Thanks to Anne Culter's column
 

I'm not a TV watcher so I didn't see any of the televised debates. Therefore, I found Ann Culter's column to be the most helpful in my decision to vote for Romney. In my opinion, she gave a thoughtful and honest critique of each candidate and came to the conclusion that Romney has the best chance of winning against Obama. And she had it all neatly laid out several weeks ago.

On the other hand, I found radio talk-show hosts to be the least helpful, even confusing at times, perhaps because they need to fill 3 hours per day. So where's the incentive for them to come to any early conclusion? Their goal is to keep us hanging on for ratings and commercials.

The bottom line is: I was so confused by radio, I might not have voted if it wasn't for Ann Culter's clear and concise analysis of the candidates. Thank you, Ann Culter! If Romney wins the nomination, perhaps he should consider her to be his running mate. Why not?

Many of us thought Herman Cain was a great candidate. Well, what does he have that she doesn't? :) He was in the pizza business; her business is writing and selling books and newspaper columns. Whereas pizza has the potential to make our country fatter and sicker, books can make us smarter. You heard it here first.....Ann Culter for VP!

:)

Amazing. Simply amazing .....

Try forming your opinions instead of depending on media personalities to make them for you.

Coulter speaks - the sheeple follow.

Why Can't Politicians Play Fair? What do We Voters Make Of This?
 

Consider: The favorable tax treatment regarding Mitt Romney Bain Capital income is being touted as an excellent example of good capitalism. However Mark Maremont (WSJ 1/28-29) points out that Romney left Bain in 1999 and so did he continue to provide servies to Bain Capital . if he did not then by a 1993 IRS pronouncement he was not entitled to claim the 15% under the portion carried interest which are rights of income from Bain. If there are questions about what romney did release then what is he hiding in those tax records that he did not release?

Consider: Romney is misleading voters concerning the ethics matter involving Newt Gingrich. Romney makes reference to a history course Gingrich taught at Kinnesaw and Reinhardt Colleges.... and ties that to the $300,000 reprimand and the resignation in disgrace. Romney then asks Gingrich to release those documents. But in fact those documents all 1,280 pages and exhibits "In The Matter Of Representative Newt Gingrich have been online for some time. Even a casual reader won't find evidence of impropriety because the accusations were a partisan vendetta by Democrats who wanted to force GOP to the floor to defend the charge and to "pettifog" the Clinton's White House own ethical woes. On charges by Democrats that Gingrich diverted 503 (a) funds via the Progress and Freedom Foundation sponsoring his Renewing American Civiliation as its real purpose being an advance in Gingrich's political career vis a via a civics Seminar.

Gingrich copped a plea and accepted the House rebuke "TO AVOID FURTHER POLITICAL DAMAGE. and yet the IRS after a formal investigation exonerated Gingrich in 1999 and found the course was intended to educate students about American government and society (WSJ Review and Outlook 1/28-29)

There is perhaps a lot not to like about gingrich but it does appear he was smart enough to conclude that you can't defend a negative no matter how untrue it is. We have all been there.

What do we voters make of this? Clearly we are tired of the mud slinging as evident in the response Gingrich recived when John King tried to bushwack him.

I distinctly remember Ann Coulter saying recently "If Mitt Romney's our nominee, we lose". Can anyone explain the flip flop?

Yep, she has to make a living.

I love the wordsmith babe but I think se is on the wrong side of this issue

ME TOO:ohdear:

You get your information how? You use no media?

How is that done?

I do form my own opinions and my opinion of the news media equates that of congress

I read the opposite. She was first a Christie supporter, now wants Willard Rommney.

It seems you are easily amazed. :) Perhaps this post will give you more to be amazed about.

In my opinion, our opinions are never totally our own. It's almost impossible not to be influenced by one or another in the media. And, as I said, I don't watch TV so I didn't see any of the debates. And I don't have enough time to do extensive online research.


SHEEPLE? That sounds very familliar. That's a term Michael Savage often used on his radio program. Are you a FOLLOWER of Michael Savage? :)

There is not a leader of the free world, nor the Pope, nor the Taliban, nor Charlize Theron, nor well maybe Charlize could sway my thinking:a040:

I'm not a regular listener of the Glenn Beck show but he caught my attention one morning as he was explaining that Newt is a right-wing progressive. That's because he (Newt) likes to use big-government solutions to solve problems. Considering that he had a lot of facts to back it up, I don't think that could be called mud-slinging.

What do we voters make of this? Well, when you have Beck calling Newt a big-government progressive and Rush calling Newt a conservative, we see a lot of confusion. That's why we sometimes look to someone else, like Ann Culter, to tell us who's the most conservative candidate with a chance of winning against Obama. The average voter doesn't have the time or research skills to sift through a ton of data.