PoliticsMITT ROMNEY

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Peter Dierks who wrote (3386)2/16/2012 11:00:12 AM
From: Ms. Baby Boomer
   of 5541

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Ms. Baby Boomer who wrote (3412)2/17/2012 4:54:09 PM
From: Peter Dierks
1 Recommendation   of 5541
I NEVER trust the leftwingnuts who run wikipedia on any political matter.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Neeka who wrote (3411)2/17/2012 7:50:34 PM
From: Peter Dierks
   of 5541
It is not that anarchy is a good thing. At times bouts of anarchy can be a good thing. The course Obama was instructed to plot for us leads to anarchy. However his master thinks that it can manipulated to result in a dictatorship.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (3414)2/19/2012 1:35:55 AM
From: Neeka
   of 5541
People are speculating that there could be riots and anarchy if BO is defeated in Nov and there is a concerted and successful effort to turn back the socialism that has infected our nation. I hope not, but there is always a price to pay for liberty.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Neeka who wrote (3415)2/20/2012 1:36:02 PM
From: Peter Dierks
3 Recommendations   of 5541
If there is rioting over the removal of the idiot the good people will counter protest and perhaps even help the police corral the socialist mob.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Ms. Baby Boomer2/21/2012 11:22:25 AM
   of 5541
Mitt Romney enters the danger zone...

Time to step up to the plate....

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Ms. Baby Boomer2/23/2012 12:28:05 PM
   of 5541
Romney heads to Michigan as GOP figures lament dismal Arizona debate....

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Bill2/23/2012 1:41:07 PM
   of 5541
What happens if Mitt Romney wins Michigan?

By Dan Balz
Thursday, February 23, 12:42 PM

DETROIT — For the past week, much of the commentary on the Republican presidential race has focused on the consequences to Mitt Romney of a loss in Michigan’s primary. After Wednesday’s Arizona debate, the question should be: What happens if the former Massachusetts governor wins his home state Tuesday?

Polls in Michigan show a tight race between Romney and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. Romney won Michigan four years ago, but there’s no guarantee he will win next week. A Santorum victory obviously would be a major setback for Romney’s candidacy, throwing the GOP race into further chaos.

But the race in Michigan now appears very fluid. Santorum held a healthy lead shortly after winning Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado. A new round of polls the past few days showed his margin narrowing from a week earlier, the result perhaps of the negative ads Romney and the super PAC supporting him have been running against him.

Romney’s aggressive attack on Santorum’s record in Wednesday’s debate could further erode the former senator’s standing between now and Tuesday. That gives Romney the opportunity to pull out a victory in Michigan. He is in a stronger position today to win Tuesday’s other prize, Arizona. Santorum has picked up support in the past two weeks, but up to half the voters have already cast ballots, and Romney appears to have a lead among them.

How much would a pair of victories be worth? Republican strategists say that while they would restore Romney to the status of front-runner in the GOP race, victories in Michigan and Arizona could still leave the party looking at a long nomination battle. Nor, they say, would two wins Tuesday be enough to resolve many of the doubts that still surround Romney.

Though long seen as the candidate to beat for the nomination, Romney has fought to meet the expectations that go along with that status. He has been losing that battle of late. Against a relatively weak field of opponents, he has not been able to demonstrate consistent superiority with the voters. He has struggled to excite the Republican Party’s conservative, grass-roots base. Conservative elites have been critical of his message and his candidacy. His weakness has engendered considerable talk about the still-remote possibility of another candidate entering the race.

“I think he would remain in the driver’s seat if he wins, but this campaign season has seemed to be momentum-proof, so [victories next week] will only last until Super Tuesday, when he will need another strong showing,” said Mike DuHaime, a Republican strategist and adviser to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. “Given his background in Michigan and his family roots, he is expected to do well, which sometimes limits the momentum, as we saw after a convincing win in New Hampshire.”

Even if he were to win Michigan and Arizona, Romney faces a difficult landscape on Super Tuesday. A victory in Michigan would boost his prospects in Ohio, but Santorum, from neighboring Pennsylvania, is a serious threat there. Newt Gingrich is focused on Georgia, the state he represented in Congress. Tennessee and Oklahoma are more than problematic for Romney, given their conservative electorates.

“This is going to be a grind. Romney’s team gets that and is prepared for it,” said Phil Musser, who was a top adviser to former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and now is a Romney supporter. “If he ends up winning Michigan and Arizona, that would be a great boost, but I suspect the conservative punditocracy will simply move to establish a new ‘do or die’ narrative for Romney related to Super Tuesday. It’s not fair, but it reflects the recent contours of the race and the unsettled state of the GOP.”

Throughout the campaign, Romney often has performed well when he needed to most. He did better in Iowa than many Republicans first thought he would. He captured the primary in New Hampshire, a must-win state, by an impressive margin. He lost South Carolina, but no one ever thought that state would be friendly to his candidacy. He responded to that loss with a big victory in Florida and followed that with an even bigger margin in Nevada.

He has been the field’s most consistent performer in the debates. Only Gingrich has come close. Gingrich got the better of him in a pair of forums in South Carolina, but more by the strength of several standout moments challenging the moderators than because serious missteps by Romney.

When he has been threatened by one or another of his rivals, he has used the debates to knock them down. He did that first against Texas Gov. Rick Perry in September (aided by the governor’s own mistakes). He outshone Gingrich in two Florida debates when he needed to rebound from South Carolina. On Wednesday, he overpowered Santorum in Mesa in a debate that was as important for him as it was the former senator.

And yet the doubts exist for good reason. He has been forced to rely heavily on negative ads, rather than a positive, inspiring message, to win key battles. He let three states slip away to Santorum earlier this month, losing Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado. None were contests where delegates were awarded, but the perception of weakness those losses created has been a major blow to Romney’s candidacy. He has not been able to connect consistently with conservatives.

As a result, the primaries and caucuses have left him weakened rather than strengthened. “The drawn-out process has hurt him long term,” said one strategist, who declined to be identified in order to offer a candid assessment. “The president’s numbers are improving and his are worsening, stoking fears about his chances in the general election.”

Tuesday presents Romney with an opportunity to turn things back in his direction, though as Republican pollster Whit Ayres noted, margins could be important. “If it’s a squeaker, then the questions and doubts continue,” he said. “But if he wins Michigan by double digits, especially if combined with a double-digit Arizona win, then all the chatter will die down just like it did after Florida.”

Still, Tuesday’s contests will hardly settle things. GOP strategist Gentry Collins, who ran Romney’s 2008 Iowa campaign, said victories would help build Romney’s delegate lead and give him a psychological boost. “But he does so under the dynamic that his opponents will not have sustained a knockout blow,” he said. “Even with Romney restored as the front-runner, there is still room for a non-Romney candidate, if one of these other guys could unify that vote.”

Whether that happens could depend on the results of Super Tuesday. “It’s going to get tidied up very quickly, or it’s going to go on,” said Sara Fagen, White House political director under former President George W. Bush. “He has to do very well on Super Tuesday. He doesn’t have to win every state but .?.?. you have to see real growth in his delegate lead.”

Romney certainly needs a victory here Tuesday to put himself back on course. But he needs victories to start coming consistently and by healthy margins. His team is correct that this will be a battle for delegates, but Republicans want a standard bearer who can do more than scratch out the nomination by attrition. That’s why Tuesday’s contests loom so large.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (3382)2/24/2012 11:16:14 AM
From: Bill
   of 5541
As was blatantly obvious, Santorum's excuse for supporting Specter was pure BS...

Arlen Specter challenges Rick Santorum’s account of conversation about endorsement

February 24, 2012|By Shira Schoenberg

Former Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter said his former Senate colleague Rick Santorum was wrong when Santorum recounted a conversation they had about judicial nominees during last night’s Republican presidential debate.

At the CNN debate in Arizona, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney attacked Santorum for endorsing the then-incumbent Senator Specter, who supports abortion rights, over the more conservative Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican Senate primary. Specter would win that race, but in 2009 would become a Democrat and vote for President Obama’s health care overhaul, which all the Republican presidential candidates oppose. He lost his 2010 race.

Santorum responded that he supported Specter because Specter was going to become the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, at a time when the most important issue before the Senate would be the confirmation of two or three of President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees.

“Arlen Specter as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we had a conversation,” Santorum said. “He asked me to support him. I said will you support the president’s nominees? We had a 51/49 majority in the Senate. He said I’ll support the president’s nominees as chairman.” Santorum said every nominee Specter supported had passed “because it gave Democrats cover to vote for it and it gave Republican moderates cover to vote for it.”

But speaking on The Michael Smerconish Program today, Specter said he made no such commitment. “He is not correct,” Specter said. “I made no commitment to him about supporting judges. That would have been the wrong thing to do. As chairman of the committee I supported [Justices John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito because I thought they were qualified for the job. But I made no deal.”

Specter said he had no conversation with Santorum in which he made a commitment about supporting judges who had not yet been nominated. “I wouldn’t do that,” Specter said.

Specter said the two Pennsylvania senators had supported one another for years, and Santorum’s support for Specter in 2004 was helpful “but hardly determinative.” Specter said he loaned Santorum his campaign apparatus and staff during Santorum’s 1994 run, and Santorum supported Specter after that.

Specter said the issue of the Judiciary Committee chairmanship came up after the 2004 election was over. “Senator Santorum and I did not have any conversations about that any more than I would have had individual conversations with anybody,” Specter said.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Bill who wrote (3420)2/24/2012 11:30:40 AM
From: MulhollandDrive
1 Recommendation   of 5541
so santorum lied about his being approached by spectre to buy his endorsement by agreeing to support WHOMEVER the presidential court nominee was (think about that)

as much as i desliked spectre, it would have been insane to agree to such a thing so it is not surprising that it didn't happen

harriet myers, anyone????

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.