jhay78;1073329 wrote:If Romney spent millions of Florida campaign ads saying that ^^^ and not setting a record for negative ads, I would respect him a bit more. I agree that Newt's mixture of whining and arrogance is annoying. Both get credit for dragging the primary into the negative campaign ad gutter.

sleeper;1073005 wrote:I'd rather have Ron Paul. That is who I will be voting for come November.

wkfan;1073335 wrote:A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama.

sleeper;1073358 wrote:No, it's a vote for Ron Paul.

wkfan;1073372 wrote:That will help to re-elect Barack Obama

sleeper;1073398 wrote:Actually, it'll help elect Ron Paul.

Zombaypirate;1073585 wrote:I am also voting for Ron Paul. Screw the liberals who all want big governement.

Vote for Romney or Obama you get the same thing and I am sick and tired of the same thing and will not participate in the crap they are offering.

Lets see a tax and spend liberal vs a just spend and raise the deficit to greater heights liberal hmmmm which one to vote for what a difficult choice.

To win the answer is neither of those clowns.

sjmvsfscs08;1071838 wrote:What if Tim Pawlenty is the VP?

Manhattan Buckeye;1073019 wrote:"He is on pace to overtake John Kerry as the single most out of touch politician to seek the Presidency in the modern era if he keeps this up. "

As opposed to what we have in office? Do you realize how much people hate Obama's administration? He isn't sniffing winning North Carolina or Virginia again. Ohio is likely to go GOP and Pennsylvania and Michigan are at play. Obama will win California/New York, but I don't know anyone that will admit to voting for him. This is Jimmy Carter part deux.

Cleveland Buck;1073745 wrote:Romney and Obama are not exactly the same.

When Barack wants to start a new war, he'll help pay for it by giving the troops fewer bullets or take away their armor. Then he'll take those savings and start up a new entitlement that he claims will reduce the deficit.

ptown_trojans_1;1073758 wrote:I must have missed where the O&M budget went down.....

Cleveland Buck;1073745 wrote:I will vote for Ron Paul whether he is on the ballot or not. At least "socialist" Democrats will take the fall for what happens instead of "capitalist" Republicans.

sjmvsfscs08;1073595 wrote:What makes you think Romney is a liberal? Do you have a brain?

sjmvsfscs08;1073003 wrote:Not different enough?

Person A was a mediocre student in political science at Columbia, studied political law at Harvard, was a local community organizer for a few years and while teaching political science, and then spent a few years running for elections and ended up riding the Change-wave into the White House. Person A spoke often before politics about his dream of changing the structure of America into a pseudo-Socialist mirror of Europe. Person A is a very smart man, and full of ideas--thus his Poli Scit baskground--but literally has produced zero results. Person A is the definition of an amatuer.

Person B was the son of an extremely successful governor, and graduated near the top of his class in Business Administration (and Business Law), founded and lead a multi-billion dollar venture capitalist firm which generated tens of thousands of jobs, managed the turnaround of the Olympic Games--from $380 million in debt to $100 million in profit. Then, he governed the most liberal state in America and dealt with an 85% democratic legislature and actually accomplished something...like going form $3 billion in debt to $1.3 billion in surplus over his last two years. Oh and he did all of the Olympics/Governor thing for free, just because he actually cares about people.

Tell me, average American, which guy do you want running the show? Which guy do you think has the knowledge to turn things around?

I guess I just want to know, as specifically as possible, what would Romney do as President that you are not okay with? Please don't give me the Ron Paul "eliminate ________." Give me something more, please. Is it that he isn't a social conservative, or is it that he is not a fiscal conservative (in your opinion)? I honestly want to know what people dislike about the idea of a Romney White House. I don't get it.

As for the "carpet bombing:" Newt is a bitch. Like he wouldn't do the same damn thing to Romney if he had the ability, he is the ruthless son of a bitch let's not pretend like he isn't. What really happened is that Romney called Newt out and Newt acted like a child and got exposed. I honestly liked Newt a lot in the summer and fall, and assumed he was the most knowledgable guy when it came to DC political maneuvers--and I guess I still believe that. But I don't want that. I don't want the Socialist who is driving this country off a cliff, I don't want the libertarian who won't get anything accomplished, I don't want the Reagan/Bush GOP stereotype who spent his enture career in the Beltway...I want the very skilled business leader who had succeeded in the global markets and has a trackrecord of bringing efficiency and profits to whatever he lays his hands on.

wkfan;1073335 wrote:A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama.

believer;1073767 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: I appreciate your Paulist convictions. But don't kid yourself. While the "end result" might indeed be the same, your means to rectify the problem certainly won't justify the end.

A write-in vote for Dr. Paul is a default vote for Obama.

dwccrew;1073807 wrote:I never understood this line of thinking. I wouldn't vote for Romney if he was running against someone other than Barack Obama. Why is voting for the person you want to vote for a default vote for the other canidate? I wouldn't vote for either of the two (Romney likely the nominee) so whether I vote for Ron Paul or not, why is it a default vote for Obama? Couldn't it be a default vote for Romney? You can't be sure a person that votes for Ron Paul would vote for Romney over Obama. Paul supporters don't differentiate the difference between Obama and Romney, so it isn't a default vote for anyone. It's not as if I'd vote for Romney if I wasn't voting for Ron Paul and I'm sure most Paul supporters agree with me.

Cleveland Buck;1073811 wrote:Exactly. If I don't write in Paul then I will vote for Gary Johnson or not vote at all, who knows. What I do know is there are an awful lot of things I would do before voting for either Obama or Romney, and if forced to choose between them I don't even think I could.

IggyPride00;1073806 wrote:You are free to believe the snake oil salesman who will say anything to get elected, but I look at his record as a governor to see what he actually believes in when he is elected.

IggyPride00;1073806 wrote:Willard governed as a liberal.

He so desperately wants to be President he is saying Conservative things now, but in his heart he is a liberal.

That is why he has so many gaffes. Conservatism isn't natural to him, so he forgets his prepared script at times and lets the real Willard come through.

As governor his state was 47th in job creation, he was pro abortion, he raised taxes, implemented socialized healthcare......these are all liberal policies. He was running to the left of Ted Kennedy in 94 for the Senate seat.

You are free to believe the snake oil salesman who will say anything to get elected, but I look at his record as a governor to see what he actually believes in when he is elected.

“Massachusetts is number one in the nation in job losses, shedding 4.7 percent of all jobs over the last two years. The state has lost 71,000 manufacturing jobs, or 17 percent; 69,000, or nearly 14 percent, of all jobs in the professional and business services sector; and nearly 18 percent of all jobs in the information industry.”

Boston Globe - A little perspective - Apr 25, 2003

“ -Speaker Thomas Finnernan...

“There's a $300 million shortfall. There is a $2 billion structural deficit confronting Massachusetts. The budget is $23 billion, 40% of which is off the table because of court mandates and laws that you must provide that kind of funding. With the remaining $12 billion, you have to find $2 billion...”

"It's the worst I've seen it. Going back to the post-war era, I've never seen such an acute and focused fiscal crisis and particularly for the state government," said Richard P. Nathan, director of the Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York-Albany...

“The estimated budget gap of $547 million in Massachusetts is among the largest in total dollars, according to the report by the National Conference of State Legislatures... Massachusetts officials have predicted that in the next fiscal year the shortfall will far exceed an earlier projection of $2 billion.”

sjmvsfscs08;1073992 wrote:So pretty much it's exactly what I expected.

Your proof that his is a liberal is how he acted when he governed the most liberal state in the country? He could be what every other reasonable person is saying in that he is a populist conservative.

47th in job creation, but this doesn't look too bad to me:


Especially when you consider that in 2002, this was the situation:



He raised taxes (hey, so did Reagan and HW Bush...what ****s! amirite?) IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IT WAS THE BEST MOVE? After all, the MA budget needed to be balanced...



Or how about...




On being pro-abortion, I could give a ****. He won't have an impact on that, just like Reagan, HW Bush, and Bush had zero impact on abortion.

On implementing socialized health care...does anything with social in front of it scare you? States can do what they want and Massachusetts decided to do that. At the very least, it was a fiscally-sound socialized health care. It was not, NOT, Obamacare.



Got any more brain busters? Is it possible he inherited horrific economic and fiscal situations with Massachusetts, and that unlike Obama he actually made the most of his bad hand and dealt with it?