Does Romney have a ceiling?
[Posted by Karl]
There are competing narratives about the Romney campaign. The Romney narrative is that conservative opposition to Romney is fading. The NotRomney narrative is that the various NotRomneys have been hobbled by their own mistakes, bit “if 70% of the party almost despises a mistake-free candidate,” Mitt has deep problems as a candidate. Both narratives run into problems with the available data.
Romney adviser Stuart Stevens claims that Romney beats any of the NotRomneys head-to-head. However, in public polling, Perry beat Romney 49/39 before he stumbled on style and was found wanting by some righties on substance. Last month, Romney beat Perry by a 54/39 split. Last week, Gingrich beat Romney by a whopping 57/24 advantage in a new poll from the blogosphere’s old pal, Eason Jordan.
On the other hand, it is far from clear Romney has a hard ceiling. It’s true that he has been trending down for almost a month in the RCP poll average and seemingly remains stuck in a range. But the lack of a true consensus NotRomney shows more potential upside for Romney. In the last WaPo/ABC poll, as Herman Cain’s numbers were just starting to erode, Mitt got 41% of the first- and second-choice votes; if Cain dropped out, Romney was likely to benefit as much as or more than Newt Gingrich.
Yet there is bad news for Romney even in that poll. 70% of Romney supporters say they could change their minds, much the same level as the various NotRomneys. Moreover, four years ago, a similar WaPo/ABC poll had Romney taking 56% of the first- and second-choice votes against an arguably stronger field of challengers.
Ultimately, the race is not Romney’s to lose — but it’s also not his to win. Mitt’s fate likely remains at the voters’ judgment of each of the NotRomneys. He is well-positioned for a war of attrition, but the outcome may well depend on third- and fourth-choice support.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (0e810f) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:09 amI wonder but that Team R primary turnout might be significantly less next year than the historical average.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:41 amEach of the candidates have positives and negatives. Voters must weigh the good and the bad about each, but in the end, whoever wins the nomination must be supported. And Ron Paul needs to be dissuaded from taking a third party approach.
America can ill afford another four years of the ObamaNation. As bad as the first three years have been, one can only imagine what a second term would portend. The man hobbled with Narcissistic Personality Disorder might well view a second term as an overwhelming mandate for his disastrous policies and he would abuse the executive order action even more than he has during his first term.
ColonelHaiku (09a0f9) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:45 amwhoever wins the nomination must be supported
yes but that’s ONLY because the Democrat is a job-hating socialist gigglefart what is hell-bent on raping our pitifully vulnerable little country for four more years
but if that nominee is Wall Street Romney it will mean that Team R has failed for two election cycles in a row to produce a respectable nominee
and that is VERY troubling
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:57 amYou rang, Sir?
AD-RtR/OS! (503ea7) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:08 amYou also have to consider, in that second-choice evaluation, which leading candidate the departing contestants will endorse. In almost every case (i.e. NotHuntsman), that will be the NotRomney.
BTW, happy, suppose the election comes down to Obama/Clinton, Romney/Huntsman, or the fed-up Tea Party candidate Palin? Do you stay home?
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:11 ammight well view a second term as an overwhelming mandate for his disastrous policies and he would abuse the executive order action even more than he has during his first term.
We could even see an exclusive reliance on recess appointments. The man has utterly no understanding of Karma.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:14 amIf Ron Paul was less kooky on Israel and nation defense and such, he would be a perfect candidate.
Every time I see his face I’m reminded of some white actor impersonating an Asian person back in the 50’s or something.
lee (cae7a3) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:15 amRon Paul reminds me of Pee-wee Herman.
ropelight (62ef71) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:20 amKarl – Are two-thirds of Republican primary voters still signalling undecided in the polls?
Mitt Romney (bf33e9) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:22 amI don’t see Newtster fading as easily as Bachmann and Perry. He’s already a known quantity.
Cain’s supporters aren’t likely to run to Romney. The endorsements of Coulter, Rove, et al., are a kiss of death to them.
Everybody knows we need real, structural change, not a new coat of paint.
The GOP is either an option, or it’s not.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:23 amsuppose the election comes down to Obama/Clinton, Romney/Huntsman, or the fed-up Tea Party candidate Palin? Do you stay home?
that would never happen cause Palin could never get the nomination this cycle –
Think about it. She’s nothing if not ambitious, and I think we’re safe in the assumption that even she was daunted by the polling data.
If she thought she had a realistic chance she would have run.
Simple as that.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 11:39 amGreat post. I especially found it useful where you stated…Ultimately, the race is not Romney’s to lose — but it’s also not his to win.
Stevendev (4b7fb7) — 11/19/2011 @ 12:04 pmYou really think they want to win, putting the most
narciso (ef1619) — 11/19/2011 @ 12:07 pmrisk averse timeserver in top position, consenting to this idiotic soccer scrum of biased debates.
Romney will need a “Nixon in China” moment to sell the deal to the TEA Party/Conservative base of the GOP.
AD-RtR/OS! (503ea7) — 11/19/2011 @ 12:33 pmAbsent that, many of them will sit on their hands and/or vote 3rd-party if the establishment does a cram-down with Mitt as the nominee –
even if he does select a rock-solid conservative as a running-mate.
That road was travelled in ’08:
Been there – done that – got the t-shirt!
The insurmountable trouble for Willard M. Romney is that the Republican party remains full of people who (unlike him) are actual conservatives…conservatives who (unlike him) have the courage of their convictions, and who (unlike him) were enormously energized by the results of the 2010 elections–by the arrival of the Toomeys and the Rubios and all the rest–and who therefore will NEVER surrender that momentum by nominating for president a left-leaning, flip-flopping, upper-class twit. Like him.
Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:06 pmMitt (10)
Nice to see you. There’s about 17% totally undecided, but a whole lot of soft support for the candidates.
Karl (0e810f) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:06 pmAD,
McCain’s least-pressing problem was Republicans staying home. Without either the unrepeatable youth and minority turnouts, or the Bush administration’s financial “oops” (never mind why, the electorate blamed Bush), McCain would have won. He was leading the day TARP was, um, unveiled.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:11 pmMittens is not my first, second, third or even last choice over the SCOAMF.
in fact, as far as i’m concerned, he’s nothing more than SCOAMF Lite, and if he’s the GOP nominee, i’m not voting for him. i can afford to take that principled stand in part because i live here in the PRC, and these idiots are going to vote to re-elect Ear Leader, so my vote won’t matter.
Perry for President 2012.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:14 pmI’m constantly amazed at the conservatives who will sit out the election, or vote 3rd party, if Romney is the nominee. Apparently, for some conservatives it’s more important to defeat Romney than it is to defeat Obama. Four more years of Obama … is that what you want? If Romney is the nominee, I’ll vote for him to defeat Obama. Too bad others can’t see the logic in that.
Sparks (eb2864) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:49 pmI think it’s just that people have to go through all 5 stages of grief first Mr. Sparks
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 1:51 pmRomneycare versus Obamacare. I’m staying home. Romney has to run on his record, and it’s terrible. He may win anyway, but not with my vote.
If after his first term Romney has abolished the Departments of Energy and Education, reformed the tax code, withdraw US support of the UN, etc., then he can have my vote for the second term based on his record. Otherwise, wake me when we get a second, non-Socialist party.
ErisGuy (e3ffad) — 11/19/2011 @ 2:01 pm____________________________________________
There are competing narratives about the Romney campaign.
I don’t care about Romney per se, because at this point in time I’m most concerned about getting President “Goddamn America” out of the White House—no ifs, ands or buts.
If I could be confident that a majority of the electorate in 2012 wouldn’t be doing an impersonation of people in leftist-Banana-Republics like Venezuela or Argentina, or decadent-leftist societies like the ones in various parts of Europe, I’d want a Republican who wasn’t full of the squish of Romney or Perry, or the unpredictable qualities of Cain or Gingrich.
But because I don’t trust what decades of self-entitled, lazy liberalism — chock full of political correctness run amok (Hi, Nidal Hasan!) — have done to the mindset of many people throughout the US, I’m right now perfectly fine with whichever candidate has the wherewithal to beat the “hope and change” embarrassment that currently occupies the Oval Office.
Mark (411533) — 11/19/2011 @ 2:02 pm_____________________________________________
Four more years of Obama … is that what you want?
It will be both ironic and sadly laughable if such people — most certainly if it’s done purposefully or inadvertently — end up making this country even more leftwing. The issue of Supreme Court nominees in the future — all by itself — makes 2012 a year that will truly blow up in certain conservatives’ faces if they play a successful game of spoiler and “my way or the highway.”
If so, from that moment onward, the acronym they’ll deserve if they do eventually complain about the US becoming extremely leftwing and dysfunctional is “STFU.”
Mark (411533) — 11/19/2011 @ 2:14 pmIf romney gets the nom, obama is reelected anyway. Conservatives can’t stand him, liberals won’t vote for a Mormon, libertarians see him as the same as obama, and independents barely tolerate him. He can’t pull support from the middle, and he’ll get no help from the left. Principles matter. If you can hold your nose for Mitt, you could hold it for Newt. Some of us refuse to do either. Obama already beat Romney in 08. Nominate him, and you’ll be responsible for obama’s second term.
ghost (6f9de7) — 11/19/2011 @ 2:19 pmI voted for Dole, and I’m not apologetic, what was the alternative Harry Browne, but if I had my druthers, I’d rather vote for than strictly against,
narciso (ef1619) — 11/19/2011 @ 2:23 pmso it’s OMG-ABO
The irony of mark and sparks demanding conservatives support a demonstrably not conservative candidate, while simultaneously whining about my way or the highway thinking is delicious.
JD (bc52c1) — 11/19/2011 @ 2:27 pmRomney the unloved waits patiently in the foyer for the voter to see he is an acceptable choice, while the voter is stuck in the bathroom vomiting at the thought of being stuck with him for the rest of their lives.
ray (d6346f) — 11/19/2011 @ 2:29 pmSparks–
No, I don’t want a 2nd Obama term. But as a conservative, I’d prefer that to a 1st Romney term. A re-elected Obama would be a mere figurehead, a powerless lame duck, likely with a Republican House and Senate to keep him from doing anyting more significant than attending college basketball games and pardoning Thanksgiving turkeys. The Tea Party would be a strong and motivated opposing force, and Rubio et al would be waiting in the wings for ’16. By contrast, a Romney presidency means we get a spineless RINO whose true bent is left of Lindsay, and who would be striking all sorts of deals w/Reid and Pelosi to prove that “government works” and he can “reach across the aisle”….all as part of his strategy to move left and position himself for re-election. He would ignore conservative Republicans because his election would stand as proof that he didn’t need them! Meanwhile, with Romney in the White House, the Tea Party would be split, disspirited, ineffective. And guys like Rubio would have to wait until ’20….when the pendulum might well be swinging back to the Dems anyway. So yeah, that’s why I’m staying home if Wilard Romney gets our nomination. And don’t talk to me about Supreme Court nominations–I wouldn’t trust Romney as far as I could throw his blueblood ass….after his history of STAUNCH support for abortion, his toxic mess of a health care law, ETC ETC ETC.
Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 11/19/2011 @ 2:41 pmAww can”t we all pretend to love Romney.
Romney is good like Halal food……………ugggggggh gag me.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 2:41 pmComment by Kevin Stafford — 11/19/2011 @ 2:41 pm
Everything you say has a basis in truth; BUT,
AD-RtR/OS! (503ea7) — 11/19/2011 @ 3:43 pmObama would still have the ability to execute executive orders, he would still be putting his people into the executive positions of the Civil Service, he would still be appointing Federal judges.
Unless Boehner and McConnell find a previously misplaced back-bone of steel, there won’t be any Congressional review of those orders, there won’t be any Congressional disapprovals of regulations issued by his minions within the bureaucracy, and we will be much worse off after eight years than we are currently.
And, a re-elected President Obama will still be going on his world-wide apology tours, bowing to potentates that in actuality should be having their backsides kicked.
So, all in all, I’d “reluctantly” give Mitt a chance; but if he temporized and equivocated in what needs to be done to rein in the Leviathan, I would be one of the first demanding that he be Primaried in ’16!
Choosing to sit on one’s hands or to vote for a 3rd party candidate – whichever candidate wins the “R” nomination will ensure another four years of the ObamaNation.
If you choose to do that, you will self-nominate for the 2012 Darwin Award, “Useful Idiot” category.
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/19/2011 @ 3:45 pmFor once I agree with Colonel.
That said I still do not like Romney.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 3:49 pmWell, a lot of us didn’t like “Maverick”, but we voted for him (or against O) anyway.
AD-RtR/OS! (503ea7) — 11/19/2011 @ 3:52 pm_______________________________________________
while simultaneously whining about my way or the highway thinking is delicious.
JD, if a voter thinks Republican candidate A or B is as leftwing as Obama is — or not much less so than the Democrat in the White House — then, yep, that voter truly can think the situation in 2012 will be hopeless.
He or she can sincerely sit out next year’s election to their heart’s content, or vote for a third-party candidate without hesitation. I don’t have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with such a voter being very disturbed at how super liberal the US has become, and then becoming even more disturbed when it becomes super-super liberal. IOW, if he or she doesn’t recognize the finer points on the ideological spectrum — from ultra-liberal, liberal, left-centrist, centrist, right-centrist, conservative to ultra-conservative — then he or she must be super conservative or the type who will have to either grin and bear the greater leftism in America in the 21st century or give up and move out of the US altogether.
BTW, all the Republican candidates regrettably have squishy aspects, and as a forewarning, I’ve noted previously that almost every major blunder made by a Republican has been when they’ve given in to their liberal side. For instance, Ronald Reagan pulling a Jimmy-Carter stunt and secretly negotiating with Iran, George Bush Sr’s “read my lips” and raising taxes, Bush Jr’s “compassionate conservatism” and bloated budgets, and Hoover in the 1930s ratcheting up income taxes to almost the 70-percent range.
Peculiar — and dumb (or corrupt) — liberal tendencies infect the thinking of perhaps almost every human on the planet, and I always keep that in mind when I muse about the best or worse strategies for a candidate or election.
Mark (411533) — 11/19/2011 @ 3:54 pmWhy do I hate enviromentalist libs in both parties?
They smell like Smug.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 4:10 pmIn Hoover’s defense, he was a member of the Progressive Wing of the GOP through most of his political life; but that doesn’t explain his signing of Smoot-Hawley, which was flat-out Protectionism from The Gilded Age.
I think the country would have been better served if the traders on the Street had refrained from jumping out of those windows, and instead had pushed the politicians out in their place.
AD-RtR/OS! (503ea7) — 11/19/2011 @ 4:11 pmKevin Stafford,
I feel your pain because I’m a committed NotRomney voter. But I console myself with the knowledge that if Romney does win, it will be more fun to criticize Romney for four years than to criticize Obama.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/19/2011 @ 4:21 pmI dunno if he has Ceilings?
Does he have illegals who make Ceilings?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 4:23 pmThere is nothing that has happened since 2008 that makes me regret my vote for McCain. I would vote for nearly anyone over Obama. But that does not mean that everyone will. We need to nominate the candidate that 1) has a chance of winning; 2) can be an effective President; and 3) is willing to fight for the change we actually need (more so now than before as we need to undo stuff).
The only two people that satisfy 1 & 2 are Romney and Gingrich. Number 3 leads me to Gingrich, as he has never favored the status quo. He differs from Obama mainly in that his solutions are markets not bureaucrats; people not government.
Elections are blunt instruments of policy, and trying for perfect usually leads to nothing or worse.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/19/2011 @ 4:26 pmHow dare those poor moochers get pepper sprayed for not complying with lawful orders.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 4:28 pmMy play in voting for Palin in 2008 was that the cut-and-runner, Mav, was already the oldest male in his line by a decade or more.
Sucker is still stealing our oxygen, I blew that calculation.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/19/2011 @ 4:39 pmIt seems that Newt is either first of second to many republicans.
Some refuse Perry, Cain, Bachmann, and other not-Romneys. Some refuse Romney. Most find Newt to be an imperfect but acceptable compromise.
I am much happier with Newt than I would be with Romney.
You say this not even knowing who the third party is. Sorry, but Romney is not entitled to anything, anymore than we are entitled to the lavish government entitlements Romney promises us in exchange for votes.
It’s likely whoever the GOP nominates will be the best candidate, but I won’t vote for him if there is a superior third party candidate. I think the GOP needs to be eliminated if it would be replaced with a conservative political party.
I also think calling third party voters idiots is historically ignorant. Third Party voters scared the crap out of the GOP in 1992, and pushed Clinton to triangulate much better on spending. They are the true heroes that led to a trimmer budget in the mid to late 1990s. The GOP has to be reminded from time to time that it’s going too far. In my opinion, the deficits we saw throughout the Bush administration are “too far”.
Is Obama worse than most RINOs? Yes. In the simplistic sense, yes. But every time RINOs run in the place of conservatives they are effectively eliminating the actual solution to our problems. Which is someone fighting against DC, from DC, to make DC inconsequential in our lives, with a balanced budget. So if it took a few election cycles of third party support to replace the GOP with a reform party, that’s actually not so idiotic.
If you’re forced to choose between suicide by gun, suicide by slow acting poison, or a slim chance of replacing the poison option with life, what would you choose?
Those who choose RINOs uber ailes are ignorant of how severe our nation’s situation actually is. They don’t realize (or perhaps don’t care) that status quo policies, such as Romney’s failure to stem the spending in MA because of the mean democrats, is a sure path to economic collapse, and burdening our own kids with a difficult reality.
I’ll still probably vote for the GOP nominee, but I won’t chant stupidly that this is always the only right answer.
"Dustin" (cb3719) — 11/19/2011 @ 5:20 pmI keep forgetting to take the scarequotes off my name.
But heh.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/19/2011 @ 5:24 pmDustin–
Well said. Voting for Romney–notwithstanding any of the tortured arguments above–sets conservatism back, period.
Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 11/19/2011 @ 5:36 pmComment by Dustin — 11/19/2011 @ 5:24 pm
Oh, and here I thought that we had attracted another “Dustin”, one more errudite, and polished, with a comprehensive expansive view of politics and life;
AD-RtR/OS! (503ea7) — 11/19/2011 @ 6:03 pmnot the surely curmudgeon who goes forth in constant combat.
LOL
I deserve that.
🙂
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/19/2011 @ 6:11 pmDustin, I have actually BEEN a 3rd Party candidate, so I do understand your POV. But I’ve come to the conclusion that big-party politics require one to accept the party’s compromises, in the hope that later one gets more of what one wants.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that you have to go along without putting up a good fight. But at the end of the day, you shake hands and go with the victor because otherwise there isn’t a Party.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/19/2011 @ 6:23 pmI take comfort in the knowledge that Wall Street Romney is not as cowardly a poofter as the last Team R nominee.
Baby steps.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 6:27 pmSometimes I’ve expressed that view, Kevin M.
And it’s very reasonable.
But some of our problems have already crossed the point where they are not easy for me to compromise on fixing. A party that won’t curtail spending and cut down entitlements is dooming our kids, and sending us to some major economic problems.
So if there are zero parties available that will fix the problem, and one is standing in the place of a conservative party that would, I’m open to candidates who will do the right thing.
That said, it’s likely I’ll vote for the GOP nominee no matter who he is, because I doubt there will be this mythical third party that presents a better option. If there is, I’ll take it, and we all should take it. It’s not like the GOP wasn’t once one of these other parties too.
I’ll vote who whichever candidate I think is the best, and I wish everyone would do that instead of trying to calculate some fear of the other party into their votes. This is how we are stuck in this rut, of course.
Anyway, I’m not offering a pre mortem. I think the GOP is going to nominate Newt or Perry because Romney does have a ceiling, and in this information era of hyper fast organization, I don’t think the Tea Party is going to rout itself and split to the four winds. I think soon it will be clear who the not-Romney is (Newt?) and that person will be the nominee.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/19/2011 @ 6:34 pmOne of the oddest things I’ve experienced was at a Libertarian Party gathering for the 1994 elections. You would think that a 3rd Party group wouldn’t much care about the House turning decisively from Democrat to Republican, but they did. Very much so.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/19/2011 @ 6:37 pmmeaning they were upset the Rs took the House?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 6:46 pmSorry, but Romney is not entitled to anything, anymore than we are entitled to the lavish government entitlements Romney promises us in exchange for votes.
Who said it would be Romney, you horse’s ass? Whoever the Republican nominee is deserves the thinking person’s vote. Doing anything else – including voting for a third party candidate – virtually guarantees Obama’s re-election.
And whoever does it deserves the terrible results that will undoubtedly result from that act of sheer stupidity.
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/19/2011 @ 7:06 pmDue to the ongoing propaganda and myths spread here about Romney’s fiscal performance as governor, I’m going to provide one link to a report “Substantial Surpluses to Dangerous Deficits:
A Look at State Fiscal Policies 1998-2008” for those who have been unwilling or unable to look at actual facts about Massachusetts. It’s put out by an outfit by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center and has some good time series data to go along with the narrative about what went on in the state over the time period indicated.
Have a good night everybody.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/19/2011 @ 7:07 pmmy understanding is he has upwards of 6 (six) ceilings Mr. Karl
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/19/2011 @ 7:22 pmAnd at least ONE of those ceilings is located within the state where he is registered to vote.
But John McCain has seven ceilings, so he’s way cooler.
Icy (b33de9) — 11/19/2011 @ 7:47 pmSo if we as registered republicans, nominate a candidate like Romney, who can’t win support from his own party, and detracts voters from both the middle and the left, then the people who don’t vote for him are responsible for obama’s reelection?
If obama gets reelected, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we nominate a squish like Romney or Newt, we deserve a 3rd party challenge, and we deserve to be defeated.
Mccain beat Romney, obama beat mccain. Its not rocket science (otherwise, Cain would be the nom).
ghost (6f9de7) — 11/19/2011 @ 7:48 pmHey, ErisGuy, thanks for all of your non-help.
Icy (b33de9) — 11/19/2011 @ 7:52 pmWhy does ColonelHaiku like to talk about horse’s ass?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 8:02 pmIn other news the left love to malign pro-lifers as people who enable child rapists…………I hate the left.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 8:52 pmpoint of order: California is an all or nothing state, and there is no way in hell that, between the leftard moonbats, the illegal alien voters, the “minorities” and the union members that Obanal isn’t carrying this state.
thus i can skip voting for Mittens with a clear conscience.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 11/19/2011 @ 9:18 pmSo Mitt has six houses…
AD-RtR/OS! (503ea7) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:15 pmand John McCain has seven…
and John Kerry has a few too.
Guess what, they’re rich!
Rich people have more than one house…film at eleven…
and nouveau riche have a place in Hyde Park, and take ostentatious vacations to The Vineyard and the Costa del Sol while living in government housing.
Romney.
Pssssht I’m voting for him but I won’t like it.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:19 pmAnd yes communists have sabotaged everything.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/19/2011 @ 10:45 pmAll the dire predictions(and assignment of blame) for doom handed a Romney nomination are happily now empty fearmongering:
It will be obvious by February that we need someone who can think on their feet and take a position quickly as Europe will give ample warning.
We are in deep, deep doodoo and Mitty will not do.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:25 amFact of the matter is that Mitt is a RINO too far.
Plus, the Dems-MSM will kick the holy $#@% out of him. Obama customized his campaign of class warfare, fairness, rich-kicking, OWS, et al, with the view that Mitt will be nominee. The millisecond Mitt wins enough votes to take the nomination, the attack ads will simply bury him. The narrative will be cemented before he even flips or flops on stage for his nomination speech.
Just think, 2012 Pres race with Mitt-Obama to be a choice between the chief socialist and a mere runnerup socialist.
cedarhill (8d1733) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:18 amyes feets, Romney will fail.
For one thing a Mormon Missionary cant go to KSA and hold hands with Prince Bandar to keep the oil flowing.
Missionaries aren’t allowed into the country.
For another, the anti-mormons (half the evangelicals), the anti-elitists and jacksonsians, and the anti-flipflop cohorts may just stay home.
This is an electability problem, because Mitt needs an impossible 65% of the white vote to beat Obama– Reagan only got 60% at the top of his game.
And the occupy movements will redirect into GOTV as the election nears–
coming soon to a democracy near you– Occupy the Electorate.
im going oldskool for your tune,
new Blink– after midnight.
i liek this too–if only for the title.
Ghosts on the Dance Floor
the GOP thot it was a good idea to make on brown people– i get that– tribal identity– but why is it a good idea to make war on american youth?
wheeler's cat (834485) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:33 ammake WAR on brown people……your anti-occupy sentiment is war on the young.
you will lose.
“Stop what you are doing, watch this video, and reflect on what it means to be an American.”
wheeler's cat (834485) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:43 amand feets….even the Great Nate Silver wont tell you this…..because it foobars the horse race.
wheeler's cat (834485) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:24 amAnd no one pays to see a one horse race.
Let’s face facts: none of the announced candidates for the Republican nomination can satisfy the passionately held, but divergent, interests of the several constituencies loosely united under the GOP banner. There’s nothing odd or unusual about that, it’s a key characteristic of the two-party system.
So, have at it. Make your case. But, let’s keep our eye on the prize. It’s the White House and majorities in both Houses of Congress, more GOP governors and members of state legislatures.
Fight for the candidate of your choice, but always keep in mind that expelling Obama and his socialist party from office is our common goal. Support your candidate, but do it in a way that acknowledges our need to unite behind a single Republican nominee.
ropelight (6bf216) — 11/20/2011 @ 7:29 am“Fight for the candidate of your choice, but always keep in mind that expelling Obama and his socialist party from office is our common goal. Support your candidate, but do it in a way that acknowledges our need to unite behind a single Republican nominee.”
ropelight – Screw that. If my candidate does not get nominated get nominated, I’m going to stomp my feet, pitch a fit, stay home next November and then move out of the country, just like liberals promised to do if Bush was reelected. Heh.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 7:50 amropelight – What good is a republic anyway if other voters are too damn stupid to know what’s good for them? They deserve Obama!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 8:22 amIf the OWSers want to protest lack of jobs they should protest Obama.
If the OWSers want to protest Wall Street bailouts protest Obama.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 8:47 amRopelight and daley,
If people stay home because we nominate Romney, its our fault. The funny thing is, earlier in the year, I saw a lot of pontificators here say they would stay home or even vote Barry back in if the nom went to He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named. Not one person was ridiculed for having a threshold of tolerance for who they’re willing to vote for. Some of us can’t stomach voting for Romney, because socialism is that disgusting to us. And some of you can’t stomach voting for Dr. No. For some reason, only one group is treasonous for enabling an obama reelection.
I guess my question is, has conservatism really become more comfortable with socialism than with non-interventionism? Are we really more eager to accept Mitt Romney than we were for John McCain? No? Well then how the hell is Romney going to excite independents and libertarians into voting for him?
We know we have the base. Republicans will vote ABO. But you can’t win an election with just the base. Again, obama already beat Romney once. Nominate him, and we lose again.
ghost (71041a) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:02 amPosts 67, 68 & 69… well said, ropelight and daley.
Colonel Haiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:06 am__________________________________________
They deserve Obama!
You should read about the person that was recently reelected to the presidency of Argentina. Her history is full of very extreme leftism, corruption, cronyism and strongman power plays (eg, intimidating researchers and the media for trying to report on Argentina’s actual rate of inflation, which apparently is much higher than officially listed), yet a large percentage of people voted to keep her in office. In that regard, they’re not much different from the idiotic people of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez.
Such societies truly reap what they sow.
As for the people of Spain, who’ve allowed their society to be a stereotypical Banana Republic for quite awhile, they appear to have enough sanity at the moment to want a right-leaning prime minster (to replace an outgoing leftist, who chose not to run) and other officials in their government. The voters in that country are going to the polls today.
Liberal sentiment makes a fairly large number of people on election day — certainly through the Western World and South America — really dumb, so the best strategy for 2012 remains up in the air.
One Republican nominee could turn off so many conservatives, that any pick-up he’d get from “centrists” or dissatisfied Democrats would be a wash, or even an disadvantage. Another Republican nominee could make various “centrists” or unhappy liberals nervous enough that any gain he or she would get from rightists also would be a wash, or a disadvantage.
From a purely ideological standpoint, the only candidate who I sense has the most truly conservative biases would be Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann. After that, there’s a jumble of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain—they all have squishy sides to them. Then there’s Mitt Romney, even squishier still. Next, of course, is Obama’s former ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman. Ron Paul is a strange mix of all of the above.
Mark (411533) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:08 ammeaning they were upset the Rs took the House?
cute, but no. There are lots of reasons Libertarians dislike Republicans, but they know that there are *some* small-government types on the R side. The D’s have none, so 1994 was movement in the right direction. Just as Obama’s defeat will be.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:15 ampoint of order: California is an all or nothing state, and there is no way in hell that, between the leftard moonbats, the illegal alien voters, the “minorities” and the union members that Obanal isn’t carrying this state.
Polls show that Obama leads in CA by about 5 points, and has an approval/disapproval ratio of 49/48.
Even in California, the election will be decided by turnout.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:17 amAnd these people at OWS will never want a job even if the economy which Omoron effed up was not effed up.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:18 amKarl–
Suggestion for another topic: is there any candidate who can unify the Republicans (besides Obama)? By “unify” I mean satisfy the gotta-haves of 90% of the party.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:21 amThere is evidence the charges against Cain are plausible and even if they aren’t Cain sexually harrassed those women because I said so-Bachmann Kool-aid drinkers.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:49 amDoh
Cains not really denied the charges, his firm paid out tens of thousands of dollars, he told his senate campaign he had a problem in 2003, he has retained a lawyer and threatened to ruin everyone’s life who spoke out against Cain – a highly questionable and unethical tactic – and more corroborating witnessess have risked their financial lives to say that the man is lying
He lied about rick perry being a racist
He lied about being lynched – he was just being asked questions
Cain lied about his knowledge of the cases
Cain lied about th amounts
Cain lied about what happened
but thats okay – lets believe the liar and not the victims
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:58 amThis is a good endorsement: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/19/mitt-romney-set-to-win-key-endorsement-new-hampshire-senator/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29
Colonel Haiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:59 am“And some of you can’t stomach voting for Dr. No. For some reason, only one group is treasonous for enabling an obama reelection.”
ghost – Your words and assumptions, not mine. Do you seriously thin, Nor Luap has a chance of getting elected? If so, you should seek immediate psychiatric help.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:59 amComing soon to a democracy near you!
Occupy the electorate–GOTV.
wheeler's cat (834485) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:01 am“For some reason, only one group is treasonous for enabling an obama reelection.”
ghost – I don’t know what your assumptions are above. My feeling is anybody who helps to enable an Obama election should be considered treasonous. I’m not focused on any groups.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:06 amHow is your daughter doing, Eric Johnson?
Colonel Haiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:16 am“Cains not really denied the charges”
EPWJ – Actually he has publicly denied the charges several times. This was not hard to see for anybody paying attention. You can even look it up on the internet.
The NRA paying money to two women leaving its employ means nothing, as you well know, but keep beating that dead horse.
Cain hiring a lawyer to defend himself against what he considers false allegations seems like a smart move. How would you suggest Cain disprove false, anonymous, non-specific allegations? Go.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:23 amDaley,
Its not my assumption, its my observation of the discussions here. I don’t think Paul has a very good chance of winning the republican nod, but if he did, I believe he would do better against obama than Romney. Every moderate/liberal I know (and I live in Portland, OR. I know plenty of them), everyone that isn’t an obamabot (so, the ones who follow politics, and because of me pointing them to paterico and ace and such), says they would happily vote for Ron Paul over obama. Even though they disagree with him, they believe they’d at least know what they were getting.
I don’t think Paul can win the republicans. Republicans are too stubborn for that. But if you think Romney can beat obama, well, then I echo your advice. Seek help. That’s a bigger delusion than me hoping Paul wins.
ghost (6f9de7) — 11/20/2011 @ 11:26 amHi nishi! I have no idea at all why Team R fielded such a weak selection of candidates this year. It’s a real head-scratcher to me cause a lot of Team R regular voter people are really really ready to get behind a credible candidate I think.
I think the problem with the occumonkeys though is that they traffic in the same amorphous hopey-douchey slogan-driven twaddle as president gigglefart. Obama has created a substance vacuum, and the screechy hippie children aren’t filling it… they’re making it worse.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 11:43 amMark forgets there wasn’t even a center much left centre right alternative to Madame Kirchner, although the closest thing to, Menem was discredited at the outset of the last decade, The
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 11:54 amfair Cristina, has her own OWS cadre, the Campora,
to do her bidding,
So, pikachu, what part of the spendings do you want
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:02 pmto cut first, grandpa’s social security check, junior’s student loan, or the EPA that so we don’t have dirty air and water,
“Its not my assumption, its my observation of the discussions here. I don’t think Paul has a very good chance of winning the republican nod, but if he did, I believe he would do better against obama than Romney.”
ghost – You don’t make any sense. What does the above even mean?
“I don’t think Paul can win the republicans. Republicans are too stubborn for that.”
I would call them too sane for that, not too stubborn, YMMV.
“because of me pointing them to paterico” – For credibility Portland ghost, it helps to spell the name of the blog correctly.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:05 pmfeets, Romney is loozer strategy. he cant beat Obama.
He has too many Achilles heels. (ie white voters that dont like him)
today the owwies are hooking up with the civil rights movement elders for marchs.
wheeler's cat (834485) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:06 pmthe natural progression will be occupy the electorate next late-summer to fall.
the GOP cant win with just old white voters anymore.
the demographics are a-changing.
“So, pikachu, what part of the spendings do you want
to cut first, grandpa’s social security check, junior’s student loan, or the EPA that so we don’t have dirty air and water,”
narciso – We should probably go with Obama’s medical Tsar’s plan and kill off all the seasoned citizens by rationing their medical care under the guise of using best practices and social justice. Save a ton of money that way plus raise a lot of estate taxes once President O’Blameless reinstitutes that sucker.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:10 pmhey, Karl, do you remeber what Nate Silver says?
the GOP candidate has to be someone that at least all the white folks like.
wheeler's cat (834485) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:12 pmI was being ironic daley, as he seems to imagine that only lifeydoodle issues, are problematic, but
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:13 pmyes, if you don’t know about the medical condition,
like two of the new medical diktats, indicate,
Romney have ceiling?
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:22 pmknockin’ bottom out of his
that would be Perry
Romney has ceilings?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:24 pmWho did he pay for that Ceiling?
Your so mean
what part of the spendings do you want
to cut first
we can and should do all of those at once I think
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:24 pmfirst rule of holes and all that
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:31 pmFirst rule of holes is do not act like an ahole.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:33 pmUh……………………..
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:34 pmchillax, wizzle
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:36 pm_____________________________________________
The NRA paying money to two women leaving its employ means nothing,
I know that at least the woman who was paraded around by Gloria Allred has lost all credibility, assuming she had much to begin with. That’s based on things like an investigator who works with law enforcement using a device that analyzes stress in a person’s voice indicating the accuser was lying, Cain wasn’t.
Mark forgets there wasn’t even a center much left centre right alternative to Madame Kirchner
But the history of Argentina for over 100 years is one of leftists often being accommodated by much of that society, by much of its electorate. So to rationalize away the win of an ultra-liberal there is sort of like saying that some loony liberal won an election in, say, San Francisco because his or her opponent wasn’t very good or non-existent. For any number of reasons, mindless, corrupt leftism tends to run supreme in such locales.
Mark (411533) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:36 pmthe voice of the people cannot be and will not be and must not be denied!
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:39 pm“I was being ironic daley,”
narciso – I was being a smartass.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:42 pmThat ignores the Irigoyen era in the 20s, which was supplanted by the merrygoround of coups that led to Putin, the regimes of the 60s, and Menem, The comments about Mexico, ignore that the PAN, which is to the right of the GOP in many senses, has been in charge since 2000.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:44 pmDoes nishi believe that the alSauds will block the runway preventing Pres.Romney’s 747 from landing because he’s a Mormon, and had once gone “on mission”?
AD-RtR/OS! (7e20b9) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:44 pmThat is one of the strongest demonstrations yet of her complete disconnect from reality!
Who else does the House of Saud have to defend them from the Mad Mullahs, and the OBL’s of the World?
I think Romney thinks he has a ceiling unless the only alternatives are unacceptable. His latest strategy is to try to win the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary — or maybe that’s a desperate move. (that is if someone else emerges as the leader it’s over for him)
Rommey intends to spin Iowa as a victory if he gets the most votes in the straw poll, and thinks he could do it because the opposition is so split. They are telling the New York Times that every Romney supporter in 2008 is a Romney supporter now, plus they’ll get some of the Huckabee, Giuliani etc supporters and their strategy is not to win over anyone opposed to Romney but to increase turnout at the caucuses.
They may have to ask each voter one by one. They will also begin advertising in early December. (But if his supporters in 2008 support him now that would be because people are not all that aware of or familiar with the other candidates. It may also not be true)
After Iowa and New Hampshire he intends to rely on other candidates dropping out, endorsements he’s been banking, and negatives on other candidates. Other candidates won’t drop out s fast.
According to Fox news the latest polls are:
Iowa Republican: Newt Gingrich: 32%, Mitt Romney: 19%; Herman Cain: 13% and Ron Paul 10%. (74% total. Numbers for Bachmann, Perry, Santorum Huntsman, Others and Don’t Know not given)
New Hampshire Republican: Mitt Romney: 29%, Newt Gingrich 27%, Ron Paul 16% Herman Cain 10% (82% total)
You know, a lot of people, all independently, without any prompting, without any ads, are coming to the conclusion, that of all the candidates available, Newt Gingrich is the best.
And obviously, as more and more people consider him, he gains more and more every day.
Gingrich sounds like he knows what he is talking about. Asd as someone told me, Newt Gingrich has a lot of bounce to him. Romney is flat.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:46 pmWhen was she ever connected, AD, I’m willing to guess that she’s also a big fan of Warren’s ‘stream of consciousness rant as well.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 12:47 pm“If romney gets the nom, obama is reelected anyway. Conservatives can’t stand him, liberals won’t vote for a Mormon, libertarians see him as the same as obama, and independents barely tolerate him. He can’t pull support from the middle, and he’ll get no help from the left.”
ghost – You need to get out more. Liberals won’t vote for a Mormon? Who keeps reelecting Harry Reid?
There are currently 15 racist Mormon freaks serving in Congress, including several from outside Utah, Nevada and Idaho:
Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, elected in 2008
Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., elected in 1986
Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., elected in 1992
Romney is currently out polling Obama among independents by double digits.
Have you ever heard of Pauline Kael?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:07 pmwho else is mormon is that Marie Osmond
such a nice smile
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:10 pmComment by narciso — 11/20/2011 @ 12:47 pm
Speaking of the good Professor from Hahvahd:
AD-RtR/OS! (7e20b9) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:17 pmEarlier today I remarked that she personifies the CFL (and I’m not talking about Canuck football):
Twisted logic, and Toxic philosophy!
I think what nishi misses is that cause of his past support for abortion everyone pretty much suspects Romney is a mormon sorta how Obama is a capitalist
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:20 pmMr. Feets – Here’s a whole bunch of Osmonds for you.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:23 pmWho has ever accused President Millstone of being a Capitalist?
AD-RtR/OS! (7e20b9) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:23 pmIt takes some strong dementia to foster such a belief.
Doh… better to be
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:24 pmsilent and be thought fool than
speak remove all doubt
Isn’t it unconstitutional for Mormons to serve in Congress or run for President? What’s going on here?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:25 pmhah they’re so funky Mr. daley
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:27 pmGingrich on the adultery platform for the win!
Out Democrat the Democrats!!!!!!!11ty!!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:28 pmall Osmonds have that
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:29 pmgrille so bright that when they smile
cataracts are healed
Comment by wheeler’s cat — 11/20/2011 @ 4:33 am
yes feets, Romney will fail.
For one thing a Mormon Missionary cant go to KSA and hold hands with Prince Bandar to keep the oil flowing.
Jews aren’t allowed into Saudi Arabia, but they didn’t have any problem with Henry Kissinger.
Prince Bandar – the man who would be King – is the biggest problem. He’s the one co-ordinating the counter-revolution to the Arab Spring. He’s now the Saudi National Security Adviser.
Now, that’s the man who probably murdered Vincent Foster when Foster, forgetting about diplomatic immunity, tried to blackmail him * to pay for a lawyer because he mistakenly thought the jig was up after FBI Director William Sessions was fired.
To be more precise, after he read my email addressed to president@whitehouse.gov, which was routed overnight through Rochester and arrived the next day after he was fired. He read it because it started out about Crown Heights and they were watching to see what the Girgente Report said, which New York’s Governor Mario Cuomo was keeping under wraps.
Foster had wanted the contents of one of those briefcases filled with money (not secret files like he told people – I mean really, that’s where you would keep them??) that Bandar kept around.
Then, after he, or one of his aides, killed Vincent Foster, Prince Bandar rushed over for a secret unscheduled meeting with Bill Clinton and Sandy Burglar to explain it and got an agreement to cover it up.
That’s my best theory so far.. An attempt to use the FOIA to find out the date of the secret meeting, reported by Fred Barnes on page 10 of the March 14, 1994 issue of the New Republic, failed. And I bet you thought there was a way to find out who went into the White House! No, no, not if President Bill Clinton didn’t want people to know.
Even the indirect FOIA approach, to the State Department, finally answered early in the Bush Administration, did not confirm any such meeting in July 1993 but I am sure they leaked it, right at the time of other Foster leaks, only because such a meeting did indeed happen – and it was not about Boeing jets.
* Bandar had been somewhat close to Clinton, visiting him when he was Governor of Arkansas, so Foster would have known some secrets, that would, however, not have impacted negatively on Clinton, because mostly unrelated..
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:30 pmhappy living proof
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:31 pmthat one bad apple don’t spoil
the entire bunch, girl!
no worries when da
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:33 pminspector sam finkleman
on da case, buster
here is Mr. Donny and Miss Marie’s new song Mr. daley it’s a thoughtful rumination on income inequality in America
lots to think about there thank you Marie and also Donny
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:34 pmdon’t that just beat all!
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:35 pma saudi in Arkansas
Billy Bob Bandar?
one bad apple don’t spoil the entire bunch, girl!
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:36 pm“Dustin” and Perry
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:37 pmand they called it, puppy love
someone help him… please?
“* Bandar had been somewhat close to Clinton”
Sammy – Clinton got close to anybody who had money. How do you think he got so rich after leaving the White House?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:38 pmI remember Perry I was a big fan back in the day
meaning October
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:41 pmMr Feets – Do you or nishi have any Sharia compliant Muslim funk?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:41 pmMusic, not disease.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:42 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2aItuM1-J4
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:53 pmDid John Kerry accuse Romney of flip-flopping come on I do not like Romney but that is the pot calling the kettle black.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:54 pmnishi probably does she’s very resourceful
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:56 pmhere nishi this is a follow-up about the oppression
I can’t believe this is happening in Barack Obama’s America
*shudder*
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 2:00 pmhere nishi this is a follow-up about the oppression at Occupy Portland.
It raises a big question for you – spit or swallow?
At that same peaceful protest where the woman was being pepper sprayed, another peaceful protester punched a police horse what was wearing blinders.
Democrats own OccupyFail
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 2:10 pmDaley,
I’m here, am I not? That’s kinda proof that I know how to spell patterico, and the above was just a typo. My proofreader is on vacation.
But feel free to be an ass.
I lived in Nevada in 04. Harry Reid was running for reelection, and not once did anyone mention his faith. I’m Mormon and no one ever talked about it. You know damn well that when I say “liberals won’t vote for a Mormon,” you know I mean Mormon republican. Because Mormon republicans get the “evil racist Mormon” with their “magic underwear.” I told you I live in progressive central. I’ve heard every reason the left won’t vote for Romney, and its pretty much the reasons they think we hate obama. Not issues or policies. Race and religion. And class. (because he’s a rich white Mormon).
Push comes to shove, I will probably hold my nose and vote for Romney. But I wouldn’t blame anyone who went 3rd party or just stayed home.
If we end up with Romney, we’ll lose. He is our john Kerry.
ghost (6f9de7) — 11/20/2011 @ 2:23 pmRight down to the flip flops.
ghost (6f9de7) — 11/20/2011 @ 2:25 pm“But feel free to be an ass.”
I will, just as you were in your comments. Obama already beat Romney? Seriously dood?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 2:41 pmRomney’s just another word for
nothing left to lose
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 2:55 pmRomney is a flip-flopping fraud.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 2:56 pmHonestly we are sabotaging ourselves from within and the islamomarxists are salivating in glee.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 2:56 pmThis thread has taken several strange turns, I see. Prince Bandar, nishi, the Osmonds, Vince Foster. I think Ima go back and watch da Bears.
elissa (087640) — 11/20/2011 @ 3:07 pmNext we need to see Donnie Osmond in fishnet stockings.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 3:09 pmda Bearsz.
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 3:14 pm2 touchdowns in 64 seconds, Colonel. Da Bearsz
elissa (087640) — 11/20/2011 @ 3:25 pmGo, 9ersz!
ColonelHaiku (7b2efb) — 11/20/2011 @ 3:52 pmThat um, an interesting theory, Sammy, however, Papa Sultan’s passing, makes that prospect rather unlikely, Prince Nayef, think of the Saudi Hoover
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:03 pmis now on the fast track, as well as his Clan.
Daley,
Yes, Obama beat McRomney in 08. Sure, he was older and had a swollen gland on his face, but “progressive republican” just the same. Sorry my biting sarcasm was lost on you, but I was saying Romney and McCain are the same.
I don’t want it to happen. I would much rather have Romney than Obama. But how effed are we that those are our choices? President Teleprompter vs Candidate Finger-In-The-Wind? The puppet vs the populist?
Has it really come to this?
ghost (013652) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:15 pmWe got it the 1st time.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:16 pmyes it has cause the teadoodles failed to nominate a serious candidate
just a bunch of niche ones with very narrow appeal
personally I think too many were waiting for the Alaska hoochie or the fat boy and that deprived more worthy candidates of support
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:17 pmTeadoodles?
Seriously Doodlefeet?
And what is it with you and calling Palin a hoochie you knucklehead?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:26 pmit’s a thing
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:26 pmComment by DohBiden — 11/20/2011 @ 3:09 pm
I’ve seen Donnie is fishnets, it’s not a pleasant sight;
AD-RtR/OS! (7e20b9) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:33 pmonly slightly better than almost anything the First Lady wears.
“…IN fishnets…”
AD-RtR/OS! (7e20b9) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:33 pmThe hoochie, as you call her, was almost singularly warning what we would face, without fail, under President Bumble, but people thought Tina Fey was
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:53 pmmore entertaining, passing off her aunt Zorba (she’s greek) as her impression of Sarah, It wasn’t her fault that Maverick’s crew’s long knives were out for her blood, to cover up that took a dive on that contest, And when she returned to the Governorship they used the ethics laws against her, forcing her to incur half a million dollars in legal fees, and there was really was no end in sight, because the
people involved never care about the law,ethics, or simple human decency
its called Marie…
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:56 pmI don’t recall there being any dearth of people who knew Obama was a dirty socialist America-hating job-killing nightmare waiting to happen
at least not at Protein Wisdom there wasn’t
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:06 pm😯
Really?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:06 pmDoodlefeet I wish someone would tear your anal canal in half.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:07 pmWell let us just say, the jury was out in certain places, whether he would behave in the same way, he had in the quarter century previous.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:13 pmdoh
your moment has passed – let Happy be happy
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:15 pmspeaking of having a ceiling even the whiny whiny LA Times has to admit that Jerry Brown and the socialists OWN California’s budget fiasco
lol.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:18 pmlink
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:20 pmThe instigator of the fracas at UC Davis, shocker, seems to agree with the Times;
http://reclaimuc.blogspot.com/2011/11/five-theses-on-privatization-and-uc.html
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:23 pm“We are all debtors,” said a student at Berkeley as she called for this strike. That is a powerful basis of solidarity.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:27 pmDoodlefeet I wish someone would tear your anal canal in half.
Comments like this drive me away from this site, fwiw… It’s too frequently becoming a place where you have to be careful not to step in a pile of word vomit. It’s an entirely inappropriate comment, d’oh biden. You must try to maintain some dignity and self-control in your commenting.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/20/2011 @ 5:53 pm_____________________________________________
should wake up and smell the future.
But isn’t that the future so many liberals throughout California, particularly at the LA Times, are so tolerant or supportive of? A “Golden State” that is sort of a cross between Venezuela, Mexico and Argentina, with a bit of France thrown in for good measure?
I guess I can’t include in that bunch the name of “Spain” right now, since enough voters in that country — where unemployment is running over 20% — got the stupid slapped out of them today and finally pulled the lever for (for want of a better phrase) non-liberals. That’s because I’m not sure if a non-leftist in the context of a European society is necessarily a conservative. But at least it’s a start, or a sign of a bit less insanity. In that regard, as of November 20, 2011, even Spaniards have more common sense than a large majority of Californians do.
Mark (411533) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:08 pmOk dana I’m sorry Ma’am.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:10 pmI don’t envy Rajoy’s next few years, trying to work around the rubble that Zapatero has left him, two terms left a lot of damage, with 30% real unemployment, the bogus green economy gambit.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:15 pmSo let me get this straight leftys someone in government put up JFKs communist assassin to killing him?
Whatevs.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:19 pmEven Stephen King, has figured that’s not so,
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:21 pmHeh Stephen King will be considered a Right Wing racist in 5…4…3…2…1…
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:28 pmComment by Mark — 11/20/2011 @ 6:08 pm
They had no choice, they ran out of OPM!
AD-RtR/OS! (7e20b9) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:30 pmDude the left insist Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill him but the Right Wing did because they were frustrated at what he did to Dick Cheney or something
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:31 pmThis is close to Sammy’s theory, sort of;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/07/29/gag-order.html
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:36 pmThis was probably what he was hinting at;
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/652562/posts
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:40 pmWow now the left are eating their own in regards to the Kennedy Assassination.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:41 pmAnd yes that scumbag Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the soviets…..So yes it is expected that he might have done this.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:44 pmWhere do you get these Peter Griffin like nonsequitors from, Doh.
As for the main topic, one almost can’t fault Romney for consulting Gina McCarthy, John Holdren,
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:51 pmand Jonathan Gruber (the last was lobbying for Obamacare, while hiding his participation in this)
but one would think he would have learned something
from the experience. That is why the more aggressive
partisans in the party, are skeptical of his current track.
To stay on topic Romney is a flip-flopper.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:52 pmThe left believe that Reagan and the Ayofrikkentollah worked together to defeat Carter. If they can’t find a good enough reason, just make one up.
Its fun to watch them work, though. Ya know, from a distance. Like international waters, where their douchebaggery won’t affect me.
ghost (6f9de7) — 11/20/2011 @ 8:37 pmWasn’t it ironic that the ayafrikkentollah hates Israel like Jimmy Carter?
Anyway didn’t the Ayatollah Agree that Israel killed JFK?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 8:53 pmI think that was Muammar, and in retrospect, he was possibly the sanest of our arch enemies, who knew.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:07 pmEurope is coming apart with Goldman Sachs, the new boss, same as the old.
This will kill fixers like Romney. Nor Laup says American exposure through direct and cross holdings, CDS and hedges is $1 Trillion.
Remember to cough into the crook of your arm and avoid contagion.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:15 pmMuammar and the Ayatollah hate israel.
Although with the Ayatollah that hatred is permanent.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:18 pm____________________________________________
This thread has pretty much died out, but always remember that between Romney, Perry, Cain and Gingrich, there’s plenty of squish to go all away around…
Mark (411533) — 11/22/2011 @ 9:23 amGingrich didn’t know what he was talking about when he spoke about the Ryan plan, that’s probably the truth..when that happens he hides taht better than Cain or Perry.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/22/2011 @ 12:34 pmComment by narciso — 11/20/2011 @ 6:36 pm
This is close to Sammy’s theory, sort of;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/07/29/gag-order.html
It says a House of Lords judicial panel,said Blair personally intervened to scuttle a criminal investigation into billions of dollars in allegedly improper payments made by British Aerospace Systems (BAE) to obtain Saudi contracts, but that when Blair stopped the investigation he acted out of good faith because, faced with Saudi threats to cut off cooperation on counterterrorism operations, he and his advisers were genuinely worried that, if the Saudis followed through on their threats, it could lead to another “7/7”
I don’t exactly think that that’s what happened in the Foster case, but I do think Clinton might have told something to some people, although unlike Blair, not to the Supreme Court justices, because like the top British judges they wouldn’t have lkkepty it a secret..and furthermore an outright request to halt but a cover-up.
I also think it is more likely any very confidential argument to people to help cover up the circumstances of Vincent Foster’s death would have gone more like: it’s important to preserve Bandar’s political career, because some really bad person might come to power otherwise.
Now Bandar probably has threatened to not co-operate as much on intelligence, portraying maybe as something beyond his control, but that’s more likely in connection with keeping Jonathan Pollard in jail.
I had forgotten about this 2008 thing because I didn’t see that this was an official finding, and then it dropped out of my mind.
But I have something about this in my Foster archives:
From The Corner on National Review Online:
(Monday February 18, 2008)
Nice country you got here; shame if anything were to happen to it…
[Mark Steyn]
David linked to this over in the Frumistan province of the NR caliphate, but it’s worth a second nod. This is an important story in its glimpse of the sheer scale of Saudi corruption:
Saudi Arabia’s rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals ere halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.
Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced “another 7/7” and the loss of “British lives on British streets” if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.
Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists.
He faces accusations that he himself took more than œ1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.
He was accused in yesterday’s high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.
The oleaginous Prince Bandar was formerly the long-long-serving Saudi ambassador to the US.
When a company is willing to pay a billion quid – two billion dollars – in bribes, it’s difficult to know what humdrum restraints such as the law can do. The Saudis, who are the chief exporters of an ideology pledged to our destruction, have pretty much bought up everyone in the western world they need to. I would love a presidential candidate pledged to reverse this.
02/18 10:06 AM
————————————————–
From Powerline Blog:
February 19, 2008
No boundaries, Saudi Arabian-style
The opening sentence in yesterday’s Guardian story succincly captures its heart: “Saudi Arabia’s rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.” The outlines of the story had been public before the release of the documents, but it’s certainly helpful to have details like these to fill out the story
Here is a link to the Powerline blog post:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/02/019826.php
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/22/2011 @ 1:03 pmComment by ColonelHaiku — 11/20/2011 @ 1:35 pm
don’t that just beat all!
a saudi in Arkansas
Billy Bob Bandar?
Here is arefeernce:
. . .But Gov. Clinton may have had some Saudi resources of his own. Mr. Clinton was a Georgetown University classmate of Turki bin Feisal, the current head of Saudi intelligence.
[Note: He suddenly quit or was fired about two weeks or so before September 11, 2001, and then became Ambassador to London and then Ambassador to the U.S. when Prince Bandar returned to Saudi Arabia, but he has been replaced as Ambassador since by Prince Bandar’s old spokesman]
Sources in Arkansas say Mr. Clinton’s famous networking skills also put him in contact with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. University of Arkansas officials participated in a Clinton-Bandar meeting in the spring of 1991, when they and Mr. Edwards [Friend of Bill David Edwards, a Little Rock Arkansas investment banker Bill Clinton had known since at least 1968 – he and Hillary roomed together with Bill Clinton when he ran the McGovern general election campaign in Texas in 1972. David Edwards also funneled some money to George W. Bush around 1990 via a contract that the Harkkin Energy Corp suddenly got with Bahrain, probably to create an appearance of corruption on the part of the older George Bush] joined the governor in delivering a request for a major gift to the ambassador. According to a 1991 gubernatorial disclosure statement, Mr. Clinton and Prince Bandar were also together on June 23 [1991], when they traveled from Aspen to Little Rock on a jet leased by the Saudis.
Despite such contacts no progress in raising money was made until Governor Clinton received the Democratic presidential nomination. One month later, Mr. Edwards handled an anonymous lead gift to the university of $3.5 million for a Middle East studies program.
Individuals familiar with the gift say it came from the Riyadh Chamber of Commerce. According to the Cyprus-based Arab Press Service, the gift was approved by Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd at the recommendation of Prince Turki.
Under Mr. Edwards’ direction and despite some objections from University of Arkansas officials, the unusual gift was transferred to a university account in the form of Treasury bonds. The resulting confusion was the last straw for university officials. They insisted that Mr. Edwards withdraw from the project. Curiously, documents obtained by the Journal indicate that extra bonds were delivered to the university, with a face value of $3.5 million promised and $3.9 million delivered. A financial administrator at the university said that “excess bonds were put into the account by a mistake in the electronic transfer” and were “returned”
One month after President Clinton’s inauguration, Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker announced that Prince Bandar had delivered a $20 million gift to the University of Arkansas.
– editorial page article by Micah Morrison “Who is David Edwards” on page A14 of the Wednesday, March 1, 1995 Wall Street Journal.
Clinton was no stranger to Bandar (and therefore Foster might have known something about which he thought he could blackmail Bandar and he might have gone there figuring that Bandar was someone who might survive the downfall of Clinton and yet he was still connected enough for him to know something to blackmail him about.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/22/2011 @ 1:24 pmI think that maybe Vincent Foster, worried that the firing of Sessions as FBI Director would cause the coverup of the Waco fire to unravel went to Prince Bandar’s home (which also has an office) to request something – probably money – and he did this without telling Clinton.
But he could not or would not tell Prince Bandar why he was afraid or what he was afraid of – maybe because this would have entailed telling him that he (Foster) was an accomplice to a murder that Bandar maybe didn’t know about.
So, instead, temporarily (and fatally) forgetting he had diplomatic immunity, he threatened him with something like exposure about BCCI or other things we can only guess about.
This could have cost Bandar the throne. So, he shot him or had him shot before he could get off the premises. Then, he went to President Clinton, possibly with a recording of Foster’s last conversation, and secured Clinton’s “pardon” and assistance in the cover-up. Clinton knew that Foster was about to betray him too.
Foster, you see had probably been ones of those involved in seeing to it that the plan to go into the Branch Davidian compound was a tear gas plan.
It HAD to be tear gas, because it was ONLY with the tear gas plan that they could burn down the compound. There was another idea – a better idea -one brought forward by FBI Director William Sessions personally:
Water cannon.
FBI Director William Sessions evidentally suggested water cannon, and they came up with a reason why it wasn’t good. So he rebutted, and they up with ANOTHER reason. He rebutted that, and that came up with still another reason. He rebutted that, and they came up with another reason – not a good reason, but good enough to make the paper trail look good.
Turn to page 29 of the May 3, 1993 issue of Newsweek:
Other options were also weighed and dismissed. FBI Director William Sessions asked old friends in Waco for advice and one suggested using water hoses to force the cultists into a contained areas of the compound. But the lack of water at the scene made that unworkable.
Those friends were probably active law enforcement people, by the way.
Now lack of water at the scene is a ridiculous answer, probably easily rebutted, since there are such things as water trucks used by fire departments, so then they tried other reasons.
While Newsweek stops there, TIME, May 3, 1993, page 36, gives you a different piece of the puzzle. The story there was told without mentioning Sessions’s name:
The strategists talked of using a water cannon, but rejected the idea. First, they didn’t have an armored fire truck. Second, the blast of water was as strong as a wrecking ball and might cause the building to collapse on the children inside. Finally, water would destroy evidence.
Now I think everyone can see what was going on here.
One bureaucratic excuse after another. Knock one down, they try another.
Somebody – some lawyer – had to be coming up with these arguments. This could very well have been Vincent Foster. That could account for why the White House was so hesitant to fire Sessions, and wanted him to agree to resign. (which he did not, in the end. Clinton really had no power to fire him – he was fired on trumpeed up ethics charges, which Clinton never cited in his public remarks)
As for planning the fire: There is not only the fact that the plan for what they would do if they went in seems to have been steered to a rather novel tear gas plan – which was immediately departed from.
Even worse, Janet Reno seems to have tricked the opposition within the Justice Department in the endgame, first turning down the proposal to go ahead, and then, when the opposition was off for the weekend, reversing herself and okaying the April 19, 1993 assault.
Now as for why – that is simple – one of the leaders of the raid was Jay William Buford , head of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms in Little Rock.
Originally, the story released or leaked to the press was that three federal agents died in a small roof on the roof. See for instance the diagram of the compound in the March 15, 1993 Newsweek. (which you actually need a printed copy to see)
There exists some KWTX-TV videotape that appears to confirm that – or at least it shows one federal agent in fact possibly murdering the others who had just gone into that room on a wild goose chase. (the key portion of the videotape was edited out. No faces are visible of course, but had the compound and its residnets survived it might have been possible and likely the whole thingh would ahev been recoinstructed)
But later, it was reported that NOBODY died in that room – and that one of the agents who went into that room was Buford!!
Later Buford went around the country making speeches about Waco.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/22/2011 @ 1:33 pmEveryone who watched the debate should also watch this very short video of Romney.
It blows my mind that he’s bashed folks who have consistently rejected amnesty. He has zero credibility because he is such a shameless liar about his own views.
That’s why Romney has a ceiling. Those who understand this simply cannot be persuaded to trust Romney. He can’t lie his way out of our certainty he’s a liar.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:57 am