I Can't Stand Romney.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

We'll have to agree to disagree, because 1 personal vote is far from potentially hundreds or thousands. Romney casting a personal vote for someone else does not equal Santorum begging like a dog for other people to vote for him.

Santorum defended himself by saying he is trying to attract Reagan Democrats, a constituency that will be key in the general election. Santorum also said it is hypocritical for Romney to complain about these robocalls when he did robocalls of his own using a clip of Santorum endorsing him four years ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._hit_back.html

I believe Santorum when he says he is reaching for "Reagan Democrats". Not as nefarious of a plan as it was, initially, made out to be.

And Santorum is right - Romney needs to stop complaining. He is doing the same stinking things. I just can't stand him. I know I probably haven't said that yet.

[trialedbyfire]

Romney won Michigan and Arizona, we're doomed. Obama '12... here we come, thanks GOP for bringing us down the road to socialism.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

Romney won Michigan and Arizona, we're doomed. Obama '12... here we come, thanks GOP for bringing us down the road to socialism.

I will not vote for Romney.

[The Matt]

What's the worse that can happen?

[n david]

Well, well....straight from the donkeys mouth:

"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."

"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he [Santorum] said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."

The article states that Santorum said this after Romney won NH where data shows 53% of the voters didn't identify themselves as Republican.

Santorum is like every other politician: if it can benefit him, it's good; but if it does not, it's something to be denounced.

And yet still, some only point out and condemn Romney as the flip-flopper.

I believe Santorum when he says he is reaching for "Reagan Democrats". Not as nefarious of a plan as it was, initially, made out to be.

I don't believe Santorum at all. He can say what he wants to try and explain the double-standard ... but if it were so, he wouldn't have targeted Union workers with the calls. They're certainly not Reagan Democrats.

Sorry, Santorum's own statements condemn what he did. He made no exceptions to his denounciation of the practice in January. Couldn't it have been said that those 53% who didn't claim to be Republicans were Reagan Democrats.

Can't have it both ways....

source

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Well, well....straight from the donkeys mouth:

The article states that Santorum said this after Romney won NH where data shows 53% of the voters didn't identify themselves as Republican.

Santorum is like every other politician: if it can benefit him, it's good; but if it does not, it's something to be denounced.

And yet still, some only point out and condemn Romney as the flip-flopper.


I don't believe Santorum at all. He can say what he wants to try and explain the double-standard ... but if it were so, he wouldn't have targeted Union workers with the calls. They're certainly not Reagan Democrats.

Sorry, Santorum's own statements condemn what he did. He made no exceptions to his denounciation of the practice in January. Couldn't it have been said that those 53% who didn't claim to be Republicans were Reagan Democrats.

Can't have it both ways....

source

There is a big difference in a Michael Moore Democrat and a Reagan or Blue Dog Democrat. But, I do agree with you, in part, that he can't have it both ways, if he was reaching for every Democrat.

Now, if you are trying to win me over to your boy, Mitt, it ain't evah gonna happen.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Well, well....straight from the donkeys mouth:

The article states that Santorum said this after Romney won NH where data shows 53% of the voters didn't identify themselves as Republican.

Santorum is like every other politician: if it can benefit him, it's good; but if it does not, it's something to be denounced.

And yet still, some only point out and condemn Romney as the flip-flopper.

I don't believe Santorum at all. He can say what he wants to try and explain the double-standard ... but if it were so, he wouldn't have targeted Union workers with the calls. They're certainly not Reagan Democrats.

Sorry, Santorum's own statements condemn what he did. He made no exceptions to his denounciation of the practice in January. Couldn't it have been said that those 53% who didn't claim to be Republicans were Reagan Democrats.

Can't have it both ways....

source

This is an interesting perspective.

Jason Mattera
Creating chaos within the Democratic ranks


Which brings us back to Santorum.

Reaching out to Democrats via “robocalls” is clearly a deliberate move to squeeze past Romney in Michigan. And while Santorum is playing up the fact that Romney favored the Wall Street but not the auto bailout, there’s something to be learned of this vote-getting tactic. “We know that if we can get a Reagan Democrat in the primary, we can get them in the fall,” said Hogan Gidley, a Santorum spokesman.

The underlying ideological attitudes of Americans strengthen that calculation.

A recent Gallup survey shows that Americans are far more likely to describe themselves as conservative (40 percent) as they are liberal (only 21 percent). In fact, liberalism has taken such a hit over the last three years that the number of people identifying themselves as liberal in even Rhode Island decreased five percentage points from 2010 to 2011.

So why not create a wedge between blue-collar Democrats and the liberal zealots who drive Obama’s decision making? It is smart politics and, more importantly, has the benefit of being true.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49828

[Twisp]

I was torn last night. On one hand I wanted Santorum to win because I knew of the entertainment that would provide us in the general election, but on a much larger hand I wanted Romney to win because I wanted to see PO's head explode. lol

I am sorry PO, I am a bad person I know. Do the Christian thing and forgive me now?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

There is a big difference in a Michael Moore Democrat and a Reagan or Blue Dog Democrat. But, I do agree with you, in part, that he can't have it both ways, if he was reaching for every Democrat.

Now, if you are trying to win me over to your boy, Mitt, it ain't evah gonna happen.

Mitt's never been "my boy." He lacks charisma, honest compassion and will be thrashed by the Obama class warfare machine. They'll brand him as the 1%, focus on Baine, and his legal offshore accounts. Unfortunately though, Romney's the only one who could give the President a close run.

Santorum is too far-right for any moderate or independent to vote for. And unless the President begins banning religion, the religious right have a habit of sitting on their posteriors at home while complaining about the state of the country.

I said in a few posts previous that I like Ron Paul. Out of hundreds of politicians, Paul is one of perhaps a very few that hasn't changed his position. He would be the best for civil liberties and keeping the gov't out of our lives. Because of those views, many consider him weak with national security and pulling troops from overseas. So he's not going to win the GOP nomination, which is too bad, because out of the nominees, i think Paul would do the best in a debate against the President. His smackdown of Santorum was one of the best...close to Reagan's against Mondale.

That said, I'll vote for whomever shows up as the GOP nominee.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I was torn last night. On one hand I wanted Santorum to win because I knew of the entertainment that would provide us in the general election, but on a much larger hand I wanted Romney to win because I wanted to see PO's head explode. lol

I am sorry PO, I am a bad person I know. Do the Christian thing and forgive me now?

My head didn't explode. Fox News allowed us to know that Mitt was the boy for us before the race began. No surprises there. It's funny that Fox was all over Twitter, a week or two ago, announcing they would air a program proving they were not supporting Mitt. Must have gotten a lot of attention on that score to air a select program on the subject. LOL!

Romney winning by only 3% in his home state is not really a decisive win. It shows that the Republicans are not sold on wanting him as the nominee.

It is also a long way to go for the final delegate count.

I read an interesting article this morning talking about how Gingrich has stayed out of the way until Santorum and Romney finalized who would be left standing between the two and then he will be the conservative candidate against Romney. We shall see what Newt does in Georgia. Currently he has a 15% lead in his home state. If he loses there, I think he is finished.

It is also interesting to note that Rick Perry is still polling higher in votes than any candidate no longer in the race. Brokered Convention? We shall see.