Anyone but Romney (1 Viewer)

[meatwad1]

Cant have our first non-christian (Romney) in the white house can we?

And a CULT member at that.

If you wanna talk about sticking to your conservative values, he is a non option.

I know this happened a long time ago but you have totally gone over the edge. Do you froth at the mouth when you type?

So on the non-christian, cultist Romney in the white house that causes conservatives to denounce their stoic conservative stances.Awesome!!!

*ps... love making people like Peens and co. curl up in fetal position and cry.

LDS are not Christian?!?!?! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Way to torpedo any and all credibility you have on this!!! I believe it is formally called the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS!!!!!

*ps...the bolded part means that they are Christians. One of the secrets of the Christians is that they have Christ's name embedded into the logo of their cult.

 

[meatwad1]

Anyone but Romney

Did Romney Choose the Wrong Vacant Factory?

Mitt Romney used a shuttered drywall plant in Ohio as a backdrop for his message that President Obama has failed to create jobs, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

The only problem: The plant closed four years ago during President George W. Bush's administration.

I know it is pretty tough for you libs to process mockery and sarcasm, but here is the real link from the WSJ.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/19/romney-visits-empty-factory-to-mock-obama/

Have a great day!!!!!

 

[Joe Summer]

Anyone but Romney

Did Romney Choose the Wrong Vacant Factory?

Mitt Romney used a shuttered drywall plant in Ohio as a backdrop for his message that President Obama has failed to create jobs, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

The only problem: The plant closed four years ago during President George W. Bush's administration.

I know it is pretty tough for you libs to process mockery and sarcasm, but here is the real link from the WSJ.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/19/romney-visits-empty-factory-to-mock-obama/

Have a great day!!!!!

Your link tells pretty much the same story as the previous link.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Anyone but Romney

Did Romney Choose the Wrong Vacant Factory?

Mitt Romney used a shuttered drywall plant in Ohio as a backdrop for his message that President Obama has failed to create jobs, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

The only problem: The plant closed four years ago during President George W. Bush's administration.

I know it is pretty tough for you libs to process mockery and sarcasm, but here is the real link from the WSJ.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/19/romney-visits-empty-factory-to-mock-obama/

Have a great day!!!!!

Your link tells pretty much the same story as the previous link.

Yea I am not getting that either. I mean if he wanted to show how Obama is bad for the economy you would think he would choose a factory closed during Obama's time in office, instead he gives a speech in one which closed during presidency of Bush. Whomever chose this location in the Romney campaign needs to learn how to do some research.

 

[moneyman]

Anyone but Romney

Did Romney Choose the Wrong Vacant Factory?

Mitt Romney used a shuttered drywall plant in Ohio as a backdrop for his message that President Obama has failed to create jobs, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

The only problem: The plant closed four years ago during President George W. Bush's administration.

Perfect. The shark move is for Romney to run against the irresponsible fiscal policies of the last 12 years.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Anyone but Romney

Did Romney Choose the Wrong Vacant Factory?

Mitt Romney used a shuttered drywall plant in Ohio as a backdrop for his message that President Obama has failed to create jobs, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

The only problem: The plant closed four years ago during President George W. Bush's administration.

Perfect. The shark move is for Romney to run against the irresponsible fiscal policies of the last 12 years.

The shark move would be to grow a pair and tell of Moral Majority to take a hike; in other words become more like his father.

 

[moneyman]

Anyone but Romney

Did Romney Choose the Wrong Vacant Factory?

Mitt Romney used a shuttered drywall plant in Ohio as a backdrop for his message that President Obama has failed to create jobs, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

The only problem: The plant closed four years ago during President George W. Bush's administration.

Perfect. The shark move is for Romney to run against the irresponsible fiscal policies of the last 12 years.

The shark move would be to grow a pair and tell of Moral Majority to take a hike; in other words become more like his father.

solid advice from a guy that starts an "Anyone but Romney" thread

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Anyone but Romney

Did Romney Choose the Wrong Vacant Factory?

Mitt Romney used a shuttered drywall plant in Ohio as a backdrop for his message that President Obama has failed to create jobs, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

The only problem: The plant closed four years ago during President George W. Bush's administration.

Perfect. The shark move is for Romney to run against the irresponsible fiscal policies of the last 12 years.

The shark move would be to grow a pair and tell of Moral Majority to take a hike; in other words become more like his father.

solid advice from a guy that starts an "Anyone but Romney" thread

George Romney and Mitt Romney are like George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

 

[Biabreakable]

And vote back in someone from the party that started us down the slope?

Oh great. "This party is better than that party!" "This guy's party did that, so they're bad!" You're exactly what's wrong with this country. Congrats.

Just because everyone does their best to ignore and forget the former administration (Most Republicans can't even say the words Bush without vomiting) that does not mean those of us with a lighter conscience are what is wrong with this country for reminding you. In fact if you could remove your head from your 4th point of contact for a minute you might see why it is an important point to be reminded of. Especially when all signs point towards Romney adopting much of the same policy decisions and advisers that Bush had.What is wrong with this country are people who keep repeating the same mistakes and expecting a different result.

 

[RBM]

Cant have our first non-christian (Romney) in the white house can we?

And a CULT member at that.

If you wanna talk about sticking to your conservative values, he is a non option.

I know this happened a long time ago but you have totally gone over the edge. Do you froth at the mouth when you type?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Anyone but Romney

Did Romney Choose the Wrong Vacant Factory?

Mitt Romney used a shuttered drywall plant in Ohio as a backdrop for his message that President Obama has failed to create jobs, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

The only problem: The plant closed four years ago during President George W. Bush's administration.

Perfect. The shark move is for Romney to run against the irresponsible fiscal policies of the last 12 years.

The shark move would be to grow a pair and tell of Moral Majority to take a hike; in other words become more like his father.

solid advice from a guy that starts an "Anyone but Romney" thread

George Romney and Mitt Romney are like George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

And Obama is like Carter - only worse.

 

[Ursa M]

Anyone but Romney

Did Romney Choose the Wrong Vacant Factory?

Mitt Romney used a shuttered drywall plant in Ohio as a backdrop for his message that President Obama has failed to create jobs, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

The only problem: The plant closed four years ago during President George W. Bush's administration.

Perfect. The shark move is for Romney to run against the irresponsible fiscal policies of the last 12 years.

The shark move would be to grow a pair and tell of Moral Majority to take a hike; in other words become more like his father.

solid advice from a guy that starts an "Anyone but Romney" thread

George Romney and Mitt Romney are like George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

And Obama is like Carter - only worse.

The curse of the short memory

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

.

 

[Joe T]

You couldn't have posted that in the other thread instead of starting a new one?

good question.

 

[cstu]

 

[Amused to Death]

You couldn't have posted that in the other thread instead of starting a new one?

good question.

Am I missing something or did you dig up a 6 month old thread to agree it shouldn't have been started??

 

[cstu]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake.

I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

 

[Godsbrother]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake.

I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

No way. Santorum is a nut.

 

[Fennis]

A suggestion for Republicans: Consider Gary Johnson

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

Bachmann would have also been a better choice.

 

[Jutz]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

 

[Fennis]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

Santorum would have lost the general election by 30 points.

 

[cstu]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

I'm serious and agree with you 100%.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

OK. Then honestly you need a third party, because the GOP will never nominate someone that hard right.And I happen to know several conservatives personally (and on this board) who would welcome the religious right getting out of the GOP.Call it the Family Party.

 

[joffer]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

Santorum would have lost the general election by 30 points.

at least

 

[Jutz]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

OK. Then honestly you need a third party, because the GOP will never nominate someone that hard right.And I happen to know several conservatives personally (and on this board) who would welcome the religious right getting out of the GOP.Call it the Family Party.

I think there are just as many conservatives that would like to see the moderate RINO's take a back seat to the party. And I don't think that demo does much posting on message boards, so of course you won't find them here. Hell, I doubt many of them have computers. You can clammor for the religious right to get out of the GOP all you want, but it's not going to happen. I would suggest the moderates form their own party, but to each their own. I think it is a much better winning strategy to have a strong strong hold on your base, and try to draw the moderates in as opposed to taking the opposite approach. I'm not a religious person at all, I don't go to church, but I have great respect for those that do and consider them a valuable part of the party. To shun them is to throw away a HUGE part of the voting base.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake.

I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

OK. Then honestly you need a third party, because the GOP will never nominate someone that hard right.And I happen to know several conservatives personally (and on this board) who would welcome the religious right getting out of the GOP.

Call it the Family Party.

I think there are just as many conservatives that would like to see the moderate RINO's take a back seat to the party. And I don't think that demo does much posting on message boards, so of course you won't find them here. Hell, I doubt many of them have computers. You can clammor for the religious right to get out of the GOP all you want, but it's not going to happen. I would suggest the moderates form their own party, but to each their own. I think it is a much better winning strategy to have a strong strong hold on your base, and try to draw the moderates in as opposed to taking the opposite approach. I'm not a religious person at all, I don't go to church, but I have great respect for those that do and consider them a valuable part of the party. To shun them is to throw away a HUGE part of the voting base.

I will start with a quote."We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief.

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral." - RR

Which is a larger part of the GOP voting base? RR followers or the Pat Robertson crowd?

 

[timschochet]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

I really fear that if Romney loses, this will be the mantra of the extreme right. Rather than place any blame on themselves and their completely irrational positions (where it squarely belongs) they will disparage Romney and claim that he wasn't conservative enough. What total crap.Let's get something straight: the ONLY time that Romney made any headway at all in this election was after the first debate when he appeared to be a moderate centrist. Unfortunately it seems that won't be enough for him to get over the hump, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the moderate guys who are the most appealing to the American public at large. Left to their own devices, the Tea Party/base of the Republican party has NO chance of ever getting a candidate elected. Thankfully.

 

[Jutz]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake.

I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

OK. Then honestly you need a third party, because the GOP will never nominate someone that hard right.And I happen to know several conservatives personally (and on this board) who would welcome the religious right getting out of the GOP.

Call it the Family Party.

I think there are just as many conservatives that would like to see the moderate RINO's take a back seat to the party. And I don't think that demo does much posting on message boards, so of course you won't find them here. Hell, I doubt many of them have computers. You can clammor for the religious right to get out of the GOP all you want, but it's not going to happen. I would suggest the moderates form their own party, but to each their own. I think it is a much better winning strategy to have a strong strong hold on your base, and try to draw the moderates in as opposed to taking the opposite approach. I'm not a religious person at all, I don't go to church, but I have great respect for those that do and consider them a valuable part of the party. To shun them is to throw away a HUGE part of the voting base.

I will start with a quote."We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief.

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral." - RR

Which is a larger part of the GOP voting base? RR followers or the Pat Robertson crowd?

The way I see it is Santorum is the only one in the election willing to stick his neck out to fight for religious freedom and keep the government from infringing upon it as it relates to your quotes. The Catholic church was absolutely not happy that Obama care is forcing health care providers to do things that go against their religion. I agree with separation of church and state, but I think you have it backwards.In fact, I think separation of church and state is the most commonly misunderstood concepts when it comes to politics. I think anyone from any religious (or non religous) background should have the ablility to propose any law based on any background they come from. Democracy allows that proposal to be accepted or declined based on a vote, but that has nothing do do with separation of church and state. I do not think the government has any right to infringe on what religion you choose to follow, and that's exaclty what Santorum was fighting for.

The best example I can give of this is during the nomination process everyone said Santorum wanted to ban contraception. I gave example after example after example of Santorum explaining his position that he doesn't want to ammend any laws to ban contraception but guys like NCCommish just absolutely woulnd't believe it. They felt like they knew what was inside Santorum's head, and that they knew better what he believed then what he himself did. But it just wasn't true. Santorum said he does not practice the use of contraception, but didn't want to force it on anyone, nor did he want to change the law... but everyone just ASSUMED that he did.

 

[Jutz]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

I really fear that if Romney loses, this will be the mantra of the extreme right. Rather than place any blame on themselves and their completely irrational positions (where it squarely belongs) they will disparage Romney and claim that he wasn't conservative enough. What total crap.Let's get something straight: the ONLY time that Romney made any headway at all in this election was after the first debate when he appeared to be a moderate centrist. Unfortunately it seems that won't be enough for him to get over the hump, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the moderate guys who are the most appealing to the American public at large. Left to their own devices, the Tea Party/base of the Republican party has NO chance of ever getting a candidate elected. Thankfully.

I'm not here to bash Romney. I am going to vote for Romney and I hope he wins. I just think Santorum would have been a better choice. The only thing I don't understand with your logic is you are basically saying that you think Romney is going to lose, then saying that is the best strategy. I don't understand why anyone thinks a losing strategy is somehow going to work if you keep trying it, but hey... keep on trying it. And if these moderate RINO's do in fact keep losing I think there is an excellent chance of getting a more conservative candidate elected.

 

[cstu]

OK. Then honestly you need a third party, because the GOP will never nominate someone that hard right.And I happen to know several conservatives personally (and on this board) who would welcome the religious right getting out of the GOP.Call it the Family Party.

What they've been doing - forcing candidates to change their views - isn't working. The reason I've been pimping Jeb Bush for 2016 is that unlike McCain and Romney he's a strong enough candidate not to bow down to the party. The Republican party is going to change to suit Jeb, not the other way around.

 

[humpback]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

I'm serious and agree with you 100%.

Perfect example of crazies on both sides. I would have welcomed a Santorum candidacy only because Gary Johnson would have gained a lot more traction.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake.

I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

OK. Then honestly you need a third party, because the GOP will never nominate someone that hard right.And I happen to know several conservatives personally (and on this board) who would welcome the religious right getting out of the GOP.

Call it the Family Party.

I think there are just as many conservatives that would like to see the moderate RINO's take a back seat to the party. And I don't think that demo does much posting on message boards, so of course you won't find them here. Hell, I doubt many of them have computers. You can clammor for the religious right to get out of the GOP all you want, but it's not going to happen. I would suggest the moderates form their own party, but to each their own. I think it is a much better winning strategy to have a strong strong hold on your base, and try to draw the moderates in as opposed to taking the opposite approach. I'm not a religious person at all, I don't go to church, but I have great respect for those that do and consider them a valuable part of the party. To shun them is to throw away a HUGE part of the voting base.

I will start with a quote."We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief.

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral." - RR

Which is a larger part of the GOP voting base? RR followers or the Pat Robertson crowd?

The way I see it is Santorum is the only one in the election willing to stick his neck out to fight for religious freedom and keep the government from infringing upon it as it relates to your quotes. The Catholic church was absolutely not happy that Obama care is forcing health care providers to do things that go against their religion. I agree with separation of church and state, but I think you have it backwards.In fact, I think separation of church and state is the most commonly misunderstood concepts when it comes to politics. I think anyone from any religious (or non religous) background should have the ablility to propose any law based on any background they come from. Democracy allows that proposal to be accepted or declined based on a vote, but that has nothing do do with separation of church and state. I do not think the government has any right to infringe on what religion you choose to follow, and that's exaclty what Santorum was fighting for.

The best example I can give of this is during the nomination process everyone said Santorum wanted to ban contraception. I gave example after example after example of Santorum explaining his position that he doesn't want to ammend any laws to ban contraception but guys like NCCommish just absolutely woulnd't believe it. They felt like they knew what was inside Santorum's head, and that they knew better what he believed then what he himself did. But it just wasn't true. Santorum said he does not practice the use of contraception, but didn't want to force it on anyone, nor did he want to change the law... but everyone just ASSUMED that he did.

You and I both know the bolded is not true. The "Religious Exemption" in the Health Care Bill was specifically designed for these situations. Santorum knew that also but kept hitting that drum because his followers were so eager to believe that Obama was raging a war on Christianity.

 

[cstu]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

I'm serious and agree with you 100%.

Perfect example of crazies on both sides. I would have welcomed a Santorum candidacy only because Gary Johnson would have gained a lot more traction.

I voted for Johnson since my vote for Obama wouldn't matter here in CA. The reason I believe Santorum would have won because Romney voters are voting 'not Obama' rather than supporting Romney. Santorum would have got all of those votes plus the turnout would have been much higher among evangelicals. As crazy as it sounds, President Santorum likely would have happened.

 

[Fennis]

I voted for Johnson since my vote for Obama wouldn't matter here in CA. .

why would your vote for Obama mattered if you lived in Ohio?

 

[fatkid]

Santorum would have lost in a tidal wave. The key issue in this election is the economy, and he doesn't have the chops. Plus, he is nowhere near as good as Romney at debating, so the drastic difference between the candidates in debate 1 never would have occurred. His lack of a chance would have crippled voter turnout and had an impact on congressional races across the country.

 

[cstu]

I voted for Johnson since my vote for Obama wouldn't matter here in CA. .

why would your vote for Obama mattered if you lived in Ohio?

It would have at least felt like it mattered.

 

[phrozen]

Santorum would have lost in a tidal wave. The key issue in this election is the economy, and he doesn't have the chops. Plus, he is nowhere near as good as Romney at debating, so the drastic difference between the candidates in debate 1 never would have occurred. His lack of a chance would have crippled voter turnout and had an impact on congressional races across the country.

if it was Santorum v Obama I would have either voted for Gary Johnson or written in Ron Paul - no chance I'd vote for Santorum.

 

[Jutz]

Santorum would have lost in a tidal wave. The key issue in this election is the economy, and he doesn't have the chops. Plus, he is nowhere near as good as Romney at debating, so the drastic difference between the candidates in debate 1 never would have occurred. His lack of a chance would have crippled voter turnout and had an impact on congressional races across the country.

I'm thinking you didn't watch the debates. It was Santorums performance in the FL debate that led him to a 3 state sweep in the following week of the nomination process. Santorum never uses cue cards or teleprompters when he speaks, so not having them at a debate is no big deal to him. When he does speak, it comes off much more natural, and less rehearsed because he actually believes in what he speaks about as opposed to Romney that has to rehearse because he doesn't really have any strong convictions. Santorum was a much better debater compared to Romney.Romney is a rich businessman so people think he has the economy chops, but Romney's businessman label is exactly the thing that gets him in trouble and labeled as a 1% er. There would be no debate about releasing taxes. There would be no making fun of Rick for having multiple homes, and multiple cars. Rick never had a background that could be attacked for 'shipping jobs overseas' or 'loading up business's with debt' only to put them under. None of that. Rick advocated cutting the corporate tax rate in half, and strongly supported coal and oil, two resources we have in the US now and if we went full bore into them would greatly help the economy. He ran on setting the highest tax bracket to %28 because it was good enough for Reagan so it was good enough for him. Romney gets bashed all the time for being 'rich guy' but none of that would have been available with Santorum.Damn it... I hate that I'm getting sucked into this. I just can't help it. Guy was a great candidate. There would have been absolutely zero grey area regarding health care... where Romney had state run health care in MA. I could go on... but I've gone on too long already.

 

[timschochet]

Jutz, you know I disagree with you an awfui lot. The fact that you still use the Paterno avatar bothers me. But I admire you for sticking by your guy here, through thick and thin.

 

[Jutz]

Jutz, you know I disagree with you an awfui lot. The fact that you still use the Paterno avatar bothers me. But I admire you for sticking by your guy here, through thick and thin.

Thanks man... I am strongly considering changing the avatar to Bill Obrien. I love what he is doing with the team this year. I guess I just wanted wait a little to make sure he is dedicated to sticking around. We'll see.

 

[Fennis]

Jutz, you know I disagree with you an awfui lot. The fact that you still use the Paterno avatar bothers me. But I admire you for sticking by your guy here, through thick and thin.

I would vote for Paterno over Santorum, but I would vote for Santorum over Sandusky.

 

[Jutz]

Jutz, you know I disagree with you an awfui lot. The fact that you still use the Paterno avatar bothers me. But I admire you for sticking by your guy here, through thick and thin.

I would vote for Paterno over Santorum, but I would vote for Santorum over Sandusky.

that made me laugh... thanks for that.

 

[humpback]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

I'm serious and agree with you 100%.

Perfect example of crazies on both sides. I would have welcomed a Santorum candidacy only because Gary Johnson would have gained a lot more traction.

I voted for Johnson since my vote for Obama wouldn't matter here in CA. The reason I believe Santorum would have won because Romney voters are voting 'not Obama' rather than supporting Romney. Santorum would have got all of those votes plus the turnout would have been much higher among evangelicals. As crazy as it sounds, President Santorum likely would have happened.

I know what you're saying, I just think you're out of your mind if you think Santorum would have won the election. It sounds crazy because it is crazy- there are many, many people who would vote for Romney but not Santorum.

 

[Jutz]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

I'm serious and agree with you 100%.

Perfect example of crazies on both sides. I would have welcomed a Santorum candidacy only because Gary Johnson would have gained a lot more traction.

I voted for Johnson since my vote for Obama wouldn't matter here in CA. The reason I believe Santorum would have won because Romney voters are voting 'not Obama' rather than supporting Romney. Santorum would have got all of those votes plus the turnout would have been much higher among evangelicals. As crazy as it sounds, President Santorum likely would have happened.

I know what you're saying, I just think you're out of your mind if you think Santorum would have won the election. It sounds crazy because it is crazy- there are many, many people who would vote for Romney but not Santorum.

So then the question becomes... how many people would vote for Santorum but not Romney (or just not vote). I think there are more out there then people realize.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Santorum would have lost in a tidal wave. The key issue in this election is the economy, and he doesn't have the chops. Plus, he is nowhere near as good as Romney at debating, so the drastic difference between the candidates in debate 1 never would have occurred. His lack of a chance would have crippled voter turnout and had an impact on congressional races across the country.

I'm thinking you didn't watch the debates. It was Santorums performance in the FL debate that led him to a 3 state sweep in the following week of the nomination process. Santorum never uses cue cards or teleprompters when he speaks, so not having them at a debate is no big deal to him. When he does speak, it comes off much more natural, and less rehearsed because he actually believes in what he speaks about as opposed to Romney that has to rehearse because he doesn't really have any strong convictions. Santorum was a much better debater compared to Romney.Romney is a rich businessman so people think he has the economy chops, but Romney's businessman label is exactly the thing that gets him in trouble and labeled as a 1% er. There would be no debate about releasing taxes. There would be no making fun of Rick for having multiple homes, and multiple cars. Rick never had a background that could be attacked for 'shipping jobs overseas' or 'loading up business's with debt' only to put them under. None of that. Rick advocated cutting the corporate tax rate in half, and strongly supported coal and oil, two resources we have in the US now and if we went full bore into them would greatly help the economy. He ran on setting the highest tax bracket to %28 because it was good enough for Reagan so it was good enough for him. Romney gets bashed all the time for being 'rich guy' but none of that would have been available with Santorum.Damn it... I hate that I'm getting sucked into this. I just can't help it. Guy was a great candidate. There would have been absolutely zero grey area regarding health care... where Romney had state run health care in MA. I could go on... but I've gone on too long already.

Your are forgetting the bad stuff.Romney has never been accused of juxtaposing same-sex marriage with pedophilia and bestiality. Romney has never called intelligent design "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes'.Romney never promised to initiate a "war on porn" if he is elected." "Obama Administration has turned a blind eye" to pornography, but promised that that "will change under a Santorum Administration."On the plus side. Yes he does speak from his heart.

 

[humpback]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake. I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

I'm serious and agree with you 100%.

Perfect example of crazies on both sides. I would have welcomed a Santorum candidacy only because Gary Johnson would have gained a lot more traction.

I voted for Johnson since my vote for Obama wouldn't matter here in CA. The reason I believe Santorum would have won because Romney voters are voting 'not Obama' rather than supporting Romney. Santorum would have got all of those votes plus the turnout would have been much higher among evangelicals. As crazy as it sounds, President Santorum likely would have happened.

I know what you're saying, I just think you're out of your mind if you think Santorum would have won the election. It sounds crazy because it is crazy- there are many, many people who would vote for Romney but not Santorum.

So then the question becomes... how many people would vote for Santorum but not Romney (or just not vote). I think there are more out there then people realize.

How many family members does he have?Seriously though, not nearly as many. Look at yourself- you're a Santorum fanatic, yet you're still voting for Romney. There have been a few people in this thread (who I presume voted for Romney) who said they wouldn't vote for Santorum. I don't think the numbers are close at all- Santorum would turn off so many people, it would be a landslide IMO.

 

[Jutz]

Santorum would have lost in a tidal wave. The key issue in this election is the economy, and he doesn't have the chops. Plus, he is nowhere near as good as Romney at debating, so the drastic difference between the candidates in debate 1 never would have occurred. His lack of a chance would have crippled voter turnout and had an impact on congressional races across the country.

I'm thinking you didn't watch the debates. It was Santorums performance in the FL debate that led him to a 3 state sweep in the following week of the nomination process. Santorum never uses cue cards or teleprompters when he speaks, so not having them at a debate is no big deal to him. When he does speak, it comes off much more natural, and less rehearsed because he actually believes in what he speaks about as opposed to Romney that has to rehearse because he doesn't really have any strong convictions. Santorum was a much better debater compared to Romney.Romney is a rich businessman so people think he has the economy chops, but Romney's businessman label is exactly the thing that gets him in trouble and labeled as a 1% er. There would be no debate about releasing taxes. There would be no making fun of Rick for having multiple homes, and multiple cars. Rick never had a background that could be attacked for 'shipping jobs overseas' or 'loading up business's with debt' only to put them under. None of that. Rick advocated cutting the corporate tax rate in half, and strongly supported coal and oil, two resources we have in the US now and if we went full bore into them would greatly help the economy. He ran on setting the highest tax bracket to %28 because it was good enough for Reagan so it was good enough for him. Romney gets bashed all the time for being 'rich guy' but none of that would have been available with Santorum.Damn it... I hate that I'm getting sucked into this. I just can't help it. Guy was a great candidate. There would have been absolutely zero grey area regarding health care... where Romney had state run health care in MA. I could go on... but I've gone on too long already.

Your are forgetting the bad stuff.Romney has never been accused of juxtaposing same-sex marriage with pedophilia and bestiality. Romney has never called intelligent design "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes'.Romney never promised to initiate a "war on porn" if he is elected." "Obama Administration has turned a blind eye" to pornography, but promised that that "will change under a Santorum Administration."On the plus side. Yes he does speak from his heart.

This is true... but as the original post pointed out the key issue in this election is the economy. Santorum would have been hurt on the issues that people are not as concerned about this election cycle... but would have been stronger on the issues that matter most.It's not like Romney is gaining any following because of his views on social issues... in fact it is difficult to even tell what Romney's positions are in this arena. Romney's VP pick, I believe, is a lot closer to Santorum on social issues then Romney.

 

[Jutz]

With the polls swinging back Obama's way it certainly appears that the Republicans should have nominated anyone but Romney. They went with the 'safe' choice like the Democrats did with Kerry but it was a mistake.

I still think Santorum would have beat Obama.

I don't know if you are serious or not, and I have been trying my best not to say it because it just sounds like sour graps because I liked Santorum so much... but since you brought it up I just can't help it. I absolutely think everyone has the whole 'nominate a moderate' strategy completely backwards. Looking at this election, it really does seem like the one that fires up the base more is going to win. A lot of the chatter I hear is, whatever party has more people show up to vote will win. Well, there is no question Santorum would get all those right wing loons like myself all fired up and out to vote. With Romney it's just like... ho hum.Plus, I have heard that if you put a guy like Santorum out there it would fire up the Democrat base to vote against him... well fine, let's do it. Lets have a battle Royal where EVERYONE is fired up and goes out to vote then let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, I guess there isn't much use talking about it at this point, but I just can't help it. It's definitely something I have pondered in the past couple weeks.

I'm serious and agree with you 100%.

Perfect example of crazies on both sides. I would have welcomed a Santorum candidacy only because Gary Johnson would have gained a lot more traction.

I voted for Johnson since my vote for Obama wouldn't matter here in CA. The reason I believe Santorum would have won because Romney voters are voting 'not Obama' rather than supporting Romney. Santorum would have got all of those votes plus the turnout would have been much higher among evangelicals. As crazy as it sounds, President Santorum likely would have happened.

I know what you're saying, I just think you're out of your mind if you think Santorum would have won the election. It sounds crazy because it is crazy- there are many, many people who would vote for Romney but not Santorum.

So then the question becomes... how many people would vote for Santorum but not Romney (or just not vote). I think there are more out there then people realize.

How many family members does he have?Seriously though, not nearly as many. Look at yourself- you're a Santorum fanatic, yet you're still voting for Romney. There have been a few people in this thread (who I presume voted for Romney) who said they wouldn't vote for Santorum. I don't think the numbers are close at all- Santorum would turn off so many people, it would be a landslide IMO.

In this thread, and on this board, sure. But I am thinking there are a lot of evangelicals and hard core tea party members that are not excited enough about Romney to show... but we'll see. How many evangelicals out there do you think won't vote Romney because he is a Mormon? Not that they are correct in their assesment... but I think a lot are out there.

 

[humpback]

I know what you're saying, I just think you're out of your mind if you think Santorum would have won the election. It sounds crazy because it is crazy- there are many, many people who would vote for Romney but not Santorum.

So then the question becomes... how many people would vote for Santorum but not Romney (or just not vote). I think there are more out there then people realize.

How many family members does he have?Seriously though, not nearly as many. Look at yourself- you're a Santorum fanatic, yet you're still voting for Romney. There have been a few people in this thread (who I presume voted for Romney) who said they wouldn't vote for Santorum. I don't think the numbers are close at all- Santorum would turn off so many people, it would be a landslide IMO.

In this thread, and on this board, sure. But I am thinking there are a lot of evangelicals and hard core tea party members that are not excited enough about Romney to show... but we'll see. How many evangelicals out there do you think won't vote Romney because he is a Mormon? Not that they are correct in their assesment... but I think a lot are out there.

It's not worth wasting much more time on because there's no way to know the answer for sure. I'm not denying that Santorum has a loyal group of followers who would be very enthusiastic to vote for him, and there are certainly people who won't vote for Romney because of his religion and other reasons who probably would vote for Santorum. Santorum does have some positives attributes as well. However, if you can't see that many things about him are seen as extreme and turn-offs to the majority of people, then you'll never see that he had no chance. It's about getting the largest number of voters out to vote for you, it doesn't matter how rabid they are when doing so. He would scare away far more people than he would attract IMO, and I don't think it's close.