Mitt Romney outspent his rivals about five to one and won at least half of the ten Super Tuesday states. He won mostly in urban areas and in states Republicans are unlikely to win in November, including his home state of Massachusetts and nearby Vermont. He won in Ohio where turnout was up over 2008; he lost in Georgia, a GOP stronghold. He won a default contest in Virginia, but nearly half of the voters there went for Ron Paul. Had Santorum’s organization gotten him on the ballot there, he would have been competitive. But the same is true of Gingrich. Organization does matter. Romney could have even narrowly lost the popular vote in Ohio while winning the majority of the state’s delegates, because Santorum’s lack of organization cost him several delegates out of the starting gate.
Rick Santorum won Oklahoma as expected, was strong in Ohio, and won Tennessee and North Dakota. But Romney won out west too, taking Idaho and all of its 32 delegates.
Of the ten Super Tuesday states, Newt Gingrich won just one — his home state of Georgia — and Ron Paul won none.
There is no path to victory for Ron Paul. He has yet to win a single state. He is in fourth place in the delegate count. But he is not dropping out any time soon.
Newt Gingrich believes he has a path to victory, but that path is a dead end in a four-man race. He may win next week’s contests in the South, which will give him hope that he can win Texas at the end of May or June. But Texas will award its 155 delegates proportionally. No candidate will take them all. And Santorum leads in the Lone Star State at the moment anyway. Romney’s organization could pull Texas into his column, particularly if he runs strong in the state’s big cities and media markets. Dallas and Houston are likely Romney strongholds.
Newt Gingrich remaining in the race probably helps keep Santorum from overtaking Romney. But Santorum staying in the race is probably keeping Gingrich out of contention as well. Neither one seems to have a path to getting enough delegates to win the nomination outright. But Romney’s path gets trickier with every state he loses.
Thank God Mitt won. I didn’t want the social right to deliver Obama 4 more years.
Santorum won three states and basically tied in Ohio. That keeps him afloat with some forward direction, especially given the upcoming primary states where Santorum has a demographic edge. The fact that he did this well despite being buried by Romney ads and money in Ohio is a real achievement. Romney, for his part, still cannot win blue-collar votes and still cannot nail down evangelical support. He comes away with many more delegates, but few bragging rights. In Ohio, he won everywhere Obama will win in the fall. Look at the Ohio map and see where he won for yourself. Mitt Romney is toast.
Yes, because Santorum is carrying Obama’s message to the voters about the “evil rich people.”
Unfortunately this Santorum/Obama message is continuing to receive play instead of the damage Obama has done to this country from his gluttonous spending, destruction of our oil business and regulation killing of our small businesses and banks…
Anyone stupid enough to be pulled into the abortion discussion or rich people rant is a virtual voter for Obama…Wake up before your freedoms and liberty are owned by a president whom manyvsaynis a socialist but few will dare to tell the truth of his communist roots and ideology.
Mary, watch the clips. I’ll let Romney speak for himself. Everything you say is a crock. I’d be surprised if Mitt McGovern carries three states.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romneys-suggested-three-times-in-2009-that-o
Supposedly Santorum had a demographic edge in MI and OH too yet blew huge leads in both states.
Romney “won”?!?
38%-to-37% for Santorum in Ohio is NOTHING CLOSE TO A “WIN.”
Why do most RomneyBots sound *just* like Obama-Massiah freaks?
Please note 5% of the vote was union crossover… trying to give Santorum a win for Obama…because Obama will smash Santorum..
.If all the people whom envy Mitts wealth or don’t approve of his Christian religion are feeling righteous…Please consider how you will feel when your righteous vote re-elects this malignant socialist who will destroy the USA, the Constitution and your children’s future …
America has one chance against Obama and like it or not it is with the proven business man who can fix the economy, bring prosperity to all, was one term governor non DC insider….Wake up people before Obama’s plan to divide and conquer wins once again.
“Malignant socialist?” Well, Mary Obama learned from the best. After all it was Romney’s “malignant socialistic” health care mandate that Obama patterned the Affordable Care Act after. Romney on several occasions *recommended* that Obama use what her did in Mass. as a model for the rest of the nation. I admire your passion for you candidate but could you please explain to all of us the utility in replacing one “malignant socialist” with another *malignant socialist*, other that the fact that you just like him better, or whatever?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romneys-suggested-three-times-in-2009-that-o
try thinking. MA is about as blue a state as there is and the legislature was going to pass health reform in some manner regardless of who was governor. Reagan himself would not have had the votes to stop it; just look up how many things Romney vetoed but did not have the numbers to sustain. But that’s fine; you and the right-wing statists keep thumping the Ricky from PA tub because nothing says limited govt quite like intruding into people’s personal lives.
Yes, but Mitt has drunk the Kool-Aid too. Just a slightly weaker version. He is not the man to put us back on the correct path. The only one running who can is Gingrich. If all the people who like what Newt says stopped saying “he can’t win” and started actively supporting him, he WOULD be the nominee. Then we would have the smartest man in the room debating Obama, and winning. If Romney is the nominee, we will have the intellectually flabbiest and most boring man debating Obama, and losing. Every time the Republicans run a moderate, they LOSE! Think McCain, Dole. Support Romney at your peril.
Most likely because they are all Socialistic closet Communists Ed
I agree. Romney will keep the focus on the economy, which is what people really care about at this point and which will propel him to victory in November.
If Santorum wins, it will be back to the culture wars, Obama will rip him to shreds in the debates, and we will lose in November. I like Santorum, but he just won’t survive in the present media environment.
Nah. Mitt will tinker around the edges. Don’t expect much new. It will essentially be more of the same as we have had under W and O.
Well, if you consider Obama’s handling of the economy to be essentially the same as what we had with Bush, then there’s really not much to discuss. I kind of think Bush wouldn’t have gone after Boeing, pushed cap and trade, or denied the Keystone XL pipeline, to name just a few of Obama’s misadventures. But that’s just me, I guess.
Sorry…only time will prove this true or not…I believe Mitt, the flustered, redfaced, put his foot in his mouth Mitt…will be knocked completely off the debate dais by Obama.
The left will turn loose the superpaks..and if the Republicans follow form, they will not answer back with THE VENOM that is needed..facts, alone are not enough for republicans to win..it is how they are put out to the public..and the LOUDNESS!!!
THE jAMES cARVILLE’S OF THE LEFT WILL BE OUT IN FULL VOICE~
ALSO…Bill Maher is telling the left they should accept Rush’s apology…and of course with Bill’s record of name calling, we understand WHY, he knows his name is at the forefront of things too..I don’t believe Rush should have apologized…Fluke is trying to change the doctrine of the Cathloic church through Georgetown…and this is going to be an issue that is going to hit Mitt in the face…contraception, the left will pick a fight on issues that have nothing to do with our economy, how are we going to get to work , even if we have a job, the fact that China owns us, what Russia is up to with Iran…JUST GET READY…MITT IS NOT A SHOE IN…I don’t even believe he’s the best candidate we could come up with.
One more thing..want to be ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGED..????…HOW ABOUT SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT THE ‘GCB” SHOW..SUNDAY ABC…”GCB”..Oh, It stands for
..”GOOD CHRISTIAN BITCHES”…GET EXCITED ABOUT THAT ONE CHRISTIANS~~
Which is worse? 4 more years of Obama or 8 years of Obama Lite if Romney wins? This no-choice choice is why the turnout will be very low.
Low turnout is an understatement. It was reported that one Virginia town of 5,000 had a turnout of about 180. People aren’t going to walk door to door advocating for Romney. People aren’t going to have passion for his candidacy. Those two elements alone spell doom. Then there’s the Mormon thing that nobody will talk about but is a factor.
I am also grateful Mitt won as Santorum has not the $, organization nor mojo to win the Presidency. He is a good man; holds great values; and loves the Country.
However, this election is one where we MUST STOP Obama before he ruins the fabric of who we are and what we stand for as a Nation! Romney has all of the key ingredients to succeed. Stubborn, ultra-conservative, self-rightous Christian rigity will give Obama four more years and I will let Fox and others of this ilk hear it all the way to 2016 if we make it there!
Ohio should worry Romney’s team where the Romney-Santorum split is along income, education and rural versus urban lines. Romney’s strength tonight appears to be among those with higher income and more education living in the suburbs and cities of Columbus and Cleveland. The Republican must carry the rural areas by significant margins to off-set the Democrat’s natural advantage in Columbus and Cleveland – the state’s two largest cities. Part of that demographic voting for Santorum will vote for Obama: “Vote for me; the other guy sucks worse”, may have the advantage of being true, but has rarely been seen as an effective rallying cry.
I see Romney’s appeal to that socioeconomic group as a feature, not a bug. You seem to think that the conservative Santorum voters won’t vote for Romney in the fall- I think they’ll crawl over broken glass to cast a vote against Obama, and if he pulls in independents/lite Dems then it’s a win.
This continues a pattern observed in other primaries.
Romney only wins in liberal enclaves and areas that will go democrat in November like they do in every election.
Anybody really think that Mittens will carry Massachusetts, Virginia and Michigan in the general election?
Where to go from here? To the next caucuses.
Mitt has been fortunate, because a lot of these early contests favored his strengths. NE States. Mormon States. And big FL, where you need lots of money.
What’s up next? KS. 59 delegates. Romney will not win that. Santorum will.
After that? MS & AL. 40 & 40. Southern States. Romney will not win there, either. Santorum or Gingrich. HI is up then, too. I have no idea who does well there. Liberal state. Probably Romney. 20 delegates.
Suddenly Santorum will have the momentum. He’ll have a very respectable electoral total and consecutive wins.
Santorum really needs Gingrich to drop out. Offer him SecEnergy. Buy him off. Whatever. He needs this before the caucus on the 13th.
Why is Paul in? To spread his religion, of course.
There may be another reason, too. Ready? He is retiring this year. I believe the law allows him to keep Congressional Campaign money. When he stops running for Prez, he can roll that money into his Congressional account. And walk away with it all.
I could be very wrong about the law. I am sure it is complicated, not so simple as that. But what if that is really what Paul is doing? Lord knows he does the earmark thing, while complaining about spending. What if the whole thing is just a great scam, and he is just another nest-feathering pol in the end, with a really great shtick?
Someone who knows how it works, please correct me. I do not even know where to begin to search on this.
Marc:
You are correct that Newt ought to get out, if beating Mitt is really the desired effect (though I’m beginning to wonder). The problem here on out is that most of the places that Rick and the spoiler (oops, Newt) can do well will deliver proportional delegates. Mitt will still be acruing delagates, perhaps at a slower rate, but he is up by a bunch and can afford to acrue them slower.
Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Utah, Missouri, and Montana are the only remaining winner take all states (I think). Mitt likely takes most of those. The southern states remaining are all proportional, and unless Newt starts thinking of a conservative victory rather than his own pride, it will be difficult if not impossible to catch up with Mitt.
The other option is the brokered convention. Does anyone really believe that it would yield a non-RINO? Given Mitt’s cozy relationship with Paul, if Paul can put him over the top, then it’s over.
Newt needs to step out, for the good of conservatism, and if he doesn’t I say he’ll loose whatever credibility he may have had, at least with me. I doubt I’ll be the only one feeling that way if we are looking at Mitt or another Mitt look-alike.
If Newt would have dropped out before Michigan, Rick would have likely taken Michigan, Ohio, and Wyoming, and this would be an entirely different race.
Yes, and if Ricky dropped out after South Carolina, Newt would have the nomination in the bag.
Santorum took 65 counties in Ohio to Romney’s 18- go figure!
Tp put it in perspective Mitt Romney won in all the places Obama will win in the fall. Take a look at the map of Ohio. It is mind boggling! Mitt Romney, if he does become the nominee, will be the weakest GOP candidate in a generation.
Excuse me but AFAIK election will be at state not county level so it doesn’t matterI if a candidate in the primaries won in republican or in democratic counties. What matters is his capacity to carry the state against Obama and one of two ways of doing it it is by taking enough votes from people who are supposed to vote for Obama.
Cynical Wonder:
It is even worse than that. Not only are Mitt’s wins in areas Republicans will not likely hold in November, they are in states that Republicans haven’t had a good record of winning in (Maine, Michigan, Mass., Vermont, and Washington haven’t gone R since ’88; Nev, Ohio, and New Hampshire have gone D at least 3 out of the last 5 presidential cycles).
But barry will have a field day running against Mitt. His positions when he last held office include: signing a permanent ban on assault weapons (2004), Very pro-choice until wanting national office, pro-homosexual rights, author of the obamacare precursor (and supporter of the federal individual mandate-he’s lied about it), supported amnesty for illegals in 2006, supported man-made global warming in 2010, stated he was open to cap and trade, supported a stimulus program in 2009 (though he claims he wasn’t talking about barry’s plan), and much more I’m sure. Most of this I found actually is from Youtube meaning on video meaning future campaign ads. It is also not widely known that he refused the pro-life Susan B. Anthony pledge in 2012, and refused to make a pledge to oppose homosexual marriage (July, 2011).
Whatever you think about any particular issue, there is something there to royally tick-off the base to the point of reducing voter turnout, which will likely be their strategy.
It makes you wonder if the establishment power brokers have not been infiltrated by the Left.
I agree about the second point but not about the first one: ability to win in Massachusets is unconsequential: if Romney can win there it means even Gengis Khan would beat Obama: he would just lose Massachusets and similiar states. However winning the Presidential Election requires winning in Ohio and that means at state not districy level: you can’t dismiss a candiadte because he got votes in uncarriable districts. The only question is if it is better to have a candidate who would energize conservatives or one who would take votes Obams takes for granted but lose conservative votes.
Romney will not carry Mass. against Obama. Obama is polling in double digits ahead of him. Ain’t gonna happen. You can bank on it.
Yes, I believe you’ve identified the key dilemma. I guess we’ll see.
@cynical wonder
I disn’t say Romney would win in Massachusets. I meant that ability to get votes in deep blue states was unconsequential. Either Obama will carry them anyway or in case he is indanger of losing there it means the Republican victory would be of such magnitude those states will not matter anyway.
This country is being destroyed by Progressives of both parties and what does the stupid party do…try to select another Progressive. Then they try to say that a House led by Boehner and a Senate led by McConnell will hold Romney’s Progrssive feet to a fire. We’re flucked.
Ugh, a Romney/ Santorum ticket would be the worst of both worlds.
I’m a Romney supporter (i.e., I think he’s by far the best of the current field of 4). Yet I can well understand that those who don’t think Romney is sufficiently conservative would want a strong, politically attractive conservative VP to make up for it– I do too. But how in the world is *Santorum* the guy to compensate for any of Romney’s “true conservative” deficiencies *and* make the ticket stronger for the general election against Obama? Santorum fails miserably on both counts.
(The only thing that makes Santorum ideologically more conservative than Romney is his extreme social conservatism, which is not going to help any in the general election– and is likely to be toxic. Santorum is hardly a strong fiscal conservative, on the contrary.)
Ryan, Rubio, Jindal, Martinez– now you’re talking. Even a Christie or McDonnell. It’s going to be a hell of a tough election to beat Obama. You think *Santorum* is the VP pick to push Romney over the top???
If Romney gets the nomination, it would be truly idiotic for him to choose Santorum as his VP, when the only reason that Santorum is strong now is that he’s the last remaining not-Romney (and was for a long time one of the weakest overall, among a weak field). And if Santorum tries to force Romney’s hand on this– as opposed to letting Romney pick the VP that’s best and strongest for the GOP ticket– then that doesn’t say much for Santorum’s character. I actually (would like to) think better of Santorum, so I’ll believe (or I’ll hope) that’s not going to happen.
“Santorum is hardly a strong fiscal conservative, on the contrary.)”
Bull. The National Taxpayer Union rated Santorum 5th best during his time in office. He is the only one to get A’s more than half his years, and never less than a B. It is an excellent record. It takes into account a lot of factors.
Santorum got his lower grades during re-election time. Yes, that means he pandered a bit to his Blue State. It also means he was as much a FisCon as one could possibly hope to get from a State like PA.
I know you support Romney. I saw another of your posts which said so. So, I offer this:
Romney, by contrast, balanced his budget through accounting gimmicks. He did the usual pushing accounting for things into the out-years. He also did all kinds of things which hurt business.
He was 47th out of 50 States in job creation, with an anemic 1.3% growth rate, almost identical to Obama’s. And that was during much better times – 2003-2006.
The only reason unemployment percentage came down, was because people fled his State. Like many Blue States now. Kinda like Obama’s numbers coming down, because people have given up. The job growth rate did not even keep up with graduation rates (new workers). The new workers do not count towards unemployment, either, not being qualified for benefits.
And then there was RomneyCare, of which Mitt is proud.
Romney was a lousy Governor, when you crunch the results.
When I say Santorum is not a fiscal conservative, I’m not comparing him to Rommney. (I happen to think Romney is more of a fiscal conservative than Santorum, but I’ll grant you that that’s arguable.) I’m looking at union-loving protectionist big government compassionate conservative Santorum, on his own terms.
But more specifically, I’m comparing Santorum to the long list of potential VP candidates that are strong fiscal conservatives (much stronger fiscal conservatives than Santorum *or* Romney) and which would make for a strong GOP ticket against Obama, if Romney is the nominee.
Pertaining to Rick’s union support, let me just say this: he was elected in a state that hasn’t been taken during a presidential campaign by a republican since 1988. He did support some measures that were beneficial to the unions. Like Marc points out, he was highly rated for conservative positions overall during his time. What he didn’t have to do to win a very blue state is compromise core issues that truly matter, which is the norm for RINO’s, but he’s no RINO. I’ll give up a few union votes for pro-gun, pro-life, pro-traditional values and marriage, pro-something other than national health care with an individual mandate, enforce immigration laws, mocking those supporting the ridiculous man-made global warming nonsense, and on and on.
Yep, I’ll take that trade any day, especially given the field he’s running against. I would think his ability to win 2x a very blue state AND still being pretty conservative would be a great appeal to many, especially the states we haven’t done well in since the Reagan years (largely because we don’t make a real attempt to appeal in the rust belt, where Rick won 2x as a senator).
Nice try rachel, but that won’t go unanswered:
Only his social conservatism makes him more ideologically conservative than Mitt? Here’s the short list of what Romney’s actual record is comprised of:
Pro gun control (signed a permanent assault weapons ban in 2004 and supported the brady bill; he claims to own a gun and hunt, but there is no record of him every buying a hunting license anywhere
Pro abortion (promised to be pro-choice in ’94, promised not to support any change to laws in 2002-including minors obtaining abortions w/out parental consent, took the “state’s right” position in 2005, stated he was pro-life in the 2008 race, refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony pledge in 2012
Pro amnesty for illegals in 2006 (register, pay tax, apply for citizenship rather than deporting)
Supported a stimulus plan in Jan 2009 (though he later claimed he wasn’t referring to barry’s plan
Is on record in 2011 and 2012 as denying the stimulus adversely affected the economy
Provided public support for TARP
Supported the notion of man-made global warming and is on record stating he is open to cap and trade
And then there is Romneycare, individual mandates (which it has now been shown he was dishonest about his support of them at a federal level on a number of occasions, including writing an op-ed to USA Today calling on barry to look at his plan as a model)
There is also the recent video of bragging about the fed $ he got for the olympics, which contradict his debate statements, as well as promising to, if elected (2002) to go after every federal $ to bring back to the state.
Now, other than earmarks, nothing I pointed to can even remotely be said of Rick Santorum.
Doesn’t matter.
Single women represent the second fastest growing voting cohort in the American electorate (only Hispanics are growing faster).
Santorum’s pledge (from last October) to lecture Americans on alleged sexual libertinism resulting from birth control will cause 90% of young single women (and even suburban wives) to vote for Obama.
The Dems love to paint the GOP as against women’s rights. Santorum will be their poster child, right through Election Day.
Romney can’t put Santorum on the ticket. Romney has appealed to suburban women, he doesn’t want to alienate them.
Oh yeah, add Rand Paul to the list of potential VPs that would be better (and much more conservative) than Santorum.
Are ypu aware that the VP Is supposed to be the President in case something happens to Romney? Just thinking in how Ron Paul would handle Iran makes me shudder
I tend to think of Ron Paul and Rand Paul as separate, very different men.
But I don’t really know anything about Rand Paul’s foreign policy views, or how receptive he is to his father’s ideas.
So, you have a very good point. I 100% agree that anyone whose foreign policy views are anything remotely in the vicinity of Ron Paul’s, would be a disastrous VP.
Because the one who is trying to be the next POTUS is Ron not Rand I didn’t see he was talking about Rand.
Given daddy has acted as a Mitt surrogate (39 attacks in the debates but not one against Mitt, usually Mitt’s main rival at the moment), that may be part of a back-door deal already.
You are clearly ignorant of the HUGE difference between LIBERTARIAN and CONSERVATIVE.
— “Romney did what he had to do but has not delivered the knockout blow.”
Far from it. He hugely outspent Santorum in Ohio, and ended up winning by a hair in a photo finish. He is playing this primary all wrong. He came out today saying (ala McCain) that he would not go negative on Obama, even as he has done nothing BUT go negative against his GOP rivals. This is nuts.
Mr. Money Bags may have won the most delegates on Super Tuesday, but the momentum is with Santorum.
This campaign has always been Romney’s to lose. And I believe he is well on track to doing that. And the simple reason for it is that he is failing to AFFIRM what his agenda is. All he wants to do is sling mud at his GOP opponents. And the GOP electorate is waking up to it. Which is why he won Ohio, but by only getting a little more than a third of its Republican voters. To me, that spells the thinnest of victories.
“he would not go negative on Obama, even as he has done nothing BUT go negative against his GOP rivals.”
Yeah, moderates always are harder on Conservatives than on Dems. They are the real enemy.
But I take comfort in the fact that Romney’s promises come with expiration dates, just like Obama’s promises.
All these guys went negative, because at crunch time, they want to win. They get desperate. Instead of pushing their own message, they tear down the other guy’s message.
Gingrich got incensed at Romney, because Romney did it, and dishonestly, and Gingrich, lacking money, could not fight back very well.
Santorum is an awful pick for VP.
If he doesn’t win the nomination, he’s the one guy who is tough to slot anywhere…even a TV slot is tough. His BEST role, is as an anti-Romney. And that role ends in August at the latest.
Newt is colorful, if not much else, after the election. His wild and crazy ideas will always make for ratings.
Paul gets some platform recognition, for whatever that is worth.
No, Romney has to pick Rubio or Susana Martinez. Maybe Alan West, but less likely.
In the general election, Santorum does not help Romney win swing states nearly as much as Rubio, Martinez or West would. The South is not going to go for Obama.
Gingrich pulling out a win in Alabama or Mississippi gives him enough delegates to rightfully stay in the race. Right now, he’s a regional candidate. At best. Outside that region, he as marginal as Ron Paul in voter attraction, but he’s still relevant on framing issues. And…if Santorum stumbles badly on social issue traps, Gingrich would be the only non-Romney standing. It’s not much of a path, …but, if he can keep a win out of Romney’s hands until August, he could try to force a brokered convention….to deny Romney the nomination. The ultimate revenge motive. If Santorum loses, he is much less likely to fall on his anti-Romney sword than Newt.
If Newt can coalesce a regional anti-Romney entrenchment, and keep enough votes pocketed to not allow Romney a win at a fractured convention, he could pick the fight he has wanted since Florida.
Paul won’t do that. He will back Romney and get something in return.
Santorum won’t do that, he wants to win the nomination…but will support the eventual Party choice. Only Newt will carry the anti-Romney emblem into Tampa.
Newt will never, ever, ever be the consensus choice himself. He would make a terrible VP, always stepping on the POTUS’ toes. But, he could be the ultimate spoiler. Newt gives us the last gasp at a brokered convention. Multiple ballots. Chaos theory. Depriving Romney of his coronation.
No matter what happens, (unless a miracle of a Ryan/Rubio ticket), we will be severely weakened coming out of Tampa. Once again, the bottom of our ticket is likely to be more popular by a large margin and more inspiring, than the top.
We will not be unified against Obama, but “un-ified”. We will run the “un” candidate. It was inevitable.
I’m curious to why Gingrich gets so little respect. Since he IS the only person in four generations that has been able to cut spending and balance the budget at the federal level. If it’s so easy, why has no one else been able to do it in 83 years?
More people has walked on the moon. Based on statistics it’s easier to become MVP in the NBA than to accomplish what Gingrich did when he was speaker of the house.
3142 people have climbed Mount Everest. Two people has been able to balance the budget in Washington: Calvin Coolidge and Newt Gingrich.
Regarding Newt, a few points:
Newt did not do that alone, it was several people. He wasn’t the guy who came up with the idea for the Contract for America, it was a congressional aide. He deserves credit, but he’s not alone. For Rick’s part, he was instrumental as well in getting welfare reform through the senate, and held a crucial role as a freshman senator (unheard of, according to many).
There was a quote I heard recently and it went like this: “I pray each day that I don’t do something to screw up all that I have worked for 50 years” (Billy Graham).
Newt’s made several decisions, one was attempting to hide information from an ethics investigation that resulted in him paying the largest fine ever and admitting guilt for (look it up and don’t take my word for it).
Newt’s infidelity problems (multiple) alienate him from many in the conservative base and won’t play well in a national election.
Newt’s support for global warming w/Nancy Pelosi (which directed you to a site that was singularly aimed at govt intervention) was a really dumb move.
Newt’s support for the individual mandate at a federal level extends from 1994 to at least May 15, 2011 (see a Meet the Press interview on that date), which shows a unique stubbornness and tone-deafness toward an idea so rejected by the American public (recently 70+% said it was unconstitutional).
There are other things, but those did it for me.
Can you recognize the difference between talking and doing?
Take these to sentences:
Person 1: “I haven’t done it yet, but sure I can climb Mount Everest. Not a problem.”
Person 2: “I have already climbed Mount Everest. Here are the pictures to prove it”.
Are there any difference between these to sentences in your mind? Which one of those two would you hire to climb Kilimanjaro?
Here is another example
Person 1: “I haven’t done it yet, but sure I can do brain surgery. Not a problem.”
Person 2: “I have been a neurosurgeon for 20 years. I have taught and worked at UCLA for 10 years”.
Which one of these two doctors would you hire to perform craniotomy on yourself?
If the neurosurgeon with all the experience started prattling on about interesting voodoo brain surgery techniques he’s always longed to try while talking over the coming surgery it might shake my confidence a little. I honor Newt for his truly great accomplishments. It doesn’t follow that he’ll make a great president. He faltered badly, several times, as a leader. What we need is a leader, not a manager. I hope rather than expect that Romney might turn out to be a leader, but at least he has a demonstrated the kind of leadership we need–once, at the SLC Olympics. The potential is there, the question is: will he rise to the occasion. I doubt, but I hope, because I don’t see any of the others as having the potential, including Gingrich.
Thank you.
Newt is his own worst enemy.
He gets so little respect, because he gives so little.
Good Newt is laser focused, mega-articulate and capable of taking apart Obama and the small c communists with a scalpel or a meat cleaver.
Bad Newt is frivolous, prone to silly vendettas, overly arrogant and extremely off-putting to his OWN people. Much less people on the fence about him.
More than any other silly super-Pac ad or other negative campaign thing, Bad Newt knocked good Newt into the basement of this race. And, he isn’t taken seriously because nobody does anything, including balancing the budget, by themselves in DC. You can lead a movement of that size but you aren’t the movement. Newt and his rather rabid base still refuse to accept that. And…that…is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with his campaign.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President who has a proven track record of negotiating and getting something done in Washington???? There’s a notion.
“He came out today saying (ala McCain) that he would not go negative on Obama”
That is a very dishonest way to paraphrase Romney’s words. He said he wouldn’t say “outrageous things” about Obama– I take that to mean, birtherist speculation or accusing Obama of being a secret Muslim Manchurian candidate, etc.
But if you’ve listened to *any* of Romney’s speeches– and you were honest– you’d be disabused of this idea that Romney’s not going negative or not being tough on Obama. Romney’s been hammering away at Obama ruthlessly and mercilessly– just on things like Obama’s ‘s economic record and disastrous economic policies, or Obama’s cringing and woefully misguided foreign policy (e.g. re Iran)… not Obama’s presumed country of birth or “Manchurian candidate” conspiracy theories.
(Even if I thought Obama *was* a Manchurian candidate, I wouldn’t be foolish enough to think spouting such conspiracy theories– or calling him a communist, terrorist sympathizer, etc.– was going to win over the necessary independents/ moderates in the general election. If there’s real “outrageous” dirt on Obama, let others bring that to light– I have no problem with Breitbartian “vetting” of Obama, I actually think that’s a good thing– but that’s not what the GOP presidential candidate should be talking about.)
Basically, re whether Romney is being tough or going negative on Obama: judge Romney on what he actually says about Obama– not what he says about what he’s going to say about Obama. If you haven’t heard Romney’s withering attacks on Obama, you just aren’t listening.
But then, I can’t assume someone who calls Romney “Mr. Money Bags” is arguing in good faith.
Good points. The issue with Romney is only
1) Will he GOVERN as a conservative? It’s impossible to tell, since he has never done anything conservative in his life as a politician. We have to trust his word alone.
2) Can he energize the base enough to win the election? So far he hasn’t been able to. We are led to believe that peoples disgust of Obama will energize them to vote for Romney once he has become the nominee.
We have to cross our fingers and rely on hope. It’s quite a tall order.
If all the children who believe in fairies clapped really loudly….
Please. Give me a break.
“Romney’s been hammering away at Obama ruthlessly and mercilessly…”.
Yeah…if you consider swishing a feather around in the air as “brutal.”
“If there’s real “outrageous” dirt on Obama, let others bring that to light– I have no problem with Breitbartian “vetting” of Obama, I actually think that’s a good thing– but that’s not what the GOP presidential candidate should be talking about.”
It doesn’t become an “issue” unless the candidate himself *makes* it one. Just like other cowads and wimps before him, you expect “others” to do the heavy lifting…LOSER! To date, Mittens has the same p*ssified reluctance to attack Obama where it counts as McCain did…and, on top of that, he is NOT reliable on his campaign promises (compare his Leftist record with his recent “pseudo-Conservative” jargon).
At this point, I think I agree with Erick Erickson, and others; SMOD 2012! If these four candidates are really the best that the GOP can do against the weakest incumbant since Jimmy Carter, they don’t deserve to win; I wish that all four of them would drop out of the race, then, maybe, we could get a good candidate. That being said, with a likely financial meltdown as the result of Europe’s slow motion self destruction, and $6 a gallon gas after an ill advised attack on Iran, the GOP nominee may just win the election by default, but “Vote for me, I suck less!” isn’t exactly inspiring, especially since the likely inevidable nominee is only marginally better than four more years of Obama; replacing a Socialist with a Progressive RINO isn’t really much of a gain. Of course, there’s always the slim chance that enough voters rebel in complete disgust with both Republican and Democrat candidates and elect Gary Johnson.
And who would that “good candidate” be?
I would very much like to hear from the Romney supporters out there about
just how you expect Mitt ORomneyCare to defeat Obama…considering:
1) “RomneyCare is nothing like ObamaCare” IS NOT A VALID ANSWER,
2) Romney has never taken a stance on any issue of importance by which he has stood (read: credibility).
Thanks!
Easy:
(1) “Whatever similarities or dissimilarities you think there are between Obamacare and Romneycare, I will repeal Obamacare; Mr. Obama will not.”
(2) (a) That’s just an assertion on your part, and I would challenge you to back it up. (b) To the extent Romney (like many people) has changed his views on issues over the years, his positions today clearly define him as a conservative. That’s what matters. Take abortion: Is it a BAD thing that Romney failed to stand by his previous pro-choice position? Do you want a nominee who stands by his positions no matter what they are, or would you prefer a candidate to modify his views, if necessary, in order to get them right? Keep in mind, Reagan was for many years a New Deal Democrat. Newt started out a self-described progressive (this is going back to the 70′s). Elections are about the future, not the past. A presidential election is about the next four years. I don’t care if Romney was a Commie Red ten years ago or if he goes back to being a Commie Red ten years from now. Just give me four (or eight) years of effective conservative governance and I’ll be fine.
As to your response #1, SEE MY #2…you believe this bum?!? Then *YOU’RE* the sucker.
As to your response #2, YOU EVADE – and also MAKE MY POINT.
Mittens has held NO POSITION OF IMPORTANCE WHATSOEVER. NONE.
Romney has said time and time again that Romneycare was fine for Massachusetts, but isn’t fine for the US as a whole. I don’t see what’s wrong with that position. Other states have programs much closer to “the public option” or universal health care (Vermont, Hawaii to name just two). At least Romney tried something bold, which is more than most governors have done, and I’m sure he’s learned whatever lessons there are to be learned from it. He knows more than anyone how fantastically expensive it’s been.
Romney is PROUD of how expensive things are…as long as he can get Federal (i.e. Your and my $) funds to subsidize it…like RomneyCare and Olympics.
Romney is the best of the four remaining candidates. Coming from me, that’s a real indictment on the other three, because I think Romney is absolutely horrible.
But a Santorum nomination would ensure we’re talking about contraceptives, abortion, and gay marriage from now until November. Santorum’s views are so toxic to most Americans aside from right-wing evangelicals that he would ensure an Obama re-ection win, a Dem House, and possibly even a Dem Senate. No, thanks. We can’t afford that, especially with the fiscal problems that constitute a very real and extreme threat to the country.
I’d like to think someone else might emerge at the convention, but I suspect Romney will lock up enough delegates by then. In fact, I’m not so sure this will last into the Summer. The tipping point is coming soon, when Romney will appear all but inevitable to everyone but the most pig-headed. In fact, we’re probably there already.
would someone send his wife to Texas? she could pull women voters. I am fascinated by her. she’s…..her interviews are selling her short, somehow.
would some military guy go hug romney? and romney could let him go kill them over there, than us over here? b/c I’ve heard that “them/there” thing from most moms. it’s fascinating how hardcore mothers can be, esp when they explain they are thinking ten years out- and their sons near military age. I hadn’t expected that, ever.
and would romney pah-lease go tour that Mormon aid distribution center that goes world-wide? he shouldn’t be running against mormon-ism. he should be like, yep, we’re organized, prosperous, married for life, and pretty. got a problem with that? people in the south and west all have mormon neighbors. they are good neighbors.
have a romney ad on wifeswap, b/c, like, every fourth show is a mormon housewife laying organization and college plans down on other families. I want one to move in, and make my family life’s pretty, just like hers. If the wives are all like that? Imagine the husbands…all of them…it’s freaky how they are all pulled- together, sweet, in shape, dedicated to their kids, loved by their husband…..what are they putting in the koolaid up at their temples? could they sell Mormon koolaid at the grocery store? I’d buy it.
Romney ought to recruit david dewhurst, a texan, or Jan Brewer, the AZ governor, for the best ticket.
But he’s still having trouble closing the deal, which is why Santorum gave him such a scare in Ohio. Romney’s fundamental miscalculation to run a couple of notches to the left of his 2008 run continues to weaken him with Republican voters.
And yet he continues to win. The “seal the deal” meme is bogus. And wasn’t Santorum supposed to win big in Ohio not too long ago? And yet suddenly it’s significant that he gave Romney a “big scare.” Moving the goalposts on a regular basis because you can’t deal with reality is a trait of the Left. How about this for a narrative: Santorum was supposed to be strong in the midwest rustbelt. And yet he lost in Michigan and now Ohio. But I’m sure that since that reality is apparently too painful for those who hate Romney we can now expect to have the Mississippi primary elevated to miraculously dizzying heights of importance…until Santorum or Gingrich gets beaten. Then it will be no big deal.
“Winning” with pluralities in mid to low 30′s looks like losing in Nov. Why do you want that?
Winning with pluralities is pretty common in races where there are multiple candidates. That will not be the case in November. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Why is it so hard for you to understand that if only 5% of the Party can’t vote for a liberal progressive statist like Mitt, and if we don’t offer a clear alternative to Obama to the muddle in the middle, we lose?
How about this for a narrative: Romney has not and will not win a single southern state, not even one? Mitt McGovern will be the weakest GOP candidate in a generation.
Romney has not and will not win a single southern state, not even one?
Get a map. Then get somebody to help you find Florida on that map. Then get back to me. Clueless much? Or just too biased to offer up a coherent argument.
I agree that the pundits and keyboard warriors are constantly moving the goalposts to undermine Mitt, that is a great point. I find it hilarious that the very people who are calling Mitt “weak” want us to believe the guys who are losing to him are somehow “strong”.
Santorum has made the claim the rust belt voters were “his people”. He had huge leads in OH and MI and blew them both. That to me destroys his rationale for continuing. Newt can drop out and the outcome won’t change, Mitt is the nominee.
The press would have a field day with Santorum from the convention onwards if he is our candidate. If you’re tired of hearing about contraception day and night now, just wait. I would be fine with a Santorum presidency, but his focus is on social concerns.
Voters, however, are concerned about the economy. Obama’s economic policies are the gift that keeps on giving (to the Republican party, anyway). If we don’t capitalize on that, we deserve to lose in November. Romney has the ability to keep that front and center, but Santorum doesn’t appear to. Perhaps that’s because he’s running against Romney right now, but I just don’t think he has the knowledge or inclination to “pivot to jobs” when the time comes.
Sure, and Mittens friends in the media won’t release story after story about that ‘strange cult’ that declared war against the US, whose founder was jailed for treason then killed in a riot, and whose religious tenets were found on a golden plate.
Remember the Democrat Senate Majority Leader is a Mormon as well. Do you really think Democrats want to play the religious bigotry card? That would put Obama’s Black Liberation Theology back on the table.
Directly from the horses mouth. This isn’t about Mitt, its about his Mormonism for most conservative Republicans. Funny how we always hear this argument form those who hate Mormonism just as much as they claim (rightfully so actually) the left does? Guess what? The left has been hammering on the issue for five years already. What exactly are they waiting to talk about that hasn’t been talked about already?
They always talk about how conservatives Christians will sit out the vote if a Mormon is running against Obama. They never talk about how Mormons might sit it out if they feel the party the majority strongly supports don’t want them around. Utah and Idaho might be a sure thing, but there are a lot of Mormons in some key Western swing states.
For God’s sake, I wish they would just pick one and get on with the real fight!
The real Super Tuesday headline that no one will talk about: Romney Wins the Primary and Republicans Remain in Denial. They continue talking about how he will lose the South, but in the end the South doesn’t matter as much as they would like it to all alone. Most of the West and parts of the East Coast are a lock for Romney. Almost all places where winner takes all have been and are expected to be won by Romney. He will lose in proportionals and still win delegates.
Come the convention he still will win one of two ways. First, I want to start with a third way that won’t happen; a dark horse (Perry or Palin?) will try to swoop in and save non-Mormon conservatives from Romney, and not get enough delegates. Back to the other ways, there will be enough delegates to give Romney the advantage and he wins by hard fought votes. The other way is that not enough hard fought votes gives him the delegates, so it goes to the Republican leadership. Guess who the Republican leadership is going to pick? Yep, Romney. Anyone saying after 6 out of 10 wins including Ohio that he was supposed to go down with that Romney is not going to be the candidate is wishful thinking. Frankly, its also dangerous to an Obama defeat.
As this blog post says:
“1. Mitt Romney won 6 of 10 contests, including Ohio, which was his ‘must win’ state in the MSM narrative. Romney went from polling 10 digits behind Rick Santorum to winning narrowly. This is being described by the Governor’s detractors not as a sign of strength and resiliency, but that he is ‘struggling.’ I just heard Fox News say Romney ‘woke up today not as a clear front-runner.’ Wow.”
For once I agree with a Yahoo political story, and that is rare. They say that Romney can’t clinch the votes, but all the non-Romney’s can do is clinch the conservative Evangelical base that is in reality one third of the party. Among the religious, Romney win the Catholic votes by a wide margin. He also wins among women, higher educated, liberal, moderate, and most urban places.
I’m sorry, but this battle against Romney at this late in the game is only helping Obama. Before anyone attacks me as a Romney bot (I guess at about this time I would have to say I am for the good of defeating Obama), there are things I don’t like about him, but none of the current anti-Romney are capable of defeating Obama or are any better with past records than Romney. There is Santorum “I did what was best for the Party,” and Gingrich “I sat down with Pelosi to talk about Global Warming/now Climate Change.” If the conservatives want to sink the Republican ship rather than work with Mitt, I guess that is the way its going to be. Personally, I find Romney far less objectionable than McCain, especially when he was the anti-McCain last time along with Huckster.
I weep for November when we all should be rejoicing that the weakest President since Carter is on the Democrat’s ballot.
RUBBISH! Most of the West and parts of the East Coast that you delusionally claim are “a lock for Romney” are exactly those parts of the country which have and will vote for Obama.
Romney offers NO SUBSTANTIAL ALTERNATIVE.
That’s some pretty new math you’re using.
It looks to me like Romney can’t get much better than a third, and the non-Romney are the direction the Party has been on since 2008.
The real Super Tuesday headline that no one will talk about: Romney Wins the Primary and Republicans Remain in Denial. They continue talking about how he will lose the South, but in the end the South doesn’t matter as much as they would like it to all alone. Most of the West and parts of the East Coast are a lock for Romney. Almost all places where winner takes all have been and are expected to be won by Romney. He will lose in proportionals and still win delegates.
Come the convention he still will win one of two ways. First, I want to start with a third way that won’t happen; a dark horse (Perry or Palin?) will try to swoop in and save non-Mormon conservatives from Romney, and not get enough delegates. Back to the other ways, there will be enough delegates to give Romney the advantage and he wins by hard fought votes. The other way is that not enough hard fought votes gives him the delegates, so it goes to the Republican leadership. Guess who the Republican leadership is going to pick? Yep, Romney. Anyone saying after 6 out of 10 wins including Ohio that he was supposed to go down with that Romney is not going to be the candidate is wishful thinking. Frankly, its also dangerous to an Obama defeat.
As this blog post says:
“1. Mitt Romney won 6 of 10 contests, including Ohio, which was his ‘must win’ state in the MSM narrative. Romney went from polling 10 digits behind Rick Santorum to winning narrowly. This is being described by the Governor’s detractors not as a sign of strength and resiliency, but that he is ‘struggling.’ I just heard Fox News say Romney ‘woke up today not as a clear front-runner.’ Wow.”
For once I agree with a Yahoo political story, and that is rare. They say that Romney can’t clinch the votes, but all the non-Romney’s can do is clinch the conservative Evangelical base that is in reality one third of the party. Among the religious, Romney win the Catholic votes by a wide margin. He also wins among women, higher educated, liberal, moderate, and most urban places.
I’m sorry, but this battle against Romney at this late in the game is only helping Obama. Before anyone attacks me as a Romney bot (I guess at about this time I would have to say I am for the good of defeating Obama), there are things I don’t like about him, but none of the current anti-Romney are capable of defeating Obama or are any better with past records than Romney. There is Santorum “I did what was best for the Party,” and Gingrich “I sat down with Pelosi to talk about Global Warming/now Climate Change.” If the conservatives want the sink the Republican ship rather than work with Mitt, I guess that is the way its going to be. Personally, I find Romney far less objectionable than McCain, especially when he was the anti-McCain last time along with Huckster.
sorry for the double post. Wasn’t sure my first one worked.
There’s a good chance Ron Paul actually has the second-most delegates at this time. The media just assumes all the delegates are proportional for their charts even though they’re not.
Looks like the American people support increased debt ceilings, big spending, TARP, undeclared wars, Patriot Act, and NDAA indefinite detention.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who would cut actual spending. The rest will just maybe make some cuts in the rate of increased spending based on baseline budgeting. That 49 billion a year in war cuts some people are poo pooing? After 10 years of baseline budget increases, it’s not even an actual cut.
The GOP passed big-government fake-conservative “I love Patriot Act and NDAA” Paul Ryan’s ridiculous budget plan last year. It spends a higher % of GDP than Clinton did, raises the debt five trillion dollars the first 10 years, and doesn’t balance the budget until the year 2063. And “small government conservatives” think that’s fiscal conservatism. We’re doomed.
From: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/07/mitt-romney-its-not-like-the-president-can-precisely-set-the-price-at-the-pump/
EXCERPTS
“Yesterday, Mitt Romney said he’s “not going to say outrageous things about the president.” Trouble with that statement is that “outrageous” is a pretty subjective adjective. Outrageous to whom? Apparently, Romney meant to say he’s not going to say anything about the president that would outrage the left — because he doesn’t seem to be afraid to say something about the president that would outrage the right. In fact, he did just that earlier today, when he essentially said the president shouldn’t be held responsible for the high price of gas.”
“If he’s unwilling to unmask the president for who and what he is, he doesn’t stand a chance in November. Nobody is asking him to take cheap shots: We’re just asking him to not give the president the benefit of the doubt when the president’s purposes are pretty clear.”
The media must be brain dead if they think the only vote Romney can’t catch is the Evangelical base.
My Evangelical family of four, three Catholics and one screaming, holy roller outlier (me) just voted for Romney in Oklahoma. You think we’re going to vote for Obama if we don’t get our perfect candidate?
Absolutely no dislike of Santorum or Gingrich either. I love Newt – I think he’s awesome, he was my first choice of the candidates, and I’m damn glad he’s on my side. We’re simply being pragmatic, with a desire to (1) Best chance to win and (2) realize short of the deficit, the biggest impact a President will have this term is three possible SCOTUS appointees. We don’t need a court ruled by six Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones – we’ve already got three of them.
I can only give this advice while y’all debate. Barack Obama lost 15 of 77 counties last night – in the Democratic primary.
I can only assure the United States of this, with a promise to any Republican candidate who happens to win.
Listen up:
There is no need to concern yourself Mr. Republican or waste your money in the state of Oklahoma, a state that Barack Obama won exactly ZERO out of 77 counties in 2008. That’s when he was Mr. Hope & Change. Your advertisements would interfere with our TV programing. And we’re just itching to cast a vote again in November. Can’t believe there aren’t 25 more states just like us.
Give us a Republican candidate, and we’ll be there.
We ain’t big. But our little world sure is solid red.
Exactly. That’s why the media is going after Romney and trying to paint him as a failure. They know he can draw in the independents and moderate Republicans- and even if the social conservatives dislike him, they’ll crawl over broken glass to cast a vote against Obama.
No they won’t. Just watch.
Hatred is a powerful motivator- and the hatred most evangelicals feel for Obama is almost palpable.
Hatred is such a loaded word.
How about greatly enthused to see Obama and his equally gut wrenching wife, Michelle Antoinette, frogmarched to the curb?
I won’t crawl over glass to get to the voting booth to cast a vote this November. I’ll eat glass to get to the voting booth this November. And I say that as one who never even got his horses entered into this race.
This is a fact. There are at least 25 states that don’t dislike Obama. We disdain Obama. This vote is not about Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum. Not a one of those guys enthuse me. I’d rate 2-10 on the enthusiasm scale, if polled.
What some of you are missing is there are about 50 million people that would rate a 12 out of 10 on the enthusiasm scale to get rid of Obama and everyone of his feckless ilk.
When Mr. Barack Obama becomes the central issue, the focal point, and sooner or later its time for Barry to slither upon the stage to have the bright lights shined on his dismal, abysmal record, then you will get a true measure of the “enthusiasm.”
Just make sure everyone of you keep the lights on Barack Obama and his last four, miserable, epically failed years. Don’t get detracted from that one major point. Sandra Fluke? Obama. Bin Laden? Economy. Jobs created? Net jobs lost. Jobs saved? $6,000,000,000,000 Debt. GM Bailout? Lie. Disaster. Cash for Clunkers.
Because the media carrying Obama’s water and Obama’s goons and stooges are going to do everything in their power to lie, propagandize, cheat, and deflect – and we can’t let that happen this time.
A few months ago, Republicans were way ahead of Dems in terms of “excitement in the election by likely voters.” Since then, Dems’ excitement level has gone down. BUT REPUBLICANS’ EXCITEMENT HAS CRASHED! And now the excitement level among voters of both parties are about matched. Republicans are so disgusted by Romney they are less likely to vote than when they thought they were going to get a real choice. Romney can throw all the millions he wants at destroying other Republicans in the primaries. The one thing he is unable to do is get people excited about the idea of having him as president. This is the case in the primaries and will be even more the case in the general. What were the Republicans thinking? So sad.
I think all of this malaise will pass, no matter who the Republicans pick. Right now, we (and the press) are busy picking on the candidates, putting them in the hot seat and dragging out every tiny bit of dirty laundry on a daily basis. Meanwhile, Obama hangs around in the background and tries not to make any blunders. (He polls significantly better when he’s keeping his mouth shut, by the way).
However, after the convention, all that will change because Obama will be back in the spotlight, and people will remember who the REAL problem is.
Republicans are so disgusted by Romney they are less likely to vote than when they thought they were going to get a real choice.
Romney is winning. Romney is the best candidate in the race. There were plenty of choices at the start and most have fallen by the wayside for one reason or another. The adolescent whining and crying of the folks who hate Mitt is really getting old. I think that’s what is disgusting.
Romney is the worst candidate of the three.
This is because the his most believable loyalty is to the progressive liberalism he has steadfastly served all of his political career, until it looked like he could be President if he lied well enough.
The parts of his liberal outlook which he still clings to tell the tale.
There’s no way to win with this man, and I will not help the GOP go in the wrong direction.
“Proof That Romney Is Willing To Say ANYTHING To Get Elected”
http://conservativedailynews.com/2012/03/proof-that-romney-is-willing-to-say-anything-to-get-elected/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheConservativeDailyNews+%28The+Conservative+Daily+News%29
I do have to say that I am impressed by Romney’s organization in Super Tuesday.
I mean its been almost a full day and no one has been caught altering the election results to steal a primary for Mittens as occurred in Iowa and Maine.
His people are getting better at making sure of the reported vote count.
BRIETBART: Now, MORE POWERFUL than anyone can possibly imagine!Many citizens are motivated to push back on Team Obama and his cultural Stormtroopers: This includes a Hollywood producer and a freelance journalist giving “Managing Media” lessons.
It also includes details about the DEMOCRATIC primary in OKLAHOMA, which should be of great interest to citizen activists everywhere. It’s not something that the elite media is going to cover.
Reading the comments here conjures up a picture of a circular firing squad. I have no idea why Santorum is considered a conservative based on his actual voting record. He had no private sector accomplishments. He lost his last election by 18%. Newt has a strong congressional record. Romney ran a successful Olympics, loads of private sector experience and is a self-made millionaire. If Santorum wins the debate will be about abortion and gays when Americans care about jobs and spending.
I am sickened by the fact that Obama will be given a 2nd term by Republicans. It is beyond tragic as it will be Republicans that will be the final nail in America’s coffin.
Mittens has NOT sealed the deal:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/03/07/super-tuesday-by-the-numbers/
If Mitt had almost enough delegates to win the GOP nomination on a first ballot, and Ron Paul had enough additional delegates to make the difference for Mitt, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mitt made a deal with Ron Paul that resulted in Mitt choosing Senator Rand Paul as his running mate in exchange for Ron Paul giving Mitt his delegates on a second ballot. This would strengthen the GOP ticket in the south, among Tea Party supporters, and possibly among those in the military (where Ron Paul’s support is strong). But I’m not sure that Senator Paul would otherwise be Mitt’s first choice. He might prefer Ron Portman of Ohio or constitutionally ineligible choices like Rubio or Jindal. (Rubio and Jindal’s parents were non-citizens of the U.S. when they were born, and so they are native born citizens of the U.S. but not natural born citizens as that term has been understood by the U.S. Supreme Court.)
When Chris Christie speaks at the convention for Romney and asks “Who do we want?”, we can all yell “Christie!” just as in the convention that nominated James Garfield after 20+ ballots!
And Christie will say, you really want Obama to win that badly that you will throw your own candidate under the bus? He is not going to be the “white knight” because he doesn’t want to run. He said it very blatantly.