Evangelicals endorse Santorum, officially against Mitt Romney.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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!

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

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

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.

Romney's Tax Returns
 

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 ?

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?

Why Should He Tell?
 

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.


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?

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??

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.

Clinton?
 

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?

Ahh VK
 

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:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

"You liberals love allegations."

Well, Richie, we also love alligators.