tea Party buckle up and support a candidate less fiscally conservative than they would like? Will those viciously opposing ObamaCare back Romney, who got a very similar program passed in Massachusetts?

Basically, will the entirety of the Republican Party come together to back a candidate to replace President Obama? Will the GOP electorate do what the Congress has been unable to do...compromise on a candidate that might not be all they had wished for, but who is better than the incumbent?

Very simply, if Republicans don't come together, there's little doubt that Barack Obama will be a two-term president.

What do you think? What will you do? How will you vote?

[Guest]

It certainly looks like Mitt Romney will be the Republican presidential candidate.

Now the $64,000 question...will all the fractured, single issue, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives get behind this candidate to try to unseat Barack Obama from election to a second term? Will the religious right swallow hard and vote for a Mormon? Will the 'right to lifers' support someone whose position on that question is not quite clear cut? Will the Tea Party buckle up and support a candidate less fiscally conservative than they would like? Will those viciously opposing ObamaCare back Romney, who got a very similar program passed in Massachusetts?

Basically, will the entirety of the Republican Party come together to back a candidate to replace President Obama? Will the GOP electorate do what the Congress has been unable to do...compromise on a candidate that might not be all they had wished for, but who is better than the incumbent?

Very simply, if Republicans don't come together, there's little doubt that Barack Obama will be a two-term president.

What do you think? What will you do? How will you vote?


Why, you in a real rush here. Your crystal ball much be very busy lately. It's too early for this discussion.

[Guest]

I agree Richie but any of the remaining GOP candidates would be better than what we currently have in the White House.

That being said, I would love to see the field whittle down to Romney and either Santorum or Gingrich to see who the GOP voters really throw their support behind.

[Guest]

Romney will get the nomination.............. Obama will bring out some new programs that impress the voters and he will win the election by a small margin. So everyone can go on to new topics as I have spoken and given you the outcome of the upcoming election. There is no need to speculate any longer. Your welcome.

The Villager II

[Guest]

Villager II is pretty close but the margin of Obama's win will not be close but sizable.

We have spoken. "Nuff said.

[Guest]

Villager II is pretty close but the margin of Obama's win will not be close but sizable.

We have spoken. "Nuff said.

You crack me up. Maybe if Obama gets his plan through to access 1.3 Trillion Dollars or so to pay off the populace with mortgage deductions, as he's trying to do, which has been reported. That might give him his margin of victory by the buying of votes. We'll see.

[Guest]

"Pay off the populace with mortgage deductions"? I honestly don't understand that statement. Aren't mortgage interests deductible right now?

I do see that you are beginning to believe that President Obama probably will win in November and you are starting very early to rationalize (downplay) that winning.

[Guest]

"Pay off the populace with mortgage deductions"? I honestly don't understand that statement. Aren't mortgage interests deductible right now?

I do see that you are beginning to believe that President Obama probably will win in November and you are starting very early to rationalize (downplay) that winning.

This is what I was talking about. I skimmed it earlier this week on one of my scouting missions for another story and forgot the specifics of it. Obama wnts to spend upwards of a Trillion Dollars to refinance mortgages IN HIS REELECTION YEAR. It's a great grandstanding ploy which I'm sure he hopes gets his reelection votes from all who are helped by this plan which amounts to a tax cut of long duration. It would affect 30 million borrowers, and of course their families.

I know you're going to be "over the moon" on how this helps so many people and why am i against it and blah blah blah blah blah.

Anyway, this trillion dollar scheme is what I was talking about.

Good thing he forced in his new Treasury Secretary, who he claims has full powers even before a Senate confirmation hearing.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2828828/posts

[Guest]

you gotta admire the loyalty to their man and belief (I think)....no matter what!

btk

[Guest]

...Obama wnts to spend upwards of a Trillion Dollars to refinance mortgages IN HIS REELECTION YEAR. It's a great grandstanding ploy which I'm sure he hopes gets his reelection votes from all who are helped by this plan which amounts to a tax cut of long duration....Holy cats! And Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan wasn't grandstanding to get votes from a segment of the population? Or the plan by Ron Paul and Rick Perry to simply disband several departments of the government? Or any of the many plans and strategies put forth day after day by Newtie? Or if you want to go back a few years, how about the Bush tax cuts? That was about 3-4 times as expensive as the plan you've described that Obama has proposed.

And none of this stuff isn't politically driven...designed to get more votes to assure election or re-election? Of course it is, that's what politics are all about.

Just lets not try to convince one another that if these kinds of plans are proposed by the candidates of one party they're solid, well thought out steps that are part of a broader and valid economic plan, while if the other guys do it, it's irresponsible spending driven only by politics.

ALL this stuff is driven by politics!

[Guest]

It's interesting that not one single poster seems to have addressed my original question...will the various single issue factions of the GOP come together and compromise with one another to support Mitt Romney in his campaign to displace Barack Obama?

Everyone says that Obama should be replaced, but no one has addressed the possibility or probability that it might happen, and more importantly what's necessary in order that it can happen.

Very simply (the arithmetic being my opinion, of course), if any faction of narrow interest Republicans refuse to support Romney, or any other GOP candidate for that matter, it's game-set-match to Obama in an easy win. The only other factor that could come into play is if there are enough centrist Democrats willing to switch over and vote for the GOP candidate than there are narrow interest defectors from whichever candidate is finally selected. (That's a development only likely to come into play if Romney, a centrist Republican who has proven a willingness to compromise, is the candidate finally chosen.)

This election would be close if somehow the Republicans could suddenly pull their act together and throw all their support and lots of money behind one single GOP candidate. If that candidate is out on the fringe somewhere, like Santorum, Paul or Perry, then the GOP centrists would have to swallow hard, compromise, and back one of them totally. If the candidate is Romney, then the Tea Party, ObamaCare haters, right-to-lifers and Christian conservatives are going to have to line up in lock step behind him. If there are GOP defectors in either circumstance, like I said...it's a really easy re-election for President Obama.

So again the questions: What's going to happen? Where do you stand on the question? Will you enthusiastically support and vote for the Republican candidate, whomever that might be and wherever he might stand on the conservative spectrum?

[Guest]

I don't think an effective Republican consensus will be built. At nomination time there might even appear to be an enthusiastic endorsement of one candidate, but I think it will collapse by November. Why? First because the divisions within the GOP ranks are too deep. A variety of social and fiscal conservative groups will perhaps give half-hearted support, but not be willing to really work for a Romney, or pull the lever for him. Gingrich was right. Only 25% of Iowans liked Romney. Every other potential candidate has a similar or larger faction opposed to him. Compromising their principles to support their party's choice will in the end seem as unacceptable as an Obama win.
Secondly, the superPACS will deepen divisions and make compromise far more difficult. The Iowa experience is a bit of a political science phenomenon. In just a few days Gingrich was ripped to shreds. You could say he's an easy mark, but it's time we recognize what a large portion of the public are swayed by these powerful messages. Opinions and support will shift at warp speed all year. At election time I think many Republicans will be so disillusioned by their party's 'chosen one', that they will stay home. That will be the deciding factor, especially in the swing states.

[Guest]

all the conservatives i know have one desire! get Pres Obama out of office...no matter who wins the nomination, and that is by far not a done deal, we will support them and consider our vote as a vote AGAINST obama, and we certainly know that every vote counts....and i am a member of the Tea Party so i know of what i speak!

[Guest]

This election would be close if somehow the Republicans could suddenly pull their act together and throw all their support and lots of money behind one single GOP candidate. If that candidate is out on the fringe somewhere, like Santorum, Paul or Perry..............[/I]

I won't buy your premise on what constitutes a "fringe" candidate. The thinking behind that is seriously flawed in my opinion. So I must ignore the rest of your post which is dependent on this flaw.

There's no way on God's green earth you can make a case for Santorum or Perry being some kind of fringe candidate. Paul, only if you are of the opinion that his foreign policy ideas are bonkers, as I do. But otherwise even Paul on Domestic Economic Issues makes everyone in the Democrat Party the "fringe".

[Guest]

Right now, the biggest obstacle the GOP faces is the fact that unemployment is ticking down. Even the U6 number is down (the number still unemployed but no longer receiving benefits).

That's the one thing the Republicans could hang their hat on that affects Americans in a more immediate mode as opposed to something further on down the road.

[Guest]

TeaPartiers will vote straight ticket for GNopers no matter who is running! Great idea. Kind of the mentality that is used on the playground.

[Guest]

yes, tea partiers will vote for any GOP candidate because the choice is between a socialist european style government which we can see is not working in europe and will not work here, or a return to free enterprise, less govt interference, capitalism and values which have made this country great and will again if given this one important opportunity....as i have asked before, Is there a French dream? Is there a British dream? NO! there is an American Dream because of our unique republic, our constituion, and our freedoms which are being threatened by leftist ideas. make up your minds, people! it is now or never....

[Guest]

Right now, the biggest obstacle the GOP faces is the fact that unemployment is ticking down. Even the U6 number is down (the number still unemployed but no longer receiving benefits).

That's the one thing the Republicans could hang their hat on that affects Americans in a more immediate mode as opposed to something further on down the road.

Yeah; the real unemployment rate of 15.6% is really a feather in Obama's hat......woo hoo!

(Anaylysis provided by the American Enterprise Institute)

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/278036/20120107/real-u-s-unemployment-rate-15-6.htm

[Guest]

yes, tea partiers will vote for any GOP candidate because the choice is between a socialist european style government which we can see is not working in europe and will not work here, or a return to free enterprise, less govt interference, capitalism and values which have made this country great and will again if given this one important opportunity....as i have asked before, Is there a French dream? Is there a British dream? NO! there is an American Dream because of our unique republic, our constituion, and our freedoms which are being threatened by leftist ideas. make up your minds, people! it is now or never....

Wow....it must be a fairly important election coming up if the future of the USA as we know it hangs in the balance. VOTE OBAMA. :laugh:

[Guest]

I think the loyal democrats who continue to rave that Obama will pull the same ethnic groups in the very same percentages as he did in 2008 are extremely loyal (no matter what) or hopeful or optomistic.

He most certainly will not. Many will state he has not delivered to their group as promised. Many will view him more a talker than a walker. Then there are those that were not voting for Obama but against Macain. The independents and youth of America who bought the hope and change message and are not satisfied with the results to date. And lastly those who felt the economy was going south because of the Republicans will be unhappy that the trip not only did not end with Obama but continued further south.

For all the above there will be a substantial number who cast their vote for Obama (VS voting FOR Obama) who will not do so again this time.

I will not pretend to know that there will be sufficient to cause him to lose...the facts of the matter are there are a goodly number who will not buy his rhetoric a second time.

For me it is very simple, the American people, all colors, religions and political persuasions will view it from their perspective....did they get what they expected. I happen to believe there are very many who think not. And they are not as loyally obligated as some who to continue hammering away that he is a slam dunk...thank GOD!

btk

[Guest]

yes, tea partiers will vote for any GOP candidate because the choice is between a socialist european style government which we can see is not working in europe and will not work here, or a return to free enterprise, less govt interference, capitalism and values which have made this country great and will again if given this one important opportunity....as i have asked before, Is there a French dream? Is there a British dream? NO! there is an American Dream because of our unique republic, our constituion, and our freedoms which are being threatened by leftist ideas. make up your minds, people! it is now or never....

How are those tea party candidates working out for you?

Scott Walker - being recalled
John Casich - had his union busting bill overturned
Rick Scott - most disliked governor in the country at 26%
Nikki Haley - approval rating 34%

Not to mention the tea partiers that cost the republican party control of the US senate: Sharon Angle NV, Christine O'Donnell DE, John Raese WV, Ken Buck CO, Carlie Fiorini, CA, Joe Miller AK

Not to mention that nut case that ran for governor of NY (name escapes me)

Seems like lots of people have buyer's remorse. Keep up the good work.

[Guest]

you forgot to list the like kinds of folks on your side of the aisle. Same style as the network news presenting only that which is good for the party of that which belittles the opposition.

Most sentient beings (R or D or black or indian or what ever) are past that.

btk

[Guest]

scott walker has saved the state of wisconsin millions by getting rid of union owned insurance for teachers...those who are trying to recall him are big union thugs and i hope they are not successful....there are probably similar stories behind the others...rick scott is doing good things for florida such as attempting to get drug testing for welfare recipients, and as usual is thwarted by left leaning, criminal defending ACLU and that ilk....it is THEY who cost the state millions to defend this bill and caused it to be killed. if those are the kind of groups you support, you and the tea party would never see eye to eye....

[Guest]

scott walker has saved the state of wisconsin millions by getting rid of union owned insurance for teachers...those who are trying to recall him are big union thugs and i hope they are not successful....there are probably similar stories behind the others...rick scott is doing good things for florida such as attempting to get drug testing for welfare recipients, and as usual is thwarted by left leaning, criminal defending ACLU and that ilk....it is THEY who cost the state millions to defend this bill and caused it to be killed. if those are the kind of groups you support, you and the tea party would never see eye to eye....

I always thought the tea party supported the constitution. Guess what, Federal Judge Mary Scriben, a George W Bush appointee, ruled that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Constitutions 4th Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure. Sounds like a real left leaner.

[Guest]

I love it when the Tea Party darling, Christine O'Donnell's name comes up.

Besides her famous witchcraft experiences, she was quoted as saying:

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." --Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell, discussing cloning with Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1997

How could a party actually support a person like that?

[Guest]

I always thought the tea party supported the constitution. Guess what, Federal Judge Mary Scriben, a George W Bush appointee, ruled that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Constitutions 4th Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure. Sounds like a real left leaner.

What's the link between the Tea Party and Federal Judge Mary Scriben?

She was appointed by Bush?;............so what. Does anyone really know a person?

Just because she made a ruling doesn't mean she's correct in her thinking. Rulings can be overturned. Maybe this is one of those that will.

[Guest]

Personally, I feel that was a wrong decision on the judge's part. I feel as though welfare recepients should be drug tested at random times - but the testing would be paid for by the state and not the testees.

[Guest]

What's the link between the Tea Party and Federal Judge Mary Scriben?

She was appointed by Bush?;............so what. Does anyone really know a person?

Just because she made a ruling doesn't mean she's correct in her thinking. Rulings can be overturned. Maybe this is one of those that will.

While this program was in effect, 2% of welfare recipients tested positive for drug use, while the program was estimated to cost the state $187,000,000 by some analysts. Way to go Rick Scott. Who will get the kiss-of-death Rick Scott endorsement, and when will the GOP schedule him to speak at the convention in Tampa? I'm guessing maybe the 2:00am hour.

[Guest]

I love it when the Tea Party darling, Christine O'Donnell's name comes up.

Besides her famous witchcraft experiences, she was quoted as saying:

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." --Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell, discussing cloning with Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1997

How could a party actually support a person like that?





I wonder if Romney will ask O'Donnell to campaign with him....???

[Guest]

since random drug tests are required for many jobs, i do not see why it is unconstitional to require them for receiving welfare. can you explain?

[Guest]

since random drug tests are required for many jobs, i do not see why it is unconstitional to require them for receiving welfare. can you explain?

And how about explaining why they want drug-addicted welfare recipients' CHILDREN to be forced to live with drugged out "parents" who are ENABLED by a continuing stream of welfare money??

[Guest]

While this program was in effect, 2% of welfare recipients tested positive for drug use, while the program was estimated to cost the state $187,000,000 by some analysts. Way to go Rick Scott. Who will get the kiss-of-death Rick Scott endorsement, and when will the GOP schedule him to speak at the convention in Tampa? I'm guessing maybe the 2:00am hour.

You didn't answer one question relating to your previous post.

[Guest]

And how about explaining why they want drug-addicted welfare recipients' CHILDREN to be forced to live with drugged out "parents" who are ENABLED by a continuing stream of welfare money??

Why are your asking Chachacha this question? I'm sure she never advocated what you're implying here.

[Guest]

Why are your asking Chachacha this question? I'm sure she never advocated what you're implying here.

I was adding onto her question. I agree with her!

Writings without hearing tone of voice nor seeing facial expression....leads to misunderstandings sometimes.

[Guest]

I always thought the tea party supported the constitution. Guess what, Federal Judge Mary Scriben, a George W Bush appointee, ruled that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Constitutions 4th Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure. Sounds like a real left leaner.

Funny how *I* am still subject to drug testing to get the check I WORK for.

[Guest]

Funny how *I* am still subject to drug testing to get the check I WORK for.

I have no idea what your occupation is. I also was subject to years of drug testing, but only after my union agreed to it.

[Guest]

I have no idea what your occupation is. I also was subject to years of drug testing, but only after my union agreed to it.

Most jobs now require the workplace to be drug free. I was also subject to random drug testing at my job.

So why are so many liberal groups against recipients of public assistance to be verified drug free? They will need to be if ever they are to be gainfully employed again, and so it is logical to nip it in the bud and to make it a requirement for anyone who is requesting a "hand up" in the manner of public funds.

If people need their "privacy", then by all means they can remain private, and also privately support themselves. If they have dependents, then they may have to forgo stewardship of them until they get their drug addled selves together.

[Guest]

Most jobs now require the workplace to be drug free. I was also subject to random drug testing at my job.

So why are so many liberal groups against recipients of public assistance to be verified drug free? They will need to be if ever they are to be gainfully employed again, and so it is logical to nip it in the bud and to make it a requirement for anyone who is requesting a "hand up" in the manner of public funds.

If people need their "privacy", then by all means they can remain private, and also privately support themselves. If they have dependents, then they may have to forgo stewardship of them until they get their drug addled selves together.

Seems logical to me.

[Guest]

Why are so many liberal groups against recipients of public assistance to be verified drug free? Maybe because it is unconstitutional?

The Fourth Amendment puts strict limits on what kind of searches the state can carry out, and drug tests are considered to be a search. In 1997, in Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to strike down a Georgia law requiring candidates for state offices to pass a drug test.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the drug testing was an unreasonable search. The state can impose drug tests in exceptional cases, when there is a public-safety need for them (as with bus and train operators, for instance). But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish “personal privacy for a symbol’s sake,” the court said.


Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/08/29/drug-testing-the-poor-bad-policy-even-worse-law/#ixzz1j4yFeY3G

[Guest]

most of us are in favor of a drug free workplace or any other public venue.

So how do the law waving, don't violate my privacy supporters suggest we make that happen? The invasion of privacy is no more prevalent in drug testing than it is for being asked to take your clothes off to validate the security of flying.

If one is not in violation what's the problem? If one is in violation then we all hope they get caught!!

btk

[Guest]

janmcn - I work for the Air Force. (late lunch today)

coralway - Yes, drug tests are considered a search. No problem there. But if I'm supposed to be "free to choose not to work" at this job - meaning the 4th Ammendment doesn't apply to me at work, then public assistance recipients are "free to choose not to receive" if they don't want to be tested.

As anyone who knows me can attest, it's the double standard that I hate.

[Guest]

Your statement MAY be true IF - and this is a big IF - welfare recipients CHOOSE to be on welfare.

If recipients choose to be on welfare, then there may be some validity to requiring drug testing. I believe there is a very strong body of evidence to support the argument most welfare recipients have no choice.

[Guest]

To address the question of the original poster it will be difficult to address anything during this campaign or the presidential election IMHO. It will be difficult because the deciding factor for both the GOP nominee and eventually the presidency will be independent voters who have grown in numbers since the 2008 election. And since independent voters more so than those labeled Democrats or Republicans don't decide until their in the voting booth it would be an educated guess by even the best of us.

Once the battle begins between the two presidential nominee's it will become increasingly clear whether the country is going red or blue. for now it appears purely speculation and wishful thinking by many of us voters.

[Guest]

Why are so many liberal groups against recipients of public assistance to be verified drug free? Maybe because it is unconstitutional?

The Fourth Amendment puts strict limits on what kind of searches the state can carry out, and drug tests are considered to be a search. In 1997, in Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to strike down a Georgia law requiring candidates for state offices to pass a drug test.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the drug testing was an unreasonable search. The state can impose drug tests in exceptional cases, when there is a public-safety need for them (as with bus and train operators, for instance). But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the state to diminish “personal privacy for a symbol’s sake,” the court said.


Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/08/29/drug-testing-the-poor-bad-policy-even-worse-law/#ixzz1j4yFeY3G


Kind of a crazy logic.

They also have no "constitutional right" to be supported by their fellow citizens, and we are not "constitutionally required" to support them.

Once you apply for public funds, what's wrong with the requirement that you submit to a drug test? Why is it OK in the workplace but not for recipients of public assistance? Why isn't it a "unreasonable search" to drug test employee applicants and employees once they're hired?

You're giving the impression here that Ultra-Leftist Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg was speaking to this issue. She actually was speaking to the issue of candidates for State Office in 1997. She said they were protected from drug screenings. I guess the Supreme Court has decided that drug addled State Office holders, who are most likely involved with the illegal consumption of narcotics, are no danger to the American public. What logic that is. What a brilliant ruling.

I'm thinking it's time for the Court to revisit this question.

[Guest]

What's next? Drug testing social security recipients, testing medicare recipients, testing medicaid recipients? Where do you draw the line? I thought republicans were the party of small government?

If Ron Paul wins, this will be a moot point because drugs will be legal. We can only hope.

[Guest]

this is one problem with calling social security and medicare entitlements...the recipients are "entitled" to receive payments because they have paid into these systmes for years of their work lives, and also their employers paid into them...at least that is how we hope it is being handled but i have heard of many illegals drawing on these benefits without paying into them...the difference with "entitlements" of welfare and even medicaid is that one has not paid into a specific program if they have paid taxes at all....yet recipients seem to feel "entitled" to be supported by taxpayers.

[Guest]

What's next? Drug testing social security recipients, testing medicare recipients, testing medicaid recipients? Where do you draw the line? I thought republicans were the party of small government?

If Ron Paul wins, this will be a moot point because drugs will be legal. We can only hope.

We draw the line at people who should be in the workforce and aren't for one reason or another, and are asking their fellow citizens for a bail out. These people are never going to be productive citizens again if they're drug abusers.

You want my help, I can set conditions. You don't like it?; the door swings both ways into the Welfare Office.

[Guest]

Your statement MAY be true IF - and this is a big IF - welfare recipients CHOOSE to be on welfare.

If recipients choose to be on welfare, then there may be some validity to requiring drug testing. I believe there is a very strong body of evidence to support the argument most welfare recipients have no choice.

Yes. They DO have a choice. You ALWAYS have choices.

Nobody is rounding up indigents and forcing them to take public money. These are people who, for whatever reason, have chosen this (presumably) last resort.

I'm not saying they chose to be poor or anything like that. I'm saying they chose to go to a public office and seek relief.

My daughter is an example of this. She's 19 and works but cannot afford everything in her life - school, car, rent. So what did she choose? She chose to live with her mother despite some family friction. She chooses dealing with the friction so that she can make her car payments and keep going to school rather than giving up school.

She could easily choose public assistance and chooses NOT to.

I understand that people feel as though they may have no other choice, but no outside influence is forcing them.

Besides, to use an old saying, if they have money for drugs, tobacco or alcohol, they don't need mine.

My daughter lives under a 'no drugs' rule (not that it's an issue since she's very anti-drug) and that comes from her mother (and it would come from me if she lived under my roof). Why should relief recipients be exempt?

[Guest]

What's next? Drug testing social security recipients, testing medicare recipients, testing medicaid recipients? Where do you draw the line? I thought republicans were the party of small government?

If Ron Paul wins, this will be a moot point because drugs will be legal. We can only hope.

If there is any place where routine drug testing ought to be required, it's in Congress.

Drugs with booze is the only explanation for their suicidal spending and borrowing habits.

[Guest]

After Romney's two big wins, the tea-partiers I saw on TV today are beside themselves. It seems there's a meeting of 150 evangelicals this week-end trying to come up with a plan. I don't know what the choice is since none of the other candidates appear to be very viable. Anybody know?

[Guest]

After Romney's two big wins, the tea-partiers I saw on TV today are beside themselves. It seems there's a meeting of 150 evangelicals this week-end trying to come up with a plan. I don't know what the choice is since none of the other candidates appear to be very viable. Anybody know?

Here's what I'd do:

Use the group clout to make a quick deal with Gingrich and Perry to drop out now, and throw all support behind Santorum. South Carolina is the last chance to advance a conservative candidate. It's lights out if the conservative vote is still split and Romney "landslides" with 30%.

[Guest]

After Romney's two big wins, the tea-partiers I saw on TV today are beside themselves. It seems there's a meeting of 150 evangelicals this week-end trying to come up with a plan. I don't know what the choice is since none of the other candidates appear to be very viable. Anybody know?

We must watch different news because I have no idea what you're talking about here. Did MSNBC search out someone calling themselves a teapartier for a soundbite? Do you just label every conservative or Republicans or any non-Democrat a "tea partier"? Evangelicals are not necessarily "tea partiers".

Romney's tracking well now, but South Carolina and Florida are coming up. We'll see how it goes in South Carolina before jumping to your assumptions on what constitutes a viable candidate.

All the liberals love Romney. Gives me a warm feeling all over.

[Guest]

Well, I was just watching a few minutes (all I could stomach) of Fox News and Neil Cavuto was trying to browbeat some correspondent who said in a laughing tone that Ron Paul might form a 3rd party and run for president on that ticket. This would take lots of Republican votes away from the real GOP candidate and would insure another Obama victory. Cavuto was just sputtering at the end that it had not happened yet.

Yes, it does look as though Romney is running away with the votes. Shows that the American voters do not want extremists like Perry or Bachmann. It was very funny to see Bachmann got only 4 % in Iowa and Perry got 1% in New Hampshire.

[Guest]

We must watch different news because I have no idea what you're talking about here. Did MSNBC search out someone calling themselves a teapartier for a soundbite? Do you just label every conservative or Republicans or any non-Democrat a "tea partier"? Evangelicals are not necessarily "tea partiers".

Romney's tracking well now, but South Carolina and Florida are coming up. We'll see how it goes in South Carolina before jumping to your assumptions on what constitutes a viable candidate.

All the liberals love Romney. Gives me a warm feeling all over.

You caught me. I was watching MSNBC and saw this woman from Atlanta identified as head of some tea party group, and she was just about in tears. When the reporter asked her about Nikki Haley supporting Mitt Romney, she said Nikki Haley should be recalled.

Then a few minutes later I heard on another show that 150 evangelicals are meeting in Texas this week-end to come up with a plan, like I said earlier.

[Guest]

You caught me. I was watching MSNBC and saw this woman from Atlanta identified as head of some tea party group, and she was just about in tears. When the reporter asked her about Nikki Haley supporting Mitt Romney, she said Nikki Haley should be recalled.

Then a few minutes later I heard on another show that 150 evangelicals are meeting in Texas this week-end to come up with a plan, like I said earlier.

If you say so. Sounds kind of fishy to me, but knowing MSNBC I already know not to quite believe their reporting methods.

In tears?.............please.

[Guest]

Well, I was just watching a few minutes (all I could stomach) of Fox News and Neil Cavuto was trying to browbeat some correspondent who said in a laughing tone that Ron Paul might form a 3rd party and run for president on that ticket. This would take lots of Republican votes away from the real GOP candidate and would insure another Obama victory. Cavuto was just sputtering at the end that it had not happened yet.

Yes, it does look as though Romney is running away with the votes. Shows that the American voters do not want extremists like Perry or Bachmann. It was very funny to see Bachmann got only 4 % in Iowa and Perry got 1% in New Hampshire.

Liberals are dying for a 3rd party. Only sure way to get Obama reelected. Does Ron Paul want to be the most hated man in America?

[Guest]

Paul is not going to form a 3rd party - he would kill his kid's career.

Romney, after campaigning for 6 years, could not even muster 40% in a R primary. Any way you spin it - that is a very, very poor showing.

[Guest]

this is one problem with calling social security and medicare entitlements...the recipients are "entitled" to receive payments because they have paid into these systmes for years of their work lives, and also their employers paid into them...at least that is how we hope it is being handled but i have heard of many illegals drawing on these benefits without paying into them...the difference with "entitlements" of welfare and even medicaid is that one has not paid into a specific program if they have paid taxes at all....yet recipients seem to feel "entitled" to be supported by taxpayers.

Chachacha: "entitlement refers to the mebers of congress who feel entitled to use this alleged trust fund to pay for their pet projects so they can get re-elected

[Guest]

How are those tea party candidates working out for you?

Scott Walker - being recalled
John Casich - had his union busting bill overturned
Rick Scott - most disliked governor in the country at 26%
Nikki Haley - approval rating 34%

Not to mention the tea partiers that cost the republican party control of the US senate: Sharon Angle NV, Christine O'Donnell DE, John Raese WV, Ken Buck CO, Carlie Fiorini, CA, Joe Miller AK

Not to mention that nut case that ran for governor of NY (name escapes me)

Seems like lots of people have buyer's remorse. Keep up the good work.

you mean as oppsed to voters favorite such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, charlie Rangel, Anthony Weiner, Maxine Waters...you mean like that...I'm running out of space so need to stop with the Dem names Oh yea Barack Obama

[Guest]

you mean as oppsed to voters favorite such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, charlie Rangel, Anthony Weiner, Maxine Waters...you mean like that...I'm running out of space so need to stop with the Dem names Oh yea Barack Obama

I was speaking of tea-party candidates who lost or are on their way out. I don't see what this list of democrats has to do with that subject.

[Guest]

Can you say disarray? :laugh:

[Guest]

Democrats would like to see Ron Paul form a 3rd Party like Ross Perot did and would drain votes from Republicans.

Republicans are quaking in their boots at that very possibility. :coolsmi







__________________________________
"Its nearly impossible to know whether a quote on the Internet is really true"--Abraham Lincoln

[Guest]

you mean as oppsed to voters favorite such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, charlie Rangel, Anthony Weiner, Maxine Waters...you mean like that...I'm running out of space so need to stop with the Dem names Oh yea Barack Obama

Best Post of the Year!

What a pack of oddballs and crooks. And John Edwards must be included in the list.

And Corzine, who can't locate a billion dollars, is in that list too.

[Guest]

Paul is not going to form a 3rd party - he would kill his kid's career.

Romney, after campaigning for 6 years, could not even muster 40% in a R primary. Any way you spin it - that is a very, very poor showing.

C'mon, there were a lot of candidates. 38% is good in that big a field.

[Guest]

I don't know if 40% should be 'the bar' for such a large field but Romney DID have the home-field advantage. He was a popular governor in MA and owns a home in NH. Short of William Weld, he was probably the most popular MA governor as far as NH residents go, in recent memory.

[Guest]

Romney is dangerous and so is Paul but no matter who runs on rep. I will vote for them can see obama in again. He's helping the ruin of this country to speed alone. Rep. may end up just as bad but I know obama intention

[Guest]

you mean as oppsed to voters favorite such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, charlie Rangel, Anthony Weiner, Maxine Waters...you mean like that...I'm running out of space so need to stop with the Dem names Oh yea Barack Obama

How about rep favorites: Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, John Ensign, David Vitter, Mark Sanford, Mark Foley, Christopher Lee, Joe Walsh, Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, and oh yea George W Bush and Dick Cheney?

[Guest]

"C'mon, there were a lot of candidates. 38% is good in that big a field. "

How 'bout 1% for Rick Perry in New Hampshire or 4% for Michelle Mouth in Iowa? Those were good numbers, too?

[Guest]

"C'mon, there were a lot of candidates. 38% is good in that big a field. "

How 'bout 1% for Rick Perry in New Hampshire or 4% for Michelle Mouth in Iowa? Those were good numbers, too?

???????????......Someone said they were?

[Guest]

why is it presumed that if a 3rd party was formed by whoever with an R, that "republicans would drain votes from Romney and assure Obama a win"??

I believe there would be a majority of those R folks that would be unhappy but not so unhappy to allow Obama a free pass for another 4 years.

And the other ongoing false assumption of all the D voters that voted for Obama will be back to reelect him. There will be a fair percentage that like the rest of disappointed Americans will not buy his rhetoric a second time. Whether the percentage will be sufficient depends how Obama's ratings hold up.

And we all understand the position of your man will win no matter what.

btk

[Guest]

why is it presumed that if a 3rd party was formed by whoever with an R, that "republicans would drain votes from Romney and assure Obama a win"??

I believe there would be a majority of those R folks that would be unhappy but not so unhappy to allow Obama a free pass for another 4 years.

And the other ongoing false assumption of all the D voters that voted for Obama will be back to reelect him. There will be a fair percentage that like the rest of disappointed Americans will not buy his rhetoric a second time. Whether the percentage will be sufficient depends how Obama's ratings hold up.

btk

You are right that the assumption that a third party run would assure an Obama win is flawed. However, it is fair to assume that a third party R candidate would siphon more votes from the republican than it would from Obama. In a close election, that could be enough to swing the election a la the Nader effect in Florida in 2000. A third party run by Ron Paul might be interesting, as much of his support is young voters, a block that overwhelmingly supported Obama in 08, and could swing things either way.

[Guest]

Best Post of the Year!

What a pack of oddballs and crooks. And John Edwards must be included in the list.

And Corzine, who can't locate a billion dollars, is in that list too.

John Edwards and John Corzine were not holding public office when they committed their alledged crimes as republicans: Gingrich, DeLay, Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, Foley, Walsh, Lee, Nixon and Agnew were.

[Guest]

John Edwards and John Corzine were not holding public office when they committed their alledged crimes as republicans: Gingrich, DeLay, Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, Foley, Walsh, Lee, Nixon and Agnew were.

Agreed. And why don't people see the signs of their being phonies and crackpots before they're elected? With several IL governors serving prison sentences, the people elected Blagodovich and all his flamboyancy. Why don't people read the signs along the way??

[Guest]

Did anybody else notice how quickly Mitt Romney got out of South Carolina? He was there less than 24 hours, leaving to go to Palm Beach, FL to be with his own ilk. It will be very interesting to hear how Mitt plans to solve the unemployment and foreclosure problems dogging Florida, since he said earlier let them foreclose and the market will take care of the problem. Those envious whiners need to go to their quiet room.

[Guest]

One of the objectives of the coming election is to elect a candidate who will move more government out of our lives.

The governor, local representatives and we the residents of FL are able to fix FL problems.

btk

[Guest]

I was speaking of tea-party candidates who lost or are on their way out. I don't see what this list of democrats has to do with that subject.

Au contraire , I also am talking about candidates who lost or are on their way out with one exception. Yours are based on history...nice guess. Mine are prescient...watch them fall

[Guest]

John Edwards and John Corzine were not holding public office when they committed their alledged crimes as republicans: Gingrich, DeLay, Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, Foley, Walsh, Lee, Nixon and Agnew were.

Au contraire all we can say is that John Edwards and John corzine did not get caught until after the fact. Beside which do you mean to infer that as long as you don't hold office its OK to be a lousy crook. Isn't dishonesty just plain displicable and should not be tolerated and excused. Lock them all up they breached the public trust

[Guest]

Does anybody have any idea what Romney was talking about when he said the "politics of envy" on the Today show yesterday? Who was he calling the "envious whiners": the democrats, the press, the other candidates, the 99%, or anybody that disagrees with him?

And when he said our tax structure must only be talked about in "a quiet room" did he mean not in the halls of congress or speeches, but only behind closed doors?

And how long will Romney be able to avoid FL's gov, Rick Scott, while campaigning in Florida. Sooner or later, he's going to get the kiss-of-death endorsement.

[Guest]

Does anybody have any idea what Romney was talking about when he said the "politics of envy" on the Today show yesterday? Who was he calling the "envious whiners": the democrats, the press, the other candidates, the 99%, or anybody that disagrees with him?

And when he said our tax structure must only be talked about in "a quiet room" did he mean not in the halls of congress or speeches, but only behind closed doors?

And how long will Romney be able to avoid FL's gov, Rick Scott, while campaigning in Florida. Sooner or later, he's going to get the kiss-of-death endorsement.




Mitt has already received the kiss-of-death............

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/12/403614/mccain-bain-2008/?mobile=nc

[Guest]

One of the objectives of the coming election is to elect a candidate who will move more government out of our lives.

The governor, local representatives and we the residents of FL are able to fix FL problems.

btk

I hope we residents, the governor and local representatives start doing a better job than we've been doing.

[Guest]

Evangelicals endorse Santorum, officially against Mitt Romney.

[Guest]

We've been all over the waterfront with our responses. Some are still proposing that one of the other candidates, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul or Perry, could wind up being the GOP nominee. If everyone takes a calm look at things, I think we can agree that's unlikely.

By the morning of January 22, we can be pretty sure who the Republican nominee will be, and it's likely to be Mitt Romney. Now back to the original question...will he get enough Republican and independent votes to beat Barack Obama?

Someone just opined that the evangelical conservatives will never vote for Mormon Romney. If true, that's a big chunk of voters, maybe as much as 25% of the GOP "base".

Will the Tea Partiers and right-to-lifers feel as strongly about refusing to support Romney because of his statements and positions on "their" issues? Combined, those groups might represent another 25% of the GOP base.

The failure of these groups to support Romney goes a long way towards explaining why he's never been able to garner more than about 30-35% of those who call themselves Republicans or conservatives.

So it looks like Romney might be left with maybe half those that identify themselves as conservatives, those closer to the middle of the political spectrum, who are very likely to vote for him. I think they might even be enthusiastic about his candidacy. But that's nowhere near enough for Romney to come even close to winning the popular vote. And I'm not even addressing the electoral vote, which actually will elect the POTUS who will serve for the next four years.

So sooner or later the political pundits will begin the discussion...will the Christian conservatives, Tea Partiers and right-to-lifers actually withold their votes from Romney, knowing that by doing so will almost assuredly guarantee Barack Obama's re-election? Will their be enough independents and disappointed Democrats who will vote for Romney, replacing the special interest conservatives unwilling to operate within the rules of our electoral democracy?

As I've said here before, I think President Obama has a glass jaw when it comes to any assurance that he will be re-elected. But the unwillingness of large factions within the Republican/conservative movement to compromise and support Mitt Romney, who might not represent all that they're looking for, might actually assure another four years of faulty leadership by a progressive Democratic president.

I surely hope that all those who might identify themselves as conservatives will consider whether the country might be better off with Romney as POTUS, or whether because of their steadfast commitment to a narrow set of ideals or litmus tests, that they'd be willing to contribute to the re-election of the current president.

[Guest]

Let's sum this up, shall we?

1. Romney will be the R nominee.

2. The cons will hold their noses and back him.

3. Obama wins reelection.


BTW there is a debate tonight.

[Guest]

There is also a playoff football game tonight. Definitely will watch the football instead of Republicans.

[Guest]

Romney is so glad they're talking about Bain Capital. This means they're not talking about flip-flops, IMHO.

[Guest]

Let's sum this up, shall we?

1. Romney will be the R nominee.

2. The cons will hold their noses and back him.

3. Obama wins reelection.



I hope all left leaning Americans think like this so we can get rid of this guy. I am sorry but he is not good for our future!

If I was a lefty I would not even go to vote because he is a shoe-in because of his great record of turning the US around and bringing us all together. Not to mention how much better we are thought of now by the rest of the world.
You know, because we are not as great as we use to be and we are lazy and no longer the leaders of the world.
Yeah, I hope he wins again so we can continue to shrink into the country the rest of the world wants us to be!

[Guest]

right now there is a lot of jack jawing about the choices the republicans have to make and what flavor will be picked by which ever group.

In November this speculating circus and arm waving and wild a$$ guessing will all be passe'. The real choice republicans ( and dissatisfied democrats) will have then will be Romney or Obama.

The made up debate whether a Mormon can win or not is about as daunting as to whether a black could win or not....eh?

btk

[Guest]

The made up debate whether a Mormon can win or not is about as daunting as to whether a black could win or not....eh?

btk


ooooooooo; BAM!!; that's gonna leave a mark.

[Guest]

There is also a playoff football game tonight. Definitely will watch the football instead of Republicans.





Can't refudiate that - watched the first minute of the "debate" - except it is not a debate. It's a forum where the candidates appear alone (Paul refused to participate) and they answer softball questions asked by plants in the audience.

The "groundrules" are that they cannot criticize another R candidate.

NE and Denver is far more entertaining -and the last few minutes of NO and SF wasn't too bad either.

[Guest]

When will Gov Romney release his tax returns? I read an editorial in today's paper that said President Obama released seven years of returns in 2008 and has released his every year since then. I want to see Romney's returns before I cast my vote on Jan. 31.

[Guest]

When will Gov Romney release his tax returns? I read an editorial in today's paper that said President Obama released seven years of returns in 2008 and has released his every year since then. I want to see Romney's returns before I cast my vote on Jan. 31.


Can someone explain to me the impact of tax returns that show a candidate NOT violating the law and doing something that is standard fare for anyone with money.

Actually the BIGGEST SINGLE PROPONENT of this tax "loophole" is former Speaker of the House Pelosi.

Nothing illegal....all standard...why is there this fuss. Did you think that Romney was a pauper ?

[Guest]

I would like to know more about Romney having investments of more than $33 million dollars parked in the Cayman Islands. Doesn't sound too honest to me?

[Guest]

I would like to know more about Romney having investments of more than $33 million dollars parked in the Cayman Islands. Doesn't sound too honest to me?So long as the money got to the Cayman Islands legally, as the result of money earned in foreign countries and not repatriated back into the U.S. as an example, depositing the money in a tax-free account in the Cayman Islands is a pretty smart move. Remember, under the current U.S. tax laws, if Romney were to bring the money back into the U.S. it would be taxed at whatever the appropriate rate might be, probably ordinary income.

That's why American corporations doing business offshore try to avoid bringing money back into the U.S.--to avoid having to pay taxes on it. Typically, they keep foreign earnings outside the country, available for further investments outside the U.S.

The bigger question might be, what would an American citizen do with a large sum of money held in the Cayman Islands? A logical answer might be to make investments outside the U.S. In other words, if the money was earned outside the U.S. why would one bring it back into the U.S., pay a hefty tax on it, only to re-invest it outside the U.S.?

I'm afraid none of the real motivations behind Mitt Romney's wealth held outside the U.S. will be explained by his tax returns. And my guess is that he probably won't explain what his plans are for the use of the money. Even if he had a well-developed investment plan, why should he tell the public? I know I wouldn't.


Can someone explain to me the impact of tax returns that show a candidate NOT violating the law and doing something that is standard fare for anyone with money....Nothing illegal....all standard...why is there this fuss. Did you think that Romney was a pauper ?And by the way, I agree with Bucco. No one has alleged anything illegal about how much money Romney earned, how much he was taxed on the earnings, or even where the money is located. As his record in business clearly shows, he has been an effective business manager for years. It would be skills such as resulted in him creating a personal fortune, effectively turning around the Salt Lake Olympics, and governing the state of Massachusetts, that are exactly the skills needed for a new POTUS to effectively address the fiscal problems facing this country.

I might add...could a thorough examination of Newt Gingrich's ample fortune survive similar scrutiny?

[Guest]

Does anyone really think that if there were "anything illegal about how much money Romney earned, how much he was taxed on the earnings, or even where the money is located"......the IRS would not have been alerted in all the vetting done on Romney when running for governor, for president in 08, and for president now???

Do you really think the IRS would ignore the opportunity to get their hooks into such a public figure under a microscope with the amount of money he has??

[Guest]

When it comes to Republicans it's the appearance of impropriety that's the big issue with the liberal media. The real facts about the issue are secondary.

Democrats rarely have to rise to that standard with the liberal media.

[Guest]

...Democrats rarely have to rise to that standard with the liberal media.I don't know, Richie. The media did a pretty good number on Bill Clinton.

[Guest]

I don't know, Richie. The media did a pretty good number on Bill Clinton.

You edited the most important sentence of my post. Clinton's problem was a bit more than the "appearance of impropriety", was it not?

[Guest]

So What Have We Concluded Here?

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

We've been all over the waterfront with our responses. Some are still proposing that one of the other candidates, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul or Perry, could wind up being the GOP nominee. If everyone takes a calm look at things, I think we can agree that's unlikely.

You know it will probably get down to the "Florida Hanging Chad":cus::cus:

[Guest]

one thing I conclude is there are a lot of naieve people who have no concept of what is legally available to Americans with sufficient resources to advise how to keep, protect and grow their wealth.

We may not like what they do. But most of them do what is legal. Far too many articles talk about the "tax rate" these people pay. Which is not a fair presentation because the comparison usually winds up being a comparison of the tax rate on wages earned VS income earned (by various means)....which are two very completely different means of "EARNING".

The folks that know the difference are trying to stir the majority that do not into believing what is done is "bad" to take their attention away from the merits of their potential candidacy!!

Just another example of how the media and the current adminstration's supporters can and do jerk we the people around with mis-information.

[and of course we all know there are some wealthy folks who no doubt abuse the process].

btk

[Guest]

I recall it was the various Republican candidates who were asking Mitt to release his tax records and to explain why $33 million of his money was parked in the Caymans. It was not the Obama administration that brought up those points.

The Republicans are feeding upon themselves while Democrats sit back and just wait until all the chum has taken care of itself.

[Guest]

So What Have We Concluded Here?

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

We've been all over the waterfront with our responses. Some are still proposing that one of the other candidates, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul or Perry, could wind up being the GOP nominee. If everyone takes a calm look at things, I think we can agree that's unlikely.

You know it will probably get down to the "Florida Hanging Chad":cus::cus:

Maybe, but there is a large contingent of Conservative Republican voters that want a conservative candidate and are not sold on Romney. It's far from over.

[Guest]

I recall it was the various Republican candidates who were asking Mitt to release his tax records and to explain why $33 million of his money was parked in the Caymans. It was not the Obama administration that brought up those points.

The Republicans are feeding upon themselves while Democrats sit back and just wait until all the chum has taken care of itself.

I believe Obama has enough problems of his own. He doesn't need any help in damaging his position.

[Guest]

Richie, your fingers slipped when they were on the keyboard. I am positive you meant to type, "I believe Gingrich has enough problems of his own. He doesn't need any help in damaging his position." Newt really is a slimeball when you come right down to it.

Just look at your boy, Rick Perry. He has dropped out now - just like Herman, Michelle the Mouth, and Huntsman.

My prediction is that Newton will be the next to drop out with Ron Paul close behind him. Ron will form the 3rd party, siphon off votes, and thus will be hated by Republicans - as they will blame him for their 2012 loss.

[Guest]

Richie, your fingers slipped when they were on the keyboard. I am positive you meant to type, "I believe Gingrich has enough problems of his own. He doesn't need any help in damaging his position." Newt really is a slimeball when you come right down to it.

Just look at your boy, Rick Perry. He has dropped out now - just like Herman, Michelle the Mouth, and Huntsman.

My prediction is that Newton will be the next to drop out with Ron Paul close behind him. Ron will form the 3rd party, siphon off votes, and thus will be hated by Republicans - as they will blame him for their 2012 loss.

Ha ha; no slip. You liberals love allegations and damn any real evidence of facts. You make my point every time and you're a good friend to keep doing that.

[Guest]

"You liberals love allegations."

Well, Richie, we also love alligators.