GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4

[BVS]

No, Mitt is honorable, faithful to wife family and country.
Mitt made his own money - didn't marry it.
Mitt is no John Kerry.

Try again.

<>

But no one is excited about him...

 

[anitram]

Since when was John Kerry not honourable to his wife or family??

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Gingrich calls it a "remarkable speech."

So close...

Gingrich does share Santorum's position on President Barack Obama, however. Gingrich said Obama's administration is "anti-religious."

...and yet so far.

The biggest distinction for Obama supporters is getting (or hoping for) the least digestible Republican candidate in November. If you want Obama to win, you should hope it is someone other than Romney. That's my view.

I agree with this based on the reasons you put forth. I understand why you say that.

But at the same time, again, even though I know the chances of a Santorum or Gingrich victory are pretty well nil...I just still have that small fear in the back of my head.

Not that I wouldn't have that fear if Romney were the nominee. While I'm pretty well confident about Obama's re-election chances, I would also caution Democratic supporters to never ever get too cocky and think they don't need to worry anymore.

 

[LemonMelon]

Since when was John Kerry not honourable to his wife or family??

I'm assuming <> merged the 2004 Democratic ticket into one man, criticizing Kerry for Edwards' infidelity. Or maybe he just wanted an opportunity to paste in another Romney-approved campaign plug.

Throwing it out there: I don't like Romney. I don't trust him. I find his stances shaky, inconsistent and opportunistic. I would never vote for the man. With party lines an increasingly strong influence, Romney's current "stances" will be a non-factor in his decision-making process.

 

[U2DMfan]

Your damn right Mitt is no John Kerry. A man that volunteered to go to Vietnam while so many others, from Dick Cheney to Bill Clinton, got deferrals or dodged the draft in some manner. A man that was decorated for his valor in that same military service, for outright saving a man's life. A man that came home and did everything he could to try and stop the useless deaths in southeast Asia. And then he was 'thanked' by the superpatriotic chickenhawks and faux armchair generals on the Right when he ran for President and got his character assassinated.

He and Mitt are both smart, successful, very rich, aloof, detached, privileged, boring...and all the rest of it. But only one of them is a true American hero and patriot that put his fucking money where his mouth is. When John Kerry was fighting for his country in Vietnam, Mitt Romney was at home with the silver spoon in his mouth. That doesn't mean Mitt Romney couldn't be a good President, maybe he could. But he is damn sure not John Kerry.

And that is the short and polite version of this post.

 

[U2DMfan]

I think the landscape has changed so much you can't use old models. All those comparisons were relevant up until the Cold War ended w Reagan.
We now find ourselves in many more gray areas where there are no simple answers.
<>

It's not really a dynamic model. It's the hyper-partisan political paradigm in America. And it's the same as it was when Reagan was President, although probably a little worse. And that is the very problem we are dealing with.

Not because America is ideologically miles apart.
But because we are always given two choices that are miles apart, so as to contrast and win elections - because that's all that matters to these jagoffs.

Imagine Mitt Romney supporting a tax increase. Now, you tell me how the 'old model' doesn't apply if that were the case and I'll demonstrate how it would. Here's a hint: the Norquist Lobby would tear him apart.

 

[Canadiens1131]

 

[diamond]

lol

 

[diamond]

It's not really a dynamic model. It's the hyper-partisan political paradigm in America.

Imagine Mitt Romney supporting a tax increase..

That probably won't happen, but if it did, Mitt would be savvy enough to not call it a tax increase but package or word it differently...

wait
watch
and
see.

<>

 

[diamond]

Since when was John Kerry not honourable to his wife or family??

It's sad that there is truth out there but he like Kennedy was -a philanderer.

It's not told of because 85% of the press corp leans left and most in this forum find that acceptable, most here are not after equilibrium, equanimity or accuracy in reporting or even wanting to know the character of left leaning candidates.

Repost: John Kerry's Divorce



More than a year-and-a-half ago I first posted about John Kerry's divorce, and as you can see from my top search word list it was a very popular topic for visitors. I doubt Kerry's past womanizing and gold-digging had much of an effect on the election, but there's no denying that people cared about the issue. Here's my original post.

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere else, but am I the only one who thinks it's significant that John Kerry couldn't remain faithful to his first wife? Some people like to make a big deal about the "sanctity of marriage" with regards to gay marriage, but isn't Mr. Kerry's divorce in 1988 (after six years of separation) relevant to the same issue? What's more, the circumstances aren't particularly flattering for Mr. Kerry.

Most people seem to think Mr. Kerry's carousing in the 1980s isn't important, but for most of the decade he was still married.

During the period the Kerrys were separated, for instance, the senator apparently felt little constrained by his marital vows. Gossip columns at the time linked him to Morgan Fairchild, Cornelia Guest and even President Reagan's liberal daughter, Patti Davis. An upcoming Boston Globe expose will reportedly feature details of the Massachusetts Democrat's 1980s affair with a 25-year-old British reporter.
According to a previous account offered by the paper, the fact that Kerry was still technically married till 1988 "reportedly came as a surprise to some of his frequent companions."

Most are consciously naive and give left leaning cheaters a pass as long as they support their pet issues-which speaks volumes.

<>

 

[diamond]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/65296993@N07/6940630345/in/photostream

]

 

[BVS]

It's sad that there is truth out there but he like Kennedy was -a philanderer.

It's not told of because 85% of the press corp leans left and most in this forum find that acceptable, most here are not after equilibrium, equanimity or accuracy in reporting or even wanting to know the character of left leaning candidates.




Most are consciously naive and give left leaning cheaters a pass as long as they support their pet issues-which speaks volumes.

<>

Why are you always embarassed to site your sources?

Repost: John Kerry's Divorce

What a joke!

What speaks volumes is how easily you are manipulated.

 

[coolian2]

i always trust websites with really noticeable 9/11 photos smacking me in the face.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Is that your go to now?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Picture 397 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Couldn't get Mitt? Not even Tagg? Ann?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

and most in this forum find that acceptable, most here are not after equilibrium, equanimity or accuracy in reporting or even wanting to know the character of left leaning candidates.


Most are consciously naive and give left leaning cheaters a pass as long as they support their pet issues-which speaks volumes.

<>

That's bs, sorry. Cheating is cheating and I look at it all the same way. I haven't seen anyone here look the other way about "left leaning" cheating. That's your spin, so sorry-it doesn't "speak volumes" about anyone here.

I hate to break it to you but it's prevalent everywhere and among everyone. It's even possible that Mitt could cheat He's just a human, not a God.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Someone's trying to get street cred...

and in typical Mittens fashion, he went with someone who hasn't had street cred of his own in about 15 years.

but hey... black and jewish!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i believe the difference between John Kerry and Mitt Romney is that one is an incredibly boring, terrible democratic candidate, and one is an incredibly boring, terrible republican candidate.

 

[BVS]

Exactly on both posts!

 

[diamond]

Couldn't get Mitt? Not even Tagg? Ann?

They were in Michigan, but he did text me, so there.

<>

 

[deep]

.

Santorum Loses Michigan Catholic Vote to Romney

In exit polls released by CBS news the Catholic Candidate Rick Santorum won just 37% of the Catholic vote, while the Mormon Candidate picked up 44% of the Catholic vote.

Rick Santorum had embraced the indignant letter from the Catholic Bishops which rebuked the current administration for their decision concerning contraception coverage for some Catholic institutions. A religious freedom battle in very short order would become a women's rights battle. The result was a toxic policy situation for Republican leaders and Rick Santorum appeared to want to declare himself a five star general in the war on women. This could explain why Romney was more popular with women Michigan voters.

There are serious doubts that Catholic voters will be persuaded one way or the other at the polls by the opinions of the Bishops. A candidate simply agreeing with the Catholic Bishops does not mean that candidate will receive more Catholic votes.

More importantly this week, Santorum has infamously come out publicly to state that comments made by President John Kennedy concerning the separation of church and state, made him want to puke.

With this one statement the increasingly controversial candidate Santorum threatened the hallowed memory of the one Catholic President, John Kennedy. Not a good political move if you hope to win a majority of a very important voting bloc of which Santorum is a member of in "good" standing.



Read more: Santorum Loses Michigan Catholic Vote to Romney - Technorati Politics

 

[U2DMfan]

Diamond Dave, it's not about Romney being able to sell a hypothetical tax increase to the public. The public, because of their ignorance, doesn't even have a say on that issue. That's the whole point. The Republicans, on this issue (using it only because it is the best and most illustrative example) do not answer to their constiutents. They answer to the Big Money lobby fueling their re-election campaigns. That is 100% truth.

Because of this, Grover Norquist doesn't care if the public favors tax increases.
He'll destroy Republicans that violate the pledge. He's done it before.

So that Lobby has the Congressional Republicans in their back pocket.
Romney would have no choice in the matter.

This is precisely why Obama didn't "change" anything.
It was always impossible. I said this during the entire 2008 election season.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think we know the real reason that Mitt won't light his hair on fire

We'll see how long that lasts. If he would actually stick to that I'd applaud him for it. His campaign might go down in flames for it.

Huffington Post

Rush Limbaugh laid into GOP candidate Mitt Romney on Tuesday after the candidate said he would not say "incendiary comments" about President Barack Obama for the sole purpose of inciting the conservative base.

During a press conference before the Michigan primary contest, Romney said, "It's very easy to excite the [conservative] base with incendiary comments. We've seen throughout the campaign that if you're willing to say really outrageous things that are accusative and attacking President Obama, that you're going to jump up in the polls. I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am."

Limbaugh seemed surprised by Romney's reaction. "So Romney's not willing to say incendiary things about Obama to incite the base," he repeated. "What does this tell you that Romney thinks of the base? That it takes incendiary comments to turn you on? That all you want is somebody beating up on Obama...or set their hair on fire to get attention..and that's all you care about," Limbaugh said to his listeners.

He later criticized Romney for making this position clear so early in the 2012 election. Speaking of 2008 Republican candidate Sen. John McCain, Limbaugh said, "At least McCain waited till the general campaign to make it clear that anybody criticizing Obama would be fired. Here it's happening in the primary." He then imitated Romney's position on the subject and said, "I'm not going to make any incendiary comments to attract the base. I have extensive experience in the private sector."

Limbaugh also took issue with what he referred to as Obama and the press' willingness to criticize the conservative base. "Obama can say whatever he wants about us and does, and the media can. And we're not talking about incendiary. We're talking about truth," Limbaugh said.

 

[PhilsFan]

That's a great headline in the making.

Rush Fires Up Base with Incendiary Comments to Prove They Don't Need to Be Fired Up by Incendiary Comments

 

[maycocksean]

Rush is counting on the base not being able to figure out who is really patronizing them.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Good to see Rush Limbaugh's continuing to be his usual annoying self .

The thing with Santorum losing Catholic cred, supposedly, because of his comments on Kennedy, that amuses me. I don't know what's sadder: the politicians puffing up some particular part of themselves (religion, race, gender, background, etc.) simply to try and get votes from the people whom they share that quality with, or the voters who do fall for such a pathetic ploy.

That's bs, sorry. Cheating is cheating and I look at it all the same way. I haven't seen anyone here look the other way about "left leaning" cheating. That's your spin, so sorry-it doesn't "speak volumes" about anyone here.

I hate to break it to you but it's prevalent everywhere and among everyone. It's even possible that Mitt could cheat He's just a human, not a God.

Well said. Thank you.

 

[deep]

Limbaugh calls college student slut and prostitute

"Can you imagine if you were her parents how proud... you would be?" he said on his radio show on Wednesday. "Your daughter... testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope."

Limbaugh was only getting started:

"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan (sic) Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

 

[corianderstem]

Who? Never heard of him. Guy sounds like a total dickbag, though.

 

[anitram]

Someone who travels to known tourist sex havens with non-prescription Viagra should know a thing or two about being a whore.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

breitbart died