Image 01 Image 03

Nevada Caucuses Results – The fantastic not actually so great night for Romney

Nevada Caucuses Results – The fantastic not actually so great night for Romney

What is going on in Nevada?  As of this morning, I cannot find any source reporting more than 71% of the results? Did they count the votes and decide to go home for the night before releasing them?  Apparently Clark County (Las Vegas) is the cause of the delay.

Anyway, by the time I went to bed last night only about 15% had reported, and Romney was declared the victor and gave a decent victory speech.  The accolades were flowing in from all the commentators on TV and the headlines, but with 71% reporting, Romney stood at 47.6% (Newt 22.7, Paul 18.6, Santorum 11.1) below the 51.1% share Romney took in 2008.  If these numbers hold up, it means that Romney, despite being the best organized and well-funded, despite Newt’s Nevada operation having been described as in dissaray, did not increase his vote share.

Nate Silver last night estimated that Romney would come in at 53% once Clark County was counted, which would be a slight improvement from 2008, but not by much.

It also appears the turnout was down, another sign that Romney as standard bearer does not motivate the electorate.

I’ll have more when the results are final final, or closer to it.


Las Vegas Sun, Economic woes, anti-Obama sentiment fail to draw large turnout:

Mitt Romney’s easy victory in Nevada’s Republican presidential caucuses might, in the long run, be less important than the fact that a surprising number of Republicans who could have participated Saturday chose to stay home.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


2008 was a 3-man race, with a far less insurgent Ron Paul. But it’s refreshing that no matter what the flavor of Romney’s victory, I can always come to your site, Professor, and hear about why it’s not that impressive. It’s problematic then, no, that all the other far more impressive candidates can’t persuade Republicans to vote for them instead?

I’d be interested in hearing your take on Gingrich’s flailing news conference yesterday. If there is a better picture of a completely unfocused candidate, I’d be hard pressed to know what it is.

Contrary to what it may appear, I’m not really pro-Romney, but I’ve certainly become anti-anti-Romney. Hating on the man isn’t going to give another candidate a boost, and does us no favors in the general either, as it every more increasingly appears he will be our nominee.

    JDmyrm in reply to Ryan. | February 5, 2012 at 10:23 am

    No matter the flavor? I can only see one on display – lower turnout, less voter share than last time, and never in a state which he hasn’t carpet bombed with lies.

    Valerie in reply to Ryan. | February 5, 2012 at 10:44 am

    Ok, so now we know the sole criteria for a Republican candidate for President at the national level. It’s not ideas, or vision, or conservatism, or honor, or accomplishment. It is membership in the “right” group.

    They have trashed every candidate to gain any kind of momentum so far, except for the Ivy League Liar. They’re as worthless as the Democrats.

    We have a great, big country, with a wide variety of people, and more than 10 colleges. It’s time our political parties acted like the rest of the country is not their personal piggybank.

      drrogera in reply to Valerie. | February 5, 2012 at 10:49 am

      So, if people do not like the candidate you like, it is not because the candidate you like is bad, it is because the other guys belong to some inner circle?

      Perhaps, people react to the negative ads because they believe them. Should not the target then point out the falsehoods and thus shame the accuser?

      To say that “many of these ads are false.” Is also to admit that many are also true. How many of each would be nice to know specifically. The effort to just cloud the issue says perhaps too many are true.

        ldwaddell in reply to drrogera. | February 5, 2012 at 11:56 am

        There is a group of people, whose men folk go door to door in clean white shirts, who are told not to answer hard questions about what they are selling with truthful answers, the phrase they use is “milk before meat.” These people are also told to answer hard questions with half truths or to obfuscate. These salesmen are trained before they go out on their mission to not answer anything that might make their parent organization look bad or strange. The plan is to sell the positive aspects of their organization to get people involved and once they are hooked then you unveil, ever so slowly, the more outlandish beliefs and practices of the organization until they have the recipient of their product convinced that all this is true and for their own eternal good. One of our presidential candidates is an expert in this type of deception as he was once a salesman for this organization. If you see any similarities between the two then maybe you should think more about why this deception is used.

          retire05 in reply to ldwaddell. | February 5, 2012 at 12:41 pm

          I suggest you take your religious bigotry over to Huffington Post or DailyKos. They appreciate the smears again organized religions. Most of us don’t.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to ldwaddell. | February 5, 2012 at 12:48 pm

          If Romney is the white knight sent to save our constitution, I wouldn’t mind. But if that is the milk, and the meat is something bigger, I’d like to know that. Obama’s strange church should have been analyzed more closely. There are already several Mormon politicians, but for a president we should be able to probe the religious questions more fully.

          Another fundamental anomaly about the Mormons, their foundation was that they were THE real church, that all the other “Christians” had gone astray, angels brought new writings for Mormons. There is another parallel here with Mitt. He says Gingrich was not part of the Reagan church … he went astray. Mitt is the real conservative now, despite all his history to the contrary. Mitt is another chosen one, all others must be destroyed … they are fallen sinners.

          Attacking others, and showing up as the new savior. Didn’t we just see this show with Obama? Of course he will never say that, but it is hard not to recognize that the elite have anointed Romney as their chosen one. Whether that ties to his religion or his Father’s ties to Alinsky is hard to tell … but deceitful destruction of all comers is not an attractive feature.

          this covers the George Romney/Alinsky link

          William A. Jacobson in reply to ldwaddell. | February 5, 2012 at 7:58 pm

          Consider this a caution. If you want to engage in anti LDS rhetoric, this is not the place.

    JRD in reply to Ryan. | February 5, 2012 at 11:19 am

    The elites can’t spin this. Voter turnout stinks! Mittbama stinks and the base is fed up with holding their noses and voting. It ain’t gonna happen this time. Real trouble for the establishment.

      retire05 in reply to JRD. | February 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm

      So when did the process of the guy with the most votes wins end?

        gary gulrud in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 2:57 pm

        Have you not heard, if it’s close the Donks will steal the election, e.g., Coleman by 2000 on election day loses by 2500 six months later.

      JEBurke in reply to JRD. | February 5, 2012 at 6:55 pm

      The “elites” do not have to “spin” anything. Romney won. He won big. He beat Newt by 25 points. He beat the others by more. Newt’s “campaign” is a mess, and Newt looks more and more to more people like a cranky, sore loser. Romney is rolling onto three or maybe four more wins in a row. Newt may already be crapped out financially and his one money bags may be throwing in the towel.

      Nothing to spin.

    spartan in reply to Ryan. | February 5, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Not so fast there, pardner.

    In 2008, it was a 7 man race with Romney, Paul, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, Rudy Guiliani, and Duncan Hunter. With 71% of the vote in 2012, Romney has about 50% of his 2008 vote total. This is not good news for Romney or the GOP. That is why the media wants to discuss percentages rather than actual votes. The numbers for Romney of votes gained this year is quite stagnant to his votes garnered in 2008.

    You may criticize the reasons for pointing out the numbers but the numbers are foreboding a Romney loss in November. For a candidate to spend as much money as he has, even you have to be honest to realize the numbers aren’t very good.

I know for sure there are many in Nevada that can count to 21 better and faster than I can.

If turnout is down, it could be because Romney supporters know he is going to win so why go vote right now. Just as plausible, no?

Why is it that Newt, Rick and Ron cannot get more people out? (And why did you, a professor, not include that observation?)

Could it be that have they gotten 100% of their followers out so the real gap is much larger?

You see what you want, because it fits how you want to feel. I believe the anti-Romney movement could be good for the GOP – if it should serve to push him more to the right. If instead, it destroys the GOP, well, I guess you will be happy with that too.

    Good observation,drrogera, about seeing what you want to see.

    I also agree that there are some good aspects about the ABR people, coupled with their “Newt’s the most conservative” mantra. This kind of backlash will keep all candidates aware of conservative sentiment out there, acting like bumper pads to keep them on track. And, Newt’s rambling bitter discourses, against anyone not with him, will be a shinning example of how not to behave when one is a legitimate candidate running for the highest office in the land.

    Fot instance, this is not what you want said about you after a press conference:

    Newt Gingrich’s bizarree new campaign strategy

    He wallowed in the minutiae, even being reduced at one point to discussing the supposed firing of Romney’s debate coach. Does he think he’s the first politician ever to be the victim of a negative attack?

    What would Gingrich do in a debate with Barack Obama if the President twists the truth? What about the Gingrich negative attacks, incuding the incendiary claim that Romney denied kosher meals to Holocaust victims?

    Contrast this with Romney’s speech, in which he focused like a laser on the main target: Obama. It must make Newt even more miffed that he did not merit a Mitt mention.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to drrogera. | February 5, 2012 at 11:09 am

    “You see what you want, because it fits how you want to feel. I believe the anti-Romney movement could be good for the GOP – if it should serve to push him more to the right. If instead, it destroys the GOP, well, I guess you will be happy with that too.”

    Wow drrogera, talk about seeing what you want – that pretty much sums up a Romney supporter.

    Somehow I don’t think nominating a liberal, left leaning, pandering, unprincipled, RINO who is just saying what he thinks any given audience wants to hear is going to do the GOP a heck of a lot of good… do you? Who, exactly, do you think is going to push a President Romney to the right? Hmmmm? The republican leadership? The Media? The Democrats?

    C’mon, get real… the man thinks the RomneyCare is a conservative ideal! Bill Clinton is further to the right than Romney.

      StrangernFiction in reply to Snorkdoodle Whizbang. | February 5, 2012 at 12:18 pm

      The “we can push Romney to the right” is rationalization. It’s fascinating to watch this all unfold. For some reason they can’t just leave it at “Romney is the only one that can beat Obama.” They have to try to sell us a load of bullsh!t. Why is that?

    elliesmom in reply to drrogera. | February 5, 2012 at 11:19 am

    Speaking strictly as an “outside observer”, it appears to me that when Gingrich won (SC), there was a record turnout. But when Romney has won (NV and FL,) turnout has been down. Maybe Romney has been able to convince the Gingrich supporters to stay home with his negative ads, but it hasn’t translated into people wanting to vote for him. Just as plausible, yes?

    That’s just too, too funny. The base is in open revolt, Mittbama stinks!

    raven in reply to drrogera. | February 5, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    “it could be because Romney supporters know he is going to win so why go vote right now.”

    About as elegantly convenient and counter-intuitive a rationalization as I’ve heard.

    Because that’s how it works in politics: a candidate’s supporters know, through a kind of osmosis of supernatural economy, exactly how many need to go out and vote in order to win. Because a truly winning candidate has supporters who realize that passion is resource not to be overspent or overtaxed.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | February 5, 2012 at 11:01 am

Professor, could we please get some new trolls… the ones you have are getting quite stale.

Now then, if any of you would like to start listing the reasons why any conservative would want to vote for Mitt Romney, we’d be more than happy to listen.

    Good luck with that. I have posed that multiple times on multiple blogs, still no mitrbots with ANY reason to vote FOR him.

      Awing1 in reply to traye. | February 5, 2012 at 11:57 am

      I like how you have to marginalize Romney supporters by calling them childish names and suggesting their just mindless dogmatic followers, it really says something about your character.
      Dogma is essentially the reason I support Romney, because he doesn’t seem to follow it. I’m suspicious of any person who thinks they know the answers to the tough questions that face our country, because if you think you know the answers, you’ve misunderstood the questions. We don’t live in a magical world where just the right formula of laws and policies will forever put us on the path to prosperity. Our world is dynamic, constantly changing, and I want a leader that can adapt to that without being held down by this belief that their understanding of the world is the absolute right one, even when it’s clearly driving us off a cliff. Romney is that leader, he’s the polar opposite of Ron Paul, who truly believes that dogma will save this country.

        ldwaddell in reply to Awing1. | February 5, 2012 at 12:13 pm

        Thats what we all love about Mitt Romney, his ability to adjust. Trying to get run against Ted Kennedy? Run to his left. Trying to govern a liberal state? Install state sponsored health coverage, raise fees and come in 47th in job creation among the 50 states. Want to run for President on the Republican ticket? Change all your views except the one about health care…instead claim your model is conservative because thats how Adam Smith would have done it. Thats the secret…adjust.

          Awing1 in reply to ldwaddell. | February 5, 2012 at 12:28 pm

          Romney certainly was to the left of Ted Kennedy on some issues, but hardly as an overall candidate. I don’t mind someone being to the left on discrete issues, because I don’t see the world in black and white. I don’t begrudge Newt’s current plan of a huge capital project for every state he visits simply because it’s essentially leftist, I judge ideas on their merits, not through a political lens.

        traye in reply to Awing1. | February 5, 2012 at 6:01 pm

        just like a mitbot. (or obamabot, same thing) Still no reason to vote FOR him.

          Awing1 in reply to traye. | February 5, 2012 at 8:32 pm

          Sometimes I wish reading comprehension tests were required to comment on political blogs, it would save us all a lot of time. I’m not sure how to put “part of why I’m voting for Mitt, and would recommend him to others, is that he doesn’t take a dogmatic approach to issues” in any simpler language.

    LOL – that was good, thanks for making me laugh

    From the font of all accurate knowledge /sarc Wikipedia:
    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: “That was an excellent troll you posted”.

    While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe “a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families.”

    What did I do, post on a Daily Kos blog where any amount of disagreement is forbidden?

    I do not believe Speaker Gingrich is an honest man – I would rather not vote for him. I like Romney and Santorum. I believe both to be honest, sincere and capable. To start listing more reasons for MY beliefs will obviously open me to attacks by those who disagree which will only create animosity where none should exist. I have listed them elsewhere, happy hunting.

    Is dislike for Newt now sufficient reason to be labelled a troll? Or is name-calling your only comeback?

    What’s next: spell check errors equal total dismissal of arguments?

      Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to drrogera. | February 5, 2012 at 11:52 am

      Gosh… sure is hard being a victim, isn’t it? We’ll try to make an effort to cry you river.

      JDmyrm in reply to drrogera. | February 5, 2012 at 11:59 am

      Forgive me, was Mitt Romney honest and sincere when he lied about Newt’s ethics charges? Seems to me an HONEST person would add that Newt was exonerated of all charges, that they were politically motivated, that the one count he was found guilty of was later reversed by the IRS, FEC, and every other agency involved with the investigation?

      And was Rick Santorum honest and sincere back in November of 2011 when he said Newt was his conservative mentor and second choice for the nomination? Or is he honest and sincere now when Newt is suddenly no longer a conservative?

      Me thinks you haven’t thought this through enough, feelings are great, but facts are stubborn things.

        What about Gingrich’s charges at Romney dealing with axing kosher food? It was a budgetary cut. But, Gingich doesn’t elaborate on this detail. Is that being honest? Gingrich levels charges at Romney for being anti-gun, when his only act was to sign a law banning something like machine guns in MA. Romney’s scarlet letter with abortion concerns his statement that he would not chip away at the abortion laws already established in MA. However, in 2005 he vetoed a bill showing his aversion to abortion. Is this ever added into Gingrich’s blanket attacks on Romney?


        But, that’s how the political game is played. Attacks are seldom clarified, only dished out as red meat to capture people’s attention. This is done by all candidates. And, should either Newt or Mitt be the one facing Obama, do you think the DNC or ObamaPACs are going to go soft on either one of them? Mitt will be painted as a 1% guy, having class warfare used against him, as well as Romneycare. And, Newt will be exemplified as a big government politician, favoring mandates, government housing intervention, cap and trade etc., along with an unsavory history pouring out of his past.

        What’s really unfair is how so many of you scream at one candidate, while the other one is shown to commit the same errors, have similar conservative transgressions etc. It’s like watching a baseball game where the referees are calling one teams’s player out all the time, while waving the other team’s player onward as he misses the base entirely.

          JDmyrm in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm

          your comment is factually false on a number of accounts, Romney raised fees and taxes on gun owners. Liken it to raising taxes on cigarettes, gov does it so people will stop buying them.

        retire05 in reply to JDmyrm. | February 5, 2012 at 12:39 pm

        Excuse me? How can you whine about Romney’s dishonesty when you yourself are guilty of the same? Yes, Gingrich was found guilty of TWO of the 87 ethics charges brought against him. That almost 1/2 million dollar fine he paid was not for jaywalking.

        Then you go on to try to compare apples to oranges. The ethics violations were one thing; the turning over of the charges to the IRS to see if there were any tax law violations were another. See if you can get Professor Jacobson to explaint the difference to you.

        You are just like anyone else who supportes either Newt or Mitt; you have to ignore, are actually spin, their pasts. And frankly, you are turning those of us who are not in either camp off with your “Yeah, we know that Romney took New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada, but hey, it’s not as bad as you think and our guy is better because he’s not as bad as their guy” crap.

          JDmyrm in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 12:47 pm

          Get your facts in order, the ethics charge was filed for using a class as a tax evasion mechanism…

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 12:57 pm

          You need to get your facts straight. I had mine straight when it all happened.

          Was it political? You betcha. But so were the charges against Tom DeLay based on a Texas law that did not even exist. Ronnie Earle managed to get a judge, in a hard blue district, to hear the charges and loaded up a jury of the most left wingers in the entire state. Was that political? You betcha, with Earle working in conjunction with Dan Rather’s daughter, Robin.

          Yet, you never defend DeLay, only Gingrich. So I suggest you wake up and realize that all things in D.C. are political. Only the strong survive the onslaught. Gingrich did not. Nor did DeLay.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 12:59 pm

          You also ignore that the Ethics Commmittee at the time had one more Republican on it than Democrats. Yet, Gingrich was found guilty of two of the charges.

          Hope Change in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 1:12 pm

          retire05 — .


          If you support someone else, why not go do something positive for that candidate.

          JDmyrm in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 1:53 pm

          The case that there was an extra republican doesn’t hold much water.

          Newt was booted from his speakership by a revolting establishment GOP. After balancing the budget under Newt, they went on to deficit spend and rack up nearly 4 trillion dollars in new debt, they then were ousted in 06 and 08. And these are the republicans we’re supposed to support?

          I am not commenting on Tom Delay, nor did I mention him since he is not the subject of this thread or the election. You are raising red herrings.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 1:53 pm

          Hope Change, I have said repeatedly, I don’t have a dog in this hunt. I find both Newt and Mitt equally unacceptable.

          But you are right about one thing; if this blog has turned into nothing but an echo chamber for group think, led by the Professor in his goal of nominating his chosen candidate, then others, who do not subscribe to group think, and actually think that facts, not spin and excuses, are important, should probably ditch this blog.

          JDmyrm in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 2:19 pm

          Retire, when you start from a false premise anything can be true. I’ll argue the facts with you, but not the distractions, Tom Delay and echo chambers included.

    Why would a conservative want to vote for Romney?

    His life biography has been one of long-term family relationships and a steadfast affiliation with religion, both in childhood and marriage. He has shown an evenness in his maturation curve — starting as a low-level consultant, working his way up until he owned his own firm. He has earned rather than inherited his money. He has had a mixture of entrepreneurial/business/administrative/volunteer experience in the private sector, as head of the Olympics (donated his salary), as governor of MA, and early on as a young missionary. He is aggressive, financially astute, affable, courteous, has the support and friendship of a wide array of political cohorts such as Butch Otter, Chris Christie, John Campbell, Bob McDonnell, John Thune, Kelly Ayotte, Connie Mack, Thaddeus McCotter, some 73 endorsements, so far, as compared to Gingrich’s 10 endorsements, half of whom are from his home state of Georgia.

    Basically,Romney has been actively involved in some socially beneficial or business endeavor his entire life, either through his affiliation with Bain, leadership roles in his church, raising five sons, being faithful to one wife, fiscally turning around a world event like the Olympics, the governorship of MA. He is what I call a doer and a shaker of events, who has been able to balance his family life with his professional one — no skeletons in his closet thus far. He lives rather than just espouses conservative values.

    Gingrich, OTOH, is a one-note song — his erratic time as Speaker of the House. There he took credit for the Contract with America, balancing the budget (John Kasich’s role is diminished for Newt’s sake),for his ties with Reagan (which are even refuted by Reagan biographer, Lou Cannon, who was said to have described Gingrich as a back-bencher to the Reagan Revolution). His behavior and personal conduct alienated other members of congress. Where are his endorsements from these people? Afterwards, he immediately went into a rather vague but lucrative ‘consultant’ business advising big government on health care (mandates), the housing industry (Freddie Mac), cap and trade policies. He has been a ‘mouth,’ that’s his claim to fame for being a conservative.

      BurkeanBadger in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 12:25 pm

      Very succinct and articulate argument for Romney. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

      ldwaddell in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 12:30 pm

      Could you please elaborate on Romney’s role as a leader in his church? Please explain what secret rituals he had to go through, what the pre-1990 ritual entailed regarding blood oaths and swearing allegiance to his church above all else. Will you be willing to elaborate on these since you have such strong belief in the morals of your candidate?

        There is obviously a lot of sarcasm to your question, as well as a hint of religious bigotry. However here is a condensed version of Romney’s religious participation:

        * regularly tithes 10% of his income to the church
        * was a local lay clergy, a counselor, visited sick members
        * formulated Sunday services and classes around the Bible and Book of Mormon.
        * helped handle financial and management issues of the church

        There’s more, as he is said to have spent as much as 30 hours a week dealing with church matters. But this gives you a glimpse of his involvement.

        Gingrich, OTOH, sought an annulment from his 2nd wife after 18 years of marriage to appease his mistress, now turned wife, saying he has been forgiven by God, meaning everyone should forgive and forget all of the above.


        And, what has Newt been doing for the church since he converted?

        In my world, Gingrich is the antithesis of family values, honesty, committment, reaching out to others, self-sacrifice and service.

          ldwaddell in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 1:21 pm

          So then you aren’t willing to elaborate on Romney’s blood oath, swearing allegiance to the Mormon church above all else and the reasons for having to go through these temple rituals?

          retire05 in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm

          Decades ago, if a person was divorced, but converted to Catholicism, they did not have to seek an annullment from their previous spouse to be married in the Catholic Church. All that has changed, and the process is now even more difficult, as the petitioner has to permit the Church to sent letters to the previous spouse to see if they agree with the annullment. If they don’t, the permission is even more difficult to obtain, although not impossible.

          Newt and Callista Gingrich were NOT married in the Catholic Church. So by doctrine standards, he and Callista are living “in sin” as he has not had his previous marriages annulled. The same is applied to John Kerry, who claims to have received an annullment, although his ex wives claim he did no such thing, and the reason the Archbishop of St. Louis denied Kerry the right to Communion.

    StrangernFiction in reply to Snorkdoodle Whizbang. | February 5, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Who needs a list of reasons, when only one is necessary. Mitt Romney says he’s a conservative. Believe his most recent words dammit.

    Snork, this is not an exhaustive list of reasons a conservative may want to vote for Romney, but it’s a good start:

    1. He is the only candidate to fully embrace the Ryan Plan.
    2. He is for cutting government programs, inefficiency and duplication, as he has done with Bain ventures and the Olympics.
    3. He is for strict enforcement of immigration laws.
    4. He is for states’ rights on health care reform and repeal of ObamaCare.
    5. He is for cutting back foreign aid to unfriendly countries.
    6. He is for confronting China on unfair trade practices.
    7. He will approve the Keystone pipeline and promote opening up U.S. energy reserves.
    8. He is for the repeal of economic and environmental regulations that strangle the economy.
    9. He is for tax reform and simplification.
    10. He is for a strong military – peace through strength.
    11. He is for national tort reform.
    12. He has a steady presidential temperament.

    And possibly the best reason:
    Romney is a man of duty and purpose. The man takes his assignments and gets it done.

    The Case For Romney

    He makes khakis look presidential!

All I can say is Gov. Palin’s words: “RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!” WHOO HOO!!

Maybe the Mittbots are trying to figure out how to do an Iowa Caucus type mis-count that gets him 100% of the Clark County vote.

Well…results like we saw last nite arent encouraging for those of us that would like to see Newt do better. Maybe his best way forward and least costly is the 5 State plurality route to convention. Correct me if Im wrong..but I believe winning 5 states means he has to be on the convention ballot. In other words…things could turn into a brand new ballgame at convention time. It would appeal to me if I wanted to conserve campaign cash. Focus on those states where he knows a win is possible.

Also interesting..and no..I didnt shop history to make a point…just happened to notice. Nationally we find Romney at 30% or so. On the surface it doesnt sound like a convinced party.
Heres a comparison with 2008 that makes it clear. Back then McCain was about 40=%

The difference between Obama and Romney is this. Obama chopping off your head is gonna yell allahu akbar. Romney just yells government is great. Other than that , no difference.

Obama is hell bent on de-Judaeo-Christianizing America to make it the Islamic wonderland he thinks it is. Romney is as virulently anti-Judaeo-Christian as Obama. He intends to make us pay for every time huckabee sneered that Mormons aren’t Christians and evangelicals won’t vote for a Mormon.

Obama is having his payback, and we hate it. For Romney, payback is coming. That’s my read on his attitude to Coservatives, anyway.

StrangernFiction | February 5, 2012 at 12:43 pm

FYI: Recent polling (PPP) shows Santorum beating Gingrich in Colorado and Minnesota by eight and seven respectively. Santorum is 14 behind Romney in Colorado and two up on him in Minnesota.

The name of the game for me is avoiding Romney. If Santorum is the best chance for that then fine.

It appears to me that the Romney supporters that are coming here are not supporting him based on his conservative record of governance,which he has none, but rather are supporting him based on some other affiliation, could it be that they are his co-religionists? Not that there anything wrong with supporting your candidate based on an affiliation, but to pretend that your support is based on his conservative record is disingenuous, some might even say deceptive. If you support him based on similarity of religious belief that would be one thing, and if so just admit it.

    retire05 in reply to ldwaddell. | February 5, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    And you have blatantly tried to use Romney’s faith against him. Odd that you never mention that Gingrich seems to pick his faiths according to who he is currently married to.

    In 1960, it was en vogue to bash Catholicism. You seem to think it is en vogue now to bash Mormanism. Disgusting.

      ldwaddell in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 1:00 pm

      How is asking questions about Mormonism bashing it? I am more than willing to answer any and all questions about my faith openly and honestly. Feel free to ask. And if someone is supporting a candidate based more on a religious affiliation than on their record shouldn’t they be honest about that? And if your religion has some secret practices that they don’t want to share with the rest of the world, why is that? Especially if a person who practices that religion has taken an oath of allegiance to their religion that supersedes all other oaths.

        retire05 in reply to ldwaddell. | February 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm

        You mean like George Washington who believed that his faith was his guiding light in all things, including governing this nation?

      Juba Doobai! in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 1:19 pm

      When your faith permits you to lie like a rug, to lie like a penny on a rich man’s floor, to lie faster than a horse trots, it should be used against you and should be afforded closer scrutiny because it is outside the norm. Essentially, there’s not much difference between Mormonism and Islam on this point: both believe in the practice of taqqiyah, which is lying to others outside of your group to advance your agenda. The person who does that has no honor and should not be trusted, and the ideological principle that encourages such lying is political rather than religious.

      So, let’s cut this religious equivalence crap, okay. Judaism and Christianity abhor lying. The liar does not enter the kingdom of heaven. So, when lying is doctrine, whatever you believe in is not Judaeo-Christian. If it is Judaeo-Christian, all you need is ONE book, and there is no more revelation after that book closes. If you have another book and claim it is divine revelation then somebody’s lying, either God or you. Well, God doesn’t lie, so that leaves you.

      So, let’s not spout collopswaddle abut Romney hewing to his faith and being a fine upstanding man in his church when he’s a flip-flopping, say anything even when he knows it’s not true, ring-down liar outside of it. It’s not what you do inside your church that counts. It’s how you comport yourself amongst the rest that tells us who you are. Romney’s behavior says he should not even be elected dog catcher because nobody can trust any word that comes out of his mouth. There are con men who are more trustworthy than Romney!

    For your information, I am Presbyterian. As a child, though, i was baptized and raised in the Episcopalian Church. I support a person’s faith, though, and do not make fun of it, nor judge it unless they believe in cutting people’s heads off or stoning women.

      celestechristi in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 4:18 pm

      As a general rule you have the right attitude concerning the religion of others. However, when evaluating the potential Leader of the Free World the rules are different. Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush are all exellent examples of how religion shapes ones decision making.

      Knowing and understanding the religion of the President of the United States matters. If my president wears magic underwear and believes in peepstones I want to know. If my president believes the Islamic call to prayer is “the most beautiful sound in the world” I want to know. Not questioning the moral belief structure of a man that will make decisions that will effect generations of peoples around the world is naive.

      One clear-cut example is the Arab Spring. Without an Islamic Sympathiser in the WH it wouldn’t have happened.

      Question religion. If it is a good and true religion it will easiy withstand the scrunity.

    Samuel Keck in reply to ldwaddell. | February 5, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    It appears to me that the Romney supporters that are coming here are not supporting him based on his conservative record of governance,which he has none, but rather are supporting him based on some other affiliation, could it be that they are his co-religionists?

    Now that’s an interesting thought and, I’ll admit, the same thought has occasionally crossed my mind also.

    Oddly enough, while I was reading Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire this morning, he cited a Buzz Feed story entitled Mitt’s Mormon Army: How It Works; not that I have any great love for Buzz Feed, but that piece did posit some interesting ideas. (I’m not going to link to either site because, beyond the idea that I feel it’s bad manners to use the Professor’s blog to drive traffic elsewhere, I know that most of the internet-savvy folks here won’t have any trouble finding it should they so desire.)

    JEBurke in reply to ldwaddell. | February 5, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    What an odious suggestion. Shameful. Reprehensible. As if only LDS folks could make a case for Romney or against Newt.

    As for me, I am a Roman Catholic, baptised at birth. Unlike Newt and his latesf bride, I go to church every Sunday. Unlike Newt, I made a marriage vow 36 years ago and keep it.

Seems that we have only begun to uncover reasons NOT to vote for Romney.

He has left deep tracks through what he has done, lied about and covered up.

Here’s one more ‘inconvenient truth’…

“Mitt Romney says he saved Bain & Company, but he didn’t tell you that on the day he took over, he had his predecessor fire hundreds of employees, or that the way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” notes the narrator in Sen. Kennedy’s unreleased ad as pictures of newspaper articles fill the screen. “He and others made $4 million in this deal which cost ordinary people $10 million.”

Now a quote from Newt’s press conference in Nevada last night:
““It hadn’t occurred to me that you would have the level of ruthlessness and the level of dishonesty that we saw last week,” he said. “I’ve been around a long time and I’ve been around a fair amount of campaigns and a fair number of fights.”

Gingrich wasted no time in lashing out at Romney, repeating his oft-used line about him being a “Massachusetts moderate” and dishonest in his paid advertising.

“I’ve never had a person stand next to me in a civil engagement and be as substantially dishonest as he was,” Newt said of the second Florida debate last week.

Calling his strategy “national,” Gingrich said he would head to Colorado and Minnesota this week, which are both holding Tuesday contests. He won’t go to Missouri, however, where he is not on the ballot. And while Michigan and Arizona vote next, he is skipping ahead on the calendar and going to Ohio, a Super Tuesday state, for a two-day bus tour in the middle of this week.

Gingrich will also return to Washington on Friday to speak at CPAC, allowing him to return to his home in McLean, Va., for a couple of days. He will start next week off in California, which doesn’t vote until June, he said, making a three-day swing through the state.”
Links to video:
Article and video:

    creeper in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 5, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    That ruthlessness has deep roots. It’s the reason locals drove Mormons out of Missouri and then Illinois.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to creeper. | February 5, 2012 at 2:35 pm

      Speaking of history…and ruthlessness…

      Romney’s quest for the presidency has an almost obsessive ‘jihad’ quality to it. Within weeks of his 2008 GOP primary loss, he ‘moved’ to NH and began to campaign again, even before Obama was elected.

      Did you know the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, (despite opposition from Christian pastors because of his strange spiritual beliefs, strange business history, a private bank scheme, or rather scam, that failed, and being run out of town twice for his scams) also announced a run for President of the US in early 1844?

      Six months later, in June of that year a posse of vigilantes, enraged at his dishonesty, broke into the jail where Joseph Smith was being held and killed him.

      Did you know that Romney’s father also tried to run for President (and met with Saul Alinsky during the course of his political and business career)?

      Did you know that Huntsman, also a Mormon, is a cousin of the Romneys?

      All this brings the question…

      Is being the US President a Mormon religious, spiritual as well as a personal goal for Mitt Romney, to be gained at all cost, even at the sacrifice of truth?

      As much as with Obama with his spiritual, religious, political and biological ties and sense of entitlement to the Presidency?

      That is another long, long story…that is also being carefully covered up.

        creeper in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 5, 2012 at 7:31 pm

        Smith also attempted to have legislation passed that would have exempted Mormons from Illinois law.

        The history is long and sordid…and almost impossible to find. A web search on Mormonism brings up dozens of pages of pro-Mormon sites before delivering anything even remotely objective. Mormons have reclaimed Nauvoo and the scrubbing of their image continues. You have to look long and hard for the truth.

      William A. Jacobson in reply to creeper. | February 5, 2012 at 8:04 pm

      Consider this a caution, if you want to engage in anti LDS rhetoric take it elsewhere. There’s a big difference between criticizing what a specific person has done in his life, and generalizing it to the religion.

For the ABR-bots here, the best person for the job is Santorum, as the path Gingrich is taking is marked more by anger than courage or wisdom.

Getting nasty in Nevada

Clearly, this race has become personal for Gingrich. That may be good for the candidate, but is it good for the Republican Party? Is it good for conservatives? CNN’s Candy Crowley interviewed Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and FreedomWorks founder Dick Armey today, and both agreed that Gingrich’s personal attacks don’t help anyone — and as Armey said, they don’t even help Gingrich:

Freedom Works chairman and former Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) blasted Newt Gingrich for his continued tough attacks on Mitt Romney saying Gingrich was carrying out a vendetta against the Republican frontrunner.

Armey said that Gingrich’s criticisms of Romney were not helpful for either the GOP in November or Gingrich’s own campaign during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday

“I thought that last night was really [sad] for him,” said Armey about Gingrich’s Saturday speech. “Quite frankly again so much of Newt’s whole life is overstated, he overstates the case in such a hyperbolic fashion, it just looks vindictive.”

    Hope Change in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    I watched Newt’s speech. I didn’t perceive it as hyberbolic in any way.

    I used to respect Dick Armey. I’ve actually sent him money back when Freedom Works first started.

    If Dick Armey is on the Romney-Establishment side of this divide, that is what’s sad. Really, really sad.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    I used to respect Dick Armey. No more.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    I watched the Press Conference and there was no bitterness or anger in his demeanor – rather, he was mild, gentle and civil all the way through – firm, frank and truthful – though one reporter called it negative…but it wasn’t it was just honest about what happened in the last debate in FL on CNN.

    Several of us checked Romney’s statements during the debate and caught seven lies which I listed on another thread here. It was bizarre, disturbing…then the week that followed, was even more disturbing with ads that also made false claims and teams of Romney supporters on every blog saying the most awful, judgmental things.

    I finally stopped trying to reason with the commenters and turned off my answering machine. The tactics Romney’s campaign used were appalling, locally and nationally.

The Romney supporters are here at a site where the blogger supports Newt, publicly endorsed Newt.

The Romney supporters make all kinds of ill-informed claims about the candidate they do not support..

I wonder why the Romney supporters don’t have more to do at Romney sites, singing the praises of their candidate, instead of being here, trying to suppress the support for another candidate.

It looks to me as if Romney and Romney supporters spend their time, energy and money trying to suppress the natural desire of many Americans to want to support a different candidate.

This is a way to appear to be winning an election, maybe.

It is not a way to prepare to govern a great and prosperous country.

And it is exactly the same way Barack Obama won. How’s that going for us?

    drrogera in reply to Hope Change. | February 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    While I know that Prof. Jacobson likes Newt Gingrich, I did not think he was running a Newt ONLY blog. I am sure he is able to define his blog how he chooses and does not need your restrictions added to it. Be that as it may, I will continue to read as long as he continues to hold commenter entries to standards of behavior appropriate to adult discussions.

    I think this one is getting close to the edge as have previous that became hate-filled and had to be closed.


      Although most of the posters here seem to be Newt supporters, it really shouldn’t disqualify those who want to discuss a different POV.

      I personally like to read other posts that offer another side, which I can either learn from or refute, from prior knowledge I might have. What I’ve seen here is a lot of repetition of talking points, rumors and the like dealing with candidates, especially Romney.

      But one thing that can’t be refuted is how few significant endorsements Gingich has received after being in the political and public eye for so many years. Why is that? Has he burned so many bridges, honored so few friends, or made no conservative allies over the years? The two having the most gravitas are Thomas Sowell and JC Watts who have both come to his defense. But, the numbers extolling Newt’s virtues pale in comparison to Romney. If Romney is such a bad guy, you would think they would be coming out of the woodwork to give anecdotal tales of his cowardly, socially progressive, evil exploits over the years. Where are they????

        tsr in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 5:26 pm

        As an added point, I think the denigration of people like Ann Coulter, Drudge, and all other Romney supporters, be it pundits, politicians, writers or plain old posters, is not the way to deal with a debate of which candidate is best.

        Coulter, for instance, has been a solid conservative writer for many years. She has been out there terrorizing dems and liberals, defending conservatism, and now you demonize her because he is for Mitt! Incredible that your loyalty could be so thin and shallow.

          William A. Jacobson in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 8:05 pm

          Coulter and Drudge deserve every bit of the criticism they have received. Whatever good they have done in the past does not excuse present conduct. See a few dozen of my prior posts for details.

[…] Medicine Guy Gets Mormon Vote In Nevada Posted on February 5, 2012 10:30 am by Bill Quick » Nevada Caucuses Results – The fantastic not actually so great night for Romney –… Nate Silver last night estimated that Romney would come in at 53% once Clark County was counted, […]

“…surprising number of Republicans who could have participated Saturday chose to stay home.”

Romney would have you believe support for him is a mile wide. It may be. It’s also an inch deep.

Romney learned that Rules for Radicals tactics work, so why not use them against your competitor? Truth and ethics be damned, full speed ahead.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to ldwaddell. | February 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Romney’s father and LBJ also consulted personally with Alinsky back in the day…so Romney knows Alinsky…he was raised on it.

From WND
Political analyst and think-tank researcher Steve Baldwin believes that Mitt Romney was definitely impacted by his father’s association with Alinsky.

“Romney’s dad was a big leader of the RINO (Republican in name only) wing of the Republican Party and hated Goldwater,” Baldwin explained. “George actually walked out of the 1964 GOP convention in protest of Goldwater’s views. He was an admirer of Alinsky.”

Riehl emphasized that the younger Romney deeply admired his father and his father’s beliefs. Riehl also indicated that any switch to conservatism for the younger Romney would be equivalent to a denial of his father.

“This portrait (of George Romney as a social liberal) would jibe with Mitt Romney’s image as a progressive governor of Massachusetts, while suggesting any serious conversion to conservatism would not only entail a change in viewpoint but a rejection of Mitt’s father, George, someone he has regularly mentioned as a major influence while campaigning,” Riehl wrote.

He continued, “Taken as a whole, the new information could serve to fuel existing significant doubt amongst an already skeptical conservative base that Romney’s already vague conversion to conservatism is more one of electoral convenience than a principled decision.”

Jonathan Tobin over at Commentary Magazine, while most assuredly not a Newt fan, has some bad news about the Speaker’s prospects in the Colorado and Minnesota caucases. It seems that Newt is trailing both Mitt and Santorum.

If Newt is focusing his efforts on Super Tuesday, he is also going to miss out in the Febuary 28 primaries in Michigan and Arizona. Not looking good, guys.

    gary gulrud in reply to gad-fly. | February 5, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    MN delegates are assigned half by caucus have by primary, at least that’s what we’re hearing here. Timmy Pee had a 55% to 40% preference over Mother B back when they were both in but the party went for a fire-eater after Pawlenty.

    All bets off and I live in the 6th.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to gad-fly. | February 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Whether Newt pulls off a win or not – he has been invaluable to this process. His voice gives conservatives a sense of being understood. He articulates conservative values, principles, history with clarity. His statements of the conservative worldview resonate with our deep frustration, anger, sense of injustice from being ridiculed, marginalized, used, stomped, squashed, over-ridden, silenced…etc. He has given us courage to tell the truth as he does.

    After all, it is conservatives who pay their taxes…most of Obama’s appointees had neglected to pay theirs.

    It is conservatives who obey the law, but liberals who ignore them as Obama has done, and even prosecute those people and states who obey and enforce the law as Holder has done.

    Liberalism is an alternate opposites, through the looking glass reality or universe a’ la Alice in Wonderland.

Just wanted to come back and pass along something a NV caucus-goer wrote on another blog.

As you know, caucuses are different and a little loose and free with procedures. I watched the back room of one of the main Iowa caucus sites with horror…so many little piles, different hands handling the votes…it is chaotic, irregular and we saw the consequences in this year’s divergent Iowa caucus tallies.

Back to Nevada – the commenter said there were Jewish caucuses that admitted no gentiles…and other places had other restrictions and turned away Republicans…such as possibly Mormons-only caucuses.

Then, at 3:32 pm, there still are not more than 71% of Nevada precincts tallied at TownHall’s site.

Caucuses may be the Chicago (Alinsky) politician’s dream come true.

    drrogera in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    “such as possibly Mormons-only caucuses.” If you have evidence, provide it, otherwise you are just fear-mongering and doing so in a rather pathetic way. Gee, maybe there were Evangelicals-only too? DO you have evidence there were not?

    Sounds like we have found the troll after all – Uncle Samuel

      Uncle Samuel in reply to drrogera. | February 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm

      No – I qualified my comment as hearsay.

      I know what I read…but I’m a long way from NV, so I can’t prove it and I said so.

      The commenter at this blog did not have the accusatory nastiness, though, that you convey in your comment.

      My greater point is that caucuses are informal, small community affairs, fraught with irregularity that could be exploited.

      No accusations from me…but…. as the old saying goes, ‘the guilty dog barks…’


    My father lives in Nevada and went to a Caucus there, as did several of his friends around the greater LV metro area. I’ve asked him about this, and from what he’s heard there were special caucuses held for the sizeable Orthodox Jewish population who, because of the Sabbath, could not vote in the regular caucus. To ensure there was no double voting, one had to prove they were prevented from voting in the regular caucus for religious reasons in order to vote in these later caucuses. Concerns about these caucuses are why the vote count has been delayed.

What I meant to emphasize in the comment above, is that possibly not all Republicans got to vote – and – there may be a not-so-nice reason for the low vote count in Nevada.

Bet there won’t be any stories on this either.

    creeper in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 5, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    You’ll see as much publicity about this as you did about the Chairman of the Iowa Republican Party resigning amidst howls of protest over his refusal to declare Rick Santorum the winner.

As to Newt Gingrich’s press conference, the “negative spin” being put out by the Romney campaign and their media surrogates tells you a lot about that campaigns.

Why hold a press conference? Why not simply give a speech at a rally?

Gingrich had a number of objectives and was speaking to a number of different audiences.

In the opening remarks:

– He told his supporters, the electorate and the media to stop giving credence to all of the “disinformation” being put out by the Romney campaign.

– He painted a clear contrast between his candidacy and that of Romney’s, while joining Obama and Romney at the hip as being Soros approved candidates.

– He issued a challenge to Romney to hold a debate, which we will hear again.

– He used his remarks to explain how the campaign would proceed through the next month and beyond, so that supporters and the electorate would understand how the campaign planned to win, despite anticipated losses during February.

During the question and answer session with the reporters, the reporters pushed a series of questions, many driven by the narrative being pushed by the Romney campaign.

Allowing people to hear these questions and then his answers, served two purposes:

– It helped educate the media and those watching as to the inane nature of the narrative being pushed by the Romney campaign.

– He used his answers to rebut this narrative. He continued planting the seeds that he is up against the establishment, that Romney is an inveterate liar, who is running a campaign aimed to destroy his opponent. This serves a longer purpose, which he has explained in at least two interviews, and during his answers. It positions the campaign as being the people versus the establishment (FYI – reflecting the narrative in Governor Palin’s Facebook note.)

Needless to say Romney supporters in the media would denigrate such an effort.

At least one question was asked which gave the candidate an opportunity to go after Obama over freedom of religion; and at the end the press wanted to know whom Gingrich was supporting in the super bowl and he gave a good answer with that one.

Underneath this was the imagery.

Gingrich alone at the podium, bracketed by the national and local state flag with a campaign backdrop. The candidate is facing the media. People are saying that the campaign is flailing and sputtering. The candidate forcefully answers these changers and then goes on the attack, laying out the candidates strategy to ultimately regain the offensive.

The media acting as foils for the candidate reinforce the message of the people versus the establishment.

Was it a total success? Depends on your perspective. But it was a start and it will be interesting to watch the campaign as it now continues

    I’ve got to say the only spin being put out there is by you saying Romney and his surrogates are putting a ‘negative spin’ on Gingrich’s news conference.

    You can’t call Guy Bensen or Victor Hanson, Romney surrogates. I’m not going to start adding up all the comments who deciphered this weird calling-together-of-the-media anything but dour and bitter in its presentation. There was also hardly anything really relevant other than a tact to get some media attention, such as calling for another debate, which is the only thing Gingrich seems capable of accomplishing these days — stretching his vocal chords.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 8:45 pm

      The press conference was really quite pleasant. When I read Hanson’s piece, I wondered if he had been at another conference. What he wrote bore no resemblance whatsoever to what happened and what Newt said.

      Sounded like Hanson was ordered to put out a negative piece because the powers that be wanted it. So he did.

      It has been astounding to watch the attempted crucifixion or stoning of Newt Gingrich.

      So far, he has just strolled through their gauntlet as though the poison-tipped whips and long knives were feather dusters and aloe vera.

      In the meanwhile, Romney got his iddy biddy feelings hurt and tried to get Adelson to stop funding Newt’s SuperPAC ads – which is amusing after the blood, spit and dung bath Romney’s campaign gave Newt in Florida.

      All this brings to mind Luke 4:18-30, John 8:59, 10:31-42

        Does if ever dawn on you that lots and lots and lots of people find Gingrich offensive, whiney, not conservative,and immoral to boot? That the last couple they want to have strolling in the WH is Callista and Newt, meeting leaders of other countries, people who are far from role models representing this country.

          Uncle Samuel in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 10:20 pm

          Actually, I think your attitude is prejudicial and judgmental. Having past sins forgiven is one of the greatest things about Christianity and America.

          No stoning or shunning when people repent and turn from their sins.

          A repentant conservative Newt is better than a dishonest unrepentant liberal, continually lying (seven times during the last debate alone) Romney, despite all exterior appearance.

It’s getting to be old.

We look forward to each election cycle, hoping we’ll have some better candidates. Sometimes, in the congressional elections, we manage to get a few… very few… far too few. In the big foofraw presidential election years, it seems the best are the first to go and we’re left with the cruft and holding our noses…

And often still losing to the worst of the worst of the worst, with almost every admin seeming to be worse than the last.

One aspect of that is that they fail to turn back even a fraction of the evil hatched during the previous admin. This is my main objection to the Newt, that he fell so short as Speaker, did so little, even though he was working with considerable majorities. And recently Boehner has similarly been far too eager to surrender the field on every issue before the battle begins, not even holding ground but giving it up almost eagerly. It’s almost like having officers from the enemy army leading your own troops.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to prof8. | February 5, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    The candidates (Santorum and Gingrich) seem to be getting their campaign feet, learning to focus, clarify their messages on what is important.

    You are right about Boehner and the in house Republicans…they seem to be haplessly whistling while trillions of hard-earned US tax dollars are bleeding like a trauma patient. It’s been frustrating…maddening – we need to send some letters and emails.

    Or just not send them any more to waste and burn this coming April.

I believe it’s idwaddell who has made some knee-jerk statements about Romney’s record.

Dealing with gun rights in MA, the fees raised were ones dealing with Driver’s, Marriage and Gun licenses. Gunowners by no means were singled out so as to discourage their ownership, as was implied by a post above. Also Romney worked closely with The Gun Owners Association League (GOAL) of MA in addressing legislation applying to gun ownership.

In order to get your facts right you can go to their web site here.

They describe themselves in this way:

Gun Owners’ Action League is the official state firearms association in Massachusetts. We are an association of law-abiding citizens who believe in the basic right of firearms ownership for competition, recreation and self-protection.

Regarding health care, one can also look up the details instead of relying mainly on second-hand, inaccurate material from others:

Romney was at the forefront of a movement to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state, after Staples founder Stemberg told him at the start of his term that doing so would be the best way he could help people and after the federal government, due to the rules of Medicaid funding, threatened to cut $385 million in those payments to Massachusetts if the state did not reduce the number of uninsured recipients of health care services. Despite not having campaigned on the idea of universal health insurance, Romney decided that because people without insurance still received expensive health care, the money spent by the state for such care could be better used to subsidize insurance for the poor.

After positing that any measure adopted not raise taxes and not resemble the previous decade’s failed “Hillarycare” proposal, Romney formed a team of consultants from different political backgrounds that beginning in late 2004 came up with a set of innovative proposals more ambitious than an incremental one from the Massachusetts Senate and more acceptable to him than one from the Massachusetts House of Representatives that incorporated a new payroll tax. In particular, Romney successfully pushed for incorporating an individual mandate at the state level.

Romney’s vision of healthcare was not passed in it’s entirety, as it was overridden by the 85% democratic state legislature majorities.

Wkipedia is the source, and the statements all have footnotes.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 9:43 pm


    Do you have skills in summarizing ?

    Also If you are quoting long tracts please put the citation first & it is never “Wikipedia”.

    Someone has written those paragraphs. You are the one who needs to tell us who it is upfront.

    Basic high school essaying skills.

      Oh please, is that all you can do is get technical? You can read for yourself, and decide for yourself, and drop the cheap shots.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 10:16 pm

        No not at all. It is important to state the author initially because one judges whether it is worth reading further.

        For example if it was by X or Y then I would not bother but Z -maybe.

        You are refuting arguments by telling readers to go to Wikipedia?

        Your’s is the cheap action.

    tsr in reply to tsr. | February 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    My apologies to Idwaddell, as the poster who alledged certain inaccuracies about gun rights in MA was JDmyrm, and not who I addressed the response to.