"Romney says Obama failed America"

[elvis]

Romney is our only shot.

If Romney is so great, why was McCain the Republican nominee in 2008?? Just wondering. And how has Romney changed, since then, that would now make him the one Republicans want to be their nominee in the 2012 election?? Again, just wondering.

I never said he was great. I am saying is the only one with a chance to beat obama.

 

[Political Junky]

Run, Huckabee, run. Another fool who believes dinosaurs walked with humans on earth 6,000 years ago.

 

[rdean]

Romney says Obama failed America - Yahoo! News


Sounds like he is getting ready to run for president already. I could not agree more with this:

Republicans accuse Obama of being arrogant. Frankly, I could never see it. Romney on the other hand belittled the sacrifice of American soldiers by saying what his sons were doing was "more important".

Romney: My sons aren't in military, but are serving nation by 'helping me get elected' - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected

What Romney is "required" to wear under his "Brooke's Brothers Suit".

he never said that what his sons were doing was more important, at least not according to your link.

it's not nice to lie, and it's stupid to lie when you can be so easily caught at it.

it's so simple, even a republican scientist could get it.

style points for the bigotry, btw.

Romney's actual quote:

"The good news is, we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are adults. They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ... And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

When you choose one of two actions, do you choose the "LEAST" important? Or the "MOST" important.

All 5 sons are of military age. Romney and all five sons support sending Americans off to die in Iraq. But their choice wasn't in helping those other Americans, but rather, in helping Romney get elected. So that was the "least" important thing they could do? Lucky he didn't win. Wouldn't you say?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Failed? Romney failed to convince Republicans he was a better choice than John McCain (who is apparently in attendance at CPAC in the form of a punching bag).

Failed?

You mean like your hero Pretty Boy Edwards failed in his bid? Like how he failed his wife?

That kind of "failed"?

No kind of like Obama won. Get over it.

 

[Rinata]

Romney is our only shot.

If Romney is so great, why was McCain the Republican nominee in 2008?? Just wondering. And how has Romney changed, since then, that would now make him the one Republicans want to be their nominee in the 2012 election?? Again, just wondering.

Interesting question, IMHO the GOP picked the worst possible nominee out of the field of candidates in 2008, since long time senators tend to make terrible presidential candidates (I'm not sure what it is but I suspect it has something to do with the brain-damaging pomposity that long term exposure to the "100-club" of the senate induces), not that Romney was the ideal candidate for the GOP but I suspect he would have fared far better against Barak Obama than John McCain did.

I'm sure that's true. But I thought one of the reasons the GOP didn't want Romney is because he is a Mormon. I think people have to get over that.

I did not understand when I was a kid why it was such a big deal that JFK was Catholic. It was all the adults talked about. But he became prez and the sky didn't fall in. Of course I don't like Romney, but he should be stopped by votes not his religious beliefs.

 

[Dr.House]

Failed? Romney failed to convince Republicans he was a better choice than John McCain (who is apparently in attendance at CPAC in the form of a punching bag).

Failed?

You mean like your hero Pretty Boy Edwards failed in his bid? Like how he failed his wife?

That kind of "failed"?

No kind of like 0bama won. Get over it.

so you believe your hero Edwards didn't "fail"?

 

[Zander]

If Romney is so great, why was McCain the Republican nominee in 2008?? Just wondering. And how has Romney changed, since then, that would now make him the one Republicans want to be their nominee in the 2012 election?? Again, just wondering.

Interesting question, IMHO the GOP picked the worst possible nominee out of the field of candidates in 2008, since long time senators tend to make terrible presidential candidates (I'm not sure what it is but I suspect it has something to do with the brain-damaging pomposity that long term exposure to the "100-club" of the senate induces), not that Romney was the ideal candidate for the GOP but I suspect he would have fared far better against Barak Obama than John McCain did.

I'm sure that's true. But I thought one of the reasons the GOP didn't want Romney is because he is a Mormon. I think people have to get over that.

I did not understand when I was a kid why it was such a big deal that JFK was Catholic. It was all the adults talked about. But he became prez and the sky didn't fall in. Of course I don't like Romney, but he should be stopped by votes not his religious beliefs.

Personally, I don't think his Mormon beliefs held him back. He ran too clean of a campaign. He should have been the nominee, but he was sabotaged by McCain and Huckabee when they pooled their cauci and caused him to lose West Virginia.

The West Virginia Republican caucuses took place on February 5, 2008 to select 18 delegates to the 2008 Republican National Convention.[1] An additional nine delegates were selected in a primary election on May 13, 2008, for a total of 27 delegates to the national convention.[1] Mike Huckabee won the caucuses, and John McCain later won the primary.

Romney entered the caucus with the most pledged convention-goers, but delegates for McCain defected to Huckabee.[2] In the first round of caucusing, the results were Romney 464, Huckabee 375, McCain 176, Paul 118, Giuliani 0. Since no candidate had a majority, Giuliani dropped out and the delegates took a second vote. At this second vote, most Paul and McCain supporters, reportedly acting on commands from their coordinators, shifted to Huckabee, ensuring him the majority.[3] As a result of a deal with Huckabee's camp, Paul's delegates swung to Huckabee in exchange for 3 of the State's 18 national delegates. [4]

McCain needed to stop Romney if he was to have any chance, so he cut a deal with Huckabee. The Liberal media then kicked in with dozens of polls showing that "McCain" was the only candidate who could beat Hillary or Obama. The rest is history....

 

[del]

Republicans accuse Obama of being arrogant. Frankly, I could never see it. Romney on the other hand belittled the sacrifice of American soldiers by saying what his sons were doing was "more important".

Romney: My sons aren't in military, but are serving nation by 'helping me get elected' - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected

What Romney is "required" to wear under his "Brooke's Brothers Suit".

he never said that what his sons were doing was more important, at least not according to your link.

it's not nice to lie, and it's stupid to lie when you can be so easily caught at it.

it's so simple, even a republican scientist could get it.

style points for the bigotry, btw.

Romney's actual quote:

"The good news is, we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are adults. They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ... And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

When you choose one of two actions, do you choose the "LEAST" important? Or the "MOST" important.

All 5 sons are of military age. Romney and all five sons support sending Americans off to die in Iraq. But their choice wasn't in helping those other Americans, but rather, in helping Romney get elected. So that was the "least" important thing they could do? Lucky he didn't win. Wouldn't you say?

i'd say you're still a liar, but i'll admit that i was wrong in saying that you're stupid.

stupid would be an upgrade.

 

[elvis]

he never said that what his sons were doing was more important, at least not according to your link.

it's not nice to lie, and it's stupid to lie when you can be so easily caught at it.

it's so simple, even a republican scientist could get it.

style points for the bigotry, btw.

Romney's actual quote:

"The good news is, we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are adults. They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ... And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

When you choose one of two actions, do you choose the "LEAST" important? Or the "MOST" important.

All 5 sons are of military age. Romney and all five sons support sending Americans off to die in Iraq. But their choice wasn't in helping those other Americans, but rather, in helping Romney get elected. So that was the "least" important thing they could do? Lucky he didn't win. Wouldn't you say?

i'd say you're still a liar, but i'll admit that i was wrong in saying that you're stupid.

stupid would be an upgrade.

holy ****. that means you'll have to change the entire poll you created.

 

[del]

Romney's actual quote:

"The good news is, we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are adults. They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ... And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

When you choose one of two actions, do you choose the "LEAST" important? Or the "MOST" important.

All 5 sons are of military age. Romney and all five sons support sending Americans off to die in Iraq. But their choice wasn't in helping those other Americans, but rather, in helping Romney get elected. So that was the "least" important thing they could do? Lucky he didn't win. Wouldn't you say?

i'd say you're still a liar, but i'll admit that i was wrong in saying that you're stupid.

stupid would be an upgrade.

holy ****. that means you'll have to change the entire poll you created.

fortunately, i haven't voted in it yet.

 

[MIPS]

If Romney is so great, why was McCain the Republican nominee in 2008?? Just wondering. And how has Romney changed, since then, that would now make him the one Republicans want to be their nominee in the 2012 election?? Again, just wondering.

Interesting question, IMHO the GOP picked the worst possible nominee out of the field of candidates in 2008, since long time senators tend to make terrible presidential candidates (I'm not sure what it is but I suspect it has something to do with the brain-damaging pomposity that long term exposure to the "100-club" of the senate induces), not that Romney was the ideal candidate for the GOP but I suspect he would have fared far better against Barak Obama than John McCain did.

I'm sure that's true. But I thought one of the reasons the GOP didn't want Romney is because he is a Mormon. I think people have to get over that.

I did not understand when I was a kid why it was such a big deal that JFK was Catholic. It was all the adults talked about. But he became prez and the sky didn't fall in. Of course I don't like Romney, but he should be stopped by votes not his religious beliefs.

Agreed, I think it's unfortunate that a persons religious beliefs (or lack thereof) tend to play such a large role in many elections, I guess in a nations where so many people like to wear their religion on the sleeves it isn't practical to expect anything different but one can always hope.

 

[Rinata]

Interesting question, IMHO the GOP picked the worst possible nominee out of the field of candidates in 2008, since long time senators tend to make terrible presidential candidates (I'm not sure what it is but I suspect it has something to do with the brain-damaging pomposity that long term exposure to the "100-club" of the senate induces), not that Romney was the ideal candidate for the GOP but I suspect he would have fared far better against Barak Obama than John McCain did.

I'm sure that's true. But I thought one of the reasons the GOP didn't want Romney is because he is a Mormon. I think people have to get over that.

I did not understand when I was a kid why it was such a big deal that JFK was Catholic. It was all the adults talked about. But he became prez and the sky didn't fall in. Of course I don't like Romney, but he should be stopped by votes not his religious beliefs.

Personally, I don't think his Mormon beliefs held him back. He ran too clean of a campaign. He should have been the nominee, but he was sabotaged by McCain and Huckabee when they pooled their cauci and caused him to lose West Virginia.

The West Virginia Republican caucuses took place on February 5, 2008 to select 18 delegates to the 2008 Republican National Convention.[1] An additional nine delegates were selected in a primary election on May 13, 2008, for a total of 27 delegates to the national convention.[1] Mike Huckabee won the caucuses, and John McCain later won the primary.

Romney entered the caucus with the most pledged convention-goers, but delegates for McCain defected to Huckabee.[2] In the first round of caucusing, the results were Romney 464, Huckabee 375, McCain 176, Paul 118, Giuliani 0. Since no candidate had a majority, Giuliani dropped out and the delegates took a second vote. At this second vote, most Paul and McCain supporters, reportedly acting on commands from their coordinators, shifted to Huckabee, ensuring him the majority.[3] As a result of a deal with Huckabee's camp, Paul's delegates swung to Huckabee in exchange for 3 of the State's 18 national delegates. [4]

McCain needed to stop Romney if he was to have any chance, so he cut a deal with Huckabee. The Liberal media then kicked in with dozens of polls showing that "McCain" was the only candidate who could beat Hillary or Obama. The rest is history....

I remember a lot of controversy about his being Morman. It bothered some people. Check this out, a really good article by Peggy Noonan:

"It is true that some in his campaign thought a speech risky, but others saw it as an opportunity, and a first draft was ready last March. In certain ways Mr. Romney had felt a tugging resistance: I've been in public life--served as governor, run the Olympics, run a business. I have to do a speech saying my faith won't distort my leadership?

It is called his JFK speech, but in many ways JFK had it easier than Mr. Romney does now. The Catholic Church was the single biggest Christian denomination in America, representing 30% of the population (Mormons: 2%, six million). Americans who had never met a Catholic in 1920 had by 1960 fought side by side with them in World War II and sat with them in college under the GI bill. JFK had always signaled that he held his faith lightly, not with furrow-browed earnestness. He had one great question to answer: Would he let the Vatican control him? As if. And although some would vote against him because he was Catholic, some would vote for him for the same reason, and they lived in the cities and suburbs of the industrial states.

Mr. Romney gave the speech Thursday morning. How did he do?

Very, very well. He made himself some history. The words he said will likely have a real and positive impact on his fortunes. The speech's main and immediate achievement is that foes of his faith will now have to defend their thinking, in public. But what can they say to counter his high-minded arguments? "Mormons have cooties"?

Peggy Noonan - WSJ.com

Isn't that great???

 

[Political Junky]

I certainly hang on anything Romney says. No matter what person he is at the time.

 

[Christopher]

Republicans accuse Obama of being arrogant. Frankly, I could never see it. Romney on the other hand belittled the sacrifice of American soldiers by saying what his sons were doing was "more important".

Romney: My sons aren't in military, but are serving nation by 'helping me get elected' - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com

And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected

What Romney is "required" to wear under his "Brooke's Brothers Suit".

he never said that what his sons were doing was more important, at least not according to your link.

it's not nice to lie, and it's stupid to lie when you can be so easily caught at it.

it's so simple, even a republican scientist could get it.

style points for the bigotry, btw.

Romney's actual quote:

"The good news is, we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are adults. They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ... And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

When you choose one of two actions, do you choose the "LEAST" important? Or the "MOST" important.

All 5 sons are of military age. Romney and all five sons support sending Americans off to die in Iraq. But their choice wasn't in helping those other Americans, but rather, in helping Romney get elected. So that was the "least" important thing they could do? Lucky he didn't win. Wouldn't you say?

Are you really serious? This is your beef with Romney? That he didn’t force his sons to join the armed forces? If I knew someone that forced such a thing on their sons, I would say that person is doing the wrong thing. He let them make their own decision and what was the most important to them.

Using your logic, we should assume that all politicians who were/are against the war should force their children to join the Peace Corp.

Hatred, resentment, bigotry, or whatever else it is that is fueling your response here has seriously clouded your logic.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I don't know who the Republican nominee will be. It is far to early to tell. Whomever steps up will have to be a real fiscal conservative though. The country can't take another big spender.

At any rate, come 2012 the economy will be in such a shambles that an open faced ham sandwich could beat Obama. I see Obama going the way of Jimmy Carter - a miserable, disgraced failure. Maybe after he is shown the door he'll open a peanut farm? It would be his first experience with capitalism.

The 1980 election was MUCH closer than it should have been.. My point is that incumbents don't lose very easily.

Carter lost because he mismanaged the economy and was weak with the hostage situation in Iran. His sweater talks didn't help either.

Obama will lose because he is a one man economic train wreck. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the "stimulus" was a waste of money and that Obama is spending us into OBLIVION. That is going to be very difficult to overcome.

Also, these days we have access to every single broken promise that Obama has made. When he is confronted with all his lies and broken promise he'll be - but but but but but, umm umm umm umm ahhh ahh ahhhing - all over himself. Times have changed. The mood of the country has changed. People are pissed. He's in for a serious battle.

Lets look back
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA]YouTube - President Jimmy Carter - Address to the Nation on Energy[/ame]

 

[geauxtohell]

Agreed. Or Rudy.

rudy couldn't get more than 2% of the vote last time.

his day's past.

I think Michael Savage is an ass, but he was right when he said that "Rudy won't play west of the Hudson".

 

[Zander]

I'm sure that's true. But I thought one of the reasons the GOP didn't want Romney is because he is a Mormon. I think people have to get over that.

I did not understand when I was a kid why it was such a big deal that JFK was Catholic. It was all the adults talked about. But he became prez and the sky didn't fall in. Of course I don't like Romney, but he should be stopped by votes not his religious beliefs.

Personally, I don't think his Mormon beliefs held him back. He ran too clean of a campaign. He should have been the nominee, but he was sabotaged by McCain and Huckabee when they pooled their cauci and caused him to lose West Virginia.

The West Virginia Republican caucuses took place on February 5, 2008 to select 18 delegates to the 2008 Republican National Convention.[1] An additional nine delegates were selected in a primary election on May 13, 2008, for a total of 27 delegates to the national convention.[1] Mike Huckabee won the caucuses, and John McCain later won the primary.

Romney entered the caucus with the most pledged convention-goers, but delegates for McCain defected to Huckabee.[2] In the first round of caucusing, the results were Romney 464, Huckabee 375, McCain 176, Paul 118, Giuliani 0. Since no candidate had a majority, Giuliani dropped out and the delegates took a second vote. At this second vote, most Paul and McCain supporters, reportedly acting on commands from their coordinators, shifted to Huckabee, ensuring him the majority.[3] As a result of a deal with Huckabee's camp, Paul's delegates swung to Huckabee in exchange for 3 of the State's 18 national delegates. [4]

McCain needed to stop Romney if he was to have any chance, so he cut a deal with Huckabee. The Liberal media then kicked in with dozens of polls showing that "McCain" was the only candidate who could beat Hillary or Obama. The rest is history....

I remember a lot of controversy about his being Morman. It bothered some people. Check this out, a really good article by Peggy Noonan:

"It is true that some in his campaign thought a speech risky, but others saw it as an opportunity, and a first draft was ready last March. In certain ways Mr. Romney had felt a tugging resistance: I've been in public life--served as governor, run the Olympics, run a business. I have to do a speech saying my faith won't distort my leadership?

It is called his JFK speech, but in many ways JFK had it easier than Mr. Romney does now. The Catholic Church was the single biggest Christian denomination in America, representing 30% of the population (Mormons: 2%, six million). Americans who had never met a Catholic in 1920 had by 1960 fought side by side with them in World War II and sat with them in college under the GI bill. JFK had always signaled that he held his faith lightly, not with furrow-browed earnestness. He had one great question to answer: Would he let the Vatican control him? As if. And although some would vote against him because he was Catholic, some would vote for him for the same reason, and they lived in the cities and suburbs of the industrial states.

Mr. Romney gave the speech Thursday morning. How did he do?

Very, very well. He made himself some history. The words he said will likely have a real and positive impact on his fortunes. The speech's main and immediate achievement is that foes of his faith will now have to defend their thinking, in public. But what can they say to counter his high-minded arguments? "Mormons have cooties"?

Peggy Noonan - WSJ.com

Isn't that great???

You might be right. I live out west, in Los Angeles. I know many Mormon people and quite honestly, they are just regular people. My familiarity with them effects my viewpoint.

 

[rdean]

he never said that what his sons were doing was more important, at least not according to your link.

it's not nice to lie, and it's stupid to lie when you can be so easily caught at it.

it's so simple, even a republican scientist could get it.

style points for the bigotry, btw.

Romney's actual quote:

"The good news is, we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are adults. They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ... And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

When you choose one of two actions, do you choose the "LEAST" important? Or the "MOST" important.

All 5 sons are of military age. Romney and all five sons support sending Americans off to die in Iraq. But their choice wasn't in helping those other Americans, but rather, in helping Romney get elected. So that was the "least" important thing they could do? Lucky he didn't win. Wouldn't you say?

Are you really serious? This is your beef with Romney? That he didn’t force his sons to join the armed forces? If I knew someone that forced such a thing on their sons, I would say that person is doing the wrong thing. He let them make their own decision and what was the most important to them.

Using your logic, we should assume that all politicians who were/are against the war should force their children to join the Peace Corp.

Hatred, resentment, bigotry, or whatever else it is that is fueling your response here has seriously clouded your logic.

Romney was asked if he supported the Iraqi war and he said he did.

Romney was asked if his sons, all of military age, would go to Iraq to fight in a war he supports?

His answer, "my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected".

It just shows where their priorities are. He supports the Iraq war and so do his sons, just not enough to go there and fight. Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Zander]

Romney's actual quote:

"The good news is, we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are adults. They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ... And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

When you choose one of two actions, do you choose the "LEAST" important? Or the "MOST" important.

All 5 sons are of military age. Romney and all five sons support sending Americans off to die in Iraq. But their choice wasn't in helping those other Americans, but rather, in helping Romney get elected. So that was the "least" important thing they could do? Lucky he didn't win. Wouldn't you say?

Are you really serious? This is your beef with Romney? That he didn’t force his sons to join the armed forces? If I knew someone that forced such a thing on their sons, I would say that person is doing the wrong thing. He let them make their own decision and what was the most important to them.

Using your logic, we should assume that all politicians who were/are against the war should force their children to join the Peace Corp.

Hatred, resentment, bigotry, or whatever else it is that is fueling your response here has seriously clouded your logic.

Romney was asked if he supported the Iraqi war and he said he did.

Romney was asked if his sons, all of military age, would go to Iraq to fight in a war he supports?

His answer, "my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected".

It just shows where their priorities are. He supports the Iraq war and so do his sons, just not enough to go there and fight. Seems pretty clear to me.

You're really grasping at straws.......

 

[elvis]

Are you really serious? This is your beef with Romney? That he didn’t force his sons to join the armed forces? If I knew someone that forced such a thing on their sons, I would say that person is doing the wrong thing. He let them make their own decision and what was the most important to them.

Using your logic, we should assume that all politicians who were/are against the war should force their children to join the Peace Corp.

Hatred, resentment, bigotry, or whatever else it is that is fueling your response here has seriously clouded your logic.

Romney was asked if he supported the Iraqi war and he said he did.

Romney was asked if his sons, all of military age, would go to Iraq to fight in a war he supports?

His answer, "my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected".

It just shows where their priorities are. He supports the Iraq war and so do his sons, just not enough to go there and fight. Seems pretty clear to me.

You're really grasping at straws.......

Zona's straw to be exact.