Should Santorum and Gingrich drop out of this race?

[oreo]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

The last primary is on June 26 and that will be Colorado. So what you're saying is let this carry on--let Rick Santorum keep bringing up his Roman Catholic beliefs--keep scaring women to death--so that by the time the election rolls around they will be running into those voting booths to cast a vote for Barack Obama--even though Santorum has no possibility what-so-ever of winning the nomination.

You want to risk that?

A lot on the "right" would prefer Obama over Romney.

Some say there is no difference, in spite of the great difference there would be in SC appointees.

Some just plain would prefer that Obama win.

Then don't refer to yourself as conservative with that kind of mindset--because you're not.

 

[JoeB131]

There is absolutely nothing healthy about going to the end of August with a GOP fight.

Says who?

Says this:

So what Phyllis Schlafly called the “secret kingmakers” went to work at the convention. The Willkie forces won the convention chairmanship, putting the rules and convention machinery in their hands.


It took six ballots but Wendell Willkie became the Republican nominee. The rules of the time had been tailor-made for political powers to snatch nomination from a candidate who had competed in and won primaries and give it to someone who had not won a single primary.


Willkie lost to FDR in his historic third term bid that fall.

The last time Republicans had a "brokered convention" - HUMAN EVENTS

Wow, Human Events... the people who think Pat Buchanan should still have columns defending Nazi Death camp guards, eh?

While snipping out the nonsense, Thomas Dewey eventually got his shot at FDR in 1944 when the man was half-dead, and still managed to lose as many states as Willke did. Then he ran against Harry Truman and lost against him, too.

Do you think he would have really done better against FDR in 1940? Really?

Come on. Fact is, Wilke actually did manage to win ten states (better than Hoover or Landon, the Mitt Romney of his day).

Sorry, you are not making against a brokered convention, you are making one for one.

 

[oreo]

**************************************************
You should be. Eight years of Jeb! was not good for Florida, He is Reagan type, many like him while he relaxes 20 hours a day. When one hurricane hit the Panhandle, little Jeb!ro told the state to pray, then split for the Southeast. Otherwise, no, they wish to continue. I do not which of the two is the lesser of two WEASELS.

Upps--we have democrats voting in this poll--my mistake!

***********************************************
My apologies, oreo. Yes I am a registered Democrat, who voted for McCain in 2008.

I voted for Romney in 08. I have been supporting Newt Gingrich--here but I can at least see what's starting to happen--and now I am asking Gingrich to drop out of this race.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Santorum's influence is telling people that without strong families, and weaning people OFF the self-proclaimed charity role of welfare the gubmint had overtaken...the economy has minimal chance of recovery...without responsibility

Only problem with his message is that he never says HOW a strong family will help the U.S. economy recover.

 

[oreo]

Says who?

Says this:

So what Phyllis Schlafly called the “secret kingmakers” went to work at the convention. The Willkie forces won the convention chairmanship, putting the rules and convention machinery in their hands.


It took six ballots but Wendell Willkie became the Republican nominee. The rules of the time had been tailor-made for political powers to snatch nomination from a candidate who had competed in and won primaries and give it to someone who had not won a single primary.


Willkie lost to FDR in his historic third term bid that fall.

The last time Republicans had a "brokered convention" - HUMAN EVENTS

Wow, Human Events... the people who think Pat Buchanan should still have columns defending Nazi Death camp guards, eh?

While snipping out the nonsense, Thomas Dewey eventually got his shot at FDR in 1944 when the man was half-dead, and still managed to lose as many states as Willke did. Then he ran against Harry Truman and lost against him, too.

Do you think he would have really done better against FDR in 1940? Really?

Come on. Fact is, Wilke actually did manage to win ten states (better than Hoover or Landon, the Mitt Romney of his day).

Sorry, you are not making against a brokered convention, you are making one for one.

So after another 4 years Dewey got his chance--meaning you're saying it's O.K. to give Obama another 4 years--GREAT ANALOGY there---

 

[JoeB131]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

The problem with that is, the more people get to know Romney, the less they like him.

He's the guy who has the awesome resume who just creeps the fuck out of the Human Recources manager by the third interview.

 

[oreo]

Santorum's influence is telling people that without strong families, and weaning people OFF the self-proclaimed charity role of welfare the gubmint had overtaken...the economy has minimal chance of recovery...without responsibility

Only problem with his message is that he never says HOW a strong family will help the U.S. economy recover.

Santorum doesn't have any economic experience--he has been a government legislator most of his life. In the years he wasn't he was a Washington D.C. lobbyist.

That's why he commonly refers to "economics" by quickly switching the topic to Family values. That he knows and it comes right out of his 16th century Roman Catholic beliefs.

 

[Amelia]

The last primary is on June 26 and that will be Colorado. So what you're saying is let this carry on--let Rick Santorum keep bringing up his Roman Catholic beliefs--keep scaring women to death--so that by the time the election rolls around they will be running into those voting booths to cast a vote for Barack Obama--even though Santorum has no possibility what-so-ever of winning the nomination.

You want to risk that?

A lot on the "right" would prefer Obama over Romney.

Some say there is no difference, in spite of the great difference there would be in SC appointees.

Some just plain would prefer that Obama win.

Then don't refer to yourself as conservative with that kind of mindset--because you're not.

A. Why do you say "yourself"?

B. I think the justification some "conservatives" use for this goes along the lines of, "Better to let Obama ruin the country for 4 more years and show the GOP establishment we're serious so that next time around they will not put up someone like Romney."

 

[JoeB131]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

The last primary is on June 26 and that will be Colorado. So what you're saying is let this carry on--let Rick Santorum keep bringing up his Roman Catholic beliefs--keep scaring women to death--so that by the time the election rolls around they will be running into those voting booths to cast a vote for Barack Obama--even though Santorum has no possibility what-so-ever of winning the nomination.

You want to risk that?

Colorado had its caucus in February (Romney lost despite winning it in 2008). The one in June is for state races....

Given that there are more Catholics than Mormons, I'd rather have Santorum than Romney.

Again, the only women who are really upset about this are the ones who aren't going to vote Republican, anyway.

 

[uscitizen]

Everyone should dropout of this race including Obama.

 

[elvis]

Should Santorum and Gingrich drop out of this race?


Both of em prayed and God told em to run. They have no choice in the matter.

In Santorum's case, that would mean God wants Obama to win.

 

[oreo]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

The problem with that is, the more people get to know Romney, the less they like him.

He's the guy who has the awesome resume who just creeps the fuck out of the Human Recources manager by the third interview.

Yeah right--I guess that's why Romney's winning---

 

[elvis]

Everyone should dropout of this race including Obama.

what would happen then?

 

[JoeB131]

Says this:



The last time Republicans had a "brokered convention" - HUMAN EVENTS

Wow, Human Events... the people who think Pat Buchanan should still have columns defending Nazi Death camp guards, eh?

While snipping out the nonsense, Thomas Dewey eventually got his shot at FDR in 1944 when the man was half-dead, and still managed to lose as many states as Willke did. Then he ran against Harry Truman and lost against him, too.

Do you think he would have really done better against FDR in 1940? Really?

Come on. Fact is, Wilke actually did manage to win ten states (better than Hoover or Landon, the Mitt Romney of his day).

Sorry, you are not making against a brokered convention, you are making one for one.

So after another 4 years Dewey got his chance--meaning you're saying it's O.K. to give Obama another 4 years--GREAT ANALOGY there---

I'm saying, if you put that Weird Mormon Robot on the top of the ticket, I'll vote for the Democratic candidate for the first time in nine presidential elections. And so will a lot of other Republicans and republican leaning independents.

What should be clear by this fiasco is that a HUGE swath of the GOP simply never wanted Mitt Romney. Didn't want him four years ago, and don't want him now. And just because you can be whipped like a dog into supporting him, I refuse to.

 

[JoeB131]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

The problem with that is, the more people get to know Romney, the less they like him.

He's the guy who has the awesome resume who just creeps the fuck out of the Human Recources manager by the third interview.

Yeah right--I guess that's why Romney's winning---

Winning what? Most Republicans would rather have someone else. The only reason he's "winnig" is because the GOP establishment rigged the game for him at every turn, and he STILL can't close the deal.

And Obama hasn't even started on him yet. Between Seamus the Dog and AmPad, you all are going to wish all you had was Santorum scaring snarling feminists.

 

[oreo]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

The last primary is on June 26 and that will be Colorado. So what you're saying is let this carry on--let Rick Santorum keep bringing up his Roman Catholic beliefs--keep scaring women to death--so that by the time the election rolls around they will be running into those voting booths to cast a vote for Barack Obama--even though Santorum has no possibility what-so-ever of winning the nomination.

You want to risk that?

Colorado had its caucus in February (Romney lost despite winning it in 2008). The one in June is for state races....

Given that there are more Catholics than Mormons, I'd rather have Santorum than Romney.

Again, the only women who are really upset about this are the ones who aren't going to vote Republican, anyway.

I LIVE in Colorado--we have ballot primary on June 26th--and there's no way in hell Rick Santorum is going to win that. The only people that showed up for the Feb. 7th caucas--(basically a straw poll) where the right wing of the Christian community. Less than 5% of the entire population.

You really don't think this state is going to vote for Barack Obama--and then vote 4 years later for Rick Santorum--do you?---

 

[DontBeStupid]

Santorum's influence is telling people that without strong families, and weaning people OFF the self-proclaimed charity role of welfare the gubmint had overtaken...the economy has minimal chance of recovery...without responsibility

Only problem with his message is that he never says HOW a strong family will help the U.S. economy recover.

Santorum doesn't have any economic experience--he has been a government legislator most of his life. In the years he wasn't he was a Washington D.C. lobbyist.

That's why he commonly refers to "economics" by quickly switching the topic to Family values. That he knows and it comes right out of his 16th century Roman Catholic beliefs.

Agreed.

Which is why I really want to see him in a debate with Obama or Biden.

 

[oreo]

Why?

If the American people think he's done a bad job..the Democratic process generally has a way of dealing with that.

Limp Inability wants the incumbent to drop out, because none of the candidates on the other side have a chance.

Face it.............the GOP is scared of both their own incompetent field AND Obama.

Actually? it is the opposite...The 'War on Women' is a false issue...Obama is afraid as Hell...He knows whatthe stakes are...and so do YOU...Obama is losing his base.

Obama will lose by landslide.

REALLY--you might want to take a look at the 1st add on the WAR ON WOMEN---

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfjAMRgpoug]GOP War On Women - YouTube[/ame]


I don't know--but this new television advertisement looks pretty effective to me--

 

[JoeB131]

B. I think the justification some "conservatives" use for this goes along the lines of, "Better to let Obama ruin the country for 4 more years and show the GOP establishment we're serious so that next time around they will not put up someone like Romney."

I don't consider myself a doctrinaire conservative at this point in my life. I think I was cured of that five years ago when my ex-boss pointed out that there is a divide between the people who run the GOP and the people who vote for it... and we ain't on the same side at all.

The problem is, Romney is a sham candidate. He doesn't really believe in any GOP principles, he's just saying he does now to get the nomination.

And he wants sooooo badly for the MSM to love him again and can't wait to get back to the center...

Which is why he really doesn't want this to drag out to Tampa.

 

[oreo]

Only problem with his message is that he never says HOW a strong family will help the U.S. economy recover.

Santorum doesn't have any economic experience--he has been a government legislator most of his life. In the years he wasn't he was a Washington D.C. lobbyist.

That's why he commonly refers to "economics" by quickly switching the topic to Family values. That he knows and it comes right out of his 16th century Roman Catholic beliefs.

Agreed.

Which is why I really want to see him in a debate with Obama or Biden.

Of course you do--you're an Obamabot--what better candidate to put up against Obama than Rick Santorum?