Went to a Romney event tonight

[Synthaholic]

Avatar must have seen him when he was freshly shaken...

Actual conversation I had with a friend, about 30 minutes ago when she invited me over for a beer:



Her: Be careful on the drive - we're under a severe weather warning.

Me: Is that anything like Mitt being 'severely conservative'?

Her: If it is, then you've got nothing to worry about.




Cracked me up!

 

[clevergirl]

Yeah, I can see the argument that says "run a moderate and lose." Dole was essentially a sacrificial lamb for Clinton, then there was McCain, now Mitt.

Interesting political thought exercise - why do so many Republicans defer to the "safer" candidate, despite the evidence that it doesn't work? In this case, though, if Santorum is the most conservative of the GOP candidates, I can see where they'd think he couldn't win.

.

Santorum is the most socially conservative candidate on record- Romney has a fiscally conservative record in the private sector- and given he had an 80% liberal democrat legislature who drove budgets and policy in MA. , his record there is conservative as well. What we have with Mitt is a careful and quiet man- calm; steady; focused-

Romney is our best hope not only in beating Obama, but in righting our nation and getting her back on track- at least economically.

If Romney was the best the GOP could come up with, it deserves to go the way of teh Whigs.

And please, if Romney's excuse for being a liberal who imposed socialized medicine and gay marriage on his state, because, hey, he didn't have a choice, what's he going to do if he has a Democratic Congress.

He did not "impose" anything- The voters of MA wanted the health care bill he signed- What part of that do you fail to comprehend? As to equality for homosexuals he is not a lone conservative on that issue-

Like I said, and again what you seem to be struggling with, is that Santorum is the "social conservative". Romney has handled the gay issues in the same manner as Obama- It is a hot button and he smartly placates- because like Obama, he does not want to get politically tangled up in it- Remember Obama is "personally" against gay marriage, but believes that it is a state rights issue.

 

[ecinicola]

i will not vote for a failure. Obama has failed all of us miserably. I am not that dumb to put a failure back in office. I may not like the other candidates but they are better then what we have not. and Obama is hurting all of us Dem's and Republicans.....he doesn't care. He has been the worst leader this country ever elected. No Vote for Obama.

 

[dblack]

i will not vote for a failure. Obama has failed all of us miserably. I am not that dumb to put a failure back in office. I may not like the other candidates but they are better then what we have not. and Obama is hurting all of us Dem's and Republicans.....he doesn't care. He has been the worst leader this country ever elected. No Vote for Obama.

Agreed. And since Romney is his virtual clone, no vote for him.

 

[dblack]

Avatar must have seen him when he was freshly shaken...

At least Romney has a record to run on. What about Obama's record did he run on in 2008? He seriously ran on f'ing slogans and America's retarded fascination with electing a black president.

Yeah.. Romney has a record of selling his constituency out to the insurance lobby - and making it stick!

Go team!

 

[tyroneweaver]

Did Romney tell Jabari Parker to go to BYU

 

[Avorysuds]

Man this is so retarded... Yes Avatar, Mitt will get 40% of the vote just because there is an R next to his name, grats. The Medi did not make up that less people are voting for him 4 years later than they did when he ran in 2008.

It's gonna be McCain all over again.

 

[Unkotare]

Man this is so retarded... Yes Avatar, Mitt will get 40% of the vote just because there is an R next to his name, grats. The Medi did not make up that less people are voting for him 4 years later than they did when he ran in 2008.

It's gonna be McCain all over again.

You'll come back and own up to this prediction after the election, right?

 

[clevergirl]

Man this is so retarded... Yes Avatar, Mitt will get 40% of the vote just because there is an R next to his name, grats. The Medi did not make up that less people are voting for him 4 years later than they did when he ran in 2008.

It's gonna be McCain all over again.

Don't be such a dope~ This is going to be nothing like 2008

Thursday, April 05, 2012

In a hypothetical Election 2012 match up, Mitt Romney attracts 47% of the vote, while President Obama earns 45%. If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee, the president leads 46% to 44%. Match up results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Both Republicans lead the president in Montana.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. Obama's numbers are almost always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This isn't about national polls, it's about electoral votes.

If you follow polls (don't blame you if you don't, especially this early), I'd keep an eye on the swing states. Right now Obama has the advantage, at least with independents: Poll: Swing-state independents breaking for Obama over Romney - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


.

 

[Sarah G]

.

This isn't about national polls, it's about electoral votes.

If you follow polls (don't blame you if you don't, especially this early), I'd keep an eye on the swing states. Right now Obama has the advantage, at least with independents: Poll: Swing-state independents breaking for Obama over Romney - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


.

Obama has the advantage with women as well. Romney has a real problem relating to people generally. When he get's to debating Obama, he is going to be in trouble. Hillary is one of the best debaters ever and Obama really held his own.

Romney's had a rough go and he really did hang in there, it is his lies regarding his own and Obama's record that will come back to bite him.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

.

This isn't about national polls, it's about electoral votes.

If you follow polls (don't blame you if you don't, especially this early), I'd keep an eye on the swing states. Right now Obama has the advantage, at least with independents: Poll: Swing-state independents breaking for Obama over Romney - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


.

Obama has the advantage with women as well. Romney has a real problem relating to people generally. When he get's to debating Obama, he is going to be in trouble. Hillary is one of the best debaters ever and Obama really held his own.

Romney's had a rough go and he really did hang in there, it is his lies regarding his own and Obama's record that will come back to bite him.

The article states that Romney had a 5 percent lead among independent women at the end of 2011 and he is at a 11 percent deficit now. That's really just the contraceptive issue kicking in (thanks in part to Santorum and Limbauh's dumassery). But the Dems were playing tricks and acting in devious ways. Romney will tear Obama a new one when that issue comes up in the debate.

In the meantime, Obama is trying to key in on so-called women's issues. The Masters golf course in Augusta, GA doesn't have women members. Obama came out and said women should be admitted. He knew that by doing so the press would then ask Romney for an opinion. They hoped he'd play to the base and say no; a private business can do what they want and thereby put the discrimination noose on his neck. But Romney saw it a mile away and he just said, yea women should be allowed; we're not going to let this election be about your childish come ons; but rather your failed economy and extreme positions.

 

[JoeB131]

If Romney was the best the GOP could come up with, it deserves to go the way of teh Whigs.

And please, if Romney's excuse for being a liberal who imposed socialized medicine and gay marriage on his state, because, hey, he didn't have a choice, what's he going to do if he has a Democratic Congress.

He did not "impose" anything- The voters of MA wanted the health care bill he signed- What part of that do you fail to comprehend? As to equality for homosexuals he is not a lone conservative on that issue-

Like I said, and again what you seem to be struggling with, is that Santorum is the "social conservative". Romney has handled the gay issues in the same manner as Obama- It is a hot button and he smartly placates- because like Obama, he does not want to get politically tangled up in it- Remember Obama is "personally" against gay marriage, but believes that it is a state rights issue.

Oh, frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage one way or the other. Probably should go ahead and have it, because why should just the straights have to suffer.

My problem with it is what a phony it shows Romney to be. He says what he has to say to the audience he speaks to. When he was running in Mass, he said he'd be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy and when the court imposed gay marriage, he did nothing to stop it. Then when he started trying to convince the Evagelicals in Iowa to trust him, he was all against gay marriage.

Same with health insurance. He was all for universal health insurance, and as late as 2009 was tauting his plan as a model for the nation. Then Obama actually did just that, and the Teabaggers and other misdirected rage types on the right decided that they missed being exploited by the insurance industry. Then he was all against his own awesome health care plan.

(Incidently, I'm against ObamaRomneyCare because it doesn't really address the underlying problem, the fact that medical costs are increasing at three times the rate of inflation.)

You could say the same about Abortion, the Auto Bailout, Ronald Reagan. His position on issues is completely based on who he is trying to address. And so when his own advisors compare him to an etch-a-sketch, everyone kind of gets it.

You might not like Obama, but you know where he stands. And the same thing can be said about Santorum.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Gee, GG............you are really, really clever. If all Romney supporters are as politically astute as you, Obama doesn't stand a chance! You are not supposed to notice when the Dems are being devious. Are you in direct communication with the Romney camp? We can't allow that. You can expect your user account here to be deleted by the Obama censorship machine in three.....two....one..........

 

[JoeB131]

The article states that Romney had a 5 percent lead among independent women at the end of 2011 and he is at a 11 percent deficit now. That's really just the contraceptive issue kicking in (thanks in part to Santorum and Limbauh's dumassery). But the Dems were playing tricks and acting in devious ways. Romney will tear Obama a new one when that issue comes up in the debate.

In the meantime, Obama is trying to key in on so-called women's issues. The Masters golf course in Augusta, GA doesn't have women members. Obama came out and said women should be admitted. He knew that by doing so the press would then ask Romney for an opinion. They hoped he'd play to the base and say no; a private business can do what they want and thereby put the discrimination noose on his neck. But Romney saw it a mile away and he just said, yea women should be allowed; we're not going to let this election be about your childish come ons; but rather your failed economy and extreme positions.

Oooohkay, if you want to blame Romney's problems on Santorum, you can do that.

Why didn't Romney come out and condemn Limbaugh when he was saying the "dumaass" stuff? That's why Romney is in trouble. He was trying to have it both ways on the issue. Trying to play up to the zealots who want to tell women what to do with their own bodies while trying to not take too strong a stand on anything.

The whole GOP has been stepping into it on contraception, from siding with the Bishops on the birth control coverage to insisting women get an a ultrasound when they want an abortion to passing rather silly "personhood" laws. It's really the chickens coming home to roost for the GOP. They've been playing this nonsense since 1980, but here we are, 32 years on, and most women have accepted they should be the ones controlling their bodies, not the church, the government or their employer.

 

[Sarah G]

.

This isn't about national polls, it's about electoral votes.

If you follow polls (don't blame you if you don't, especially this early), I'd keep an eye on the swing states. Right now Obama has the advantage, at least with independents: Poll: Swing-state independents breaking for Obama over Romney - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


.

Obama has the advantage with women as well. Romney has a real problem relating to people generally. When he get's to debating Obama, he is going to be in trouble. Hillary is one of the best debaters ever and Obama really held his own.

Romney's had a rough go and he really did hang in there, it is his lies regarding his own and Obama's record that will come back to bite him.

The article states that Romney had a 5 percent lead among independent women at the end of 2011 and he is at a 11 percent deficit now. That's really just the contraceptive issue kicking in (thanks in part to Santorum and Limbauh's dumassery). But the Dems were playing tricks and acting in devious ways. Romney will tear Obama a new one when that issue comes up in the debate.

In the meantime, Obama is trying to key in on so-called women's issues. The Masters golf course in Augusta, GA doesn't have women members. Obama came out and said women should be admitted. He knew that by doing so the press would then ask Romney for an opinion. They hoped he'd play to the base and say no; a private business can do what they want and thereby put the discrimination noose on his neck. But Romney saw it a mile away and he just said, yea women should be allowed; we're not going to let this election be about your childish come ons; but rather your failed economy and extreme positions.

Romney doesn't have a demographic, that's how bad he really is. What you are trying to convey is a mish mash of entirely made up concepts. Romney is a no go, a non starter that even his own party can't stand.

 

[dblack]

He did not "impose" anything- The voters of MA wanted the health care bill he signed ...

Not all of them. And therein lies the problem. This is why we value constitutionally limited government. It prevents the majority from forcing it's will on the minority merely because they want something. The majority might think that insurance is a good idea, but that doesn't give them the right to force others to buy it too just so their prices will come down.

The principle is the same whether applied at the state or the federal level. Technically, Romneycare may be considered constitutional (although a proper application of the fourteenth amendment might find otherwise) and Obamacare might be overruled as un-constitutional, but it doesn't change the fact that they rest on exactly the same notion - that the majority can tell the minority what to buy.

That fact that Romney doesn't get this, and that Republicans are lining up behind him, puts the lie to their phony claims of liberty and limited government. Republicans are big-government corporatists just like the Democrats.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Damn, dblack.....you talk as though the government is trying to make you buy broccoli.

 

[JoeB131]

He did not "impose" anything- The voters of MA wanted the health care bill he signed ...

Not all of them. And therein lies the problem. This is why we value constitutionally limited government. It prevents the majority from forcing it's will on the minority merely because they want something. The majority might think that insurance is a good idea, but that doesn't give them the right to force others to buy it too just so their prices will come down.

The principle is the same whether applied at the state or the federal level. Technically, Romneycare may be considered constitutional (although a proper application of the fourteenth amendment might find otherwise) and Obamacare might be overruled as un-constitutional, but it doesn't change the fact that they rest on exactly the same notion - that the majority can tell the minority what to buy.

That fact that Romney doesn't get this, and that Republicans are lining up behind him, puts the lie to their phony claims of liberty and limited government. Republicans are big-government corporatists just like the Democrats.

Your argument would have validity if we let people who don't buy insurance die.

We don't do that, nor would any sane person want them to. (Although some Americans do indeed die for lack of insurance, and getting problems resolved when they are treatable).

That minority is required to be treated, by law, and the majority that does the right thing and gets insurance ends up paying higher rates. As a result, insurance companies often try to cheat those who did the right thing and paid insurance by either dropping them from plans or declaring things "pre-existing conditions". So it's not like they have no say in what the "minority" chooses to do.

Simple solution. Eliminate private insurance, have universal health care.

 

[dblack]

Your argument would have validity if we let people who don't buy insurance die.

We don't do that, nor would any sane person want them to. (Although some Americans do indeed die for lack of insurance, and getting problems resolved when they are treatable).

That minority is required to be treated, by law, and the majority that does the right thing and gets insurance ends up paying higher rates. As a result, insurance companies often try to cheat those who did the right thing and paid insurance by either dropping them from plans or declaring things "pre-existing conditions". So it's not like they have no say in what the "minority" chooses to do.

Simple solution. Eliminate private insurance, have universal health care.

Two wrongs don't make a right. EMTALA, and other laws forcing doctors to serve others against their will, are blatantly unconstitutional and can easily be dealt with without resorting to mandates. In any case, uncompensated care at emergencies rooms is NOT the primary cause of health care inflation (ironically, insurance IS), and it still doesn't give the majority the right to tell the minority what to buy.