Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 29, 2012, 10:53:03 AM
-
Allen West being redistricted out of existence in effort led by Romney Florida spokesman
Posted by William A. Jacobson Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 9:40am
The establishment is fighting back, alright.
This has not received a lot of national attention, but the Republican legislature in Florida is about to push through a plan which puts Allen West at serious risk, and the person leading the effort is one of Mitt Romney’s spokemen. As reported by The Shark Tank:
After last night’s [Jan. 26] Republican Presidential debate, the candidates’ respective spinmeisters made their cases to the media as to why their guy won the debate. One of Governor Mitt Romney’s spokesmen was Florida Representative Will Weatherford, and during the course of his remarks in the “Spin Room”, he shed a very dim light on the ongoing redistricting process in the Florida Legislature….
West’s congressional district inexplicably sheds the most out support as compared to all other incumbent Republican and Democrat Congressman. A few weeks back we quoted an unnamed legislator saying that, “Allen West was screwed”, a statement which was originally made about made five months before the purposed maps were made public, leading insiders to believe that the fix was in against Allen West. But in light of Weatherford’s comment, it is increasingly clear that this is a fait accompli.
According to Weatherford, those preliminary maps will not change- at the most, any additional changes would be minimal, and those changes would not make any appreciable difference from the preliminary maps. In addition, Weatherford stated that a deal was struck between him, Senate President Mike Haridopolos, and Senator Don Gaetz to finalize these maps and push them through as soon as possible.
Weatherford tried to hide behind a need to comply with federal law, but that’s obviously a dodge since there could have been many ways to comply yet not sacrifice West:
A website, SaveAllenWest, had been set up, but it appears to be too late.
One of the rising stars of the Tea Party is about to be sacrificed by the Republican establishment in Florida, led by someone spinning for Mitt Romney.
Don’t say you weren’t warned.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/allen-west-being-redistricted-out-of-existence-in-effort-led-by-romney-florida-spokesman
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
WOW.
and "FUMR" is awesome! lol.
33, my belief is that while many people (like you) will hold their noses and vote romney over obama... i'm not sure you will campaign or donate with the same level of intensity you would give to a ron paul or other candidate in which you actually believed.
And without those donations and GOTV effort, no candidate can win.
-
has 3333 found someone he can't vote for? In another thread 3333 said he would vote for Trump on a third party ticket even though that would help Obama win.
-
i have a whole new respect for 33.... he's not defending mitt's shit. he's saying "mitt sucks ass, but sucks less ass than obama".
He's not saying "mitt's awesome guys!". Gotta give him props there.
-
8). After how mitt has treated newt and how he has corrupted the party this primary is telling.
-
And Romney is not eligible in the same way Obama is not eligible. This is why the GOP is keeping their mouths shut. They have McCain, Romney, Jindal, Rubio, and who knows who else. Santorum may have issues as well.
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/28/mitt-romneys-father-was-a-mexican-citizen-when-mitt-was-born/
Mitt Romney’s Father Was A Mexican Citizen When Mitt Was Born.
JANUARY 28, 2012 BY VOLUBRJOTR
Is Mitt Romney a “natural born citizen”?
It is absolutely clear that Mitt Romney is NOT a Natural Born Citizen unless he can prove that George Romney gained citizenship from naturalization prior to Mitt’s birth in 1947.
Mitt Romney’s father George was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907, the son of Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt. Three generations of Romneys lived in Mexico because Miles Park Romney, a polygamist, moved the family there in 1884 as it became increasingly clear that the U.S. government would not tolerate polygamy in the Utah Territory.
The 1882 Edmunds Act stripped polygamists of the basic rights of U.S. citizenship, denying them the right to vote, serve on juries or hold office. Not dissimilar to current immigration raids, U.S. federal agents hunted and arrested polygamists. Polygamists were forced to leave the country or risk jail.
Miles Romney chose to leave the country, bringing his multiple wives and children with him across the southern border. In his 1902 book The Story of the Mormons, author William Alexander Linn states that the “Secretario de Fomento of Mexico” related that “The laws of this country [Mexico] do not permit polygamy,” and that the contracts for the establishment of Mormon colonies in Mexico required the same. If true, Miles Romney then knowingly arrived in direct violation of Mexican immigration law.
Utah became a state in 1896, only after laws were passed there prohibiting polygamy. While polygamy may have been illegal in both countries, the Romneys still found Mexico more to their liking. All four of George’s (Mitt’s father) grandparents would live out their days in Mexico, with Anna’s mother Dorsey being the last to die — in Chihuahua in 1929.
Lots more at link above
-
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/01/mitt_romney_miguel_orozco_mexi.php?page=2
He is pissing off all the wrong people.
-
lol @ romney falling apart 36 hours before florida primary.
-
lol @ romney falling apart 36 hours before florida primary.
Hey - are you taking that pic of your vote for Paul?
-
Ouch!!!!
Damn. and you wonder why I hate mittens?
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2838983/posts
Myth is knee deep in the housing mess. Will NEVER kneepad or fall for his lies.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Why Rick So Irritates Mitt
Townhall.com ^ | January 29, 2012 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on January 29, 2012 10:19:25 AM EST by Kaslin
Mitt Romney desperately needs both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to stay in this Presidential race as long as possible. Though it is not a reality the former Governor relishes. In fact the disdain he has for the situation seems to be aging him on the trail right before our very eyes.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is an easy villain for Romney and his notoriously dirty campaign team. Beginning back in 2008 when they passed verifiably false information to National Review that was repeated with nary a breath of inspection, the Romney campaign has always utilized a multi-angle position of attack.
Unfortunately for the Governor these days he is on the receiving end of some multi-pronged offensives of his own. The difference being they have become very public--usually taking place on debate stages--and they are made up of facts, instead of fomented fiction.
Rick Santorum has especially shone bright when picking the Governor's weak spots, and if the withering sweat dribbles that Romney exhibits under the factual correction of his GOP colleagues, I hesitate to express any desire to see what would happen under the billion dollar assault that President Obama will level at him.
Sen. Santorum has reminded folks of Romney's two biggest vulnerabilities and he has single-handidly voiced the most articulate response to them.
A number of debates back it was Senator Santorum, not Bachmann, Perry, or Cain, who dismantled Romney's epic myth that he had fought for the sanctity of marriage as then governor of Massachusetts. Santorum correctly asserted the facts: that while the judges in the state had definitively over-reached, the Governor was never ordered by the bench to execute their wholesale change in the writing of laws, nor could he have been compelled to under the separation of powers in the commonwealth. Santorum's articulate and precise observation was that not only did Romney not ignore the court--which he was in position to do--he went the extra step in enforcing the court's non-legislative law into existence and even forced the first several marriage licenses to be processed. Santorum's view like most GOP base voters is simple. The Governor was in position to call the court's bluff and should have done so. It would have created a temporary crisis in the state courts, but it likely would've been resolved by a higher court, and Romney would've been able to truly claim the mantle of someone who fought to keep marriage defined as it always has been.
This week in debate number nineteen of this election cycle Senator Santorum nailed Governor Romney to the wall on his biggest fiscal weakness--Obamacare. Senator Santorum calmly laid out the facts that Obama looked to Romney's own model as not-so-much the blueprint for the federal version, but more like the actual skeleton.
Santorum pointed out that the mandate, penalties, co-ops, and oversight all work the same way in the Obama version of health care reform as they do in the Romney version. He didn't even mentioned the state-tax-payer-supported $50 abortions that Romneycare went out of their way to include.
Romney countered by merely claiming that his version didn't do certain things like raise taxes and rob medicare programs. (Of which only the latter claim is true. Romney raised taxes on BLIND PEOPLE in Massachusetts who needed state certification of their condition to qualify for state aid.)
Wolf Blitzer attempted to rescue Governor Romney but Senator Santorum did not allow it. Re-stating what he had previously asserted he asked Romney if the mandates, penalties, and population coverage was the same in his plan, and Romney was forced to concede the point.
It showed utter weakness for the potential nominee to have to reconcile the similarities, and Santorum illustrated that this would be the exact weakness Obama would exploit in a campaign match-up between the two.
The crowd seemed overly populated with Romney fans--a strategy more likely to be carried out by Ron Paul's campaign--but even the majority of the people in the room applauded Santorum when he forced the Governor to finally concede his weakness.
This has to bother the Governor immensely. But Santorum's case is sound.
Many knew that Romney has been inconsistent as a social conservative, but Santorum forced the world to see how weak he is as a FISCAL nominee as well.
Ann Coulter said it less than a year ago, "Mitt Romney will be the nominee, and the republicans will lose."
Senator Santorum demonstrated why Ann was right to say that, and while there may not be time for the Santorum team to make the long steep climb they need to, at least everyone in the room is aware of what the greater issue should be to primary voters--Romney can't win.
-
If santorum gave a shit about stopping Mitt, he would drop out of the race on Monday morning.
-
If santorum gave a shit about stopping Mitt, he would drop out of the race on Monday morning.
Agreed. He needs endorse newt or RP so we can head off Myth.
-
Romney Advisor: Putting the boot on the neck of Gingrich. Aiming to destroy Gingrich in FL for good.
Buzz Feed ^
Posted on January 29, 2012 3:30:25 PM EST by Windy City Conservative
After Gingrich Newt scored a surprise blow-out victory in South Carolina last week, the former Massachusetts governor not only unleashed a political broadside of epic proportions.
"It not about winning here anymore," one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. "It's about destroying Gingrich — and it's working."
After two standout debate performances that put him up 9 points in recent polls, Romney is keeping the pressure on Gingrich, looking to score a blow-out victory of his own here.
To that end, Romney has rolled out a team of surrogates in the Sunshine State to take the fight to Gingrich in person: from Connie Mack (III) and Connie Mack (IV), to Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Sen. John McCain. Romney has also aired a controversial ad featuring Tom Brokaw announcing that Gingrich had been sanctioned by the House.
Today both Macks took the stage before Romney to attack Gingrich's character, proclaiming that he has a “checkered past with ethics and honesty."
Romney also launched into his longest attack directed squarely at Gingrich, devoting almost four minutes of his 18 minute stump speech attacking the former Speaker of the House.
"Mr. Speaker, your trouble in Florida is not because the audience is too quiet or too loud or because you have opponents that are tough," Romney said, comparing Gingrich's complaints about debate audiences to Goldilocks. Then, with a broad smile on his face, he listed the reasons why Florida voters are now moving away from Gingrich's campaign.
"Your problem in Florida is that you worked for Freddie Mac at a time when Freddie Mac was not doing the right thing for the American people," he added.
Shortly after Romney's remarks, his campaign emailed "Earth to Newt: Tell The Truth" detailing a long list of alleged lies while mocking his ambitious space agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
-
Sorry 33. Romney represents the best chance to beat Obama. Im sorry you dont like him, and I am befuddled as to why you think Newt is any more truthful or full of more integrity, or why you think Ron Paul is for that matter. IF Obama is seen as a failure by the electorate and Romney is the nominee, Romney will win. If he isnt seen as a failure and just mediocre he will have a tougher time. Its that simple. Either way Newt will have a much tougher time. This represents our best chance at the least amount of douche baggery in Washington for the next 8 years. That is the hand we have been dealt. Then we can go back to those horrible RINO Bush years when we were running sub trillion dollar deficits and the government actually wrote budgets.
-
Sorry 33. Romney represents the best chance to beat Obama. Im sorry you dont like him, and I am befuddled as to why you think Newt is any more truthful or full of more integrity, or why you think Ron Paul is for that matter. IF Obama is seen as a failure by the electorate and Romney is the nominee, Romney will win. If he isnt seen as a failure and just mediocre he will have a tougher time. Its that simple. Either way Newt will have a much tougher time. This represents our best chance at the least amount of douche baggery in Washington for the next 8 years. That is the hand we have been dealt. Then we can go back to those horrible RINO Bush years when we were running sub trillion dollar deficits and the government actually wrote budgets.
I see little or no difference between the two. And what he has done to newt is telling.
-
Former Intern Says Gay Flier Was Campaign Lit (Romney "gay pride" flier from 2002)
BuzzFeed ^ | January 9, 2012 | Andrew Kaczynski
Posted on January 30, 2012 5:35:38 AM EST by 2ndDivisionVet
The Romney yesterday campaign denied knowing about a 2002 flier distributed by the Romney campaign during Gay Pride Week in Massachusetts while he was running for Governor.
Fehrnstrom told the Huffington Post's Sam Stein, "I don't know where those pink flyers came from. I was the communications director on the 2002 campaign. I don't know who distributed them... I never saw them and I was the communications director." Fehrnstrom continued "I never saw them and I never approved them. I'm not quite sure where they came from."
But a former Romney campaign volunteer who is now a fiscal policy scholar at a conservative think tank told BuzzFeed the flyer calling for "equal rights" were in fact campaign literature.
The Manhattan Institute's Josh Barro told BuzzFeed he was a college intern for Romney's campaign at the wage of $150 per month and the task of answering mail to Romney's running mate, Kerry Healey.
"On pride weekend, the campaign sent a contingent of about a half-dozen of us to the post-parade festival on Boston Common to hand out those flyers," he said in an email.
"The thing was organized by a full-time staffer," he said, adding that he couldn't recall her name.
Fehrnstorm also denied that Romney had ever supported civil unions saying "He has not been in favor of civil unions, if by civil unions you mean the equivalency to marriage but without the name marriage. What he has favored, and he talked about this, I believe, last night, was a form of domestic partnership or a contractual relationship with reciprocal benefits."
But a 2003 document unearthed on the Governor's old website seems to contradict the claim. In response to the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage, Romney called for civil union legislation. The document reads "Gov. Mitt Romney told reporters that he believed a civil unions statute would "be sufficient" to satisfy the justices' concerns. Joining Romney in the call for civil union legislation was Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty, chairman of the House's Committee on the Judiciary."
-
Dear God. How can anyone trust this guy?
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Oh boy.
-
I think FUBO is my favorite recent word from getbig.
I say it all the time.
And I lol every time I see it.
Lawl.
-
I think FUBO is my favorite recent word from getbig.
I say it all the time.
And I lol every time I see it.
Lawl.
LOL. At the gym when im on the stair master or bike or whatever and Obama comes on, I just say loudly "FUCK OBAMA" so that everyone near me hears it.
There are two high school kids who came in with obama shirts on one day and a few of us mocked them till the point they left.
-
33 these videos are all old hat. Same crap with all the fake flip flops. I have said it before and I have said it again. Supporting the stimulus that Obama did is different than supporting ANY stimulus. Come on 33, you know better than this. I have always said that what is so pathetic about Obama's stimulus is that MANY Republicans, many of them with great Conservative credentials, would have supported SOME type of smaller stimulus. THAT is what is so pathetic about what Obama did, and is in fact why Republicans really had no choice but to oppose it unanimously. Do you really think Romney supported $800 billion in aid to Democrat interest groups? ROmney probably had some type of smaller targeted stimulus in mind.
-
bush delivered 3 trillion in stimulus. true adonis' legendary thread detailed the year by year bailouts and stims that he delivered.
Obama did that 787 bil thing.... but that was ONCE. Three years ago. Bush just spread it out more and it wasn't that big thing to point at. but every president does this.
-
January 30, 2012 No Room for Allen West- or You- in Romney’s GOP
By John Ransom
1/30/2012 Get ready for the all new GOP, under the lead of Mitt Romney.
It’s a GOP where the Tea Party won’t be welcome, where the federal government will continue to bailout out banks and unions and everyone who’s anyone will continue to make money- except of course you and me.
We’ll just continue to get stuck with the 100 year mortgage payment, as the GOP continues to be the “tax collector for the welfare state,” in the WSJ’s apt phrase.
That’s the takeaway from Florida where Florida Representative Will Weatherford, a Romney proxy, helped redistrict Tea Party favorite Congressman and retired Col. Allen West into a much more liberal district than he previously represented.
I guess Tea Party ideas of limited government and fiscal responsibility aren't wanted in the GOP under Mitt.
Writes the Florida political blog the Shark Tank:
West’s congressional district inexplicably sheds the most out support as compared to all other incumbent Republican and Democrat Congressman. A few weeks back we quoted an unnamed legislator saying that, “Allen West was screwed”, a statement which was originally made about made five months before the purposed maps were made public, leading insiders to believe that the fix was in against Allen West. But in light of Weatherford’s comment, it is increasingly clear that this is a fait accompli.
Republicans control both houses of the Florida state legislature plus the governor’s office and could have written the new congressional districts however they wanted. But they decided to throw a bone to liberals in the state by redistricting Allen West out of a job.
Why should that surprise anyone?
Throwing a bone to liberals is the thing that Romney, McCain, Dole, Bush and company do best. They recoil under the assault of the left-wing media in this country, seeking refuge in the “bipartisan” label, reaching across the aisle to “get things done” so that they can hit the cocktail circuit and make jokes about guys like Col. West…oh, and you too.
This is the same GOP gang that gave us Charlie Crist, Romneycare, real estate bailouts, automaker bailouts, abortion bailouts, assault weapon bans.
Yeah, yeah, Obama is the Devil, but Mitt and company have been willing accomplices.
And because of that complicity, conservatives will under-vote for president in 2012 rather than support another Bush-Dole-Bush clone in the White House. Heck, there are lots of positive things to say about the Bushes and the Doles, but little good to say about Romney.
He’s Bush-Dole without character.
But give him this: The guy really, really wants to be president. Toward that end, he’ll say anything you want to hear just as soon as he knows what you want to hear. So don’t believe anything that comes out of Romney’s mouth. When he says “read my lips,” you should plug your ears- and just imagine Mitt saying whatever you want to hear.
It won’t matter anyway.
As Romney advisor, former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman- you know, the guy who lost to Al Freakin’ Franken?- admitted recently, Romney is not going to repeal Obamacare no matter what he says on the campaign trail.
Observes the Wall Street Journal:
It was a remarkable admission, especially given the aspiring Republican President whose ear Mr. Coleman happens to have. Then again, it may also be evidence of his kind of crack political thinking that couldn't outwit Al Franken of all people in the 2008 race and again in the 2009 recount and thus provided the 60th Senate vote for ObamaCare.
The larger point is that the path of least political resistance for the GOP would be to revert to its historic minority role as tax collectors for the welfare state, and this temptation is especially strong for health care. No one doubts that repealing and replacing ObamaCare will be a hard slog if the party does take the White House and Senate in 2012, namely because the American political system is designed to make change hard (even if those controls failed in 2010 amid Democratic abuses). Mr. Coleman's advice is, essentially, why bother trying.
But that hasn’t stopped Romney from bravely telling us that Obamacare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional, while Romenycare’s individual mandate is not.
The Obamacare repeal will be Mitt’s 0-97 vote in the Senate, just the way Obama’s budget was an oh-fer in 2011.
Oh-well-they-tried.
And here it is: Romney is lying to you one way or another.
He’ll keep one big, fat Obamacare or he’ll try to foist on you 57 varieties of Romneycare that add up to the same thing.
But in either case, like Allen West, the rest of us will pay the price for Romney’s intellectual inconsistencies in pursuit of the great, white house.
Because if Romney wins the nomination, expect neither hope nor change for the GOP.
Expect four more for Obama or in the best case scenario, Obama lite.
PS- If you friend me on Facebook you get sneak peeks of columns! Act now, because I'll only keep this offer open for a short period ;-)
The email function at the top of the page is working. So, let the Hate Mail begin!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/01/30/no_room_for_allen_west_or_you_in_romneys_gop
________________________ _________
Heads they win - tails we lose.
I can't believe it has come to this with this lying devious snake Romney.
This is going to be the most depressing election of my lifetime. Two absolute pieces of shit running for office.
-
33 these videos are all old hat. Same crap with all the fake flip flops. I have said it before and I have said it again. Supporting the stimulus that Obama did is different than supporting ANY stimulus. Come on 33, you know better than this. I have always said that what is so pathetic about Obama's stimulus is that MANY Republicans, many of them with great Conservative credentials, would have supported SOME type of smaller stimulus. THAT is what is so pathetic about what Obama did, and is in fact why Republicans really had no choice but to oppose it unanimously. Do you really think Romney supported $800 billion in aid to Democrat interest groups? ROmney probably had some type of smaller targeted stimulus in mind.
Romney's dishonesty on RomneyCare and the mandate tell me all i need to know about him. He is a liar, and a very bad one at that.
Had he said - "I thought the mandate was once a good idea, but experience has proven that wrong and I have come to the position that the govt has no business mandating individuals enter into private contracts with private corporations with no price controls" fine. I could live with that.
But he is doubling down on stupid because he has other plans once he gets in office that probably would make all of us puke. I dont trust him one bit.
-
“On Dec. 7, 2005, the Romney administration unveiled the final orders. ‘These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,’ then-Gov. Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as ‘the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.’” (Jonathan Weisman, “Romney Environment Push Is Fresh Target for His Rivals,” The Wall Street Journal, online.wsj.com, 10/6/2011)
I wonder if he is going to use the same bullshit excuse on this when he is exposed as he is on Romneycare.
-
Romney Explains Why He Can't Beat Obama
The American Spectator ^ | 30 Jan 12 | David Catron
The most telling moment of the debate was (Romney's) response to Rick Santorum's eloquent explanation of Obamacare's importance to the GOP's strategy ...and why giving Romney the nomination would be ...surrendering the high ground on health reform: "Folks, we can't give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom." ...Romney then uttered the most revealing words of the debate: "First of all, it's not worth getting angry about."
Obama's recent State of the Union address contained only three references to his "signature domestic achievement." This is, as Michael Barone puts it, "the strongest evidence possible" that the President sees Obamacare as "a millstone around the neck of his campaign."
After becoming Governor of Massachusetts... he signed a health reform law that later became the model for Obamacare.
Romney would also have us believe that he will repeal Obamacare in its entirety. ... During a recent interview one of Romney's most important advisors said, "We're not going to do repeal…You can't whole-cloth throw it out...."
Romney's affinity with Democrat positions has not been limited to health reform, of course. He has, for example, often agreed with them on Second Amendment rights.
...abortion. He has changed his position on that issue at least three times....he said, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.... Now... he's again "pro-life." How he avoids vertigo while executing so many pirouettes is anyone's guess.
It will, however, be very easy for Obama ...to exploit Romney's flip-flops...The reporters and bloggers ...will be reciting White House talking points. One wonders if, after his resultant loss in November, Romney will find this "worth getting angry about."
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"it's not worth getting angry about''
The minute he said that, mouths dropped on republican voters everywhere.
It's the #1 issue many repubs care about - giving away a trillion in debt for healthcare - and romney isn't even upset lol.
he wants to be president of america. Ron Paul wants to fix america. there's the diff.
-
"it's not worth getting angry about''
The minute he said that, mouths dropped on republican voters everywhere.
It's the #1 issue many repubs care about - giving away a trillion in debt for healthcare - and romney isn't even upset lol.
he wants to be president of america. Ron Paul wants to fix america. there's the diff.
Romney is the fall guy and a patsy. This is probably what Jeb and GHWB were going to talk about with obama in their little love fest.
-
maybe... that'd be the biggest CT in history, however. hard to jump to that conclusion.
my own (sad) guess is that at almost 90 years old, Bush1 has some health issue and wants to visit the white house - a place he spent most of his adult live in some manner or another.
he was in a wheelchair in that pic and sure didn't look like the picture of health he was just a few years ago.
-
maybe... that'd be the biggest CT in history, however. hard to jump to that conclusion.
my own (sad) guess is that at almost 90 years old, Bush1 has some health issue and wants to visit the white house - a place he spent most of his adult live in some manner or another.
he was in a wheelchair in that pic and sure didn't look like the picture of health he was just a few years ago.
My CT is that they are running romney so he can lose but retain the house and get the Senate or gain a lot of seats in the senate. Obama gets to stay potus for 4 more years and in the next term he will do shit with the GOP like Simpson Bowles or some other crap that will send the demo base into a rage.
-
well, if you are ANY republican not named Mitt...
Then you WANT Obama to win 4 more years.
Cause Romney winning means it's 8 or 12 more years before any other real republican gets to be president. Romney doesn't just steal 4 years.
And even then, he still has to beat obama... and romney looks like john kerry, only worse...
-
well, if you are ANY republican not named Mitt...
Then you WANT Obama to win 4 more years.
Cause Romney winning means it's 8 or 12 more years before any other real republican gets to be president. Romney doesn't just steal 4 years.
And even then, he still has to beat obama... and romney looks like john kerry, only worse...
This entire election year seems very off. And what does romney even stand for? Can anyone tell me?
-
I haven't been following the election as closely as I should have, but I was wondering...
...do you (anybody who cares to reply) think Romney is trying to "play dumb" to entice republican voters? I'm not a Romney fan, but the guy went to harvard law school and harvard business school, so I think it's safe to say that in comparison to Newt, he is somewhat more intelligent. Why doesn't Romney just break out the intelligence and forget about trying to be a regular joe?
I'm not advocating for Romney or anything like that, I'm just saying, given his options now, I think it would be best for him if he dropped the regular joe crap.
-
romney's flaw (one of them) is that he tries to be 'just like you'.
when he sings who let the dogs out.
when he claims he's unemployed.
when he claims he has had to worry about getting a pink slip.
He seems insincere. Many people would rather vote for someone they disagree with, then someone whose positions they don't even believe. Like, you roll with the girl you know is a b***h, over the girl who is nice to your fface but talking behind your back.
-
I haven't been following the election as closely as I should have, but I was wondering...
...do you (anybody who cares to reply) think Romney is trying to "play dumb" to entice republican voters? I'm not a Romney fan, but the guy went to harvard law school and harvard business school, so I think it's safe to say that in comparison to Newt, he is somewhat more intelligent. Why doesn't Romney just break out the intelligence and forget about trying to be a regular joe?
I'm not advocating for Romney or anything like that, I'm just saying, given his options now, I think it would be best for him if he dropped the regular joe crap.
Harvard teaches a lot of bullshit. Obama and Romney are both pofs when it comes to legal issues.
-
Newsmax
Romneycare and Obamacare Are Identical
Sunday, January 29, 2012 09:49 PM
By: Betsy McCaughey
Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney may not have intended that the mandatory health insurance law he signed in 2006 would look like the Obama health law. But the Massachusetts law does a lot more than cover the uninsured (a worthy goal). The law broadens the powers of government to dictate treatment decisions and even interferes in where and how patients die. The result will be a breathtaking shift of decision-making from the doctor at bedside to the state.
The Massachusetts law has come under fire for soaring premiums, now the highest in the nation. A 2011 Beacon Hill Institute study concluded that 18,000 fewer people were employed in the state, because employers required to provide coverage left the state or stopped hiring to avoid the cost. But the cost cutting has begun, and the results are alarming.
Chapter 305 of the 2006 law created councils and regulatory bodies charged with cost-cutting, and after several years they have produced a plan. Here are key components:
Mandatory electronic medical records: All physicians must comply by January 2015 as a condition of keeping their medical license.
Comparative effectiveness: A state board — with unions, consumers, employers and other nonphysicians on it — will synthesize medical research into guidelines and ensure that all insurers and doctors follow them. These guidelines will lay out what care is “medically necessary” and include “how to address individual patient cases and circumstances.” Massachusetts says it and its bureaucrats can make better decisions than highly trained physicians at bedside. (Roadmap to Cost Containment pp. 10, 21,36)
Massachusetts’ End of Life Program: Sec. 41 of Chapter 305 of the Massachusetts law creates an expert panel to deal with how and where people die. The state will launch an aggressive public relations campaign to get hospitals and doctors to encourage palliative care, hospice care, and death at home. In Massachusetts, only 24 percent of people die at home. The state says that is too low. (Roadmap, pp.32,33, 41,90,)
Sometimes a patient doesn’t die at home because the doctor doesn’t foresee that death is imminent. A 2006 Emory University study found that doctors treat patients who are expected to die less intensively than patients who are expected to survive, but often doctors can’t predict who is near the end.
The benefits of hospice care are obvious. But physicians also worry that some patients will break down at the mention of hospice care and lose the will to fight their disease. Ultimately, the question is how involved should government be in how we die, especiall when the goal is to cut costs?.
Ending fee-for-service insurance options: Massachusetts will push patients into “medical homes,” to limit access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests, and substitute nurse practitioners and physicians assistants for doctors.
A 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that. if cost control is the priority, medical homes are likely to present the same problems as those HMOs of 20 years ago.
HMOs would withhold physicians’ fees until the end of the year and give it back only to the physicians who met targets for limiting referrals or diagnostic tests. Ultimately, what a doctor prescribed for a patient came out of the doctor’s own pocket at the end of the year, setting up a conflict between you and your doctor. (Roadmap, p. 14)
ROMNEYCARE OBAMACARE
Individual mandate Individual mandate
Employer mandate Employer mandate
Mandatory electronic records. Mandatory electronic records
Comparative effectiveness Comparative effectiveness
End of life program End of life program
Medical homes Medical homes
Perhaps Governor Romney didn’t read Section 305 of the health law he signed, or couldn’t anticipate how it would undermine the doctor-patient relationship.
The Massachusetts cost-cutters claim that care could be cut by 20 percent to 30 percent without doing harm. President Obama’s former budget director Peter Orszag made the same claim to defend deep cuts to Medicare funding.
Don’t believe it. Wherever these cost cutting strategies — the same ones that are in Romneycare and Obamacare — are used, the results are deadly. An important study in the Annals of Internal Medicine (February 2011) based on all hospitals in California shows that seniors treated in hospitals providing more intense care and spending more have a better chance to recover and resume their lives. In fact, 13,813 elderly patients with pneumonia, congestive heart failure, stroke and hip fractures who died at low spending hospitals would have survived and gone home had they received more care. That’s a lesson for Massachusetts and the nation.
Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D., is a former lieutenant governor of New York and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."
-
Romney Was 'Independent,' Not Strong Republican
http://freerepublic.com ^ | January 28, 2012 | Newsmax staff
"As the Florida primary looms closer, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has more and more strongly identified himself as a consistent conservative and Republican voter, and in Thursday’s GOP debate he implied he always has been.
But a review of the facts paints a different picture and counters Romney’s assertions. In the past, Romney has often gone to considerable lengths to distance himself from Republicans and conservatives.
• Romney had been a lifelong independent before he decided to run for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts in 1994, the Boston Globe reported at the time.
When Romney debated Kennedy, Kennedy accused his opponent of trying to return the country to the policies of Reagan-Bush. Romney retorted: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
• The Los Angeles Times reported that after Romney entered the '94 Senate race, his wife Ann said: “We didn’t know a single Republican when we jumped in.”
The Times also disclosed that Romney even considered running as an independent “before rejecting the idea as impractical.”
• When House Speaker Newt Gingrich was promoting his “Contract with America” in 1994, Romney’s aides said he “had not read the document and had no plans to support it,” the Globe reported.
• Brent Bozell’s Conservative Victory Committee attacked Romney in 1994 for “running away from conservative Republican themes” and espousing a “left-wing agenda.”
• Washington Post columnist David Broder observed during the 1994 Senate campaign: “Eager to show that he is a moderate independent and no ideologue, Romney stressed his support for universal health insurance and abortion rights, criticized the Republican ‘Contract with America,’ and was more outspoken than Kennedy in arguing that the Boy Scouts should not exclude homosexual youths.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a fucking mess. Mitt Romney is a lying snake. Good luck to those of you who trust him.
-
-
Romney is the White Obama? No shit! I have already said that. The reason Obama is going to win a second term is the same reason Dubya did. The opposing party is going to run a schmuck. Then the 2016 election will basically guarantee a Repub POTUS for two terms.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
-
Romney is a piece of fucking shit. The fact that the republican establishment is so behind him tells me everything I need to know - that there is only 1 party now, cause why in the fuck would they support someone with all the same ideals as Obama if they felt so strongly about how Obama was running the country, and they really wanted to win?
They wouldnt.
Theyre running someone who they know would push all the same shit, and just telling him to speak "republican" to appeal to right wing idiots. :-\
*Edited*
-
Romney is a piece of fucking shit. The fact that the republican establishment is so behind him tells me everything I need to know - that there is only 1 party now, cause why in the fuck would they support someone with all the same ideals as Obama if they really wanted to win?
They wouldnt.
Theyre running someone who they know would push all the same shit, and just telling him to speak "republican" to appeal to right wing idiots. :-\
Gonna love this one.
-
Romney is a piece of fucking shit. The fact that the republican establishment is so behind him tells me everything I need to know - that there is only 1 party now, cause why in the fuck would they support someone with all the same ideals as Obama if they really wanted to win?
They wouldnt.
Theyre running someone who they know would push all the same shit, and just telling him to speak "republican" to appeal to right wing idiots. :-\
What they are doing is setting up what is called a "Work" in MMA or wrestling. The average taxpayer gets presented with a false choice.
-
What really pisses me off is that if they were so pissed with how Obama was running things, they would run someone who is the complete opposite or who appeals to the conservative base -
But they dont.
They just change Mittens stance's on everything (knowing all the time where he really stands) to appeal to "republicans" and pray to god people are too ignorant to do their research (which unfortunatley seems to be true).
This alone tells me the dont think Obama's ideas are wrong or bad - just that theyre vieing for power, they want to be the ones reaping the benefits of all the fucked up shit going on in the WH.
Why else would they push someone who is so close to Obama? Only reason is that they want the same things, they just want to be the ones doing it. :-\ :-\ :-\
-
What really pisses me off is that if they were so pissed with how Obama was running things, they would run someone who is the complete opposite or who appeals to the conservative base -
But they dont.
They just change Mittens stance's on everything (knowing all the time where he really stands) to appeal to "republicans" and pray to god people are too ignorant to do their research (which unfortunatley seems to be true).
This alone tells me the dont think Obama's ideas are wrong or bad - just that theyre vieing for power, they want to be the ones reaping the benefits of all the fucked up shit going on in the WH.
Why else would they push someone who is so close to Obama? Only reason is that they want the same things, they just want to be the ones doing it. :-\ :-\ :-\
Here is my CT - its all a con on the public. Myth loses 49.5 to Obama 50.5. GOP keeps the house and gains 3-4 in the Senate.
Status quo and the middle class gets F U C K E D
But - if by some measure myth wins - we still get fucked.
-
-
That last video just confirms everything ive said about why Paul's opponents hate him so much.
He's a good man. He's honest. And he's everything he has been made out to be.
Whereas they are all crafted images that in no way represent who they really are, as they try to be whoever or whatever the public wants them to be.
They hate him because he is and was everything they wish they were.
They hate him because theyre barely human, let alone decent men.
They hate him because he is a good person.
They hate him because he makes them feel like what they really are - big, fat, phoney scumbags who have more in common with street drug dealers than they do with your average hard working blue collar citizen.
Must be hard to pretend to be something youre not for so long, and then have someone show up who is everything you tried to convince people you were.
-
CHARACTER MATTERS AND ROMNEY'S WORRIES ME
by Mark Levin on Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 2:57pm.
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150499413515946
I am beginning to think that the nature and level of attacks being launched by Mitt Romney against Newt Gingrich, which he would surely use against any conservative threatening his nomination, are going to make it very difficult for Romney to unite the different factions of the GOP and the conservative movement behind his candidacy should he win the nomination. While I have said that I would vote for Rick Santorum, I am appalled at the "anything goes" assault on Gingrich. See here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/politics/the-calculations-that-led-romney-to-the-warpath.html?pagewanted=all?
Romney is not a conservative in the traditional sense, and he has a record of big-government Republicanism. Even many years after the success of the Reagan administration, he sought to distance himself from Reagan and the GOP, self-identifying as a progressive and independent. Thus, he resorts to spending multi-millions of dollars trashing his opponents, rather than providing thoughtful arguments on conservatism and constitutionalism. Lest we forget, it was Gingrich who was trying to run a positive campaign and who offered to debate Romney one-on-one, asking Romney to stop with the millions in unanswered ads attacking him. Romney declined. I have no doubt that Romney would do the same thing to Santorum if Santorum was rising in the polls, albeit on different issues.
I have said that Romney is in many ways Richard Nixon, and that Romney would not successfully lead efforts to repeal Obamacare but, in fact, would grow the federal government in many respects. Romney's advisor, former senator Norm Coleman, has now said as much. That is Romney's record. Despite having been a businessman, he was not a defender of free market capitalism while governor. Romneycare is, as Santorum pointed out, a top-down government health care system with an individual mandate that is breaking Massachusetts' treasury and destroying private health insurance. It is a disaster. Romney also backed cap-and-trade and TARP (as did Gingrich).
My great fear is, however, that he is the weakest candidate who can face Obama and will go into the general election with a fractured base, thanks to his own character flaws, which are now on display, and his tactics of personal destruction. Moreover, while Romney can swamp his Republican opponents by 3 to 1 or more in every state with his spending advantage, Barack Obama will be raising more and spending more to beat him in the general election, meaning Romney's financial advantage will be non-existent.
We better start paying a lot more attention to holding the House of Representatives and winning the Senate with a bunch of solid conservatives. I have spent a year on my radio show identifying and interviewing these candidates, and will continue to do so.
-
Camp Mittens Duplicity on Allen West Worse than Conspiracy: It’s a Habit
By John Ransom
1/31/2012
All the crying going on from Camp Mittens denying that Romney set out to screw Congressman Allen West out of his seat in Palm Beach County is just the usual exaggerated outrage that we should be accustomed to from Mitt and Company when they’ve been caught in the act.
Remember these are the same guys who are saying that Mitt’s the most electable candidate, but if we question Mitt’s electability we’ll only have ourselves to blame if Mitt doesn’t get elected.
Or something like that.
It’s hard to keep up with the rhetoric when a campaign has one set of lies to fool the public, one set of lies to fool reporters and one set of lies to fool themselves, in a paraphrase of war-time British Prime Minister David Lloyd George.
“I must have missed something in today's column” wrote one rabid Romney fan, deliberately misreading criticism of Romney, “what office in the Florida legislature does Mitt Romney hold?”
None, of course
And no one is saying that Mitt Romney, much less his campaign, set out specifically to hurt Colonel West.
What we are saying, and what has been acknowledged to have some level of veracity, is that people in the Florida GOP who represent Mitt set out to hurt West during the redistricting process. They did it because they are essentially hostile to the Tea Party element. So get used to it because these are the people who Mitt picked to surround himself with.
It’s a pretty safe assumption that Mitt agrees with their point of view. You know, the whole birds-of-a-feather thing?
These are the same type of folks in the GOP who within days of the nomination of Sarah Palin for vice president on the Republican ticket, were describing her as a hillbilly-gone-wild at Neiman Marcuses from coast-to-coast.
What’s worse they were collecting paychecks from John McCain while they were twisting the knife into Sarah Palin and the Republican ticket. Remember that money you sent to McCain? It went to support a hatchet, not a ballot.
And while the rest of us were knocking on doors, working GOTV, McCain staffers were thinking up better punchlines on the Palin family. Forget about TARP. The moment McCain lost the campaign was the moment he turned a blind eye to his own campaign staff leaking “information” on Palin.
Getting past the idiocy of such a move, let’s move on to the policy behind such a move.
Clearly there are two GOPs today.
There’s a GOP that thinks that we got into the fiscal mess that we are in because both parties lost the fiscal restraint that is the necessary handmaiden of limited government. There’s another GOP that thinks that the only thing that matters in the election contest for president is how much money you can raise and if you sound plausible on TV.
Guess which side Romney’s on?
These are the guys who helped Fannie and Freddie securitize the real estate market; these are the guys who brought us Sunshine Charlie Crist; these are the guys who gladly, warmly will try to put the Humpty Dumpty back of the wall if only they can figure out how to monetize, regulate it and tax it and lobby for it. For them, hostility to the grassroots goes beyond ideology. It’s an ingrained habit.
They know they can’t win the ideological battle against the soul of the GOP, so instead they just gerrymander us. Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida could very well gerrymander Mitt into the nomination, despite his obvious flaws.
There are two people in our country who as chief executives, passed and signed socialized medicine schemes.
One is Barack Obama.
The other is Mitt Romney.
These are the guys who support the guys who socialized medicine.
“You're absolutely right when you say that there's no room for Allen West in Romney's GOP,” wrote another Romney fan. “Uncompromising ‘idealists’ like Allen West who oppose moderate (bipartisan) ideas out of sheer spite have no business in the GOP. It's the only reason why beating Obama in the fall isn't going to be a slam-dunk.”
Of course they hate Sarah Palin and Allen West.
Palin and West are the guys who support the guys who will get stuck with Romney’s- and Obama’s- White House bill.
I hope I’m wrong about Romney. I hope that if he wins the nomination, he goes on to be the greatest president in the history of the US.
But the odds are against it if the company he keeps tells us anything.
And I’d rather be wrong now, than wrong later, as I fear some Romney backers will be.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/01/31/camp_mittens_duplicity_on_allen_west_worse_than_conspiracy_its_a_habit
-
Five Reasons So Many Grassroots Conservatives Don't Like Mitt Romney
By John Hawkins
1/31/2012
www.townhall.com
It's a mystery to some people why so many Tea Partiers and grassroots conservatives can’t stand Mitt Romney. What is it about him that turns them off so much that at one time or another, they've preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich to him nationally despite the fact that he has every advantage in the race? Would Mitt Romney be better than Barack Obama? Sure, but there are some very good reasons that so many grassroots conservatives still find him to be a thoroughly unlikable candidate.
1) He's not a conservative. There have been a lot of conservatives who've talked a good game during the primaries and then have let us down in D.C., but if Mitt Romney becomes the nominee and gets elected, some people seem to be hoping that he'll be the first Republican moderate to go to D.C. and turn into a fire-breathing conservative. Based on his record, if Mitt Romney is nominated, he will be the least conservative candidate since Nixon.
Moreover, keep in mind that in 1994, when Mitt Romney was 47 years old, he was telling people that, "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush" and the Contract with America was "not a good idea." Eight years later in 2002, when he was 55 years old, Mitt Romney was saying, "I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan Republican, that I'm someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.” Oh, joy! So he was a progressive, like Hillary Clinton! After four years of governing as a barely right of center moderate and coming up with Romneycare, a piece of signature legislation that any liberal Democrat would be proud of, Mitt Romney supposedly became a conservative -- precisely at the same moment he started running for President. What a stunning coincidence!
One of the great ironies of the campaign is that Newt Gingrich has been quite properly dinged for being a good Republican soldier and endorsing Dede Scozzafava over the Conservative Party's Doug Hoffman and now, a lot of the "good Republican soldiers" are endorsing a male version of Scozzafava for President over Newt.
2) He doesn't believe in anything politically other than Mitt Romney. What conservative cause has Mitt Romney ever fought like hell for in his career? There are none. What has Mitt Romney ever done for conservatives in his career? Nothing of significance...oh wait, I forgot; when he was asked about it in the Florida debate, he noted that he started a family and a business, which is nice, but probably puts him on par with about half of the people reading this column.
In the last decade alone, Mitt has been against an amendment to stop gay marriage and for an amendment to stop gay marriage, for cap and trade and against cap and trade, against Bush's tax cuts and for Bush's tax cuts, for abortion and against abortion, for gun control and against gun control....it goes on and on. Like Arlen Specter, Romney would feel just as comfortable running as a Democrat or Republican and like Barack Obama, all of Mitt's promises come with an expiration date. It's almost impossible to know where Romney will be on any issue in six months, including Obamacare, much less where he'd be after he got elected and settled down inside the Beltway. How do you get fired up about a guy like that? How do you believe in him the way conservatives believe in guys like Jim DeMint?
Mitt Romney is a repeat of the same show conservatives have seen over and over again and we all know the ending if the candidate gets elected. These plastic men, these political Stretch Armstrongs get inside the Beltway Bubble, the media starts working on them, the establishment starts whispering in their ear and next thing you know, they're explaining how important comprehensive immigration reform is to the conservative cause or why we need another Bridge to Nowhere.
When you're a grassroots conservative who has been mocked, ridiculed and attacked for believing in conservatism, capitalism, and the Constitution, sold out again and again by people in your own party, and told your nation is on the verge of a debt-driven crisis that could bankrupt us, the last thing you want is to be treated like you're stupid by a phony Massachusetts moderate who tells you he believes the same things you do when you damn well know he doesn't mean a word of it.
3) Mitt Romney has benefitted from a tremendous media double standard. Other than Herman Cain, who at least is a conservative who has worked tirelessly for the Tea Party, Mitt Romney is the single least qualified man running for office in the Republican field. Yes, Mitt's business experience is a plus, but it didn't help him in Massachusetts, where he was an awful, unpopular governor whose signature program, Romneycare, has been a miserable failure. Romney has gotten where he is because he's rich, the establishment is behind him, and much of the conservative media has been greasing the skids for him.
The double standards have been extraordinary and grating. The other candidates had to bring up Bain Capital because much of the conservative media wouldn't touch the very issue that Ted Kennedy used to beat Mitt Romney's brains in back in 1994. Even today, when you try to point out that Mitt's "100,000" jobs created number is pure vapor, that he made a lot of money off of deals where the taxpayers and the FDIC had to pick up the tab, or that it looks awful for Mitt to make millions on deals where businesses went under and hundreds of middle class workers lost their jobs, you're answered with cries of "capitalism" and "free enterprise!" Good luck with that strategy in the general election if, God help us all, Mitt gets that far.
Furthermore, remember when Newt Gingrich was ahead of Mitt in Iowa, running a positive campaign, and was told "Politics ain't beanbag" after Mitt creamed him with millions in negative ads? Then remember when those same people squealed with outrage when Mitt got exactly what he had been dishing out after New Hampshire? We were told Newt was campaigning like a liberal when he hit Mitt on Bain Capital, but when Mitt ran dishonest ads featuring Tom Brokaw crowing about a now discredited ethics investigation, the same people were silent. After the last debate, it was amazing to hear talking heads telling everyone how wonderful Mitt did after Rick Santorum gutted him like a Christmas turkey on Obamacare and Romney was booed by the audience after he was caught lying about not having seen an ad that he personally endorsed.
Let's be honest and name some names: Jen Rubin, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, National Review, Fox News and the Drudge Report among others have been shilling for Mitt Romney and attacking his adversaries during this primary the way the the New York Times will for Barack Obama in the general election. That doesn't make them RINOS, liberals, part of the establishment or bad people. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions about which candidate to support. But that being said, these people should realize that as far as a lot of other conservatives are concerned, they are betting their reputations on Mitt Romney. What they are in effect saying in so many words is, "Vote for Mitt Romney and we promise you that not only will he get elected, he'll govern conservatively." Given his record, that's liquidating your house and putting it on a spin of the roulette wheel.
4) Mitt Romney is cozying up to the establishment, not the Tea Party. Never have so many self-interested, politically-gutless establishment space fillers gathered in one place as on the endorsement list for Mitt Romney. If Bob Dole, John McCain, Susan Molinari, Lisa Murkowski, Jim Talent, Joe Scarborough, Mel Martinez, Jim Gerlach, Judd Gregg, Jon Huntsman, John Sununu and Norm Coleman are all lining up behind a candidate in a contested GOP primary, it's an almost ironclad guarantee that candidate is not going to be worth a bucket of warm spit once he gets into office. If you want to know why you're seeing so many Tea Partiers lining up behind Newt Gingrich, who despite his flaws has done more for the conservative cause than any other living politician, it's because they see the politicians backing Mitt Romney and they're well aware that they're not friends of grassroots conservatives.
It's absolutely unbelievable that after the grassroots helped the GOP have its best year in half a century that we may end up with a human "SCREW YOU!" to the Tea Party like Mitt Romney as the nominee. Here we have a moderate establishment-endorsed candidate who supported TARP, is open to more bailouts, came up with the mother of Obamacare, and he has no bold plans to tackle the deficit -- and this is the guy Tea Partiers are supposed to support after fighting to beat Republicans like that in primaries during the 2010 election cycle? Why don't we just drag Robert Bennett out of retirement to run at the top of the ticket?
5) Mitt just isn't likable enough to be a good politician. Mitt Romney comes across like a sort of bizarro-world combination between John Kerry, Richie Rich, Charlie Crist, and Data from Star Trek. This is what makes the first part of this Saturday Night Live skit so funny -- Mitt really does come across as that weirdly out of touch with hu-man emotion sometimes.
He's also an extremely nasty campaigner -- a little like Barney Frank, without the modicum of vicious charm that endears him to liberals. Want to know why this campaign has been so divisive? That's easy: Mitt Romney embraced win-at-all-costs character assassination and negative advertising as the primary tactic of his campaign and the other candidates had to respond to it. Since he's proven too unlikable to be pulled up very much, Mitt's strategy has been to pull the other candidates down, even if it leads to a mud fight that lessens anyone's chances of winning in a general election.
Additionally, as Mike Huckabee has noted, "[Romney] looks like the guy who fires you, not the guy who hires you" -- and by the way, he does. This, along with the incredibly effective Bain ads that helped sink Mitt in South Carolina are why he's had to release pictures of himself awkwardly doing laundry -- because his campaign believes it allows normal human beings to be able to relate to him better. Is that a good sign? That our "super electable" GOP candidate feels compelled to release pictures of himself standing in front of a washing machine to reassure people that he's more like them? Of course, it won't work because Mitt Romney may be the first politician I've ever seen who has the ability to NEVER appear to be completely sincere about anything. Combine that with his campaign's smug "Megan McCainesque" sense of entitlement and Mitt Romney would be going into the 2012 campaign with a likability deficit even compared to Barack Obama, who has nauseated the entire country with his radicalism, incompetence, and Barney the Dinosaur style sloganeering. What it all comes down to is that when people see a pampered, prissy, fake, spiteful son of a governor who's being served the GOP nomination on a silver platter because he kissed the right establishment behinds, benefitted from an enormous media double standard, and has more money than everyone else, well, let's just say that's exactly the sort of person who inspired someone to come up with the word schadenfreude.
-
m2CGQ&feature=mh_lolz
Does it get any worse than this?
-
There are two people in our country who as chief executives, passed and signed socialized medicine schemes.
One is Barack Obama.
The other is Mitt Romney.
These are the guys who support the guys who socialized medicine.
Quoted for motha fuckin truf and shit.
This is what pissed me off the most - whoever the fuck pulls the strings and decides who is going to be the "golden boy" they run for president, has managed to get 2 guys competing with each other, and the outcome of either one will be the fucking same! Talk about a win for whoever is behind those scenes, theyve managed to set it up so that it doesnt matter what schmuck is in the whitehouse, they still get their special interest programs and fucked up ideals pushed on the public who has let themselves become so blinded by party politics that they cant see the truth -
That it doesnt matter which one wins, the end result is the same. As long as they can continue to keep people polarized and believing that the other party is actually going to do something different (rather than just saying different words while making the same decisions), nothing will change.
I think people will start waking up if Romney wins and the end result is the same.
Eventually people will have to notice that the actions coming out of the white house are exactly the same regardless of what party they "claim" to be a part of. I hope anyway.
The fact that Romney has walked the line back and forth from liberal to conservative should be telling to people also, it should tell them that he is just using whatever party he thinks will get him further in his quest for prestige, money, and power.
He's changing his opinions based on what he thinks his party base wants to hear. That should also tell people that they really have no effing clue on what the man really stands for, or what he'll do in the white house.
IMHO - I feel we would be a lot better off if the only information we had on the candidates was how they voted throughout their career, what they supported, and their actions in office.
People get blinded by these scumbags charm - and lose sight of whats important.
If we had to make a decision based on a piece of paper that simply stated their -
Achievments
Voting record
Actions in office
Years served
Approval rating
And nothing else, I feel like we'd be in a whole lot better shape as a country. At the least, it would keep people from electing someone based on their charm and bullshit lies they spew to get elected.
-
Authors: Romney Denied Free Olympic Tickets to 9-11 Widows, Orphans; Gave Them to Utah Legislators
Big Government ^ | 01/31/2012 | Charles Johnson
Posted on February 1, 2012 9:55:45 PM EST by writer33
Mitt Romney, in pledging to turn around the Olympics in 2002, had promised to restore the honor and integrity of the scandal-clouded Salt Lake City. The Games captured the world’s attention and became all the more urgent after terrorists attacked us on 9-11. But while Romney invoked the wellspring of American patriotism after the attacks, he neglected their heroes, the fallen firefighters of that early September morning.
Romney’s executive assistant, Donna Tillery, twice denied requests to provide free or discounted tickets to widows and orphans of the felled firefighters but gave them for free to Utah legislators just six weeks later, according to a new book, The Real Romney (HarperCollins, 2012).
Tillery sent e-mails to A.J. Barto, a former Salt Lake City firefighter helping the 9-11 widows and orphans, citing a policy barring giveaways, but Romney gave 100 free surplus tickets ($885 each) to Utah legislators. “I was outraged at the hypocrisy,” Barto told Kranis and Helman. “In less than two months, he went from saying, ‘We’re going to run a tight ship’ to throwing out free tickets to a group of people who could help him politically.” (221)
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...