IggyPride00;1082584 wrote:Willard tells a massive whopper of a lie in his CPAC speech today. Conservative sites are already panning his speech for insulting the intelligence of the base by outright lying like this. It is this kind of unauthenticity that makes him so unappealing to so many Republican voters. It is like he thinks we are all stupid or something.

In fairness, I think you're stupid.

I bet Mitt Romney wishes he never agreed to run for governor of Massachusetts and solve their budgetary problems.

God forbid we actually elect a guy with business success and who let liberals be liberals. He will ruin us all!!

If you think Santorum would be a better President, you're a dumbass.

sjmvsfscs08;1082738 wrote: If you think Santorum would be a better President, you're a dumbass.

I don't think anyone thinks Santorum would be a better president. That doesn't mean Romney would be a good one though.

In fairness, I think you're stupid.

That you've had to result to personal attacks is a clear indication that you are unable to refute anything that has been said about Willard and his liberal ideology.

I don't think Santorum would make a good president.

I am a one of the legions of depressed conservatives left with a field of uninspiring candidates to choose from.

I am just hoping you are on the Willard payroll or associated with his campaign that you are so staunchly in favor of him and blinded by his weakness as a general election candidate.

jhay78;1082188 wrote:FWIW, the other day **** Morris (by no means the end all be all) said there's no chance a brokered convention will happen this time. Someone will wrap it up before then.

That's too bad. Morris was relishing the thought of sucking on a hooker's toes while singing "Dixie".

“If you listen to the radio today, many of these brand new, so-called heavy metal music bands like Black Sabbath, Venom, The WASP and Iron Maiden use satanic imagery to corrupt the minds of young people,” -Santorum

First off, how is Black Sabbath a new band?

Second off, what fucking year is this that this is still a thing?

IggyPride00;1082754 wrote:That you've had to result to personal attacks is a clear indication that you are unable to refute anything that has been said about Willard and his liberal ideology. b

I don't think Santorum would make a good president.

I am a one of the legions of depressed conservatives left with a field of uninspiring candidates to choose from.

I am just hoping you are on the Willard payroll or associated with his campaign that you are so staunchly in favor of him and blinded by his weakness as a general election candidate.

I've refuted everything on this thread other than sleeper calling Romney out on his deficit plan. Paul is the only one with a deficit plan. I am banking on Romney's experience balancing corporate budgets and Massachusetts budget and probably a strong fiscal conservative VP in this regard.

It's just really tough to have a conversation with someone like yourself because you're so damn far to the right that you're basically on a witch hunt for liberals. Never mind the facts that 1) Romney isn't in favor of a national health care plan and 2) Massachusetts likes their Romneycare. You can't bring yourself to accept that people in other parts of the world might like to live differently than you. That's why most of you hate gays (oh, it's the sin not the sinner) and Muslims, and a oddly xenophobic...hell you people can't even accept that people in the northeast want to have a (rather fiscally efficient and successful) health care plan that will never, ever effect your life. You want everyone to live as you do and anyone who defends another state's right to decide is called a liberal.

This country has HUGE economic problems facing it, and the vast majority of politicians and businessmen across the country (looking to endorse in the GOP) have endorsed Mitt Romney because they trust his long track record of success. He has a resume better than any candidate since HW Bush, and yet you still look at him with disgust because he was begged my politicians of Massachusetts to save them from their own fiscal obliteration and that while he was there he signed a bill that the state legislate approved. Hell I doubt you even know that he vetoed eight parts of it before signing it. You're infatuation with Willard (and it's cute that you insist on calling him that, as if it's some subtle putdown or something. Reallllly fucking weird..) and Romneycare and you're inability to realize how it will NEVER IMPACT YOUR LIFE is truly unbelievable.

Weakness as a general election candidate? Have you seen his opponents? Santorum would use the South Lawn to burn gays at the stake. Gingrich would divide the Congress to unseen of levels and his approval rating would plummet because he's an asshole and the media will run with it. If you're voting for Paul in the primary, more power to you. But if you're looking for the "conservative" it's definitely not Gingrich or Santorum.

Even with Paul's domestic economic policies he will not gain the nomination for a variety of reasons, most notable his foreign policy views. At best he can only hope to influence the elected person by keepping the debt issue in the forefront of discussion and position his son for a possible future nomination.

Cleveland Buck;1082742 wrote:I don't think anyone thinks Santorum would be a better president. That doesn't mean Romney would be a good one though.

To be fair, I don't think Ron Paul would be a particularly good president either...but ANY of these candidates would be better than what we have at the moment.

This is why all the in-fighting we're witnessing makes me want to vomit. The Dems, who know Obama's in trouble, are sitting back and laughing with glee as they watch the Repubs implode.

Unfortunately as the days roll by I'm increasingly convinced Obama will win re-election. Not because America loves his policies - but because conservatives, moderate Repubs, and the Paulist Borg cannot unite to kick his sorry ass to the curb.

It's pathetic actually.

Politico has been reporting the past few days that there is major tension in the Willard campaign over how to handle Santorum's rise in the polls. Many new polls have shown him overtaking Romney coming off his big wins Tuesday.

One part of the Willard campaign wants to use the carpet bombing his opponent into submission with negative ad tactic they successfully used against Gingrich.

There is another faction however advising him that is a bad idea because Romney's likability rating has completely nose dived as the campaign has gone along as he is getting a reputation as a negative campaigner. Not to mention there is fear that relying on that strategy alone is going to doom him against BHO when he doesn't have the money advantage to do that like his does in the primary. At some point he has to learn to sell himself and why he should be President.

Apparently his speech at CPAC went over like a led balloon. He is going to turn conservatives off even more if he resorts to more carpet bombing, which he inevitably will because he is so desperate to be President. Sadly he doesn't see that people are seeing that, and the desperation is a major turn off to many voters.

One of the common refrains heard at CPAC over the weekend, "we tried this with Dole, we tried this with McCain.....why on earth would we think it is going to work this time when it has failed so many times in the past."

Conservatives are tired of nominating Democrat light, because if you want to vote for a Democrat you will vote for the real thing. People need a real alternative that offers a real contrast in vision. Sadly no such candidate really exists this year, which is why many Conservatives will just pull the lever on election day instead of campaigning, volunteering, and working to get the vote out.

I see "conservative" Ron Paul is skipping the major conservative conference of the year. He has won straw polls at this event, so he is popular there. Why skip it in THE actual election year? I read his campaign spokesman, Gary Howard, that Paul is concentrating on campaigning however his schedule is very light. He's the only remaining GOP candidate to skip out on conservatives.

Weak sauce in my opinion that he would not show up for a chance to speak to those whose support he covets.

BGFalcons82;1082891 wrote:I see "conservative" Ron Paul is skipping the major conservative conference of the year. He has won straw polls at this event, so he is popular there. Why skip it in THE actual election year? I read his campaign spokesman, Gary Howard, that Paul is concentrating on campaigning however his schedule is very light. He's the only remaining GOP candidate to skip out on conservatives.

Weak sauce in my opinion that he would not show up for a chance to speak to those whose support he covets.

He is busy trying to win the Maine caucuses, and CPAC switched to electronic voting this year so they could fix the results the way they want them anyway. It would be a waste of time. Paul won CPAC the last 2 years and no one in the media cared about the event. Now its nonstop coverage. Go figure.

Cleveland Buck;1082905 wrote:He is busy trying to win the Maine caucuses, and CPAC switched to electronic voting this year so they could fix the results the way they want them anyway. It would be a waste of time. Paul won CPAC the last 2 years and no one in the media cared about the event. Now its nonstop coverage. Go figure.

None of the other 3 candidates are trying to win Maine? They seemed to find the time to attend.

Are you saying the votes weren't fixed the past two years but they will be fixed this year?

Winning the CPAC straw poll the past 2 years is laudable, but they weren't as important as this election year, don't ya think? He's avoiding it for reasons only he knows as his lieutenants aren't very believable. Sad really...this is where he made headlines by winning their straw polls, yet he's thumbing his nose at the event this year. It's making "nonstop coverage" for the very reason I listed...this is the election year, not 2011 nor 2010.

Thinking back to the complaining about him not getting as much air time as the others and his lack of funds, the CPAC event sure seems like a perfect time to garner some free TV time, free coverage, and a chance to get out in front of the people he claims believe in the same things he does.

Cleveland Buck;1082905 wrote:He is busy trying to win the Maine caucuses, and CPAC switched to electronic voting this year so they could fix the results the way they want them anyway. It would be a waste of time. Paul won CPAC the last 2 years and no one in the media cared about the event. Now its nonstop coverage. Go figure.

Umm, to be fair to the biased media I don't remember any Presidential elections the past 2 years either.

IggyPride00;1082887 wrote: Apparently his speech at CPAC went over like a led balloon. He is going to turn conservatives off even more if he resorts to more carpet bombing, which he inevitably will because he is so desperate to be President. Sadly he doesn't see that people are seeing that, and the desperation is a major turn off to many voters.

One of the common refrains heard at CPAC over the weekend, "we tried this with Dole, we tried this with McCain.....why on earth would we think it is going to work this time when it has failed so many times in the past."

Conservatives are tired of nominating Democrat light, because if you want to vote for a Democrat you will vote for the real thing. People need a real alternative that offers a real contrast in vision. Sadly no such candidate really exists this year, which is why many Conservatives will just pull the lever on election day instead of campaigning, volunteering, and working to get the vote out.

Good call here chief.

CPAC Poll Results:

Mitt Romney: 38%
Rick Santorum: 31%
Newt Gingrich: 15%
Ron Paul: 12%

Maine Caucus Results:

Mitt Romney: 39%
Ron Paul: 36%
Santorum: 18%
Gingrich: 6%

Boom.

sjmvsfscs08;1083393 wrote:Good call here chief.


Boom.

Sorry, but anyone who uses the phrase "severely conservative" is not a conservative and is making a pathetic attempt at sounding like one. "Severely" carries negative connotations, and is something you would attach to a less-than-desirable attribute.

Maine-wow, that's a game changer. I'm surprised the other 3 haven't folded their campaigns by now. :rolleyes:

I have never claimed that Romney is some uber Conservative. He isn't. IggyPride00 all but predicted a flop at the CPAC, and he not only wins that but he wins a caucus on the same day. It's certainly a minor fail on his part.

I don't see how Romney can ever be president. I figure that at least 25% of the voting public will absolutely not vote for a Mormon. That includes a lot of conservative Christians. It will be interesting to see what happens if he is nominated.

FairwoodKing;1084401 wrote:I don't see how Romney can ever be president. I figure that at least 25% of the voting public will absolutely not vote for a Mormon. That includes a lot of conservative Christians. It will be interesting to see what happens if he is nominated.

America voted for Obama so anything's possible.

On Romney's win at the CPAC:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/at-conservative-conference-romney-wins-the-straw-poll/

Straw polls indicate very little. The voting pool is affected by who attends the conference — 44 percent of voters were students — and by special efforts campaigns can make to bring in supporters for the vote. In each of the last two years, Mr. Paul was the victor, but others said this was more a mark of his campaign’s organizational ability than its true support.
Mr. Romney has struggled to win the allegiance of the most conservative Republicans, and made his strongest appeal yet to them in his speech to the conference on Friday. The Romney campaign also worked aggressively behind the scenes for a strong showing, including busing students from colleges along the Eastern Seaboard to show their support

Newt's running out of cash:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-13/gingrich-group-looks-for-new-money-as-big-donor-checks-stop.html

believer;1084404 wrote:America voted for Obama so anything's possible.

That's not true. The only thing different about Obama is that he is black. Despite what some Repubs have tried to say, Obama is a run-of-the-mill Christian.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/02/13/independents_abandoning_romney.html

[h=2]Independents Abandoning Romney[/h]Greg Sargent flags a striking finding in the new Pew Research poll:

In November, Mitt Romney was beating President Obama among independent voters, 53% to 41%. Now those numbers are upside down: Obama tops Romney among them, 51% to 42%. That's a net 19 point swing of independents in Obama's direction in three months

Look who's back, its been awhile since a poll agreed with you, eh?

bases_loaded;1084748 wrote:Look who's back, its been awhile since a poll agreed with you, eh?

Nice to see you too bases.....polls have been agreeing with me for awhile now....but I had some medical issues so I have been laid up for awhile

Ty Webb;1084751 wrote:Nice to see you too bases.....polls have been agreeing with me for awhile now....but I had some medical issues so I have been laid up for awhile

Really? Like the one last week that had Santorum beating O?