I Can't Stand Romney.

[Sethern]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't like Romney. I don't know why. I just don't like him. Nothing personal. Nothing I'd be willing to "bash". I just don't like the guy. He seems slimey to me.

I'd vote for Gingrich (definitely not a "moral" man but a policy genius). I'd vote for Santorum. But Romney... I just don't like the guy.

I might vote Libertarian.

Ahhh... Whatever happened to Ron Paul?

[Pressing-On]

Romney is whining, like a little girl, about Santorum's robocalls targeting the Democrats calling it a "dirty terrible trick."

Santorum is playing by rules set in place (17 states have open primaries). Nothing tricky about that. Santorum is fighting for votes, like any other candidate.

And Romney is one to talk after his malicious, and many times, false attack ads against Newt in Florida.

If he can't handle Santorum, he sure isn't going to be able to handle Obama's tactics.

As usual, Romney cries foul for the very thing he has done:

The Romney campaign has been denouncing Democratic efforts – and now those by Rick Santorum – to get Democrats to vote in Michigan’s open primary.

Mitt Romney himself called it a “new low” in politics in a round of TV interviews.

“President Obama’s reelection team is now actively engaged in changing the outcome of the Republican primary,” declared Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades in an email to the campaign’s list. “This is politics at its worst. It doesn’t get much more pathetic.”

Yet Romney himself gave a similar explanation in his last presidential run for why he crossover voted in in the 1990s in Massachusetts, per this ABC News clip:

ABC News’ Jonathan Greenberger Reports: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney offered a new explanation today for why he supported a Democrat in 1992.

That year, Romney, then a registered independent, voted for former Sen. Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary. He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in an interview that will air Sunday on “This Week,” that his vote was meant as a tactical maneuver aimed at finding the weakest opponent for incumbent President George H.W. Bush.

“In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary,” said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. “When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican.”

[n david]

Santorum is playing by rules set in place (17 states have open primaries). Nothing tricky about that. Santorum is fighting for votes, like any other candidate.

You can't seriously be defending what Santorum is doing. Had Romney done this, you would have been in an uproar, as you are about his personal vote for Tsongas.

Sure, Santorum may be playing by the rules...but good grief, PO, your metric for rule-playing has absolutely no standards.

I take that back, there is one common standard: anyone but Romney....

• It's ok for Santorum to flip-flop, just not Romney
• It's ok for Santorum/others to make misleading claims/ads, just not Romney
• It's ok for Santorum to pay for robo-calls, pitifully begging for DEMOCRATS to vote for him, but if Romney did it, it would be a disgrace.
  
• Santorum's robo-calls is perfectly okay and is called, "playing by the rules."
• Romney's offshore accounts, which are by the rules, are called shady, deceptive and just about criminal.
  
• Santorum can vote for NCLB, then decide his new position is to appeal what he voted for -- and it's regarded as acceptable.
• Romney changes his view from pro-choice to pro-life, but is called a flip-flopper at best, but really thought of as lying to win conservative votes.

Here's a thought...why not have the same set of standards for all the candidates? Instead of this ridiculous "it's okay for Santorum to do it, but not Romney" stuff.

Democrats would LOVE Santorum to win the nomination. They (Democrats) regard Santorum as the weakest opponent against Obama.

Since when is it acceptable for a conservative to beg for Democrats and liberals to vote for them?

It's not. Certainly wouldn't be okay if Romney did it. And it's not okay for Santorum to be doing it either.

[Pressing-On]

I'm not voting for Santorum, but Romney has done the very same thing!!! He's a hypocrite criticizing others for the very things he has done and supported himself!!! Ugh! I cannot stand this man!

And, please, but from a Texas girl - He looks TERRIBLE in a pair of jeans! Give me Rick Perry! LOL!

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm not voting for Santorum, but Romney has done the very same thing!!! He's a hypocrite criticizing others for the very things he has done and supported himself!!! Ugh! I cannot stand this man!

Regarding the robo calls, Romney did not do the same thing. Romney voted, cast his vote for Tsongas. It's his right as a citizen to cast his personal vote for whomever.

That's not at all what Santorum did last night.

It's a far cry from casting a personal vote for someone else, as opposed to paying for robo-calls to thousands begging for someone to vote for him. It's not even the same.

Let's put it this way, I can guarantee you that if Romney had paid for robo-calls to Democrats asking for their vote -- you wouldn't be offering excuses and say that he was just playing by the rules.

You would be beside yourself in outrage. And that's what I don't understand. Why it's okay for Santorum, but not for Romney to do some of these things.

Yes, Romney's a flip-flopper ... as are 99.9% of people in politics. The .1% being Ron Paul, who really has been the same since the beginning. In fact, I'm wondering if HE'S a robot and not Romney.

Yah, Romney's put out misleading information....as has even single politician running for office.

Personally, I like Ron Paul and would vote for him if I could today. Unfortunately the AZ GOP only allows registered Republicans to vote in the primary, which I can understand why.

I just think it's silly to point out one candidates faults and give others a pass.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Regarding the robo calls, Romney did not do the same thing. Romney voted, cast his vote for Tsongas. It's his right as a citizen to cast his personal vote for whomever.

That's not at all what Santorum did last night.

It's a far cry from casting a personal vote for someone else, as opposed to paying for robo-calls to thousands begging for someone to vote for him. It's not even the same.

Let's put it this way, I can guarantee you that if Romney had paid for robo-calls to Democrats asking for their vote -- you wouldn't be offering excuses and say that he was just playing by the rules.

You would be beside yourself in outrage. And that's what I don't understand. Why it's okay for Santorum, but not for Romney to do some of these things.

Yes, Romney's a flip-flopper ... as are 99.9% of people in politics. The .1% being Ron Paul, who really has been the same since the beginning. In fact, I'm wondering if HE'S a robot and not Romney.

Yah, Romney's put out misleading information....as has even single politician running for office.

Personally, I like Ron Paul and would vote for him if I could today. Unfortunately the AZ GOP only allows registered Republicans to vote in the primary, which I can understand why.

I just think it's silly to point out one candidates faults and give others a pass.

There is no difference, IMO, on what Santorum is doing on the robocalls and Mitt voting for Tsongas. Yes, it is his right to vote for whomever he wants, but he did that for the very reason the robocalls are doing it. At least Santorum is being totally open about what he is doing. Romney, of course, is hardly ever honest - "And so, I have always voted for a Republican." Really, Romney? Always? LOL!

I will NEVER forgive Mitt for his lying ads against Newt in Florida on the ethic violation, which Newt was cleared on.

A few things may change if Romney becomes the nominee, but not enough to change the Republican Party and that is what we need. He is a status quo candidate, much like Santorum would be.

Romney also needs to stay in his elitist slacks.. Only real men can wear jeans. LOL!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't like Romney. I don't know why. I just don't like him. Nothing personal. Nothing I'd be willing to "bash". I just don't like the guy. He seems slimey to me.

I'd vote for Gingrich (definitely not a "moral" man but a policy genius). I'd vote for Santorum. But Romney... I just don't like the guy.

I might vote Libertarian.

Hey, I know someone that knows someone whose sister's cousin's boyfriend knows Romney's sister's boyfriend's brother and they said that Romney doesn't like you either

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

There is no difference, IMO, on what Santorum is doing on the robocalls and Mitt voting for Tsongas. Yes, it is his right to vote for whomever he wants, but he did that for the very reason the robocalls are doing it. At least Santorum is being totally open about what he is doing. Romney, of course, is hardly ever honest - "And so, I have always voted for a Republican." Really, Romney? Always? LOL!

I will NEVER forgive Mitt for his lying ads against Newt in Florida on the ethic violation, which Newt was cleared on.

A few things may change if Romney becomes the nominee, but not enough to change the Republican Party and that is what we need. He is a status quo candidate, much like Santorum would be.

Romney also needs to stay in his elitist slacks.. Only real men can wear jeans. LOL!

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.

And the only reason Santorum is open about this is because campaign finance rules force him to be open about this. Guaranteed if he wasn't required to include his personal endorsement of the robo-call, he wouldn't. It's embarrassing. I feel bad for him. I mean really, having to beg people for votes.

This is a man running for President. Out there, bag in hand, begging the opposition party help him out.

[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.

And the only reason Santorum is open about this is because campaign finance rules force him to be open about this. Guaranteed if he wasn't required to include his personal endorsement of the robo-call, he wouldn't. It's embarrassing. I feel bad for him. I mean really, having to beg people for votes.

This is a man running for President. Out there, bag in hand, begging the opposition party help him out.

We don't have to disagree on all that we've discussed. I do agree with you on Santorum begging like a dog for votes - any votes. I don't think he is going to win anyway and I think the robocalls won't help him.

Romney's "gotcha game" is winning for him and I'm sure he will be the nominee. As bad as I hate that, it is what it is. Perhaps his "gotcha game" is why the GOP thinks he can win against Obama.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Sure, Santorum may be playing by the rules...but good grief, PO, your metric for rule-playing has absolutely no standards.

I take that back, there is one common standard: anyone but Romney....
.

I'm really busy today and missed this. See? I do have standards!