I didn't think so initially, but lately, he looks inept.

He does well on debates where he's thoroughly "prepped"; but out on the stump, he sucks. He stinks at "retail politics"; he's robotic, doesn't connect well with people & most disasastrously ( as evidenced yesterday with "firing" remark ,) he continually sticks his foot in his mouth. Dude has a glass jaw.

This has led conservative commentators to "dogpile" on him. Rush thinks that Dems WANT to face him as most beatable GOP candidate; thought also echoed in link below.

Barring upset, still likely he'll win in NH tonight, but by how much ? Under new rules, GOP primaries now proportional rather than winner take all, which, though unlikely, could mean a "brokered convention"

I once thought that contest between him & Obama
would be razor thin; now, not so sure.



-- Modified on 1/10/2012 7:48:11 AM

Nice quality. Whatever you're having , gimme a double.---------

Digressing, Tim, keep in mind that many conservative pundits & those in right wing media
are saying that Mitt is a very flawed candidate.

Why should you be surprised that the right wing of the GOP is no fan of a candidate they feel is not "one of their own"?

What would be surprising would be if Rush, et al were falling all over themselves to endorse a candidate viewed as "not a true conservative"

This is what is supposed to be happening in the primary process. Romney's goal is to win the nomination without getting too bloody by the far right, with the goal of staying as close to center as possible to give him a better chance in the GE. So far, I give Romney good marks for not "selling out" to the far right and still looking like the odds on favorite to win the nomination.

Personally I don't find Mormons any "nuttier" than any other Christian group.

How many righties on this board have made this an issue? Now ask yourself, how many lefties have tried to make this front page news?

It reminds me of Herman Cain, virtually no righties made a big deal about his skin color, yet lefties would go on and on about how those racist Republicans would never vote for a black man. It makes you wonder who the true racists really are? The three biggest race baiters on this board have to be Pri, Xfean, and Zorff. All three of them are lefties. Just saying..........

If social conservatives don't wanna be racially/religiously diverse
( euphemism for racist ) ain't my problem ! Just the way it is----many of them are nativist & xenophobic.

I could give a fuck If Romney is a Mormon or a Devil Worshipper-----its the Evangelicals/fundamentalists that are making a stink-------talking about xenophobic & natvist-------





-- Modified on 1/10/2012 9:56:52 AM

I would think that the chief of the spelling policde would know that. lol

I won't deny that many evangelists feel that way, but I stand by my statement that the biggest stink on this "issue" is being made by libs.

Assuming that Romney wins the nomination, Evangelicals are going to fall in line and vote "against" the antichrist, despite any reservations they have against Romney, Mormon religion or not.

I think this is more of a case of the left grasping at any straw they can find to cast the GOP in general and the Tea Party in particular as narrow minded racists and religious kooks.

Again, I use Pri as an example. He absolutely froths at the mouth the moment the Tea Party is mentioned, and never misses an opportunity to label them racists.

A desire I am sure is shared by millions of other Americans.

If Romney fires back with that same sentiment he will nullify that sound bite immediately.

I never quite understand the way nutty Christians think, but I've heard the idea expressed that a Mormon as President would cause a lot of Christians to jump on the Mormon band wagon. Or at least that's the fear.

Look, Politico even ran an article about it. Some reading between the lines is required here, but not much.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71077.html

You are right about lefties bringing up the Mormon thing though. I'm sure they're quite happy to piss off the Evangelicals. The more divided the GOP is going into the election, the better Obama's chances are for re-election.

-----many ( not all ) of your so-called TP "brethrn" are intolerant social conservatives. I have no qualms about fiscal conservatives------if they wanna keep more of their $ & want their taxes sensibly allocated, fine by me.

But, you have to cast your lot with social conservatives that you despise & have said so on many occasions, so, let's cut the bullshit---

Btw, some pc types would label you a bigot for "Anti-Christ" label, but not me.----

As for the upcoming election, if GOP gonna be in lockstep,why is election a tossup as you said, or, some polls show BHO narrowly ahead ?

GaG, you're obviously suffering from "cognitive dissonance".


-- Modified on 1/10/2012 10:15:15 AM

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. and I can't think of any one I detest more than religious pukes like Wildmon.

and I am going to hate myself in the morning but you are absolutely on target where it comes to dividing the GOP, that's exactly what every incumbent party hopes for when running for reelection. Pri and Inicky are replacing "facts in evidence" with "wishful thinking"

The truth of the matter is, so far at least, Romney has not been forced to take a hard right turn to capture the nomination. Not yet at least. It could still happen if Perry drops out and Santorum manages to consolidate the support of the religious right. The Dems worst fear is an unscathed Romney cruising into the convention looking moderate and sensible and not owing big debts to the far right wing of his party.

The worst thing for the GOP would be for someone like Santorum to gain support and force the GOP even further to the right, losing support on the moderate independents in the process.

I haven't found anything the least bit more open minded and tolerant from the far left of the Democratic party than from the right wing of the GOP. Who is nuttier, an eco terrorist who kills or injures some poor logger who is just trying to make a living, or an anti abortionist nut job who blows up an abortion clinic? A rabid PETA supporter, or a gay bashing evangelist?

Both sides are guilty, you are quick to point out the intolerance on the right, but are quite loathe to recognize it from the left. I would suggest that you are that SHOULD be suffering from "cognitive dissonance", it would show a level of intellectual honesty that I find lacking in your arguments.

you're advocating a board "fairness doctrine " ?-------You sound as liberal as me---------LOL !

GaG, you're just as biased a partisan as I can be on occasion, only I'll be honest & admit it---------will you ?---

Hey-----one thing we can agree on------this will NOT be runaway election for GOP or Dems.

We both need to calm down & have a drink----estimate it's close to 1 where you are----bottoms up--------I rarely drink before noon,but not unheard of-----

What the matter, don't like what you see when you take a closer look at your liberal bretheren?

I freely admit my discomfort at having to vote with "religious pukes" but you seem to have a problem being honest about the people you side with.

You are also the biggest race baiter on the board, only Zorff and Xfean can rival you in percentage of posts regarding race, but you more than make up for it in sheer volume. I have lived in both the "racist" south and "tolerant" California, and the only real difference I have found is that "white bread" racism among lilly white soccer moms in LA and overt racism in Alabama is that the rednecks are less hypocritical about it.

As for drinking, it's always 5:00 PM SOMEWHERE. lol

and I am not advoctating any thing as unrealistic as a boardwide "fairness doctrine" I am just asking you to be honest for a change. I guess even that is too much to ask for.

and fierce competition for those resources, we become weaker by a huge margin the very moment that he takes office.

The Chinese are already running roughshod over us due in large part to our weakness in the Oval Office, the Chinese should be drooling over the prospect of winning by default if Ron Paul were ever to be elected.

This would nullify all the good that someone like Ron Paul would bring to the table. He is unfortunately the only one who wants to make any REAL cuts to our federal budget, all the others only reluctantly agree to slow the GROWTH of govenrment, not actually cutting a damned cent in real terms.

& I've stated so numerous times in past, particularly with my disgust over OWS.

I'm a registered Indy----why ? Because I consider
Dems to be "PC weaklings", among other offenses.

I'm honest enough to admit to occasional liberal partisan bias, but haven't seen you admit to YOUR conservative bias. Correct me if I'm wrong.

& I'M the argumentative fuck ?!-----You sure you ain't part Jewish ?---------LOL !

Lastly, I think the both of us need to "fuck off" & have a drink-------

though he sometimes says lame things, as everyone does.  I just think he's a mediocre candidate.  Still, if a Republican is going to win -- and I doubt it -- he'd be the least objectionable.  He's really a classic eastern liberal Republican, though he's been trying to cover that up to get the nomination.

-- Modified on 1/10/2012 11:14:09 AM

we know what Romney, Newt or Huntsman are in the political spectrum. The best known is probably Newt. Newt is a creature of political practical deal making from his years in government. But he is no man of the people and probably could care less about the middle class except for more votes and taxes.

The more I see of Huntsman the more I like and Romney, well I would have to vote for him, just wouldn't be at the polls until late afternoon.

Perhaps Ron Paul is "What you see is what you get." and if I thought he could win in Nov. I could vote for him knowing he could not deliver on most of his extreme ideas.

The primary campaign is designed to give us a candidate which is washed, scrubbed, vetted and dressed up as something that will sell to the largest segment of voters.

It bothers me that anyone likes firing people. I have in fact done that task and it was never fun, even when I wanted the person gone.

I haven't seen the contex of the remark yet, but still "firing people" is a job I'm damn glad is no longer mine.

In fact, the evangelicals are among his biggest detractors, with many of them saying they could never vote for a Mormon because it's a heretical cult.  I've long said on this board that Romney's biggest problem is the evangelicals and Tea Partiers will sit on the hands in the GE rather than vote for him.  To me, Mormons are no nuttier than any other religion.  Every one has its foolish, ancient myths.

""Perhaps Ron Paul is "What you see is what you get." and if I thought he could win in Nov. I could vote for him knowing he could not deliver on most of his extreme ideas."""

Yes and No.

I largely agree with his limited government approach, he would need a TON of cooperation of not just a majority in Congress, requiring them to give up the reins to the cash cow. IOW, this is the part that won't happen.

It's his foreign policy vision I find dangerous and yet as CIC he can pull the trigger on that from Day 1.

Like big government libs?

GaG is dead on. Once again......

In the primaries, the varies camps fight amongst themselves to jockey for the nomination. The ONLY reason you'll hear some say they'll sit on their hands in the GE is to influence the nomination. Get it?

You are really whistling past the graveyard if you think a evangelical type is going to sit home and give 4 years to the anti-christ. lol

He has pointed the closing of hundreds of GM dealerships where thousands LOST THEIR JOBS.

How many oil and gas workers have lost their jobs thru Obama admin FALSIFYING evidence after the BP spill....Daddy, did you plug the hole yet? lol

A Ron Paul could make a big difference . . .

He could as president freeze gov. hiring for 4 years. He submits the budget and could in fact reduce the size and scope of the government. He has the veto power.

He can reduce the cumbersome regulations which flow from the government daily. He can't do a thing about most of the social policies, the boat has already sailed.

Foreign policy is a little more murky. I for one think the so called "To Spread Democracy" is a bunch of BS. Not a good policy, not achievable and in a lot of cases not a good idea.

The fact that he keeps trying to sell the same message for the last 20 years indicates to me two things.

1. He really believes what he says.
2. He isn't willing to change with the time.

Even  now I believe the World  probably isn't flat.

America business will secure their fair share of world resources and with Paul's hands off policy it may in fact become easier.

I don't think he would send in the fleet to protect "U.S. Business Interest" but, then again I really can't see the current POTUS even understanding the concept of "U.S. Business Interest".

However; I think the current POTUS would send the fleet out to protect Black, gay or liberal interest.

foreign policy is murky.

He is an isolationist. Do I think we are over committed and too interventionist at times, sure. Is the rest of the world staying safe on our dime? You bet.

However, post WWII we have found ourselves in the position of, if not world cop, at least the counterbalance to Stalin, Kruescev[sic}?? et al.

To completely withdraw and let the rest of the world arm itself up sounds too 30's-ish for my taste.

I simply pointed out GaGa was wrong when he said only lefties had problems with Romney as a Mormon.  And the evangelicals do have major problems with him.
As for sitting on their hands, who really knows?   We'll see, but I bet some, not all, will.

besides, GaG didnt say lefties were the ONLY ones with problems with Romney, he said lefties were the ones making the biggest deal about it.

once the general starts, it will be a diiferent ballgame.

the evangs will be on obama like honeybadger on larva...lol

-- Modified on 1/10/2012 12:45:39 PM

But these are exactly his words: "but has anyone noticed, it's only the left that makes a big deal out of his religion?"  So, actually, he did say "only" the left. Which was why I responded.  So maybe you should have re-read what GaGa said before responding.
PS: I don't really know what the "cockles of his heart," are, but doubt Gambler has one anyway.

Thought I'd cut him a break but he did say "only". And sure enough, that is factually incorrect.

Feel better, Mr Honeybadger?

The crazy-ass honeybadger.
Fondly,
Randall

Gingrich ain't got a leg to stand on ......

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/gingrichs-own-close-tie-to-buyout-industry/?ref=privateequity
Quote :
But Mr. Gingrich was himself on an advisory board for a major investment firm that had a similar business model, Forstmann Little, a pioneering private equity firm co-founded in 1978 by Theodore J. Forstmann that was, along with Mr. Romney’s Bain Capital and Henry R. Kravis’s Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts, among the leading private equity firms during the 1980s and 1990s.