The GOPers

[Dot Com]

Not necessarily members of the Repub party but they consistently vote for them;

 

[JoeB131]

You have been answered fairly and to the point. That you don't agree is no material than if a Nazi disagreed with a war trial finding: your disagreement means nothing. The facts mean everything. You are a wing nut, and if you have JoeB agreeing with you, then I am clearly home safe on this one.

Hey, there's a guy on the Romney thread claiming I'm a left winger... I can't keep track anymore...

 

[CentristFiasco]

Perry wants to get rid of SS and kill more people (proud of his death penalty record)
Newt hates Latinos
Ron Paul says TSA agents are evil.
Bachman is just batshit crazy.

Romney is looking pretty good in comparison.

Jon Huntsman Jr. > All.

Liberals.... You don't get it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have been answered fairly and to the point. That you don't agree is no material than if a Nazi disagreed with a war trial finding: your disagreement means nothing. The facts mean everything. You are a wing nut, and if you have JoeB agreeing with you, then I am clearly home safe on this one.

Hey, there's a guy on the Romney thread claiming I'm a left winger... I can't keep track anymore...

Hey, that's OK, JoeB, I have a dozen far right wing nuts (like you) here claiming I am a liberal because I don't agree with their Hard Right reactionary philosophies and libertarianism. That's the fun of the board.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, that's OK, JoeB, I have a dozen far right wing nuts (like you) here claiming I am a liberal because I don't agree with their Hard Right reactionary philosophies and libertarianism. That's the fun of the board.

No, guy, you have people claiming that because you attack conservatives constantly when they don't embrace your weird Mormon Robot.

Has it occurred to you that people just don't like Romney on a personal level?

We don't elect people on a policy paper, we elect a person...

 

[Full-Auto]

Hey, that's OK, JoeB, I have a dozen far right wing nuts (like you) here claiming I am a liberal because I don't agree with their Hard Right reactionary philosophies and libertarianism. That's the fun of the board.

No, guy, you have people claiming that because you attack conservatives constantly when they don't embrace your weird Mormon Robot.

Has it occurred to you that people just don't like Romney on a personal level?

We don't elect people on a policy paper, we elect a person...

I dont like Romney, there is nothing personal about it. It is because of policy.

You seem a bit turned around. Have you met the man? Gone drinking with him? Attended a family reunion?

I would guess none of thee above.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, that's OK, JoeB, I have a dozen far right wing nuts (like you) here claiming I am a liberal because I don't agree with their Hard Right reactionary philosophies and libertarianism. That's the fun of the board.

No, guy, you have people claiming that because you attack conservatives constantly when they don't embrace your weird Mormon Robot.

Has it occurred to you that people just don't like Romney on a personal level?

We don't elect people on a policy paper, we elect a person...

I dont like Romney, there is nothing personal about it. It is because of policy.

You seem a bit turned around. Have you met the man? Gone drinking with him? Attended a family reunion?

I would guess none of thee above.

Can't go drinking with him because his whackadoo cult won't let him. Never trust a man who doesn't drink.

What I see on TV, though, yeah, creeps me the hell out. It's like he was grown in some strange lab in Area 51 or something.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey, that's OK, JoeB, I have a dozen far right wing nuts (like you) here claiming I am a liberal because I don't agree with their Hard Right reactionary philosophies and libertarianism. That's the fun of the board.

No, guy, you have people claiming that because you attack conservatives constantly when they don't embrace your weird Mormon Robot.

Has it occurred to you that people just don't like Romney on a personal level?

We don't elect people on a policy paper, we elect a person...

The people claiming that are not true Republican conservatives, just far right wack jobs who put on paper ears and claim they are bunnies. Fuck em, they are still wacks, not Republicans.

Romney is in the lead again?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have been answered fairly and to the point. That you don't agree is no material than if a Nazi disagreed with a war trial finding: your disagreement means nothing. The facts mean everything. You are a wing nut, and if you have JoeB agreeing with you, then I am clearly home safe on this one.

Hey, there's a guy on the Romney thread claiming I'm a left winger... I can't keep track anymore...

Hey, that's OK, JoeB, I have a dozen far right wing nuts (like you) here claiming I am a liberal because I don't agree with their Hard Right reactionary philosophies and libertarianism. That's the fun of the board.

I don't agree with their Hard Right reactionary philosophies and libertarianism.

You disagree with anyone who is right of center left. See jake we all can';t be wrong maybne it's you.

 

[JoeB131]

The people claiming that are not true Republican conservatives, just far right wack jobs who put on paper ears and claim they are bunnies. Fuck em, they are still wacks, not Republicans.

Romney is in the lead again?

You know what, guy, we listened to the "Let's vote for someone more moderate" schtick in 2008, and look where that got us?

Romney's in the lead in one poll, which is Fox News, which is the voice of the GOP establishment, so you have to wonder if they are fudging those numbers...

The reality is, if you look at the RCP graph, Romney's average has never gotten above 25%. He's been running for five years now, and really, has never had the support of 75% of the party.

I'm just wondering what is so compelling about this guy that you are all willing to lose to Obama to get him...

Damned if I can see it.

 

[Rinata]

Only to you...

Hey, Republicans, have you ever noticed that the people most enthusiastic for a Romney Nomination are outright liberals like the Mad Hatter here?

That should give us all pause.

The truth makes you so nervous, doesn't it??

NO, not really. I agree that Bachman is crazy. I don't think Newt "hates" latinos. I don't think TSA (Thugs Standing Around) Agents are evil, but they are pretty fuckin' useless. Social Security is doomed because it's not sustainable, I'm glad Perry has the guts to say so.

Now, all that said, the thing is, I have to wonder why liberals like Ravi (or as I call her, the Mad Hatter) and yourself are so enthuiastic about Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney??? What are you talking about???

 

[JakeStarkey]

The people claiming that are not true Republican conservatives, just far right wack jobs who put on paper ears and claim they are bunnies. Fuck em, they are still wacks, not Republicans.

Romney is in the lead again?

You know what, guy, we listened to the "Let's vote for someone more moderate" schtick in 2008, and look where that got us?

Romney's in the lead in one poll, which is Fox News, which is the voice of the GOP establishment, so you have to wonder if they are fudging those numbers...

The reality is, if you look at the RCP graph, Romney's average has never gotten above 25%. He's been running for five years now, and really, has never had the support of 75% of the party.

I'm just wondering what is so compelling about this guy that you are all willing to lose to Obama to get him...

Damned if I can see it.

Joe can't see it is the problem, which is that we will lose to Obama if we don't run Romney. Perry can't recover now. Crazy Texas moron. He was told that what worked in Texas was not transferrable to the nation for him. What Bush did, he can't do, and he hates Rove for telling him so to his face. Fuck him. The far right has nothing to offer and never has had anything to offer in this presidence of worth.

Face the facts, JoeB.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe can't see it is the problem, which is that we will lose to Obama if we don't run Romney. Perry can't recover now. Crazy Texas moron. He was told that what worked in Texas was not transferrable to the nation for him. What Bush did, he can't do, and he hates Rove for telling him so to his face. Fuck him. The far right has nothing to offer and never has had anything to offer in this presidence of worth.

Face the facts, JoeB.

You see, I don't buy that.

Conservatives- Reagan, Bush-41, Bush-43 - Win

Moderates - Ford, Dole, McCain- Lose

It's simple math. If you agree that the other guys is right about the right, you aren't presenting a viable alternative. You're pretty much conceding the floor to him. That never works.

Now maybe the establishment might be able to foist Romney on the party, but right now, they look like they are pretty desperate to get Chris Christie in. So on some level, they know the Weird Mormon Robot is a loser for them.

(And honestly, I could live with Christie pretty well.)

Romney will lose Tea Partiers. He'll lose Evangelicals. He'll lose Hispanics. Saying to major constituent groups - "Suck it up, you lost" doesn't get you anywhere.

Why do you think McCain picked Palin? Because his internal polling showed him that Conservatives were going to stay home and not bother. She helped, but not enough to get him to win.

And I start to think on some level, maybe the establishment doesn't want to win, that they know the problems are largely unfixable in a democratic model, and might as well let Obama have the blame when it completely falls apart.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Eisenhower and Nixon and Bush 41 were not your type of cons. Reagan would be booted aside today (raised the debt limit 19 times, raised taxes three times, increased spending tremendously). And Bush turned out to be a free spending right-wing progressive neo-con big time.

America does not want the Hard Right in the presidency.

 

[Dot Com]

A far- right candidate won't get Independent votes. JakeStarkey is right.

 

[JoeB131]

Eisenhower and Nixon and Bush 41 were not your type of cons. Reagan would be booted aside today (raised the debt limit 19 times, raised taxes three times, increased spending tremendously). And Bush turned out to be a free spending right-wing progressive neo-con big time.

America does not want the Hard Right in the presidency.

Ike was sixty years ago. He also had the virtue of being a war hero at a time when America was emeshed in an unpopular war. It should also be pointed out that back in those days, the Democrats and Republicans were both a lot closer to the center than either party is today.

As for Nixon in 1968. The thing was, most people voted against him in 1968. He beat Humphrey only by 800,000 votes with 10 million going to George Wallace. He took advantage of a schism in the Democratic Coalition started by LBJ supporting Civil Rights legistlation. So, no, people weren't enthusastic about Nixon's "moderation" in 1968.

Now, for Bush-41. He ONLY won in 1988 because of Reagan's endorsement and because he mouthed the Reagan words. By 1992, Conservatives saw him for what he was, a government growing, liberal wannabe who put liberals in the courts.

Incidently, I'm probably more centrist than hard right.

I just really, really, really hate Mitt Romney. If his name wasn't Mitt Romney and he wasn't LDS, I probably wouldn't have as much of a problem with him. If his name was, let's say, Chris Christie, I could probably get behind him.

 

[JoeB131]

A far- right candidate won't get Independent votes. JakeStarkey is right.

Not hardly. YOu really think the 10% in the middle is going to care about that?

They are going to care who they think can get the job done and who'd they'd like to have a beer with.

And that guy isn't Romney.

You guys work on the faulty assumtion (and by you guys, I mean both liberals and conservatives) that people work on partisan considerations, just like you do.

that 10% in the middle who decide elections are going to vote based on whether they like the guy on a personal level, and how they feel about their personal situation, and whether the guy inspires confidence.

The thing is, every argument from a Jake or an Amelia that is pro-Romney is always couched on why (Perry/Bachmann/whoever) is worse, not why Romney is particularly good.

The other key thing is to have your based enthused.. and the base isn't thrilled with the Android from Kolob in the least.

 

[JoeB131]

I want to throw one more thing out here about why Romney would be a horrible candidate.

Two things that we know that Obama is going to do to distract attention from the fact the economy has not gotten better on his watch. - He's going to play the race card, getting the GOP to walk on very thin eggshells in criticizing him personally while he excites the African-American and Hispanic votes, and he's going to play the class warfare card.

So how is Mitt a bad candidate if he does that?

Well, Mitt has already been caught demagouging the race issue by going after Perry on immigration. It doesn't help that his religion considers dark skin to be a "curse" from God and didn't admit blacks to full membership until 1978. Does anyone think that Romney is going to do better amongst Hispanics than John McCain did? I just don't see how it happens.

On the class warfare issue.. Uh, yeah. Mitt Romney is making his FOURTH mansion larger because at 10 million, it wasn't big enough for him. That's going to play REALLY good with some guy with an underwater mortgage who is struggling to make the payments because he had to take a job with a lower salary.

 

[The T]

Joe can't see it is the problem, which is that we will lose to Obama if we don't run Romney. Perry can't recover now. Crazy Texas moron. He was told that what worked in Texas was not transferrable to the nation for him. What Bush did, he can't do, and he hates Rove for telling him so to his face. Fuck him. The far right has nothing to offer and never has had anything to offer in this presidence of worth.

Face the facts, JoeB.

You see, I don't buy that.

Conservatives- Reagan, Bush-41, Bush-43 - Win

Moderates - Ford, Dole, McCain- Lose

It's simple math. If you agree that the other guys is right about the right, you aren't presenting a viable alternative. You're pretty much conceding the floor to him. That never works.

Now maybe the establishment might be able to foist Romney on the party, but right now, they look like they are pretty desperate to get Chris Christie in. So on some level, they know the Weird Mormon Robot is a loser for them.

(And honestly, I could live with Christie pretty well.)

Romney will lose Tea Partiers. He'll lose Evangelicals. He'll lose Hispanics. Saying to major constituent groups - "Suck it up, you lost" doesn't get you anywhere.

Why do you think McCain picked Palin? Because his internal polling showed him that Conservatives were going to stay home and not bother. She helped, but not enough to get him to win.

And I start to think on some level, maybe the establishment doesn't want to win, that they know the problems are largely unfixable in a democratic model, and might as well let Obama have the blame when it completely falls apart.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Every argument from JoeB for Perry/whoever is phrased in a mismatch of history that is not accurate.

JoeB, my old friend, is now terrified that Mitt is going to sweep the Hard right.