Republican Primary

[Semper_Zelare]

“Newt says…” is all I need to know. It’s just his latest desperate attempt to smear his opponent - regurgitated by bloggers.

You can use whatever adjectives you want, you can call Newt “desperate”.

The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney spent $15 million to smear Newt Gingrich.
That’s 15 million out of 17 million spent.

So, if you want to decry smearing an opponent, why not mention Mitt Romney?

And Irregardless if he’s pro-life or not, Mitt Romney remains to this day not a Christian.

According to an edict signed by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking for the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, aka John Paul the Great: Mormon baptism is invalid. Thus, they are not Christians.

He isn’t a Christian, TO THIS DAY. TO THIS DAY.

 

[rlg94086]

You can use whatever adjectives you want, you can call Newt “desperate”.

The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney spent $15 million to smear Newt Gingrich.
That’s 15 million out of 17 million spent.

So, if you want to decry smearing an opponent, why not mention Mitt Romney?

I know a lot was spent on negative ads, and that is sad. If you have an example of a smear, as opposed to just a negative ad, let me know, and I will display dismay. I don’t like smear campaigns.

And Irregardless if he’s pro-life or not, Mitt Romney remains to this day not a Christian.

According to an edict signed by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking for the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, aka John Paul the Great: Mormon baptism is invalid. Thus, they are not Christians.

He isn’t a Christian, TO THIS DAY. TO THIS DAY.

Ah…so there is reality. You are trying to cover your religious bigotry with claims that Romney isn’t pro-life. Nice.

I’m a values voter. He shares my values. The question of whether Mormons are Christian or not is immaterial from an election standpoint.

 

[mlund]

Mitt Romney was my governor. He was my commencement speaker when I graduated college. He’s a good salesman. He’s a fine family man. He’s a successful businessman. He was a half-passable alternative to the Democrat running for Governor in a state like Massachusetts.

He’s never given me any evidence of being a principled conservative. Life, taxes, limited government - none of them have ever been a hill Mitt’s been willing to stake his political life on. He’s a deal-maker and a “winner,” first, and a Johnny-come-lately on every conservative principle.

He has no foreign policy experience.

He has no national government experience.

He has no pro-life or pro-marriage bona fides.

He never speaks passionately or articulately on conservative principles.

He hasn’t taken personal responsibility for his own investments in over a decade.

He’s surrounded himself with the same Goldman Sachs network that pushed Obama last time.

His only political success at anything was winning a single term as governor of one of the most leftist states in the union.

Frankly, when you get right down to it his political resume stacks up somewhere around Sarah Palin.

What he does have is good hair, good posture, a Super-PAC, and a huge ball of money shot anyone that gets between him and the nomination.

The tenor and content of his campaign and the media coverage around it has further turned me off on my former governor. $15 million dollars - outspending the nearest competition 5-1, and almost all of it is competitive character assassination. We’re not talking about negative opinions about policy disagreements, saying someone is wrong on the issues or has a bad voting record. We’re talking about outright character assassination. That’s no way to choose a nominee.

Ronald Reagan knew it. That’s where you get the famous “11th Commandment” from. I shouldn’t be surprised, though - Mitt’s already made it abundantly clear during his past elections how much contempt he can hold Reagan and Bush Sr. in when it suits him. Romney can hide behind a Super-PAC all he wants, but its still on him that he’s sunk so low to get what he wants. It’s not about principles, or even party, but about winning by any means necessary.

I’m not going to buy into this re-imagined Buckley Rule either. It isn’t “vote for the most electable candidate is marginal conservative,” it is “vote for the most conservative candidate that can be elected.”

No, I’m voting for Rick Santorum and holding out for a brokered convention at worst. The not-Romney votes are more than sufficient to force a compromise among the rest of the party to come up with someone better.

• Marty Lund

 

[rlg94086]

No, I’m voting for Rick Santorum and holding out for a brokered convention at worst. The not-Romney votes are more than sufficient to force a compromise among the rest of the party to come up with someone better.

• Marty Lund

Good for you.

I find Romney to be a good conservative candidate, so there is no compromise involved on my end. I will, however, vote for whomever the nominee is. I think this general election is going to be a tough one for us to win. Obama is amassing a huge war chest.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

rlg94086:

Ah…so there is reality. You are trying to cover your religious bigotry with claims that Romney isn’t pro-life. Nice.

I’m a values voter. He shares my values. The question of whether Mormons are Christian or not is immaterial from an election standpoint.

If I’m a religious bigot, than so is Pope Benedict XVI, and so was Blessed Pope John Paul II.

Just because a lot of people don’t care that Mitt Romney isn’t a Christian, doesn’t mean that some people do care. And we would appreciate not being called religious bigots.

That’s what we’d appreciate. But, if you continue to do so, then I say:

God Bless you, for you are someone who persecutes me for my faith in Jesus Christ, God Bless you, for your persecution gives glory to God.

As for the election, y’all are all gonna look like a bunch of fools when all the conservatives don’t volunteer for Mitt. When their is no enthusiasm in the campaign, and Obama wins because voters beleived the media and the Republican establishment when they told us Romney was the most electable.

When he loses, I will happily say “told ya so”. Because all you have to do is study the history of politics to know that Romney has a very poor chance of winning.

 

[rlg94086]

If I’m a religious bigot, than so is Pope Benedict XVI, and so was Blessed Pope John Paul II.

Just because a lot of people don’t care that Mitt Romney isn’t a Christian, doesn’t mean that some people do care. And we would appreciate not being called religious bigots.

That’s what we’d appreciate. But, if you continue to do so, then I say:

God Bless you, for you are someone who persecutes me for my faith in Jesus Christ, God Bless you, for your persecution gives glory to God.

As for the election, y’all are all gonna look like a bunch of fools when all the conservatives don’t volunteer for Mitt. When their is no enthusiasm in the campaign, and Obama wins because voters beleived the media and the Republican establishment when they told us Romney was the most electable.

When he loses, I will happily say “told ya so”. Because all you have to do is study the history of politics to know that Romney has a very poor chance of winning.

The Popes are not bigots. Have they ever said that Catholics can’t vote for a non-Christian? I know one of my former Archbishops has clearly said that Romney’s Mormonism is not a problem.

Before you defame our Popes as bigots, you should at least know what the Church teaches in these regards.

 

[pnewton]

I could say the same about Ron Paul. He hasn’t really accomplished anything in 30 years in Congress, so I don’t expect him to accomplish anything as President. But, I will agree that he could do no worse than the current President.

You can *say *anything you want. That is the freedom we have. If you find that you do not approve Dr. Paul’s voting record, then of course you shouldn’t vote for him. Many Republicans would never consider voting for such a man. That is why we ran up trillions in debt during the Bush administration. Republicans and Democrats sure love their spending the grandkids future.

As to the other point that was on-going, I do not consider any deficit spender a fiscal conservative. The politician that lives on their kid’s credit card is not conservative in my estimation.

 

[ishii]

I’ve always been confused why “Paleocons” like Buchanan were heartily anti-Communist, and supported our anti-Communist interventions, but change positions when it comes to the ME.

One possible difference between anti-communism and anti-terrorism: the latter helps out Israel and the Jews. Draw your own conclusions from there.

Ishii

 

[meltzerboy]

Mitt Romney was my governor. He was my commencement speaker when I graduated college. He’s a good salesman. He’s a fine family man. He’s a successful businessman. He was a half-passable alternative to the Democrat running for Governor in a state like Massachusetts.

He’s never given me any evidence of being a principled conservative. Life, taxes, limited government - none of them have ever been a hill Mitt’s been willing to stake his political life on. He’s a deal-maker and a “winner,” first, and a Johnny-come-lately on every conservative principle.

He has no foreign policy experience.

He has no national government experience.

He has no pro-life or pro-marriage bona fides.

He never speaks passionately or articulately on conservative principles.

He hasn’t taken personal responsibility for his own investments in over a decade.

He’s surrounded himself with the same Goldman Sachs network that pushed Obama last time.

His only political success at anything was winning a single term as governor of one of the most leftist states in the union.

Frankly, when you get right down to it his political resume stacks up somewhere around Sarah Palin.

What he does have is good hair, good posture, a Super-PAC, and a huge ball of money shot anyone that gets between him and the nomination.

The tenor and content of his campaign and the media coverage around it has further turned me off on my former governor. $15 million dollars - outspending the nearest competition 5-1, and almost all of it is competitive character assassination. We’re not talking about negative opinions about policy disagreements, saying someone is wrong on the issues or has a bad voting record. We’re talking about outright character assassination. That’s no way to choose a nominee.

Ronald Reagan knew it. That’s where you get the famous “11th Commandment” from. I shouldn’t be surprised, though - Mitt’s already made it abundantly clear during his past elections how much contempt he can hold Reagan and Bush Sr. in when it suits him. Romney can hide behind a Super-PAC all he wants, but its still on him that he’s sunk so low to get what he wants. It’s not about principles, or even party, but about winning by any means necessary.

I’m not going to buy into this re-imagined Buckley Rule either. It isn’t “vote for the most electable candidate is marginal conservative,” it is “vote for the most conservative candidate that can be elected.”

No, I’m voting for Rick Santorum and holding out for a brokered convention at worst. The not-Romney votes are more than sufficient to force a compromise among the rest of the party to come up with someone better.

• Marty Lund

Well stated! Just compare Romney’s lackluster and platitudinous victory speech in Florida to Gingrich’s bold–albeit perhaps delusional–populist plan for the future of America or Santorum’s gracious and heartfelt pledge to debate only the issues. To me, Romney has no core political beliefs nor much of a clue how to fix the economy. He’s a fine family man and businessman, and should remain such.

 

[ishii]

I am fully aware that the Obama administration is at war with the Catholic Church. I am glad you and others are as well. My reasons to oppose Obama are the very similar to the ones I have for opposing Romney.

You’re avoiding my question which I’ll pose again for you:given the reality of Obama’s war on the Catholic church and the boldness and determination with which he’d pursue that war in a second term, would you agree that for those who think Romney has a better chance of winning, it makes sense for them to support Romney? Or do you think Romney will also pursue a war against the catholic church?

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

One possible difference between anti-communism and anti-terrorism: the latter helps out Israel and the Jews. Draw your own conclusions from there.

Ishii

Jews didn’t benefit from anti-communism?

 

[CMatt25]

:yawn: Newt may yet pick off a southern state or so. Paul may take a caucus or 2. But looking more and more like, whether 46 states to go or not, as has been CW all long, that the Republicans will once again be nominating next in line when it’s all said and done. :coffeeread:

 

[ishii]

Is it really so bad to stubbornly support the last decent man in politics?

I disagree with you that Ron Paul is the “last decent man in politics.” How’s that?

People keep repeating that he has no chance, but that’s not true. He is, in fact, the only candidate who stands a chance at beating Obama.

Really? Which poll suggests that? The polls I see show Romney as the strongest candidate in a match up with Obama - some show Romney in the lead be a few points, in a dead heat, or slightly behind. I deal with reality, not pipedreams.

Romney is essentially no different from Obama on the issues that are truly pressing,

How about Obama’s violation of freedom of conscience for religious groups? The Catholic church is on the verge of being persecuted. Not a pressing issue for you? Or do you think that Romney would do the same as Obama and force Catholic hospitals to provide abortificients, for example?

Gingrich has too many skeletons in his closet, and on his front lawn, for that matter (although he would thoroughly trounce Obama in a debate.) And Santorum’s bizarre obsession with eradicating homosexuality and making war on Iran continue to drive his foot deeper and deeper into his mouth.

Valid points, although I haven’t heard aboutg Santorum’s obsession with eradicating homosexuality.

Paul, on the other hand, has remained consistent throughout his twelve terms in Congress, is as Pro-Life as they get (hell, he’s personally delivered 4,000 babies,) served in the Armed Forces, and the most they could smear him with is some racially questionable material printed in his foundation’s newsletter twenty-five years ago, that he has already addressed and nullified. Yes, he has some radical ideas, but the ones everyone else has aren’t working anyway.

Obama has a billion dollars for the campaign. But, he’d probably only have to spend a little of it to beat Ron Paul.

He is a skilled debater, fully capable and armed to take on Obama in debates. The key to getting Obama out of the White House is highlighting his record of destroying and ignoring the Constitution.

He sort of rambles, imo. The key to defeating Obama is highlighting his failures as a president, and highlighting to Catholics his war on Catholics.

Also this. Which pretty much destroys the myth of Ron Paul’s “unelectability.”

I read the article. Its true, he polls surprisingly strong against Obama. Notice that he is close in a couple of polls, but further behind in others. Question for you: given that the GOP primary voters know Ron Paul best, why is he doing so poorly? He hasn’t won one primary or caucus has he? It would be the same in the general election. Once the general public got to know him - and Obama would make sure they do - Paul would lose in a landslide.

So the question isn’t why we stubbornly support a worthy candidate. The question is why are you settling for someone less than worthy.

The question is who has the best chance of stopping Obama. That would be Romney and he just took a big step toward locking up the nomination tonight.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Jews didn’t benefit from anti-communism?

Of course everyone did, but not Israel directly. The fight against terrorism and terrorist groupls like Hamas in Israel’s back yard directly benefits Israel. Fighting against regimes that call for the destruction of Israel would seem to benefit Israel, no?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

You can use whatever adjectives you want, you can call Newt “desperate”.

The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney spent $15 million to smear Newt Gingrich.
That’s 15 million out of 17 million spent.

So, if you want to decry smearing an opponent, why not mention Mitt Romney?

And Irregardless if he’s pro-life or not, Mitt Romney remains to this day not a Christian.

According to an edict signed by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking for the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, aka John Paul the Great: Mormon baptism is invalid. Thus, they are not Christians.

He isn’t a Christian, TO THIS DAY. TO THIS DAY.

So SemperZelare, are you ready to call Gingrich to task on his robot calls saying that Romney tried to deny poor old Jewish Holocaust survivors their kosher meals? Or is it anything goes as long as its for your guy? What happened to the truth? Is it the state’s responsibility to provide Kosher meals anyway?

From Commentary magazine:

In 2002, cuts in both federal and state subsidies to assisted living facilities, combined with the rising costs of maintaining the facilities, caused a couple of Massachusetts nursing homes to consider closing their kosher kitchens. It was an unfortunate decision, but there was never actually a concern that kosher residents would be forced to eat non-kosher food – the facilities were weighing several options, including busing in the food from other nursing homes or hiring catering services

The Jewish Advocate reported in January 2003:

*Nursing home owner Genesis ElderCare] decided in November to discontinue operating the Coolidge House’s kosher kitchen due to rising costs and decreased state and federal reimbursements. Management said although the kitchen would close, **Coolidge House would continue to provide kosher meals *either by serving pre-packaged food, contracting with a caterer to prepare and deliver meals, or bringing food over from the Heritage House, GEC’s nursing home at Cleveland Circle.

commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/30/romney-kosher-food-nursing-homes/#more-782342

So, now that you know the truth, are you 1) willing to retract what you accused Romney of doing, and 2) willing to criticize your guy for this shameless attack?

Ishii

 

[Pork_Roll]

If I’m a religious bigot, than so is Pope Benedict XVI, and so was Blessed Pope John Paul II.

I have a problem with Mormonism too but what are our options? He’s the establishment candidate and was pre-ordained. I probably won’t want to vote for him even against Obama. He can’t beat him.

 

[CMatt25]

As for the election, y’all are all gonna look like a bunch of fools when all the conservatives don’t volunteer for Mitt. When their is no enthusiasm in the campaign, and Obama wins.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Of course everyone did, but not Israel directly. The fight against terrorism and terrorist groupls like Hamas in Israel’s back yard directly benefits Israel. Fighting against regimes that call for the destruction of Israel would seem to benefit Israel, no?

Ishii

I think Hamas is an Israeli problem, as is Iran and they are powerful enough to do most of the dirty work.

We have our own problems that nobody seems to care much about.

Communism was a world wide problem, something a non-interventionist could justify intervening against.

 

[rlg94086]

I have a problem with Mormonism too but what are our options? He’s the establishment candidate and was pre-ordained. I probably won’t want to vote for him even against Obama. He can’t beat him.

Who pre-ordained him? Historically, we have never had three different candidates win the first three primaries. If he was pre-ordained, how did that happen? Was that all engineered to fool everyone?

The fact is that Romney is the strongest candidate. No one is forcing voters to vote for him. The sour grapes exhibited on CAF by those whose candidates are losing is sad and pathetic. But, if it makes you feel better, blame the media and the “establishment” for your candidates’ failures.

 

[Pork_Roll]

Who pre-ordained him? Historically, we have never had three different candidates win the first three primaries. If he was pre-ordained, how did that happen? Was that all engineered to fool everyone?

He’s the favorite conservative candidate of the media. At least that’s my subjective impression of the matter. He has the connections and the money.

The fact is that Romney is the strongest candidate.

No, Obama is. If it makes you feel better, put up Romney signs in front of your house and vote for him. It won’t matter, he can’t beat Obama. Nobody really likes him.