To whomever this may concern
It’s been a relationship that has been on the skids since 2010. I tried to make it work, but after I saw that I was the only one making any concessions in our waning relationship I realized that you no longer considered our relationship worth saving. Instead of wasting each other’s time let me just pack up my vote and get the hell out of here. Goodbye Republican Party. It was fun while it lasted.
Mike Henkins
Whew! That felt good! I have been wanting to write that letter for a while now. I can’t believe I waited this long! I should have done it right after the election in November 2010. I knew then that it was over then but I was hoping things would change, but it didn’t. The Republican Party has done nothing but insult me and my Tea Party friends. I mean look! These bastards are going after Allen West now! Allen freakin’ West man! You know what really jumps my tracks? These same Sons of Bushs are the first ones to cry about the need for “party unity”. Un-flippin-real!
I will tell you what’s going to happen. If Romney gets the nomination they are going to come to us at first with hat in hand asking for our time and money to “help defeat Obama.” When we roll our eyes and slam the door in their faces, they will tell us they don’t need us anyway, their new best buds, the Independents, will help out. After they realize that the precious Independent voter isn’t going to waste their time helping out, they will be back again. They will finally get the message after you sic the dog after them. That’s when the crying starts. They will drag out the old “if you don’t vote for Romney, your voting for Obama!” crap. Of course they expect you to fold with this inspiring message. This will be repeated over and over until Election Day. Heh! “It’s your duty!” blah blah blah. Whatever.
The day after the election, when Romney and his little pack of clingers are all out looking for jobs they will point trembling snot covered fingers at us, yelling “It’s all your fault!”. It will have nothing to do with their candidate. It never is. It’s always our fault. No matter how many times they lose, it’s always somebody else’s fault. But this time nobody is going to be listening anymore. At least not me. I am glad to be rid of the back stabbing bunch of posers and two faced liars. Buh-bye!
Well, I have to get back to life. If you see the G.O.P. tell them not to call. I am changing my number and they can keep the cat. Hated the thing anyway.
He is just a fat guy in Maine.
@Robert: cafengocmy
Vote R over Obama. No, not if R is Romney. He would lose the Congress after two years and he would lose his seat to something worse than Obama after 4 years and leave us with a Democrat Senate and House and a Democrat president. We still use the term ‘Democrat” but we are talking about a party that has remodeled itself onr the European Social Democrats who are explicitly socialist and dirigiste to the core. And Romney’s judicial appointments in Massachusetts indicate that his appointments will be very like Obama appointments.
@Larry W, INRE gutting the military. I’m pretty much of the same mind as both Newt (who founded the Congressional Military Reformist Caucus back in 1981) and Rumsfeld… you cater an army to win, and fight the modern warfare.
That said, while I support morphing the military to keep up with the times, I do not support Obama’s military reform, which ignores things such as missile defense, more efficient processing of intel/HUMINT, and downsizing our Navy.
To classify Defense spending as either cuts or increases as the sole criteria as wise is an efficient evaluation.
Hi Mata (#50): I presumed that you wouldn’t agree with Obama’s military policies, but, in your previous comments here, you said that Congress could keep Obama in check, were he re-elected (meaning it wouldn’t be the end of the world, were Romney to run and receive only tepid support from conservatives, allowing Obama to win). But Congress has very little power over the President’s actions as Commander in Chief. They can refuse to appropriate funds, but they have a more difficult time mandating defense programs (e.g. your example of missile defense) and mandating funding for such programs. So, according to your point of view, it would seem that Obama could do a lot of damage in the defense area, which couldn’t be readily restrained, even by a solidly GOP Congress.
Romney is talking like a super-Hawk, military spending-wise. So I was just curious whether the national defense issue would raise your enthusiasm level, with regard to supporting a Romney candidacy, should he win the nomination.
P.S. Regarding the Navy: Is it true that Panetta is proposing to reduce the commissioning of new ships from the current 11 per year down to 9 per year and is it also true that the size and budget of the US Navy is greater than the next 13 largest navies combined?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry, most defense programs are created and funded by Congress… i.e. the missile defense. Obama simply can’t throw away Congressional legislation that has been enacted. Obama also cannot wage war without the funding (and, Constitutionally) the approval of Congress. I think you attach an unnatural sense of power and authority to the Commander in Chief, and excluding Congress. Changes to the appropriations to the Defense Budget, Pentagon etal are still run thru Congress. Closing bases… run thru Congress.
Shifting around the appropriations from one recipient of defense funds to another requires Congressional approval. Why the heck do you think this is a battle between Congress and the CiC if he could slash the military budget, based on his own wish lists, without Congress?
Larry, he commands the US military. He’s not the god of the US military. And he does not command the US, to whom the military belongs. They swear oaths to the Constitution, not to a man.
And no… Romney’s talk about defense (always vague and the usual catch words) will make no impact on my enthusiasm. As I said, Romney has a history I can see. From fighting the Cape Wind project with Kennedy because it would hurt the property values of the island, to his health care.. there is no redeeming value. His negotiations with a Dem majority always came out skewed to liberal ends. He’s a wuss as a political negotiator. And as @cafengocmy also noted, his judicial appointments are nothing to crow about either.
Romney is running to the right in the primaries because that’s what he has to do to fight the objections. Securing the nomination, he’ll go right back to being Romney.
As far as Panetta’s plans, here’s the latest I’ve seen on the every morphing details of the proposed Defense budget. Don’t care about any one else’s Navy… just ours…. save for the fact that I’m not interested in having any other Navy surpass ours. Especially if they are bugging out of foreign lands… our carriers and vessels are our only portable base.
If you had to choose between a GOP Romney presidency, or control of both chambers, which would you choose? Fact is, Romney, without the willing cooperation of the two chambers, is nothing but hot air and posturing. Plus we already have seen he is a weak negotiator, as proven by his record in Mass.
Veto proof control of both chambers will effectively tie the hands of an POTUS and CiC. Everything costs money, and there are few things a POTUS can do without Congressional approval… save for abusing existing legislation with overly restrictive regulations.
Those could also be challenged by Congress… if they had the balls to do it.
But I doubt the Republicans would get veto proof majorities. They are a rare bird in our Congressional history. Which means getting any repeal and alternative legislation thru for the two largest issues – O’healthcare, and Dodd Frank plus Sarbanes-Oxley – is going to require a dedicated Republican majority in both chambers, and their ability to convince Blue Dog Dems to escape the reservation.
The POTUS is secondary in any of this since, if you can’t get the legislation thru Congress to get to a POTUS desk, it ain’t happening.
But, if you were forced into only getting the WH, or both chambers, the latter is the better win.
@Nan G:
Dr. Paul isn’t going to run third party because he knows Rand has a very good future in the GOP. He is also planning on moving to the convention with enough delegates to have a large voice.
As for the other part, this isn’t about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Somewhere on this site Ivan made a prediction that the Tea Party was ineffectual and Romney would be the nominee. This was at least two years ago. I remember saying that if Romney were to become the nominee that I would know the GOP establishment is stacking the deck. Number 1, I hate that Ivan was right. Number 2, it looks like the GOP establishment is stacking the deck. I do not like being force fed. If this is about beating Obama and Romney can do it, then let’s just all jump in feet first and get it done. Let’s bury the Tea Party, it doesn’t matter, it is ineffectual, we will live with the people in congress that could give a crap what we want for eternity.
Doug Ross just posted about this and it’s pretty good,
“While I support Rick Santorum in this primary process, I don’t care if a crippled kangaroo is the GOP candidate. I will vote to oust Obama and to begin to save this precious country. Those who want to “sit it out” in protest should consider the impact of their inaction on subsequent generations, who we’ve already condemned to an ominous future. If collapse is what you seek, remember that this generation — our generation — will be forever marked as those who lost America.”
This theft will not stand. It must not stand. And I will walk on broken glass and hot coals to vote this failed president out of office in November, while bolstering the number of true conservatives in Congress. It’s the least we can do. So stop bitching about Mitt Romney, the GOP establishment, or the fact that your latte isn’t hot enough. We’ve been at this for little more than two years. And Rome wasn’t built in a day.
You and I, we’ve got a country to save.
The Most Audacious Armed Robbery in History — and Those Who Would Sit Out an Election
@Aqua, I have to laugh at your “I hate that Ivan was right” comment. LOL
But I’ll have to disagree somewhat. The Tea Party has been very effective in getting Congressional members into office in the mid terms. The Tea Party has also been very effective in preventing a rapid anointing of Romney, as he’s still the 25-34% guy… meaning that 65 to 75% of everyone else still doesn’t want Romney.
Were the Tea Party not effective, there would have been no 2010 midterms sweep, and Romney would be focusing on his talking points in the general even now.
Fact is, the Tea Party was always about building representatives from local and ground level. They still concentrate on that even today. Now how their elected ones perform? That’s another story… they are still a minority in the GOP Congress, and wield little power with leadership and chairs on committees as freshmen.
On the other hand, Ivan was right that Romney would be the nominee. Well, excuse me if that’s like saying that it’s going to rain in winter in Oregon. LOL I mean the guy’s got a loaded war chest, has been campaigning for six years straight, and is the easiest puppet the GOP can find to promote.
Other than that… ditto, dude.
@Jim Peterson, why do I not find it surprising that many call not dutifully falling in line behind the latest RINO “sitting out the election”. I have no intention of doing so, and neither have the others here.
We’ll vote. We just may not be casting a ballot based on loyalty to a party that demonstrates no loyalty to the ideology of it’s membership. If they want to call that “sitting it out”, who am I point to point they are playing the fear/guilt/ sour grapes card.
But while we’re talking about predictions, let me also say this. The GOP and blind loyalists will be quick to use the lib/prog trick of spinning alternative universes in case of a GOP loss this year. If it’s a Romney loss, they will blame it on those that do not vote party loyalty. If another candidate is the nominee, and they lose, they will tell us how Romney would have won in their alternative universe.
Allow me to point out a few realities. The POTUS election is a State election. Unless you live in a swing State, how any of us choose to cast our ballots in majority dominated blue states may not make an iota of difference. As I pointed out, I’m in Oregon… a red speck in a sea of blue. Pulling a lever even for Romney here is not likely to change any outcome for this State election.
But I’m sure the disgruntled blame for a loss will never consider that reality.
The only way a vote in a blue dominated state makes a difference may be in the popular vote number. And if any Republican supports popular vote elections for the WH, I’m not one of you anyway.
Thus will begin another four years, that may likely lead to another RINO candidate. And I will stay and Independent, be four years older and even more skeptical of their choices.
The people who are conservative, and angry at the GOP, have a choice to make with several different options.
Option #1 – Vote for whoever the GOP candidate is, just to oust Obama. The good: Obama is gone, likely to never have an impact on our government again. His cabinet, as well, is gone, meaning a stop to their extracurricular regulatory rule over the country. The bad: Assuming the worst of whoever the GOP candidate is, the conservative movement within the GOP, and the country, could be halted, or damaged, allowing for a 2016 return to prominence by the liberal/progressive elite in the country. The worst, as I see it, is that the GOP candidate is, in fact, truly a RINO allowing terrible compromises with the liberals, essentially being a “dem-lite”.
Option #2 – Go to the polls, participate in all but the presidential election. The good: Possibly a noticeable f*** you to the GOP establishment, although the 2008 election begs otherwise. Definitely a personally satisfying move for one’s own conscience. The bad: Four more years of Obama, and assuming even a mild rebound in the economy, traction for the next wave of liberal/progressive elite to become president.
Option #3 – Go to the polls, vote third party. The good: See Option #2. The bad: See option #2
Option #4 – Stay home completely on election day. The good: See option #2. The bad: See option #2, PLUS, some very deserving local/state/Senate/House candidates will not get the support they might need to send them to DC. As I see it, Option #4 should be a complete no-no for everyone, no matter who they support.
Several people have stated some very interesting and intelligent comments, both for support of someone like Romney, who you may not like at all, and those who would say no, h*** no, to a Romney led ticket. Just know, that whatever choice one makes come November, there are both pros and cons with it.
@Gary Kukis:
For a number of years, blacks have given their votes to the democratic party who has done nothing for them time after time. They are worse off now than they were before they signed on to become slaves to the Democrat leadership. If the conservatives continue to give them votes, the republican CINO’s will continue to do nothing believing that it will never end and that our dislike of the party of death, big government, and high taxes will lock us in. Only problem is that they want to force Romney down our throat and his history is big government, high taxes, and pro abortion. It would be different if the Republican elites would allow us to vote and if Romney wins without trashing the other candidates on the issues and what he stands for in reality, then I would agree to voting Romney. His scorched eart tactics, ongoing lies, and the attack machine of the CINO establishment in the party have doomed them for me unless there is a massive change right now and Romney apologizes before the Florida vote.
@MataHarley: The Republicans will most likely end up with control of Congress, therefore I would rather have a GOP majority in Congress and a Romney presidency than a GOP majority in Congress and an Obama presidency. With the latter, we are looking at 4 years of gridlock assuming the Republicans in Congress have the guts to stand up to Obama. They haven’t exactly done that so far as was the case when they rolled over and played dead with the Libya deal. With Romney or any of the candidates still in the running, at least there would be more of a chance of undoing the damage that has been done. A Republican controlled Congress would keep Romney more in check than Obama. I would also rather have Romney appointing judges and SC justices than Obama. We don’t need anymore Kagans. One more and the make up of the Court changes to a damn the Constitution one for a long time. That’s how crap like Obamacare gets ruled Constitutional when it shouldn’t be regardless of who occupies the WH or who controls Congress. Assuming we were to go with an Obama presidency for the sake of not getting Romney now in order to get someone better in 2016, who would that person be, why aren’t they running now, and what guarantee is there that they will beat the dem candidate?
I’ll settle for one day seeing a sitting president who wants to be president of “all” the people of this nation…and not just his/her party….picking winners and losers based on politics.
Can you all understand why I don’t belong to ANY party? When the republicans had the House, Senate, and presidency, it is easier to list the things they DIDN’T fix than the things they did:
(1) Didn’t put Social Security in a separate interest-drawing account like it was when it was first created.
(2) Didn’t stop Social Security from going to those who didn’t pay into it.
(3) Didn’t reduce the size of government.
(4) Didn’t put paying off the national debt as a priority. Didn’t even pay the interest so the amount wouldn’t get any higher.
(5) Didn’t pass a law that says no more borrowing until the debt is paid off. The borrowing was originally to finance the wars.
(6) Didn’t pass a bill that states that congress can’t spend more than they take in.
(7) Didn’t do anything to stop the illegals from coming into the USA. They are just as responsible for all of the agent’s deaths along the border as the democrats.
(8) Didn’t reform campaign donations.
(9) Fill in your own from here.
One way for you to get your republican party to listen to you is to have a mass resignation and send a letter explaining why. You can still vote for whoever you want, and the money you don’t send to the republican party can go to individual candidates you support so that they can still get elected. Just don’t send the money through the republican party so they can siphon off as much as they want first.
@drjohn: Well, it’s not Gingrich that’s crumbling. It’s his soft supporters. That’s the media at work.
For everyone else… the wrath directed at the RNC (and the centrist elite) is well placed, but it also sounds like some of you are ready to concede to Romney. He’s won exactly one state. Maybe he’ll win a couple more in the next week or two. So what? The conservative vote is still split and many caucuses are yet to come. Whether it’s Gingrich or Santorum or Paul you support, I strongly suggest you not give up and continue to promote your chosen candidate. I just sent email to see whether the local RP group needs my help collecting signatures to get our delegates on the ballot in congressional district 4 (PA).
Staying home is a signal… but it’s a weak signal, easily misinterpreted. Lots of people stay home on election day. Better is to organize locally so that instead of fighting the establishment at the polls, you can take it over (at least at the state level).
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: “Long term demographic trends aren’t good for conservatives. Gen X was good for conservatives. Millenials — not so much.”
I read an article around 2005 or so about the Millennials, and the job market was great and they could walk into almost any office and make their demands for whatever kind of a work environment that they wanted. They could demand a high salary, a lot of days off, and, because the job market was so hot, they could essentially write their own ticket….and that they did.
Maybe the deal is, the Millennials tend to be a bit spoiled? I am sure that many of them had to buy a house with an extra bedroom to hold all of their participation trophies.
@MataHarley: “No meaningful change can be had by putting a RINO in charge of more RINOs against a lib/prog agenda. Especially one who has demonstrated he’s happy to give away the farm to the liberals in negotiations. ”
I certainly agree that the difference between Obama and Romney is one of degree; but, if given the choice, I would go for Romney, and for a very simple reason: Congress can pass reasonable conservative legislation and Obama will not even consider it; but Romney would.
Like many here, I would have a more difficult time voting for Romney than I did for McCain, but I would still vote, and pray for the Congress to steer him in the right direction.
@CWFoster: “now is not the time for a third party, but starting in Dec 2012/Jan 2013 it WILL be! ”
I have got to admit that Michael Medved convinced me on this point; it is far, far easier to take over a party from the inside than it is to run a new party.
We have proof right before our very eyes. I am sure that many of you for years were accosted by well-meaning libertarians who sat out in front of courthouses and what not, with their pamphlets and their semi-reasonable rhetoric. And, as we know, they went nowhere using this approach. A few candidates here or there and some even got elected from time to time. But they were never a great factor.
But, now with Ron Paul in his bid for the presidency in the Republican party, that gives them greater power than they ever achieved in any other way. Whether he will have a real say in the final Republican party, it is hard to say; but his libertarian views are getting a much greater hearing as a Republican candidate than as a libertarian one.
The same is true for our TEA party candidates, like Rubio, Rand Paul, and others.
The key is the GOP, as corrupt as it is.
@Hard Right: “BTW Curt, I miss all the new fangled posting widgets you tried out. ”
Me too. Maybe this is the one thing we can all agree on?
@MataHarley: “I’ve lost my patience for being ignored, bullied, and taken advantage of.”
[Insert sexist remark here] 🙂
@Robert: “We need a third party to keep this type of discussion from occurring”
Nobody really listens to a 3rd party. How many times do we see Ralph Nader and how many times do we see Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Marco Rubio. We see the latter 3 all the time because they belong to the major two parties. A 3rd party will reduce our conversation and influence.
@Robert: “I’ll move my conservative hat to the dresser vote R and then do what NOBODY seems to be willing to do on Obama’s party… KEEP HIS FEET TO THE FIRE. All these promises, all these “Values” he’s supposedly for…. He’ll answer for them if we keep the pressure on. I won’t be defending bad decisions because he’s an R.”
This is one way that we are VERY different from most liberals. I don’t feel like I have to defend the position and policy of everything a Republican does. Democrats, for the most part, will defend all that Obama does and are quick to blame the Republican party when he falls short of their expectations.
@gary kukis: I had to laugh at all the participation trophiy comment. Last Christmas, I cleaned out my closets and framed all of the participation medals my Y gen son was awarded for various sports. I wrapped it and gave it to him for Christmas. Now, I need to find a way to pass the trophies on!
Great analysis of the running battle between conservatives and the Republican insiders by Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator: Newt Battles Mush From the Wimps
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I must admit, you do make a good point here.
@Curt: Figures, my almost 15 minutes of fame come due and its a link in a damned Times blog.
@MataHarley: “In the meantime, it’s interesting to watch those that describe themselves as very conservative or conservative fight back against the traditional crowning of a nominee after three primaries. Despite Romney’s huge pile of cash, when pitted against those without the sleazy ad money, he’s still falls short of any dedicated support. But I do see a lot of resigned voters out there, dutifully following the establishment party and media’s commands.” Eh Yup! I really cant add much to anything you post, per usual.
@Smorgasbord: Bingo! This man has Bingo!
@drjohn: “Not arguing about how you feel per se, but how do you imagine Newt’s support fell apart? Why was/is it so fragile?”
I am disappointed with the electorate going back to Cain. How his support could suddenly dissolve over a media blitzkrieg surprised me. At the very, very worst, he was guilty of an affair or two; at best, he is falsely accused by a tough democratic machine that does not want to see a black tea party candidate.
I am equally surprised to see Gingrich’s support disappear in Florida. Did our side suddenly just discover that our candidates are not perfect???
@MataHarley: I know I am beating this dead horse, but Rubio can’t run. Yes he was born in Miami, but of two parents who were Cuban citizens at the time. You can’t say that Barry is ineligible ( and he is according to the Constitution) and then want Rubio to run.
My opinion of Romney is that he is the obama of the republican party. I need to do some more research on Santorum. Maybe he is the dark horse in the race.
Another link to Legal Insurrection: Florida redistricting looking even worse
So the two most conservative Congressmen in Florida are the ones liable to lose their seats. Nice work, GOP /sarc
…and as an added bonus, a link to The Other McCain: Madness On The Conservative Front regarding a comment by Sen. John McCain:
@another vet: “Not all independents are conservative as evidenced by the fact that Obama won the majority of their vote in ’08. ”
What is so pathetic is, some people will vote for the best looking candidate or the coolest candidate or the candidate that they want to have a beer with. And if they see a load of slime poured out against another candidate by the media, they will think that they have made the informed decision to vote against that guy.
@Mark: “For a number of years, blacks have given their votes to the democratic party who has done nothing for them time after time. They are worse off now than they were before they signed on to become slaves to the Democrat leadership. If the conservatives continue to give them votes, the republican CINO’s will continue to do nothing believing that it will never end and that our dislike of the party of death, big government, and high taxes will lock us in. ”
I’ve got to take issue with you here. The big difference is, many Republican politicians are espousing conservative principles, and some of these are being elected.
I fully get that Romney may not have a conservative core. But if he is pressured on the right by a conservative Congress, he will probably go along with them, unlike Obama, who rejects outright any conservative idea and would rather do nothing instead of compromising on this.
Let’s take this from a different viewpoint. Look at George Bush’s judicial nominees and Obama’s. Do you really want to take that chance? I have mixed feelings about Bush; however, I wholeheartedly support his judicial nominees to the Supreme Court.
One more wrong nominee for the Supreme Court could change everything.
@Smorgasbord: “One way for you to get your republican party to listen to you is to have a mass resignation and send a letter explaining why.”
I agree 100% with your points; but your “solution” just insures a Democrat win.
@gary kukis:
Gary K,
At my #49, I posted this:
IOW, what we are seeing here on this thread are the 6%ers, who may either vote another party or, as Curt pointed out and as TIME magazine’s link to this thread indicated, might stay home.
6% sure can make a loud noise though.
What with all the ”down dings” and such.
(Yeah, that’s going to really make me change my mind.)
Yes, you are correct.
The ”solution” of the 6%ers insures an Obama win.
(Certainly the solution of the 8%ers does.)
@MataHarley:
I knew he would run. I knew he would have more money than anyone but Obama. But I really, honestly didn’t believe he would make it out of Iowa this time around. What the hell is wrong with us and why can’t we get some good people to run. Here’s a little list of sitting governors that should be in this thing:
Butch Otter – Idaho
Bobby Jindal – La.
Dave Heineman – Nebraska
Chris Christie – NJ
Rick Perry was in for a while, but imagine the debate between these guys. Romney would have been run out of town. Whether you think any of these guys are too moderate or not, there would have been an executive debate and it would have been good. Maybe would could chop down on the number of debates though. Oh, and Pawlenty dropped out too quick and there is a very good chance Mark Sanford would be doing very well right about now if he could keep his pants on.
And I agree with you on this and the focusing on a local level, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why the GOP leadership isn’t sweating more. Boehner should be trying to fight off a coup right now. I like Cantor most of the time, but he keeps making bonehead moves as well.
Speaking of Tea Party, Romney won’t even reach out to them. WTF is that about?
@Nan G: Thanks for re-posting that. I don’t know how I missed it. You made me feel a little better, given the circumstance of potentially having to vote for Romney in November.
@gary kukis: #82
Not if the ones who resign from the republican party give the same amount of money directly to the candidates they want, even if they are in other states, and they can still donate as much time to the effort as they want. The main thing would be to make sure to tell the party why they are quitting. They can always join back up if the party straightens itself up soon enough. It is just a suggestion.
Great cartoon Nan, it sort of says it all. Just stay on the GOP plantation and be good sheeple, just the way the blacks stay on the dem plantation, living on promises of “we’ll fix it someday, just not now”, and always remember, “we’re not quiet as bad as them”.
Yeah, right.
@Aqua: #84
Why hasn’t the republican party confronted Obama on his fake birth certificate and about him using someone else’s Social Security number? Experts have declared the birth certificate fake and the democrats have never denied Obama uses someone else’s SS number and has used up to 39 different ones. Why?
Why did McCain campaign saying things like he thought Obama is an honorable man and that Obama would make a good president? Is it possible that the two parties have merged together and decided to share the wealth, like gangs sometimes do? Can anyone name very many differences between the two parties today?
@Smorgasbord: The party will never reform itself. That is like expecting Obama to recognize that he is spending too much money and to fix that problem. Not going to happen.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree here on two counts, Disenchanted.
First, I’m not the one saying Obama is ineligible. Nor does the Constitution. Were there definitive proof of his birth in Kenya than Hawaii, he’d be ineligible. The courts, if the lawsuits survive thru the process, will determine whether the Hawaiian certificate is to their legal satisfaction. If it is.. end of story.
The Jus soli law of citizenship, determined by place of birth, is most certainly embodied in the 14th Amendment. Last I looked, that was part of the Constitution.
The bloodline citizenship, Jus sanguinis, is not embodied in the Constitution and is granted via statute.. and those laws have tended to change over time.
Natural born citizenship is also defined in US Code, Title 8, Section 1401.
The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual also operates on the same definition.
By our Constitution, plus our US Code, Rubio is a natural born citizen at birth, and is eligible. If you are suggesting that citizenship be tied to bloodline, ensuring only a “pure” American can hold that office, you’ll have to count me out on that support.
About all the bruhaha, and the third solemn declaration of Newt’s death, the polls are funny things. Rasmussen, two days before the SC primary, had Newt over Mittens by only two points. Insider Advantage had Newt up by three points. The PPP poll had Newt besting Romney by six points.
The real poll – the election – ended with Newt at 40, Romney at 28 with a 12 point spread. Needless to say, the pulse taken by the polls didn’t quite pan out as expected.
In the past two days, Quinnipac and Suffolk U had Romney besting Newt by 14 and 20 points respectively. PPP had two different polls with the spread at 7-8, favoring Romney. Insider Advantage has Romney ahead only by five points.
Can you say all over the place?
But I found something really interesting in the Insider Advantage poll stats on the 29th. That Newt was king of the majority of voters 44 and under, with 54.2% of voters aged 18-29, and 29.5% of those aged 30-44. Women, plus those 45 and older favored Mittens. This was about 650 approx registered voters who will (not likely) be participating in the primary vote.
Wow? Newt sweeping the young? Interesting.
So again, this FL primary is going to depend upon who turns out in force.. the younger voters, or the older voters. Then there are those who voted way early. I saw a report this AM that many were wanting their ballots back because the candidates they voted for had dropped out… oops. Guess they’ll regret that one. Can’t be jumping the gun, since every day brings a new twist and turn.
Well that’s a glass half full perspective, another vet. LOL I’m not as confident as you that the GOP would sweep both chambers and the WH. As a matter of fact, I think that Romney is a guaranteed loss against Obama. Now it’s all crystal ball politics… me saying he’ll lose, and everyone else saying he’ll win. But Romney is the epitome of Obama’s anti-GOP campaign strategy in real life form.
While I disagree with the predictable meme that’s coming, Obama is guaranteed to portray Romney as not main street… the guy who only pays minimum taxes, makes his cash off capital gains, and the corporate raider without a heart. Obama will also be happy to profusely thank him for his guidance and trail blazing on Obama’care. If Obama has a clue, he’ll also tear into Romney for stopping the Cape Wind project, just to keep his rich friends property values high so they didn’t have to look at those ugly turbines off the coast. Oh the Obama/SEIU joint superpac ads, they are a’comin’.
I suppose this is the moment to interject that first we need a “conservative Congress”. And I don’t just mean a majority of members with an (R) behind their name.
I agree that Romney always takes the easy route. You envision Romney helping turn the Dems turn to the right when there is nothing like that in his past leadership. So his only other option is to do what he has done in his past… make the Republicans turn left.
Problem is we need a leader who is going to refuse to take the crap from both the Dems and GOP in Congress, and prod them into a negotiation where the turn actually ends up to the right for fiscal responsibility. I don’t see Romney as anything but a “yes” man, and who he says “yes” to is always up in the air.
Again, this all comes down to what any individual considers a “win”, Gary. Your perspective suggests a win” is based on Party affiliation, and not ideology. And that’s not a premise with which I can agree.
@MataHarley:
You’re in Oregon? My condolences. My friend lives out there too and the stories she tells me about the loony lefties is stunning. If I hadn’t found articles backing up what she was telling me, I may not have believed her. It seems large numbers of fruits and nuts from CA have relocated to OR.
Newt may not end up the winner, but I’ll do what I can for him.
I did. Romney came in second to Huckabee, down by only 9 points. (BTW, I consider Huckabee a moderate). Thompson and McCain were running about 13% each. I also expected him to do well in NH, so it was always SC that I was waiting to see. That would be indicative of a solid red state’s opinions of the pickin’s. And it ain’t pretty for Romney.
Because they have a successful history of railroading their chosen candidate thru to nomination, Aqua. They believe they know best, and will continue to discount what voters show in their “any one but Romney” voting because they can. It is what will cost them the party support in the future… not listening to the electorate.
@MataHarley:
Mata, please read;
@Hard Right: Yep… went from California to Oregon over 11 years ago. From the frying pan into the wok… but it’s prettier up here, and I enjoy small town living (and lack of traffic). Plus that, I can’t be landlocked… must be near water. Grew up on the Gulf Coast and a Navy wife. Just can’t abide being so far away from major bodies of water or the coast. Personal thing…
But many don’t know that while Florida is conducting their primary today, we have a special election going on in Oregon for David Wu’s seat. While Rob Cornilles wasn’t my primary vote choice, and is a moderate and not my ideal for some issues, I certainly didn’t hesitate in pulling the ballot to add another Republican to the House.
BTW, since Oregon is a closed primary, I registered Republican here so I could have *some* say in something… anything. Closed primaries is what forces most of us who vote Independent, and have no allegiance to a political party, into the system. Kind of a pity, really. But I suspect that there are many registered as “republicans” for the same reason… not to be completely left out of the choice of candidates. During the general, I scope out the 3rd party candidates as well before voting. But then, 3rd party candidates in Oregon are usual extreme leftists, not extreme right.
@MataHarley:
Not a peep about that Mata. They must be embarrassed and want to hide it. Never heard of Ron.
Has he answered the important question? How does he feel about tiger costumes?
AZ is slightly different, but similar. Our primaries are semi-closed. We have a Presidential Preference Election (PPE) , which are different from our primary elections, and you must be registered with a party recognized by the state. Even though the liberatrians are recognized, they opted out of the PPE. So in this case it’s the dems and Republicans.
Yes… interesting about that lack of news, eh HR? Pelosi and the DNC have been spending here like crazy, securing Wu’s House seat. For Oregon, it’s generally a matter of political and bloodline hierarchy that the Dem will win – so not even locally are returns streaming yet (tho I haven’t looked in the past hour). Even the local TV media websites aren’t streaming returns, despite the fact the 35% of the registered voters in my Congressional district is in and counted. We vote by mail here, you know.
Think it’s a “ho hum, why must we be bothered to vote at all.. it’s ours by liberal birthright” assumption in Oregon? LOL
Hilarious that they brought the national big bucks to town to sink Cornilles. There’s 3-4 counties in this district, my own almost inconsequential one included. Washington County, the most populated in the district, went for Obama by 24 points in 2008. My own county went for Obama by 12 points. Hummm… whaddaya think the outcome will be? LOL That’s why it’s not news anywhere. It’s a political monarchy. But I’m glad that the DNC drained some of their war chests for it.
BTW, that’s my typo here. His name is Rob Cornilles, not Ron. Mea culpa.
@gary kukis: He was marketed as a rock star, i.e. “Rock the Vote”. Too many people prefer style over substance and it’s not just in politics.
@MataHarley: You’ve been quite busy on this thread! No matter who the GOP nominee is, Obama is going to resort to gutter politics, the race card, and his other favorite, class warfare. Here is an interesting article that was posted on RCP this morning. The author brings up a good point in that everyone is talking about how unelectable this or that GOP candidate is, but they are ignoring how unreelectable Obama is. He is still the one to beat, but this time around he has a record he has to run on.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/31/gingrich_and_romney_are_unelectable_so_is_obama_112972.html
@MataHarley:
When I first started hearing about Wu, I wondered why he hadn’t been bounced…until I heard what state and party he was in. Heck, if they could have kept it quiet he’d probably be in office still. I agree it’s good the dems dropped a chunk of change on what should be a slam dunk election for them. Then again elections haven’t been going their way lately. Heh.
You are definitiely made of sterner stuff than I am to live in such a dark blue state. As it is I get annoyed going to one of the community colleges here and seeing all the obama 2012 stickers and hateful anti-Conservative stickers.
Have you considered Texas?
@another vet:
That is an excellent point about Obama, as in, how unre-electable he is.
Take race completely out of the picture, for example;
-Instead of Newt’s comment being about race and how it plays into food-stamps, the actual argument becomes this; Government dependance vs. Individual self-reliance.
Take the class warfare out of the picture, and;
-Instead of the argument being about how the “Rich” aren’t paying their “fair share”, the actual argument becomes this; Government bloat vs. leaner, more efficient government service.
And you could go on and on and on with all the differing portrayals the liberal/progressives use to “prove” their point to people. It’s high time one of these GOP candidates called them out on it, unfortunately, between the MSM and the lack of “guts” from the guys left, I don’t see it happening.
another vet, “unelectable” is in the eye of the voting beholder. Still not a fan of polls, but there’s nothing earthshatteringly new in life. Democrats are still going to vote for Obama. Hispanics and black voters will still vote for Obama in large majorities. This leaves us with the usual swing voters that include a few former Hillary supporter Dems, the independents, and the young etal.
The fact that the nation’s craving for a steak will go un satiated – being offered only a meatball and a burger – don’t make much of a difference. It will, as usual, be a choice of lesser evils. And most will gravitate right back to where they’ve lived for decades, except for the young and newer voters.
Oddly enough, the conservative candidates making the most inroads with the young are Ron Paul and Newt. They are not running into the arms of Romney.
Considering the usual and predictable demographics of the urban big Electoral College states, it’s wishful thinking to say that Obama is unelectable. I see no chances of California, the NW, or the majority of the New England states changing their colors from blue to red with this crop of candidates…. unless, of course, you’re hoping to run a hybrid “blue” candidate like Romney and hope he steals enough Democrats to make up for the conservatives he isolates. Even at that, I’d be surprised if he won his own state or NH over Obama.
Then what would we have? The moderate POTUS that we know we’re getting in Romney, no matter how conservative he pretends to be in the primary. I don’t know how to say this any more clear but to point out that any man who appeals to rich wheeler or Larry W is not going to appeal to my political ideology. There is no such hybrid critter.
The only thing more dangerous than isolating the conservative base – i.e. the any one but Romney and Ron Paul voters – is underestimating the uphill battle of a challenge against this POTUS and his war chest. This will be no cake walk.
@MataHarley: Hi, Mata,
Although I would be hard-pressed to call a Mitt victory a win; it would be a serious loss if Obama has a second term.
I do anticipate a slightly more conservative Congress; and more pressure from the outside to move them to vote conservative.
You may be right when it comes to Mitt being better at getting the right to go left rather than vice versa; but, with an 80% Dem state congress, I don’t think he had a choice here. If there is a majority Republican Congress, I think it is reasonable to think that Mitt is more likely to veer right. And, even if he veers left, it will not be at the Obama rate.
And let me reiterate….judges. Despite Bush’s weaknesses, we were quite lucky to have him choose the justices that he did. Mitt has said on many occasions, that the constitutional judges on the court right now is his standard.
Ah yes.. what Mittens says is “now his standard”. Well, the problem with Mittens is separating what he says, and what he does. Out of his 36 judicial appointees, only nine were Republicans, and his criteria was primarily that they were “tough on crime”, not strict constructionists.
If his judicial appointments weren’t enough, we only need to look at his choice of administration members, including “a hard core environmental activist to be Secretary of Commonwealth Development”, Douglas Foy, who he joined in a protest outside of a Mass coal plant. He retained Gina McCarthy as one of his environmental regulators, who is now Obama’s chief EPA clean air regulator – dedicated to making coal plants obsolete.
She would have been out with the garbage if I moved into the Governor’s mansion…
He stood with Ted Kennedy in slowing/stopping the Cape Wind project. Why? Not cost or expensive energy.. because it would hurt the property values of the Kennedys and other denizens of the island.
Once he started running for POTUS… again ( is that assuming he ever stopped…) Mittens has attempted to distance himself from his environmental record, and judicial appointments, for political convenience.
He complains about negative ads against him, but spends three times the amount on negative ads against Newt, and perpetuates the “run out of Congress in disgrace” lie in his campaign stopping points. I’ve heard a couple of his Florida speeches on the ground, and the man campaigns like a used car salesman. I wouldn’t trust one thing he says when I can look at his record that indicates he does exactly the opposite. He moves with the political tide, when we need someone who actually generates the political tide. Romney is not that man now, let alone for a possible eight years if you got your “sorta” win.
While you may be hard-pressed to call a Mittens victory a “win”, I see it as one loss vs another. Neither loss is acceptable to me. And I’m well aware that many disagree with me on this, but it is what it is. I won’t be happy with another four years of Obama, but I’ll also be equally unhappy with a Romney in the WH, and another Romney candidacy in 2016 after that. I see not one thing productive in such a decision – including a wing and a prayer hope for sanity INRE judges, all of which depends upon him picking someone he thinks could get past a Senate vote of approval. But it sure will tell the GOP that the base is just a bunch of chumps, and they have no need to listen to our dissatisfaction.
@MataHarley: I don’t think Obama is going to walk away with this election. He will have to fight for it. He’ll take the left coast, most if not all of New England, and Illinois. The Republican candidate will take back Indiana and the few southern states that McCain lost. The key will be to focus on HIS record which is not at all good and to counter his race card B.S. and whatever other garbage he throws out there. Playing back all of his get in your face speeches is also something that needs to be emphasized as well. The “take those sonofabitches out” type moments will make people angry enough to get out and vote. On the other hand, if the economy starts turning around to the point where people feel it, then he’ll probably get re-elected with no problem. I agree that our choice in 2012 isn’t that good and is probably the ultimate case of choosing between the lesser of two evils, but that is what we have been offered. Either there is no one better and this is the best we can do, which is a sad commentary, or those who could make a difference want no part of it which makes them inconsequential. Who do you fault more, those who ran or are still running or those who could have made a difference and chose to sit on the sidelines?
Where did I say that, another vet? You said Obama was unelectable. I pointed out that isn’t the case and underestimating Obama’s war chest – most especially against Romney – and potential win is dangerous. What I said, verbatim, is “This will be no cake walk”.
I’ve pondered why our better choices decided not to step up to the plate this season. I believe that some of them… Rubio, West… are still too fresh faced, and didn’t want to go up against Obama with very little record under their belts. Others, like Jindal, aren’t interested. And I suspect there’s not so few of them that think that the uphill battle against Obama may be just a waste of their time in this year.
Then there’s the possibly that none want to step into this job and the inherited conditions, believing they may be a one term President. To be the bad guy and do the unpopular things, successfully, would likely tag any POTUS for one term. And that’s contrary to most politicians’ desires.
In the end… who knows. It’s a buffet of meatballs and hamburgers. I still want Chateaubriand.
In the meantime, I was just listening to Levin quote the stats of the most negative primary campaign in history in Florida. The onslaught of negative adds has been unprecedented. Can’t find the article Levin was reading from, but the approx stats I remember is that of Newt campaign ads, 95% were negative. Romney’s campaign outspent Newt by 4 to 5 times as many, and were 99% negative. Of the Newt SuperPac ads, a bit over 50% were negative. 100% of Romney’s SuperPac ads were negative, and again dwarfed the Newt SuperPac ads. Approv overall spending was about $20 million, with Romney at over $15 mil and Newt just over $4 mil.
Yet Romney is still on the ground, stumping and whining about being a victim of Newt. This is the guy who’s SuperPac swarmed Newt in Iowa, and outspent Newt 3 to 1 in South Carolina. “Victim”? Strange perspective for one who not only drew first blood, but engaged in that which he whines about to such a higher degree.
We’ve gotten to the point where it’s impossible to ignore that elections and nominations are purchased with the US dollar. And the pathetic thing is that, despite Romney’s relatively wealthy war chest, it’s still dwarfed by Obama’s. He, or any other GOP nominee, is going to be swamped in the general with the same. We know what Obama’s campaign strategy is. We also know the past records of the two front runners. I suppose it all depends on which one you think can weather the assaults easier… Newt as the “disgraced” (not) Speaker, or Romney as the evil and heartless capitalist (not) that helped Obama create O’healthcare (true).
I’m still reeling that so many are frothing at the bit to run the very guy who was the architect of O’healthcare, and still believes in a mandate. Ya gotta be kiddin’ me….
So I’d agree that not only are our selections and total abandonment of our principles and issues a sad commentary, the state of US politics and elections today is a completely unacceptable sad commentary.