It’s another CPAC year, and it appears that not much is new. Mitt Romney will still say anything to convince the GOP and conservative voters that his past doesn’t exist, and the CPAC attendees still bounce back and forth between the same two names they’ve done since 2007… Mitt or Ron Paul. After CPAC 2010-2011 Straw Polls, handing the victory to Ron Paul, Romney regained his crown and chalked up yet another CPAC win with 38% of the 3,408 attendees. Santorum came in second with 31%, Gingrich third at 15%, and Ron Paul trailing last with 12%.
The participation in the straw poll – always traditionally low – seems to echo that same pattern considering the estimated attendance of 10,000 touted. Al Cardenas, chair of the American Conservative Union which sponsors CPAC, had hoped a change of rules, allowing attendees to vote electronically with their phones and iPads, instead of just through paper ballots, would boost the voting participation.
“No one’s stacking the deck this year,” Cardenas said. “It’s a wide-open process. I don’t think any of [the candidates] want to be caught with a perception that they’re trying to stack the deck and then lose the straw ballot. … The outcome will be far less predictable.”
All that according to Cardenas adds up to results that, when they’re announced Saturday, will be a real barometer of which presidential candidate the thousands of attendees at CPAC like the most.
“This is the first time that you’re going to have the ultimate focus group of 10,000 people (or whatever it turns out to be) listening to four candidates over the same period of time, voting on who they like the best,” Cardenas told me at his morning press conference. “They’re going to be swayed by the passion of the orator. Whether they end up voting for the person they came in supporting or not, I think that’s one of the most interesting stories for you fellows to follow.”
Personally, I would think such electronic polls leave you even more open to a fraudulent count, as any well versed Ron Paul supporter can attest. In fact, as the masters of swamping any electronic poll, the CPAC officials are lucky that most the Ron Paul voters were MIA, along with their candidate. Indeed, the electronic voting seemed to be one of the hopes CPAC had to keep the Ron Paul supporters from gaming the system, and hope for at least 2/3rds of those attending to participate.
This year, the American Conservative Union and CPAC are moving from paper ballots to electronic voting that will be accessible from a computer or a handheld device, said Al Cardenas, the conservative union’s current president. He told The Huffington Post that he hopes this will increase the number of attendees who participate in the straw poll.
“Obviously, in the past, it’s been somewhat compromised because only a third of the people who attend voted,” Cardenas said in an interview. “It used to be a fairly cumbersome process because you had to do it manually. Now, for the first time this year we’re instituting an electronic vote.
“So people can vote through Saturday afternoon, and before, that wasn’t the case,” he said. “And we’re hoping that instead of having a third of those in attendance vote, we’ll have two-thirds or more vote.”
If you’re Romney, should you be celebrating that only 1.2% of all CPAC attendees wanted to vote for him, and most of them there didn’t want to vote for anyone? Instead, the lack of participation makes a serious statement on the lackluster enthusiasm by what is supposed to be a charged up base of conservatives, eager to beat Obama with literally any one with an “R” behind their names or, as others have stated, any handy inanimate object.
If this all that would postpone their next text or tweet in order to muster up the Herculean effort of an electronic vote, the conservative base and GOP Party are in big trouble. Because no matter how you spin it, 66% approximate are still unhappy with the political buffet laid before them…. even after what has been promoted as a wildly positive event.
Probably about as accurate or scientific as the Straw Poll itself is S.E. Cupps’ own personal straw poll Friday evening, where it seems the true winner is which ever direction the wind is blowing that day, the “Frankenstein” candidate… a piece of this guy, and another piece of that one…. and not to be ignored, the amount of people who stated that their convictions were impossible to ignore that were running along side those that would vote for an empty can of Spam over Obama.
“Decidedly undecided” says it all. If you get an answer today, be sure to ask again next week to see if it’s the same answer.
But if the history of the CPAC Straw Poll winners bears out, Romney’s fourth win will unlikely translate to anything more rewarding than his previous wins. Since it’s inception in 1976, only Reagan and Bush have gone on to get the nod at the GOP Convention, let alone get to the WH. Other winners, Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, Rudy Giuliana, George Allen, Mittens and Ron Paul, have failed to make the grade.
In fact, the failure rate of CPAC winners is a dubious legacy enshrined by the neo-liberal rag, The New Republic, in a slideshow.
So congrats to Mittens for chalking up his fourth win. But since the third time wasn’t the charm, I’m not thinking the fourth will do much, except to give him empty bragging rights. Maybe next year he should compete on Dancing with the Stars. At least he’ll could nab a mirror ball trophy for his efforts.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Is it interesting that Paul didn’t “win” this one?
Most Paul supporters turn out to see Paul. No Paul, far fewer Paul supporters. Plus anyone on the fence (which probably isn’t that many people) would probably not be inclined to vote for someone who couldn’t be bothered to show up in person.
Rick has his sweater vests.
Newt supporters say he will “Newtralize Obama.”
There are a plethora of names for Ron Paul supporters.
But we GOTTA get a better nickname for Romney, than “Mittens.”
😛
@anticsrocks:
How about “Mitt-igated disaster”
Mitticulous, Miter Saw No Evil in Obama,
@Ditto: and @Skookum: LOL! Love ’em!
What an arrogant person you must be. I am just an average american. I have listened to to the debates, listen
to the speeches and read backgrounds on the candidates. I liked a couple of those running. But when it came down to really choosing one that one was Romney. He had all the attributes that I was looking for. Taking a
pole in our family the results were the same. Another thing we agreeed on the we are sick of the so called conservative pundits and talk show hosts that rail everyday on their shows against this man. most of our
family have tuned them out and refuse to listen to their broadcast.
When will you realize we are not electing God, we are trying to find a human being who will try to turn this
country around help us again regain some respect in this world. You as a blogger are damaging our party.
What an arrogant person you must be. I am just an average american who has listen to the debates, speeches and
read the the bio’s of the candidates. After all of this I settled on Romney. Most of our family of 23 did the same.
We are sick of the pundits, talk shows, and bloggers spewing their hatred on all except their chosen candidate.
Please remember we are not electing “GOD”, we are electing the one we feel is the best to beat Obama. You are
turing off so many of us with your biased opinions. Just remember we are fighting to unseat this president .
we are sick of your opinions. Just give us facts we will do the rest.
@bbartlog:
Paul didn’t even participate in CPAC or the straw poll.
Rosemary, in all fairness to political writers, if we only needed facts without opinions, two or three pages a day would be available with facts and figures. It is the personality and opinions of the writer that helps people to think and analyze. We have arguments here and many differences of opinion, but to assume that people who disagree with you shouldn’t state their opinions and offer viable alternatives is discounting the need for political writers.
If you are sold on the Romney ticket, I suggest you state the reasons for your choice in an essay and submit it for publication. We are now engaged in an important primary selection process and many of us are not excited about the choices and are uncommitted. We have a great respect for Mata and her commentary: if you disagree with her analysis, write a rebuttal and refute her post. This is a site that encourages debate and not a site that asks its readers to accept a particular candidate without question.
The means to challenge the premises of Mata is in front of you; please begin typing and share your opinions and analysis with us. You may have debate and challenges, but I doubt if anyone will tell you to keep your opinions to yourself and just give us the facts.
@rosemary costello:
Because I disagree with you? Am I the only one to recognize the irony?
That seems unnecessarily brutal, but then you like Obamneycare apparently, so I guess it makes sense. A male would be arrested for domestic violence.
I do realize that, you did that last time. I’m not clear on what all the bother is, I’m pretty sure an Executive order will be out telling us we are not going to do the right thing so Mooch has ordered the election canceled.
@rosemary costello:
Why are you here? (reading this blog) I stop doing things that make me sick. Like voting for people that want to further destroy my freedom (like Obamneycare, for a handy example).
I have no clue what Flopping Aces post you read, Rosemary. Frankly, your comments are so far out from left field that I almost want to ask what was in the cup you were sipping from before commenting.
Well, now Rosemary…. in this post I gave you facts about CPAC and their straw polls. But it seems you don’t want to hear them. What facts?
That the CPAC straw poll has had very little enthusiastic voting participation this year, despite the fact that they tried to make it easy for them to vote with their laptops, iPhones etc. No more different than sending a twitter or posting to Facebook.
They were shooting for 2/3rds participation. Yet out of 10,000 supposedly enthusiastic conservatives in attendance, eager to throw Obama out of the WH, only 34% of them could bother to vote using their hi tech media toys.
Facts… sticky things, aren’t they? 10,000 captive attendees, armed with all the latest new technology, and they couldn’t bother to vote for a choice after three days, lots of pomp, circumstance, bright lights and speakers? As I ask in the OP, does this look like an eager and charged up base to you?
The “ho hummm” response in the participation, and vote tallies , indicate:
1: That MOST (66%) of the entire attendence didn’t bother to vote and that of those who did, 62% did *not* want Romney.
2: that they can’t rally around a single second candidate yet.
3: and that the “enthusiasm” for this election ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. And that can only be attributed to the lackluster candidates, unable to light the fire in the belly of the voters
That’s a fact. But evidently it’s a fact you don’t want to hear. Or perhaps you think all their toys had lost their charge, and they had technical problems with voting?
Another fact you want to ignore? The reality of the CPAC winners’ history. The straw poll has been held since 1976, and only bypassed in circa 2004 era. Out of the 18 straw polls, only two winners – Reagan and Bush the younger, and in only three out of the 18 straw polls – went on to get the nomination. At least those two won.
Fact? The odds that CPAC picks a winner is a statistical long shot. But evidently it’s a fact you don’t want to hear.
It strikes me that you’d best be staring in the mirror when you toss out that arrogant charge, Rosemary. This entire post was about CPAC, the lackluster response, and the deplorable record of their straw polls over the years. For heavens sake, they’ve picked Ron Paul for the last couple of years. Does that resonate with you? Or do you only defend such unscientific nonsense and beauty contests when they pick your guy?
So you think I’m “arrogant” because I don’t like your chosen candidate? You believe I am “damaging our party”
Well, news bulletin, girl. I’m not a member of your “Party” because I’m an independent. I’m not a “Party” kind of girl because, as you demonstrate, it apparently requires character traits I don’t possess… like blindly swallowing what is fed to me for the good of “the Party” – despite the fact that it is an abomination to all my principles. Or that a “win” is defined as any one with an “R” behind their name, and screw the genuine solutions to the nation’s woes.
Since being a member of your club or “Party” requires that I sell my principles, or that I STFU and meekly fall in line to cheer on someone I do not approve of, then I guess I’d never be one of you anyway. I have nothing in common with those who possess such a view of politics.
I’m going to take a guess that you have no problems with O’healthcare. Or legislation/regulations for AGW. These happen to be a couple of large issues for me… most certainly the former. So let me lay this out straight and direct.
There are no amounts of insults you can hurl that will make me accept the Godfather of O’healthcare as the face of conservatism… I don’t care that he is a registered Republican.
And if you have no problem putting the religion of AGW ahead of existence of coal factories, then I guess Romney’s your guy. And that’s just getting me started on the man’s record.
Lastly, if you and your “Party” think I should just keep my opinions to myself, I suggest that you and your beloved “Party” have gone so far to the left and – like your mortal enemy, the lib/progs – you’ll betray the First Amendment if it helps you to seize power.
IMHO, that makes you no better than a liberal/progressive. So forgive me if I find your personal representation as a “Party” member simply validates my dedication to principles. I emphatically reject your herd mentality that is focused on power, and not advancing the conservative agenda.
Here’s the bottom line… if you want to be the GOP’s call girl, you’re on your own. My principles are not for sale, just to change the decor in the Oval Office.
@Aqua, Ron Paul may have been MIA at CPAC this year, but he doesn’t need to be there to “participate”. He came in last with 12 percent, or 408 or so of the 34% of attendees that bothered to vote.
I believe she already did, Skook… when she said:
Now where does she get that enlightened crystal ball knowledge? From the polls by the MSM that she says are dissing Romney. Heaven knows if she’s tuning out broadcasts that *dare* to criticize him, she’s certainly got pretty much the world of media still available to her.
You’ll only get critical analysis on Romney from the Internet news world, or talk radio.
We might be more impressed if there was indeed a requirement for all CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) members to prove that they are indeed true conservatives by passing a conservative position entrance exam. Or if they released their membership list to the public so that we can try to evaluate how each member has contributed to the “conservative cause.” There is no authority that validates that each and every member of a political action committee is actually dedicated and pledged to that cause. Nor would I be at all surprised if it turned out that the majority of CPAC’s membership is filled with Republican-progressives, moderates, or what many of us recognize as simply more of the typical establishment Republican elitists who claim to be conservatives without acting as such.
Remember, that someone who dons a particular political mantle may not actually support that “cause”. Many Republicans favor a democracy over a republic. Quite a few Democrats are actually in favor of an oligarchical dominant class, ruling over the lowly unwashed masses using the promise of socialistic-entitlements to enslave the people. The Federalists were not in fact federalist. The Anti-Federalists actually were federalists, but chose their moniker to show opposition. It’s also not at all uncommon for someone to “join” a group (having an actual hidden their own agenda of: either taking it over from within, to use the alliance for their own personal gain, to neutralize, or even destroy the organization. (For example, look into what happened to the now long defunct Reform Party.)
Little in the game of politics is actually what it seems or professes to be. Which is why many of us who post on FA are justifiably cynical of even those who proclaim that “(they) support our cause.” That is not “arrogance” by any interpretation of the word, but the result of years of being lied to by politicians.
@Ditto:
Is there anybody here besides me that any of that would be proof positive that there are no True Conservatives (Whatever that turns out to mean.) in the room?
MataHarley, who is your next Wack-a-Mole going to be? First it was Bachmann, followed by Cain, Perry Gingrich, and now it’s Santorum. What’s next, Obama? If your main concern is getting rid of Obama then it would be a wise thing to get behind Romney as the others don’t stand a chance in Hell of giving him the boot this November. Mark my words……No GOP candidate can unseat Obama but Romney.
Hank Rockwell Jr, I did not “wack-a-mole” Bachmann. She sunk herself. I defended Cain, just didn’t like his 999 plan but that wouldn’t stop me from voting for him. Said I’d vote for Perry but he wasn’t my favorite. Newt is my preferred out of the group. And Santorum I also said I’d vote for, tho I don’t think he can win. And his vote to approve the Sotomayor Circuit Court appointment, siding with the Dems instead of the majority GOP trying to stop her fast track to the SCOTUS, bothers me tremendously.
The only three I have said from the beginning that are a no go are Romney, Paul and Huntsman. Only two of those are left standing, and Paul hasn’t a shot at the nom.
Now that you’ve accused me of falsehoods, I suggest you go back into the archives and prove your accusations. Otherwise, blow it out whatever orifice you choose. Matters not to me.
rosemary costello
it sound like you’re talking about the man you love,
it’s so beautiful to hear so much love, very poetic.
UNCLE MITT, MITT A FORE, MITT O LO GIC, MITT A DONE, MITT EN, MITTIMUS, MITT RALLEUSE,
MITT I GATE, MITRE ; bishop and abbot’s tall cap,deeply cleft at top, esp, as symbol of
episcopal office,WHENCE MI”TRED….MITT’ENDED; DISMISSED FROM OFFICE,
@Hank Rockwell Jr: Socialism bad. Matters not a whit whether it is Obamneycare as Pelosi wrote it, or Obamneycare as Mittens wrote it.
Replaceing Obama with Romney is not worth the gas it takes to get to the polling place and it is not worth the expense of repainting the Oval Orifice.
Larry Sheldon
hi
if he is the nominate, he will be better than OBAMA, and will be put on top by all the conservatives,
the thing is, HE WILL DO THE JOB BETTER BECAUSE HE LOVE AMERICA,
so if he is the chosen one, he must get in, no excuse for anyone to not see that the other must go,
no room for another mistake.
bye
@Larry Sheldon: You said:
But what you fail to understand is that while Romney may well be Obama lite, he does not have Obama’s disdain for:
* the Constitution
* American Exceptionalism
* the “middle class”
With Romney in office the worst thing we will have to worry about is him possibly increasing the size, scope and reach of government – and that is bad enough in and of itself.
With Obama in a second term without the threat of re-election hanging over his head, fretting about bigger government is the LEAST of our worries.
So it makes a difference, even if it ends up being Romney who gets the GOP nomination.
.
.
antics, beg to differ. An unconstitutional mandate at the federal level doesn’t make it any more constitutional at the state level. The only way that the state of Mass could get away with Romneycare and his supported (still) mandate was it if was a tax. Even then, it may be questionable. A tax on *not* purchasing something?
Therefore Romney’s largest flaw is he, like Obama, has disdain for the Constitution. They are interchangable. Larry Sheldon is correct here. ’tain’t worth the gas.
@MataHarley: I get your point, but I was alluding to the broader disdain that Obama has for all things Constitutional. When compared to Romney, I think Obama wins hands down on the “who hates the limits of the Constitution more” game.
@anticsrocks:
Do you have any supporting evidence for any ONE of those?
So tell me again why I should waste the gas?
The only question I see is whether I have to learn to speak Arabic or Chinese.
Larry Sheldon
wow, are you on drugs or drunk?
you lost it
@ilovebeeswarzone: Nah. I don’t do drugs and don’t drink enough tgo notice.
I do however have my eyes open and I have not been drinking the koolaid either.
Larry Sheldon
hi, good to know you are checking too, but whatever happen and it will too,
don’t quit on AMERICA, SHE IS THE GREATEST FRIEND YOU ALWAYS HAD AND ALWAYS WILL,
no matter how much pain she has been received, they will disappear before they destroy her,
the PATRIOTS ARE WATCHING FOR HER,
BYE
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Bad as it is, it is still the best place I know of.
But there a lot more who don’t think so and want to continue to sell us out.
Including as near as can tell, all of the people being considered for the office of President
@Larry Sheldon: Off to work, will respond to you this evening.
Larry Sheldon
hi, you have join the group of those who don’t trust anymore because of the deceptions of last years,
but still the CANDIDATES NOT BEING PERFECT BUT LOVING AMERICA, AND WE MUST REMEMBER THEY TOO HAVE BEEN HARASSED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND HIS AGENCIES OUT TO STOP ANYTHING THAT DARE TO MOVE, those agencies have the order to paralyze AMERICA’S WILL
to create, to come out of the bad time and rise above their humiliations of being treated as inferior humans.
the people are down so depress and that’s the way the GOVERNMENT WANT THEM, TO INSTALL THEIR COMMUNIST AGENDA WHICH PROMOTE ALL TO BE THE SAME ROBOTS FOLLOWING WHAT
THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD TO DO, which is the most ANTI AMERICA EVER BEEN IN POWER,
ANY ONE OF THE CANDIDATES IS 100 TIMES BETTER THAN WHAT IS IN THE TOP POSITION OF AMERICA NOW, THE WHOLE WORLD HAS NOTICE IT. YOU HAVE TO NOTICE TOO,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
All well, good, and true (even with the massive capslock failure).
Unanswered, however is the answer to the question “who to vote for?”.
I keep seeing “it doesn’t matter.”
(If I lived where I was presented with a choice for Representative or Senator, it would be worth the trip out. Although I am not sure why I think that, given the accepted decisions to ignore Congress.)
Larry Sheldon
I’LL let anticsrocks follow up on your thoughts, he is far better inform and able to continue
the debate with
the doubts and questions you are asking yourself,
but what I know is that this GOVERNMENT IS ON the intent to destroy AMERICA, and must be defeated
at all cost. and beside that the last man has not been decided yet, many changes will happen before the stabilisation of the CAMPAIGNS, and many other STATES are preparing to vote for their right CANDIDATE,
until all have spoken, we will be so energize then,just give it a chance, with time’s coming,
and when the new GOVERNMENT ARISE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA WILL BE DANCING IN THE STREETS FOR MANY DAYS, THEY WILL WAKE UP TO THE FUTURE OF THE REAL AMERICA GIANT MARCHING TO TELL THE WORLD THEY CAN TRUST AMERICA FROM THEN ON.
BYE
You do need@ilovebeeswarzone: You really do need to get your capslock key under control, it is hurting your message.
Defeated it must be. But if you are going to do it with elections, you have to elect somebody that is different.
Electing the same old same old, is not going to get anything new.
Except paint in the Oval Office.
MataHarley, Sorry, my mistake. I meant who is “the” next Wack-a-Mole going to be, not “your” next Wack-a-Mole. I do know I didn’t make a mistake in saying “No GOP candidate can unseat Obama but Romney”. Mark my words. Rome wasn’t built in a day and the extremists on the left will not be ousted in a day either. It will take quite some time. By endorsing any candidate except Mittens, as you say, it will only waste precious time and the Leftist will have destroyed our nation by then.
Apology accepted, and I’m sorry I misread your comment, which appeared to be directed at me personally.
Sorry… I don’t see Romney winning, and I don’t believe polls that say the same. The GOP’s crystal ball is obviously dusty, or we’d be in the 3rd year of a McCain presidency right now.
What do we know? That Obama is likely to have more money to buy the election than *any* GOP candidate. Therefore unless the GOP candidate can represent a significant alternative to Obama.. and that’s not Romney… there is no hope for winning based on a reversal of direction by this nation. And frankly, I can’t see anything more hypocritical by a political party than to rail about an unconstitutional mandate, then run the guy who is the godfather of the mandate. Credibility for principles and consistency? Zip… zero.
Mittens is the perfect Obama foil… the evil 1%, corporate raider capitalist who keeps money in the Caymans to avoid paying taxes, and is on record that he doesn’t want to pay a dime more than he owes. Goldman Sach has abandoned Obama this election, and raced to pledge their support behind Romney… something that Obama will be extremely happy to exploit.
What can’t Romney hit Obama on? Healthcare – see above. EPA and AGW. His selection of judicial appointments. His gubernatorial record is one even Obama could be proud of.
As a matter of fact, after Romney and his EPA were protesting outside coal plants, Obama’s got one of Romney’s croneys in his own admin, who’s goal is to destroy all coal plants.
Outsider? What a joke. Romney’s about as much of an outsider as Obama is or was. The only difference is Obama won his attempts to become the insider, while Romney lost all his. That’s why he ended up going for Governor. Don’t know if you noticed, but Romney’s never settled for a lesser apprentice job. His first time out of the political gate in an election was to tackle Kennedy for the Senate seat. When that didn’t work, he dove for king of the state, as Governor. After that, he went right after the White House and has been trying since. Outside, my butt…. And I sincerely doubt that the Wall Street financial institution big guns, all throwing money at Romney, back “outsiders” when they seriously need insiders.
Both Romney and Obama will destroy this nation. The only difference is the rate the blood will flow from the wound. Talk about wasted precious time, there is nothing more wasteful than proposing Romney for eight years. I’ll take Rubio, West, Jindal or other possibilities in 2016, thank you.
In the meantime, I want to see this primary run the process thru to the end… and hopefully with all four candidates staying in, possible brokered convention and all. This is the people’s choice – our only moment to tell the Party muckety mucks who we want as a candidate. I do not yield that power to those exercising fear mongering, crystal ball politics. So I won’t tell you who to vote for, and I’ll expect the same respect in return.
This one deserved a response on it’s own, Hank…
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask Romney and his SuperPacs? He’s the king of negativity, and begat it in Iowa.
But my first guess is it’s going to be Santorum. Romney no longer has to focus his cash arsenal on Newt because the press… people like National Journal and American Thinker, plus the lib media… are busy doing that for him. Interesting… Newt’s taken over $15 mil in negative slander, yet still in double digit support. Since everyone is calling this a two man race between Romney and Santorum, you’d think that the media would waste no more time on Newt. Yet they do.
I find that’s extremely interesting behavior…. they do not focus on Ron Paul in that same way, and that’s because I believe they see Newt’s candidacy as a genuine shake up.
There’s some interesting behind the scenes things going. And if both Ron Paul and Newt hold their support, combined they and their delegates hold a very influential voting bloc at the convention. Scares the tar out of the Party faithful. Santorum and Romney? They’re fighting over the same voters. Both Newt and Paul’s support has remained steady, while Mittens and Rick trade off voting percentages.
@Hank Rockwell Jr: @Hank Rockwell Jr: Endorsing Romney IS endorsing a leftist.
I am opposed to endorsing leftists.
Larry Sheldon
yes I will be careful on the caps, you see nobody is perfect and it goes for the CANDIDATES,
BUT you have to admit they are far more classy than OBAMA,
AND THEY DO LOVE AMERICA, WOOPS back to the no caps,
what’s my excuse is that the key move by herself,
[just kidding]
bye
@Larry Sheldon: Okay sorry I couldn’t reply earlier today, Larry. Here goes.
You said, as regards Obama’s disdain for the Constitution, American Exceptionalism and the “middle class”:
Doesn’t take much thought to really find support for what I claimed. Obama has trampled the Constitution by ignoring the Separation of Powers when he:
*declared the Senate in recess
* commanded his EPA to regulate carbon emissions without Congressional authority
* having the Department of Homeland Security implement the DREAM act even though it wasn’t passed by the legislature
* thwarted a Federal Appeals court ruling and had the FCC regulate internet traffic anyway
* having the NLRB tell Boeing where it can and cannot open a factory
* having the NLRB change the time allotted for union elections
I mean I could go on and on, but really why bother? It is very clear that this President isn’t interested in working within the framework of our Constitution.
As for his disdain for American Exceptionalism, he is on record as a candidate saying:
Lastly, his disdain for the middle class is evident in his policies that have wrought havoc on hard working Americans who feel the sting quicker and more painfully than those “evil rich folks” who seemingly contribute to his campaign coffers endlessly. His policies have brought us higher prices at the pump, fewer jobs and more people per year on food stamps than any other President ever.
Let me state unequivocally that I am NOT a Romney supporter. He in no way represents my thoughts, feelings or philosophy when it comes to running the country. However, if he gets the nomination, I will “pull the lever” for him. It’ll be hard, seeing as how I will be holding my nose with the other hand…, but I shall cast my vote none-the-less.
If you see no difference between Romney and Obama – and I will admit that they do have some things in common – then don’t vote for him. All I am saying is that Romney is nowhere near the radical that Obama is.
Not even close.
.
.
@anticsrocks: TWEEEEEEEET!!!!!! [throws yellow flag]
I hope that is not what I said. I hope I said
he [Romney] does not have is what you said. I said show me that Romney is in any tiny way different from Obama.
@Larry Sheldon: I did not read past the flag.
@Larry Sheldon: Okay, I misunderstood you. I thought you were wanting examples for Obama’s disdain for the things I mentioned.
As far as Romney, all I can say is what I said to Mata on this very same subject:
Again, let me be clear (to borrow a phrase from the current occupier of the WH), I do not want Romney as our nominee. There are several other candidates who I would prefer over and above Romney. But I just don’t see him as the same type of radical that Obama is. If he ends up in the Oval Office, maybe I will proven wrong. I hope to God that I’m not.
This is just my subjective opinion of Romney as I see him, which is a moderate, even progressive Republican in the same vein as Rockefeller.
anticsrocks
hi
I see that SANTORUM IS GETTING SOME SUPPORT FROM THE BILLIONAIRE,
AND NEWT GINGRISH ALSO getting some millions, I also read that WALL-STREET
is neglecting OBAMA, HE MUST BE FURIOUS, but he incited so many against them, that he deserve.
and the best way to hurt him is cutting the buck supply,
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Yes, you’re right. He is losing some big donors. It is strange, the ones he seems to be losing are the ones that think he hasn’t been radical enough, or as they see it, not far enough to the left.
Obama losing financial backing of big S.F. donor
Larry Sheldon…You wouldn’t know a leftist if it hit you in the face. I’ve fought leftists, and I’m here to inform you that Romney is no leftist. If people like you could pull your heads out you would see that Romney is the most conservative of all the GOP candidates. Do I smell religious bigotry? If that’s the case, grow a set and man up to it.
@Hank Rockwell Jr: If you found a bad smell, it is you who needs the bath.
Your remark is close to an actionable slander. Or is it libel–I don’t deal with that much?
He might very well be the most conservative of the GOP candidates, I’ll give you that. I see that as a problem.
And Obamneycare (or Rombamacare) is [pick one] socialist, fascist, leftist, or progressive.
@Hank Rockwell Jr: You had me till you said Romney was the most Conservative of all the GOP candidates.
Romney during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts:
In Florida, Romney really began trying to don some Conservative clothes, but his history tells another tale:
If Romney becomes our nominee, he will preferable to Obama, but that does not mean that he is a Conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, I would even go so far as to say that McCain is more Conservative than Romney.
anticsrocks….I see the problem with Washington is Washington Insiders. Romney is the only candidate running that isn’t a career politician. As far as Massachusetts is concerned, Romney did what he had too to get in, and soon afterward, he turned the state around. I learned those skills myself at SWCS before I was deployed to Nam’. It’s those skills and training that have helped make my life and family successful. Please consider this for one moment, if you will. If it hadn’t been for progressive thought Columbus would have never discovered America, slaves would still be slaves, and miracle cures would have never been discovered. There needs be a balance of both ideals, conservative and progressive. Today the scales have shifted too far to the left and thus need to be brought back into alignment. Too far to the left results in Tyranny. Too far to the Right results in Anarchy. Every GOP candidate is far from perfect, but the objective is, to swing the scales back and Mitt Romney is the candidate I believe is the odds on favorite towards attaining that goal.
In closing I would like to state that the only perfect candidate that agrees with you, or myself 100% of the time, looks at us in the mirror every morning when we shave. My primary objective is to remove Barack Hussein Obama out of office and back to the ghettos of Chicago wince he came.
With sincere respect,
Hank Rockwell Jr
2nd Battalion, 1st SF Group, 18 Bravo. MACVSOG CCN SSgt (AKA Ghost)
Hank Rockwell Jr
yes sir you have more than earn to give your opinion, you even lived it.
and It’s well taken into appreciation and worthy of looking at and debate with fair exchanges,
as we do here at FA.
BEST TO YOU WE OWE YOU THIS AND A LOT MORE
@Hank Rockwell Jr: First of all, thank you for your service to our country.
Secondly, let me address some of the items you raised, and let me also say that I mean no disrespect.
Only because he lost his battle for Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat, and also didn’t run for re-election as Governor of Massachusetts.
If we agree on the premise that he said what he needed to in order to get elected, that raises two points.
1. You are basically saying that he has no integrity, telling the electorate what they want to hear instead of running on his principles.
2. If he said what he needed to in order to get elected – that he believed in and advocated for Romneycare – then why does he not do the reverse now to become POTUS? In other words, he won’t say what the Conservative voting base wants to hear and admit Romneycare was a mistake. If it was just a ruse why won’t he back away from it? – Because he believes in top-down, authoritarian government-run health care, or in the very least, he believes in big-government answers to societal problems.
You are conflating political ideology with the pursuit of scientific discovery in the case of Columbus and the vague idea of miracle cures. Are you saying that Conservatives are not capable of pursuing new frontiers in the scientific community? In health related science? Astronomy? Biology? Are progressives the only people who have a thirst for bettering mankind?
I’m sorry, but you strike me as an intelligent person and that is not a very open minded view of Conservative thought.
Really? Our Founding Fathers did not pretend that slave holding was a good thing. They were not hypocritical about this, in fact they condemned it. In most of our young (at that time, of course) Union, they abolished slavery. Where they did not get it abolished, they publicly condemned it. Had not the Declaration of Independence (which was authored by Thomas Jefferson – a very Conservative man), been written and conceived in the idea all men being free and equal before nature and nature’s law, or God, then there would have been no foundation for the ending of slavery nearly a century later. – “Source, Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College on the Mark Levin Radio Show February 16, 2012
So to simply say that slavery would still exist, had it not be for progressive ideology is wrong on so many levels.
antics, just to add to your retort about Romney’s “career” as a politician/insider…
What is obvious about Romney is two things..
1: That he was astute enough after his loss to Kennedy for a Senate seat in the 90s not to make that attempt again, and
2: Romney doesn’t like “entry level” jobs.
To clarify on point #2, Romney never held an elected official office. When he tried, he went straight for a US Senate seat. Never was a state legislator. Wasn’t even a House Rep, trying to move to the other chamber.
Instead, Romney obviously feels that the top dog position is rightfully his. He tried for Senate, bypassing usually lower body experience. When that didn’t work, he went for “king” of MA, where he helped advance that state’s liberal agenda for healthcare mandates, and anti-coal/pro AGW policies. Hang, he was even anti-wind power, standing with Kennedy to stop Cape Wind because it would affect the property values of his rich buds there. Then he threw in a ton of liberal judges as well.
When he was done doing the liberals bidding in the state, he came out and didn’t try for a Congressional seat. Oh no… only leader of the free world would do. So he immediately started campaigning for his next career advancement, and has been doing so for the past six years.
Moral of of the story? The only reason that Romney isn’t considered (but is) an insider is because of his failed attempts to be officially an insider in the past 15 some odd years. But there is plenty of “insider” money and support for him to draw on.
No “outsider” would be getting the blessing of the GOP establishment and punditry.
anticsrocks
as usual you sure know your history and to put it this way
is to make it easy for me to understand it.
thank you
@anticsrocks: Slavery stayed to get the (now “Democratic”) South to sign up.
It was Republicans that started and finished the abolition.